Due Process Hearings: Summaries and Decisions
LanguagesA-Z IndexPrinter Friendly Image
Search
 

 

Special Education
Special Education   >   Dispute Resolution   >   Request a Due Process Hearing   >   Due Process Summaries

Special Education Due Process Hearings
Decision Summaries through 2013

Below are summaries of State of Washington, Office of Administrative Hearings, Special Education Due Process hearing decisions. Each summary lists issues on the far right of the page. When available we have included a link directly to the decision from the summary.   Issues are indexed by abbreviated case number.  Personally identifiable student information has been removed from the decisions. 

Summaries of State of Washington, Office of Administrative Hearings, Special Education Due Process hearing decisions are linked from the Office of Professional Practices Web site. Personally identifiable student information has been removed from the decisions. 

Questions about obtaining decisions should be directed to OSPI, Administrative Resource Services at: http://www.12.wa.us/ProfPractices/adminresources/default.aspx  (360) 725-6132.  Due process hearings are administered by the State of Washington, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) an independent state agency. Information about OAH can be found at their Web page at: http://www.oah.wa.gov/

NOTE: These summaries address the due process decisions only and do not track federal or state court appeals. Some OAH decisions have been appealed. It is recommended that readers research the appeal history of a particular decision. Readers should also refer to the decisions themselves to determine the ALJ’s ruling in a particular case and should not rely upon the summaries as a representation of the decisions. The summaries themselves do not have any legal effect or represent OSPI policy. Questions? Contact Us.

 

Procedural Safeguards
Notice of Procedural Safeguards
for Students and Their Families

Legal Assistance List

Issue Index

Issues: Case Numbers:
Accommodations 11-0104; 10-0110
Assistive Technology 13-0032; 12-0001/0010; 11-0013; 10-0008; 09-0059; 08-0111/0121
Aversive Intervention 06-0055
Behavior 13-0017X/0018; 12-0019X; 11-0073; 11-0064; 09-0030; 07-0003; 06-0055
Child Find 12-0069; 11-0020X; 10-0038; 07-0035; 06-0012
Compensatory Education 13-0038; 13-0032; 13-0017X/0018; 12-0011; 12-0001/0010; 09-0030; 08-0086; 07-0035; 07-0003; 07-0001; 06-0084; 06-0074; 06-0055
Consent 13-0062/0071; 12-0084; 12-0062/099; 11-0092; 11-0017X/0018X & 10-0097; 10-0038; 09-0095; 08-0064; 06-0102; 06-0075; 06-0031 
Discipline 13-0115X/0116X; 13-0017X/0018; 12-0088X; 12-0019X; 11-0020X; 11-0017X/0018X & 10-0097; 10-0098; 10-0047X; 09-0013X; 09-0010X; 08-0021X; 07-0088; 06-0075; 06-0038X
Eligibility 10-0047X; 10-0038; 09-0059; 07-0090; 07-0068; 06-0102; 06-0084; 06-0074; 06-0012
Extended School Year (ESY) 13-0038; 13-0032; 11-0064; 08-0064; 07-0003; 06-0084; 06-0055
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) 13-0115X/0116X; 13-0017X/0018; 12-0084; 12-0069; 12-0062/099; 12-0076; 12-0017; 12-0011; 12-0001/0010; 11-0063; 11-0020X; 11-0013; 10-0008; 09-0059; 08-0120; 08-0115; 08-0086; 08-0055; 08-0047; 07-0055; 07-0108; 07-0111; 06-0056
Graduation 06-0053
Harassment 11-0064; 11-0013; 08-0010; 06-0038X; 06-0006
IEP Content 13-0093X; 13-0038; 12-0076; 12-0068; 12-0001/0010; 10-0008; 08-0047; 07-0090; 07-0015/0017; 07-0108; 07-0106; 07-0111; 06-0057; 06-0053
IEP Implementation 13-0093X; 13-0032; 13-0017X/0018; 12-0062/099; 12-0068; 12-0017; 12-0011; 12-0001/0010; 11-0104; 11-0087; 11-0073; 11-0017X/0018X & 10-0097; 11-0013; 10-0110; 10-0098; 10-0040; 10-0008; 09-0030; 09-0027; 09-0013X; 08-0100; 08-0086; 08-0064; 08-0063; 08-0055; 07-0055; 08-0047; 07-0012; 06-0057; 06-0012
IEP Procedures 13-0115X/0116X; 13-0093X; 13-0017X/0018; 12-0062/099; 12-0094; 12-0011; 11-0073; 11-0020X; 10-0040; 09-0030; 08-0120; 08-0115; 07-0088; 07-0012; 06-0074
Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) 13-0092; 13-0032; 13-0017X/0018; 12-0001/0010; 10-0079/0092; 10-0044; 10-0020; 09-0082; 09-0081; 09-0059; 08-0120; 08-0115; 08-0111/0121; 08-0059; 08-0035; 08-0033; 08-0032; 07-0126; 07-0079/0080; 07-0068; 07-0031; 06-0084; 06-0074; 06-0051; 06-0014; 06-0012; 06-0006
Initial Evaluation  11-0092; 11-0073; 11-0064; 11-0036; 11-0020X; 09-0082; 09-0081; 08-0010; 08-0070; 06-0053; 06-0051
Jurisdiction 06-0037; 06-003
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 13-0017X/0018; 12-0062/099; 12-0076; 12-0017; 11-0087; 10-0058; 10-0057; 10-0008; 09-0046; 08-0063; 06-0084; 06-0056
Methodology 07-0003
Native Language 10-0081; 10-0008
Parent Participation 13-0017X/0018; 12-0084; 12-0076; 12-0068; 12-0011; 11-0104; 11-0073; 11-0020X; 10-0110; 10-0098; 10-0081; 10-0008; 09-0046; 09-0027; 08-0100; 08-0064; 08-0063; 08-0055; 07-0012; 07-0001; 06-0084; 06-0055; 06-0038X
Placement 13-0115X/0116X; 13-0093X; 13-0032; 13-0017X/0018; 12-0076; 11-0073; 11-0064; 10-0081; 10-0058; 10-0057; 10-0008; 09-0046; 09-0027; 09-0013X; 09-0010X; 08-0021X; 07-0015/0017; 07-0012; 07-0108; 07-0111; 07-0001; 06-0084; 06-0074; 06-0053; 06-0006
Preschool 06-0074
Prior Written Notice 12-0068; 10-0040; 06-0102; 06-0084
Private School/Reimbursement 12-0069; 12-0068; 11-0104; 11-0087; 11-0064; 11-0013; 10-0038; 10-0008; 09-0046; 08-0120; 08-0115; 07-0090; 07-0088; 07-0055; 06-0084; 06-0074; 06-0057; 06-0053; 06-0006
Procedural Safeguards 11-0020X; 07-0001;
Progress Reporting 12-0068; 11-0073; 10-0008
Reevaluation 13-0093X; 13-0038; 12-0062/099; 12-0011; 12-0001/0010; 11-0104; 11-0087; 11-0064; 11-0017X/0018X & 10-0097; 10-0044; 09-0046; 09-0027; 08-0120; 08-0115; 08-0055; 07-0079/0080; 07-0015/0017; 07-0012; 07-0003; 07-0001; 06-0102; 06-0084; 06-0075; 06-0031
Related Services 13-0038; 12-0084; 12-0017; 10-0079/0092; 10-0059
Residency 06-0048
Residential Placement 06-0037
Staff Qualifications 12-0068; 07-0012; 06-0102
Statute of Limitations 12-0069; 12-0068; 12-0011; 10-0038; 10-0008; 06-0012
Student Records 12-0068; 11-0073; 07-0001; 06-0001
Student Transfer 11-0092; 08-0070; 07-0035; 07-0001; 06-0055
Transition 10-0110; 08-0010
Transportation  

 

 

2013 Due Process Decisions


2013-SE-0017X and 2013-SE-0018 Peninsula (Mentzer)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Behavior; Compensatory Education; Discipline; Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE); IEP Implementation; IEP Procedures; Parent Participation; Placement; Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

BACKGROUND: The student moved to a different school in the district when she started third grade. Behavioral interventions that were effective in the student’s previous school were no longer effective, and after a suspension of approximately six days, the district decided to provide the student special education service in an office, with paraeducator support. The parent filed a due process hearing request alleging that the district failed to hold a manifestation determination meeting after the removal of the student to an interim alternative educational placement, denying the parent a meaningful opportunity to participate in IEP and evaluation meetings, failing to conduct a comprehensive evaluation, failing to develop and implement appropriate IEPs, and failure to an appropriate placement. The Parent asked that the district provide services in the home or in a general education classroom with paraeducator support. The parent also requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE). In response, the district filed a due process hearing request to show the appropriateness of its evaluation and requested that the ALJ deny the IEE. The two hearings were consolidated.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the removal of the student from the classroom to a different setting after the suspension, was a disciplinary removal exceeding 10 school days, and the district should have conducted a manifestation determination meeting. In addition, the parent was denied the opportunity to participate in the review and adoption of significant amendments to the student’s IEP. When the district changed the student’s placement, she was denied participation in her least restrictive environment, including a determination of the extent the student could be involved in non-academic or extracurricular activities. The ALJ found that the appropriate placement for the student was in one of the district’s programs to address behavior, and denied the parent’s request for placement with services at home, or placement in a general education setting with paraeducator support. The ALJ also ordered the district to provide compensatory education. The ALJ denied the parent’s request for an IEE, finding the district’s evaluation was appropriate.


2013-SE-0032 Ellensburg (Mentzer)  

Issues:  Assistive Technology; Compensatory Education; Extended School Year (ESY); IEP Implementation; Placement

BACKGROUND: The student was found eligible for special education when he was in tenth grade. He had been eligible for special education in earlier years, but his parents revoked consent for special education services. In late spring, the student’s attendance declined and the parents informed the school district that the student was unable to attend school due to depression. The IEP team discussed the student’s depression, and the district agreed to provide an IEE. The student began attending school during eleventh grade but refused his special education services. The district scheduled a meeting to review the results of the IEE several months after receiving the report. The parents filed a due process prior to the meeting and canceled the meeting. The parents alleged the district failed to consider the IEE, failed to provide the student with counseling as a related service as recommended in the IEE, failed to implement the student’s IEP, including providing assistive technology services and accommodations, and failed to provide the student with extended school year (ESY) services. In addition, the parents alleged that the student’s teacher did not have training to address the student’s disability. The parents requested that the district pay for a private placement, and order training for teachers and reimburse the parents for the student’s private counseling.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ determined there was no basis for ordering ESY, and no basis for finding that the teachers required additional training. However, the district did not implement a portion of the student’s IEP requiring tutoring in math. In addition, the district did not timely consider the recommendations of the IEE, or provide counseling services. The ALJ ordered compensatory counseling and tutoring services, and reimbursement for the private counseling incurred by the parents. The ALJ denied the parent’s request for private placement.


