Hearing Officer Decisions 2025-2026

Refer also to Index of Issues

July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026

Case - Reference #26-009

• Whether the LEA's proposed Individualized Education Programs (IEP) for school years 2023-2024, 2024-2025, and 2025-2026 adequately addressed the student's unique special education needs, so as to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
• Whether the student should have been unilaterally placed by the parent at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx School, a private residential school, to receive a FAPE, for school years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.
• Whether the parent should be reimbursed by the LEA for personal costs incurred for the unilateral placement of the student at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx School, for school years 2023-2024, 2024-2025, and 2025-2026.
• Whether the student should be placed, in residence, at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx School, at public expense, for school year 2025-2026, to receive a FAPE.

Case - Reference #26-011

The LEA failed to provide Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) based on their unique disability related needs as follows: 

1. Failed to identify [Student] as a student with disabilities requiring occupational therapy and functional vision and assistive technology services.
2. Failed to develop and implement an Individualized Education Program (IEP) reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress in light of  [Student]’s unique disability related needs. 
3. Failed to amend [Student]’s IEP in response to clear evidence of lack of progress, regression, and needs based on disabilities as shown in progress reports, evaluations, and documented observations. 
4. Failed to provide specially designed instruction for [Student]’s dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, visual processing, executive functioning, auditory processing, fine motor deficits, and visual motor integration.
5. Failed to provide Extended School Year (ESY) services. 
6. Denied the parent meaningful and informed participation in the IEP process. 
7. Failed to provide accurate IEPs and Prior Written Notices (PWNs), often omitting parental concerns, mischaracterizing team discussions, or falsely claiming consensus. 

All proposed issues are for the past two years, with the exception of Issue number 1 which is beyond the two-year statute of limitations but meets the exception criteria.

Case - Reference #26-016

• Whether XXPS committed procedural and substantive violations by failing to implement the child’s IEP as written.
• Whether XXPS failed to provide IEP accommodations by not including trained Communications and Regulations Partners (CRPs) in a timely manner.
• Whether XXPS systematically obstructed the IEP process by failing to comply with the VDOE Corrective Action Plan.
• Whether XXPS failed to recognize and provide services aligned with the child’s demonstrated cognitive disabilities.

Case - Reference #26-030

• Whether the Student’s behavior on March 27, 2025, was a manifestation of his disabilities. 
• Whether the LEA failed to meet the procedural requirements of IDEA by failing to review all relevant information in conducting the MDR and by failing to conduct an appropriate FBA and implement a BIP. 
• Whether the LEA denied the student a free, appropriate education (“FAPE”) by reassigning him to a non-traditional educational school for the 2025-26 school year and by preventing him from being educated in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”).

Case - Reference #26-037

• Whether XXXXXXXXX Public Schools failed to timely identify the student as a disabled child entitled to special education services, thereby violating Child Find laws. 
• Whether the student has been denied much needed specialized and direct instruction because he has not been evaluated for special education services, resulting in the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). 

Case - Reference #26-043

• Whether the LEA wrongly decided the child's behavior was a not manifestation of his disability.  Parent contends the LEA's determination was in error for the following reasons:
• (i) The LEA failed to consider Student's eligibility packet and autism evaluation; 
• (ii) The LEA failed to implement the IEP's provision regarding providing Student with noise cancelling headphones;
• (iii) The LEA failed to follow the behavior intervention plan (BIP). Specifically, the LEA failed to employ deescalating strategies; 
• (iv) The MDR wrongly determined Student's conduct was intentional; 
• (v) The LEA denied Parent meaningful participation because Parent was not provided the Student's educational record and evaluations prior to the MDR meeting.

Case - Reference #26-055

• Educational placement of the child
• Procedural violations related to an IEP meeting held on December 12, 2023
• Failure to provide services from April 19, 2024, until December 2024

• Inadequate compensatory services

Case - Reference #26-068

• Whether the Student should have been found eligible for Special Education as a child with a disability.

Case - Reference #26-072

• Whether the LEA violated its Child Find obligations under the IDEA and applicable Virginia special education regulations by failing during the relevant time period to identify, refer, and evaluate Student as a student suspected of having a disability and in need of special education and related services.
• Whether, prior to the disciplinary and placement decisions at issue during the 2023-2024 school year, the LEA knew or should have known that Student was a child with a disability or otherwise was entitled to the protections afforded under 34 C.F.R. § 300.534 and 8 VAC 20-81-160(H), including the procedural protections associated with disciplinary removals and manifestation determination review ("MDR") procedures.
• Whether Student's disciplinary removal and placement at xxxxxxxxxx Academy denied Student a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") under the IDEA because Student allegedly was removed without the protections applicable to a student with a disability or a student suspected of having a disability. 
• Whether Student was, during the relevant time period, a "child with a disability" under the IDEA, including whether Student had a qualifying disability and, by reason thereof, required special education and related services.

Case - Reference #26-088

• Whether the LEA failed to properly implement the student’s individualized education program (IEP) with fidelity, resulting in the denial of a FAPE for the student.
• Whether the LEA failed to properly implement the student’s behavioral intervention plan (BIP) by failing to appropriately consider and respond to the student’s disability-related behavior(s) prior to imposing exclusionary discipline.
• Whether the LEA committed procedural violations regarding the student’s suspension notice and implementation by failing to provide an updated notification of the student’s return date to school due to snow day(s).
• Whether the student is entitled to compensatory education services due to alleged LEA failures.
• Whether the student should be privately placed, at public expense, to receive a FAPE.

Case - Reference #26-095

• “The Parent is challenging the LEA’s recent manifestation determination decision that the behavior of the Student was not a manifestation of his disability; and also asserts that XXXXXXXX Public Schools (“XPS”) significantly impeded the Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.” 

Case - Reference #26-102

• Whether on March 27, 2026, the LEA wrongly decided that the Student’s behavior which led to a school suspension was not a manifestation of the Student’s disability.