Whether the student was denied a Free Appropriate Education (FAPE) when the school division failed or refused to consider documents supporting placement of the student at a private school?
Whether the student was denied a Free Appropriate Education when the school division did not allow certain witnesses to participate in the IEP meetings?
Whether the student was denied a Free Appropriate Education when the school division did not complete a Safety Plan and/or provide it to the parents after agreeing to develop a Safety Plan?
Whether the student was denied a Free Appropriate Education when the school division did not invite certain proposed IEP team members to participate, including school nurse?
Whether the student was denied a Free Appropriate Education when the IEP meeting was unilaterally terminated?
Whether the student was denied FAPE when the school division disregarded the consensus of the IEP team as to private school placement?
Whether the student was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when the LEA allegedly failed to comply with the parent’s request to schedule an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting?
Whether the student was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when the LEA conducted a Triennial Component Review (TCR) meeting without the parents being present?
Whether the student has been provided with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), in the least restrictive environment (LRE), within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
Whether the IEP proposed by the LEA includes appropriate annual goals and educational services to enable the student to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) was appropriate and provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student for the 2016-2017 school year?
Whether the student’s parents can claim defects in the LEA’s proposed IEP after the parents refused to allow evaluations that may have impacted the proposed IEP?
Whether the failure of the LEA to conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) was
merely de minimus or technical or whether the nature of the violation was sufficiently
serious and severe as to constitute a denial of FAPE to the student?
Whether the student should be placed in a private day placement if the LEA’s proposed
IEP does not offer FAPE?
Whether the school division failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to a student when an IEP meeting was not held until seven months after the parents requested a functional behavior assessment and behavior intervention plan?
Whether the IEP of a student with a specific learning disability was reasonably calculated to enable him to make meaningful educational process and therefore receive FAPE?
Whether the student was denied FAPE when the school division failed to address allegations of disability harassment and bullying?
Whether the student was denied FAPE as a result of the school division’s alleged failure to investigate disability harassment?
Whether the student was denied FAPE when the school division allegedly retaliated against parents for advocating for their son?
Whether the student is entitled to compensatory services?
Whether the school division failed to properly evaluate and identify the student’s speech-
language disability?
Whether the student’s placement was in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?
Whether the student’s IEP that provided for a program designed to enable the child to
seek an Applied Studies Diploma rather than a Standard Diploma denied the student a
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)?
Whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to offer the student meaningful educational
benefits based on the standards set forth in Rowley and Endrew?
