Impartial Due Process Decisions - Illinois

back to DueProcess Illinois home
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/html/due_process.htm (source documents)

Page Contents:

www.dueprocessillininois.org home

Issued between July 1, 1997 and March 15, 1998

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions isued under the one-tier system which when into effect on July 1, 1997. Each summary identifies the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if known), the hearing officer's finding, and whether the parties were represented by legal counsel.  This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently being brought before hearing officers  If you would like to receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decision summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly at 217/782-5589.  You are reminded that these decisions are not precedent-setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them.

The hearing was requested by the parents of a child with Down's Syndrome because they objected to the district's proposal to change the child's placement from a regular education program to self-contained classroom for over 50% of the school day.

The hearing officer found that the school district violated the child's right to FAPE because it failed to provide appropriate behavioral intervention/discipline as part of the child's IEP and failed to offer a program in the least restrictive environment.  Peripheral issues included failure to provide appropriate speech/language services, inappropriate discipline, failure to consider independent evaluations, inadequate training of staff and supervisors, denial of procedural safeguards and reimbursement for a behavioral consultant.  The parents request for an independent speech/language evaluation was denied.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

00033 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Unilateral Placement in Private School

The hearing was requested by the parents through their attorney because they disagreed with the district's proposed placement in a self-contained program for LD and BD children.  The parents rejected the placement because of the all-boy enrollment.

The school district was found not to be responsible for the student's unilateral placement in a private day school.  It was determined, however, that the district did not provide FAPE because it neglected to offer an extended school year program for the student in the area of math. The district was ordered to pay for tutorial math services from the previous summer and for the current school year.  The district was also ordered to  provide an extended school year plan for the 1997-98 school year.  In addition, the district was ordered to provide the student a complete year of course work in the area of science and social studies with appropriate modifications and adaptations.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

000034 (Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Participation in Regular Physical Education

The  district initiated the hearing because the parent disagreed with the district's recommendation that the student be removed from regular physical education.  In the district's opinion the student's participation in regular physical education would put the student at grave risk of permanently losing his eyesight and/or suffering severe cardiac damage.  The district contended that the student has Marfan Syndrome, however, according to the hearing officer no evidence was presented affirming the diagnosis by qualified medical  personnel.

The hearing officer found that the student had a history of severe problems related to vision that would put him at risk if placed in a regular physical education class without modifications or adaptations.  The Hearing Officer also concluded, however, that the school district had not considered whether modifications and adaptations could reduce such risks. The hearing officer concluded that, while some evidence in the case record suggested that the student may have Marfan Syndrome, there was no evidence that this had ever been determined through a full evaluation by medically qualified personnel.  The hearing officer ordered an independent evaluation to determine whether the student has Marfan Syndrome, and if so, the extent to which his condition puts him at severe risk if placed in a regular physical education class.  The hearing officer also ordered the district to convene an MDC/IEP meeting to discuss adaptations and modifications to enable the student to participate in a regular physical education class safely, given  his visual deficits, and the dangers, if any, indicated by his evaluation with regard to Marfan Syndrome.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

________________________________________________________________________________

00047 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Tuition Cost to Residential School

The parents through their attorney requested the hearing seeking tuition reimbursement to a private residential school for a period of time that the school was not approved by the Illinois State Board of Education.  The Illinois State Board of Education had approved retroactive payment for room and board and related services including transportation, but not tuition.  The hearing officer found that the district was responsible for the payment during the time in question and that the parents were entitled to a free appropriate education for their son.  Furthermore, the hearing officer ruled that the Illinois State Board of Education was responsible for reimbursing the school district for the tuition costs for the time in question.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

00059 (J. Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Residential Placement v. Public School Placement

The hearing was requested by the parents who were seeking continued placement of the student in a residential facility.  The hearing officer found that a residential placement was necessary and ordered that the district continue to fund the current placement for the remainder of the 1997-98 school year.  Because the residential component (facility) is not state approved, the hearing officer ordered that different arrangements be made for the 1998-99 school year.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

00061 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Unilateral Placement in Private School

The foster parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the placement offered by the district.  The parents took the position that the child should be placed in an all day kindergarten program with supplementary aids and services.  The district recommended placement in a half day cross-categorical special education program and half day in a regular kindergarten program.

The foster parents unilaterally placed the child in an all day private kindergarten and requested a hearing for tuition reimbursement.  The hearing officer found that the evidence in the case supported the conclusion that the IEP developed by the district did meet the identified special needs of the child and was reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit on the child.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

00065 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Tutorial Services--Appropriateness of IEP

The parents requested the hearing to determine whether the School District failed to provide FAPE to the student during her grammar school years, particularly in the area of math, and whether the School District inappropriately implemented the student's 1997-98 IEP without parental consent.  The parents objected to the district's decision to remove the student from one-half year of science and social studies in order to provide her with resource assistance in the area of math.

The hearing officer found that the district failed to present an IEP that was designed to meet the student's unique needs in the area of math, and that there was  a clear violation of the "stay-put provision" of the IDEA and the Illinois rules and regulations.  The district was ordered to immediately stop removing the student from science and social studies, to contract with the student's current tutor (or another qualified professional if the tutor is unavailable) to provide math assistance, reimburse the parents for the cost of the tutor from December 1996.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

000082 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment -- Location of Services

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their seven-year old son who was born with a genetic condition identified as "Jacobsen's Syndrome."  The parents disagreed with the district's proposal to place the student in a more restrictive environment.  The district was proposing that the child be placed in a segregated special education program located in another district.  The parents felt that the child should be placed in his home district with the implementation of an appropriate behavior management plan to meet  his particular needs.  The parents also requested an independent evaluation which was denied by the hearing officer.

The hearing officer ruled that the student had not been educated in the least restrictive environment and that he was to remain in his present placement for the remainder of the 1996-97 school year.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

00086 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Classification of the Student's Primary Disability

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their son because they disagreed with the district's classification of the student as primary behavior disorder, secondary learning disabled.  The parents contended that the student's primary disability is learning disabled with a secondary disability being behavior disordered.

At the time of the hearing, the student was ten years old, and was being home schooled.  For the 1997-98 school year, the MDC recommended a placement in a behavior disorder self-contained program.

The hearing officer found that the child has a learning disability and a behavior disorder.  Based on the child's performance in his recent LD class, the hearing officer concluded that the child's primary disability is behavior disorder.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

00091 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Change in Placement Away from Neighborhood School

The parent requested the hearing because he disagreed with the school district's decision to place his daughter in a special education program for more than 50% of the time in a school building away from her neighborhood school.  Based on a hearing officer's order for the school year 1996-97, the student had been placed in a regular first-grade classroom with supplementary aids and services.

This hearing officer found the student had achieved satisfactorily in the previous year's placement and the least restrictive environment (LRE) would continue to be in a regular classroom.  Consequently, orders were issued to insure proper planning and training of school district staff and to place the student in a regular 2nd grade classroom in her neighborhood school with provisions for appropriate supplementary aids and services.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

000108 (J. Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Independent Educational Evaluation -- Sufficiency of Services

The hearing was requested by the parents who contended that the district's IEP was not appropriate.  The parents requested a private, full-time LD placement with modifications as listed in a report provided by an independent evaluator.   Other allegations raised by the parents included services on the IEP not provided, extended school year services not provided and failure of the district to pay the parents for an independent evaluation.

The hearing officer found in favor of the district.  The district was ordered to continue to implement the IEP.  Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

This decision was appealed on or about February 4, 1998.

________________________________________________________________________________

000149 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Initial Placement

The district requested the hearing to place the student in a special education program.  The parent refused to give her consent to the initial placement recommended by the IEP.  The parent did not respond to any of the communications sent to her by certified mail.  She did not attend the hearing.

The hearing officer found that the district properly conducted the MDC and IEP.  He found the student was in need of special education services and that the placement recommended by the IEP was appropriate.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent did not participate in the hearing.

________________________________________________________________________________

000150 (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Reevaluation

The district requested the hearing to obtain parental consent for a three-year reevaluation.  The student was last evaluated in May of 1994.  Illinois Administrative Code 226.578c requires school districts to conduct a case study reevaluation for each student receiving special education services at least every three years.  The hearing officer ordered the  district to initiate a case study evaluation within 10 days of receipt of the decision.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

________________________________________________________________________________

000166 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Sufficiency of Services

The hearing was requested by the parents for the purpose of resolving differences with regard to academic expectations, grade status, sufficiency of the IEP and transition planning.  At the time of the hearing, the student was 18 years old and receiving special education and related services in an alternative special education program in a self-contained classroom.

Consistent with agreements reached by the parents and the district during the hearing, the hearing officer placed in the decision an order requiring the district to issue bimonthly reports to the parent, create a detailed IEP consistent with the MDC team recommendations, create a detailed transition plan for the student and develop a procedure to insure ongoing and meaningful communication between the parent/student and district.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

000168 (Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Private School Placement and Reimbursement for Psychological Services

The parents requested the hearing alleging that the district failed to identify in a timely manner the student as a child with a disability, and failed to provide the student with a free appropriate public education.  As relief the parents were seeking a private school placement, transportation, and reimbursement for psychological services.

The student was first evaluated by the district in 1996 and found eligible for special education and related services under the category of behavior disorder/emotional disorder and specific learning disability.  An IEP was developed and the student was placed in a self-contained classroom for students with behavior disorders.  During 1997 the parents had the student privately evaluated.

The parents did not dispute the district's procedural adherence in developing the IEP, nor did they deny their meaningful participation in the IEP development.  Although the parents did dispute the amount of educational benefit the student had received, testimony and evidence did demonstrate that he had received educational benefit from his program.  The hearing officer found that  free appropriate public education had been provided to the student.

The hearing officer ordered the district to continue to implement the IEP written for the 1997-98 school year.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

________________________________________________________________________________

000239 (Julius Menacker, Hearing Officer)
Change in Placement

The hearing was requested by the district due to the parent's disagreement with the IEP team's decision to place the student in a therapeutic day school.  The district contended that the therapeutic day school placement was necessary because of the student's frequent alcohol and drug abuse and high absenteeism.  The parents agreed that the student should be transferred from the high school, but disagreed with the district's recommendation to transfer the student to a therapeutic day school.  The student, who was 15 years of age at the time of the hearing, and the parents, objected to the therapeutic day school because of their perception of the  intellectual level of the students enrolled in the therapeutic day school.  The student wanted to remain at his current high school and his parents wanted him transferred to an alternative school.   The district's attorney indicated that a review of potential alternative schools revealed that the student's age (15) and drug/alcohol abuse precluded his enrollment at an alternative school which did not serve students with disabilities.

The hearing officer ordered the student be immediately placed in a therapeutic day school until the student reaches age 16 (approximately 2 months).  When the student reaches age 16, or immediately thereafter, the district was ordered to contact the student and his mother for the purpose of assisting the student in locating an appropriate alternative school, should the student and his parents desire such a placement.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

________________________________________________________________________________

00016 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Location of Services, Severity of Disability and Degree of Modifications

The parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the district's decision to change the  location of their daughter's educational program.  The parents also disagreed with the district regarding the severity of the student's disability and the degree of modifications and supports required.  Although the parents acknowledged that the student has a cognitive disability, they disagreed with the proposed IEP, the educational label of EMH, and the degree of modifications and supports that needed in order for the student to be educated in the school desired by the parents.  The parents did not believe the school district adequately considered least restrictive options.

It was the decision of the hearing officer that the student showed such a broad range of scatter in her scores that she did not fall neatly into either the EMH or the LD categories.  The hearing officer ruled that the student should be labeled as a student with multiple disabilities and should be educated in her current high school placement which was the placement desired by the parents.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

000192 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Interim Alternative Educational Placement -- Expedited Hearing

The hearing officer declined to order an interim alternative educational placement requested by the school district on an expedited basis. While finding that the child did present a substantial threat of harm to himself or others, the hearing officer did not find that the current placement was inappropriate or that the school district had acted reasonably to minimize the risk of harm in the child's current placement.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

________________________________________________________________________________

000119 (Marie A. Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Sufficiency of Services, Violation of IEP Procedures

The parents requested the hearing to resolve issues related to services provided for their daughter, violations in IEP procedures, failure to include transportation in the IEP, and the use of a hearing aid as a goal.  The district asserted that it provided appropriate services and transportation was provided.  The parties were in agreement relative to the student's diagnosis of hearing impairment  and her need for services.  At the time of the hearing the student was dually enrolled in a private school for children with hearing impairments and a public school where he is transported to receive speech and language services.

The decision ordered that the IEP reflect the transportation services being provided by the district, specify who was providing services for what portion of the IEP, increase the student's therapy time from 40 minutes to 45 minutes.  Other points included an audit of previously contracted services.  The hearing officer also stated in the order that the district was free to enter an agreement with the parents to provide a proportional amount of money in lieu of services provided through the school district to purchase speech/language services through a private party under Part B of IDEA.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parents were not represented.

________________________________________________________________________________

00051 (Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Change in Placement

The parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the district's proposal to change the student's placement from a resource program to a more restrictive, self-contained program in a high school outside the student's home district.  The parents also contended that the district had not provided services, particularly counseling and psychological services, called for on the IEP.   Both parties agreed that the student was eligible for special education under the category of behavior disorder/emotional disorder and that the student's current placement, a resource program, was not providing educational benefit.  Prior to the  hearing the district finalized plans for opening a self-contained program in the student' home school and offered this placement to the parents.  The placement was rejected.

The hearing officer found that the IEP developed by the district was reasonably calculated to offer educational benefits to the student.  The district was ordered to implement the student's IEP in his current high school.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

000189 (Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Eligibility, Components of Case Study Not Addressed

In this case the parents contended that the school district had mis-applied its criteria for determining the presence of specific learning disabilities in denying the student special education services.  The key issue in this regard concerned the definition of "severe discrepancy" under the school district's criteria.  The parents also objected to the school district's criteria as excessively rigid and narrow.  In addition, the parents contended that the school district violated the Section 504 rights of the student in the respect that the school district denied services to the student in retaliation against the parents for vigorously asserting the student's rights.

The hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district on all of the preceding issues.  Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

00089 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Separate Day School v. Regular Classroom with Supportive Services

The hearing was requested by the district because they believed that the student needed a more structured setting (therapeutic day school) in order to control and modify his behavior.  The parents contended that the district had violated the students rights with regard to the student's classification from autistic, to autistic-like to autistic-like/EDB.  The parents believed that the proposed therapeutic day school was too restrictive and that he should be placed as close to home as possible.  The parents also contended that the district had violated the student's rights with respect to a 4 day suspension that occurred the first day of school.

The hearing officer found that the district's proposed placement in a therapeutic day school was appropriate, found no violations with regard to the suspension and found no violation with regard to the student's classification.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

________________________________________________________________________________

000212 (J. Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Failure to Employ Sufficient Numbers of Personnel

The parents requested the hearing alleging that the district failed to provide FAPE because it failed to employ sufficient numbers of personnel with appropriate qualifications.  The parents contended that because the student's IEP stated that 30% of his time would be spent in special education and he was not receiving direct instruction from a teacher certified in special education, the district was not providing the services required by the student and promised in the IEP.

The hearing officer found that a free appropriate public education had been provided to the student.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Due Process Decisions Issued betweenMarch 16, 1998, and July 15, 1998

000010 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Sufficiency of Services--IEP Accommodations (Tutoring Services, Note-taker, Shortened Work Product), Failure to Provide a Behavior Management Plan, Appropriateness of Placement, Psychological Counseling Removal from School

The hearing was requested by the parents who alleged that the district had violated the student's rights in numerous areas. At the time of the hearing, the student was 15 years of age. While he had been receiving counseling services since the 4th grade, he had not been determined eligible for special education and related services.

Prior to enrolling in the district, the student attended a residential school in California for two years. He was then placed by his parents in a private school. After enrolling in the district, a case study evaluation was completed and the student was found eligible for special education and related services. The parents alleged that the student had been harmed because of the district's failure to provide a transition plan immediately upon enrollment, and because the district failed to provide a behavior management plan during summer school. The allegations made by the parents were not affirmed and no relief was granted.

It is unclear from the decision if the parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the district's decision that their son was not eligible for special education. In September, the parties reached an agreement in an attempt to resolve this matter. The district agreed to fund an additional independent psychiatric evaluation and a parent signed the consent for such an evaluation. Three months later, the hearing officer received a note from one of the parents confirming that she was postponing the hearing until the results of the evaluation were obtained. From the date of the September 1997 agreement to March 1998, the parent did not contact the psychiatrist to arrange for the evaluation. On March 31, 1998, the district filed a motion to dismiss this matter on the grounds of lack of prosecution.

000077 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Appropriate Placement, Least Restrictive Environment

The parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the district's proposed placement recommendation. The district and the parents disagreed as to whether the child's special education services should be provided in a resource room (typically for students with mild-to-moderate disabilities) or a life-skills classroom (typically for students with more severe disabilities).

The hearing officer found in favor of the school district and ordered special education resource services to be provided in the life-skills classroom. Since both parties agreed the child needed services outside of the regular education class, the hearing officer did not view the issue as one of LRE. The dispute centered on which classroom was appropriate to meet the student's needs.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000087 (James Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement in Private Day School and Independent Evaluation at Public Expense

The hearing was requested by the parents, who sought reimbursement for a unilateral private placement, an independent evaluation, an individual aide they had hired to assist their child at school and the costs of transporting their child to and from school on a daily basis.

The hearing officer found that the district never had an opportunity to provide a program to this child, who had a history of emotional problems. The district maintained that it had a full continuum of program options available and even if the student had to be privately placed, the district would not have used the private school that the parents had chosen because it did not offer an appropriate program to meet the student's needs.

The hearing officer denied the parents' request for reimbursement of tuition costs and the costs of the associated independent evaluation. Additionally, the hearing officer also found that the district had never completed a case study evaluation of the child nor had they attempted to get parental permission to perform such an evaluation. The district accepted the diagnostic findings of the parents' independent evaluation, but rejected the placement recommendation contained therein. Since the district never conducted a case study evaluation and never provided the student an appropriate special education program, the district was ordered to reimburse the parents for the costs associated with the individual aide and the costs associated with transporting the student to school.

Both parties were represented by counsel.

000097 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Appropriate Placement, Independent Evaluation, Unilateral Placement in Private School

The hearing was requested by the parents, who alleged that the district failed to consider the recommendations of the independent evaluators, failed to properly identify a placement for the child for the 1997/98 school year, and failed to provide FAPE in the least restrictive environment. Because of these alleged violations the parents were seeking reimbursement for tuition paid in connection with their unilateral placement of the child in a private day school.

The hearing officer found that the school district properly considered recommendations of the child's parents and independent evaluators, the school district properly identified a placement for the child for the 1997/98 school year, the school district offered to provide the child with a FADE in the least restrictive environment, and the district did not have to reimburse the parents for their unilateral placement of the child in a nonpublic school for the 1997/98 school year.

The parents were initially represented by legal council (council withdrew prior the hearing); the district was represented.

000119 (Marie A. Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Sufficiency of Services, Transportation, Content of IEP

The parents requested the hearing to resolve issues related to services provided for their daughter, violations in IEP procedures, failure to include transportation in the IEP, and the use of a hearing aid as a goal. The district asserted that it provided appropriate services and transportation was provided.

The district was ordered to continue to implement its IEP with modifications including transportation, identification of the service provider and an increase of speech and language services to 45 minutes. Other points included an audit of previously contracted services and the possibility of the parents contracting for private services.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

000122 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Free Appropriate Public Education Failure to Develop IEP

The hearing was requested by the parents of a child with Down's syndrome who believed the school district failed to adequately assess their child. The parents also alleged that the district failed to provide their daughter with a substantive educational program and committed procedural errors in the development of her IEP for the 1996/97 and 1997/98 school years.

The hearing officer found that the school district violated the child's right to FAPE because it failed to develop an IEP in a timely fashion, failed to fully develop the IEP, and failed to document the progress made on the goals and objectives. The school district was ordered to reconvene the IEP and fully develop the IEP, taking into consideration all the assessments completed on the child. One year compensatory education was ordered.

Both parties were represented by council. This case is currently in federal court.

000142 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Out of district Placement, Independent Evaluation and Classification

The hearing was filed by the district. Multiple issues were in dispute. The parents objected to the finding of eligibility for special education and related services under the category of BD/ED. The parents also objected to the district's proposed placement in a public day school.

The hearing officer found that the student was eligible for special education with a BD/ED disability. The hearing officer also found that the proposed out of district placement violated LRE and ordered that the student be placed in a self-contained classroom for over 50% of the school day with social work and a 1:1 aide for the inclusion portion of the day.

The school district requested that the student undertake a psychiatric evaluation. The hearing officer denied this request as the student had been hospitalized in a psychiatric ward of a local hospital in January 1998, and the school district should pursue obtaining access to those records from a court of competent jurisdiction before additional psychiatric testing should be ordered. The district also requested authority to test the child for LD in the area of written language. This request was granted.

The decision also included the development a new IEP with a behavior management plan and inservice for all teachers and staff assigned to work with the student.

000165 (Julius Menacker, Hearing Officer)
Change in Placement

The hearing was requested by the parents, who disagreed with the district's proposal for placement in a residential facility. At the time of the hearing, the student was 18 years of age and diagnosed with Fragile X syndrome and autism. He was also diagnosed as severe cognitive impairment and speech and language disordered. The parents claimed that the district violated its responsibility to provide FADE by not providing appropriate services and IEPs for the student. The parents also alleged that the district provided insufficient staffing and training to staff serving the student. The district asserted that due to the student's aggressive behavior and levels of dependence, the provision of FAPE could best be accomplished by placing the student in a residential facility.

The hearing officer affirmed the district's proposed residential placement. Both parties were represented by legal council.

000181 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Residential Placement

The hearing was requested by the parents, who were seeking a residential placement with an on-site educational component. The district offered to place the child in a residential placement with the educational component at a local district's alternative school. The hearing officer ruled that the educational needs of the child could only be met at a residential facility with an on-site educational component.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000182 (James A Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Appropriateness of Placement, Reevaluation, Expressive Art Therapy

The hearing was requested by the parents, who alleged that the placement of the student in a separate public day school did not provide the student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The parent was also requesting that expressive art therapy be added to the student's IEP. The parent also alleged a number of procedural violations and related issues including transportation, notice, parent hostility, etc. The district cross-filed, seeking an order to compel parental consent for a reevaluation.

At the time of the hearing, the student was 9 years of age attending a third grade classroom in a therapeutic day school located at a separate school site. The hearing officer found that the district followed appropriate procedural safeguards in placing the student in the therapeutic day school. Expressive art therapy was not ordered. The district was ordered to conduct a comprehensive case study reevaluation.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

000235 (Paul Vega, Hearing Officer)
Eligibility, Placement and Discipline

The district initiated the hearing to compel consent to conduct a case study evaluation on behalf of a 13-year-old student who had recently transferred into the district. The district was informed by the mother that the student had previously been found eligible for special education under the category of behavior disordered/emotionally disturbed. However, the mother objected to the previous district's eligibility determination and classification.

The hearing officer documented many attempts to contact the parent in setting up a time and date for this hearing. Failing in this effort to have an interchange with this parent, the hearing officer set a date and time for the hearing. The hearing was therefore uncontested.

The hearing officer granted the district's request for a case study evaluation. It is not clear from this decision whether the district was represented by counsel.

000249 (Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Private v. Public School Placement, Free Appropriate Public Education

In this case the parents contended that the student's program had provided no educational benefit from 1994 through 1997. The parents also contended that the school district failed to provide appropriate assistive technology by discontinuing the student's program in facilitated communication from 1994 to 1997. Furthermore, the parents alleged that during the fall of 1997, the student's teacher ridiculed the student because of his weight and physically abused the student. The hearing officer found that the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing failed to support the above contentions and allegations of the parents.

The relief being sought by the parents included placement in an appropriate educational program not operated by the school district, as well as extended school year in such placement. The district requested that the hearing officer require a medical evaluation of the student by a physician selected b the school district, at the expense of the school district.

The hearing officer declined to order any of the relief to the parent or district.

000254 (Julius Menacker, Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement in Private Facility

The parents requested reimbursement for the unilateral placement o their ADHD/LD child in a private educational facility. The parents claimed that this was proper in that the district had not provided FADE.

It was found that the district was providing FADE, as the student passed the majority of courses, and greater progress might have been possible for the student if the parents would have allowed for programmatic changes to continue along the continuum of services, from least restrictive to more restrictive.

The hearing officer found that the district was not required to reimburse the parents for expenses related to the enrollment of the student at the private facility.

The hearing officer dismissed the case without prejudice. The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

000270 (Ralph Goren, Hearing Officer)
Transportation Reimbursement and Aide for Student Attending Illinois School for the Deaf

The parents requested the hearing seeking weekly transportation an requesting that an aide be provided at public expense. The hearing officer ordered that the Illinois School for the Deaf provide the aide for the student and that the local school district of residence reimburse the parents for weekly transportation.