2013-SE-0038 Northshore (Mentzer)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Compensatory Education; Extended School Year (ESY); IEP Content; Reevaluation; Related Services

BACKGROUND: The student began receiving Part B special education services from the district after transitioning from early intervention services under Part C. The student initially received speech and language services and social skills services in a preschool program. The parents alleged that the district did not provide speech services based on the student’s individual needs, and made decisions without parent participation. They also alleged that the district failed to evaluate the student’s fine motor skills. They also alleged that the student’s IEP did not contain measurable goals. Finally, they alleged the district offered insufficient ESY for the student.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ determined that the district did not make IEP decisions outside of the IEP team process. In addition, the ALJ found that there was no indication when the student initially qualified for special education services that the student required a fine motor evaluation. However, the ALJ determined that the goals in the student’s initial IEP were not measurable, and that after the parents expressed concerns about the student’s fine motor skills, the district delayed in initiating a reevaluation. In addressing speech services, the ALJ found that the district did not implement the services in the student’s IEP and also determined that the amount of speech services identified in the IEP were insufficient to address the student’s needs. The ALJ also determined that the district did not follow procedures for determining the need for ESY in some of the IEPs at issue and did not offer ESY services sufficient to address the student’s needs when it offered ESY. The ALJ ordered that the district amend the IEP to include additional speech services, provide compensatory speech services, and reimburse the parents for privately obtained speech and occupational therapy services. Finally, the ALJ ordered the district to provide the parents with monthly therapy logs.


2013-SE-0051 Federal Way (Wacker)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)

BACKGROUND: When the student was initially evaluated for special education, his primary language was Spanish. The testing at the time used a non-verbal assessment, which generated an IQ score within the average range. As part of the student’s reevaluation 3 years later, the district used a different test and also tested the student in English, based on the student’s and parent’s report that this was now the student’s dominant language. Because the cognitive score on the reevaluation was considerably lower, the evaluator determined that the assessment was not valid and used results based on a pattern of the student’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses. The parent requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) based on concerns regarding the variance of the results of the two cognitive tests.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: The ALJ determined that the district appropriately reevaluated the student and the evaluator appropriately tested and evaluated the student’s test scores. The ALJ denied the parent’s request for an IEE at public expense.


2013-SE-0062 and 2013-SE-0071 Everett   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Consent; Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)

BACKGROUND: The district proposed to reevaluate the student based on the parents’ concerns about the student’s communication and hearing. The parents agreed to the reevaluation, but informed the district that it would not consent to the district’s proposed cognitive assessments. The district proceeded with the reevaluation, and did not do cognitive testing. The parents filed a due process request which requested a private placement. In response, the district filed a due process request asking the ALJ to override the parent’s denial of consent for cognitive testing. The district filed a second due process request in response to the parent’s request for an IEE to show the appropriateness of its evaluation. The two district requests were consolidated.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: The ALJ noted that the district had not sought a consent override before completing the student’s reevaluation, which occurred within the last year and that there had been no significant changed circumstances warranting further evaluation since that time. The ALJ refused to override the parents’ denied consent regarding a cognitive assessment as part of the reevaluation. The ALJ also determined that the district’s reevaluation contained ample data to explain the student’s performance level and needs. Further, the ALJ determined that the parents were not entitled to an IEE at public expense based on any deficiency resulting from their refusal to consent to a cognitive evaluation. The ALJ denied the parents’ request for an IEE at public expense.


2013-SE-0092 Lake Washington (Mentzer)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)

BACKGROUND: The parent requested an IEE after the district concluded that the student was no longer eligible for special education. The District filed a due process hearing request to show the appropriateness of its evaluation in response to the parent’s request for an IEE.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: The ALJ found that the District’s evaluation was appropriate and denied the parent’s request for an IEE.


2013-SE-0093X Tacoma (Wacker)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEP Contents; IEP Procedures; IEP Implementation; Placement: Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The student had previously attended another school district where he received services in a self-contained program with no integration with his regular education peers. When the student moved to the district, the parent requested that the district not place the student in a self-contained setting and the district agreed to the parent’s request. The student was not successful in that setting despite numerous interventions. By the student’s second year in the district, the district initiated a reevaluation. After the reevaluation, the district increased the student’s services in the resource setting, but eventually proposed another program, which would still allow integration with his general education peers, but would also focus on the student’s academic and social needs. The parent filed a due process hearing request alleging that the district failed to provide the student with special education services, failed to provide the student with a one-on-one paraeducator, failed to evaluate the student in all areas of suspected disability, failed to provide the parent with meaningful participation, and did not allow parent participation when proposing to place the student in a more restrictive setting. Although the parent initially asked for an expedited hearing, the expedited status was removed after determining the issues were not related to discipline.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: The ALJ found that the district followed reevaluation procedures, implemented the student’s IEPs, and did not violate placement procedures. The ALJ denied the parent’s requested remedies.


2013-SE-0115X and 2013-SE-0116X Tacoma (Wacker)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Discipline; IEP Procedures; IEP Implementation; FAPE; Placement

BACKGROUND: The student was academically successful but his severe inability to control his emotions and behavior impeded his academic achievement. After the third emergency expulsion in the school year, the parent filed an expedited due process hearing, alleging among other things, that the district failed to hold a manifestation determination meeting, have a current IEP, or provide the student with paraeducator support. After the student was expelled, the district placed the student in a private placement. The district filed its own due process hearing to request that the ALJ order the student to remain in the private placement as an interim alternative education setting in order to complete an evaluation of the student and develop a new IEP. The two hearings were consolidated.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (split) The ALJ found that the student did not require a one on one paraeducator support. Although the district failed to hold a manifestation meeting after the student’s third emergency expulsion, the ALJ found this to be a procedural violation, given that the IEP team had already determined his behavior was a manifestation of the student’s disability, for the two earlier expulsions. The district delayed in offering the student with services. However, the district did not provide educational services for six days after the student’s removal, resulting in a change of placement. In addition, the ALJ found that the district failed to convene the IEP meeting in 2012 to review the results of an IEE. The ALJ found that while the district delayed holding the annual IEP meeting, the delay was to ensure the parent’s participation, and did not deny the student a FAPE. The ALJ granted the district’s request and ordered the student to remain in the private placement as an interim alternative educational setting. The ALJ also ordered compensatory services to address the delay in providing services to the student after his disciplinary removal. Finally, the ALJ ordered the district to provide training to staff at the student’s prior elementary school to address the district’s failure to consider the results of the student’s IEE.


2012 Due Process Decisions


2012-SE-0001 & 2012-SE-0010 Tumwater SD (Senter)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Assistive Technology; Compensatory Education; Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); IEP Content; IEP Implementation; Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE); Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The student enrolled in the district after being homeschooled for several years. Prior to the student starting school, the parents began meeting with the district to discuss the student’s evaluation and educational needs. The student attended school only a few days of the current and prior school year, due to the parent’s disagreement with the district’s implementation of the student’s IEP. The parents requested, and the district agreed to, an IEE. While the IEE was in progress, the parents requested an additional IEE to address the student’s assistive technology needs. The parents alleged the district failed to: address the parent’s request for an assistive technology IEE; develop appropriate goals; provide accommodations; and, implement the student’s IEP.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the student’s lack of attendance made it difficult for the district to implement the IEP, develop new goals, and conduct a functional behavioral assessment. However, the district denied the student a FAPE when it failed to write measureable social skills goals. In addition the district did not respond to the parents’ second IEE request. The district was ordered to provide compensatory social skills education and pay for an IEE to address the student’s assistive technology needs. The student’s IEP team was ordered to meet to review and revise the student’s social skills goals.


2012-SE-0011 South Kitsap SD (Mentzer)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Compensatory Education; Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); IEP Implementation; IEP Procedures; Parent Participation; Reevaluation; Statute of Limitations

BACKGROUND: The parents alleged that the student’s procedural rights were violated by: denying the parent meaningful participation; conducting assessments without the parent’s knowledge or consent; failing to consider input provided by the parent; and, failing to provide notice in advance of meetings. The parent also alleged that the district reduced the student’s services and did not implement the remaining services. The parent also requested that the ALJ allow the parent to raise issues more than two years from filing the due process request, because the district failed to provide the parent with procedural safeguards when the student was initially referred for a special education evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The parent did not establish an exception to the two year statute of limitations and did not meet her burden to establish the district’s failure to allow her to participate, or consider her input in meetings. However, the district failed to: consider the student’s lack of progress in math and written instruction; develop measurable reading fluency goals; and, implement a daily tracking accommodation. The district was ordered to provide compensatory education services to the student. In addition, the district was required to provide a set of textbooks for the student’s use at home.


2012-SE-0017 North Kitsap SD (Wacker)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); IEP Implementation; Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Related Services

BACKGROUND: The parents of a student with multiple medical conditions alleged that: 1) the classroom nurse lacked training and failed to follow appropriate medical procedures when the student had seizures; 2) the classroom nurse, special education teacher, and the student’s one-on-one aide impeded the student’s ability to meet her IEP goal of developing independence; and 3) the student was being excluded from eating lunch in the school cafeteria with her non-disabled peers.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the parents failed to establish that the nurse lacked training or failed to follow the medical procedures addressed in the student’s IEP. Further, the ALJ found due to the student’s medical issues it was not improper for classroom staff to remain in close proximity to the student. The ALJ also concluded that despite the special education teacher’s concern for the student’s safety, the district denied the student a FAPE when she was excluded from eating lunch in the cafeteria. The ALJ ordered that the district allow the student to eat in the lunchroom with her general education peers, as specified in the student’s IEP.


2012-SE-0019X Moses Lake SD (Wacker)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Behavior; Discipline

BACKGROUND: The student was suspended for five school days for disruptive classroom behavior, after being suspended for more than 10 school days earlier in the school year. The district’s manifestation determination team determined that the student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. The parent disagreed with the team’s decision and filed a due process hearing request.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ determined the parent had failed to carry her burden of proof to establish the district’s manifestation determination was incorrect. While the parent presented a private assessment of the student as evidence of other disabilities, the assessment was two years old, there was no evidence that the parent provided the district with a copy of the report, and the parent did not present expert testimony regarding the report.


2012-SE-0062 & 2012-SE-0099 Lake Washington (Senter)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Consent; Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); IEP Implementation; IEP Procedures; Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The student was eligible for special education services and originally attended school in the district. After an incident at school, the parent kept the student home. In an attempt to reevaluate the student, the parent and district disagreed over the terms of the consent for evaluation. The parent originally filed a due process hearing request alleging that the district was not following evaluation procedures, providing services to the student in his LRE, or implementing the student’s IEP. The parent also requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE). In response the district filed a due process hearing request to show that its evaluation was appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The parent did not substantiate that the district failed to evaluate the student in all areas of his suspected disability, or that the student was entitled to an IEE. The parent also did not substantiate that the district failed to educate the student in his LRE or implement the student’s IEP. However, the ALJ also found that the district failed to complete the student’s reevaluation within 35 school days and failed to update the student’s June 2012 IEP, which amounted to a denial of FAPE. The district was ordered to provide the student with compensatory services for the denial of FAPE. The ALJ denied all of the other parent requests.


2012-SE-0068 Seattle SD (Wacker)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEP Content; IEP Implementation; Parent Participation; Prior Written Notice; Private School/Reimbursement; Progress Reporting; Staff Qualifications; Statute of Limitations; Student Records

BACKGROUND: The parents placed the student in private school, filed a due process request, and requested that the district pay for the private school placement, including transportation. The parents alleged that the district denied the student a FAPE due to issues with the evaluation procedures, parent participation, IEP implementation, progress reporting, and staffing. The parents also requested that the ALJ consider issues that arose more than two years from the due process request stating the district intentionally misrepresented and/or withheld information from the parents.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the parents did not establish an exception to the statute of limitations. The ALJ also found that the district failed to evaluate the student’s auditory processing needs and, as a result, ordered compensatory education in study and organizational skills. The ALJ denied the parents’ requests for other remedies.


