Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) considering the needed vocational transition services required?
Whether the school division was required to offer extended school year (ERS) services to the student to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when no significant evidence of regression has been included in the record?
Whether the school division's reevaluation of the child that did not consider existing evaluation data on the child provided a sufficient basis to determine the child was ineligible for special education and related services?
Whether the school division administered a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs whether or not commonly linked to the disability category where the child was previously classified?
Whether the school division's reevaluation of the child that did not consider existing evaluation data nor identify additional data necessary provided a sufficient basis to determine that the child was ineligible for special education and related services?
Whether a parent's lack of consent for a particular placement should be overridden when the student's IEP team determined the placement to be appropriate?
Whether the school division provided the hours of homebound instruction and tutoring ordered by the hearing officer in her amended order dated February 15, 2006?
Whether the failure of the school division to provide certain hours of homebound instruction and tutoring denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether a school division may file a "counterclaim" in the course of a due process proceeding initiated by a parent?
Whether a due process hearing officer may dismiss a parent's request for a due process proceeding when the parent and parent's counsel refuse to comply in good faith with the due process hearing officer's orders?
Whether the student received a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in his current homebound placement during the current and the 2005-2006 school years?
Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when the offered individualized education program did not describe a specific location or specific methods to be used in delivering special education services?
Whether the Virginia Department of Education is a proper party to this due process proceeding alleging the failure to provide a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") to a student served in a local school division with an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") prepared by the student's IEP team?
Whether a Student's IEP prepared by the student's IEP team with the participation of the local school division offered a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") to the student?
Whether a student who has been expelled form a local school division can receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in an alternative setting that does not provide the same extra-curricular activities and academic choices as the home school the student previously attended?
Whether the student who challenged a proposed individualized education program (IEP) had the burden of proof in the due process hearing?
Whether the school division is deemed not to have had prior knowledge of a child's disability because child had been evaluated in accordance with IDEA 2004 regulations 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.300 through 300.311, and determined not to be a child with a disability?
Whether child is entitled to a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.534 and 300.530(e) of the IDEA 2004 regulations?