Both the district and the Illinois School for the Deaf were represented by legal counsel. The parents were not represented.

000286 (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Eligibility

The primary issue in this hearing was whether the student was eligible for special education and related services under the category of mental impairment. The hearing was requested on behalf of the student by his case worker from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. The hearing officer found that the district had complied with the statutes and regulations and affirmed the MDC team's determination that the student was not eligible for special education and related services under the category of mental impairment.

Neither party was represented by legal council.

000289 (Ralph Goren, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Case Study Evaluation

The district requested the hearing seeking consent to conduct a case study evaluation. According to the testimony provided, the student had a history of academic failure. Previous attempts as evidenced by the student's educational record reveal that the guardian refused to consent to a full case study evaluation.

The hearing officer ordered that the district conduct the case study evaluation. Although proper notice was provided, the guardian chose not participate in the hearing. The district was represented by legal counsel.

000296 (J. Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
FAPE, Tutoring Services

The issues in dispute were whether the district provided the student with a free appropriate public education and whether the district should pay attorney fees and special education expenses. Reimbursement for tutoring services was also sought.

The hearing officer found that the placement recommended by the district was appropriate. Reimbursement for tutoring was denied. The hearing officer does not have jurisdiction over matters involving attorney fees.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000300 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Dispute over Classification

The issue as refined and stipulated to on the day of the hearing was whether the student was correctly identified and evaluated as EMH/cognitively delayed. The school district believed the evaluation and identification of the student as EMH/cognitively delayed was correct; the mother believed the student was dyslexic. The decision on this case was in. favor of the school district in that they had followed all procedures outlined in the Illinois Administrative Code and IDEA Amendments of 1997 in determining that the student was EMH/cognitively delayed.

The hearing officer found that the district had correctly identified and evaluated the student and that there was no need for further outside evaluations.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

000308 (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Evaluation

The district requested the hearing because the parent refused to consent to a case study evaluation. At the time of the hearing, the student was 15 years of age and in the ninth grade. His scores on state and district standardized tests were above average, yet he was failing 5 of 6 subjects. The student was experiencing both academic and behavioral problems.

The hearing officer ordered that the district conduct the case study evaluation. The district was also ordered to reimburse the parent for the full cost of independent psychiatric evaluation.

It is unclear from the decision as to whether or not the parties were r presented by legal counsel.

000311 (Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Suspensions, Manifestation Determination, Insufficient Services

The parents of an eighth grade student diagnosed as behavior disordered filed for a due process hearing because (1) they felt their son's rights were violated by excessive suspensions without further action to determine manifestation of behavior; (2) failure to conduct appropriate MDC/IEP conferences; (3) failure to implement the 1997-98 IEP; and (4) failure to provide or consider appropriate supplemental aids and services when preparing the 1997-98 IEP.

The hearing officer found that the district did not violate the student' rights with regard to the issue of excessive suspensions. The hearing officer rule in favor of the parents with regard to the violations pertaining to the appropriateness of the MDC/IIEP conferences and the provisions of the IEPs.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000329 (Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Placement in BD Program

The school district requested the hearing after recommending a full-time BD/ED special education placement for a 7-year-old first grader. The parent objected to the proposed placement. The district presented evidence that the student's behavior was interfering with his opportunity to learn and that he was a danger to others in the classroom, including the teacher.

It was the finding of the hearing officer that the district's recommended placement was appropriate; that district staff had properly identified, evaluated and followed procedures for determining the proper placement. The district was ordered to proceed with the placement. The district was also ordered to develop, cooperatively with the parents, a plan to address the student's behavior at school and at home.

The district was represented by counsel, the parent was not represented.

000330 (Francois Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Suspension, Grading and Sufficiency of Services

The parents requested the hearing alleging that their child's three-day suspension was not consistent with the IEP and the Behavioral Implement Plan (BIP), that there was bias in the grading of the special education student and !the IEP did not provide an appropriate education for the child.

The hearing officer found that the suspension was consistent with the BIP and appropriate under the circumstances. He found no evidence of bias on the part of the teacher. He found that the IEP developed for this student was designed to provide an educational benefit; however, given the occurrences of the past year and since the goals and objectives of the IEP were not met, he ordered a continuation of those goals for the following year with an increase in counseling services.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parents were not represented.

000331a (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Placement and Eligibility

The parents requested the hearing seeking compensatory services. The district counterfiled seeking an order to place the student in a special education residential school. Before the first hearing was held, the parent's requested a second hearing requesting that the student be placed in a communication disordered program located in a separate public day school. The attorneys were unable to combine the requests into one hearing.

The first hearing (case number 000331 a) focused on the following issues as identified at the pre-hearing conference: (1)whether the student required a more restrictive special education placement with a residential component to provide her with FADE; (2) whether the student had a communication disorder and if so what was the adverse effect; and (3) whether the district failed to conduct a functional behavioral assessment and include in the IEP a behavior management plan.

The hearing officer ordered the parent to immediately return the student to the separate public special education day school, which was the mutually agreed upon stay-put placement, until arrangements could be made to return the student to a residential school placement. The parent was ordered to cooperate with the district in returning the student to the residential school. The hearing officer found that the student was eligible for special education and related services under the primary category of emotional disorder/behavior disorder with mental impairment and speech as secondary disabilities. At the time of this hearing, the parents' filed a second request through their legal representative seeking compensatory educational services beyond the students 21st birthday and extended day services. This matter was heard at a later date and a separate decision issued.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000331b (James A. Wolter)
Compensatory Education

This is the second part of a two-part due process hearing. The parent requested the hearing seeking compensatory education in the form of an extended school day during the 1997-98 school year for the days of school the student missed. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. However, the attorney for the parent withdrew from the case two days before the hearing was scheduled. The parent requested and was granted a continuance. The hearing was rescheduled. The parent failed to show up for the rescheduled hearing. After waiting 30 minutes and not being able to reach the parent, the hearing proceeded.

The record showed that except for nine days, all of the days the student missed were a direct result of the parents not allowing the student to attend school. The district had previously provided the student with compensatory education for those nine days through a prior settlement; agreement. The hearing officer found the district was not obligated to provide the student with compensatory education.

000335 (Julius Menacker, Hearing Officer)
Interim Alternative Educational Placement--Expedited Hearing

The sole issue presented for determination by the hearing officer was whether or not the student's continued presence in the school presented a danger to himself or others, thus justifying an interim alternative educational setting outside the high school for not more than 45 days. The incident precipitating the expedited hearing involved a fight with two or possibly three others in the school in which the subject student admitted taking the first step in physical aggression. There was evidence of gang-relatedness in this altercation due to the epithets shouted among those involved in the fight.

The hearing officer concluded that the district had proven by a preponderance of evidence that continuing the student in the school placement would present a risk of injury to himself or others, and that the school had taken reasonable measures to minimize the risk of harm in the school setting. The hearing officer also concluded that the disciplinary infractions committed by the student were not related to his disability, and that the student has been educated in the least restrictive environment.

Both parties were represented by legal council.

000338 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Case Study Evaluation and Interim Placement Pending MDC

This hearing was requested by the district. The district requested the hearing to compel consent for a case study evaluation and to place the student in an interim alternative educational placement for up to 45 days. The request for the interim placement was based upon the student's inappropriate behavior which has included violent and sexual behaviors.

The parent was notified of both the hearing and prehearing but did not participate in the process.

The hearing officer held for the district, granting their request to conduct a case study evaluation. Further, the hearing officer granted the district's request for an interim placement in a private day school.

The district was represented by counsel; the parents did not respond.

000339 (James Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Determination of Eligibility, IDEA Protections to Previously Unidentified Student

The parents requested the due process hearing because they disagreed with the MD C teams determination that the student was not eligible for special education. The parents were seeking an order that the student be found eligible for special education and that his current expulsion from school be retracted. The student was 17 years old and suspended from school for violating the school district's zero tolerance policy pertaining to controlled substances. The MDC/IEP team found the student was not eligible for special education because he had earned enough credits and was on track to graduate with his class at the time of his expulsion. He did not exhibit signs of ADD in the classroom nor did he exhibit depression to a significant degree over an extended period of time and to a marked degree which adversely affected his educational performance.

The hearing officer found that the student was not entitled to the procedural safeguards afforded students with disabilities.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000353 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Reevaluation

The district requested the hearing to compel consent for a reevaluation. The parents declined to participate in the prehearing conference or the hearing. At the time of the hearing, the child was attending a sixth grade regular classroom. He was initially found eligible for special education and related services in the third grade.

The hearing officer found that there was nothing in the record to suggest that a reevaluation would be inappropriate. The child continued to display the same academic and related weakness as he did when he first qualified for special education. The district was ordered to conduct a reevaluation. The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent did not participate in the hearing.

000340 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Case Study Evaluation

The issue in this case was whether the school district could perform a three-year evaluation of the student. In accordance with 23 Illinois Administrative Code 226 and the IDEA Amendments of 1997, it was determined that this evaluation must occur and that the school district should be able to conduct this evaluation in order to determine whether the student continues to be eligible for special education and related services. The hearing officer ordered that the district conduct the reevaluation.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent did not participate in the hearing.

000368 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Private Therapeutic Day School Placement

The hearing was requested by the district. There was no disagreement regarding the student's eligibility or the district's adherence to special education policies and procedures. The only issue to be determined by the hearing officer was whether the placement developed by the district was reasonably calculated to enabled the child to receive educational benefit.

The mother refused her child's placement in a private facility and did not participate in the hearing. Sufficient notices were given to all parties to meet the due process rights consistent with federal and state law.

The hearing officer found that the district's recommendation for placement in a private therapeutic school appropriate for the student.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent did not participate in the hearing.

000368 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Placement, Disciplinary Considerations, Independent Evaluation, LRE

The school district requested the hearing because the parents disagreed with the district's recommended change of placement to a therapeutic day school outside the district. At the time of the hearing, the student was 7 years old and in the second grade. There was no issue regarding eligibility as stipulated at the prehearing conference. The student was diagnosed as behavior disordered and eligible for special education and related services. Initially, the district proposed placement in a therapeutic day school, but later agreed to a self-contained program for children with behavioral/emotional disorders in another school within the district. The hearing officer ordered the district to place the student in the district's self-contained program for children with behavior disorders.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parents were not represented.

000370 (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Interim Alternative educational Placement --Expedited Hearing

This expedited hearing was requested by the district to determine the proper placement for a behavior disordered student on whose behalf the district had previously requested an expedited hearing. In the previous case, that hearing officer had ruled against the district's request to move the student to an interim alternative educational placement for up to 45 days. The first hearing officer found that the district had not utilized all the resources available to it prior to requesting the interim alternative educational placement. That hearing officer ordered the district to return the student to his original placement, develop a behavior management plan and assign an individual aide to the student.

The district returned to the expedited hearing process one month later stating that, although they had instituted all of the changes contained in the previous expedited hearing, the student still posed a danger to himself and others and had in fact inflicted injury upon a teacher's aide. The parents countered that this hearing officer should consider this request as another example of the district's harassment of the student and his parents.

This hearing officer found for the district, ordered the child placed in private program for severely emotionally disturbed students, and further ordered that should no placement be available in such a facility the student was to be served in an interim "tutoring" program for two hours a day at some location where additional adult supervision would be available to the teacher.

The district was represented by counsel; the parents were not represented. A question as to the appropriateness of the district's second request for an expedited hearing prior to the expiration of the first hearing officer's order (45 days) has been raised. Further guidance on this matter will be forthcoming from the Illinois State Board of Education.

000383 (Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Denial of FAPE

The parents requested the hearing stating that the school district failed to provide a FAPE for the student. The school district failed to conduct a case study evaluation as requested by the parents. The parents sought an independent evaluation and two and a half years later placed the student in a private specialized school.

The hearing officer ordered the district to reimburse the parents for the evaluations undertaken on the student's behalf. The district was further ordered to conduct a comprehensive case study evaluation and determine eligibility for services and programs. Reimbursement for tuition and transportation was denied. Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000391 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Case Dismissed-Authority of Non-Custodial Parent

The non-custodial parent living outside of Illinois requested a due process hearing. The district brought a motion to dismiss because: (1) the school district no longer retained any educational responsibility for the student because he was no longer enrolled in the district; (2) the Illinois State Board of Education no longer retained jurisdiction of the student's education because his residence was moved to another state; and (3) the father lacked physical custody of the student during the time when alleged past issues arose, and therefore lacked educational decision making authority to bring this request for due process.

The school district's motion to dismiss was granted. The hearing officer found that the father, lacking physical custody of the student, did not have the authority to bring a request for due process on behalf of the student for issues that arose during the period he lacked this physical custody.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the father was not represented.

000397 (Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer)
Interim Alternative Placement--Expedited Hearing

The district requested the hearing seeking an interim alternative educational setting at Hillside Academy pending the outcome of the parent's request for a due process hearing. The hearing officer denied the district's request. According to the hearing officer, the evidence did not support the district's position that the student was substantially likely to injure himself or others if kept in the current middle school BD resource placement with social work and a behavior management plan.

In the opinion of the hearing officer, the district did not prove by greater than a preponderance of the evidence that the student was substantially likely to injure himself or anyone else in the current placement at this time. This student had been out of school due to suspensions for a total of over eight weeks during this school year. In addition, the student was not given a behavior management plan until late January, and according to the hearing officer it was not clear whether the two regular education teachers followed the plan. It was also found that the student was not receiving sufficient counseling as required by the IEP.

The district was represented by legal council; the parent was not represented.

000409 (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Interim Alternative Placement--Expedited Hearing

The district requested the hearing for the purpose of moving the student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 days. Specifically, the hearing officer considered whether maintaining the student in the current placement was substantially likely to result in injury to the student; whether the student's current placement was appropriate; whether the district had made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the student's current placement, including the use of supplementary aids and services; and whether the proposed interim alternative educational setting enabled the student to continue to participate in the general curriculum; provided for the services, modifications and goals in the current IEP; and included services and modifications designed to address behavior that was substantially likely to result in injury to the student.

The hearing officer found that although the student had made suicidal gestures during non-school hours prior to her hospitalization and prior to a change in her psychotropic medication, the district did not demonstrate by substantial evidence that maintaining the student in. her current placement would result in an injury to the student. The district failed to demonstrate that the proposed interim alternative educational setting, without a component to address the student's behavior during non-school hours, was sufficient.

The hearing officer ordered that; the district not change the student's placement to the proposed interim alternative educational setting.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

000434 (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Change in Placement--Least Restrictive Environment -- Private v. Public School Placement

The district requested the hearing to obtain an order to change student's placement from a self-contained public high school program to a private special education day school. The parents objected to this change in placement. The student was 15 years old and was diagnosed as having a primary disability of behavior disorder/emotional disorder and a secondary disorder of health impaired.

An overwhelming amount of evidence indicated the student had difficulty coping with the most basic behavioral and academic requirements even though he attended .school for 42% of the school day, Further, he received only 27°% of the credit he should have earned for the school year even though the credit he was awarded was for a minimal amount of school work.

The hearing officer found that the student was not receiving a free appropriate education in his public school special education placement because he was not learning and progressing at a rate commensurate with his ability. The district was ordered to place the student in a private special education day school.

The district as represented by legal counsel. The parent was not represented by legal counsel.

000493 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Suspension

The request for the due process hearing was made by the father on behalf of his 14-year-old son who was in a special education program for learning disabilities at the high school level. The student was suspended for one day during the 1997-98 school year, and the father objected to the way the district administered the suspension.

The hearing officer ruled that the student's free and appropriate public education was not disrupted, and the due process hearing request was dismissed. The parent was represented by legal counsel; the district was not represented.

Due Process Decisions Issued between July 15, 1998 and December 1, 1998

000497 (Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Payment of Services, Related Services Obtained by Parent

In this case, the student requested reimbursement for an independent evaluation, private tutoring services, and tuition for an algebra course taken outside of the school district. The hearing officer denied all three requests. In regard to the independent evaluation, the hearing officer found that the student had not notified the school district in writing of his disagreement with the school district's evaluation, as required by state regulations. With respect to the private tutoring services and algebra course, the hearing officer denied reimbursement in virtue of concluding that the school district had provided an educationally appropriate program for the student.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000568 (Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer)
Residential Placement in Non-approved Facility, Graduation, Failure of Private School to Provide Coursework Needed for Illinois Diploma, Graduation Criteria

This hearing was requested by the parent, on behalf of a 20 year old student eligible for special education and related services under the classification of behavior disorder/emotional disorder. The student, who was represented by her parent, was seeking a hearing decision that would allow her to remain in an unapproved private residential school at public expense until her 22nd birthday. The additional time in the placement was needed in order to complete the private school's non-academic "emotional" requirements for graduation. According to the district, the student only needed driver's education (classroom only), consumer education, and passage of the constitution test to receive an Illinois public school diploma. Course work in these areas was not being provided by the private school even though the IEP required it.

The hearing officer found that the district was not responsible for the private school costs beyond 12/17/98 which was the termination date order by another hearing officer in an earlier proceeding.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the student was represented by her parent a non-attorney.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000504 (Francis J. Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Reevaluation, Placement, Reimbursement for Tuition to Private School

The hearing officer at the request of both parties issued a "Consent Order" stipulating the agreement reached by the parents and the district during a prehearing conference. The agreement included placement of the student in a public school program with resource services, credit for the course work completed at a private school and tuition reimbursement to the private school for two months. The parties also agreed to have the student re-evaluated by the district personnel.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000432 (J. Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Appropriateness of Placement

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their 14 year old son who was eligible for special education and related services under the category "autism." Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

The issue in this dispute was whether the district was responsible for the student's full tuition at a private residential facility. The student had been placed at the private, residential school since 1996. In the fall of 1997, the private school increased its fees, higher than the limits set by the State of Illinois. Attempts were made to secure another facility and additional funding from other state agencies.

The parents entered a request for a prehearing motion joining the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Department of Human Services as parties to this dispute. This motion was denied. Both parties agreed that the current placement was appropriate. The parents, sought a ruling that the current placement be funded in its entirety based on the student's needs. The district sought a ruling that would relieve them of responsibility for paying fees beyond the state-approved rate in order that the present placement be maintained. The hearing officer ruled that the current placement was appropriate and should, therefore, be maintained by the district.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000602 (Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer)
Placement Closest to Home, Private v. Public School Placement, Less Restrictive, Amount of Related Services

The parents requested the hearing to contest the district's recommendation to change the student's placement from a private school located 50 miles from the student's home requiring a 3-4 hour per day commute, to a self-contained adaptive instructional classroom operated by the district in the student's home school. At the time of the hearing, the student was 14 years old and eligible for special education and related services under the category of autism.

The hearing officer found that the district's recommended change in placement was appropriate because the IEP could be implemented in the classroom in the home school. The hearing officer ordered the district to convene an IEP meeting upon receipt of the decision for the purpose of transitioning the student from his current placement to the home school and to insure that the IEP reflects needed speech/language, counseling and occupational therapy services.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000508 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Appropriate Placement, Extended School Year Services, Private v. Public School Placement, Placement Closest to Home, Change in Location, Change in Placement, Unilateral Placement in Private School, Content of IEP, Development of IEP, FAPE, Best v. Appropriate

This hearing was requested by the parents on behalf of their 13 year old child who was eligible for special education and related services under the primary classification of learning disabilities. The primary issue in this dispute was whether the child should remain at her current private school placement or whether the May 26, 1998, IEP proposed by the school district provided the child a FAPE at her neighborhood school. Additional issues included alleged procedural violations in connection with the May 26, 1998, IEP failure to provide ESY services during the summer of 1998, whether the relationship between the parent and the school district had become so hostile that an out of district placement was warranted and whether the school district failed to properly evaluate the child pursuant to 34 CFR 104.35.

The parents were seeking reimbursement for the child's unilateral placement in a private school for the 1998-99 school year, and reimbursement for expenses incurred in sending the child to a summer session at the private school during the summer of 1998.

While finding no procedural violations of substance, the hearing officer did find that the proposed IEP of May 26, 1998 was not reasonably calculated to provide the child with meaningful academic benefit. Reimbursement was awarded for that portion of the 1998/99 school year until an IEP is promulgated by the district that is reasonably calculated to provide the student with meaningful academic benefit. Because of the district's failure to provide the child with ESY programming, the hearing officer also ordered that the district reimburse the parents for tuition and travel expenses in provided private ESY services. The hearing officer found no merit in the parent's arguments concerning hostile relationship or failure to properly evaluate.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000560 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Part C Services, Availability of Part C Services, Reimbursement for Services on IFSP

The family requested a due process hearing under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act alleging violations in the development and revision of the child's IFSP and the delivery of those services at public expense. According to the record, an IFSP was developed indicating that speech therapy would be provided, identifying the individual who would serve as the child's deaf educator and the person to deliver audiological services. The state did not pay for these services. A second IFSP meeting was convened, at which time the parents inquired about reimbursement under the Part C program for the private services that they had purchased. At that meeting the family was informed that they would have to file a due process hearing in order to address the reimbursement issue.

The hearing officer ordered the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), the lead agency for Part C, to reimburse the family and the family's insurance provider.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000548 (Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer)
Private v. Public School Placement, Content of IEP, Cultural Background of Student

Parents of an Orthodox Jewish Student, age 10, requested the district to pay tuition for the 1998-99 school year for a learning disabilities instructional program in a private Hebrew Day School in a suburban community outside of the city in which the student resides, and in which program the student was unilaterally placed by the parents in 1996. Parents request was denied for the reason that the district had conducted a case study reevaluation and had developed an IEP offering the student FAPE in an LD instructional program in her neighborhood school.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000525 (Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Comparable Services, Grade Retention, School Transfer, Amount of Services

The mother requested the due process hearing on behalf of her 13 year old son who was eligible for special education under the category of learning disabilities. The parent did not agree with the IEP team's recommendation and the school's final decision to have her son repeat 6th grade the year before last. The mother felt her rights were not clearly explained to her and that was why she did not request a due process hearing a year ago. The remedy sought by the mother included bypassing the seventh grade, thus moving the student immediately to the eighth grade in his current school, or having the student transferred to another school within the district.

At the hearing, the mother requested an immediate transfer for her son to another school with the provision he would be placed in seventh grade and continue in special education. The district agreed to comply with the mothers request, but asked in turn that she withdraw the request for the due process hearing and that an order be entered that the issues presented for this due process hearing are no longer issues and will not be raised in the future. The mother agreed and the hearing officer entered the order for the official record.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000376 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Appropriateness of Placement

The parents claimed that by not giving written consent to the district approving the trial transfer of their child from a cluster program, as provided for in the current IEP, to a regular classroom with LD resources and speech and language services, the district denied the child a FAPE. The parents gave their verbal consent and participated in the trial period and filed the request for a due process hearing approximately 18 months after the trial period began. The hearing officer found that because the parents gave their verbal consent prior to the transfer and their subsequent acquiesce during the trial period, the written notice requirement of IDEA was not violated. If there was a violation it did not compromise the child's right to an appropriate education, nor hamper the parent's ability to participate in the process or deprive the child of an educational benefit, thus did not deprive the child of FAPE.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000439 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment, Discipline, Inadequate Notice, IEP Development, Behavior Management/Intervention

This hearing was requested by the parent on behalf of a 15 year old child who was eligible for special education services under the category of behavior disorder. He was also identified by a physician as ADHD. The parent brought the request seeking a determination that the school district's proposed placement of the child at a therapeutic day school did not offer him a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. The mother sought to have the student placed in a district attendance center with appropriate programming.

The hearing officer ruled that the parent did not sustain her burden. The hearing officer also found that the school district had failed to provide a FAPE in the LRE to the child in prior years and, therefore, did not order the child's placement in a therapeutic school without the school district first remedying its earlier shortcomings. More specifically, the hearing officer found that the school district had not appropriately disciplined the child, had not created and implemented effective behavior management plans for him, and had failed to include the parent in the decision-making process as required by IDEA. The hearing officer ordered that the child remain at the school district for a limited period of time with these conditions remedied to see if the child showed any academic benefit.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000280 (Ralph Goren, Hearing Officer)
Termination of Services, Residency

The hearing was requested by the parent on behalf of her son who resided in a pediatric nursing home located outside of the resident district. Following a year's notice to the parent, the resident district stopped providing educational services to the student on the grounds that the child's mother moved out-of-state and was, therefore, no longer a resident of the district. The hearing officer issued a pre-hearing order requiring that the resident district continue to provide educational services until the matter was heard. The resident district refused to comply with the order. When this case was finally decided (six months later) the hearing officer found in favor of the mother. This decision was appealed.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000352 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Change in Services, Sufficiency of Services, Inadequate Notice, LRE, IEP Procedures

The parent of a 12-year-old son who was diagnosed as having a severe learning disability alleged that the school district had decreased her son's time in special education. This was done at an IEP meeting that the parent did not attend because she alleged proper notice was not given. As a result, the parent sought to have the time spent in a regular classroom inclusive reading program eliminated and have the student spend his entire instructional time in a self-contained special education program. The parent also requested that the district be required to notify her in a timely and proper manner so that she could participate in the IEP meetings affecting her son.

