Whether LEA failed to develop, implement, and/or revise the student's 504 Plan and/or Individualized Education Program (IEP) in a manner reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress and provide the student with a FAPE for XX and XX grade school years.
Whether the student should be educated in a private school setting at public expense in order to receive a FAPE.
Whether the petitioners should be reimbursed by LEA for tuition associated with placing the student in XXXXXXXX School, a private school.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to provide a timely draft of the IEP Prior to IEP Meetings as well as when it denied the Parent meaningful participation in the creation of the draft.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to allow the Parent and the Parent’s representatives (legal and educational) to meaningfully engage in the IEP team and process.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to consider safety concerns and their impact on the child’s education as part of the IEP process.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to consider required related services for the Student based the need for an individualized educational plan and medical directives.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it engaged in harassment of the Student in the educational setting, and further retaliation against the Parent.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to properly monitor progress as well as report and document incidents involving the Student in the educational setting.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to allow the Parent to copy and review all records, including videos and incident reports relating to incidents involving the Student in the educational setting.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to provide service and resource coordination services and to allow the parent to meaningfully participate as an equal IEP Team member.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to ensure that special education instructional staff assigned to student complied with the mandated professional standards as identified by the Virginia Department of Education and the IDEA.
Whether the LEA, Virginia Department of Education and the Sands Andersen Law Firm denied the student FAPE when they failed to ensure that all IEP Team participants demonstrated a legitimate educational purpose when serving on the IEP Team.
Whether the LEA, Virginia Department of Education and the Sands Andersen Law Firm denied the student FAPE when they failed to prevent acts of intentional and repeated acts of forgery by school division staff and the LEA’s outsourced counsel, the Sands Anderson Law Firm involving The Student’s educational records.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to ensure that the IEP Team complied with the “Meaningful IEP Development” protocols as well as the mandated “Standards-based IEP Development” guidance required under SB 1288.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to ensure that all IEP Team participants understood their respective roles, operated within their scope of licensure, and were certified to serve on the IEP Team as mandated by SB 1288.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to ensure that the Student and the Parent were not subjected to an ongoing hostile environment where hate crimes, based in disability bigotry resulted in a culture within the LEA in which the Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241 statute is violated by school division staff serving on IEP Teams as well as the Sands Andersen law firm, as standard operating procedure.
Whether the LEA denied the student FAPE when it failed to protect the Student and Parents from their staff’s repeated criminal acts of forgery, forgery via computer, and uttering as defined by Virginia criminal code, resulting in extensive emotional and physical trauma as well as irreparable harm for the family.
Whether Student’s Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”) for school years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, denied Student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) as a result of the LEA’s failure to provide the Student with services, related services and accommodations in conformance with the Student’s applicable IEPs. In short, the parents contended that the LEA materially failed to implement the subject IEPs.
Whether the LEA violated IDEA by improperly recording nonexistent events in the Child’s academic file and, if so, what is the remedy?
Whether the LEA violated IDEA by not properly memorializing records as required by IDEA and, if so, what is the remedy?
Whether the LEA violated IDEA by not allowing the Parent/Child to copy the Child’s records as defined by the IDEA and, if so, what is the remedy?
Whether the LEA violated IDEA by not allowing the Parent/Child to inspect the Child’s records as defined by the IDEA and, if so, what is the remedy?
Whether the LEA’s implementation of the Child’s current IEP was consistent with FAPE and, if not what is the remedy?
Whether the LEA committed procedural errors in violation of IDEA regarding the IEP Meeting held in March 2023 and, if so, did such errors rob the Child of FAPE?
If such errors robbed the Child of FAPE, what is the remedy?
Whether the LEA committed procedural errors in violation of IDEA regarding the IEP Meeting held in September 2023 and, if so, did such errors rob the Child of FAPE?
If such errors robbed the Child of FAPE, what is the remedy?
Whether Student was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) because a draft watermark IEP for the Student, provided to Parent prior to the IEP meeting, allegedly failed to identify appropriate measurable goals. The Parent also contended that the Student’s placement had been “predetermined,” and that XX postsecondary education goals were also somehow deficient.