2012-SE-0069 Seattle (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Child Find; Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); Private School; Statute of Limitations

BACKGROUND: During the 2009-2010 school year the student attended a district elementary school and experienced problems with reading and writing. Although the teacher agreed to refer the student to the district’s school intervention team review, she did not do so. Later in the school year, the parents asked the district to evaluate the student. In response, the school intervention team reviewed the information about the student, but decided not to evaluate the student. They agreed to review the academic information at the beginning of the next school year, but did not do so. In January 2011, the district referred the student for an initial evaluation and the student was determined eligible the next month. After the team developed the student’s IEP, and the student received specially designed instruction in reading and writing, but little data was kept on his progress toward annual goals. During the 2011-2012 school year, the amount of the student’s special education services were increased, but he continued to struggle academically. In the spring of 2012, the student began to have panic attacks and also experienced depression attributed to stress from school. Over the summer of 2012 the student attended a program at a private school which specialized in students with language and reading disabilities. In the summer, the parents initiated a due process request, alleging that the district failed to identify the student, and failed to provide the student with a FAPE. The parents requested a private school placement.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parents) Although the ALJ did not consider the initial referral because it was outside of the timelines for a due process hearing, the ALJ found that the district failed to evaluate and identify the student for special education in 2010. The ALJ also found that district denied the student FAPE by failing to provide appropriate special education services. This was because the district did not develop measurable annual goals, maintain progress data, or show that the student made progress towards his annual goals. The ALJ determined that the private school was an appropriate placement for the student and ordered the district to pay for the costs of tuition and transportation.


2012-SE-0076 Seattle SD (Wacker)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); IEP Content; Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Parent Participation; Placement

BACKGROUND: The student was medically fragile, non-verbal and required assistance throughout the day. The parent alleged that the district denied the student a FAPE by not placing the student in a school chosen by the parent, failed to place the student in his LRE and failed to create an IEP that would allow the student to obtain an educational benefit. The parent also alleged that the district failed to allow the parent meaningful participation in the IEP process and placement decisions.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that student’s annual goals and special education services were reasonably designed to provide the student with an educational benefit. The ALJ also found that the student’s placement was his LRE. Finally, the ALJ found that the parent had been allowed meaningful participation in the IEP and placement decision process.


2012-SE-0084 North Thurston (Mentzer)   

Issues:  Consent; Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); Parent Participation; Related Services

BACKGROUND: The student is a diabetic, whose medical needs required that her blood sugar level be tested at least every two hours. During the 2010-2011 school year the student’s mother and grandmother attended school with the student in order to check her blood sugar when required. At the end of the school year, the parents asked the district provide a nurse to check the student’s blood sugar during the upcoming 2011-2012 school year. While the district initially agreed, it did not arrange for care and requested that the parents provide a number of doctor’s orders addressing the student’s medical needs. When the parents set a date to stop providing the care for the student at school, the district informed the parents that the student would be transferred to another school within a few days. The parents filed a due process hearing request alleging the district was not providing implementing the student’s IEP and did not ensure the parent’s participation in meetings.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the district failed to provide the student nursing services and failed to provide the student a voice amplification system which was a denial of FAPE. The ALJ also found that the district failed to obtain the parents’ consent before conducting an FBA and failed to provide an appropriate BIP for the student. The parents did not substantiate that they were denied opportunities to participate in meetings. The ALJ ordered the district to provide the student compensatory education.


2012-SE-0088X Seattle SD (Senter)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Discipline

BACKGROUND: The student had a current IEP and behavior intervention plan (BIP). The student had a history of bringing inappropriate items to school. There was also an informal plan, not part of BIP, which required the student to check in daily with a teacher to have his backpack and pockets checked. During the daily check, the teacher found a suspicious container that contained gunpowder, an old firecracker, fuses and a plastic bag with match heads. The district emergency expelled the student and held a manifestation determination meeting with the parent and other members of the IEP team. The IEP team determined the student’s action was not a manifestation of his disability, because of the planned nature of the activity. The parent disagreed with the team’s decision and filed a due process hearing request.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the district did not consider all of the student’s disabilities when making the manifestation determination. However, the ALJ found that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the student’s conduct was a manifestation of the student’s disability and ordered the district to hold another manifestation determination hearing.


2012-SE-0094 Moses Lake SD (Wacker)  

Issues:  IEP Procedures

BACKGROUND: The parent alleged that the district failed to implement a new IEP at the being of the school year and as a result, denied the student a free appropriate public education. The parent requested that the ALJ order a private placement at district expense.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) While the parent and district had agreed that the IEP would be revised at the beginning of the school year, the IEP team did not finalize the IEP at that time. However, the student’s annual IEP was still in effect, and the ALJ found no procedural or substantive violations.


2011 Due Process Decisions

2011-SE-0013  Federal Way SD (Smith)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Assistive Technology; FAPE; IEP Implementation; Private School/Reimbursement

BACKGROUND: The parent filed a due process hearing request after she removed the student from the district and placed him in a private school. She alleged that the district failed to address all of the student’s needs resulting from his disabilities including assistive technology, that the district did not implement the IEP, and that he was subjected to bullying and harassment to the extent that it resulted in a denial of FAPE. The parent requested that the district be ordered to fund the private placement and provide the student with compensatory education.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The student’s evaluations were comprehensive, and although the student made slow progress in some areas, he did receive a FAPE. The ALJ also found that the district responded to and addressed any complaints of bullying and harassment. The parent’s requests were denied.


2011-SE-0017X; 2011-SE-0018X; 2010-SE-0097  Renton Way SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Consent; Discipline; IEP Implementation; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The district originally requested that the ALJ override the parents’ failure to provide informed consent for a reevaluation. The district requested the reevaluation because the student’s behavior and responsiveness had deteriorated, affecting his ability to complete academics, and increasing his dangerous behavior. Originally the parties agreed to a reevaluation, however the parents later revoked consent, and the district reinstated their due process request. The district emergency expelled the student after he assaulted another person. After the expulsion, the district found that the student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. The parents filed a due process, contesting the determination that the behavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability and stating that in addition, the district failed to implement the student’s IEP and failed to allow his participation in PE. The district filed a new due process request, and asked that the ALJ remove the student to an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) due to the student’s danger to himself and others. The three cases were consolidated.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ granted the district’s request to override the parent’s refusal to consent to the reevaluation. With regard to the manifestation determination meeting, held after the emergency expulsion, the ALJ found that the district erred in determining that the behavior was not a manifestation of his disability, given the student’s behavior changes and the information the district had, not only about information contained in the last evaluation, but information about the student’s current behaviors. However, the ALJ also agreed with the district that the student’s behaviors presented a danger to himself and others, and granted the district’s request to remove the student to an IAES. While the ALJ did not order compensatory education for the days of removal attributed to the manifestation determination, she did require the district to review the amount of services provided on a weekly basis to determine whether the student could receive increased services while in the IAES.


2011-SE-0020X  Lake Washington SD (Conklin)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Child Find; Discipline; FAPE; IEP Procedures; Initial Evaluation; Parent Participation; Procedural Safeguards

BACKGROUND: Near the end of the 2008-2009 school year, the parents emailed the district addressing their concerns about the student’s progress. A teacher responded to the email stating that the student should be referred for a special education evaluation, but took no steps to do so or inform the parents of their procedural safeguards. At the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, the parents provided information to the district regarding the student’s anxiety. At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, the student was suspended from school. In addition another student obtained a restraining order which prevented the student from attending his assigned school. The district referred the student for a special education evaluation in October 2011, and requested the parents’ consent. The parents refused consent, due to a lack of trust in the district. The parents filed a due process request in February 2011, requesting IEP development, placement at another school and compensatory education.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the district was in violation of its child find procedures from 2009 and the requirement that the district provide the parents with their procedural safeguards, until the fall of 2011, when the parents refused to consent to the special education evaluation. Given the parents subsequent refusal to consent to an evaluation, the ALJ found that the student could not be determined eligible for special education. The ALJ also found that the district was not deemed have knowledge that the student needed an evaluation, and was not entitled to protections under IDEA. While there was no student specific remedy the ALJ urged the district and parents to work together to allow an evaluation of the student.


2011-SE-0036  Lakewood SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Initial Evaluation

BACKGROUND: The student was previously eligible for Part C early intervention services. The district conducted an initial evaluation of the student to determine eligibility for Part B services and found that the student did not meet eligibility for special education and related services, because the student did not require specially designed instruction. The parents requested a due process hearing contesting the district’s evaluation and eligibility determination.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the district’s evaluation of the student was comprehensive. He further found that while the student had significant medical issues, there was no showing that these issues could not be addressed through providing accommodations to the student. Because the student required only accommodations, the student was not eligible for special education.


2011-SE-0063  Renton SD (See also 2010-SE-0097; 2011-SE-0017X; and, 2011-SE-0018X) (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  FAPE

BACKGROUND: The parties previously participated in due process hearings addressing the student’s need for a reevaluation, and placement in an IAES. The parents alleged that the district failed to return the student to a school setting after the expiration of the IAES and requested that the student be allowed to return to school or in the alternative, the district provide a 6.5 hour school day in the student’s home and compensation for expenses incurred by the parents for supervision of the student.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) After the district completed the student’s reevaluation and the IEP team developed the IEP, the team determined the student would receive services in a private placement. During the summer the student began attending the private school for a shortened day to allow time for the student to transition from home, where he had been successful, to another setting. The setting was not successful during the summer transition and the private school notified the district that it would not be able to serve the student. The district again began to provide services in the home. The ALJ found that based on the IEP and BIP, a gradual increase in service time was appropriate, and this did not result in a FAPE violation. The ALJ also found that once the district knew that the private placement was not available, the district denied the student FAPE by failing to either find another private placement, or begin the process of amending the student’s IEP so that it could provide some of the services identified in the IEP. The ALJ ordered compensatory education for missed services, and ordered that the student be gradually moved to a setting other than the home, depending on the student’s ability to tolerate another setting. The ALJ denied the parent’s request for reimbursement for supervision while in the home setting.


2011-SE-0064  Kiona-Benton SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: Behavior; ESY; Harassment; Initial Evaluation; Placement; Private School/Reimbursement; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The parents filed a due process hearing request alleging the district failed to conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation, including a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and development of a behavior intervention plan, and failed to comprehensively reevaluate the student, including addressing the student’s behaviors the following school year. In addition the parents alleged that the student was subjected to bullying and harassment to the extent that it denied the student a FAPE. Finally, the parents alleged that after a short term agreement to place the student in a private placement to address mental health issues, the district predetermined placement the following school year. The student was not enrolled in school during the hearing and at the time of the decision.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ concluded that given the evidence about the student missing significant instructional time, the district failed to address the need for positive behavioral supports to reduce his class avoidance. This failure resulted in a denial for FAPE to the student. The ALJ also determined the district predetermined placement of the student for the following school year. The ALJ determined the district responded appropriately to incidents of bullying; the evidence did not support a requirement for extended school year services; and denied the parents request for a private placement. He ordered the district to provide tutoring as compensatory education and ordered that an FBA be conducted by an outside evaluator should the student reenroll in the district.


