Hearing Officer Decisions 2024-2025

Font Size: + -

Refer also to Index of Issues

July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025

Case - Reference #25-002

Whether LEA knew or suspected that the student had a disability. If so, whether RPS violated the student’s protections as set forth in 34 CFR 300.534.
Whether the student is entitled to home based and/or homebound services due to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) substantive and/or procedural violations that were allegedly committed by LEA.
Whether LEA violated child find laws by allegedly failing to timely evaluate the student for special education services.
Whether LEA violated child find laws by allegedly failing to determine special education eligibility for the student.
Whether the student should be privately placed to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) due to alleged LEA violations of 34 CFR 300.534 and child find laws.

Case - Reference #25-081

Was the result of the December 4, 2024, MDR in error in its determination that
- Student’s behavior on December 2, 2024, was not a manifestation of his disability; and
- Student’s behavior on December 2, 2024, was not caused by a failure of the LEA to implement his IEP; and
- If so, what are the remedies?

Case - Reference #25-096

Whether the Student's current placement is appropriate.
Is the Student's Individualized Education Program ("IEP") appropriate, to include whether the IEP contains adequate supports and training?
Does the Student's IEP allow him to receive a free, appropriate, public education?

Case - Reference #25-100

Whether XPS provided the Student her IEP accommodation of adult support throughout the day, as described in her agreed upon Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) at Elementary School for the 2022-2023 school year; and
Whether XPS denied the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the 2022-2023 school year by not providing her the IEP accommodation of adult support throughout the day, thereby entitling her to compensatory education under the IDEA.

Case - Reference #25-113

Whether XXPS failed to provide Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 School Years by failing to propose and implement an IEP addressing Student's Individual Needs and Circumstances.
Whether XXPS failed to identify Student's Language and Auditory Processing Challenges.
Whether XXPS pervasively Failed to Implement Accommodations for Student.
Whether XXPS failed to provide Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 School Years as evidenced by his lack of progress in Reading, Writing, Math, and Study Skills.
Whether XXPS' failure to provide Student a FAPE requires Compensatory Services and Reimbursement.

Case - Reference #25-125

Whether the Student has been provided with an appropriate transition plan.
Whether graduation in the school year 2024-2025 on the standard diploma track is an appropriate goal.
Whether continued private residential placement is required in order to provide Student with a free, appropriate, public education (“FAPE”).
Whether the Student has been denied FAPE and is entitled to compensatory education services.

Case - Reference #25-126

Whether the student’s current individualized education program (IEP) appropriately addresses the student’s unique and individualized needs, and/or all of the student’s disabilities.
Whether the student’s current IEP fails to provide measurable goals.
Whether XXPS committed the following procedural and/or substantive IDEA violation(s): assessing and/or evaluating the student without parental consent; evaluating the student using unlicensed personnel; failing to provide the student’s records to the parent within 45 days of request; and failing to provide the parent with regular and timely progress reports for the student, resulting in the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Whether XXPS failed to appropriately implement the student’s current IEP, resulting in a failure to provide the student with a FAPE.
Whether the student should be privately placed at public expense due to XXPS’ alleged failures and inability to provide the student with a FAPE.

Case - Reference #25-150

Whether the Student has been denied FAPE?
Was pretesting required?
Was a need for multisensory Phoneme-Grapheme mapping services required?
Did the Student need an occupational therapy goal specific to drawing pictures?

Case - Reference #25-152

Whether LEA failed to provide the student with a free, appropriate, public education (FAPE) for school years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 by failing to provide the student with an individualized education program (IEP) that appropriately addressed the student's unique and individualized needs.
Whether the parent's unilateral placement of the student at XXXX for school years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 was appropriate. If so, whether the parent should be reimbursed by LEA for tuition, transportation, and related services associated with the placement.
Whether the student should be placed at XXXX at public expense to receive a FAPE for school year 2025-2026.

Case - Reference #25-154

Did the LEA commit procedural errors regarding the drafting of the IEP process for the 2024-2025 school year and, if so, did such deny the Child FAPE? If so, what is the remedy?
Whether the proposed IEP for 2024-2025 provides the Child FAPE in general and specifically:
- Whether the LEA failed to provide FAPE to the Child by not effectuating a behavioral intervention plan "BIP".
- Whether the LEA failed to provide FAPE to the Child by not effectuating a functional behavioral assessment "FBA".
If the proposed IEP for the 2024-2025 school year does not provide FAPE, what is the remedy?
- Private day or residential school placement?
- Transportation?
- Interim placement?
- Compensatory Services?
- Eligibility for special education services under the category of Other Health Impairment (OHI)?