Whether Student was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) because a draft watermark IEP for the Student, provided to Parent prior to the IEP meeting and the finalized, proposed IEP developed as a result of another IEP meeting, were inappropriate because they (1) failed to consider a psychological evaluation by [PP], (2) failed to consider recommendations of a doctor related to the Student’s peer interactions, (3) failed to address specific goals related to dyslexia, and (4) 2 failed to accurately reflect the Student’s Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (“PLOP”).
Whether Student was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) because Parent was allegedly not given homebound and/or homebased records.
Whether Student was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) because the LEA allegedly did not consider the Student’s functional needs in light of certain evaluations?
Whether the LEA denied Student a free appropriate education (“FAPE”) when it failed to develop and/or offer Student an appropriate IEP reasonably calculated to enable Student to make progress appropriate in light of Student’s circumstances, because of Student’s regression in the area of reading and because XX was bullied.
Whether the LEA denied Student FAPE when it failed to offer Student an appropriate placement in XX IEP, because of Student’s regression in the area of reading and because XX was bullied.
Whether the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations for filing a request for due process hearing prohibits reimbursement for the cost of the Parents’ December 2021 IEE.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when in the IEP it failed to address the Student’s lack of meaningful progress in reading and writing, deficit in math, lack of mastering any goals.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to implement the reading interventions utilized with fidelity.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to offer or provide COVID recovery services for the loss of services during the COVID shutdown.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to develop an IEP that addressed the Student’s lack of meaningful progress in reading, writing, and math, including foundational and functional deficits.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when in the Student’s IEP it included goals from previous year as they had yet to be mastered.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it refused to accommodate the Student’s unique needs and unique learning profile related to ADHD.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to ensure implementation of the Student’s IEP as written.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to implement the reading interventions utilized with fidelity.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it unilaterally excluded/exempted the Student from the grade curriculum.
Whether the LEA owes the Student compensatory services from a private provider and/or private placement due to the denial of FAPE that occurred when the LEA unilaterally excluded/exempted the Student from social studies curriculum.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to provide agreed upon IEP Services Minutes.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to provide access to Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM), other than the AIM-VA password, as written in XX IEP.
Whether the LEA owes the Student compensatory services from a private provider and/or private placement due to the denial of FAPE that occurred when the LEA failed to provide Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM), as determined by VDOE.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to adhere to state and federal required timelines from October 22, 2022 to December 3, 2022.
Whether the LEA owes the Student compensatory services from a private provider and/or private placement due to the denial of FAPE that occurred when the LEA failed to adhere to state and federal required timelines from December 4, 2022 to December 4, 2023.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it changed information in the IEP after IEP meeting, without parent knowledge or consent, and then asked for signature.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to accurately access the Student’s progress or mastery in Math.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when in 5 ½ years the Student only mastered one goal.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to implement the IEP as written.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to implement the reading interventions utilized with fidelity or changing/updating them based on the Student’s unique needs and lack of foundational knowledge.
Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it failed to treat the Student’s parent as an essential attendee at the various meetings.
Whether LEA offered Student an IEP reasonably calculated to enable Student to make progress appropriate in light of Student’s circumstances and whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement for tuition and related expenses resulting from Parents’ unilateral placement of Student.
Did the assistant principal send the parent an attendance letter on or about May 2, 2024? If so, was this action taken by the LEA a unilateral one and did the action circumvent holding an IEP meeting and addressing Student’s attendance? If so, was there a denial of FAPE?
Did the LEA deny Student FAPE due to disability harassment based on attendance from January 2024 to present? Particularly, (i) did the LEA accept other students’ medical excuses to excuse their absences while not accepting Student’s medical excuses and deeming absences unexcused and (ii) did the LEA propose attendance meetings rather than scheduling IEP meetings to address Student’s absences?
Did the LEA note student’s absences from school on October 6, 2023, and on or about February 1, 2024, to present as unexcused? Should the LEA have identified Student’s absences on October 6, 2023, and on or about February 1, 2024, to present as excused and provided for homebased instruction/homebound services during those times? If not, has the LEA deprived the student of an educational benefit and denied FAPE?
Did the LEA retaliate against the student from January 2024 to present? Specifically, were the following acts retaliation: limiting parent to five minutes on school property to communicate an emergency to Student; disregarding instructions of medical providers of Student; not providing for a case manager for Student; causing criminal charges for truancy to be lodged against Parent; drafting an IEP without parental input and input from Student’s doctor and therapist; not providing a PWN? If there was retaliation, did it deny the student a FAPE?