2011-SE-0073  Clover Park SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Behavior; IEP Implementation and Procedures; Initial Evaluation; Parent Participation; Placement; Progress Reporting; Student Records

BACKGROUND: The student transferred into the district from another district preschool. At the time of the transfer, the student was not eligible for special education. The parent requested an evaluation of the student due to behavioral difficulties in the current preschool program. After reviewing the student’s information, district determined that it would evaluate the student. Before the completion of the evaluation, the student was removed from the preschool program for behavioral outbursts. After the IEP was developed, the student continued to have behavioral issues. The parent filed a due process request alleging that the evaluation was not comprehensive, that the district failed to implement the IEP resulting in disciplinary removals from school; that the district did not consider parent input, and the district predetermined placement of the student. The parent requested that the student be placed in another school in another district, or in a private placement.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) While the student experienced many behavioral difficulties, the district conducted a comprehensive evaluation and implemented the student’s IEP. The record did not support a failure on the part of the district to consider parent participation, nor did the district predetermine placement. The ALJ denied the parent’s requested remedies


2011-SE-0087  Bellevue SD (Mentzer)   Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEP Implementation; Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Private School/Reimbursement; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: After the student was unsuccessful at school, the parents enrolled the student in a private school and asked that the district fund the placement, stating that the district did not have a program to meet his needs. The district agreed to consider the placement and proposed another reevaluation. After testing, the district decided that the student’s eligibility category should be changed to autism and that the student should be placed in newly created program. The parents disagreed with the decision, and filed a due process hearing request.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found that the district failed to provide the parents with prior written notice regarding placement in the new program and failed to explain how the placement met the student’s LRE. The ALJ also found that the district failed to: write specific and measurable goals in the student’s IEP; properly implement the student’s IEP; and, provide services in a setting that was the student’s LRE. The ALJ concluded that the private school was an appropriate placement and ordered the district to pay for the private placement.


2011-SE-0092  Lake Washington SD (Senter)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: Consent; Initial Evaluation; Student Transfer

BACKGROUND: After the student moved to the district from another state, the district determined that it needed to conduct an initial evaluation to determine eligibility for special education services in this state. The parent refused to provide consent for the evaluation, stating that sufficient evaluations were conducted in the other state and less than a year had passed from the evaluation conducted in the other state. The district filed a due process to override the parent’s consent.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ issued an order overriding the parent’s refusal to consent for the evaluation. She noted that the federal and state laws, and US Department of Education guidance made clear that a district could conduct an initial evaluation in the new state if it determined that the evaluation from the other state did not meet the current state’s eligibility guidelines.


2011-SE-0104  Bellevue SD ALJ: Mentzer    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Accommodations; IEP Implementation; Parent Participation; Private School Reimbursement; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The parents filed a due process request after unilaterally placing the student in a private school. They alleged that the district failed to implement portions of the IEP; failed to conduct a functional behavioral or assistive technology assessment (FBA/AT); significantly impeded their rights to participate in the IEP process and failed to provide access to the student’s educational records. They requested that the district fund the private placement and a one on one aide; and reimburse the parents for private placement costs incurred prior to the hearing. They also requested compensatory education to address the student’s speech and language needs and asked that the district be required to conduct an FBA and an assessment of the student’s AT needs.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the parents were not denied participation in the IEP process, and that the district was not required to hold weekly IEP meetings in response to parent requests. While the district’s measure of progress was not always consistent with the IEP measurements, this procedural violation did not impede with the parent’s participation rights. The district provided required periodic reports on progress. The ALJ also found that the parents were provided with access to educational records. Addressing implementation, the ALJ found that the parents did not substantiate a failure to implement the IEP goals, or provide accommodations. To the extent the district delayed in providing the AT evaluation, this was not shown to deny the student a FAPE. The district had already conducted an FBA and the ALJ concluded that the district was not required to conduct another FBA. The ALJ denied the parents’ request for private school placement and other remedies.


2010 Due Process Decisions

2010-SE-0008  Grandview SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Assistive Technology; FAPE; IEP Content and Implementation; LRE; Native Language; Parent Participation; Placement; Progress Reporting; Statute of Limitations.

BACKGROUND: The parent alleged that the district failed to provide the student with an appropriate program since kindergarten. According to the parent, the student was not provided intensive speech services to address his communication skills due to his hearing loss, failed to provide him with needed supports and services, including an FM system, and sign language instruction. She also alleged the district changed his placement from self contained settings to general education settings without evaluative data, and did not provide her with accurate progress reporting. At the time of the hearing, the student was in 11th grade. Due to the parent’s language barrier and allegations that the district did not provide the parent with notices in her native language, or appropriate interpretation, the parent also argued that the time limitation for addressing district violations should be extended to the student’s kindergarten year. The parent requested reimbursement for an independent educational evaluation; private educational placement; compensatory education and costs for bringing the due process hearing.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parent) At a preliminary hearing, the ALJ found that the parent’s request was not limited to 2 years because of deficiencies in notices provided to the parent. The hearing involved allegations regarding appropriate services back to the student’s kindergarten year. As a result of the hearing, the ALJ ordered the district to reimburse the parent for one of two independent evaluations obtained by the parent. The district was also ordered to contract with the two private evaluators to design and implement the student’s educational program and placement for a period of 6 years; the ALJ did not specify a placement. The ALJ denied the parent’s requests for translation, and 500 hours of ASL training for the parent.


2010-SE-0020  Renton SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEE

BACKGROUND: The district filed a request for a due process hearing in response to the parent’s request for an IEE.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the district’s evaluation of the student was appropriate.


2010-SE-0038  Renton SD (Conklin)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Child Find; Consent; Eligibility; Private School/Reimbursement; Statute of Limitations

BACKGROUND: The student previously received home school support services from the district. In 2007, the parents provided the district with a letter from a doctor, indicating that the student had health issues. The district did not find the student eligible for special education services at this time. The parents initially requested that the district pay for an IEE in 2007, and the district agreed to pay for the IEE. However, the parents did not identify a private evaluator until March 2009. After receiving the report, the district scheduled a meeting to review the results of the IEE and to address any additional areas of evaluation. The parents filed the due process request in April 2010, stating that the district failed to promptly pay for the IEE, and failed to timely identify the student as eligible for special education.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found some of the parents claims were time barred, due to their delay in filing a due process request after the initial eligibility denial in 2007. As to the other issues, the ALJ found that there was no evidence the district delayed in providing the IEE, given the parent’s delay in providing the name of a private evaluator. The district also met timelines for referral. Finally, the parents could not claim that the district failed to conduct the initial evaluation within 35 school days, because the parent’s had not yet provided consent for the initial evaluation.


2010-SE-0040  Spokane SD (Hansen)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEP Implementation and Procedures; Prior Written Notice

BACKGROUND: The parents alleged that the district failed to develop an appropriate IEP, failed to implement the IEP, and failed to provide prior written notice. The parent’s initial complaint and allegations included alleged violations while the student was provided a 504 plan prior to his eligibility for special education.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the district did not violate procedures in the development and implementation of the IEP, and that the district followed procedural requirements for providing notice.


2010-SE-0044  Spokane SD (Hansen)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEE; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The parents initially filed a due process hearing request regarding the district’s reevaluation of the student. The district filed this due process request in response to the parents’ request for an IEE. The matters were initially consolidated, however at the time of hearing, the parent’s initial request was continued and this matter proceeded separately.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the district conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of the student. The parents were not entitled to an IEE at public expense.


2010-SE-0047X  Name withheld (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Discipline, Eligibility

BACKGROUND: The student moved to the district at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year. When enrolling the student, the parent did not indicate that the student was eligible for special education. After receiving information from the other district, the district discovered that the student may have at one time been eligible for services, but had attended a behavioral school and had a 504 plan. At a meeting between the district and the parent, the parent indicated that she did not want special education services. The district later suspended the student and the parent enrolled him for a short time in a neighboring district. After the neighboring district suspended the student, the parent expressed a desire to reenroll in the district and receive special education services from the out-of-district behavioral program. The district requested consent for an evaluation. The parent did not provide consent and did not reenroll the student. She filed a due process hearing request, alleging the district did not follow discipline procedures, or provide the student with discipline protections under IDEA.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ concluded that the parent had effectively revoked consent for special education services at the beginning of the school year. The ALJ also noted that the parent had not provided consent for the district to evaluate the student. Therefore, the district was not required to provide the student with protections under IDEA.


2010-SE-0057  Central Valley SD (Gaffney)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  LRE; Placement

BACKGROUND: The parent alleged that the district should have placed the student in a district all day kindergarten with a one-on-one aide. She disagreed with the district’s determination that the student should receive the majority of her services in a self-contained special education classroom, with gradual integration in a general education kindergarten classroom. The district maintained that a full time general education classroom with an aide would be more restrictive than the special education setting.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the district’s proposed placement was appropriate for the student.


2010-SE-0058  Central Valley SD (Gaffney)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  LRE; Placement

BACKGROUND: The parent requested a due process hearing alleging that the district’s proposed placement part time in an ECEAP program and part time in a special education program did not offer the student an appropriate program. The parent believed that the student should spend more time with preschool peers in the ECEAP program.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that given the Student’s cognitive ability and special education needs, the district’s proposed program was appropriate.


2010-SE-0059  Seattle SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Related Services

BACKGROUND: The student required structured support and adult assistance. The parent requested a due process hearing alleging that the student required a specific, dedicated one-on-one aide in order to make progress in his program, rather than adult support available to the student in the classroom.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ noted that the parent did not object to the student’s goals in his IEP and that the parent agreed the student made progress towards his goals. The ALJ found that a one-on-one aide was not required for the student to have a free appropriate public education.


2010-SE-0079 and 0092 Spokane SD (Gaffney)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEE, Related Services

BACKGROUND: The parent originally filed a due process hearing request alleging the student required a one-on-one aide due to his propensity for self-injury. After the parent filed her request, she requested the district pay for an IEE. In response, the district filed a due process request, defending the appropriateness of their evaluation. The ALJ consolidated these two requests.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The student made progress towards many of his IEP goals. Although he did not meet all of his annual goals for adaptive behavior, the ALJ found that the evidence did not support the need for a one-on-one aide. The ALJ also found that the district’s evaluation of the student was appropriate, and denied the parent’s request for reimbursement.


2010-SE-0081  Northshore SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Native Language; Parent Participation; Placement

BACKGROUND: The parents requested a due process hearing, and asked that the district pay for a private placement. The parents opposed the district’s proposal to move the student to a more restrictive setting to address cognitive, adaptive and communication issues. The parents also alleged they were denied participation in the IEP and evaluation process and that the district did not consider the student’s or parents’ native language.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the parents participated in evaluation and IEP decisions, noting that disagreement with a proposal did not mean the parents were not afforded an opportunity to participate. Based on the evidence, English was the language used by the student, and the student’s providers and private evaluators used English when communicating with the student. Finding no procedural or substantive violations under IDEA, the ALJ denied the parents’ request for a private placement.


2010-SE-0098  Yelm SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Discipline; IEP Implementation; Parent Participation

BACKGROUND: The parents filed a due process hearing request alleging the district erred the prior school year, when it determined the student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. The parents also alleged they were denied meaningful participation in IEP meetings, including the manifestation meeting, and in response to parent concerns about the IEP.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ concluded the district erred when it determined that the student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. In addition to considering the student’s actual diagnosis, the district should have considered other available information, including reviewing past student behaviors, when making the determination. However, the ALJ disagreed with the parents’ assertion that they were not allowed to participate in the IEP and manifestation meetings, noting that parental disagreement with a proposal did not mean the parents were not allowed to participate. Finally the ALJ refused to order the district to expunge the disciplinary action from the student’s record, noting the imposition of discipline is governed under the general education discipline rules. The ALJ did not order compensatory education.


