Hearing Officer Decisions 2014-2015

Print

Font Size: + -

All documents below are in PDF format.

July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015

Whether the school division conducted a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs commonly linked to the disability category for which the child was being considered?
Whether the student was entitled to special education protections and services when the parent declined to provide consent to the initial provision of special education and related services?
Whether the student was eligible for services and accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 when the parent rejected the initial offer of services under an IDEA IEP providing a broad array of services and accommodations?

Whether the parent consented to the eligibility committee determination that the student was a student with a disability eligible for special education and related services?
Whether the parent provided written consent for the initial provision of special education and related services so that the student would be entitled to the benefits of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), including IDEA’s disciplinary procedures?
Whether the school division was required to convene a manifestation determination review (MDR) meeting when the student received a long term suspension in the 2013-2014 school year after the parent failed to provide written consent to the initial provision of special education and related services?

Whether the student’s violation of the school division’s student code of conduct was a manifestation of the student’s disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
Whether the manifestation determination review (MDR) team considered all relevant information including information provided by the parents in making the MDR decision?

Whether the student is eligible for special education services as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) as provided in the category of Emotional Disability (ED)?
Whether the school division offered a free appropriate public education to the student in the IEP developed for the 2013-2014 school year?
Whether the placement offered by the school division was the least restrictive environment (LRE) and as a result the appropriate placement for this student with a disability?

Whether a hearing officer has jurisdiction to determine if a parent may withdraw their child from special education services when the parent has not complied with steps mandated by a Virginia Circuit Court in its current order regarding educational decision making for the student?

Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the school division in March 2015 was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student?
Whether placement in a public day school offered a FAPE to the student so that appropriate placement in private day school need not be considered by the IEP team?
Whether the lack of Parental consent for the March 2015 IEP should be overridden by the hearing officer so that the IEP may be implemented?

Whether the school division timely found the student eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the development and/or implementation of the student’s May 2013 IEP?
Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the development and/or implementation of the student’s September 2013 IEP?
Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the development and/or implementation of the student’s June 2014 IEP?
Whether the student was entitled to compensatory educational services because the school division failed to offer a FAPE to the student?
Whether the student and his parents were entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in the student’s private educational placement?