Case - Reference #25-160

Did the LEA deny the Student FAPE?
Did the LEA violate procedural requirements of the IDEA?
Should compensatory education be provided?
Should parents be reimbursed for math tutoring?

Case - Reference #25-165

2023-2024 School Year

ISSUE A: Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE when it allegedly:
- A(1) failed to provide necessary services, appropriate goals and objectives, and required evaluations;
- A(2) significantly impeded Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process by failing to provide timely and complete Prior Written Notices (PWN), failing to hold timely IEP meetings, and failing to document and meaningfully consider parental concerns;
- A(3) placed the Student in an overly restrictive setting and failed to provide services in accordance with the Student’s needs;
- A(4) failed to provide specially designed instruction and interventions to address the Student’s documented deficits in basic reading, writing, mathematics, language, and organizational skills;
- A(5) failed to provide and implement necessary accommodations and supports;
- A(6) failed to maintain service logs and progress monitoring data.

2024-2025 School Year

ISSUE B: Whether the LEA denied the Student a FAPE for the 2024-2025 school year when it allegedly:
- B(1) failed to provide necessary services, appropriate goals and objectives, and required evaluations;
- B(2) significantly impeded Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process by failing to provide timely and complete Prior Written Notices (PWN), failing to hold timely IEP meetings, and failing to document and meaningfully consider parental concerns;
- B(3) placed the Student in an overly restrictive setting and failed to provide services in accordance with the Student’s needs;
- B(4) failed to recommend and provide services and placement reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make appropriate academic and functional progress;
- B(5) failed to develop an individualized transition IEP plan with direct information from the Student or her unique needs, measurable postsecondary goals, and potential coordinated services;
- B(6) failed to provide ESY services outlined in the IEP from 8/9/2024 to present;
- B(7) failed to provide and implement necessary accommodations and supports;
- B(8) failed to maintain service logs and progress monitoring data.

Case - Reference #25-166/167

2023-2024 School Year

Did the LEA violate procedural requirements of the IDEA? Particularly,
(a) Did the LEA fail to provide Student with mandated IEP Meeting and Evaluation Notices, Prior Written Notices (PWN)?
(b). Did the LEA fail to provide Student proper IEP and eligibility meeting notices?
(c). Did the LEA fail to acknowledge and listen to Parent during eligibility and IEP meetings?
(d). Did the LEA fail to provide appropriate PWNs for each change or refusal or change proposed?
(e). Did the LEA include appropriate present levels of performance in Student’s IEPs?
(f). Did the LEA fail to identify Student’s needs in the IEPs?
(g). Did the LEA fail to include in the IEPs goals to match each of Student’s needs that are objectively written with a baseline of performance (objective means of measuring progress on a regular basis)?
(h). Did the LEA fail to identify Student’s health plan/medical needs?
(i). Did the LEA fail to identify in the IEP(s) the Early Childhood Special Education services to be provided to Student and or the location, frequency, and/or duration of those services? In the June 5, 2024, IEP, did the Student’s IEP provide for “pull in” services (social skills/behavior management skills) when the LEA should have provided for “pull out” services.
(j). Did the LEA fail to have in attendance, at the one eligibility meeting held during the 2023-24 school year, those required to attend?
(k). Did the LEA fail to some extent to follow proper procedures in developing each of Student’s IEPs (for example, did the LEA (i) fail to document things in PWN, (ii) delay evaluations, (iii) fail to allow for meaningful participation by the parent, etc.)?
(l) Did the LEA fail to complete the Student’s evaluations by the deadline?
Did the LEA violate substantive requirements of the IDEA? Particularly, were Student’s 2023-24 IEPs inappropriate for the following reasons:
(a) Student’s disability and unique needs from that disability are not identified in the IEP(s)
(b) Evaluation(s) conducted were not standardized as they were conducted by Zoom;
(c) The LEA allowed joint completion of teacher rating scales, invalidating standardized protocols;
(d) IEP(s) failed to indicate who is providing the services and if those individuals were adequately trained to provide those services and where the services would be provided
(e) IEP failed to reflect meaningful progress nor does the level of progress correctly reflect the student’s potential
(f) IEP failed to provide accommodations (specifically, no consistent 1 on 1 aide; Student’s 1 on 1 aide was servicing not just Student, but other students as well; no appropriate sensory accommodations?
Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E), if LEA violated procedure, did any procedural violations impede the Student’s right to a FAPE; significantly impede Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to Student; or cause a deprivation of educational benefits?
During the 2023-24 school year was the student denied a FAPE?
If the LEA denied Student a FAPE during the 2023-24 school year, is the student due compensatory education for the 2023-24 school year?Is the parent estopped from arguing that eligibility determinations and IEPs that Parent agreed with are now improper or insufficient under IDEA?