2010-SE-0110  Orting SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Accommodations; IEP Implementation; Parent Participation; Transition

BACKGROUND: The parents alleged the district failed to provide the student with services that would allow him to progress in his behavior, academic and transition goals. The parents also alleged they were denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in developing the student’s IEPs, when the district not include additional accommodations requested by the parent. As a remedy, the parents requested adoption of a revised IEP that addressed different transition services; private placement, and tutoring.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split) The ALJ found the parents were afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings involving the student’s program. In addition, the transition components, and accommodations addressed in the IEP were appropriate. However, the student did not progress in academics, and while the district’s reports of progress towards annual goals suggested the student was making progress, the measure they stated would be used, did not support the determination that the student had made progress. In addition, there was no showing the IEP team reconvened to address the student’s lack of progress. The ALJ ordered that the district provide the student with a one-to-one aide for his language arts class and ordered tutoring one hour per day for one year to address the student’s lack of progress in reading, writing and English. The ALJ denied the parent’s request for private placement.


 
2009 Due Process Decisions

2009-SE-0010X  Olympia SD (Burdue)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Discipline; Placement

BACKGROUND: The parents alleged that the district was removing the student regularly from his general education setting in response to behavioral incidents and had effectively placed the student in an interim alternative educational setting. In addition they alleged that the district failed to follow disciplinary procedures.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District)  The ALJ concluded that there was no evidence that the student was removed for disciplinary reasons more than 2.5 days, and that the student’s setting was not an interim alternative educational setting. Therefore, the district was not required to hold a manifestation determination meeting. The ALJ also found that the parents requested relief was beyond the scope of the hearing.


2009-SE-0013X  Auburn SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Discipline, IEP implementation; Placement

BACKGROUND: The student was in the 8th grade at the time of the due process hearing. The parent alleged that the district failed to provide paraeducator support and implement tracking and point systems. She also alleged that the district improperly removed the student from his current placement due to discipline and that the amendments to the IEP were disciplinary changes.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District)  The ALJ found that the District acted promptly in hiring and providing a paraeducator. While the actual start date did not coincide with date of the IEP, this was not a material failure to implement the IEP. The ALJ also found that the district properly amended the IEP ad that there were not disciplinary changes of placement. After the date of the request, the district had placed the student in an alternative educational placement. However, the ALJ found that this occurred outside of the scope of the due process hearing request and was not an issue to be addressed through the due process hearing.


2009-SE-0027  Seattle SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEP implementation; Parent Participation; Placement; Related Services

BACKGROUND: The student had a health impairment resulting in frequent absences. During one of the school years, the parents became dissatisfied with the SLP and requested that the district assign a new one, which the district declined to do. The parents filed a due process hearing request in which they alleged that the district failed to provide a tutor pursuant to the IEP developed the prior year, removed the provision of the tutor the following year, changed the students math instruction from a special education to general education setting, failed to provide an appropriate SLP services, and denied parent participation in IEP meetings when developing a revised IEP.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District)  The ALJ found that the District failed to provide tutoring in accordance with the IEP, which was required when the student was absent more than two days in a week. The issue of removal from the special education setting was separately resolved by the parent and District and not addressed in the decision. The ALJ concluded that the District made every effort to include the parents in the IEP meetings to address the revised IEPs, and found that the parent’s refusal to attend did not result in a procedural violation when the District proceeded to meet without their participation. The District was ordered to provide compensatory education to the student for the missed tutoring sessions.


2009-SE-0030  Olympia SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  IEP Implementation and Procedures; Behavior; Compensatory Education

BACKGROUND: The Parents alleged that the student had not progressed in her program for the past 2 years because the IEPs developed for the student were not appropriate. The District had been using a TEACCH methodology and the parents believed that the use of ABA was more appropriate, with increased intensity. The Parents requested that the District reimburse the parents for private provider services, development of an new IEP; reimbursement for the IEE provider’s attendance at meetings and compensatory services.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parent)  The ALJ found that the student made minimal progress towards goals in the student’s IEPs, that goals were not measurable, and that the district’s continued use of the TEACCH methodology was not appropriate, given the student’s progress. The ALJ also found that the IEE provider should have been reimbursed as an IEP team member. The ALJ ordered the district to revise the IEP, conduct a functional behavioral assessment, provide compensatory education, and reimburse the parents for private ABA services.


2009-SE-0046  Seattle SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  LRE; Parent Participation; Placement; Private School; Related Services

BACKGROUND: The Parents alleged that the district denied the student a FAPE by offering a placement in a classroom that did not include other students who were the same age; not providing Signing Exact English (SEE); not providing audiology services and not providing the parents sufficient notice of IEP meetings. They requested that the ALJ pay for private school placement, compensatory education and payment for private provider services.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (split) The ALJ concluded that the proposed placement in the district’s program offered the student a FAPE and denied the parent’s request for reimbursement for the parent’s private placement. Based on the testimony, the teachers and aies in the program could communicate with the student using SEE. He also found that while the district erred in not rescheduling an IEP meeting for the parents, this did not result in a FAPE denial, given the subsequent IEP meetings scheduled. He did find that the SLP services offered to the student were not appropriate, given the SLP’s lack of knowledge of SEE and her inability to communicate with the student. He ordered the district to provide compensatory SLP services by a provider familiar with SEE.


2009-SE-0059  Ellensburg SD (Shave)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Assistive Technology; Eligibility; Reevaluation; IEE; FAPE

BACKGROUND: The district held an evaluation meeting and exited a student from special education after the parents were providing home school services for reading and writing (areas for special education services.) The parents filed a due process objecting to the exit from special education and alleged that the district had not made services available to the student in his least restrictive environment. In addition, the parents alleged that while the district agreed to provide an IEE, it unilaterally limited the parents’ choice to evaluators of the district’s choosing.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parent) The district erred in exiting the student from special education. In addition while the student was enrolled, the district failed to provide services to the student, including a scribe and assistive technology. The ALJ found that the parents were did not have an adequate basis for refusing to let the student participate in the district’s reading program and reduced the amount of compensatory education award. The district was ordered to pay for the parent’s requested IEE’s; provide outside assistive technology training and consultation services; and revise the IEP after reviewing the results of the IEE, in addition to the order of compensatory services.


2009-SE-0081  Federal Way SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Initial evaluation; IEE

BACKGROUND: The district requested a due process hearing to show that its evaluation of the student was appropriate in response to parents’ request for an IEE.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the district) The ALJ found that the district’s evaluation of the student was appropriate.


2009-SE-0082  Mukilteo SD (Conklin)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Initial evaluation; IEE

BACKGROUND: The district requested a due process hearing in response to the parent’s request for an IEE.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parents) The ALJ determined that a combination of procedural errors, including delay in the evaluation process, failure to identify the areas for evaluation when it requested parent consent, and failure to include the parents in obtaining information to complete an evaluation rendered the district’s evaluation insufficient. The district was ordered to provide an IEE at public expense.


2009-SE-0095  Shoreline SD (Shave)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues:  Consent; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The district requested that the parent’s refusal to consent to a reevaluation be overridden. While the parent did not disagree that the student required a reevaluation, she objected to the district’s use of its evaluators and requested that the student’s private evaluation be used for the reevaluation. Prior to the hearing the parent had removed the student from the school district, and the reevaluation was overdue.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District.) The ALJ noted procedural errors occurred when the district failed to initially provide the parent with notice of the areas of evaluation and failed to notify the parent of a meeting to discuss the reevaluation. However she noted that these errors did not affect the districts requirement to reevaluate the student. In addition, she noted that while the parent could obtain private evaluations, this did not affect the district’s responsibility to conduct a reevaluation. The ALJ found that the student required a comprehensive evaluation to be performed by the district. She ordered that the parent’s refusal to consent was overridden and allowed the district to proceed with the reevaluation prior to providing educational services to him.


2008 Due Process Decisions

2008-SE-0010  Puyallup SD (Burdue)    Please call Administrative Resources to obtain a copy at (360) 725-6133

Issues:  IEP Content; Transition, Harassment, Initial Evaluation

BACKGROUND: The parents requested a due process hearing to address their allegations that the district failed to: properly evaluate the student using experts familiar with the students disability; develop implement and revise IEPs; provide appropriate speech services to the Student; respond to concerns regarding harassment; and, have qualified teachers to provide services. The parents also stated that the district changed the student’s placement when it moved the student to a work and life skills program, without a reevaluation, and also alleged the facilities at the new school were inadequate. The parents also raised procedural issues.  They requested compensatory education, review of future IEPs by an attorney chosen by the parents, a change from a functional program to an academic program and that the district provide an expert  with knowledge of the student’s disability to assist the student until age 21.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District)  The ALJ found that the district complied with procedural requirements when evaluating the student and developing the student’s IEPs.  This included consideration of parental input and that of the parent’s experts, and appropriate district evaluation group members. IEPs, including the transition components were properly developed. Any procedural inadequacies by the district did not amount to a denial of FAPE.  The ALJ found that there was no showing that harassment if any, was ignored by staff, nor was there a showing that the concerns of harassment raised by the parents resulted in a denial of FAPE.


2008-SE-0021X Federal Way SD (Burdue)   

Issue: Discipline; Placement

BACKGROUND: The District filed a due process hearing request asking that the ALJ order that the student remain in an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) because the student posed a substantial likelihood of injury. In their response, the adult student challenged the appropriateness of the IAES.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Adult Student) The ALJ found that that the Student’s charge of possession of a gun, off campus, without evidence of other behavior, did not provide a basis for a removal to an IAES based on a substantial likelihood of injury.  The ALJ ordered that the student be allowed to return to the school setting and that the IEP team convene to consider changes to the student’s IEP, functional behavior assessment or behavior improvement plan. 


2008-SE-0032 Everett SD (Kingsley)    Click here for the complete decision

Issue:  IEE

BACKGROUND: The District filed a due process hearing request to show that its evaluation was appropriate, in response to the parents’ request for an IEE. 

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the District’s evaluation was appropriate and the parents were not entitled to an IEE at public expense.


2008-SE-0033 Everett SD (Kingsley)    Click here for the complete decision

Issue:  IEE

BACKGROUND: The District filed a due process hearing request to show that its evaluation was appropriate, in response to the parents’ request for an IEE. 

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the District’s evaluation was appropriate and the parents were not entitled to an IEE at public expense.


2008-SE-0035 Seattle SD (Conklin)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: IEE

BACKGROUND: The District filed a due process hearing request to show that its evaluation was appropriate, in response to the parent’s request for an IEE. 

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District) The ALJ found that the District’s evaluation was appropriate and the parent was not entitled to an IEE at public expense. The ALJ also denied the parent’s request that the student receive services in a private school.


2008-SE-0047 South Kitsap SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: FAPE; IEP Content;  IEP Implementation

BACKGROUND: In their due process request, the parents alleged that the district did not implement the student’s IEPs and that the district changed terms of the IEP after the parents left the IEP meeting.  They requested revision of the current services to include accommodations for test taking and a one-on-one paraeducator for reading and writing.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split between the parents and district) The ALJ found that the District did not violate procedures when they completed an IEP after the parents left the meeting.  Analyzing three time periods for services, the ALJ found the district did not implement services for the student for reading and written expression for portions of the prior two school years.  The ALJ ordered compensatory services for reading and written expression. 


2008-SE-0055  Tacoma SD (Shave)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: FAPE, IEP Implementation; Parent Participation; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The Parent alleged that the district did not inform the Student’s teachers of the contents of the IEPs, and as a result, the teachers did not implement accommodations.  The Parent also alleged that the district did not provide appropriate paraeducator, counseling and behavior support, or other required related services to the Student.  Finally the parent alleged that the district did not consider input from the parent when developing IEPs, and in its reevaluation of the student, resulting from a determination that the student no longer required special education services.  

