Hearing Officer Decisions 2025-2026

Print

Font Size: + -

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:

Failed to identify [Student] as a student with disabilities requiring occupational therapy and functional vision and assistive technology services.
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.
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.
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.
Failed to provide Extended School Year (ESY) services.
Denied the parent meaningful and informed participation in the IEP process.
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 #26-030

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.