Hearing Officer Decisions 2010-2011

Refer also to Index of Issues

All documents below are in PDF format.

• Case #1—Reference # 10-073
  •  Whether a placement at a comprehensive high school, designed to serve the needs of all students, disabled and non-disabled was an appropriate placement for this student who had several specialized needs so that he would be provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
  • Whether the school division adequately responded to any alleged acts of bullying so that the student was not denied a FAPE?
  • Whether the school division discriminated against the student based on his disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?

• Case #2—Reference # 10-076
  • Whether the proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) placement presented by the school division in 2010 for the student would provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)?
  • Whether the specific private school placement requested by the parent was required in order for the student to receive a FAPE?

• Case #3—Reference # 11-003
  •  Whether the student’s violation of the school division’s code of conduct in March of 2010 was a manifestation of his special education disability
  • Whether the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the 2009-2010 school year and the proposed IEP for the 2010-2011 school year failed to offer a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because of a failure to give due consideration to the student’s evaluations and/or a failure to provide appropriate behavioral interventions, supports, and strategies?

• Case #4—Reference # 11-004
  Refer also to Case – Reference #11-004a
  • Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) prepared on June 13, 2007 providing for a public school placement offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2007-2008 school year
  • Whether the IEP prepared on June 18, 2008 providing for a public school placement offered the student a FAPE for the 2008-2009 school year?
  • Whether the IEP prepared on December 15, 2009 providing for a public school placement offered the student a FAPE for the 2009-2010 school year?
  • Whether the IEP prepared in June 18, 2010 providing for a public school placement offered the student a FAPE for the 2010-2011 school year?

• Case #5—Reference # 11-014
  •  Whether the school division should have utilized child find screenings or the school division’s previous evaluations to identify the student as a student with a disability prior to May of 2010?
  • Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) endorsed by the Child’s parent on June 17, 2010 providing for a public school placement offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2010-2011 school year?
  • Whether the placement in a separate alternative public facility as determined by the IEP team after June 17, 2010 offered the student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE) based on the student’s behavior and disciplinary events?
  • Whether the student’s parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement for a unilateral private placement of the student for the 2010-2011 school year?
  • Whether the school division discriminated against the student by failing to provide an appropriate plan or accommodations based on the student’s disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Action of 1973?

• Case #6—Reference # 11-019
  •  Whether the school division failed to give the student’s parents proper notice or prohibit the parents from meaningfully participating in the IEP process?
  • Whether the student’s current IEP providing for placement in self-contained classes provided the student a free appropriate public education FAPE)?
  • Whether the school division violated the “Stay Put” requirement of the Individuals with disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
  • Whether the student’s parents provided adequate notice of their intention to unilaterally place the student as part of their effort to request reimbursement for tuition?
  • Whether the student or his parents were entitled to relief regarding the IEP modifications or tuition reimbursement?

• Case #7—Reference # 11-042
  • Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the individualized education program (IEP) as described in the Marc 2008 IEP as previously determined by a hearing officer in a prior due process proceeding?
  • Whether the school division properly implemented the January 16, 2009 IEP for the student, despite certain technical violations related to the delivery of services from June 17, 2009 to the end of that school year?
  • Whether the school division’s failure to provide certain extended school year (ESY) services during the summer of 2009 deny the student a FAPE?
  • Whether the January 19, 2009 IEP offered the student a FAPE for the remainder of the 2009-2010 school year?
  • Whether the student’s parent was entitled to be reimbursed for tuition at a private placement during the 2009-2010 school year?
  • Whether the school division’s proposed May 2010 IEP offered the student a FAPE for the 2010-2011 academic year?
  • Whether the student’s parent was entitled to be reimbursed for tuition at a private placement during the 2010-2011 school year?

• Case #8—Reference # 11-048
  • Whether the IEP dated September 14, 2010 offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) while the student was enrolled in the school division?
  • Whether the school division denied the student a FAPE by failing to convene an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting when requested by the student’s parent?
  • Whether the school division offered the student a FAPE during the remainder of the 2010-2011 IEP unless new circumstances indicated a need for the revision of this IEP?

• Case #9—Reference # 11-053
  •  Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed on March 11, 2011 that included placement in a self-contained classroom for students with intellectual disability but did not include an"intervener" offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student?
  • Whether the student’s eyesight and cognitive abilities should receive a current independent educational evaluation?

• Case #10—Reference # 11-056
  •  Whether the school division offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student in a regional placement in an autism spectrum program (ASP) classroom in October and November of 2010?
  • Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed in 2011, that included regional placement in an ASP classroom and other related services, offered a FAPE to the student?
  • Whether the student’s parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement from the school division for a unilateral parental private school placement of the student at a private school offering primarily applied behavioral therapy (ABA) instruction?
  • Whether the delay in implementing the student’s homebound Individualized Education Program (IEP) until February 2011 warranted 45 hours of compensatory educational services delivered at a specific site designated by the school division?

• Case #11—Reference # 11-058
  •  Whether the Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction to review an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court ordering the School division to provide an educational program that includes a diploma status of a “GED” in addition to other educational services?
  • Whether a request for an Independent educational evaluation must be requested in a Due Process Hearing Request by a parent?
  • Whether a parent may assert an 18 year old student’s educational rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDE) in a Due Process Hearing Request when the request was not filed prior to the student’s 18th birthday?
  • Whether a Hearing Officer has the authority to order monetary compensatory damages in a decision resulting from a Due Process Hearing under IDEA?