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (for the district) The ALJ found that while the District made a procedural violation when it did not consider an IEE provided by the parent, that violation was not significant because the information in the IEE was based on faulty information.  The ALJ found that the district provided the student with a FAPE, and that its reevaluation resulting in termination of special education services was appropriate.


2008-SE-0059 Seattle SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: Consent, IEE

BACKGROUND: The district filed a due process hearing request after the parent requested that district provide an IEE at public expense.  The district asserted that it had not completed a reevaluation of the student because the parent would not provide consent for the reevaluation, and also stated that the parent’s request for an IEE was premature.  It requested that the ALJ deny the parent’s request for an IEE and override the parent’s refusal to provide consent;

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (for the district)  The ALJ granted the district’s request to override the parents refusal to consent to the evaluation and denied the IEE, noting that the request was premature.


2008-SE-0063  Tacoma SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: IEP implementation; LRE; Parent Participation

BACKGROUND: The Parent alleged that the District did not provide the Student with the services required on his IEP, and did not provide the services in the student’s least restrictive environment. When the student moved from elementary to middle school, he did not receive services in the recommended setting and his general education teachers were not provided information regarding their obligations to implement the student’s accommodations.  The parent requested placement in a private school.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parent) The ALJ found that the district failed to implement the Student’s IEPs by failing to provide the student with accommodations, and did not provide the student with access to general education instruction in science and social studies.  The ALJ denied the parent’s request for a private school placement, if the district could offer a program in one of its middle schools that would address the Student’s need for a smaller size class in all areas, but ordered the district to pay for placement at a private school, if it was unable to offer a program the met the student’s needs.  The ALJ also ordered private tutoring, attendance at a science came, music lessons and reimbursement for the cost of the application to private school. 


2008-SE-0064 Lake Washington SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: Extended School Year; IEP implementation; Parent Participation;

BACKGROUND: The Parents alleged that the District did not provide implement the Student’s IEPs, in particular due to the communication plan between the parents and the district, and lack of progress reporting.  They also alleged that the Student’s ESY program was not appropriate due to the severity of needs of other student’s in the program.  Finally they stated that the lack of effective communication, with the district and the district’s limits on the parent’s volunteer opportunities, prevented them from effectively participating in the Student program.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District)  The ALJ noted that the District failed to notify the Parents of one IEP meeting due to a clerical error, however noted that the error did not infringe on the parent’s right to participate because the District promptly rescheduled the meeting.  In addition, while there were allegations that the Parents were denied participation in school activities, this did not deny their ability to participate in other ways. The ALJ further found that the Parents did not establish that the District did not implement the student’s IEPs including ESY, or that the parents did not receive progress reports.


2008-SE-0070 Clover Park SD (Shave)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: Initial Evaluation; Student Transfer

BACKGROUND: The parents filed a due process request alleging the district did not provide special education services to the student.  The student transferred to the district from Puerto Rico.  The parent was not fluent in English.  While the parent provided the district with evidence that the student was eligible for special education services, she had not provided the district with complete records.  The student did not receive special education services.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: For the Parent) The ALJ found that the district did not take steps to obtain records from the prior school district and did not provide the student with services.  The ALJ ordered that the district provide an IEE at public expense and provide the student with compensatory services. 


2008-SE-0086 Bethel SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: Compensatory Education; FAPE; IEP Implementation

BACKGROUND: The parent alleged that the district failed to implement the student’s IEPs for 2 years, resulting in a denial of FAPE. The students program was in a self contained setting with a teacher and paraeducator prior to an agreement between the parent and district to provide services in the home. Because the parent stated that the student had limited stamina, she requested that compensatory education be delayed until after the student turned 21, which would be 6 years after the hearing.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split between the parents and district) While the ALJ found that the district did not implement some aspects of the student’s program, he did not order compensatory education, finding that it would be speculative to determine what programs or services he would need in the future.  


2008-SE-0100 Tahoma SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: IEP Implementation; Parent Participation

BACKGROUND: The parents alleged that the district failed to implement the student’s IEPs for two school years, and did not respond to parent concerns regarding the student’s education. 

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parent) The district acknowledged that it failed to provide specially designed instruction for the student during the first of two disputed IEPs, and the first part of the second IEP.  The District stated that the student failed to participate when SDI was offered through a drop in model.  The ALJ found that regardless of the explanation, the student did not receive his special education services, in accordance with the IEP, and that the lack services resulted in a denial of FAPE.  The ALJ ordered the district to provide 25 hours of compensatory special education services. 


2008-SE-0111 and 121 Moses Lake SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: Assistive Technology; IEE

BACKGROUND: The parents filed the first request for due process alleging that the district did not address the student’s assistive technology needs in his IEP and the student did not have access to recommended assistive technology.  In response to the parents requested remedy for an IEE, the district filed the second due process request, stating that its evaluation of the student was appropriate and the parent’s were not entitled to an IEE.  The two cases were consolidated.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the Parents) The ALJ determined that the collaboration provided by the state needs center was not a sufficient assessment of the Student’s assistive technology needs. The ALJ ordered that the district pay for an assistive technology assessment at public expense.  Pending the results of the IEE, the district was order to purchase current recommended software and provide the student with access to the programs in both his special and general education settings.  Finally the ALJ ordered that the District provide training to the Student and staff on the software programs.


2008-SE-0115 and 0120 Monroe SD (Mentzer)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: FAPE; IEE; IEP Procedures; Private School; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The parents alleged that the district’s IEPs did not provide the student with FAPE, that the student regressed while in school and that the district’s program was not appropriate for the student. They requested that the district reimburse the parents for their private residential placement. In response to the parent’s request for an IEE, the district filed a due process hearing request to show that its evaluation was appropriate. The two cases were consolidated at hearing.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split between the parents and district) The ALJ determined that the district failed to provide two years of progress reporting and did not implement all aspects of the IEPs, both of which were procedural violations denying the student with FAPE. The ALJ also determined that the district’s evaluation was appropriate and denied the parents request for a reimbursement of an IEE. Despite the FAPE violations, the ALJ determined that residential placement was not an appropriate remedy. The district was order to provide compensatory education, one-on-one tutoring and parent counseling.


2008-SE-00126 Moses Lake SD (Wacker)    Click here for the complete decision

Issues: IEE

BACKGROUND: The Parents requested the District provide an IEE at public expense arguing that the District’s evaluation was not appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District).  The ALJ concluded that the District’s evaluation was appropriate and denied the parent’s request for an IEE at public expense.


2007 Due Process Decisions

2007-SE-0001 Tumwater SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Shave 

Issues: Compensatory Education; Reevaluation;  Parent Involvement; Placement; Procedural Safeguards; Student Records; Student Transfer

BACKGROUND:  A student transferred from out of state with a current IEP. The parents requested a hearing after filing a citizen’s complaint.  They alleged that the district did not implement the out of state IEP, did not consider outside evaluations of the student, and that the district’s evaluation of the student was not comprehensive. In addition the parents alleged that the district did not have trained staff, and that the district violated the parent’s procedural safeguards.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:   (For parents). The ALJ found that the district failed to implement the student’s out of state IEP and reduced the services provided to the student.  The district failed to provide the student with necessary supports, including counseling, vision therapy, and direct OT services.

In awarding compensatory education, the ALJ considered the district’s procedural violations, and the parent’s unwillingness to return the student to school, and adjusted compensatory education accordingly.


2007-SE-0003 Issaquah SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin

Issues: Behavior; Compensatory Education; ESY; Methodology; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND:  The parents alleged that the district failed to develop a program which addressed the student’s behavioral needs and requested that the district hire a consultant selected by the parents.  The parents request was limited to two years from the filing of the due process hearing request.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:    (Split for the district and the parents). The student had demonstrated academic and behavioral progress. However, the district did not individually determine ESY services for the student, keep the parents informed of behavioral incidences in accordance with the IEP and did not provide progress reporting as often as the IEP indicated.   The district was ordered to provide 40 hours of consultative services to address the district’s substantive procedural violations.  The ALJ denied the parent’s requests for a specific provider and a specific methodology.


2007-SE-0012 Lake Washington SD     Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin

Issues: IEP Implementation; IEP Content; Parent Participation; Placement; Reevaluation; Staff Qualifications

BACKGROUND:  The parent had requested an IEE the prior school year, with the intention that the student’s IEP be reviewed at the beginning of the year.  At the beginning of the year, the parent did not let the student attend school until the IEP team met.  In addition, the Student’s private speech services were delayed when the district did not complete its contract with the provider.  The parent filed a due process hearing request alleging that the district failed to hold a meeting after the completion of the IEEs, that she was denied meaningful participation in the IEP meeting, and that the district failed to implement an appropriate program.  The parent also objected to the change in the student’s disability category.   The parent requested placement in a private school.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:     (Split for the district and the parents). The district violated special education procedures when it did not allow the parent to participate in an IEP meeting.  At the meeting the student’s private SLP was not allowed to speak.  It also failed to hold a resolution session within fifteen days of the initial due process request.  It failed to provide the student with SLP services.  However, the district did hold the IEP meeting within 30 days after receiving the IEE’s, and completing its reevaluation report.  In addition, it did not error in changing the student’s eligibility category.  Finally, the student was showing progress towards his special education goals. The ALJ denied the parent’s request for private placement, but ordered additional SLP and tutoring services for the missed SLP sessions, the failure to allow the parent participation in the IEP meeting and the failure to schedule the first resolution session prior to the parent’s amendment.  The district was also ordered to hold another IEP team meeting to allow the parents to have meaningful participation in the formulation of the student’s IEP.


2007-SE-0015 & 0017 Seattle SD     Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin

Issues: IEE; Placement; Reevaluation; IEP Content

BACKGROUND:  The district filed a hearing request in response to the parent’s request for an IEE.  The parent filed a request a few days later.  The two hearings were consolidated.  The parent alleged that the IEP was not appropriate, and the IEP was not implemented, resulting in a denial of FAPE.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split for the district and the parents) The district did not do a comprehensive evaluation of the student in 2005.  The district was ordered to pay for the IEE.   The district did not implement portions of the IEP relating to transition and providing a one on one aide.  These were substantive violations resulting in compensatory education. The district was ordered to provide a one-on-one aide for the student. The ALJ denied the parent’s request for a home/community placement.


2007-SE-0031 Central Valley SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Hansen

Issue: IEE

BACKGROUND: The parent disagreed with the district’s evaluation which included assessments of standers for use by the student.  They requested an IEE. The district requested a hearing to establish that its evaluation was appropriate. 

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the district). The ALJ found that the district’s evaluation was appropriate and denied the parent’s request for an IEE at public expense.


2007-SE-0035, Seattle SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Kingsley      

Issues: Child Find; Compensatory Education; Student Transfer

BACKGROUND: The parent requested a hearing alleging that the district’s termination of the acceptance of the student through non-resident procedures was a violation of FAPE. The District originally accepted the student, but after an evaluation and a determination that the student was eligible for special education, the district determined that it did not have capacity to serve the student in the district.  

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (Split for the parent and district). Addressing the general education non-resident procedures, the ALJ determined that the due process hearing procedures could address termination prior to the end of the school year, because the proposal to terminate enrollment in the district was similar to a disciplinary change of placement given that it occurred prior to the end of the school year.  The ALJ also determined that the district made placement decisions prior to development of the IEP when it proposed placement in an EBD classroom.  However, the ALJ found that given that this proposal was appropriate, the procedural violation did not deny the student a FAPE.  The ALJ ordered 20 days of compensatory education to address the district’s failure to implement the IEP at the end of the school year.