2024-2025 School Year

Did the LEA violate procedural requirements of the IDEA? Particularly,
(a) Did the LEA fail to provide Student with mandated IEP Meeting and Evaluation Notices, and PWNs?
(b) Did the LEA fail to provide Student proper IEP and eligibility meeting notices?
(c) Did the LEA fail to acknowledge and listen to Parent during eligibility and IEP meetings?
(d) Did the LEA fail to provide appropriate PWNs for each change or refusal or change proposed?
(e) Did the LEA include appropriate present levels of performance on Student’s IEPs?
(f) Did the LEA fail to identify Student’s needs in the IEP?
(g) Did the LEA fail to include in the IEPs goals to match each of Student’s needs that are objectively written with a baseline of performance (objective means of measuring progress on a regular basis)?
(h) Did the LEA fail to identify Student’s health plan/medical needs?
(i) Did the LEA fail to identify in the IEP(s) the services to be provided to Student and or the location, frequency, and/or duration of those services?
(j) Did the LEA fail to follow proper procedures to some degree in developing each of Student’s IEPs (for example, did the LEA (i) fail to document things in PWN, (ii) delay evaluations, (iii) fail to allow for meaningful participation by the parent, (iv) deny homebased services, etc.)?
(k) Did the LEA make critical decisions outside the IEP meeting? Specifically, denial of homebased services, deciding to provide virtual homebound services, making placement decisions, deciding to not follow recommendations of Student’s medical providers.
(l) Did the LEA fail to complete the evaluations by the deadline?
(m) Did the LEA exclude Student from VALs testing and Kindergarten Readiness Program? If so, did LEA wrongly exclude Student from this testing and program? Did any exclusion contribute to a flawed eligibility decision and the development of an inappropriate IEP?
Did the LEA violate substantive requirements of the IDEA because the student’s 2024-25 IEPs were inappropriate for the following reasons:
(a ) Student’s disability and unique needs from that disability are not identified in the IEP(s);
(b ) Student hit her head during the psychological test. Student was assessed and then testing was resumed;
(c ) IEP failed to indicate who is providing the services and if those individuals were adequately trained to provide the services and where the services would be provided;
(d) IEPs fail to reflect meaningful progress nor does the level of progress correctly reflect the student’s potential;
(e ) IEP failed to provide accommodations (specifically, no consistent 1 on 1 aide; Student’s 1 on 1 aide servicing not just Student, but other students as well; no accommodations for standardize testing; failure to properly conduct FBA; failure to provide sensory accommodations, and lack of transition planning)?
Did the LEA also violate substantive requirements of the IDEA because the LEA failed to develop, recommend, and implement an appropriate program, placement, and services. Particularly, did the LEA:
(a) Refuse to recommend a small class size, reduced-day schedule, early intervention preschool, or homebased instruction;
(b) Ignore recommendations for alternative placement and insist on attendance at Montclair despite documented trauma history;
(c) Impose inappropriate interventions (forced social skills training) and fail to affirm Student’s neurotype;
(d) Fail to identify needed environmental and sensory accommodations (e.g. temperature control, flexible seating, quiet spaces);
(e) Fail to adopt neurodiversity-affirming supports or implement professional and parent-recommended instructional strategies;
(f) Fail to document compensatory education time owed from homebound services unrendered in the IEP;
(g) Permit [XXXXXXXXXXXX] to use her social work license to contradict medical recommendations from Student’s treating therapist without personally evaluating or observing Student. Assuming so, did this action contribute to the IEP team’s decision to deny emergency homebound services?
During the 2024-25 school year, did the LEA violate substantive requirements of the IDEA by failing to provide special education transportation as a related service in accordance with Student’s IEP?
Did the LEA deny homebased services and fail to provide all homebound instruction and services recommended for the 2024-25 school year?
Did the LEA fail to allow Student to participate in the September 2024 IEP meeting at the request of Parent?
During the 2024-25 school year, did the LEA permit XXXXXXXXXXXX to make unsupported clinical statements that were used to justify keeping Student in an environment that exacerbated autistic burnout?
Did Student show regression during the 2024-25 school year? If so, and the LEA failed to recommend ESY has there been a denial of FAPE?
Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E), if LEA violated procedure during the 2024-25 school year, did any procedural violations impede the Student’s right to a FAPE; significantly impede Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to Student; or cause a deprivation of educational benefits?
During the 2024-25 school year was the student denied a FAPE?
If the LEA denied Student a FAPE during the 2024-25 school year, is the student due compensatory education?
Is the parent estopped from arguing that eligibility determinations and IEPs that Parent agreed with during the 2024-25 school year are now improper or insufficient under IDEA?
If the LEA denied Student a FAPE during the 2024-25 school year, is XXXXXXXXXX appropriate placement for Student along with transportation to and from XXXXXXXXXX?
During the 2024-25 school year was Parent uncooperative regarding the 2024-25 IEP process and scheduling homebound education? If so, are her claims and relief barred?
Is the claim for considering placing Student at XXXXXXXXXX for the 2025-26 school year ripe?
Is the parent due tuition reimbursement?