Did the LEA provide for homebased instruction or homebound services for the student on IEP or an amendment to the IEP for a period beginning on or about January 2024 to present? If not, did the LEA wrongfully deny homebased instruction/homebased services? If so, has the student been denied a FAPE?
Did the LEA deny Student Homebound services on or about April 30, 2024?If so, was the denial inappropriate because the parent was not in attendance when an IEP dated February 19, 2024, was drafted, which excluded homebase/homebound services? Did the LEA deny Student a FAPE?
Did the LEA deny Student access to a school sponsored band field trip to Kings Dominion on or about May 4, 2024, which included a recital? If so, did the LEA deny the student access to participate with nondisabled peers? Was there a denial of FAPE?
Is the proposed/drafted IEP of February 19, 2024, inappropriate for the following reasons? 8(i) Failing to address deficits in Student’s reading; 8(ii) Failing to address Student’s absences/attendance as a functional skill, but, instead subjects the student to the state compulsory attendance laws; 8(iv) IEP meeting was held without the parent being present and with parent receiving less than 48 hours notice of the meeting’s schedule.
Did Student experience any anxiety, trauma, and or attendance issues during the 2023-2024 school year? If so, was the LEA required to conduct a functional behavior assessment (FBA) prior to developing the February 19, 2024, IEP? If so, and an FBA was not conducted, did the LEA deny Student a FAPE?
Did the LEA discontinue Student’s virtual counseling with private therapist during the school day as of on or about January 12, 2024, replace that counseling with an unqualified counselor, identified as a CSA counselor by Parent? If so, has there been a denial of FAPE?
Did the LEA refer Student to the Attendance Officer and disenroll Student on or about February 28, 2024, rather than referring any attendance issue of Student to the IEP team? If so, has the LEA discriminated against Student? Should the LEA have provided a prior written notice (PWN) before any disenrollment of Student on or about February 28, 2024? Has Student been denied FAPE if there was discrimination and/or no PWN provided?
Whether the LEA has retaliated against the parent for speaking out at the February and March 2024 School Board meetings by since the date of the February 2024 school board meeting (i) causing Parent to be charged with truancy of Student, (ii) reportedly not accepting medical excuses of Student, (iii) causing the arrest of Parent’s advocate, and (iv) not making provisions for homebased/homebound services? If so, has the student been denied a FAPE?
Did the LEA deny the parent meaningful participation? If so, has there been a denial of FAPE?
Is compensatory education due? Specifically, is private, group, individual, and grief counseling due; nursing services, recreational therapy, and a safety plan.
Was the resolution meeting held on May 16, 2024, procedurally flawed?
Whether the Manifestation Determination Review was conducted in accordance with IDEA and, if not, what are the remedies?
Whether the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) Team possessed sufficient, credible, evidence to determine that the Child's behavior was not a manifestation of his disability?
Whether the LEA failed to identify the Child's Special Education Needs in accordance with IDEA for school year 2023-2024?
Whether the LEA provided FAPE during school year 2023-2024?
If the LEA failed to provide FAPE, whether the proposed private placement is an appropriate placement including its providing FAPE to the Child?
Whether the Parent/Child provided Notice, as may be required by IDEA, for ESY services for the Summer of 2024 from the private placement timely under IDEA?
If the private placement is granted, whether the Parent/Child should be reimbursed for costs as allowed under IDEA including transportation?
Whether the Child is owed compensatory services for ESY for the 2023-2024 school year?
Whether the IBP team, assembled for the IEP meeting conducted on May 22, 2024, was consistent with IDEA and, if not, was the Child denied FAPE as a result, if so, what is the remedy?
Whether the Student received FAPE during the 2022-2023 and 2023 and 2024 school years.
Whether XXXXXXX Academy is an appropriate placement for the student.
Whether XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Schools should reimburse or directly fund the cost of Full Tuition to XXXXXXX Academy, in addition to the costs of related services, as needed.
Whether the parent should receive direct payment/prospective funding of special education transportation and/or other appropriate transportation. LEA should reimburse cost of transportation. Parents were the prevailing party.
Whether the student should receive 150 hours of compensatory service.
