Whether the local educational agency committed substantive and/or procedural errors that led to a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for Student.
Whether the local educational agency denied the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by improperly denying services and failing to properly address an auditory processing disorder.
Whether Private school is the appropriate placement for Student.
Whether Parent is entitled to relief, including reimbursement for private placement.
Whether LEA is providing Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
Whether the local educational agency’s proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) provides Student with FAPE.
Whether the parents were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the Student’s IEP meetings so as to provide informed consent to the IEP.
Whether the local educational agency violated procedural safeguards by failing to properly maintain the student’s records and/or withholding student records from the parents.
Whether the local educational agency violated procedural safeguards by holding an IEP meeting when the parents were not able to attend.
Whether the Student was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) when the School Board failed to provide extended school year services in the Summer of 2021.
Whether the September 2021 IEP provided that Extended School Year services would be addressed before June 2021 and the School Board failed to comply with this provision, resulting in a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education.
Whether the Local Educational Agency allowed the September 2021 IEP to lapse, causing a denial of a Free Appropriate Education.
Whether a single member of the IEP team made the decision to remove student from Private School without considering Parent’s concerns and without the team considering the Student’s academic or medical needs, resulting in a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education.
Whether the local educational agency failed to issue a prior written notice for the June 2021 IEP team meeting, resulting in a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education.
Whether the LEA falsified and altered the June 2021 IEP, resulting in a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education.
Whether the IEP formulated by the Local Educational Agency in June 2021 and July 2021 was not reasonably calculated to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education.
Whether LEA is providing Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
Whether the local educational agency’s proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) provides Student with FAPE.
Whether the parents were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the Student’s IEP meetings so as to provide informed consent to the IEP.
Whether the local educational agency violated procedural safeguards by failing to properly maintain the student’s records and/or withholding student records from the parents.
Whether the local educational agency violated procedural safeguards by holding an IEP meeting when the parents were not able to attend.
For School year 2019-2020, did the LEA fail to provide sufficient services and special education so that the student could make progress toward meeting IEP goals and objectives (specifically goals/objectives in the “areas of need” and “ESY” sections of the IEP) and the general education curriculum?
For School year 2019-2020, did the LEA fail to design a Temporary Learning Plan to address the student’s needs, but rather for administrative convenient?
For School year 2019-2020, did the LEA deny the student a FAPE?
For School year 2020-2021, did the LEA fail to provide sufficient services and special education so that the student could make progress toward meeting his IEP goals and objectives (specifically goals/objectives in the “area of need” and “ESY” sections of the IEP) and the general education curriculum?
For School year 2020-2021, during the LEA’s closure due to the Pandemic and upon the LEA’s reopening during the school year, did the LEA fail to design an educational programing for the student based on his unique circumstances, but rather on administrative convenience?
For School year 2020-2021, did the LEA fail to offer sufficient recovery services to address the student’s loss of instruction during the COVID-19 school closure?
For School year 2020-2021, Did the LEA deny the student a FAPE?
For School year 2021-2022, Did the LEA fail to provide sufficient services and special education so that the student could make progress toward meeting his IEP goals and objectives (specifically goals/objectives set forth in the “transition,” “area of need,” and “ESY” sections of the IEP) and the general education curriculum?
For School year 2021-2022, did the LEA base its decision to place the student at Public Day School on administrative convenience and not the student’s unique circumstances?
For School year 2021-2022, did the LEA fail to offer a placement designed to meet the student’s unique disability and related needs?
For School year 2021-2022, did the LEA deny the student a FAPE?
Whether the local educational agency failed to properly implement the student's individualized education program (IEP), thereby denying the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Whether the local educational agency failed to provide the student with appropriate accommodations for his disabilities, thereby denying the student a FAPE.
Whether the local educational agency should provide the student with a secondary plan, extended homebound services and/or intermittent services for him to receive a FAPE.
Did the parents partially consent to the November 2021 proposed IEP? Specifically, did the parents’ consent to the following provisions:
Until private placement could be obtained, the provision of 15 hours of homebased instruction and 30 minutes weekly of speech therapy in a virtual setting; and
Private placement once secured.
If the parents provided partial consent to the provisions noted in the November 2021 IEP, has the LEA denied the student FAPE by failing to implement those provisions?
For the 2021 2022 school year, did the local educational agency commit procedural errors regarding the child's tri annual evaluation and, if so, did such errors deny the child FAPE?
Does the Student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) (as existing on the date of the Due Process Request) provide the Child a Free Appropriate Public Education?
Has the local educational agency denied the Child a Free Appropriate Public Education by not effectuating (as required by the IDEA) the methods and goals of the Child’s Individualized Education Program (as existing on the date of the Due Process Request)?
Whether the Student should receive compensatory education services and, if so, what should be these services and, if so, should the local educational agency be responsible?
Should the Parent/Student be reimbursed "replacement services for tutoring" since September 27, 2021, and if so, what amount?
Should the Parent/Student be reimbursed for "replacement of the Related Services” of Parent training and consultative services since September 27, 2021, and if so, what amount?
Should the Parent/Student receive psychological and counseling services and if so, what should be these services?
Should the Parent/Student be reimbursed for counseling services since September 27, 2021, and, if so, what amount?
Should the Student be placed in private placement?
Whether the parents provided consent on June 7, 2022? If so, was that consent sufficient? If so, has the child been denied a FAPE?
Whether the child is entitled to compensatory services since May 13, 2022?
Were the parents denied meaningful participation in the resolution meeting held on June 27, 2022;
Did the parents have access to the child’s educational records for the resolution meeting?
Did the LEA (i) on May 18, 2022, create a PWN noting the following:
[LEA] proposed that [the child] does not require ESY services as [LEA] does not have any data that the benefits gained during the regular school year would be significant jeopardized if [the child] does not receive ESY services.
and (ii) propose on June 8, 2022, that the child be retained due to attendance issues and lack of progress?
If the LEA did so, did the LEA deny the child a FAPE?
Does a PWN dated/created on May 18, 2022, state the following:
[LEA] proposed that [the child] does not require ESY services as [LEA] does not have any data that the benefits gained during the regular school year would be significant jeopardized if [the child] does not receive ESY services.
On or about May 18, 2022, did the LEA consider only regression and recoupment to determine if the child was eligible for ESY?
If so, did the LEA deny the child a FAPE? For any such denial, are compensatory services due for any failure to properly assess the child for ESY?