Case - Reference #25-168

Whether the LEA denied Student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in violation of both IDEA and Virginia law.
a) Specifically, did the LEA deny Student a FAPE by not paying for tuition and related fees/costs for his enrollment in private residential school, which is his Least Restrictive Environment as identified in the IEP dated February 27, 2025, and which remains his Least Restrictive Environment.

Case - Reference #25-175

Whether the LEA accommodated Student’s disability including ADHD and executive functioning by (1) extending time on tests and assignments, (2) allowing make-up work, (3) properly using resources such as Canvas, Parent VUE, and Student VUE, (4) providing access to quiet testing environments, and (5) daily progress monitoring.
Whether the LEA timely conducted an evaluation for IDEA eligibility.
Whether the LEA timely provided Student with an IEP.
Whether the LEA failed to identify Student under Child Find.
Whether the LEA failed to follow consistent grading practices and provide executive function supports.
Whether the LEA properly excluded Student from the gifted and talented program.
Whether Student was denied access to instructional tools.
Whether the LEA provided necessary compensatory services such as 1:1 tutoring, executive functioning coaching, social-emotional support sessions, and academic or therapeutic services.
Whether the LEA should convene an IEP team meeting.

Case - Reference #25-179

Whether the October IEP provides FAPE (including IDEA's mandate regarding the least-restrictive environment) and, if not, what is the remedy including, but not limited to, the location of the private school?
After September 3, 2024 (date of the Decision), did the LEA commit IDEA procedural violations, and, if so, did such violations deny FAPE to the Child?
Whether the instant matter is "ripe" as described in the LEA's 2E of its Motion to Dismiss and Answer, which provides:
- Claims as to Future Services are Unripe since XXCS has not had the Opportunity to Address them in an IEP meeting Insofar as Parent complains about services to be provided to [the Child] going forward past the October IEP Meeting, those complaints are unripe, as XXCS has not had an opportunity to consider and act upon them in an IEP meeting. See San Jose Unified School District, 102 LRP 2937 (SEA Cal. 2000); Carlsbad Unified School District, 105 LRP 15043 (SEA Cal. 2005) (request for prospective placement denied where it has not yet been subject to discussion at IEP meeting); Department of Education, State of Hawaii, 102 LRP 24040 (SEA Hawaii 2002) ("the 2002-2003 year has not yet commenced, giving Respondent the opportunity to review and revise the IEP, if they deem it necessary, and to make an offer of program/placement. Therefore, this issue for the 2002-2003 school year is not ripe for decision."); Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 119 LRP 796 (SEA MO 12/13/18) (dismissing a due process claim because it was not ripe, given that a meeting was scheduled to finalize an individualized education program).
Whether the LEA denied the Child FAPE for the 2024-2025 school year in the implementation of the last agreed-upon IDEA as modified by the Decision and, if so, what is the remedy?
Whether to award prospective transportation either provided by the LEA, parent, or an outside provider for 2025-2026?
Whether to award compensatory services in the amount of 200 hours?
Whether the Due Process claims are barred, in whole or in part, by res judicata and collateral estoppel?