The hearing officer found that the district did not violate any parental rights regarding notification. The hearing officer ordered that the district's IEP be implemented and that a meeting be scheduled with the parent to review the student's academic program.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000426 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Residency, Motion for Summary Judgement

The issue in this matter is whether or not a hearing officer has the power to grant a Motion for Summary Judgement in a due process hearing on the grounds that the parent is not a resident of the school district the special education child is attending. The hearing officer granted a Motion for Summary Judgement based upon the fact that the parent was not a resident of the district. The case was dismissed.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000487 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Reevaluation

The hearing was requested by the district seeking authority to conduct a three-year reevaluation of the child. The parents refused to grant consent, when the parents indicated they would not attend a hearing, the hearing officer made the decision based upon documents submitted to him by the district. The hearing officer ordered the district to proceed immediately with the tri-annual reevaluation of the child.

The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented and did not participate in the hearing.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000451 (Paul Vega, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment, Change in Placement, Agreed Order

The parent requested the hearing because she objected to the district's proposed placement of the student in an alternative public day school program for behavior-disordered students. During the course of the hearing, the parent requested leave to go off the record to ask several questions regarding her concerns regarding the District's proposed placement. After a lengthy discussion, the parties went back on the record and the parent agreed to withdraw her objection to the proposed change in placement, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Agreed Order.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000401 (Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Change in Placement, Discipline, Revocation of Consent

The parents requested the due process hearing on behalf of their 16-year old son whose primary disability was behavior/emotional disorder with learning disabilities as a secondary disability. The student received BD itinerant/consultative services for ninth and tenth grades. Because of escalating behaviors and academic failures in the standard program, the IEP team recommended a special education behavior disorder instructional program for the 1998-99 school year. The parents objected to the recommendation and wanted their son out of special education and placed in the standard high school program.

In this matter the hearing officer found the district was appropriate in their recommendation and ordered that the student be placed in the BD instructional program. The district, however, was found to be in violation of the student's right for FAPE because of excessive suspensions.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000220 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment, Public School vs. Private Day Placement

The grandparents as legal guardians requested the hearing on behalf of their grandson because they disagreed with the district's recommended placement. Other issues included failure to provide FAPE, failure to accept an independent evaluation provided by the parent, failure to provide protection from other students, discrimination against the student, falsification of the educational record, the release of information without consent, and not allowing the student to participate in extracurricular activities.

The primary determination was whether the more restrictive private behavioral disordered placement recommended by the district was appropriate. The guardians wanted the student to be educated at a public school site in regular education with special education and supportive services. The hearing officer found on this issue that while the district's proposed placement was appropriate because it was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit, the grandparents' hostility towards the proposed placement would seriously compromise its benefits. Therefore, the public school site with combined regular and special education classes, supportive services and a mandated behavioral management plan was found to be the appropriate placement.

The district was represented by legal counsel the grandparents were not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000263 (Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Appropriate Placement, Amount of Instructional Services Provided, Services on the IEP Not Provided

The parent of the student filed for a due process hearing citing failure of the district to provide a FAPE, not implementing the IEP, suspensions, and not providing services consistent with the student's needs. The school failed to demonstrate that it correctly implemented the IEP and a number of other violations were noted. A new case study added emotional/behavior disorder as a diagnosis. Parent and school agreed that the diagnosis was appropriate and that a full day instructional program should be provided. The parent wanted the student to attend the same school. The Order entered made the placement outside of the current school since it would have been highly unlikely that the student could receive a FAPE in the same building.

The parent was represented by an advocate; the district was represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000539 ( Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Dispute Over Placement, Directed Verdict

The parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the district's placement recommendation for the 1998-99 school year. The parent did not present any witnesses at the hearing. The school district requested a directed verdict because nothing was presented by the parents to challenge the district's IEP. The hearing officer ordered that the district's IEP for the 1998-99 school year be implemented.

The District was represented by legal counsel; the parents were not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000700 (Charles Ashenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Stay-Put Order

Because the student had been on a home school program since May 1997, there was disagreement between both parties regarding his Stay-Put placement as provided in 20 USC -1415(j). The parent's position was that the student was initially enrolled in the first grade at the elementary school on July 8, 1998 which should be his Stay-Put placement as provided in 20 USC - 1415(j). The school district's position was that the Stay-Put provision of IDEA does not require placement of a student with disabilities in a regular public school program and the student should be placed in the self-contained program.

The hearing officer ruled that the Stay-Put placement during the pendency of the due process hearing shall be the elementary school as a first grader eligible for and entitled to a special education program and services.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000615 (Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment, Proximity to the Student's Home, Content of the IEP

The parents requested the hearing due to the district's proposed change of placement for their 12-year-old mentally impaired son. The district had proposed to change the student's placement from a cross-categorical instructional program in a jr./sr. high school building in his own district (not his home school) to a life skills program supervised by the special education cooperative outside of the district, one hour each way by bus, from the student's home.

The hearing officer held that the student could be satisfactorily educated in his home district. The hearing officer also ordered an independent case study evaluation to determine accurate current levels of functioning, since the district failed to do a triennial evaluation in 1997 and the student had not been evaluated since 1994.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000342 (Julius Menacker, Hearing Officer)
Compensatory Services, Statute of Limitations

The parents through their attorney requested the due process hearing seeking 32 hours of compensatory speech and language services. The parents contended that the former district superintendent agreed to fund compensatory speech and language services to the student at least through the 1997-98 school year, or until there was mutual agreement to terminate the services. The present superintendent terminated services on February 1998. The parents contended that this was arbitrary and in violation of their agreement and IDEA. The district held that no such open-ended agreement was in effect and that the extent of compensatory speech and language services offered was appropriate.

The district contended that judicial decisions governing special education impose a statute of limitations that limits claims for compensation on issues occurring during the 1997-98 school year, based on Dell v. Board of Education of Township High School District 113, 32 F.3d. 1053 (7th Cir. 1994) and Farrell v. Carol Stream School District No. 25, 24 IDELR 370 (N.D. Ill. 1996), which held a 120 day limit. Alternately, the district claimed that at most, the district can raise claims limited to two years prior to the filing of the due process claim based on a decision in Oak Park & River Forest High School District 200 v. Illinois State Board of Education, 886 F. Supp. 1417 (N.D. Ill 1995).

The hearing officer rejected the district's argument that the complaint was not filed in a timely manner. The hearing officer further ordered that the student was entitled to additional compensatory hours of speech/language therapy. However the requested 32 hours of services was found to be excessive. The hearing officer ordered that the district fund 13 additional hours of speech/language therapy.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000216 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement, Statute of Limitations

This hearing was requested by the parents on behalf of their 13 year old son. The student had been diagnosed as having a severe cross-modal learning disability and was eligible for special education and related services. The parents were seeking reimbursement for the child's unilateral placement in a private school since February 1994 because of: (1) the school district's failure to hold an appropriate MDC/IEP in February 1994, (2) the school district's failure to hold annual IEP reviews and a triennial re-evaluation for the child during the school years of 1995/96, 1996/97, 1997/98, and (3) the school district's inability to provide the child with a free appropriate public education for the 1998/99 school year.

The hearing officer held that (1) the parent's claim for those years prior to school year 1995/96 were barred because of a two year statute of limitations which the hearing officer found applicable, (2) the school district was not liable for reimbursement to parents for the 1995/96 school year because the related services which the child received from the school district at the private school were not in place at the time the annual review for the 1995/96 school year was held, (3) the school district was not liable for reimbursement to the parents for the 1996/97 and 1997/98 school years because it did not have an obligation pursuant to 34 CFR 300.349, on the facts in this case, to convene an IEP annual review or triennial evaluation for the child, and (4) the school district was found liable for reimbursement to the parent for the 1998/99 school year because it could not offer the child a free appropriate public education.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000630 (Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Eligibility Criteria

The parent's requested the hearing. The district was represented by counsel; the parents were not represented. At the time of the hearing the student was five-years-old. The disability category was in dispute. The issues in dispute were whether the transactional play-based assessment conducted by the district fulfilled the requirements of the Illinois Administrative Code for a comprehensive case study evaluation; whether the student was eligible for special education; and whether the district was obligated to distribute medication to the student.

The hearing officer ruled that the evaluation conducted by the district met the criteria set forth in 23 IAC 226.535 and that the student was ineligible for special education and related services. No evidence was produced to demonstrate that the student had ever been denied a dietary supplement prescribed by his physician. The petitioners' request to have the evaluation declared inappropriate and to have the student declared eligible for special education was denied.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000563 (Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Best v. Appropriate, Related Services

In this case the student, an eighteen year old male in his fifth year of high school, had a program that focused upon development of independent living skills, aimed at a successful transition to employment upon leaving high school. The parents contended that the program was inappropriate in virtue of not proving a mentor, trained to assist adolescents with Asperger's Syndrome, who would accompany the student throughout the school day on a one-to-one basis. The parents also viewed the program as inappropriate because the school district had not procured the services of an expert consultant in Asperger's Syndrome, through an organization recommended by the parents, to train personnel in the student's program. The parents accordingly requested the hearing officer to order the school district to incorporate into the student's program the above mentioned mentor and expert consultant. The hearing officer found the school district's program for the student to be appropriate, and thus denied the parents' request. Neither party was represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000020 (Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Independent Educational Evaluation, Reimbursement for Attorney Fees, Free Appropriate Public Education

The hearing was requested by the parents. For several years, the parent felt that the student did not receive a free appropriate public education. To obtain what the parent felt was an appropriate public education, the parent incurred evaluation, doctor, and hospital expenses and attorney fees. The Illinois Court cases of Max M. v. Thompson and River Forest School District No. 90 v. Illinois State Board of Education and a May 4, 1998, letter from the U.S. Department of Education provided guidelines for the reimbursement of evaluation expenses. The parent was awarded reimbursement of evaluation expenses; the parent was not awarded reimbursement of non-evaluation expenses.

The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented at the pre-hearing or the hearing.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000659 (Michael Havey, Hearing Officer)
Related Services, Tansportation Services, Length of the School Day

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their 12-year-old child who was eligible for special education and related services under the category of mental impairment. The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented. The issue in dispute was whether the transportation services provided to the student allowed his educational needs to be met. The district changed the start time of the student's school day to one hour and ten minutes earlier than the previous school year. The parent found this change to be burdensome because the multiple needs of the student posed problems both getting ready for school and for after school care. The hearing officer found that the district had met its legal obligation to provide transportation for the student.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000654 (Jill Quinones, Hearing Officer)
Independent Education Evaluation, Clean Intermittent Catheterization, Counseling, Physical Therapy, Calculation of Educational Benefit, Section 504 Accessibility

Parent requested a hearing on behalf of her 13-year-old son who was born with spina bifida. The child is eligible for special education services under the category of physical impaired. The parent filed the request pursuant to IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act claiming that the child was denied a FAPE and was discriminated against because of his disability because he was required to ride a stair climber to his classes which were held above ground level. The parent sought a relocation of all the child's classes not on the ground level to the ground level. The parent also claimed that the child was not given adequate facilities to self-catheterize because he had no access to a washroom.

The hearing officer held that the child was denied FAPE and was discriminated against because of his disability because he was required to utilize the stair climber to gain access to his classes above ground level. The hearing officer also found that the child's IEP did not provide him with a FAPE because it did not consider recommendations concerning eligibility and services from an independent evaluation and did not include specific PT goals and amount of services to be provided. Finally, the hearing officer found that the parent's complaints regarding catheterization facilities had been remedied prior to the hearing.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000454 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Amount of Related Services Offered, Participation in Graduation Ceremonies Occupational Therapy and Transitional Planning

The central issue in this case was the adequacy of the transition plan. While the district did provide linkages to outside services for the quad amputee, the district failed to provide the student with basic skills and knowledge about independent living. The hearing officer ruled that the district shall provide O/T services to assist the student to adjust to independent living. The district is to provide for remedial mathematics course to enable the student to move on to postsecondary education as part of the transitional plan. Both parties were represented by legal counsel

Impartial Due Process Decisions Issued between December 1, 1998 and June 1, 1999

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued between December 1, 1998, and June 1, 1999. Each summary identifies the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if known), the hearing officer's finding, and whether legal counsel represented the parties. This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently being brought before hearing officers. If you would like to receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly at 217/782-5589. You are reminded that these decisions are not precedent-setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them.

The school district requested a due process hearing for the purpose of compelling consent to conduct a case study evaluation. The hearing was brought on behalf of a second grade boy who was exhibiting excessive and difficult behaviors in the school setting. The parents refused to give their consent for the district to administer a case study evaluation.

The hearing officer found that the district should proceed with the case study evaluation and so ordered.

The school district was represented by legal counsel and the parents represented themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000900 (Aschenbrenner, Charles, Hearing Officer)
Placement in Interim Alternative Educational Setting

The school district requested an expedited due process hearing regarding a nine-year-old boy with Aspergers disability. At the time of the hearing the student was enrolled in the third grade and was receiving special education resources and related services in his home district. Prior to being enrolled in his current placement, the student attended for 1-1/2 years an instructional program for children with emotional problems at a special education joint agreement. For the 1998-99 school year, the parents insisted that the student be placed in his regular school with resource assistance. The school district disagreed but proceeded to make arrangements for the placement in accordance with the parents' request.

During the school year, the student had violent outbursts that resulted in staff being injured and school property being damaged. Because of disagreements regarding the student's educational program, the parents filed for a due process hearing and a hearing dated had been set for March 30 and 21, 1999. In the meantime, the student continued to have recurrences of violent behavior and the school district sought relief through the request for an expedited hearing to place the student in an interim alternative educational placement during the pendency of the due process hearing proceedings.

The hearing officer determined there was substantial evidence that if the student remained in his current placement, it would likely result in injury to the student or to others. After consideration of the current placement and the reasonable effort that the district took to minimize the risk of harm, the hearing officer found that the proposed interim alternative placement was appropriate and enabled the student to participate in the general curriculum and implement his current IEP.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

000710 (Wolter, James - Hearing Officer)
Appropriateness of Case Study Evaluation, Sufficiency of IEP and LRE

The parents requested the hearing, challenging the appropriateness and sufficiency of the district's evaluation, the appropriateness of the student's IEP and the placement of the student in what they believed was not the least restrictive environment.

The remedy sought by the parents was a monetary award. The hearing officer informed the parents that he lacked the authority to issue monitory relief. The hearing officer found the district need take no action with regard to the issues brought before the hearing but ordered the district to conduct a functional behavioral assessment and develop a behavioral intervention plan, which it had been prevented from doing because parental failure to grant permission.

Legal counsel represented the district and the parents were not represented.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000425 (Anderson, Karen - Hearing Officer)
Residential Placement, Agreed upon Order

The parents requested the hearing, seeking placement of the student in a residential special education program. An agreed order was written by the hearing officer placing the student at Island View, which was not on the ISBE approved list. The district was ordered to pay the cost of the placement at Island View and file the appropriate reimbursement claims with the Illinois State Board of Education, including reimbursement of travel expenses. ISBE was ordered to approve the student's placement at Island View and reimburse the district pursuant to the relevant statutes.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000805 (Stutzman, Stacey - Hearing Officer)
Private Day/Residential Placement vs. Public School Program

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their son who was diagnosed with a learning disability and was receiving special education and related services in the 6th grade. The parents were seeking placement of the student in a private day/residential placement on the grounds that he needed more intensive services. The hearing officer found that the district's proposed placement was appropriate.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000614 (Stutzman, Stacey - Hearing Officer)
Private vs. Public Placement, Least Restrictive Environment, Sufficiency of Services Related services, IEP services not provided

The parent requested the hearing on behalf of their seven-year-old son who was eligible for special education and related services under the category of TMH. The parents were seeking placement of the student in a self-contained therapeutic private day school. The parents alleged that the district failed to provide the student with a free, appropriate public education because of its failure to provide a small class size and 1:1 instruction by a certified teacher throughout the day. Other issues in dispute included the delivery of appropriate related services and needed extended school year services.

The hearing officer found that the district had not provided FAPE but held that the evidence did not show that the student required a self-contained therapeutic school for disabled children in order to receive a satisfactory education.

Legal counsel represented district, parents were not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000801 (Quinones, Jill - Hearing Officer)
Eligibility Determination, Placement, Access to Medical Records

The hearing was requested by the parent of a 12-year-old child who was eligible for special education services with a primary disability of behavior disorder/emotional disorder. The parent objected to the school district's eligibility determination and proposed placement for the student in a self-contained classroom for over 50% of the day with regular education mainstreaming for the remainder of the day. The school district also requested a ruling concerning its rights to the child's psychiatric records without parental consent. Parent sought a finding that the child was not eligible for special education services and should remain in the regular education program.

Hearing officer found in favor of the school district on the issues of eligibility and placement. The hearing officer found the child's mental status was at issue given the parent's objection to the BD/ED eligibility; therefore, the school district could pursue appropriate access to child's psychiatrist records in a court of competent jurisdiction.

District was represented by legal counsel, parents were not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000577 (Bracki, Marie - Hearing Officer)
Part C, Early Intervention Services, Co-funding

Parents requested mediation/due process to continue services with a non-Part C provider for Early Intervention physical therapy. The Department of Human Services had offered to continue to fund the insurance co-payment for physical therapy until December 1999. The order denied protracted co-funding and required that DHS make appropriate Part C services available to the family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000763 (Brimer, Richard - Hearing Officer)
Placement, Functional Analysis, Implement of IEP, LRE, Behavioral Intervention Plan, Stay of Placement

The main issue in this due process hearing was the appropriate placement of a student with behavior disorders. In the second semester of the 1997-1998 school year, the school district began to reintegrate this student back to his home school on a part-time basis. Due to his success in this part-time placement, the participants in the IEP meeting decided to attempt full-time placement in his home school with resource room and counseling supports for the 1998-1999 school year. Shortly after the start of school, the student's misconduct increased in frequency and intensity. In an IEP meeting, the participants decided to return him to the previously enrolled program so his goals and objectives could be met. The parents opposed this placement. Besides this issue, the parents raised concerns on the development of a functional analysis, the development of a behavior management plan, the 10-day forewarning to contest placement, the stay-put placement, the development of a manifestation determination, the student's participation in extra-curricular activities, the participation of the general education teacher in the development of an IEP, and the appropriateness of the general education program in his home school.

The decision of this hearing officer determined that the school district had followed the legal mandates in all the disputed issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
000733 (Brimer, Richard - Hearing Officer)
Resource Services in Regular Building vs. Therapeutic Day School, Appropriateness of Placement, Behavioral Intervention Plan

In 1997 and 1998, a due process hearing was held between the parties involved in this hearing. Order #10 of the previous hearing established a criteria through which the school district could enroll the student in a therapeutic day school. The two criteria the previous hearing officer established were 1) "to demonstrate academic success" and 2) a "suggestion of improved behavior." The previous hearing officer established a five week time period following the development of a Behavior Management Plan as the index to determine behavior change. The school district contends the student has not improved academically or behaviorally over this time period. The school district asserts that the most appropriate placement for this student is a therapeutic day school. The parent contends the most appropriate placement is the school in which the student is currently enrolled. The parent holds that his case manager should be changed and the student should discontinue his enrollment in the resource room.

The hearing officer found that the school district proved through testimony and evidence that the student did not improve either academically or behaviorally; therefore, the should be enrolled in a therapeutic day school.

000850 (Wolter, James - Hearing Officer)
Interim Alternative Educational Setting

The district requested an expedited due process hearing for the purpose of moving a student to an interim alternative educational setting. The district demonstrated that maintaining the student in the current placement was substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others. The student's current placement was found to be appropriate. The hearing officer also found that the district had made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the student's current placement, including the use of supplementary aids and services. It was the hearing officer's finding that the proposed interim alternative educational setting recommended by the IEP team would enable the student to continue to participate in the general curriculum. The IAES also provided for the services, modifications and goals in the current IEP and included services and modifications designed to address behavior that is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others. The district was ordered to place the student at the separate public special education day school operated by the special education co-operative as an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 calendar days.

000774 (Stutzman, Stacey - Hearing Officer)
Neighborhood School vs. Therapeutic Day School

The parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the district's recommended change of placement from a neighborhood high school self-contained EBD classroom with mainstreaming to a therapeutic day school. The district failed to provide written notices to parents of two IEP meetings, and the parents did not attend either, the second of which resulted in the change of placement for the following year. The parents were not advised of the specific school the student was to attend until October of the next school year.

The student was prevented from remaining in the neighborhood school, which should have been the stay-put placement upon the parent's filing of the due process hearing. The district failed to provide ESY even though the IEP it drafted required it. The hearing officer found in favor of the parents with respect to the student's placement and other issues. The hearing officer ordered the district to readmit the student to the neighborhood school and draft a new IEP.

District was represented by legal counsel, parents were not.

000718 (Stutzman, Stacey - Hearing Officer)
Consent for Reevaluation

The district requested the hearing to obtain an order permitting a triennial evaluation of the student upon the parent's refusal to give consent. The parent chose not to participate. The district submitted an option for summary judgement supported by sworn affidavits.

The hearing officer decided in favor of the district ordering that the evaluation be completed. Legal counsel represented the district and parents did not participate in the hearing process.

000767 (Aschenbrenner, Charles - Hearing Officer)
Regular Education Classroom vs. Therapeutic Day School

The parent of a ten-year old boy diagnosed as having behavioral/emotional and learning disabilities requested the due process hearing. Because of dissatisfaction with the public school program, the parent requested that the student either be dismissed from his special education program and placed in a regular classroom or be placed, because of his severe disabilities, in a therapeutic day school.

It was the finding of the hearing officer that the student continue to be eligible for a public school special education instructional program, but emphasized the need to address the student's behavioral/emotional disability.

District was represented by legal counsel, parent was not.

000724 (Aschenbrenner, Charles - Hearing Officer)
Consent for Triennial Evaluation

The school district filed for a due process hearing after being unsuccessful in obtaining parental permission to conduct the required triennial evaluation. The district complied with all of the procedural requirements of the law and provided the necessary facts for the hearing officer to grant their relief by ordering the district to proceed with the triennial evaluation.

Neither parties were represented by legal counsel.

000728 (Gordon, Vivian - Hearing Officer)
Stay of Placement, LRE, Placement

The parent brought her request for a due process hearing on behalf of her 13-year-old son. The two issues in this case were, What is the stay-put placement? What is the appropriate placement? An MDC/IEP meeting was held at the prior school district, culminating in a changed IEP and a more restrictive off-site placement. The parent did not agree with this placement. Also, the parent withdrew the student from school; evidence and testimony indicated this withdrawal was in large part related to personal family difficulties. The new school district was unaware of the student's eligibility for special education and, upon learning of an existing IEP, immediately implemented it. In this case, it was found the existing IEP/placement from the former school district's MDC determination was the stay-put placement because it was the last uncontested placement. The exiting IEP/placement was also found to be the appropriate placement.

District was represented by legal counsel, parents were not.

000791 (Aschenbrenner, Charles - Hearing Officer)
Implementation of IEP, Private Day School vs. Public School Placement, Case Dismissed

The parent of a six-year boy diagnosed as having autism requested the due process hearing. Because of complicating health problems, the student had difficulty attending school and his IEP was not implemented properly. Also, the district failed to acknowledge and understand the severity of the student's disability, which resulted in his regression while attending school. As an outcome of the due process hearing, the parent sought the remedy of placing her son in a private day school whose teachers were specially trained to educate children with autistic disabilities. At a MDC/IEP conference the district agreed with the parent and authorized placement of her son in the private day school that she had recommended. As a result of this action, the district felt the case was settled and no further action was necessary. The parent, however, stated she still had concerns and wanted to continue the case. In the meantime, the district requested that the case be dismissed. Because the parent was given the relief she had sought and did not respond in writing for a continuance or state an objection to the dismissal request, the hearing officer ruled that the case be dismissed.

Parents were not represented by legal counsel.

000611 (Ladenson, Robert - Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement in Non-approved Sectarian School

The parents and the school district agreed upon the appropriateness of the parent's unilateral placement of the student in a sectarian school that is not approved by the Illinois State Board of Education for special education purposes. The school district contended, in good faith, that both state law and the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US constitution barred it from directly sponsoring the student's placement. The school district and the parents, however, urged that the hearing officer is not so barred from ordering the school district to reimburse the parents for the expenses they have incurred in regard to their unilateral placement of the child, if he (the hearing officer) finds the placement appropriate. The hearing officer agreed with the school district and the parents in this regard and accordingly ordered such reimbursement.

