Whether the LEA failed to identify the Child’s Special Education Needs in accordance with IDEA for school year 2020-2021?
Whether the LEA failed to identify the Child’s Special Education Needs in accordance with IDEA for school year 2021-2022?
Whether the LEA failed to identify the Child’s Special Education Needs in accordance with IDEA for school year 2022-2023?
Whether the LEA provided FAPE during school year 2020-2021?
Whether the LEA provided FAPE during school year 2021-2022?
Whether the LEA provided FAPE during school year 2022-2023?
Whether the LEA provided the Child with an appropriate placement in accordance with IDEA for school year 2020-2021?
Whether the LEA provided the Child with an appropriate placement in accordance with IDEA for school year 2021-2022?
Whether the LEA provided the Child with an appropriate placement in accordance with IDEA for school year 2022-2023?
For 2021-2022 school year, whether the Parent Child should be reimbursed for costs arising from private placement?
Whether the Parent/Child should be reimbursed for costs for private evaluations described in the Due Process Request?
Whether the issues raised by the Due Process Request are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations?
Whether the IEP team, assembled for the IEP meeting conducted on June 6, 2022, was consistent with IDEA and, if not, was the Child denied FAPE as a result?
Whether the IEP team, assembled for the IEP meeting conducted on August 18, 2022, was consistent with IDEA and, if not, was the Child denied FAPE as a result?
Whether the Hearing Officer should award Parents compensatory education and/or compensatory services for the period when LEA denied FAPE by not providing Student with in-person services during the 2020-2021 school year?
Whether the Hearing Officer should award Parents compensatory education and/or compensatory services to remedy the regression suffered by Student resulting from the denial of in-person services during the 2020-2021 school year.
Whether the Hearing Officer should order that the compensatory services, if ordered, be delivered by qualified private providers in a nature and frequency based on Student’s demonstrated and ongoing needs. Parents further ask that the Hearing Officer direct LEA to deposit funds into an escrow account for Student’s benefit to pay for such services and that such account be maintained until the earlier of: (a) all funds are utilized (b) Student turns age 21.
Whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement from LEA for the transportation costs reasonably incurred to obtain the compensatory education services from private providers?
Whether the Hearing Officer should impose the IRS mileage rate if the Hearing Officer orders LEA to reimburse the Parents for transportation costs?
Whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement for private occupational therapy, speech language therapy, and behavioral services, and/or other private educational support services incurred expenses resulting from or relating to the denial of FAPE during the 2020-2021 school year?
Whether Parents are entitled to any other additional relief?
Whether LEA denied the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) when it refused to provide the student with an IEP designed to provide her with sufficient accommodations, special education, and services that would allow her to access her curriculum.
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE when it failed to provide the student with Extended School Year services.
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE when it failed to conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment.
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE when it failed to investigate previous claims of bullying by other students.
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE when it did not treat the student’s parent as an essential attendee at the various meetings.
Whether the hearing officer should award compensatory education or any other accommodations.
Whether LEA denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by not ensuring that an appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP) was developed for the student in the Fall of 2020 in that this IEP did not address the student’s alleged lack of meaningful progress in reading, writing and communication and did not provide for a private day placement as Student’s educational placement;
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE by not ensuring that an appropriate IEP was developed for the student in January of 2021 in that this IEP did not address the student’s alleged lack of meaningful progress in reading, writing and communication and did not provide for a private day placement as Student’s educational placement;
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE by not providing the student in-person special education services during the 2020-2021 school year;
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE by not convening an IEP team meeting to review the student’s IEP after January of 2021.
Whether the Parents are entitled to reimbursement for tuition, fees, and costs for Student’s enrollment at Private School during the 2020-2021; 2021-2022, 2022-2023 school years, including travel expenses.
Whether the LEA should be ordered to pay for Student’s future tuition, fees, costs and expenses to attend Private School, including transportation and the provision of any other appropriate related and supplemental services.
Whether the Parents are entitled to reimbursement for any tutoring or other private educational support services they incurred for the student during the two years preceding the filing of their due process complaint.
Whether the LEA must provide compensatory education to the student for denials of FAPE established at the due process hearing.
Whether the LEA has provided Student with physical therapy (“PT”), occupational therapy (“OT”), and speech therapy (“ST”) services in accordance with Student’s Individualized Education program (“IEP”), and if so, whether these failures amounted to a denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).
Whether LEA instructional assistants and/or other LEA staff or contractors have failed to provide Student with services in accordance with his IEP if (a) they are not present at Student’s school upon his arrival; or (b) they are present at Student’s school upon his arrival or departure but fail to assist Parent with removing Student from Parent’s vehicle or getting Student into Parent’s vehicle; and (c) if so, whether these failures amounted to a denial of FAPE.
Whether LEA instructional assistants and/or other LEA staff or contractors have failed to provide Student with services in accordance with his IEP if Student is moved from one class to another, not in his gate trainer, but in his activity/positioning chair, and if so, whether these failures amounted to a denial of FAPE.
Whether LEA instructional assistants and/or other LEA staff or contractors have failed to provide Student with services in accordance with his IEP if (a) they fail to take notes on Student’s behalf when he is not present in class because he is receiving other services; (b) they fail to take notes on Student’s behalf when he is not present in class for reasons other than an absence resulting from him receiving other services; or (c) they fail to submit Student’s work to his teachers; and (d) if so, whether these failures amounted to a denial of FAPE.
Whether the LEA has provided Student with services in accordance with his IEP and denied Student FAPE if the LEA fails to provide Student with any service as delineated in his IEP on a day that High School is open, but the LEA is closed, and if so, whether these failures amounted to a denial of FAPE.
In any instance where the undersigned has determined that the LEA has denied Student FAPE, what relief is Student entitled to, to include but not be limited to whether Student is entitled to compensatory education services, and if so, in what amount or duration.
Whether LEA denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to comprehensively assess him/her in all areas of suspected disability when LEA conducted its reevaluation of him/her?
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE by significantly impeding the parent’s ability to fully participate in the IEP process by denying request that the student be reevaluated?
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE by significantly impeding the parent’s ability to fully participate in the IEP process by failing to provide an IEE at public expense when requested by the parent?
Whether LEA denied the student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years by failing to meet the student’s individual needs, in that the IEP teams continued to rely on outdated assessments to develop the IEP, failed to provide the special education and related services necessary to prepare the student for future education, reduced specially designed instruction services year after year with no objective data to support this reduction in service, and provided no reading, writing, or math remediation to the student during the service minutes identified in his/her IEPs despite documented evidence of his/her deficits in these areas.
Whether LEA failed to provide special transportation in accordance with Student’s IEP from 2021 through 2023.
In the alternative, if special transportation were not required by Student’s IEP from 2021 through 2023, whether LEA was required to provide Student special transportation.
Whether Student is entitled to compensatory education services, if any, and if so, for what period, for what specific services, and who shall provide such services.
Whether Student is entitled to mental health services.
To what extent, if at all, are Parents’ claims barred by Student’s that state Student “does not require special transportation.”
To what extent, if at all, are Parents estopped from asserting their claims for relief (and specifically, what claims) by their consent to Student’s IEPs that state Student “does not require special transportation.”
To what extent, if at all, are Parents claims, and specifically its request for compensatory education services limited because Student received educational and related services in a residential vs. instructional setting.
To what extent, if at all, are Parent’s claims:
a. procedural in nature, and thus subject to a materiality analysis;
b. limited because Student is now in an adult group home; and/or,
