Hearing Officer Decisions 2016-2017

Print

Font Size: + -

All documents below are in PDF format.

July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017

Whether the student was entitled to a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) prior to removal from the “Open Enrollment” program and assignment of the student to the home attendance zone school?
Whether the student was offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the 2016-2017 school year?
Whether the student’s transfer from one public day school back to her home zoned public day school was a change in placement in violation of the student’s IEP?
Whether the student should be provided compensatory education or other remedies requested by the student and/or the student’s parents?
Whether the student was a competent adult during the relevant time period, including during the current proceeding?

Whether the student’s parent generally provided consent for the initial provision of special education and related services?
Whether the school division was required to conduct a manifestation determination review (MDR) meeting within 10 school days after the date on which the decision was made to long-term remove the student from the student’s then current placement?
Whether the student should return to the placement from which the child was removed based on the failure to conduct a timely MDR meeting?

Case – Reference #17-058 (Word)

Whether the school division offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student for the 2016-2017
school year?
Whether the school division must provide tuition reimbursement to the parent for the student’s enrollment in a
private school for the 2016-2017 school year?

Whether the student’s Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) Team reviewed all relevant information in the student’s file, including the child’s individualized education program (IEP), teacher observations, and relevant information provided by the parents prior to making the MDR decision?
Whether the convened MDR Team included relevant members of the child’s IEP team as determined by the parent and the local educational agency?
Whether the student’s conduct was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability?
Whether the student’s behavior was a result of the school division’s failure to properly implement his individualized education program (IEP)?
Whether the student was deprived of access to the general educational curriculum and services to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the student’s IEP after the student was removed from his pre-discipline placement?

Whether the outcome of the decision of the MDR team who met on May 25, 2016 was predetermined?
Whether the student’s behavior in a May 12, 2016 disciplinary incident was a manifestation of his special education disability?
Whether the student’s behavior was a result of the school division’s failure to properly implement his individualized education program (IEP)?

Whether the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) decision that the child’s behavior was not a manifestation of the child’s disability was properly determined?

Whether the student was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because the school division did not adequately provide services that would enable the student to make any meaningful progress under her June 2015 individualized education program (IEP)?
Whether the student was denied a FAPE because the school division did not adequately provide services that would enable the student to make any meaningful progress under her April 2016 IEP?
Whether the student’s proposed July 2016 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide the student FAPE?
Whether the student’s unilateral placement by the parents was in an appropriate setting?
Whether the student’s parents are entitled to reimbursement for tuition for the student’s private placement?

Whether the local education agency (LEA) has properly implemented an individualized education program (IEP) for the student?
Whether the LEA provided the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether the LEA provided sufficient educational evaluations to formulate an appropriate IEP within a reasonable time?
Whether private day placement is required for the student to receive a FAPE?

Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed for implementation during the 2014-2015 school year offered the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?
Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed for implementation during the 2015-2016 school year offered the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?
Whether the school division was required to develop and implement a behavioral intervention plan during the 2015-2016 school year?
Whether the school division was required to offer the student compensatory education based on the division’s failure to provide a FAPE during either the 2014-2015 school year or the 2015-2016 school year?