2007-SE-0055, Federal Way SD        Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Burdue        

Issues: FAPE; IEP Implementation; Private School Reimbursement

BACKGROUND: The parent alleged that the district failed to develop and implement an IEP that afforded the student with a FAPE.  The parent requested reimbursement for the student’s private placement.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the district). The ALJ concluded that the district’s IEP was appropriate and properly implemented in the public school prior to the student’s removal.  The testimony that the student was more comfortable at the private school does not rise to a finding that the school is more appropriate.  The parent was not entitled to tuition reimbursement for the private school placement.


2007-SE-0068, Tumwater SD            Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Kingsley

Issues: Eligibility; IEE

BACKGROUND: The parent contested the district’s determination that the student did not qualify for special education.  The parents requested that the district pay for an IEE. 

CONCLUSIONS:  (Split for parent and district) The ALJ ordered the district to pay for two evaluations paid for by the parent as part of the district’s eligibility determination.  While the district did not err in determining that the student did not qualify for special education, it should not have required the parent to pay for outside medical evaluations when it determined that this information was necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation.  The parent’s request for an additional IEE was denied.


2007-SE-0079 & 0080, Lake Washington SD        Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Harvin-Woode

Issues: IEE; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND: The district filed a due process request, asserting that its reevaluation was incomplete and that it should not have to pay for the parent’s request for an IEE.  The parent filed a hearing request to assert that the district’s evaluation was not appropriate and requested an IEE at public expense.  The two hearings were consolidated. 

CONCLUSIONS:  (For the District)The ALJ concluded that because the district had not yet completed its evaluation, and that the parents were not yet entitled to request an IEE at public expense.


2007-SE-0088 Tacoma            Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Harvin-Woode

Issues: Discipline; IEP Content; Private School Reimbursement

BACKGROUND: The parents initially requested an expited hearing alleging that the district had failed to provide the student with a FAPE during disciplinary removals. However, after several amendments the request was modified to also include service and IEP development issues for the prior two school years. In response, the district proposed that the student be provided services in a non-public agency placement as the least restrictive setting for the student.

CONCLUSIONS: (Split for parent and district) The ALJ concluded that the student’s disciplinary removals were not a denial of FAPE, however the student’s IEPs and behavioral intervention plans did not provide a FAPE for the student.  The ALJ agreed with the district that the Student’s least restrictive environment was in a private school placement.  She also ordered tutoring and counseling as compensatory services and ordered the district to provide an assistive technology assessment.


2007-SE-0090 Kent SD           Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Kingsly

Issues: Eligibility; IEP Content; Private School Reimbursement

BACKGROUND: The parents previously filed a due process complaint alleging that the district failed to evaluate the student for special education eligibility.  The parents placed the student in a private school.  The parent and district reached resolution and the district agreed to evaluate the student, and if eligible propose a placement.  After the district evaluated the student, it proposed an IEP and placement at a district high school.  The parents filed a new request, alleging that the IEP was inappropriate and requested that the district reimburse the parents for tuition, and order continued placement at the private school.

CONCLUSIONS:  (For the District) While compliance with resolution agreements is not a matter addressed in due process hearings, the district’s compliance with the agreement was relevant to the issue of evaluation, IEP development and placement.  The ALJ determined that the district conducted an evaluation, developed an appropriate IEP and made a placement determination that could be implemented at the public school.  The ALJ denied the parent’s request for tuition reimbursement and placement at the private school.


2007-SE-0106 Maryville SD            Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Mentzer

Issues: IEP Content

BACKGROUND: The parents filed a due process complaint alleging that the IEP proposed by the district for a 19 year old student in a transition and work based learning program did not meet the student’s needs for speech therapy services. because it eliminated most of the student’s communication goals, reduced services from two hours per week to one hour, provided for services in a combination of a group and one-to-one setting, and changed the provider from a private program contracted by the district to a district employed provider.

CONCLUSIONS: (Split for parent and district) The district’s proposed IEP was not appropriate because the student continued to require direct one-to-one speech therapy.  The district did not violate procedures by proposing to change the student’s provider. The ALJ ordered the IEP team to meet to revise the IEP to include the ordered speech services.  The parents withdrew their request for compensatory services during the hearing.


2007-SE-0108  North Thurston School District       Please call Administrative Resources to obtain a copy at (360) 725-6133

ALJ: Mentzer

 Issues:  FAPE; IEP Content; Placement

BACKGROUND: The parent alleged that the district’s program was not appropriate and requested that the district fund an in-home private program.  This allegation was based on the parent’s assertion that the general education environment was too stimulating for the Student. The parent had filed an earlier due process hearing when the family moved from out of state, alleging that the district did not implement the IEP

CONCLUSIONS:  (Split for parent and district)  The ALJ concluded that the district violated the substantive requirements of the IDEA and denied the Student a FAPE by failing to make an individualized determination of the amount of SLP services; failing to provide the paraeducator, who assisted the student, with a copy of the BIP; and failure to consider recommendations of the parent’s outside experts.  The ALJ found that the district did not violate IDEA when it failed to adopt the parent’s proposed home placement.  The district was ordered to provide compensatory speech services, and provide autism training for the paraeducator. 


2007-SE-0111 SD Name Withheld       Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Gaffney

Issues:  FAPE; IEP Content; Placement

BACKGROUND:  The parents filed a due process hearing requests for the student at issue..  In the decision prior to this recent request, the parents request for private placement was denied.  The parents filed this request and alleged that the IEP did not provide the student with a FAPE.  The parent requested that the student be placed in a private school.

CONCLUSIONS:  (For the District) The IEP developed for the student, provided the student with transition activities appropriate for the student.  The ALJ noted that the focus of the private school on academics was not appropriate, given the student’s age. The ALJ denied the parents’ request for placement in a private school.


2006 Due Process Decisions

2006-SE-0001 Prosser SD        Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Sullivan       

Issue:  Student Records

BACKGROUND:  The parent requested a hearing and alleged that the district had not properly responded to her request that all student records be copied and provided to her attorney.   The parent had signed and provided to the district a release authorization requesting her student’s records be provided to her attorney.  The district initially responded by only providing the most recent records because it stated it misunderstood her request.  After receiving the second request, the district requested that the parent pay a copying charge because of the great amount of records involved and the expense in copying those records.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District)  The ALJ initially determined the request to provide records to the parent’s attorney was a request to release to a third party which required that the parent state the purpose of her request in the release authorization.  The ALJ also determined that the parent’s request was to inspect and review the records.  The ALJ concluded that charging the parent a fee for the copies did not effectively prevent her ability to inspect and review the student records.  The ALJ also concluded that the district copying fee was not unreasonable.  Finally the ALJ stated that there was no negative impact on the parent’s ability to participate in an IEP meeting held before the parent received the records.


2006-SE-0003 Eatonville SD         Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Shave     

Issues: Jurisdiction

BACKGROUND:   The parents requested a hearing claiming the district breached a settlement agreement.  The district moved for summary judgment claiming the ALJ did not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS: (For the District)  Noting that IDEA 2004 clarified that enforcement of settlement agreements reached by parents and school districts is the responsibility of state and federal courts, not administrative hearings, the ALJ determined she did not have jurisdiction and granted the district’s motion for summary judgment.  


2006-SE-0006 Tukwila SD        Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin        

Issues:  IEE; Harassment; Placement; Private School Reimbursement

BACKGROUND:  The parents alleged that the district had not proposed a placement to address the student’s needs.  The student, who had Asperger’s syndrome, experienced PTSD due to harassment in a district middle school several years earlier.  Prior to the district’s proposed placement at issue in this case, he had been placed in a private school by the district.  The district now proposed a placement that involved half-day in a transition program and half-day in a district high school self-contained classroom.  The parents maintained the student could not attend a placement at the high school because of the physical location of the school, which was located near the middle school.  They also stated that students who had harassed him in middle school now attended the high school, increasing the student’s stress and making the proposed setting inappropriate.  During the hearing process the parties agreed the half-day placement in the transition program was appropriate.  The parents requested a placement in a private school setting for the remaining other half of the day.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the Parents) Tthe ALJ found that the district had not completed a mental health evaluation as part of its reevaluation supporting the placement proposal.  On the principal issue of whether the student’s mental health condition made the physical location of the high school inappropriate, the ALJ concluded that the evidence indicated that it did.  The ALJ upheld the private school placement suggested by the parents and ordered the district to reimburse the parents for his part-time placement at the private school.


2006-SE-0012 Kiona-Benton SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Harvin-Woode       

Issues:  Child Find; Eligibility; IEE; IEP Implementation; Statute of Limitations

BACKGROUND:  The parent alleged that the district had erred in its earlier determination that the student no longer qualified for special education services in 2003. The parent also alleged that the district did not follow evaluation procedures after a new evaluation for eligibility in 2005.  This hearing decision also addressed application of IDEA 2004’s two year statute of limitations provision.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the Parent)   The ALJ determined that in part due to the parent’s lack of English and ability to read, she was not aware of the right to request a due process hearing until November 2004.  The ALJ concluded the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that time.  The ALJ concluded that the district should not have exited the student from services in 2003 and that the student continued to be eligible for services.  In addition, the ALJ determined that the district did not consider the IEE provided by the parents. The ALJ ordered compensatory services, and development of a new IEP. After developing the IEP, the team was to consider whether the district could provide services in the district, or whether another placement was required.  Finally the district was ordered to pay for ongoing consultation with an independent behavior specialist and ordered the district to pay for a psychologist to participate in IEP team meetings.


2006-SE-0014 Puyallup SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ:  Conklin

Issue:  IEE

BACKGROUND:  The district requested a hearing to contest the parents’ request for an IEE at public expense from a neuro-psychologist.  The parents made their request for an IEE after the district concluded that the student was no longer eligible for special education services based upon a reevaluation.

ISSUES AND OUTCOMES:  (For the District) The ALJ concluded that the district’s reevaluation to determine whether the student continued to be eligible for special education was appropriate, and that an IEE was not required. 


2006-SE-0031 Tacoma SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Burdue

Issues:  Consent; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND:  The district requested a hearing to demonstrate the appropriateness of its proposed reevaluation and to override the parent’s refusal to consent to the reevaluation.  The parent refused to consent because she disagreed with the district’s proposal to have a person other than the school psychologist in the student’s school conduct assessments as part of the reevaluation. 

ISSUES AND OUTCOMES:  (For the District) The ALJ upheld the district’s proposed reevaluation, noting that a reevaluation is conducted by persons selected by the district. The ALJ ordered the parent’s refusal to consent overridden.


2006-SE-0037  Monroe SD

ALJ: Conklin   

Issues: Jurisdiction, Residency

BACKGROUND: The district requested a hearing to contest the parent’s request for an IEE.  Prior to the hearing the district made a motion for summary judgment and argued that in a separate hearing (2006-SE-0048 Monroe SD) the student was determined to no longer be a resident of the district.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District)  The ALJ concluded that the issue of the student’s residency could not be re-litigated, and that the district was not the district required to provide educational services to the student.  The ALJ dismissed the case.


2006-SE-0038X Spokane SD    (Please call Administrative Resources to obtain a copy at (360) 725-6133.)