Neither parties were represented.

000631 (Anderson, Karen - Hearing Officer)
LRE, Promotion, Independent Educational Evaluation, Sufficiency of the IEP

The issues in this case were whether the school district held the student back without permission and as a result did not provide her with the least restrictive environment, whether child qualified for special education services that were not addressed in her IEP, whether the school district addressed the student's cultural and social needs, whether the independent evaluation was written correctly, and whether the IEP that was written is appropriate to met the student's needs.

The hearing officer found that the student did not have a secondary disability, that the decision to retain her was in the student's best interest, that her social and cultural needs were addressed appropriately, and that the August 10, 1998, IEP is appropriate to meet the student's needs. The issue of how the independent evaluation was written was beyond the scope of the due process hearing officer.

The hearing officer ordered the following: 1) the student shall remain retained in the 2nd grade with the implementation of an IEP in the area of Speech and Language and, 2) the school district shall re-evaluate the student at the end of the 1998-99 school year, as recommended by the independent evaluator, when she has been in an English-speaking environment for some time to more accurately assess her academic potential and needs.

000700 (Aschenbrenner, Charles - Hearing Officer)
Stay of Placement, LRE, Placement, Sufficiency of IEP

The parents of a seven-year old boy diagnosed as having autism requested the due process hearing. It was their position that their son would be deprived of FAPE if placed in a primary instructional program for autistic children in a nearby school district. They felt their son should be placed in the least restricted environment, which would be his neighborhood school placement in the local district's cross-categorical special education program, and the regular first grade with supplemental aids and services would be the most appropriate educational program. The school district disagreed and recommended the student be placed in the specialized program designed for autistic children at the primary level.

After having been enrolled in the special education cooperative's early childhood program, the parents withdrew their son from the public school program and opted for over eighteen (18) months of home schooling. In July 1998, they enrolled him in their local district's elementary school, and subsequently an IEP meeting was scheduled on August 31, 1998. It was at this point the parents did not agree with the IEP team's recommendations for placement and services.

In preparing for the due process hearing, the matter of the stay-put placement became an issue and two pre-hearing conferences were scheduled to resolve the dispute. It was the parent's position that the stay-put placement should be in the regular classroom at his neighborhood school because it was the student's initial enrollment in that setting. The hearing officer eventually ruled that the student should remain on the home-schooling program during the pendency of the due process hearing with the district providing related services.

The due process hearing was conducted over a three-day period of time. As a result of the proceedings, the hearing officer found that the school district did not deny the student FAPE and so ordered the placement of the student in the primary instructional program for autistic children operated by the special education cooperative.

000852 (Gordon, Vivian, Hearing Officer)
Agreed Upon Order, Specialized Instruction, Extended School Year

During the hearing, the parties requested time to come to an agreement. The result was an agree upon order, which was signed by both parties and issued in the form of a decision by the hearing office. The agreed upon order called for specialized instruction in reading and language arts, and pre-and post-testing in reading. The parties were in agreement that extended school year services would not be required.

Legal counsel represented the district; the parents were not represented

000907 (Wolter, James, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Case Study Evaluation

The hearing was requested by the district seeking parental consent to conduct a case study evaluation for a student receiving speech/language services. The parents refused to grant the district consent to conduct the evaluation, but would consent to a modified speech/language evaluation.

The district was ordered to provide the student with a full case study evaluation.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

000262 (Gordon, Vivian, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services, Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement, Child Find Procedures

The parents requested the hearing seeking reimbursement for unilateral placement in residential facility. The 16-year-old high school student, diagnosed as ADD, clinical depression with suicidal ideation, did not enter high school as a special education student. The student exhibited ADD symptoms throughout schooling. During the second year of high school, declining grades increased disciplinary referrals and an independent evaluation occurred. He was found eligible for Section 504 services in late March 1997. The student was thereafter involved in a marijuana incident. Parents chose to withdraw the student and unilaterally placed him in a residential placement in Oregon. It was found the hearing officer had subject matter jurisdiction because the relief sought by the parents falls under the IDEA. It was found the school district failed its child find obligations to this student and would be responsible for reimbursement of the educational component of the residential placement. The existence of an ISBE-approved local child find policy does not preclude a finding that the student is eligible for special education under the IDEA. Compensatory services were awarded for the failure to identify, evaluate and provide FAPE for the spring 1997 semester. Testimony and evidence indicated some of the reasons for placing the student in the residential placement were for non-academic reasons, and the parents would be responsible for the residential component of the unilateral placement. The school district is obligated to pay the cost for the independent evaluation. The school district is required to evaluate the student consistent with the IDEA and provide FAPE.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

000891 (Wolter, James, Hearing Officer)

The district requested the hearing to obtain an order to conduct a case study evaluation. The parents were demanding that they observe the student while being tested by the school psychologist. The district desired to conduct the psychological testing under conditions that would not invalidate the results of the test nor compromise the test instrument.

The hearing officer ordered that the districts commence a case study evaluation for the student and that district personnel exercise their professional judgement in determining the date, time, location and whether the parent may observe the assessment process through a one-way mirror. Further, district personnel were ordered to exercise their professional judgement in determining what tests to administer and what proportion of English/Spanish assessment instruments shall be utilized in the assessment.

Legal counsel represented the district. The parents were not represented.

Impartial Due Process Decisions Issued between June 1, 1999 and October 15, 1999

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued between June 1, 1999 and October 15, 1999. Each summary identifies the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if known), the hearing officer's finding, and whether legal counsel represented the parties. This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently being brought before hearing officers. If you would like to receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly a 217/782-5589. You are reminded that these decisions are not precedent-setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them

Case #000639 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement and Extended School Year Services

This hearing was requested by the parents following a manifestation determination, case study evaluation and an IEP team meeting that recommended a therapeutic day placement for the student. The parent objected to such a restrictive setting. The preponderance of evidence and testimony supported the additional diagnosis of ED/BD, the appropriateness of the district's IEP and the recommended placement for the summer term. However, the hearing officer did find that the school district had failed to monitor and correctly identify the rapidly deteriorating emotional/behavioral condition of the student. A difficulty encountered in the case was the fact that the student, age 18, did not give his consent for case study or the release of hospital records until May 1999.

Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #000907 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Consent for a Case Study Evaluation

The district requested the hearing seeking parental consent to conduct a full case study evaluation for a student receiving speech/language services. The parent refused to grant the district consent to conduct a full case study evaluation but would consent to a modified speech/language evaluation. The district was ordered to provide the student with a full case study evaluation under 34 CFR Sections 300.536(b) and 300.535(d).

Attorneys represented both parties. The timeline for conducting the hearing was extended to enable the parent to obtain legal counsel and to accommodate counsel's calendar.

Case #001018 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Applied Behavior Analysis, FAPE, Appropriateness of Placement, Home Instruction

The parents of a five-year old daughter who was diagnosed as autistic requested the due process hearing. The reason(s) for the request dealt with whether or not the school district denied "the Student" FAPE because of an inappropriate IEP and the failure of the school district to provide a good faith effort to achieve the IEP objectives. Starting in December of the 1998-99 school year, the parents began an Applied Behavior Analysis/Discrete Trial Training (ABA/DTT) home program in addition to sending their daughter to the public school special education program. The parents asked that they be reimbursed for the home program during the 1998-99 school year and that the ABA/DTT home program be determined as the appropriate placement for their daughter for the 1999-2000 school year with provisions for occupational and speech therapy.

The hearing officer ruled that the appropriate placement for "the Student" was in the self-contained autistic program operated by the school district for the 1999-2000 school year. The hearing officer did not find a violation of FAPE and the parents were not reimbursed for the 1998-99 home program.

Attorneys represented bother parties.

Case #001031 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Consent for a Case Study Evaluation

The school district requested a due process hearing in order to be granted authority to conduct a case study evaluation for a student who was having difficulties in a regular fifth grade classroom. The parent of this eleven-year-old girl declined repeated attempts by the district to conduct a case study evaluation since. The hearing officer found that "the Student" did have problems interfering with her learning and authorized the school district to proceed with the case study evaluation.

Legal counsel represented the district; parent was Pro Se.

Case #000831 - Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Appropriate Placement, Compensatory Services

The critical questions in this case concerned the appropriateness of two therapeutic school placements proposed for the student by the school district, and also the appropriateness of the program developed and implemented by the school district during the 1997-98 and 1998-99 to address the student's behavior problems. All critical questions in the case turned on disputed factual matters between the parties. Based on a full review of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district. The parent's request for compensatory services and reimbursement for an independent evaluation was denied.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001077 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Private vs. Public School Placement, Appropriate Placement, Change in Services, Amount of Services Offered

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their 9-year-old son who had been receiving special education services as an LD/BD child since 4 1/2 years old. The child was mainstreamed through 2nd grade with LD resource services and social work services. The parents were seeking placement in a private LD day school, alleging that the child was falling farther behind each year and was not benefiting from the district's program. The parents rejected the placement offered by the district in either their self contained LD or BD classroom, or a regular 3rd grade with increased LD resource time, social work services and a part-time 1:1 aide for the child.

The hearing officer found that the student's needs were more unique and complex than were apparent at the spring MDC/IEP conference. Based on the testimony of the child's psychiatrist and the new psychological testing and report done by the district's school psychologist between the pre-hearing and the hearing, the child was found to be LD and ADHD, not BD. It was held inappropriate for the parents to request a private school for children with disabilities only while rejecting the school district's self-contained LD classroom in a public school building with mainstreaming opportunities throughout the school day.

The district was ordered to convene a new MDC/IEP conference to include among the other participants; the proposed LD classroom teacher, the speech/language therapist, the psychologist, the child's educational therapist and his psychiatrist. The conferees were ordered to develop a highly structured educational plan that covered the entire school day to include a 1:1 aide for lunch, recess, gym, etc., a minimum 30 minutes weekly meeting between the parents and lead classroom teacher and 1:1 remedial work during the school day.

An attorney represented the district and the parents were not represented.

Case #000637 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Content of the IEP, Development of a Behavioral Management Plan, Services on the IEP Not Provided

The legal guardians requested the due process hearing on behalf of their "son" who at the time of the hearing was seven years old and diagnosed as having emotional disabilities and eligible for ED/BD special education services. Four of five issues dealt with whether or not the school district provided the services listed in the IEP. These included paraprofessional assistance, social work therapy, ED/BD resource assistance, and sensory integration training. In addition, the parents wanted a behavioral management plan developed and the school district disagreed. The guardians wanted the district to provide the services to help "the Student" achieve his potential. They also wanted a specific sensory integration program implemented daily to reduce emotional stress during the school day and a behavioral management plan to share "the Student's" needs with all staff members.

The hearing officer ruled that the school district provided the services listed on the IEP and that "the Student" made reasonable gains during the school year. Further, the hearing officer found that the school district was not required to develop a behavioral management plan as defined by federal and state rules and regulations.

Attorneys represented both parties.

Case #000667 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement, Compensatory Services, Inclusion, Appropriate Placement

The parent requested the due process hearing on behalf of her eleven-year old daughter whose primary disability is mild retardation. The daughter was also found eligible for speech and language services. The parent objected to her daughter's placement in special education program for more than fifty percent of the school day after having been in a regular classroom program with special education resource services in grades first through third.

Several alleged procedural violations became the basis for the development of an extensive list of issues, which were resolved for the most part prior to the hearing. Resolutions for all but two issues were approved and became part of the hearing record as stipulations or agreed upon orders. The remaining two issues involved the delivery of compensatory education services and whether or not "the Student" was denied FAPE during the 1998-99 school year.

The hearing officer ruled in favor of the parent regarding compensatory services, however, with modifications as set forth in the Orders. It was also the finding of the hearing officer that the school district denied "the Student" FAPE from the beginning of the school year until a change of placement took place on April 5, 1999.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #000636 - Francis J. Nowik, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement, Agreed upon Order

The parents requested the hearing, seeking reimbursement for placing the Student at Allendale during the l998-99 school year and during the 1999 summer program. The hearing officer wrote an agreed upon order ordering the district, with statutory reimbursement from the Illinois State Board of Education, to pay tuition, room and board, and transportation expenses to Allendale for the period of 1998-99 school year and the 1999 summer term.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #000984 Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Appropriateness of Services, Provision of Services, Eligibility Determination, Treatment of the Parent by the School

The hearing was requested by the parent because she believed that the district had not adequately considered the fact that the child had a high level of lead poisoning, abnormal EEG, a seizure disorder and a history of passing out both in and out of school. The parents requested the school district to assess "child" to determine if he met the qualifications specified in IDEA for a disability. The case study evaluation concluded that "child" was not disabled as defined by IDEA. The parents objected to this conclusion and requested a due process hearing to contest the school district's decision. In the pre-hearing conference, the mother identified four issues, which generally centered on the case study evaluation process and the appropriate placement issue. The impartial due process hearing proceeded with these points being the ones of contention. During the mother's opening statement, the school district's attorney asked the mother exactly what she wanted and if this dispute could be resolved at this point rather than continuing with the hearing. The parties requested the hearing be temporarily postponed so they could possibly resolve their differences. The parties reached an agreed upon order that centered on eight points. In general, these points focused on the parents' treatment by staff in the home school. The points the mother raised in pre-hearing conference were no longer important; the agreed points, in actuality, did not "fit" within the perimeters of IDEA. Yet, it was felt that this agreed upon order could provide a foundation in which the parents and the school district could work cooperatively for the best interests of the child

Legal counsel represented the district; the parents were not represented.

Case #001040 Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Consent for a Case Study Evaluation

The school district requested a due process hearing for the purpose of compelling consent to conduct a case study evaluation. The request was brought on behalf of a fourteen year old boy who, although a sixth grade student, had an extremely limited ability to read and had math skills far below grade level. The parent refused to give her consent for the district to conduct a case study evaluation. The school district submitted a Motion for Summary Judgement supported by Affidavits. The hearing officer decided in favor of the school district ordering that the case study evaluation proceed.

Legal counsel represented the district and the parent did not participate in the hearing process.

Case #000729 Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement in Private School, Agreed Upon Order

In November of 1998, the parents unilaterally placed "child" in a private school program (a school on the Governor's Approved Care List). The parents felt that the school district was not providing "child" with an appropriate education. The parents sought the remedy of: reimbursement for the tuition expenses, reimbursement of the transportation costs to and from the school, reimbursement of the private tutoring, reimbursement of the private speech and language services, and reimbursement of the independent evaluation. The school district countered that it was providing an appropriate education program for "child." Before the scheduled date of the hearing, representatives for the parents and the school district reached a resolution that became the basis of an agreed upon order. There were three major points reached in this agreement. (1) The school district will reimburse the parents retroactively from the date of placement in the private school. (2) The school district will provide transportation services as set forth in "child's" IEP. (3) The funding of the placement will be shared between the local education agency and the Illinois State Board of Education.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #000800 Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement, Neighborhood School, Trial Placement

In December 1998, the school district recommended "child" be placed in a self-contained, cross-categorical program in an in-district school other than his home school. The parents disagreed with the proposed placement. The parents and the school district mediated their dispute, and agreed to place "child" in a self-contained, cross-categorical program on a "trial" basis until the end of the school year. During his placement in the self-contained, cross-categorical program, his behaviors became increasingly more severe, frequent, and intense. While placed in the cross-categorical program, he expressed intent to harm other students, the staff, and presented an imminent threat to his own safety. As a result of these threats, the multidisciplinary conference at the end of the school year recommended "child" be placed in a therapeutic day school beginning in the fall of 1999. The parents disagreed with the proposed placement and renewed their request for a due process hearing.

In the hearing, the parents argued that the school district ignored some of the child's and the parents' rights as specified in the IDEA. They also argued that his behavior was not severe and he should continue to be served in the cross-categorical program. The school district contended they met formally over ten times and dozens of times informally during the school year to discuss ways to modify and control "child's" behaviors. It was ordered that "child" be placed in an alternative therapeutic day school for the 1999-2000 school year.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #000834 Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Oral vs. Total Communication, Amount of Related Services

In May of 1998, at the age of three years, "child" underwent a successful cochlear implantation. After the implantation, audiologic evaluations demonstrated a significant improvement in "child's" ability to hear sounds. In the summer of 1998, the school district assessed the student and developed an IEP, and at the mother's request, increased the length of instruction from a half day to a full day. The IEP team members determined that the most appropriate program for "child" would be a total communication program. The mother, in contrast, felt that an oral education program would be the most effective program for her daughter. The mother also wanted to increase the amount of speech/language services that her daughter received to 150 minutes per week. The witnesses testified that "child" requires a total communication program because of the size and complexity of her language base. Since her language base is extremely limited, "child" needs a variety of communication modes to increase her receptive and expressive language skills. Furthermore, since "child's" language base was limited, she would not experience success in an oral education program (where the total communication program was taught). The hearing officer ordered the child continue in the district's total communication program. The hearing officer also ordered that the amount of speech/language services the student was receiving was appropriate for her current needs.

Legal counsel represented district, the parents were not represented.

Case #001035 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Extended School Year Services, Compensatory Services, Private Day Placement

Parent requested the hearing on the issue of placement and compensatory services because of the district's failure to provide ESY as required by the IEP and failure to find a placement in which the student's IEP could be fully implemented when private day school terminated its contract with district, thereby, terminating student's enrollment in the school. Decision was for parent on both issues. The district was ordered to provide 80 hours of tutoring as compensation for denial of ESY services and to place student at said private day school for 1999-00 school term.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001098 - Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement, LRE

The parents requested the hearing because they objected to the district's proposal to change the student's placement from the district's communications disorders program to the speech center program at another school. At the time of the hearing, the student was 7 years old and in the second grade. With the exception of the portion of the day that the student was receiving speech and language services, the student participated in all academic areas of the curriculum within the regular educational setting. The primary issue in this dispute was whether the student had progressed sufficiently to be placed in a LRE in another school.

The hearing officer found that the district did not violate any parental rights of notification. During the hearing, the district agreed to have the student tested for auditory processing difficulties. The hearing officer ordered that the district test the student as agreed, and convene an IEP conference once the test results are received by the parties for the purposes of revising the current IEP. The hearing officer ordered that the student's placement not be changed for the 1999-2000 school year.

Legal counsel represented the district; a relative with knowledge regarding special education matters represented the parent.

Case #001061 - Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
Consent for Placement in Special Education, Disagreement Regarding Eligibility, Motion for Summary Judgement

The hearing was requested by the district due to the parent's failure to give consent to place the student in a program that consisted of 1250 minutes per week of special education instructional services in a separate classroom setting with 20 minutes per week of social work services to meet the student's emotional needs. The parent disagreed with the finding of eligibility for special education and related services under the category of behavior disorder/learning disability. At the time of the request, the student was in the third grade.

The hearing officer found that the student was eligible for special education services under the category of behavior disorder/learning disability. The hearing officer ordered the district to implement the IEP developed during the 1998-99 school year and within 30 days of the decision and orders to have an IEP meeting to review and revise the current IEP.

The school district filed a motion of summary judgement. The parent filed no response to the motion. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the district's summary judgement motion.

Legal counsel represented the school district. The parent did not participate in any of the proceeding.

Case #001093 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement vs. Private Day Placement

The district offered to place the student in a private special education day school with an extended day program. The parent requested the hearing seeking a residential school placement at public expense. The timeline for the due process hearing was extended by mutual consent of the parties because the student was in a psychiatric hospital and not available for a school placement. The district's motion to join the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Department of Human Services was granted when those two agencies failed to respond to the motion. If residential placement was found appropriate, the district requested that the hearing officer order ISBE and/or DHS to provide the residential component.

The hearing officer ordered that the student be placed in the residential facility upon discharge from the hospital. He further ordered that the district pay the tuition cost of the placement. The Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Department of Human Services were ordered to be responsible for the direct payment of the room and board, mental health and related service cost of the placement.

Legal counsel represented district, parents were not represented.

Case #000723 - Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer
One Individual to serve as an One-on-One Aide

The parent requested the hearing because they believed that the one-on-one aide assigned to their son should be one consistent individual. It was the opinion of the hearing officer that the IEP did not specify only one individual be assigned to the student and that the professionals working with the student on a daily basis had the right to make that decision. Another issue placed before the hearing officer was whether the student's placement for the 1999-00 was appropriate if an individual one-on-one aide was not provided. With respect to this issue, the hearing officer found that the student's placement for the 1999-00 school year was appropriate with the services outlined in the IEP. A third issue brought before the hearing officer focused on whether the school district had an appropriately certified person to conduct the MDC/IEP meeting prior to the spring 1998 IEP. The hearing officer found in favor of the district on this issue.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case # 000256 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Self-contained Public Therapeutic Day School vs. Neighborhood School, Classification, Behavior Management Plan, Least Restrictive Placement

The hearing was initially requested by the parents alleging inappropriate discipline and behavior interventions. During the pendency of this hearing, the district requested and expedited the hearing for the purpose of moving the student to an interim alternative education setting (case #850). Hearing Officer Wolter on February 10,1999, ordered that the child's placement be changed to a therapeutic day school for 45 days. However, the parents chose to home school the student rather than place him in the ordered IAES. The issues presented for hearing and decision were as follows:

Whether the student was "Health Impaired," as proposed by the parents, or "Multiply Impaired" as proposed by the district?
Whether the behavior management plan proposed by the district violated the student's rights under IDEA?
Whether the LRE for the student was in a regular junior high school, as proposed by the parent, or a separate public therapeutic day school program in another district as proposed by the district?
The hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents on all issues. Legal counsel represented both the district and the parent.

Case #001091, Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Appropriate Placement, Private vs. Public School Placement, Discipline, Compensatory Services, Implementation of the IEP, Implementation of Previous Hearing Officer's Decision

This was the second due process hearing for this 12-year-old student in less than a year. The parent and advocate before the hearing agreed they wanted therapeutic day school, ESY and compensatory services for the student, all of which the district had offered. The parent and advocate insisted on going through with the hearing anyway. There were 23 witnesses who basically detailed the student's totally out of control behavior in school - throwing chairs, leaving class, fighting, using profanity to one and all with the addition this year of a sexual component. The advocate alleged it was the failure of the teacher and other school personnel that caused the student's behavior to deteriorate.

The hearing officer found that the district had tried to implement the IEP and the functional analysis and behavior management plan but its best efforts (which were found to be more than adequate) were fruitless. The student was ordered into therapeutic day school with extended school year services next summer and compensatory services for all the missed school because of suspensions during the previous school year.

Legal counsel represented the district; an advocate assisted the parent.

000070 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Placement in Consumer Education

The parents requested this hearing on August 19, 1997. The parties participated in four separate days of hearings with the most recent date held on September 12, 1999. The parties requested that the hearing officer render an order regarding the student's classes at the school which he was enrolled at the time of the hearing. The parents requested that the student be taken out of consumer education and placed in a content required credit class. The district requested that the student continue his placement in the consumer education class.

The consumer education class in dispute is considered a non-credit course, taken for one semester and is required of all students for high school graduation. The hearing officer ruled that the student continue in the consumer education course.

Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

top of page

Due Process Hearing Decisions October 16, 1999 and March 15, 2000

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued between October 16, 1999 and March 15, 2000.  Each summary identifies the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if known), the hearing officer's finding, and whether legal counsel represented the parties. This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently being brought before hearing officers. If you would like to receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly a 217/782-5589. You are reminded that these decisions are not precedent-setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them

Case  #001268 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement
The parents of a 15-year old son who was diagnosed as having a behavior/emotional disability requested the due process hearing.  An inter-agency agreement between the Department of Human Services, Children and Family Services, and the Chicago Public Schools was arranged for placement of the student in a state approved residential facility. After approximately one (1) year, the student was discharged and placed unilaterally by his parents in a residential military academy that was not on the state-approved list.  The parents alleged that the school district did not provide FAPE for their son in a timely manner.  The school district maintained they were in the process of determining an appropriate placement for the student when the parent made the unilateral placement.  The relief sought by the parents was for the school district to assume the financial responsibility for the placement and make arrangements for the completion of an appropriate IEP.  The hearing officer found that the school district did not complete the IEP and offer the student FAPE in a timely manner.  Further, the parents' unilateral placement was determined appropriate and the district was ordered to assume the financial responsibility for the student's placement.  Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001237 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Consent for Evaluation

The district requested the hearing for the sole purpose of compelling consent to conduct a case study evaluation.  The student had been in special education when he was in the second grade.  At the time of the hearing the student was over 14 years old and was repeating the 8th grade.  His last IEP was dated June 8, 1998.  At the request of the parents, in the fall of 1998, special education services were withdrawn despite the concerns of the district.  The district found the student's progress thereafter to be unsatisfactory.  The parents were objecting to the evaluation because the student's previous experiences in special education had been negative.

