Virginia Department of Education

CONTACT US
Information on this page is provided by the Office of Dispute Resolution.

Due Process Hearings

Hearing Officer Decisions 2008-2009

See also Index of Issues

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009

• Case #1—Reference # 08- 078
  • Whether procedural errors, such as failure to provide adequate written prior notice or pre-determination of placement, denied a meaningful opportunity for parent to participate in the individualized education program (IEP) process thereby denying the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
  • Whether the school division offered a FAPE to the student through the June 2006 IEP that included a public school placement?
    
• Case #2—Reference # 08- 082
  • Whether the school division effected a change of placement of the student after a May 2008 disciplinary incident?
• Case #3—Reference # 08- 084
  • Whether the student's alleged misconduct was a manifestation of his disability?
  • Whether the student's Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) appropriate so that the student received a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required under IDEA?
  • Whether, to the extent that the alleged misconduct was a manifestation of the student's disability and/or the BIP was not adequate, the student was entitled to the relief requested?
• Case #4—Reference # 08- 011
  • Whether the student's behavior, that violated the local school division's student code of conduct was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student's disability?
  • Whether the student's conduct, that violated the local school division's student code of conduct, was a direct result of the school division's failure to implement that student's Individualized Education Program (IEP)?
  • Whether the local school division implemented the student's IEP by providing progress reports to the student's parent?
  • Whether the student's placement as identified in his March 2008 IEP was appropriate based on the student's identified disability?
  • Whether the local school division denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student by failing to include the student's evaluating psychologist on the manifestation review team?
• Case #5—Reference # 09- 013
  • Whether the parents request for tuition reimbursement for school years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 is barred by the two statute of limitations?
• Case #6—Reference # 09- 016
  • Whether the student was properly and correctly identified with a disability based on the categories of "developmental delay" and "other health impaired"?
    
  • Whether the local school division provided appropriate placements providing adequate special education services?
  • Whether the local school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) considering the parent's stated observations regarding lack of progress made by the student?
• Case #7—Reference # 09- 018
  • Whether the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) of August 2008, that does not provide for "minimum distractions" and a small student to teacher ratio, provides a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
• Case #8—Reference # 09- 022
  • Whether the individualized education program (IEP) proposed by the school division, that does not include a one-to-one aide, provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the student?
• Case #9—Reference # 09- 024
  • Whether the placement proposed by the school division for the 2008-2009 school year, a particular self-contained regional program designed for autistic children five to ten years old, would be a proper placement and the least restrictive environment where this student would receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
    
• Case #10—Reference # 09- 034
  • Whether the child's 2007 individualized education program (IEP) failed to identify the child's needs so that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was not provided?
  • Whether the LEA failed to provide services described in the child's 2007 IEP so that a FAPE was denied the child?
  • Whether the child's 2008 IEP failed to identify the child's needs so that a FAPE was not provided?
  • Whether the LEA failed to provide services described in the child's 2008 IEP so that a FAPE was denied the child?
  • Whether the IEP proposed for 2009 for the child is designed to offer a FAPE?
  • Whether the child's parents received needed information to allow them to participate meaningfully in the IEP from 2007 through September 2008?
  • Whether the LEA denied the child a FAPE by denying extended school year services from 2007 to the present?
  • Whether the child's parents should be reimbursed for private counseling?
  • Whether the child's parents should be reimbursed for tuition for the Lab School of Washington, D.C., for the child's attendance there in the summer of 2007?
• Case #11—Reference # 09- 052
  • Whether the student's misconduct was not caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to his disability?
  • Whether the student's misconduct was not the direct result of the failure of the school division's failure to implement the student's individualized education program (IEP)?
• Case #12—Reference # 09- 053
  • Whether there was an adverse effect on educational performance that would support a finding of eligibility under the eligibility category of other health impaired - ADHD?
  • Whether a student's parents were denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process when the school division failed to provide a draft individualized education program (IEP) prior to an IEP meeting?
• Case #13—Reference # 09- 061
  • Whether the due process notice should be dismissed because it fails to sufficiently contain the necessary components as described in 34 C.F.R. §300.508(b)?
• Case #14—Reference # 09- 062
  • Whether the due process notice should be dismissed because it fails to sufficiently contain the necessary components as described in 34 C.F.R. §300.508(b)?

Top of Page