Hearing Officer Decisions 2013-2014
All documents below are in PDF format.
July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014
Case – Reference #14-045a: Expedited Decision
- Whether the parent and relevant members of the student’s IEP team reviewed all relevant information in the student’s file, including the child’s IEP, teacher observations, and relevant information provided by the parents to determine whether the student’s violation of the student code of conduct was caused by, or had a direct relationship to the child’s disability or was the direct result of the school division’s failure to implement the student’s IEP?
Case – Reference #14-045b: Non-expedited Decision
- Whether the October 7, 2013 IEP offered by the child’s IEP team was calculated to provide the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
- Whether the school division denied the child a FAPE when there were no new evaluations or assessments of the child completed for the 2013 triennial reevaluation to insure that the child was assessed in all areas related to his suspected disability?
- Whether the school division denied the parents’ participation in the reevaluation meeting by predetermining that no new evaluations or assessments would be completed in the triennial reevaluation of the child before the meeting?
- Whether the school division failed to hold a manifestation determination review (MDR) within 10 days of a decision to change the child’s placement while considering the complete record of the student’s disabilities, including disability records for disabilities included in § 504 of the rehabilitation Act of 1974?
- Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the school division in November 2012 that provided instruction in organizational skills and self-management as well as certain other services and accommodations offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) when the student demonstrated educational progress during the implementation of this IEP?
- Whether the IEP as implemented during the time period November 2012 through April 2013 offered the student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?
- Whether the IEP proposed in October 2013 by the school division that provided many new accommodations and services in contrast to the previous IEP offered a FAPE to the student?
- Whether the notice for the June 10, 2013 Special Education Committee (SEC) and IEP meeting properly contained the names of those who attended the meeting, including the school board’s attorney?
- Whether the school division denied the student a FAPE by holding a special education eligibility meeting on August 26, 2013 without the presence of the student’s parent(s)?
- Whether the LEA failed to timely evaluate and identify all areas of suspected disability during the 2012-2013 school year?
- Whether the manifestation determination review (MDR) team was required to accept the facts as determined by the disciplinary finder of fact when considering whether the student’s conduct was a manifestation of his disability?
- Whether the MDR team should have considered all known accepted diagnosis of the student’s impairments rather than limiting consideration of the student’s disability to the student’s identified eligibility category?
- Whether the student’s violation of the code of student conduct was directly related to incidents of the student being bullied based on his disability?
- Whether the student’s parents are entitled to reimbursement of attorney’s fees expended as a result of the student’s violation of the student code of conduct?
- Whether the student’s parent(s) are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of private placement for the 2013-2014 school year?
- Whether the student received a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) during the school year he attended kindergarten at his assigned elementary school?
- Whether the student received a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) during the school year he attended first grade at his assigned elementary school?
- Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the local school division for the student’s second grade year offered a FAPE for the student?
- Whether the IEP proposed by the local school division in August of 2013 offered the student a FAPE?
- Whether the amount of speech-language services and occupational therapy services (ESY) denied the student a FAPE?
- Whether the failure of the local school division to provide to the student extended school year services (ESY) denied the student a FAPE?
- Whether the student required a nurse to be assigned to the school building he attended for the student to receive FAPE?
- Whether the student must be provided with compensatory education as a result of a denial of FAPE?
- Whether the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) developed for the student dated June13, 2013 was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit to the student and accordingly offer a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student?
- Whether the placement offered by the local school division for the student in the regional autism spectrum program is appropriate and the least restrictive environment for the student?
- Whether the parent was provided the opportunity in June 2013 to participate in the IEP meeting and placement decision?
- Whether the local school division should be permitted to facilitate an observation of the student in the educational setting to assist in facilitating placement in the regional autism program?
- Whether the local school division shall be permitted to implement the proposed June 2013 IEP requiring placement in the regional autism program despite lack of parental consent?
- Whether the due process proceeding should be dismissed with prejudice when the parent seeks to withdraw the due process complaint on the day of the scheduled hearing (i) without good cause; and (ii) without previously notifying the opposing party or the hearing officer; and (iii) after having withdrawn the complaint on a previous occasion?
- Whether consideration by the hearing officer of the issues contained in the parent’s request for due process is barred by the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) limitations provisions?
- Whether the school division provided prior written notice of its IEP proposals related to placement of the student in the public elementary school in grades three through five?
- Whether the school division offered the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to the student for grades three through five?
- Whether the school division should provide compensatory education services to the student for any failure to provide a FAPE to the student?
- Whether the student’s violation of the student code of conduct failed to constitute manifestation of his disability as determined by school division in the manifestation determination meeting?
- Whether the placement in the alternative school setting offered by the local school division provided a free appropriate public education for the student?
- Whether the school division failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student by failing to provide the student’s transportation to an out of attendance zone school where the student had been assigned from September 3, 2013 until September 22, 2013?
- Whether the school division failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student by failing to provide the student’s transportation to an out of attendance zone school where the student had been assigned subsequent to September 22, 2013?
- Whether the school division must provide compensatory services to the student or another remedy based on a denial of FAPE by failing to provide transportation to the student?
- Whether the school division denied the student FAPE by failing to transport the student in the least restrictive environment (LRE) by transporting the student to an out of attendance zone school in a bus that was designated as a handicapped bus but transported both disabled students and those who were not?