The hearing officer ordered the district to promptly conduct a case study evaluation.  Legal counsel represented the district; the parents were not represented.

Case #001241 - Marian F. McElroy, Hearing Officer
Reimbursement for Tuition and Fees at a University

The parent requested the hearing seeking reimbursement for tuition and fees incurred by the student during his first year at the university of 1998-99.  The student was placed on academic probation by the university and did not return after his first year.  The student graduated from high school in June 1998.  The parent contended that the school district did not provide the student FAPE during high school and that therefore the district should be held accountable for the student's lack of success during his first year at the university.  The student is hearing impaired.

The hearing officer ruled that although the school district did not provide the student FAPE, there was no authority either in IDEA or case law that permitted the hearing officer to order the district to reimburse the parent for tuition and fees.

The parent appeared pro se.  Legal counsel represented the district.

Case # 00125 - Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer
Sensitive Training of Staff, Sufficiency of IEP, FAPE

The parents requested the hearing seeking an order requiring that the district staff participate in sensitive training, that the student receive compensatory speech and language services and that the student receive an independent educational evaluation at district expense.  The parents contended that the student's IEP was not written appropriately and as a result the student was being denied FAPE.  At the time of the hearing, the student who was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia at the age of one, was 15 years old and attending the 8th grade in a public junior high setting.

The hearing officer found that the district prevailed on all issues pertaining to this student.  Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001266 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Private Day School vs. Public High School

The parent requested the hearing to obtain an order requiring that the district place their daughter in a private special education day school.  At the time of the hearing the student was 17 years of age and receiving special education services in a regular public high school.  The parents alleged that the district had failed to provide the services listed on the student's IEP.  The parents also expressed concern regarding the student's safety in a large public school.

The district argued that a separate special education day school was too restrictive and recommended transferring the student to a regular public school closer to her home.  The district proposed placing the student in a program with 4 students, 1 special education teacher and 1 aide who would provide the student with one-on-one services.

The hearing officer ordered that the student be placed in a special education program within a regular public high school.  Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #000851 - Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer
Summary Judgement - Appropriateness of IEP

A summary judgement was granted in favor of the school district.  The individualized educational program (IEP) dated December 15, 1999, including the transition plan was found to provided a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.  The hearing was initially requested on January 25, 1999, and the issues regarding placement were resolved pursuant to a stipulated agreement reached on May 28, 1999.  The stipulated agreement included a transition plan changing the student's placement from a private day school to a public day school. The hearing was reinitiated because the parent alleged that the district had not successfully implemented the transition plan.

Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #001007 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Therapeutic Day vs. Residential Placement

The student in this matter exhibited a number of inappropriate behaviors in the classroom: noncompliance, work refusal, disruptive behaviors, rude verbalizations, and threats to other students.  The school district proposed to place the student in a special education therapeutic day school.  The parents opposed that placement.  The parents felt that he academically regressed in comparison to his peers while in that program previously.  Furthermore, the parents felt that the current placement could be appropriate, but if he had to be placed in another setting, the parents preferred that he be placed in a residential program where he could receive an adequate education.

The hearing officer found that the district failed to protect the procedural safeguards required by the IDEA and failed to satisfy its affirmative obligations and its IDEA responsibilities to supplement and realign its resources as required by Oberti.   Therefore, it was ordered that the student remain in his current placement.  The school district was also ordered to convene a MDC to consider appropriate modifications, which could enhance the student's education and decrease the frequency of his inappropriate behaviors.  The district was also ordered to increase the counseling and coordinate those services with the independent counseling the parents are providing.  The hearing officer also ordered that the student be seen by a psychiatrist to address his depression.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case # 000445 - Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
FAPE, IEP Inadequate and Improperly Implemented

Parents asserted the school district failed to provide the student with FAPE, that the IEP was both inadequate and improperly implemented, that services were inappropriately provided, and that specific accommodations were necessary to provide the student with FAPE.  The parents argued the student needed a structured sequential multisensory approach to learning in order to meet his educational needs.  Parents also argued the school district retaliated against the parents and the student.  Eligibility for an extended school year was also an issue; the hearing was bifurcated to allow testimony.  Evidence and a decision are to be issued in a timely manner regarding extended school year services for this year.

It was concluded the school district has provided FAPE, that the IEP should be more detailed consistent with Rowley and that services are required to be provided not only in terms of minutes but also in a timely manner.  It was determined that methodology is left to the school district to determine and that the student in this case rather than the local private clinic requested by parents.  It was also found that the requested accommodations were either already provided, were not necessary to provide the student with FAPE, or fell under the rubric of methodology to be determined by the school district.

Case # 000844 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Home-based ABA , Discrete Trial Format, Placement, Compensatory Services, Sufficiency of the IEP

Parents requested the hearing citing the district's failure to provide an appropriate placement for the implementation of the child's IEP objectives using discrete trial format; failure to have the evaluation, IEP, and placement secured by the child's third birthday; failure to arrange for the continued provision of services in the child's IFSP pending placement; and failure to provide related services included in the child's IEP and later modified through the mediation agreement.

The hearing officer found that the placement was an appropriate placement to implement the child's IEP goals and objectives using the discrete trial format.  The hearing officer ordered the district to implement the IEP goals and objectives in the discrete trail format for 20 hours per week, employ an ABA consultant, and convene an IEP meeting within 10 days for the purpose of reviewing the child's goals and objectives and developing a highly structured plan.  Because of the district's failure to have the child's evaluation IEP, and placement secured by his third birthday, arrange for the continued provision of services in his IFSP pending placement, implement IEP objectives using the discrete trial format, and provide related services included in his IEP and later modified through a mediation agreement, the hearing officer also ordered the district to provide compensatory speech/language and occupational therapy services and 10 hours of home-based discrete trial therapy for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #001139 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Consent for Placement, Alternative Public Day School vs. Public Day School

At an IEP convened in spring 1999, the school district concluded that this student should be placed in an alternative public day school for students with behavior/emotional disorders.  Upon the failure of the parents to consent to this placement, the school district filed for due process.  The hearing officer found that the school district properly notified the parents of the change in placement.  The parents elected to withdraw the student on the day of the due process hearing.  In order to determine the student's "stay put" placement should he return to the school district, the hearing officer found that the school district, based upon the facts known to them at the time of the IEP, had properly concluded that the student was eligible for special education services under the classification of behavior/emotional disorder and that said special education services should be provided the student in a public behavior disorder program at the alternative school.  The hearing officer ordered the school district to turn over the student's records to the alternative school if and when the student re-enrolled in the school district.

Case #000629 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Eligibility for Special Education

The parents of a foster child requested a due process hearing because they disagreed with the district's finding that the child was not eligible for special education as a learning disabled student.  Eligibility for special education services for Speech and Language was determined at an MDC.  The district provided services during the school year in a FLEX Service Model.  Additional evaluations were completed.  The child was again found to be ineligible for special education as a learning disabled student by the MDC nor was the diagnosis supported at the hearing.  The district was ordered to continue to offer flexible services as needed and as provided for any other students.  Legal counsel represented the district.  The parents presented their own case.

Case #001314 - Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Dismissal Order

The hearing officer dismissed the case based on a notice received from the guardian withdrawing her request for due process.

Case #001298 - Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Dismissal Order

Hearing officer dismissed the hearing upon notice that the student had transferred to a private school.  The district's request for an order for a case study evaluation, and for a due process hearing was denied.

Case #0000933 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal

The parent requested the hearing because she disagreed with the district's recommended special education placement.  Through mediation, the district and the parent reached an agreement and a placement decision was finalized.  Based on the parent's satisfaction with the placement, the hearing officer dismissed the case in its entirely.

Case #000746 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Therapeutic Day Placement vs Residential Placement
The request for due process hearing was made subsequent to an IEP meeting at which a therapeutic day placement was recommended for the student.  The parent believed that a more restrictive setting, specifically residential, was appropriate based on his complex needs.  Multiple agencies have been involved in securing an appropriate and ISBE approved facility.  After a nationwide search, only one school will accept the student.  The district was ordered to pay the educational costs of the placement in conjunction with co-funding by IDCFS and DHS even though the school is not on the state approved list.

Counsel represented the district.  At the time of hearing, the parent was not represented, though had been advised by attorneys and agency representatives.

Case #001063 - Francis J. Nowik, Hearing Officer
Transportation of Charter School

The guardian of the student elected to send the student to a charter school rather than a neighborhood school.  The district informed the guardian that while special education services are made available to special education students at the charter school, the district does not provide transportation to charter schools to any student.  In a pre-hearing ruling the hearing officer ruled that as a matter of law the district is not obligated to provide transportation to a special education student when the district does not provide transportation to any student electing to attend a charter school.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001048 - Francis J. Nowik, Hearing Officer
FAPE, Assignment of an Individual Aide

The hearing officer found that the district employed a qualified individual aide for the student and denied the parent's request that the former aide be reemployed in that position.  The hearing officer also found the omission of the designation of "other health impaired" on the IEP did not result in the denial of FAPE.  He did find that not sharing with the parents the annual assessment of the extent to which the student's goals and objectives were reached was a denial of FAPE.  He also determined that the student should remain in the eighth grade.

Legal counsel represented both the district and the parents.

Case #001084 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Interim Placement, Private Therapeutic vs. Self-contained Placement

The parent requested the hearing seeking implementation of the student's IEP of October 28, 1999.  The parents were seeking immediate placement at Cove School until June 16, 2000, which is the date he is to be enrolled at Cove School per an agreement of the parties pursuant to the IEP of October 28, 1999.

The student was eligible for special education and related services under the classification of specific learning disabilities.  The district argued that it could keep the student in a public self-contained classroom as an "interim" placement until the end of the school year because transportation would be costly, difficult for the student, and he would be changing schools again in June.  The hearing officer ruled in favor of the parent pursuant to 23 IAC 226.575.

Legal counsel represented the district.  A legal assistant represented the parent.

Case #001257 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Jurisdiction over Expulsion Hearings

The student's foster mother requested the hearing because she objected to the district's decision to place her foster son in an alternative educational program instead of expulsion.  Following the completion of the alternative program the student returned to his home school.  The student was initially recommended for expulsion for bringing a knife to school.  An MDC was convened and it was determined that the misconduct was not related to the disability.  The hearing officer dismissed the case on the grounds that the dispute did not involve any disagreement involving the status of the student as a special education student.  The district provided the student with an interim alternative placement and later returned the student to his local school.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The foster parent was not represented.

Case #000803 - Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement, FAPE, Graduation, Independent Education Evaluation

The parents requested the hearing seeking reimbursement for a unilateral placement, compensatory services until December 2001, and reimbursement for an independent evaluation.  The hearing officer found that the student had been denied FAPE and ordered the remedies being sought by the family.  The hearing officer found that while the student may have had the "paper" credits to graduate according to the school district's general requirements, this did not preclude the district from providing him with an appropriate IEP to meet his identified special education needs under IDEA.

Legal counsel represented both the district and the family.

Case #001153 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services Beyond the Age of 21

The student's parent requested the hearing seeking compensatory services beyond the age of 21.  The student was diagnosed as multiple disabled with autistic tendencies, Down Syndrome and diabetes and frequent upper respiratory infections.  At the time of the hearing, he was functioning at approximately the 3 years of age level and was classified as severely/profoundly mentally retarded.

While enrolled in a school district's program the student learned a Spanish word and spoke it at home.  Since English is spoken in the home, the mother held that the school district taught the student Spanish communication skills rather than English communication skills.  Therefore, the parent contended that the school district should provide him with additional educational services to compensate for the Spanish instruction he received and the English instruction that he did not receive.  This was the issue involved in this due process hearing:  Should HB receive compensatory instruction in English language usage and English communication skills?  The testimony of the school staff and principal/program director repeatedly stated that only English was taught to the students; all instruction was in English.

Relative to this hearing, two points were decided: (1) the operation of the statute of limitations was not applicable in this matter and (2) the student received a free appropriate public education as defined by the IDEA using the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowley standard.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001210 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Consent for Placement

The district requested the hearing due to parent's refusal to consent to special education placement per MDC and IEP from the previous district, where student had repeated 7th grade.  At the time of the hearing the student was in a regular 8th grade class and failing.  The new district initiated the hearing, requesting an order allowing additional testing of the student to further aid in identifying the student's needs and an appropriate program.  The parent chose not to participate in the process.  Therefore, the hearing officer entered an order in favor of the district upon a motion for Summary Judgement.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent did not participate in the hearing process.

Case #001120 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Location of Services, Neighborhood School vs. Cluster-Site

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their 15-year-old daughter.  The student was eligible for special education and related services under the primary disability of physical impairment and a secondary classification of mental impairment with limited communication.  During junior high, the district provided supplementary aides and services, including educational facilitator, individual aide, health care aide, and modification of curriculum down to 1st grade level.  The district also paid for physical therapy at Easter Seals.  The student was transported by bus with an aide, tube fed at school, had diapers changed, and was repositioned throughout the day.  The student was in a multi-needs class and also mainstreamed into regular education classes at the request of parents.

The student aged-out of junior high school.  The IEP was developed for high school and the district refused to place the student at her neighborhood school, as requested by the parents.  The district offered two multi-needs opportunities, which would assist the student in meeting her IEP goals.  Parents refused, claiming travel to the multi-needs setting posed a health risk to the student and that she should receive supplemental aides and services at the local school.

The hearing officer found, based on the evidence, that the student made no progress in the regular education classes and received no benefit from them.  The hearing office found that the student's needs could best be met in the multi-needs setting with teachers trained and able to use a multi-sensory approach in teaching.  The district had provided supplemental aides and services accordingly and had offered a FAPE to the student.  No health risk was found for the student to be transported to the multi-needs setting.  The multi-needs program was found to be the least restrictive environment for the student and provides mainstreaming opportunities in access to computer and media centers, field trips, school clubs and other activities.  The district is not required to duplicate existing services at the neighborhood school.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001396 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Notice of Dismissal

The hearing was requested by the district seeking an order to conduct a triennial case study evaluation over parent objection.  The case was dismissed by the hearing officer on the grounds that the initial evaluation was in violation of 20USC 1414 SEC.614(a)(C)(I).

Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #001381 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Eligibility Classification/Identification

The parents requested the hearing seeking an order to change the student's eligibility classification from mental impairment to autism.  At the time of the hearing, the student was 4 years 5 months old and not attending a public school program.  The hearing officer found that the case study evaluation conducted by the district was consistent with the diagnostic profile of a student with mental retardation and speech/language disabilities.  The hearing officer found that the IEP developed by the district was reasonably calculated to provide the student with an opportunity to learn.

Legal counsel represented the district; the parents were not represented.

Case #000970 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Consent for Evaluation

The hearing was requested by the child's mother to force the school district to discontinue a case study evaluation, which was initiated with the written consent of the child's father.  The student was referred for a case study evaluation because of inappropriate behaviors at school.  The father signed the consent form.  Subsequently, the mother filed a request for a due process hearing to prevent the school district from conducting the evaluation.  Shortly before the date of the hearing, the mother withdrew her request for a hearing.  The father once again gave his permission for the case study evaluation.  The school district informed the mother that testing was going to proceed.  The mother told the student not to participate, not to cooperate, and not to respond to any of the questions during the testing process.  Subsequently, the father filed a request for a due process hearing to force the school district to conduct the evaluation.

It was ordered that the school district should begin the assessment, evaluation, and testing process to complete the case study evaluation on behalf of the student.  Legal counsel represented neither party.

Case #001168 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Least Restrictive Environment, Inclusion, Neighborhood School
The parent requested the hearing to obtain an order to have the student immediately returned from a separate day school to his neighborhood school.  At the time of the hearing, the student was 11 years 11 months old and eligible for special education and related services under the category of behavior/emotional disorder.  The record showed that the student had been eligible for special education services since 1st grade.  An IEP meeting was held and all parties were in agreement that the student had exhibited sufficient progress to warrant reintegration into his home school.  The question to be decided was not one of whether the student should be reintegrated into his home school, but when and how the student should reintegrated.

The hearing officer ordered the district to convene an IEP meeting, develop a behavioral intervention plan and a plan to reintegrate the student into his home school on a part time basis at the beginning of the next school semester.  The hearing officer ordered that the IEP provide for a minimum of 400 minutes of regular education, a minimum of 200 minutes of special education and a minimum of 30 minutes of school social work counseling in his home school at the beginning of the next semester.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001113 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Deprivation of FAPE, Change of Placement, Least Restrictive Environment, Sufficiency of Behavioral Intervention Plan

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their fifteen-year-old son who was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at age, four.  The student was identified as disabled because his "behavior has an adverse effect on the ability to benefit from the educational environment and interferes with the learning of himself and/or others."  The issues identified by the parents were (1) deprivation of FAPE due to removal of the student from school and failure to provide a sufficient behavioral intervention plan, (2) objection to change of placement, and (3) failure to educate the student in the least restrictive environment.

The hearing officer found that the preponderance of evidence did not support the parents' contention that the student had been deprived of FAPE due to the failure of the district to develop and implement a behavior modification plan.  However, the hearing officer did find that the district had failed to provide FAPE in the least restrictive environment after removing (suspending) the student from school and providing him with only nine hours of tutoring or homebound instruction.  The hearing officer found that the district had ignored the procedural safeguards pursuant to removal of students with disabilities for disciplinary purposes.

The hearing officer ordered the district to reimburse the parents the amount of $1310 which they incurred for counseling services related to the student's educational needs following the student's removal from school.

Legal counsel represented by parties.  This case is currently in appeal

Case #001128 - Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer
Movement of Early Childhood Classroom

The parent requested the hearing because she objected to the district's decision to move the early childhood education/at-risk classroom to the junior high school section of the building.  The parent alleged that the location of the classroom significantly hampered the children in the classroom from contact with age-appropriate peers.  The hearing officer ordered that prior to the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year, the district move the early childhood classroom back to the section of the building housing the primary age children.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.  This case is currently in appeal.

Case #001233 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Expedited Hearing - Removal to Interim Alternative Educational Setting

This was an expedited hearing.  On or about August 20, 1999, the parent requested that the school district conduct a case study evaluation on behalf of her son.  On September 16, 1999, the student was observed to have a nail clipper. The nail clipper had a blade of 1 5/8 inches in length. The school district classified it as a weapon and suspended him for 10 days pending disciplinary hearing.  The school district subsequently placed him in an alternative educational setting for a 45 day period.  Under IDEA, the student was entitled to due process protections that the school district did not follow.  A matter similar to his case occurred in Minnesota, Independent School District No. 279, Osseo Area School.  In that case, the student was erroneously charged with possession of a dangerous weapon and sought relief similar to the relief sought in this matter.  It was concluded the nail clipper was not a weapon.  The hearing officer ordered: (1) the child will be immediately reinstated in school, (2) the school district will conduct an immediate case study evaluation and, if appropriate, an Individual Education Program, a functional analysis, and a behavior intervention plan, and (3) the school district will provide an extended school year program for the student to compensate for the exclusion from school.

Legal counsel represented by parties.

Case #001275 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Selection of One-on-One Aide

Parents requested the hearing citing the district's failure to provide the student with a new one-on-one aide.  At the hearing the parents were represented by an advocate and the district by an attorney.

The hearing officer found that the retention or selection of an aide to assist a student with disabilities is an administrative function and not subject to review, unless the selection or retention of a particular aide deprives a student of a free appropriate public education by interfering with the implementation of the student's IEP or poses a danger to the student's health, safety or welfare.  The hearing officer stated there was not reason to interfere with the district's discretionary authority to choose its personnel and denied the parents request for a new aide.

Due Process Hearing Decisions March 16, 2000 through June 30, 2000

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued between March 16, 2000 and June 30, 2000.  Each summary identifies the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if known), the hearing officer's finding, and whether legal counsel represented the parties.  This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently being brought before hearing officers.  If you would like to receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly at 217/782-5589.  You are reminded that these decisions are not precedent-setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them.

Case #001361 - Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Failure to Implement IEP, Refusal to Provide one-on-one Tutorial Assistant.
Failure to Comply with Child Find Provisions of IDEA97

In this case the parents contended that the school district denied the student her right to FAPE by refusing to provide her one-on-one tutorial assistance in various academic subjects, not implementing her IEP in an appropriate manner, failing to comply with diverse procedural requirements of the IDEA, and not adhering to the Act's child find provisions.  The parents requested various measures of relief, most significantly, that the student receive 10 hours per week of one-on-one tutoring in her academic subjects, as well as compensatory education, and that the school district reimburse the parents relative to their expenses for private tutoring of the student in her freshman and sophomore high school years.  The school district contended that it had provided the student FAPE and accordingly, requested the hearing officer to deny all the parents requests for relief.

The hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district based upon the evidence and testimony presented to him in the case.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001355 - Susan Einspar-Wayne, Hearing Officer
Change in Placement, Self-contained vs. Therapeutic Placement

Parent requested the due process hearing to contest the school district's proposed change in placement to a therapeutic day school.  Parent also contended that the change of placement that took place in the spring 1999 from resource to self-contained was done without the parent's knowledge or approval.

The student was first evaluated and identified as behavior disordered in March of 98.  His initial placement was in a self-contained classroom.  By spring 99, his behavior had improved sufficiently so that he was placed in a mainstream classroom with resource support.  By the end of the spring 99 semester, his behavior had deteriorated so that the school again recommended a self-contained placement.  The parent did not dispute that she received a copy of the spring 99 IEP and did not contact the school to dispute this change in placement to a full day self-contained placement.

In the fall of 99, the student's behavior continued to decline. His behaviors included: kicking and flailing his arms, sometimes resulting in harm to others; constantly moving around in and out of his chair; becoming upset, shutting down and refusing to do any work whatsoever; and running from the room.  On September 29, 1999, he brandished scissors at another student during an altercation with the student.

An emergency MDC/IEP meeting was held.  The school team members determined that while his behavior in brandishing the scissors was not related to his disability in that in was not impulsive, his IEP was not appropriate.  The team therefore concluded that he should not be expelled but rather that he required a highly structured therapeutic day school setting.

The hearing officer found that the school district had progressively restricted his placement in an attempt to meet his needs at his neighborhood school.  The attempts had failed and his behaviors had deteriorated so that he was a danger to himself and others in that school.  Thus a change to a therapeutic day school was clearly appropriate.

Hearing officer held for the school district.

Legal counsel represented the school district; parents represented themselves.

Case #001414 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement - Reevaluation

The parent requested the hearing because she objected to the district's recommendation of a self-contained placement for her son.  The parent did not attend the hearing.  The hearing officer determined that sufficient notice was given to all parties so as to meet due process rights consistent with federal and state law; the hearing officer had the authority to proceed with the due process hearing without the parent present.

After the parents refusal for the self-contained education setting, which had been based on a case study, the district offered a consult for "if needed" services, to which the parent agreed.  The student was placed in the regular education setting.  In this setting, the student's behavior continued to escalate and his grades deteriorated.  The student has not met the requirements to graduate from eighth grade.  The student was suspended for sexual harassment of another student and the parent withdrew him from the district.

The hearing officer determined that the district complied with the law in recommending a self-contained education setting for the student.  Additionally, the hearing officer granted the district's request to conduct a re-evaluation, in accordance with law, to determine appropriate services, if the parent returns the student to the district school.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case #001579 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement to Alternative Day School

Parent requested a due process hearing because she objected to the recommended placement made by the school district.  The preponderance of evidence and testimony substantiated the appropriateness of the placement.  The district was ordered to place the student in the proposed alternative day school for the coming academic year and to ensure the provision of related services.

Legal counsel represented the school district, parents represented themselves.

Case #001643 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation

This is the student's first year in the school district.  According to the parent, this school district is more academically advanced than her previous school.  As a result, the student is progressing at a slower rate academically than her classmates.  Also according to the teacher, the student is having social problems in the classroom.  Because of her difficulties at the school, the school district requested an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive case study evaluation on behalf of the student.  The parent opposed this action.  The parent contends there are two reasons why the student is not progressing.  First, the student has a visual-motor disorder, and second, the student has a personality conflict with the teacher.  These two problems in concert have hindered her progress.  There is one other factor that should be noted.  The student was absent, tardy, or departed early 59 times during this past school year.  (This is approximately 1/2 of the school year).  This amount of absences, tardies, or early departures will have a significant impact on her educational achievement.