ALJ:  Hansen       

Issues:  Discipline; Harassment; Parent Participation

BACKGROUND:  The parent alleged that the student was harassed due to her disability and that this caused her to be denied a FAPE.  The parent also alleged that the district violated discipline procedures by suspending the student for one day and that the district’s directive to the parent for all communications to go through the principal prevented the parent from being able to monitor and participate in the student’s special education program.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District) The ALJ concluded that the parent was not able to show a pattern of harassment based on the student’s disability that prevented the student from obtaining a FAPE.  The ALJ also noted that the student’s one day suspension was permissible under special education regulations.  The ALJ further determined that the restrictions on the parent’s contact with district staff did not prevent her from meaningful participation in the development or implementation of the student’s special education program.


2006-SE-0048  Monroe SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ:  Shave    

Issue: Residency

BACKGROUND:  The parent filed an earlier hearing request against the Monroe and Snohomish school districts alleging each district failed to provide the student a FAPE during a time when the student was a resident of that district. While that hearing was pending under a postponement, the district subsequently filed this hearing request asking that this hearing be consolidated with the other hearing, and issuing an order clarifying that the student is not a resident of the district.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District)  The ALJ determined that the student lived primarily with his mother in Snohomish school district boundaries.  The mother, through her aunt, had rented an apartment for the student in Monroe school district boundaries.  Some furniture and toys were brought to the Monroe apartment, however, neither the mother or student lived in the apartment on a permanent basis.   The ALJ concluded that the student lived in Snohomish for the majority of his time and was not a resident of Monroe school district.


2006-SE-0051  Tonasket SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Hansen    

Issue: IEE; Initial Evaluation

BACKGROUND:  The district requested a hearing to contest the parents request for an IEE.  The parents had referred the student due to a diagnosis the student received of bipolar disorder, ADHD and possible PTSD.  The district evaluated the student and determined he was not eligible for special education services.  The parent requested an IEE at public expense to contest the district’s evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District)  The ALJ reviewed the initial evaluation completed by the district.  He determined it included qualified professionals and considered his impairments under both the EBD and Other Health Impairment categories.  The ALJ concluded that the district’s initial evaluation was appropriate and that the parents were not entitled to an IEE at public expense.


2006-SE-0053  Issaquah SD     Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Harvin-Woode       

Issues:  IEP Content; Graduation; Initial Evaluation; Placement; Private School Reimbursement

BACKGROUND:  The parents and adult student alleged that the district did not properly act upon the student’s referral during high school and did not properly conduct an initial evaluation.  They also alleged that the student was not provided appropriate services or placement to assist him in graduating with a regular diploma.  The parents and adult student’s requested remedies included reimbursement for two years of prospective tuition at a private college.  Prior to the final order the ALJ issued a preliminary order applying IDEA 2004’s two year statute of limitations.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District)  The ALJ determined that the district acted upon the referral the parents had made soon after the student re-entered high school.  The ALJ concluded that the district’s initial evaluation was appropriate and that the IEP it developed was appropriate and properly implemented.  Finding no procedural or substantive violations, the ALJ denied all of the parents requests for remedies, including their request for an IEE. 


2006-SE-0055 North Thurston SD      Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin        

Issues:  Aversive Interventions; Behavior; Compensatory Services; ESY; Parent Participation; Student Transfer

BACKGROUND:  The parents alleged that the district did not implement the student’s out-of-state IEP when the student transferred into the district during the 2005-2006 school year.  The parents requested compensatory services in the form of a one-on-one aide during the 2006-2007 school year.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (Split for the Parents and the District)  The ALJ found that the district failed to follow transfer procedures when it delayed the student’s enrollment for 3 weeks and delayed obtaining records from the prior school district for a month.  The district also did not adopt the student’s current IEP, in part due to the parent failing to inform the district of his move to another district within the state before enrolling in the current district.  In addition the district did not include a general education teacher at the IEP team meetings and did not implement behavioral goals, or ESY services.  The ALJ ordered compensatory services in the form of ESY services and consultation with an autism expert.


2006-SE-0056 Seattle SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin   

Issue: FAPE; LRE

BACKGROUND:  The parents requested a hearing and alleged that the district had not placed the student in her LRE.  The student was deaf and used American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate.  The parents maintained that her school in Seattle did not have other students who communicated using ASL so she was unable to communicate with general education peers.  The parents requested placement in another school district which had a larger population of students who used ASL.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District)  The ALJ noted that ASL was the student’s preferred mode of communication and that Seattle provided an interpreter for her, but she often chose not to use the interpreter.  The ALJ determined that all parties agreed the Student’s IEP was appropriate for her and that the student was progressing well in her general education classroom.  The ALJ concluded that the student’s placement in Seattle was appropriate and represented the student’s least restrictive environment.


2006-SE-0057  Mead SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ:  Hansen       

Issue: IEP Content; Private School Reimbursement

BACKGROUND:  The parents alleged that the student failed to make progress towards his goals on the IEP, and that the district failed to provide a scribe as an accommodation.  The parents requested reimbursement for a private school placement.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District)  The ALJ determined the IEPs that the district had developed were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to the student.  The ALJ concluded that the student had received a FAPE from the district, and the parent’s request for an out of district placement was denied. 


2006-SE-0074 Mukilteo SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin

Issues:  Compensatory Services; Eligibility; IEE; IEP Content; Placement; Pre-school; Private School Reimbursement    

BACKGROUND:  The parents alleged that the district did not place the student in her LRE while she was in pre-school.  The student required a placement in a general education setting and the district placed her in a developmental pre-school.  The parents alleged that the district failed to include a general education teacher at IEP meetings when the student was in pre-school.  The parents also alleged that the district failed to provide the student a FAPE in kindergarten because she was not sufficiently academically challenged.  The parents further alleged at the start of her first grade year the district improperly determined the student was not eligible for special education services.  The parents stated that the district did not respond to the parents request to pay for an outside evaluation (IEE.)

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (Split for the Parents and the District) The ALJ concluded that the district denied the student a FAPE by failing to have a general education teacher attend IEP meetings when the student was in preschool.  The district also denied the student a FAPE in placing her in a developmental preschool when her LRE was in general education classes.  The ALJ concluded that the parents’ removal of the student from her pre-school did not absolve the district of its FAPE obligation.  The ALJ determined the parents had not requested an IEE and the district, therefore, was not required to request a due process hearing to contest it.  The parents were also not entitled to more than one IEE and they had already received one.  The ALJ determined the student progressed during kindergarten and concluded that the district provided the student a FAPE.  The ALJ weighed the testimony of the district’s experts and the parent’s experts and concluded that the parents had not shown that district’s reevaluation was inappropriate when determining the student was no longer eligible for special education.  The ALJ ordered compensatory services for the denial of FAPE during the time the student was in preschool.


2006-SE-0075 Federal Way SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ: Conklin    

Issues: Consent, Discipline, Reevaluation

BACKGROUND:  The district requested a hearing to override the parent’s refusal to consent to a reevaluation.    The district believed it needed to override consent even though the parents had signed consent authorization because the parents and student had refused to cooperate with the reevaluation.  The parents insisted in being present during some testing even though their presence invalidated the testing and the student refused to participate in some testing if the parents were not present.  At the time of the hearing, the student was no longer living in the district. Prior to the student leaving the district he had been expelled and the district believed it needed to complete the reevaluation to be able to provide an appropriate alternative placement.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District) The ALJ ordered the parents refusal to consent overridden.  The ALJ concluded that the parents were not really refusing to consent but were placing conditions on that consent that would invalidate the testing.  The ALJ ordered that if the student returned to the district, discipline protections would apply and the district was to attempt to complete the reevaluation.  If the student refused to cooperate the district was to proceed with the information it had gathered.  


2006-SE-0084 Northshore SD           (Please call Administrative Resources to obtain a copy at (360) 725-6133.)

ALJ: Burdue        

Issues:  Compensatory Services; Eligibility; ESY; IEE; LRE; Parent Participation; Placement; Prior Written Notice; Private School Reimbursement; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND:  The parents requested a hearing, alleging that the district did not provide the student with a FAPE in his LRE over several school years.  The parents requested reimbursement for private evaluations she obtained and claimed the district had not properly responded to her request for an IEE.  The parents also claimed that they had not been provided an opportunity to participate in the development of the student’s IEP and that the district was required to change the student’s disability category based upon his diagnosis of autism.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (Split for the District and the Parents) The ALJ determined that the LRE for the student during the time periods at issues was represented by the district’s self-contain classroom which was characterized with a small student to teacher ratio, in a setting supported by special education staff, and with opportunities to participate with nondisabled students.  The ALJ concluded that the time period in which the student was placed in a general education setting with minimal special education supports did not represent his LRE and resulted in a denial of FAPE.  The ALJ noted that even though the parent requested the inclusion setting, the district remained obligated to identify the appropriate LRE for the student even over the parent’s objection.  The ALJ found that the parent had made a request for a reevaluation rather than for an IEE.  The ALJ concluded there was no error in the district’s refusal to conduct a full reevaluation as the student had just been reevaluated the previous year and conditions did not warrant a new one.  In reaching this conclusion the ALJ noted that the district did agree to conduct an evaluation of the specific area of concern the parent had raised.  Because the request was not for an IEE the district did not have to request a due process hearing to contest it.  The district properly issued prior written notice explaining its refusal to add ESY and tutoring services.  The parents were not entitled to reimbursement of the private tutoring that they had provided out-of-pocket as the district had never agreed to pay the cost of the tutoring.  The tutoring was not included in the student’s IEP, and all parties had been aware that the parent was providing the tutoring at their own expense to supplement the academic services the student was being provided under the IEP.  The district properly denied the parents’ request for ESY as the district’s ESY standards were proper and the student did not require ESY based on that standard.  The district should have included the student behavior plan in the student’s IEP but there was no loss of FAPE for this violation as the district implemented the behavior plan.  The ALJ held that the district did not fail to provide the parent an opportunity to participate in the student’s IEP as the parent had chosen not to participate despite the adequate notice provided by the district.  The fact that the IEP developed by the district was misdated did not interfere with the parent’s opportunity to participate.  The ALJ ordered compensatory services to address the failure to provide a FAPE during the time the student’s placement was in the general education setting, and provided that the parents could choose to have the compensatory hours delivered at a private school, by a tutor, as ESY, and/or as counseling.


2006-SE-0102 Highline SD    Click here for the complete decision

ALJ:  Shave

Issues: Consent; Eligibility; Prior Written Notice; Staff Qualifications; Reevaluation

BACKGROUND:  The district requested a hearing to override the parents’ refusal to consent to a reevaluation.  The district had proposed a reevaluation after the parents expressed an interest in ending the student’s special education eligibility.  While the district’s reevaluation was pending the parents requested an IEE and the district agreed to provide it.  The parents refused to consent to the district’s request for a reevaluation because they disputed the district school psychologist’s qualifications, maintained that they were not properly notified about the tests that would be used, and wanted the IEE completed before the reevaluation.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS:  (For the District) The ALJ concluded that the timing of the IEE did not affect the district’s need to conduct a reevaluation.  The ALJ found that the district’s prior written notice explaining its proposal to conduct a reevaluation adequately explained the testing that could be involved.  The ALJ determined the district’s school psychologist to be qualified.  The ALJ ordered the parents’ refusal to consent overridden.


Old Capitol Building, PO Box 47200, 600 Washington St. S.E., Olympia, WA  98504-7200  (360) 725-6000  TTY (360) 664-3631
Contact Us    |    A-Z Index    |    Site Info    |    Staff Only    |    Education Data System (EDS)