In the finding of fact section, the hearing officer concluded the student has an unspecified learning problem that is interfering with her ability to learn/remember information.  In the conclusions of law section, the hearing officer was directed by 34 CFR 300.505(b) and 20 USC 1415(a).  This code and regulation states that if a parent refuses consent for an initial evaluation, the agency must initiate a due process hearing in this matter with an impartial hearing officer making the determination.  The hearing officer concluded the school district met its burden of proof and ordered the school district to conduct a comprehensive case study evaluation on behalf of the student.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case #001512 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Sufficiency of Services, Parents Seeking Intensive Reading Program

The parents requested the due process hearing on behalf of their eleven-year-old daughter whose disability is classified under the category of other health impaired.  Because the student was of average ability, it was the parents' contention she should be reading at or near grade level.  In order to accomplish this level of functioning the parents felt the student needed an intense reading program because of her age and self esteem.  According to the parents, the IEP was insufficient and did not include a goal to enable the student to read at grade level.  The school district maintained that the student was reading and achieving at a level commensurate with her ability in the regular classroom with special education resource assistance.  The student was receiving above average grades and her reading concerns were being addressed in the IEP.   The parents disagreed and unilaterally placed their daughter in an intense six-week reading program.  They alleged their daughter was being denied FAPE and field for a due process hearing seeking relief from the school district for payment of the private reading program for their daughter.  The hearing officer found that the district did offer the student FAPE and, therefore, was not financially responsible for the services provided at the private facility.

Legal counsel represented the school district, parents represented themselves.

Case #001480 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Case Dismissed

Student no longer a resident of the district.

Case #001223 - Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
Case Dismissed

 Parent was seeking payment for private school tuition.  Due process case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction - the student was no longer a minor, and the right to request a hearing was vested in him.

Case #001462 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Case Dismissed

Father's request for a due process hearing was dismissed.  Pursuant to the terms of the Judgement for Dissolution of Marriage, the mother has sole care, (control and education) of the student.

Case #001425 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Consent for Re-evaluation

The local school district requested a due process hearing for the purpose of compelling consent to conduct a reevaluation.  The request was brought on behalf of an eleven-year-old young man who, after being identified as eligible for special education services by his prior school district, was enrolled in this school district with an incomplete individualized education plan.  The parent refused to give consent for the district to conduct re-evaluation and the local school district filed its request for a due process hearing officer.  The school district submitted a Motion of Summary Judgement supported by Affidavits.  The hearing officer granted summary judgement in favor of the school district ordering the case study re-evaluation to proceed.  The local school district requested clarification of certain aspects of the decision and the clarification directed the local school district to either (a) conduct a re-evaluation or (b) reconvene the special education team and complete the Individualized Education Plan.  Legal counsel represented the School District.  After initial telephone conferences, the parent chose not to participate in the hearing process.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001157 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Independent Education Evaluation at Public Expense

The parent requested an independent education evaluation subsequent to the district's case study evaluation, which determined her son to be autistic.  The district denied the request and requested a hearing.  Prior to the pre-hearing conference, the district proposed a resolution.  It offered the parent a consultation for her son with an autism expert, to be paid for by the district.  As part of the resolution, the district asked the parent to withdraw her request for an independent evaluation.  The parent refused to sign the agreement.  The matter was set for hearing.  The parent notified the hearing officer and district that she would not attend the hearing.  The district requested that the hearing officer consider the parent's refusal to attend the hearing as a withdrawal of her request for an independent evaluation or in the alternative set the matter for hearing.  A hearing was conducted.

The hearing officer determined that: the parent's refusal to attend the hearing did not constitute a withdrawal of her required for an independent education evaluation; sufficient notice was given to all parties so as to meet due process rights consistent with federal and state law; the hearing officer had the authority to proceed with the due process hearing without the parent present; the district complied with law in refusing to conduct an independent educational evaluation at public expense and appropriately requesting a hearing within five (5) school days following receipt of the parent's request; the district's evaluation of the student meets the standards contained in the applicable regulation; the parent's request for an independent education evaluation is denied.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001390 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Least Restrictive Environment, Day Treatment Center vs. Regular
Education Classroom, Change of Placement

The hearing was requested by the school district seeking an order to place the student in a day treatment center.  At the time of the hearing the student was nine years old.  According to the district the student was acting out toward adults and other children, unable to make progress at neighborhood schools with medication and interventions and was several grade levels behind his peers.  The district contended that the neighborhood school was unable to create an IEP with educational benefits, even in a separate classroom.

The hearing officer found that the district's proposed placement in a therapeutic day school was LRE and ordered the student be placed accordingly.

Legal counsel represented the school district, parents represented themselves.

CASE #001231 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), LRE

Parents requested hearing on the issues of FAPE, specifically the district's failure to provide Auditory-Verbal Therapy and a sound field system for their 4 year-old hearing impaired child and failure to place the child in a regular preschool classroom with non-disabled peers.  The hearing officer held for parents on the issues of Auditory-Verbal Therapy and placement and for the district on the issue of provision of sound field system.  District was ordered to pay for private AVT and preschool tuition and to reimburse parents for past payment of these expenses.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

CASE #001471 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Revocation of Parental Consent for Placement, Separate Public
Special Education School vs. Regular Education School

The parent requested a due process hearing on behalf of her 12-year-old 6th grade son when the district made an initial special education placement in a separate public special education school after the student had made two suicide gestures at school.  The parent consented to the placement while the student was still in a psychiatric hospital program but revoked consent when she learned the hospital recommended the student return to his regular education school upon discharge from the hospital program.  The district denied the parent's right to revoke consent and barred the student from returning to his regular education school.  The hearing officer found that the district failed to consider the hospital's recommendation, conduct an assessment of the learning environment, conduct a functional behavioral analysis, develop and implement a behavioral intervention plan, and failed to consider the harmful effects of placing the student in a separate public special education school before placing him in at that school.  The district was ordered to provide the student with a free appropriate public education in his regular education school.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

CASE #000917 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Least Restrictive Environment, Appropriate Placement, Failure to Follow IEP

The school district requested the hearing contending that the student's current placement was not appropriate to his needs and that he required a more restrictive placement.  At the time of the hearing, the student was enrolled in the seventh grade.  His school performance and academic progress in kindergarten through the second grade was uneventful.  In the third grade, his grades began to deteriorate and his behavior problems increased in frequency and severity.  At the beginning of the fourth grade, his mother and the coordinator of special education requested a comprehensive case study evaluation be conducted.  From the fourth through the seventh grade, the school district provided a variety of special education and related services to the student.  These services progressed from the general education program with assistance to an instructional behavior disorders program with a full-time aide.  Throughout this process, the school district convened a MDC approximately every other month to evaluate the student's program and to improve the services that he was receiving.  The school district, at its own expense, obtained an independent psychological evaluation and an independent neurological evaluation and sought to obtain an independent psychiatric evaluation.

The two-step inquiry process of the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley and the proactive response to the student's behavior concept of the Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clemonton School District formed the basis of interpreting this matter.  Throughout this process, the school district has acted in a legal and responsible manner. It followed the guidelines specified by the IDEA and consistently attempted to decrease inappropriate behaviors and increase academic performance.  It was ordered that the student be placed in an alternative day school program of the school district's choice.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

CASE #0001228 - Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
District's Athletic Eligibility Policy

After proposing a list of accommodations at an IEP meeting, to which the school district agreed to some but not all, and after the student was removed from the high school football team for failing two courses, the parent requested a due process hearing.  A pre-hearing motion to reinstate the student on the football team was denied because it was found that administrative remedies within the school's athletic code's had not been exhausted.

During the pendency of the hearing, the student continued to fail from 2 to 4 courses out of 5 courses.  The school district argued it had made a FAPE available but the student failed to avail himself of educational opportunities.  The parent argued that the school district failed to address the student's needs, that sports was essential to the student, and therefore he needed to have sports and/or a provision requiring his obtaining a grade of C or above to maintain his athletic eligibility.

It was determined the student was exhibiting behaviors which interfered with his ability to obtain educational benefit.  These specific behaviors and concomitant strategies and/or consequences, as well as transition planning, determined by the IEP Team and parent, should be identified and considered for incorporation in the student's IEP.  It was also determined that, while there were some misunderstandings regarding accessibility and/or appropriate summer course offerings for this student, because the student was not eligible for extended school year services, there were no violations of IDEA.  The additional accommodations requested by the parent, except for two requests, were found to be related to methodology, to be left to the school district's discretion, or have already been incorporated into the student's IEP.  The two remaining requests were related to maintaining the student's athletic eligibility.  It was found that a FAPE consistent with IDEA does not require goals related to maintaining a grade level to ensure athletic eligibility or delineating student's participation in organized sports within his IEP, though these can be considered by the IEP Team for incorporation into the student's IEP.

Legal counsel represented the district.  A trained advocate represented the parent.

CASE #001060 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services, Placement at Private Day School, Classification/Eligibility

The parent requested the hearing seeking compensation services, placement at Cove School, eligibility recognition as health impaired due to ADHD, counseling for parent, inservicing of district staff, and reimbursement for neuro psych evaluation relating to deprivation of FAPE dating back to 1996 for student who was dyslexic, speech/language impaired, and diagnosed at ADHD with recognized adverse effect on educational performance.

It was held that the district had violated procedural rights and that student had been denied appropriate education and related services, that the student had made no meaningful progress in the district's self contained LD/EBD (cross-cat) classroom where he had been placed since transferring to the district in 1996.  The district filed to provide a timely annual review and presented no evidence of what IEP, if any, it was following in the '96-97 school year.  District admitted that errors had been made, and its own psychologist testified that the student was not progressing in the district's program.  The district offered no alternatives to the placement in question.  Therefore, immediate placement at Cove School was ordered, including one-year compensatory education at Cove.  Additionally, district was ordered to pay for the neuro psych eval.  The student's new IEP was ordered to reflect eligibility for health impairment due to ADHD.

Legal counsel represented the district.  Legal counsel and a trained advocate represented the parent.

000006 - Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Inclusion, Regular Education Placement vs. Self-contained Placement

This hearing was requested by the parents in July 1997.  After 19 days of hearing the hearing officer ruled that the placement proposed by the school district complied with IDEA.  The hearing officer declined to issue any of the findings or grant any of the relief requested by the parents.

This case involved a twelve-year-old student, enrolled in a fifth grade class in her resident school district.  The student was diagnosed with Rett Syndrome, a condition which appears only to affect girls, and is characterized as a form of autistic disorder involving multiple severe to profound disabilities in the areas of motor functioning, communication, and cognition.  The school district proposed a self-contained special education placement for the student in the Co-op's Educational Life Skills (ELS) Program.  The parents rejected this proposal emphatically as inappropriate.  They contended instead that the appropriate program for the student in the least restrictive environment was an inclusive program in a regular education classroom.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

001395 - Susan Einspar-Wayne, Hearing Officer
Consent for Re-evaluation, Independent Educational Evaluation

The hearing was requested by the school district, following the parent's written refusal to consent to a three-year re-evaluation.  At the pre-hearing conference, the parent advised the school district of her intention to seek an independent evaluation and request reimbursement from the school district.  The parents request for an independent evaluation at public expense was denied.  The district was granted leave to re-evaluate the student.

Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

001569 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Consent for Case Study Evaluation

The district requested a hearing because the parent refused to consent to a case study evaluation of the student.  The parent did not participate in the due process hearing.  The hearing officer determined that sufficient notice was given to all parties so as to meet due process rights consistent with federal and state law; the hearing officer had the authority to proceed with the due process hearing without the parent present.

The student's behavior and grades deteriorated from 2nd grade to 4th grade. The student had only one friend and other students were afraid of him because of his anger.  After the parent's refusal to consent to a case study evaluation, the district provided as many services as possible.  Despite these services the student's behavior and grades did not improve.

The hearing officer determined that the district had complied with applicable law in requesting parent's consent for the case study evaluation.  The hearing officer ordered the district to proceed with the case study evaluation without consent.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case #001499 - Richard Brimer
Private vs. Public School Placement, Failure to Implement Services
on the IEP, Compensatory Services

This hearing was requested by the parent of a 10 year, 1 month old student who at the time of the hearing was repeating the 3rd grade.  At the end of December, the speech/language pathologist left the employment of the school district.  After unsuccessfully attempting to hire a replacement therapist, the school district contracted with a private agency to provide speech/language services to its students.  There was an interval between the speech/language pathologist leaving the school district and the contract being finalized with the private agency.  During this interval, the student did not receive the 80 minutes per week of speech and language services required by his IEP. The school district recognized that it must compensate the student for the services he was denied.  The school district projected that compensatory services should be completed by the end of the third week of June.  From documents presented by the school district, the student had severe academic achievement problems.  On the most recent California Achievement Test, he earned a total battery score of the 17th percentile rank.

The parent contends that school district employees were abusive, neglectful and discriminatory toward the student; therefore, the parent argues that he should be placed in a private school at school district expense. The parent was also seeking monetary damages for the abuse, neglect, and discrimination that the student received.  The parent believed that the student should "skip" the 4th grade and go directly to the 5th grade for the 2000-2001 school year.

The school district was ordered to complete the speech/language services as scheduled until the student received all the entitled services.  It was also ordered that a comprehensive case study evaluation be completed to determine if the student fulfilled the IDEA criteria of a disability.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001579 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement to Alternative Day School

Parent requested a due process hearing because she objected to the recommended placement made by the school district.  The preponderance of evidence and testimony substantiated the appropriateness of the placement.  Counsel represented the district.  The parent presented her own case.  The district was ordered to place the student in the proposed alternative day school for the coming academic year and to ensure the provision of related services.

Case #001377 - Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement in Nonpublic Facility

Parents requested a due process hearing due to the district's failure to provide the student FAPE. The remedy requested was an appropriate placement for the student in a nonpublic, residential facility at the district's expense.  A settlement agreement was negotiated following the pre-hearing conference.  The hearing officer reviewed the agreement reached by the parties and found that the agreement appeared to resolve the issues between the parties.  By mutual agreement of the parties, the residential placement proposed by the parents was determined to be in the student's best interest.  It was ordered that the district, with the statutory reimbursement of the Illinois State Board of Education, pay tuition, room and board costs and transportation expenses on behalf of the student for the 2000-2001 school year and the 2000 summer term.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001458 - Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Least Restrictive Environment, Location of Services/Attendance Center

The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their son who had been eligible for special education since he was 7 years old.  At the time of the hearing, the student was attending 8th grade at Kinzie School.  Prior to the student's placement at Kinzie School, the parents alleged that the district had not provided him an appropriate program and as a result he fell behind academically.  The parents were pleased with the current placement at Kinzie.  The district was proposing that the student attend 9th grade at his neighborhood school, Wendell Phillips High School, with continued LD and social work services.

The hearing officer found that the proposed placement at Wendell Phillips High School would be totally inadequate for the student and would in all likelihood fail to provide any meaningful academic benefit.  The district was ordered to place the student at Kenwood Academy, which was the placement proposed by the parent.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001303 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Independent Educational Evaluation at Public Expense, Consent for Initial Placement

The district requested the hearing in response to the parent's request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense and to seek an order to compel placement in a special education program.  At the time of the hearing, the student was 8 years old and attending a third grade classroom.  The district first evaluated the student when he was in the first grade and found that he exhibited the profile of a student with ADHD at school but not at home.  The district implemented a behavior intervention plan during the first, second and third grades.  When the student's behavior failed to improve by the third grade, the district requested parental consent to conduct a case study evaluation.  The parent refused consent and the district requested a due process hearing.  The case was assigned to this hearing officer.  After the initial pre-hearing conference, the parent consented to the case study evaluation and the district withdrew the request for due process.

The district completed the evaluation and conducted the MDC/IEP and found the child eligible for special education under the classification of emotional/behavior disorder.  The parents refused to grant consent for special education placement.  The district then requested a due process hearing to compel consent for placement.  The parent requested an independent evaluation because of her concern that the evaluation by the district might be biased.

The hearing officer denied the parent's request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense and ordered the student placed in special education in accordance with the IEP developed by the district.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001517 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Consent for Case Study Evaluation

The only issue in this case was to obtain consent for a case study evaluation.  The district made multiple requests to obtain permission from the parent.  There was no indication in the documents presented that the parent's objection was to an evaluation.  The parent failed to contact the hearing officer to identify any other issues.  At the time of the hearing the student was repeating third grade for the third time.  She was eleven years old.

The hearing officer found that the school district had met its obligation to identify and refer this student for a case study evaluation.  The district was ordered to conduct the evaluation of the student either during the summer assessment prior or by September 22, 2000.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent did not participate in the process.

Case #001664 - Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
Expedited Hearing - Change of Placement to Interim Alternative Educational Setting

The school district requested an expedited hearing seeking an order for a change of placement for the student to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting.  The student was suspended for ten days for assaulting another student and the district was seeking to expel the student.  The school district convened a manifestation determination review and determined that the student's behavior was a manifestation of his disability.  The team also found that in relationship to the behavior subject to disciplinary action, the child's IEP and placement were not appropriate.  The issue presented for hearing therefore was whether maintaining the current placement of the student was likely to result in injury to the student or to others.  The hearing officer found that maintaining the student in his current placement would most likely result in injury to the student and to others.  The school district was ordered to place the student in an appropriate interim alternative program for not ore than 45 days and to immediately convene an IEP meeting for the student.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001498 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Placement in Alternative Day School

The parent requested a due process hearing to resolve a long list of issues most of which were not special education matters.  The parent withdrew her request at the hearing when some witnesses were excluded.  The district countered with a request for due process hearing in order to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE).  The district was ordered to place the student in the recommended alternative day school with related services.

Counsel represented the district; the parent presented her own case.

Case #001415 - Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
Expedited Hearing, Manifestation Determination

The school district requested an expedited hearing in order to obtain permission to perform an evaluation necessary for making a manifestation determination.  The hearing officer ordered the evaluation and manifestation determination be completed.  The student was involved in misconduct causing serious injury to another student and was suspended for 10 days with a recommendation to expel.  The district unilaterally placed the student in a 45-day interim alternative education placement.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001171 - Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer
Private School vs. Public School Placement, Least Restrictive Placement

The parents seeking placement at public expense in a private day school requested the hearing.  The student entered the school district in kindergarten and continued through the end of his 4th grade year.  He was diagnosed as having a congenital spastic left hemisphere of the brain.  The School District evaluated him prior to his entry into kindergarten and found him eligible for special education services.  During the student's 4th grade year, he received 300 minutes of learning disability services.  Although these services began as in-class services, ultimately they were provided by pullout to the resource room.

According to the parents, the student's productivity and self-esteem dropped drastically despite tremendous levels of support from the home, including private occupational therapy and private tutoring in reading, writing, and math throughout the school year and summer and dispute two hours per night of assistance with homework from his mother.  The parents disagreed with the district's recommended IEP that would simply continue the current program, which the parents felt, had failed to produce meaningful results over the past few years.  Because of their dissatisfaction with the public school program and the student's lack of progress, the parents unilaterally placed the student in a private day school.

The hearing officer found that the district's placement was appropriate.  However, the district was ordered to provide an in-service training program to be delivered by Project CHOICES or an independent consultant, to cease the practice of requiring a non-IEP member to approve a request for a classroom aide, and ordered that the student be provided with an individual aide during large group instruction.

Legal counsel represented by parties.

Due Process Hearing Decisions July 1, 2000 through October 31, 2000

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued between July 1, 2000 and October 31, 2000.  Each summary identifies the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if known), the hearing officer's findings, and whether legal counsel represented the parties.  This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently being brought before hearing officers.  If you would like to receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly at 217/782-5589.  You are reminded that these decisions are not precedent-setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them.

Case #001535 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Case Dismissed - Failure of the Moving Party to Move Forward

The hearing officer dismissed the case because of the parent's unwillingness to move forward.  The case involved reimbursement for a bill.  The district made an offer of settlement to the parents.  The parents were given until October 15, 2000 to move forward or the case would be dismissed.  The parent did not contact the hearing officer to set a date for a hearing; therefore the case was dismissed for lack of intent to proceed.

Case #000742 - Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Least Restrictive Environment, Change of Placement, Independent Evaluation, IEP

The parents requested a due process hearing because they objected to the school district's proposed change of placement.  The IEP team recommended that the student be placed in a separate building, serving students with behavior disorders.

The hearing officer found that the school district's proposed placement was appropriate.  The procedural and other violations alleged by the parents were found not to be sufficient to overturn the appropriateness of the school district's proposed placement, subject to the mainstreaming requirements.  It was also found the parents had adequate opportunity to carry out an independent evaluation because their expert did have the opportunity to observe the student in the classroom setting on three occasions and did have access to the student's school records.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001658 - Dr. Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Case Study Evaluation

The district requested the hearing to compel consent for an initial case study evaluation. The hearing officer was directed by 34 CFR 300.505(b) and 20 USC 1415(a).  This code and regulation state that if a parent refuses to consent for an initial evaluation, the school district may initiate a due process hearing.  In this case, the hearing officer concluded that the school district met its burden of proof and ordered the district to conduct a comprehensive case study evaluation on behalf of the student.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001775 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Extended School Year Services, Least Restrictive Environment, FAPE

The parents requested the due process hearing on behalf of their 8-year-old son whose primary disability was mild retardation and his secondary disability was mild autism and speech and language.  At the time of the hearing, the student was placed for slightly more than 50% of his day in a regular 2nd grade classroom.  From the time the student entered kindergarten, he had participated in a regular classroom program for at least half of his school day.  In addition, he had received special education instruction from a resource teacher and related services in speech and occupational therapy.  The parents contended that their son had been denied FAPE because he did not receive extended school year services for the past two years and he was not currently being placed in LRE.  They also felt that the school district had not been cooperative in establishing a mutually agreed upon time to schedule IEP conferences.  As relief, the parents' requested that the school district reimbursement them for summer school services they provided over the past two years; and that the district place their son in a regular classroom on a full-time basis with an instructional aide.

The school district maintains that they have provided FAPE by placing the student in LRE.  According to the district the child was not eligible for ESY services.

The hearing officer affirmed the district's placement.  An advocate represented the parents and the school district had legal counsel.

Case #001649 - Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Conductive Education, Methodology, Reimbursement of Privately Purchased Services, Extended School Year Services, Appropriateness of Educational Services

The parent requested the hearing on behalf of her 7-year-old severely disabled cerebral palsy quadriplegic son.  The student had received 3 years of special education services in the district's early childhood program, which also included occupational therapy and physical therapy, and one year of special education services in a Kindergarten-equivalent multi needs self-contained program.  The IEP's had never measured or recorded success or lack thereof on PT & OT goals.  Each year the goals were continued, rewritten, omitted or reduced.  The PT evaluations done each year bore little relevancy to the IEP goals, and could not be interfaced with the IEP.  A rarely supervised PT assistant provided almost all the physical therapy for 4 years by contract with a local hospital.  The parent alleged the student was regressing and enrolled him in the "Center for Independence through Conductive Education" for an intensive summer program and then for 21/2 hours 3 mornings/wk during the 1999-2000 school year.  The student was then in the multi needs classroom at the district with the mother providing transportation.  Conductive Education is an alternate physical rehabilitation therapy for children with cerebral palsy who have at least near average cognitive ability.  The research studies are few and with mixed results, but no more so than the more common physical therapy method.  The child made good progress with Conductive Education.  The parent requested continuation for the 2000-2001 school year and payment by the district for the past year.

It was held that the district had violated procedural rights and that the child had made no meaningful progress with the school district related services of PT & OT which he had been receiving since 1996.

The district was ordered to provide Conductive Education Services, transportation and consultation.  No reimbursement was ordered.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #001782 - Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey. Hearing Officer
Failure to Implement the IEP, Sufficiency of Services, Inadequate Facilities, Private vs. Public School Placement

The parent requested the hearing because the district placement was alleged to be inadequate, overcrowded, not implementing the IEP and not appropriate, given the student's severe, multiple disabilities.  The parent wanted the child in a private placement - The Lighthouse for the Blind.

The district was able to demonstrate it had an appropriate placement, which the parents had never looked at.  The student had been placed in a program, which was closer to the child's home, but was too over crowded to provide appropriate services.  The district was ordered to move the child to the appropriate placement within the district and provide compensatory services for 2 months.

Legal counsel represented the district and an advocate represented the parents.

Case #001706 - Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Independent Educational Evaluations, IEP Violations, Parental Involvement

District requested a due process hearing as required after denying the parent's request for an independent evaluation of occupational physical therapy needs and services.  The parent's attorney then expanded the issues by bring up 8 more issues relating to alleged violations of IEP preparation, goals, parental involvement, issues regarding licensure of the occupational therapist, training of aides and training of all staff on the sensitivity to students with disabilities.  The district prevailed on all issues except the lack of specificity in the social/emotional goals and the technical violation that the occupation therapist was not licensed until May.  The OT/PT evaluations were found to be adequate and the parent's request for payment of independent evaluations was denied

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001524 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Consent for Evaluation

The district filed a due process hearing after the parent refused to give consent for her son to be evaluated unless she was allowed to select the psychologist to perform the evaluation.  In 1996 the parent requested that the district provide the parent with an African-American male psychologist to evaluate her son because she disagreed with the two previous psychologists' evaluations.  At that time the district obliged the parent.  The parent continued to disagree with all the evaluations, alleging that her son was not cognitively delayed, but rather dyslexic.

The hearing officer in response to a Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by the district found that the district was not obligated to honor the parent's request regarding the gender and ethnicity of an evaluator.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001517 - Marie A. Bracki, Hearing Officer
Consent for Case Study Evaluation

The district requested the hearing to compel parental consent for a case study evaluation.  The student was repeating third grade for the third time, and was struggling in all classroom areas.  The hearing officer in response to a Motion for Summary Judgment ordered that the district conduct a case study evaluation.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001699 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal

Hearing officer dismissed the case based on Court Order deciding the same issue.

Case #001701 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Agreed Order, Dispute over Eligibility Classification, Placement in Self-contained, Cross-categorical Classroom

The district requested the hearing for the purpose of compelling placement of the student in a self-contained, cross-categorical classroom.  The parties entered into an "Agreed Order" which called for the student to be placed in a self-contained, cross-categorical classroom to be promoted to the 7th grade.  The MDC team was ordered to meet after the first semester of the school year to review the student's progress.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001670 - Frank Nowik, Hearing Officer
Agreed Order, Residential vs. Therapeutic Day Placement

The hearing officer issued an agreed order following an agreement reached by the parties as to the student's placement.  Initially, the parents had requested the hearing seeking a residential placement because they felt that the district's placement in a therapeutic day school would not meet the student's needs.  It was agreed that the student would remain in the therapeutic day school for the summer period and that the district would explore the possibility of other day schools for the fall and assess the vocational options for the student.  The district agreed that should the student be asked to leave the therapeutic school for fail to make satisfactory progress toward his IEP goals the district would recommend residential placement.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #00070 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Graduation, Supportive Services, Sufficiency of IEP

The parent originally requested the due process hearing on August 19, 1997, listing twenty-seven points to be resolved.  The issues summarized at the pre-hearing conference to include: graduation from 8th grade, supportive services (1-1 aide, untimed tests, homework issues, assistive technology evaluation at district expense, high level/low level instruction, format of grade level work), and IEP disputes (administration of medication, food allergy tested, listing of disabilities, suspensions, cursive writing goals).  In the parent's final summary statement, she identified 101 remedies.  The major disagreement, however, appeared to be the student's appropriate placement.   The district maintained that the residential setting was no longer necessary and the parent claimed that it was.

The hearing officer ordered that a transcript of all high school level courses and credits earned be sent to the parent, that the district secure an appropriate educational placement for the student for the 200-2001 school year, that the residential placement continue until November 2000 and that transitional planning begin immediately up receipt of the order.  The district was also ordered to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of the student and to appoint a different person (from the individual who has been representing the district in this matter) to oversee the development of the plan and all future IEPs until the student graduates high school.  The order also called for private tutoring services and several changes in the IEP.  The district was not ordered to provide a one-on-one aide or to provide the parent with lesson plans.  No change was ordered in the reports prepared by school person.

The delays in the conduct of the hearing were documented in the decision.  Legal counsel represented the district.  The attorney representing the parent withdrew from the case.

Case #001685 - Marian F. McElroy, Hearing Officer
Summary Judgment Decision, Consent for Evaluation

The school district requested the hearing for the purpose of compelling consent to conduct a full and individual evaluation.  The hearing was brought on behalf of a their grade student who was performing poorly academically.  The parent refused to give her consent for the district to administer the evaluation.  The parent did not participate in the due process hearing and the district filed a motion for summary judgment.  The hearing officer ruled in favor of the district should proceed with the case study evaluation.

Legal counsel represented the school district and the parent did not participate and was not represented by legal counsel.

Case #001680 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Education, High School Graduation

The Student and his parents requested the hearing challenging the district's recommendation that the student graduate high school.  At the time of the hearing, the student was 19 years old and eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disabilities.  The hearing officer found that the district had provided the student FAPE and that graduation was with a regular diploma was appropriate.  The parents' request for compensatory education was also denied.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel

Case #001568 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Behavior Plan with Positive Reinforcements, Change of Placement, Classroom aide, Assessment for Specific Learning disabilities

The parent requested the hearing contesting the alternative educational placement recommended by the District.  The agreed issues included:  (1) whether the district shall prepare a new behavior plan with ore positive reinforcement as the parents requests, (2) whether the District will test the student for specific learning disabilities as the parents requested, (3) whether the District shall be permitted to change the student's placement and (4) whether the district shall provide the classroom aide as the parents requested.

The hearing officer found that the student's current placement could not afford him FAPE as he had shown no progress in the current placement, even with the interventions and accommodations and would was not likely to make progress in a separate classroom, an individual aide, more positive reinforcements or any of the alternatives suggested by the parent.

The hearing officer concluded that the districts proposed change of placement was appropriate.  The hearing officer also found that there was no need for the district to test the student for learning disabilities at this time.

Neither party was represented by legal counsel.  The parent was accompanied to the hearing by an advocate.

Case # 001444 - Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
Change in Placement, Alternative Program

The parents requested the hearing because the objected to the district's proposed change in placement.  The District's IEP team recommended change in placement for the student to an alternative program.  The student had initially been placed in special education for behavior disorder issues.  At the time of the filing of the due process hearing request, the student was a fourteen year-old ninth grader eligible for special education services as a student with a behavior/emotional disorder.  The student was exhibiting serious behavior concerns and receiving grades of D's and F's.  The hearing officer found that the regular education program did not provide the student a free appropriate public education and that the placement of the student in the alternative program was appropriate.

The parents were not represented by legal counsel.  The district was represented.

Case # 001070 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Interim Order - Independent Educational Evaluation, Regular Education Placement vs. Self-contained Placement, Least Restrictive Environment

This hearing was originally requested in June 1999.  The parents objected to the student's placement in general education 1st grade program and were seeking a more restrictive placement.  The parties agreed to place the student in a primary self-contained behavior disordered program during the hearing procedure.  The record contains documentation of all continuance, which included an emergency placement of the student in a local hospital for emotional/behavioral reasons, a joint continuance to obtain an IEE, a serious illness of the student and a independent psychiatric evaluation.

The parents contended that the first IEE did not contain a psychiatric/emotional component.  The district believe the evaluation contained a behavioral rating scale and that the psychologist who conducted the IEE felt the student did not exhibit any abnormal behavioral problems or emotional disordered.  The school District also conducted a case study evaluation on the student and did not observe a behavioral or emotional problem.

Another continuance was granted to permit the parents to obtain an IEE at district expense.  Since the parties could not agree on an independent evaluator the hearing officer appointed Dr. Vaal.  In general the evaluator indicated the student was functioning at or near grade level in everything except reading and written expression skills.  The parents contended that the student has some deep-seated psychiatric/emotional disorders.

The hearing officer issued an interim decision, ordering the parents to schedule a psychiatric/emotional evaluation at district expense.  Upon receipt of the psychiatric/emotional report, the hearing officer will issue a final decision and order.

Legal counsel represents both parties.

Case #001329 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Reimbursement for Trips to Out-of-State Residential Facility

The parents requested the hearing because the objected to the district's proposal to reduce the number to reimbursable trips to Boston Higachi from twelve per year to six.  The student who was diagnosed with autism was placed in 1996 in an out-of-state residential facility. The IEP since December 1995 included reimbursement for 12 trips for parent training.  While the parents argued that they must be entitled to 12 trips per year for training purposes, the record showed that they did not take 12 trips per year.  The hearing officer found that the district's reduction in transportation reimbursement for parent trips to the private facility comports with applicable law.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #001477 - Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Eligibility for Special Education, Discipline, Placement

In May 1999, the student, a 16-year-old regular education student, brought a home made bomb to school which detonated in the boys bathroom.  In October 1999, the student brought another set of materials for a bomb, including nails to be detonated in the boys bathroom.  The student provided a number of explanations for this incident, including a reaction to an altercation involving a group of students. The parents requested a case study evaluation after the incident but before the student was expelled.  Two MDCs were held, including one on February 9, 2000.  The school district did not find the student eligible for special education.  The student was subsequently expelled on February 10, 200, for two calendar years.  The expulsion was held in abeyance and alternatively, the school district placed the student in an alternative school where he currently remains.  After the October bomb incident, there was also a court case during which the student was placed in a Youth Home for a period of time.

While the school district found the student met three of the five characteristics of the behavior disorder/emotional disorder criteria, it argued the student was not eligible for special education because he was not failing academically and was passing from grade to grade.  The district argued that while the student was disabled, the disability did not impact his academic performance, thus finding him ineligible for special education. The parents argued the student had depressive disorder which did adversely impact his educational progress, as exemplified by erratic and sometimes failing or low grades, frequently over an extended period of time to a marked degree after some support services were provided by the alternative school and parents.

It was determined there were sufficient evidence at the February 2000 MDC to find that the student did have a disability, that his disability impacts his educational and behavioral performance in school such that he is eligible for special education and related services under IDEA.  The appropriate placement for the student was found to be his current placement at the alternative school. Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001451 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Consent for Reevaluation

The district requested a due process hearing in order to conduct the reevaluation of a student who was receiving special education services.  The parents did not give consent nor did they participate in the due process hearing.  The district made a Motion for Summary Judgment.  The district was ordered to conduct a reevaluation of the student and to make appropriate placement based on her needs.  Counsel represented the district.  The parents did not participate.

Case #01645 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Sufficiency of Occupational Therapy and Social Work Services, Eligibility for Extended School Year Services, Appropriate Placement, Monetary Compensation for Damages

The parents requested the hearing asserting inappropriate placement, that the IEP was both inadequate and improperly implemented, that occupational therapy and social work services were not timely provided, and that the student should have been found eligible for extended school year services.  In addition, the parents requested reimbursement for an outside evaluation and monetary compensation for psychological damages to the student and the family for inappropriately placing the student.

It was concluded that the district had inappropriately placed the student and that the student should be placed in a self-contained classroom with tutorial support, that a behavioral modification plan should be developed, and the student be found eligible for an extended school year.  It was also found that the parents were not entitled to compensation for an outside evaluation and were not entitled to monetary compensation for psychological damages.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parents were not represented.

Case #001662 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
FAPE, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Content and Implementation of IEP, Placement

The parent requested a due process hearing alleging that the local school district had failed to provide her daughter a free appropriate public education during the 1999-2000 school year and further alleging that the school district could not provide her daughter a free appropriate public education in her current placement.  At the time of the hearing the student was a junior in high school.  She had been identified as eligible for special education and related services under the category of learning disabilities towards the end of her sophomore year.

The parent sought removal of her daughter from her current placement to another high school of the parent's choice.  The hearing officer found that the testimony and documented tendered by the local school district supported all of the parent's contentions and consequently the hearing officer ordered that the student be removed from her current high school.  The hearing officer further ordered that the new high school IEP team reevaluate the student and prepare an appropriate IEP.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001737 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Private vs. Public School Placement, Eligibility, LRE Compensatory Services, Content of IEP, Implementation of IEP, FAPE

Parents of an 11-year-old boy requested the hearing to resolve a dispute over the child's special education eligibility classification.  The parents were seeking an order to have the student's classification expanded to include the category of emotional/behavior disorder claiming the student had psychiatric diagnoses of anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder.  The student was already eligible for services under the undisputed eligibility categories of learning disabilities and other health impairment due to a diagnosis of ADHD.  In addition, the parents were also seeking placement in a private therapeutic day school.  They claimed a denial of FAPE due to defects in the IEP and failure to implement the IEP.

The hearing officer ordered that the child's IEP be implemented with the deficiencies corrected and that the child be placed in the neighborhood school with LD resource programming and related services and accommodations.  The district was ordered to provide compensatory services to make up for services not provided.  The student was found eligible for services under the categories of LD and other health impairment, but not under the category of emotional disturbance.

Case #001536 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Placement, Independent Educational Evaluation at Public Expense, FAPE, Functional Analysis and Behavior Management Plan

The parents originally requested the hearing based solely on discipline of student for misbehavior on the bus resulting in a two-day bus suspension.  As the hearing proceed the parent's advocate expanded the issues to include eligibility as health impaired as opposed to behavior disordered, placement in cross-categorical classroom at the student's home school verses placement in a self contained BD program operated by the special education cooperative.  Various violations of FAPE dating back as far as two years prior to the request were also raised as issues.  The original issues were not included in those presented at the prehearing conference.  The district presented a number of creditable witnesses who testified to fact supporting its contention that the student has a behavioral disorder that negatively impacts his ability to be educated, that it offered the student FAPE and attempted to provide it to him, and that the LRE for this student is the cooperative's BD instructional program, not the district's cross-categorical program.  The parents gave little testimony.  The parent's private evaluator stated he had no opinion on whether the student has a behavior disorder.  Therefore the preponderance of the evidence resulted in the following orders: (1) that the student is eligible under IDEA under the category of emotional disturbance, as well as learning disability; and (2) that he shall remain placed in the B.D. instructional classroom for the 2000-01 school year.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001140 - Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Private Day School Placement vs. Public School Inclusive Placement, Independent Educational Evaluation at Public Expense, Compensatory Services, Content of the IEP, Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement

The parents requested the hearing seeking reimbursement for a unilateral placement in a private day school because of their child's lack of progress in the public school's inclusive program.  The child had been receiving special education and related services in an inclusive regular education program since the first grade.  Her May 10, 1999 IEP listed her primary disability as mild mental retardation and her secondary disability as speech and language and attention deficit disorder.  The IEP team recommended continued placement in a fourth grade inclusive program with related services.  The parents wanted the district to follow the recommendations of their private evaluator and place the student in a self-contained classroom.

The district would not change its placement recommendation, and the parents unilaterally enrolled the student in the Bartlett Learning Center and filed for a due process hearing.  The decision affirmed the parents' action and ordered reimbursement for the independent evaluation, expenses and transportation at Bartlett for the 1999-2000 school year.  The hearing officer ordered that the child remain at Bartlett at district expense for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2001 school years, as compensatory education.

Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001654 - Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Placement, Appropriate Placement, Free Appropriate Public Education, Payment for Services

The district requested the hearing seeking an order to compel parental consent for initial placement in special education.  The district conducted a case study evaluation and found the student eligible for special education under the category of behavior disorder.  It was recommended that the student receive 135 minutes per week of special education services.  According to the district, the student's behavior had worsened and they were concerned over his ability to participate in the fifth grade because of his impulse, behaviors, and crying.  The district staff testified that the school had gone well beyond what was usual in making accommodations, in an effort to please the parents and eliminate the undesirable behaviors, which consisted of fighting, touching, pushing and shoving, among other things.

The hearing officer ordered the district to implement the proposed placement without written consent of the parents and place the student in a regular fifth grade classroom with 135 minutes per week of EBD services, as well as any other services and accommodations provided by the district's IEP.  The expenses listed in the parent's letter to the hearing officer were found not be the responsibility of the school district.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent did not participate in the hearing.

Case #001715 - Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
Consent for Placement in Private School, Extended School Year Services, Least Restrictive Environment

The hearing was requested by the district because of the parents refusal to sign permission for the student's placement in a private day school for children with emotional/behavior disorders as recommended by the IEP team.  At the time of the request, the student had just completed the fourth grade   All parties agreed that there were serious behavioral issues in the classroom, and the student's problems increased significantly in the fall of 1999.  The student's medication had been changed several times in that period of time and he required hospitalization and a hospital evaluation.  The parents contended that the problem in the classroom was a direct result of an inappropriate class placement along with ineffective use of behavior management techniques.  The district contended it was the result of the student's unstable medical condition, which may have been due to his central nervous system problems as well as changing physiological conditions.

The hearing officer found that the information needed to make an appropriate placement was not provided.  The district and the parents were ordered to obtain new educational and neuropsychological evaluations at public expense.  The parents were also ordered to immediately execute the necessary releases of information to allow the district personnel to confer with and obtain the evaluations and medical examines obtained over the past two years.  Once the medical information is received the district was ordered to convene a new IEP meeting and make a placement recommendation.  Prior to the reconvened IEP meeting, the district was ordered to do additional classroom observations.  ESY services must be considered at the reconvened IEP meeting.

Neither party was represented.

Due Process Hearing Decision Summaries November 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued between November 1, 2000 and February 28, 2001.  Each summary identifies the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if known), the hearing officer's findings, and whether legal counsel represented the parties.  This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently being brought before hearing officers.  If you would like to receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly at 217/782-5589.  You are reminded that these decisions are not precedent setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them.
 
 

Case #000627 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Eligibility for Special Education, Stay of Placement, Independent Educational Evaluation

The parents filed the request for due process hearing six months after the school district determined the student was no longer eligible for special education.  The parents requested a stay put placement that was ordered by the hearing officer.  The school district delayed offering the stay put placement for approximately four weeks and thereafter, the parent refused the stay put placement.  The parents raised issues regarding the stay put placement, the appropriateness of the school district's ineligibility decision, the manner in which the student was tested and reevaluated, the adequacy and competency of the regular and special education services the student received at the elementary school level, and a disciplinary matter.

The hearing officer found that the school district's finding of ineligibility was appropriate.  There was insufficient evidence to conclude that the regular and special education services the student received was inadequate.  The hearing officer further found that a review of the disciplinary matter was outside the bounds of consideration for the hearing officer under IDEA.  It was determined that the school district's delay in proving a stay put placement in a timely manner justified compensatory education for a similar period.  It was also determined that the manner in which a tester tried to help the student answer a math reevaluation test interfered with the accuracy of the results prompting a finding that the student should retake the test by an independent evaluator at public expense.

Legal counsel represented the district; the parents were not represented.
 
 

Case #000978 (Marie A. Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Case Dismissed

The parent requested the due process hearing because she objected to the treatment that she and her son received from the teacher and others at the school.  The hearing officer advised the parent that she did not have jurisdiction over personnel matters.  The case was dismissed.

Legal counsel represented neither party.
 
 

Case #001070 (Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer)
Placement, Identification Process and Independent Educational Evaluation at Public Expense

This is the second order and decision in this matter.  The student exhibited a variety of defiant and aggressive behaviors in the home, in the community and at school.  However, the student's current teacher did not observe the student exhibiting any defiant or aggressive behaviors.  The teacher's testimony was in conflict with the testimony of the parents.  In essence, the documents submitted and the testimony of the witnesses raised more questions about the student than they resolved.  At this point, it was unclear as to whether the student had a psychiatric/emotional problem and the possible impact this problem had on the delivery of educational services.  Therefore, the hearing officer ordered a psychiatric/emotional evaluation completed on the student.  This was the first order and decision.

There were still two unresolved issues, the first issue dealt with the student's eligibility for special education and related services and the second issue involved the appropriate placement of the student.  The neuropsychological report indicated the student was behavior disordered, other health impaired, and had a secondary disability of learning disabilities.  This report also suggested that the least restrictive environment for the student was a therapeutic day school.  The hearing officer ordered that the student fulfill the IDEA eligibility criteria for a student with a primary disability of emotional disturbance, other health impaired, and a secondary disability of learning disability.  The hearing officer also ordered the student be placed in a therapeutic day school.

Legal counsel represented both parties.
 
 

Case # 001207 (Marie A. Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Independent Evaluation, Dispute Regarding Diagnosis, and Reimbursement for Tutoring Services

The parent requested the hearing in an effort to secure reimbursement for private tutoring services and reimbursement for independent evaluations.  The parents alleged that the district failed to provide services to the student in the least restrictive environment and in an amount sufficient to meet the student's needs.  The hearing officer found that the district had failed to inform the parents of its decision to not conduct an evaluation and failed to conduct an appropriate evaluation.  The diagnosis in the record, made by various professionals, ranged from slow learner to EMH or TMH and then learning disability with speech and language disabilities.  The parents secured private tutoring services for the student while pursuing evaluations on her behalf.  The hearing officer found that the district had failed to provide the student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.  The district was ordered to reimburse the parents for the independent educational evaluations and tutoring services they secured up to September 1998.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.  This case is currently in federal court.
 
 

Case #001283 (Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer)
Order to Dismiss

The hearing officer dismissed the case since the requesting party, the student's grandmother, received all the relief for the student that could be awarded in a due process hearing.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.

Case #001301 (Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Case Study Evaluation

The district requested the hearing in order to obtain permission to perform a case study evaluation.  At the time of the hearing, the student was attending the fourth grade in her neighborhood school.  Since the beginning the first grade, she had experienced some difficulties with the standard curriculum and from time to time was assigned to a Title I reading program.  The parent refused to provide written consent to do a full and individual case study evaluation, as she felt that it would damage the child's self-esteem.  The child's father was not opposed to the evaluation.  The hearing officer found that the district had properly requested the due process hearing to secure permission to perform the full and individual evaluation and ordered that the evaluation be conducted immediately.

Legal counsel represented neither party.
 
 

Case # 001382 (Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer)
Motion for Summary Judgment

The hearing officer ordered the district to provide the student with the special education services outlined in the student's IEP.  This order came in response to the district's motion for Summary Judgment.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent did not participate in the process.
 
 

Case # 001506 (Marian F. McElroy, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment, Change of Placement

The district requested the hearing because the parents disagreed with the district's proposed placement in a separate public therapeutic day school.  The parents withdrew the student from school and informed the district of their intent to home school the student.  The school district subsequently withdrew its request for due process.  The following fall, the parent attempted to re-enroll the student in the school district, but did not want the student to be placed in the separate public day school.  The school district reinitiated the due process.

School personnel testified at the hearing that the student was physically aggressive and on one occasion brandished a knife at other student.  Staff also testified that at times the student would disappear in the school.  His attitude was largely negative and he was unmotivated.  The hearing office found that based on the student's serious behavior issues and the school district's inability to successfully intervene in the least restrict environment, the district's proposed placement in a separate public therapeutic day school was appropriate.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.
 
 

Case # 001535 (Marie A. Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Case Dismissed for Lack of Intent to Proceed

Following the parent's request for a due process hearing, the district made an offer of settlement.  The parent requested additional time to consider his options.  The hearing officer contacted the parties and advised them unless the parent was willing to move forward the case would be dismissed.  After hearing nothing from the parent, the hearing officer dismissed the case for lack of intent to proceed.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.
 
 

Case # 001589 (Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer)
Out-of-District Placement, Dispute Regarding Sufficiency of Services, Inadequate IEP

The parent requested the hearing asserting that the district inappropriately relied upon evaluations and documentation from a prior school district without further re-evaluation to determine needed services, failed to adequately identify the student's educational disabilities prior to drafting the student's IEP, and failed to provide services and modifications as required by the IEP.  In addition, the parent requested that the student be placed outside of the district.

It was concluded that the district had appropriately placed the student and that the IEP needed to be rewritten to individualize the goals and objectives to meet the student's educational needs.  It was further concluded that a behavioral motivation plan should be developed and that student should receive social work services.

Legal counsel represented the parent and district.
 
 

Case # 001614 (Richard W. Brimer, Hearing Officer)
Location of Services, Compensatory Services, Best vs. Appropriate Services

While enrolled in the third and fourth grades, the student began to experience academic difficulties.  At the request of the parent, the school district evaluated the student to determine her eligibility for special education and related services.  The participants of the eligibility conference determined the student did not meet the eligibility criteria specified in the IDEA but the participants determined the student was eligible for a 504 program.  At the annual review, the parent requested a due process hearing since the 504 program was not meeting the student's needs.  The request for a hearing was based on three points: (1) a case study evaluation (CSE) to determine if the student met the eligibility criteria for a student with a disability, (2) a placement in an elementary school other than the one the student currently attends, and (3) compensatory educational services.  The school district agreed to a CSE.  The participants in the eligibility conference following the CSE determined the student met the criteria for a student with learning disabilities.  The student was also entitled to the related services of social work and speech/language.  The parent agreed with all the components of the newly developed IEP.  The district agreed to place the student in a different elementary school.  The only issue that was not resolved was the issue of compensatory or support educational services.

The due process hearing went forward.  The statutory requirement of a "free appropriate public education" was interpreted through the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowley.  The district fulfilled the two-step inquiry process to test for a free appropriate public education.  Since the two requirements were met, the district complied with the obligation imposed by the IDEA.  It was ordered that the student was not entitled to compensatory educational services, but the district will enroll the student in an after-school tutoring program that it currently provides to other students.

Legal counsel represented both parties.
 
 

Case # 001673 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Private School Placement, Eligibility Criteria, Dispute Regarding Sufficiency of Services, Graduation, Termination of Services, Compensatory Services, FAPE, Related Services

The parents representing their nineteen-year old son who was a senior in high school and scheduled to graduate at the end of his senior year requested the due process hearing.  It was the parents' contention that their son needed to continue his education in a private residential facility at the school district's expense because he was not ready to enter a post-high school program.

The student had received special education from the age of three in the area of speech/language and learning disabilities with a significant discrepancy in the area of mathematics.  Speech and language was discontinued at the end of his freshman year, but the student continued to receive special education resource services throughout his high school career.

The parents requested that the school district conduct speech and language and psychological evaluations in order to have current information to consider post-high school programs.  The school district agreed and as a result conducted a MDC/IEP conference in May of the student's senior year and found him no longer eligible for special education and recommended graduation.

In preparation for the due process hearing, the parents contracted for an independent speech/language evaluation, central auditory processing evaluation and a psychological evaluation.  The results of the independent evaluations found the student still eligible for special education as a learning disabled student who had significant speech and language problems and a central auditory processing disorder.

The parents requested that the school district continue the student in the residential facility, and that they be reimbursed for their unilateral placement plus expenses for the independent evaluations and the evaluators' expenses associated with their testimony at the due process hearing.

The hearing officer found that the student was denied FAPE, and the school district was ordered to provide one year compensatory education for the student at the residential facility.  The hearing officer also ordered the district to reimburse the parents for all approved expenses they incurred in making the unilateral placement.

Legal counsel represented both parties.
 
 

Case # 001772 (Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Reimbursement for Private Preschool Placement

The parents requested a due process hearing seeking tuition and transportation reimbursement for the cost associated with the placement of their child in a private preschool that teaches young people with hearing loss.  The parents sought a full day kindergarten with adequate special education support.  The district's IEP provided a half-day kindergarten with speech and language services.  The district also offered two half-day kindergarten programs and offered to pay for the child's attendance at a local full day kindergarten, both with IEP identified special education services.  The hearing officer found that the IEP was reasonable calculated to confer an educational benefit on the child and thus denied the parent's request for reimbursement.

Legal counsel represented neither party.
 
 

Case # 001811 (James A Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Change of Placement to Separate Special Education Day School, Psychiatric Evaluation

The parent requested the hearing challenging the district's proposed change of placement to a separate special education day school.  The parents were seeking an order to provide the student with a self-contained special education placement in his neighborhood school. The district was seeking an order to compel a psychiatric evaluation over the parent's refusal to consent to that portion of the case study evaluation.  At the time of the hearing, the student was 12 years old and receiving homebound instruction by mutual consent of the parties at the time of the due process hearing.  He was eligible for special education under the classification of learning disabilities since entering the second grade.

The hearing officer found the district's proposed special education placement in a separate special education day school did not constitute a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.  The hearing officer did find that the student's behavior required the district to provide the student with a psychiatric evaluation as part of his case study evaluation.  The student was ordered to return to his neighborhood school and the district was ordered to proceed with obtaining a psychiatric evaluation.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.
 
 

Case # 001858 (Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer)
Residency - Order to Dismiss

The court appointed legal guardian requested the due process hearing for the student under her guardianship.  The student is a six-year-old boy who was enrolled in a regular first grade in the school district where he would normally attend school if he were living with his natural mother.  The guardian received permission to enroll the student in this district based on an indication that he would be returning to his natural home in the district.  After school began a referral was made and a full case study evaluation was conducted.  On October 16, 2000, an IEP conference was held and it was determined that the student was eligible for special education in the category of emotional disturbance.  It was at this conference that the school district found out that the student would be remaining with the guardian who retained court ordered legal guardianship.  The child would not be living with his natural mother who resides in the district.  The guardian objected to the special education recommendation for placement, filed for a due process hearing and stated the stay put should be in the district where he was currently enrolled.  The district filed a "motion to dismiss" the case based on the belief he was not a legal resident of the district.

The hearing officer found that the student was a resident of the district where the legal guardian resided.  The case was dismissed.  Legal counsel represented both parties.
 
 

Case # 001865 (Stephen B. Rubin, Hearing Officer)
Motion to Dismiss, Transportation, FAPE

The parent initiated the request for due process on behalf of her 10-year-old daughter who was diagnosed as having asthma, hyperactivity and seizures.  The parent contended that the child could not be left alone and that the school district refused to provide transportation services.  The parent attempted to enroll the student in a school using an address that was neither the student' home address nor within the schools' attendance area.  The district offered to place the student in the child's residence school.  The parent refused.  Due to the parent's refusal to enroll the student, the child received no educational services.  According to the district the student lived only a couple of blocks from her neighborhood school and the IEP did not call for transportation services.

The hearing officer dismissed the case without prejudice.  Legal counsel represented the district.  The parent was not represented.
 
 

Case #001880 (Richard W. Brimmer)
Consent for Initial Evaluation

While the student's achievement level in the first six grades was unclear, it appeared he progressed through the elementary grades on schedule.  In the fall of 1998, the student was promoted to the community's junior high school.  During that period, the student exhibited academic, behavioral and health concerns.  In the 1998-99 school year, the student was retained and later, dismissed from the summer school remediation program. The following year, the student repeated the seventh grade and earned marks, which resulted in the student being promoted into the eight grade.  In the first term of the eighth grade, the student failed all but one of his core courses.  Behaviorally, the student earned detentions, disciplinary notices and disciplinary referrals for inappropriate verbalizations, insubordination, and disruptive, confrontational and disrespectful behavior.  The student's social problems were evident with both authority figures and peers.  During this period, the student was absent from school between 10% and 38% of all school sessions.  He also visited the school health clinic between 23% and 50% of all school sessions.

In the findings of fact section, the hearing officer concluded that the student had academic, behavioral, and health problems that interfered with his ability to progress through the school system at the typical rate.  34 CR 300.505(b) and 20 USC 1415 (a) states that if a parent refuses to consent for an initial evaluation, the agency must initiate a due process hearing in this matter with an impartial hearing officer making the determination.  The hearing officer concluded the school district met its burden of proof and ordered the school district to conduct a comprehensive case study evaluation on behalf of the student.

Legal counsel represented the parent.  The district was not represented.
 
 

Case # 001908 (Robert F. Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Private Therapeutic Day Placement vs. Ombudsman Program, Least Restrictive Environment

The parent requested the hearing because she objected to the district's proposed placement for the student at a therapeutic day school.  The mother was seeking a placement at the Ombudsman, a program described by its director at the due process hearing, as non-therapeutic, and conducted in a business-like, rather than a nurturing manner.  The student also indicated at the hearing that he wanted to enroll at Ombudsman.

The hearing officer concluded that the educational placement the district had proposed for the student satisfied the requirements of the IDEA in that it provided the student with an appropriate education.  Thus, the hearing officer declined to order placement of the student in the Ombudsman program.
 
 

Case # 001959 (Richard W. Brimer, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Evaluation

While enrolled in the 5th grade, the student was referred for a case study evaluation.  The multidisciplinary conference on behalf of the student concluded that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria specified in 34 CFR 300.7(c)(10) as a child with a learning disability.  He continued to fulfill the eligibility criteria through the middle school and into high school.  In high school, the student's academic problems increased with the student failing all of the courses in the first term of the current school year (the only marking period at the time of the hearing).  Also, the student's behavior problems increased in its frequency and severity.  At the time of the hearing, he was a sophomore and had received 16 student adjustment problem slips, 8 discipline slips, and 4 visits by the truant officer, and several in-school and out-of-school suspensions.  The student's social problems were evident with both authority figures and classmates at the school.

The parents requested immediate placement in the general education program.  They felt that if he were placed in that program, his problems would go away.  The district countered that prior to a change of placement, the district must complete a case study evaluation.  The parents refused to sign the permit form to authorize the school district to conduct its case study evaluation.  The hearing officer concluded the school district met its burden of proof and ordered the district to conduct a comprehensive case study evaluation on behalf of the student.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The family was not represented.
 
 

Case # 001973 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment

The parent of an eight-year-old child requested the due process hearing, objecting to the school district's recommendation that the child be placed in a more restrictive setting after only one month of services.  The request for due process was initiated one month after the student was found eligible for special education.  The parents argued that the IEP goals were not being met, the student's teachers were treating him unfairly and cruelly, his behavioral and emotional needs were not being met, and that the newly recommended change of placement to a more restrictive setting was both inappropriate and premature.  The school district argued it was premature to expect the goals and objectives to be met after one month of special education.  The district testified that it was not treating the student unfairly or cruelly and that the behavioral intervention plan developed required time to impact the student's conduct.  The district further testified that the newly recommended placement for the student was appropriate.

The hearing officer agreed that it was premature to expect the annual goals and objectives to be accomplished but it was not premature for the school district to consider a more restrictive placement for the student given the extreme behavior exhibited by the student, including two hospitalizations for psychiatric treatment within a two-month period and a suicidal attempt at school.  It was determined that there was insufficient evidence and testimony to conclude that the school district was treating the student unfairly or cruelly and that the current behavioral intervention plan could reasonably address the student's behavioral and emotional needs.  The school district's recommendation for a more restrictive therapeutic placement was found to be the appropriate.  The parent appeared pro-se and counsel represented the school district.
 
 

Case # 001978 (Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer)
Least Restrictive Environment, Private Therapeutic Day Placement, Free Appropriate Pubic Education

The parents requested the hearing asserting that the district's decision to place the student in a private therapeutic day school was a denial of the student's right to a free appropriate pubic education in the least restrictive environment.  The parents requested that the student be placed in his home high school with support services.

It was concluded that the district's proposed offer of placement in a therapeutic day school did not provide the student with a free appropriate pubic education in the least restrictive environment consistent with the requirements of both IDEA and Illinois law and regulations.

Legal counsel represented the district.  The father, who is a practicing attorney, represented the parents.

Due Process Hearing Decision Summaries March 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued
between March 1, 2001 and June 30, 2001. Each summary identifies the case
number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability (if
known), the hearing officer's findings, and whether legal counsel represented the
parties. This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues currently
being brought before hearing officers. If you would like to receive a copy of the
non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please contact
Bobbie Reguly at 217/782-5589. You are reminded that these decisions are not
precedent setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after reviewing
specific facts placed before them.

Case #001934 (Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer)
Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute
The mother requested the hearing because she disagreed with the placement
proposed by the district. Both sides advised the hearing officer that a tentative
agreement had been reached. The hearing officer dismissed the case for want
of prosecution, with prejudice.

Case #001413 (Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer)
Private vs. Public School Placement, Residential Placement, Change in
Services, Expulsion, Discipline
The mother initially requested the hearing because she wanted their son placed
in a less restrictive environment. The student had serious mental health
problems that included several psychiatric hospitalizations. The parent at first
wanted the student placed back in his neighborhood school. He had previously
been served in a private day program and a self-contained public school
program. Prior to this case going to hearing, the student attacked the mother
and he was hospitalized in a State Mental Health Center. He remained at the
Mental Health Center through the summer until a long-term educational
placement was located. He was admitted to Salem Children's Home in
September 2000. The school district, the parent and the hearing officer were in
agreement concerning the educational placement of the student and the need for
some reasonable continuity of educational programming and appropriate
transition to least restrictive programming. The district was ordered to pay the
tuition, room and board, related services and transportation costs on behalf of the
student for the 2000 -2001 School Year, the 2001 summer term, and as later
required by the IEP with reimbursement from the Illinois State Board of Education
as set forth in the School Code of Illinois. Legal counsel represented by parties.

Case #001973 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Public Day vs. Therapeutic Placement, Least Restrictive Environment,
Discipline, Sufficiency of the IEP
The parent requested a due process hearing because the school district
recommended a more restrictive placement for the student. At the time of the
hearing request, the student was 81/2 years old and had been determined eligible
for special education and related services approximately one month prior. The
parents argued that the IEP goals were not being met, the student's teachers
were treating him unfairly and cruelly, his behavioral and emotional needs were
not being met, and that the newly recommended change of placement to a more
restrictive placement was both inappropriate and premature. The school district
argued it was premature to expect the goals and objectives to be met after one
month of special education, the student was not being treated unfairly or cruelly,
the functional analysis and behavioral intervention plan were developed and
required time to impact the student's conduct, and the newly recommended
placement for the student was appropriate and in the least restrictive
environment. The hearing officer determined that it was premature to expect the
annual goals and objectives to be accomplished but it was not premature for the
school district to consider a more restrictive placement for the student given the
extreme behavior exhibited by the student, including two hospitalizations for
psychiatric treatment within a two month period and a suicidal attempt at school.
It was determined there was insufficient evidence and testimony to conclude the
school district was treating the student unfairly or cruelly and the current
behavioral intervention plan could address the student's behavioral and
emotional needs. The school district's recommendation for a more restrictive
therapeutic placement was found to be appropriate placement for the student in
the least restrictive environment. The parent appeared Pro Se and legal counsel
represented the school district.

Case #001801 (Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer)
Order of Dismissal
The hearing officer dismissed the case because the parents failed to contact the
hearing officer and failed to pursue their due process request within the time
allotted to them by the hearing officer.

Case #002038 (James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal
The student's maternal uncle who at the time had temporary custody requested
the hearing. While the hearing was pending, the Department of Children and
Family Services assumed custody of the student and petitioned the request for
due process be withdrawn and the student's most recent IEP be implemented.
The hearing officer dismissed the case finding that the maternal uncle no longer
had standing in the matter.

Case #001679 (Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer)
Order of Dismissal
The student's mother decided not to pursue the matter and requested that the
hearing be dismissed. The hearing officer dismissed the case.
Case #001817 (Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Location of Special Education Classroom
The parent requested the due process hearing on behalf of the student eligible
for special education under the categories of learning disabilities, physically
disabled, speech and language and other health impaired. The parties agreed
that the student had been properly identified and was in need of special
education placement and services. The only issue in question was the parent's
assertion that the district had violated the federal law by not moving the student's
special education classroom to another location within the building. The parent
alleged that the district had violated the IEP. The district demonstrated that it
attempted to provide for the student's needs in a variety of accommodations
made throughout the years. No evidence or testimony was presented indicating
an adverse effect on the student. The district was ordered to continue to provide
services as prescribed in the student's IEP. Legal counsel represented neither
party.

Case #002114 (Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer)
Expedited Hearing to Move Student to Interim Alternative Setting
The central issue in this expedited due process hearing was whether the student
was a safety risk to the other students, to the school staff or to himself to such an
extent that would justify removal and placement in an interim alternative
educational setting pending the outcome of the impartial due process hearing.
The answer to this question was specified by 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02b and the Oberti
case. The School Code states that a request for an expedited hearing shall be
for the sole purpose of moving a student from his or her current placement to an
interim alternative educational setting because the student is substantially likely
to injure himself/herself or others. The hearing officer found the student was
substantially likely to injure others if he remained in his current placement. The
second analysis to this question is found in the Oberti case. The court found, in
Oberti, that if a student is extremely disruptive to the entire class, the school
district must proactively respond to the student's behaviors (Oberti v. Board of
Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 789 F. Supp.1322
(N.N.J. 1992)). School District personnel continuously proposed and tried
different intervention methods and strategies to decrease the student's disruptive
and injurious behaviors. Auxiliary personnel and independent consultants
3?proposed strategies and methods in an attempt to decrease the student's
behaviors. The hearing officer found that the school district met the Oberti
requirement. The final question was the appropriateness of the proposed interim
alternative educational setting. The hearing officer concluded that the proposed
interim placement was appropriate to meet the needs of the student. Therefore,
it was ordered that the student be placed in an alternative educational setting
during the pendency of a due process hearing. Legal counsel represented both
parties.

Case #02103 (Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Reevaluation
The school district requested the hearing to compel consent to conduct a
mandatory 3 year reevaluation as required by 23 IAC 226.190. The hearing
officer ordered the district to conduct the reevaluation. Legal counsel
represented neither party.

Case #001958 (Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer)
Amount of Related Services, Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy
The parent requested the hearing on the issue of whether the student required
OT services in an unspecified amount and 120 minutes per week of
speech/language services, as opposed to 90 minutes per week the district was
providing, in order to receive FAPE. The parent did not call any witnesses other
than herself. The preponderance of evidence did not support the parent's
contention on either issue. The hearing officer held that the student did not
require 120 minutes per week of speech language services nor did he require OT
services to receive FAPE. Legal counsel represented neither party.

Case # 001360 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Independent Educational Evaluation, Compensatory Education, Placement,
LRE, FAPE
The student, at the time of the hearing, was in the fifth year of high school and
had completed approximately half of the credits necessary to graduate from high
school. He was eligible for special education under the classification of EBD.
For three years, the school district had recommended that the student be placed
in a more restrictive placement to which the parent objected. In an effort to be
non-adversarial, the school district had agreed to the placement the parents had
requested. According to the evidence presented at the hearing the student was
failing most of the courses in a computer driven alternative educational
placement requested by the parents.
The parents were seeking reimbursement for an independent evaluation,
compensatory education and related services, including payment for post-high
school barber school. The school district argued that it had offered the student
an appropriate educational placement at an alternative high school program in
the school district but in an effort to be non-adversarial agreed to the parent's
requested placements. It was determined that the school district's recommended
placement was the appropriate educational placement for the student in the least
restrictive environment, given the student's individual needs. It was also found
that the student was entitled to reimbursement of the independent evaluation
because the report found two learning disabilities unrecognized by the school
district. However, the hearing officer did find that the school district's primary
disability classification was accurate. It was also found that the student was
entitled to some social work services and clarification about the services on the
student's IEP. The school district was required to develop a record keeping
retrieval system so that students found eligible for special education in the district
can be identified subsequent to removal from the public school system and then
returned. Legal counsel represented by parties.

Case #002109 (Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer)
Flexible Start time for School, Reasonable Accommodation
The parent requested the hearing asserting that the school district inappropriately
denied their request for a flexible start time as an accommodation for the
student's ADD. The parent's request for a flexible start time was denied.
Legal counsel represented the district and the father represented the student.

Case #001795 (Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Appropriate Placement, LRE, Inclusion, Scope of Evaluation
A request for hearing was made by the parents objecting to the district's
proposed IEP and placement of the student in a TMH class. The parents argued
that the district had not provided appropriate supports and services to allow the
child to succeed in a regular classroom and had therefore, not provided a free
appropriate public education. The district was ordered to conduct a
comprehensive and coordinated evaluation of the student, provide an inclusion
specialist for the remainder of the school year, develop a behavior plan, and
consider the least restrictive placement based on the results of the ordered
evaluation. Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001744 (Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer)
Classification, Autism, Private School Placement, LRE
The parent requested the hearing in order to contest the category of
exceptionality, the LRE, and the issue of private school placement. The IEP
team found the student to be mentally impaired with secondary speech/language
delays. The parent wanted a determination that the child was autistic, but all the
team members except the mother and her attorney agreed with the IEP teams
classification. Following the IEP meeting, the parent moved the student
unilaterally to a private school outside the district. The hearing officer found that
5?the district had offered the student a free appropriate education in the least
restrictive environment and the district was not responsible for the costs
associated with the private placement. Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #002078 (James Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Non-custodial Parent, Authority to Request a Hearing
The student's father requested a due process hearing to reverse an IEP. At the
pre-hearing conference, the district moved the matter be dismissed because the
father, as a non-custodial parent, lacked standing to request a due process
hearing. That issue had to be ruled on prior to proceeding with the father's
request for a due process hearing. The student's parents were divorced. In the
Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, the mother was granted sole care, custody,
control of the education of the student. The IEP team, including the mother,
declared the student eligible for special education and the mother consented to
the student being placed in special education. The Judgment of Dissolution of
Marriage granted the mother sole authority to make decisions with respect to the
education of the student. Therefore, the father lacked standing to request a due
process hearing. The regulations require a local school district to obtain parental
consent prior to implementing a special education placement. The district
complied with this requirement when it obtained consent for the initial special
education placement from the mother who is the sole custodial parent. There is
no requirement in the regulations for the district to obtain the consent of both
parents. Therefore, even if the father had standing in this case, the district had
the authority to place the student in special education. Further, it would be an
untenable stretch for a hearing officer to undo a special education placement
made by a duly constituted IEP team with the consent of the parent in favor of
objections raised by another parent even if that parent had equal standing. The
hearing officer dismissed the case. Legal counsel represented neither party.

Case #001907 (Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer)
Placement, Independent Evaluation, Related Services, LRE, Behavior
Intervention Plan
The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their 15-year son who was
eligible for special education and related services under the category of learning
disabilities in reading, mathematics, and written expression. The student also
had truancy issues and oppositional defiance disorder, in addition to drug
dependency, legal issues and home difficulties. He had been refusing to go to
school for a significant period of time. The school district used the local truancy
officer and Juvenile Court to address the truancy issue. The parents requested
direct help from the school district for the student's non-attendance issue and a
residential placement, which the district refused. The parents thereafter
requested a due process hearing. It was determined the student's current
educational placemen at an alternative educational center was appropriate, the
school district's independent evaluation was appropriate and the teachers'
6?credentials were appropriate so long as they met the Illinois State Board of
Education's teacher certification requirements. The hearing officer also found
that the student needed a Behavioral Intervention Plan, in addition to the school's
disciplinary plan. Attorneys represented both parties.

Case #001974 ( Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Explusion from School, Eligibility at the time of Expulsion, Placement
The student in this case had been expelled for a period of two years for placing a
1/4 stick of dynamite in a toilet in the school, thereby causing an explosion. Six
months prior to the expulsion the school district had considered whether to
conduct a case study evaluation and decided not to do so. The following
questions were critical in this matter: (1) was the student a child with a disability
at the time of his expulsion?; (2) If so, then did the conditions, set out in the
IDEA, for when a school district is deemed to have known that a student was a
child with a disability apply in this matter?; (3) If so, then what is the appropriate
remedy?
Based upon a full review of the evidence and testimony presented by the parties,
the hearing officer concluded that the answers to questions (1) and (2) above are
both "yes." Relative to question (3), the hearing officer directed the school district
to convene an IEP meeting, as soon as circumstances reasonably permit, to
select, with the agreement of the parents, an appropriate placement for the
student that addresses his needs for special services that were established at the
hearing. The hearing officer annulled the expulsion of the student. Legal
counsel represented both parties.

Case #001788 (Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer)
Extended School Year Services, Change in Services, Sufficiency of
Services, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Transportation, FAPE,
Content of IEP, Conductive Education
The parents requested the hearing alleging that the district denied their daughter,
diagnosed with cerebral palsy, a free appropriate public education for the 1999
extended school year and the 1999-2000 regular school year. The parents
claimed that the district denied FAPE by refusing to include as a related service
the cost associated with the student's participation in the conductive education
program at the Center for Independence through Conductive Education.
The decision was rendered in favor of the parents and the district was directed to
provide OT and PT services through a conductive education program in place of
direct OT and PT related services that were specified in the student's IEP. The
district was ordered to provide conductive education. The district was ordered to
reimburse the parents the cost of conductive education for the 1999-2000 and
2000-2001 school year and the 1999 and 2000 extend school years. The
parents were also to be reimbursed transportation costs. School staff was
ordered to consult on a weekly basis with the student's conductive education
teachers and the student's one-on-one aide was to be trained in conductive
education. The student's IEP was to be amended to include goals pertinent to
independent walking and daily life skills. Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001963 (Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer)
Appropriate Placement
The parent filed for an impartial due process hearing upon her son's re-entry into
the local public school district alleging that the specific classroom placement was
inappropriate. There was no dispute that the student was eligible for special
education and related services and no dispute that the proper placement was a
cross categorical self-contained classroom. The parent was unable to produce
any credible evidence that the specific classroom was inappropriate.
Consequently an order was entered denying the relief requested by the mother.
Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was pro se.

Case #001778 (James Wolter, Hearing Officer)
Suspension, Neighborhood School v. Separate Special Education Day
School, FAPE
The parents requested the hearing alleging that the district had violated the
student's right to a free appropriate public education by placing the student in a
separate special education day school. The student was 17 at the time of the
hearing and had been suspended for 10 days during the current school term for
three separate offenses (pulling a fire alarm, threatening a teacher while holding
a pair of scissors and punching a student in the face causing the student to be
taken to the hospital).
The record showed that the student had attended three different separate special
education day schools over the past five semesters. The parents wanted the
hearing officer to order the district to remove the student from the special
education and return him to the regular education program in his home school.
The hearing officer found in favor of the district and ordered that the student
remain in the separate special education day school placement. Legal counsel
represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #001890 (Susan Einspar-Wayne, Hearing Officer)
Implementation of IEP, Change in Placement, Neighborhood School vs.
Therapeutic Day School
The parent requested the hearing because she objected to the district's
recommended placement in a therapeutic day school. The parent contended
that the student did not deserve to be placed in such a "Jail like" setting. The
mother argued that the student's behavior was a result of the district's failure to
provide the services delineated in his IEP. The district contended that its
attempts to serve the student in a less restrictive setting had been unsuccessful
and that the student required a more restrictive and specialized setting than the
local school could provide. Furthermore, the school district argued that it is
without authority, as is this hearing officer, to assign the student to another
regular education high school that is not his neighborhood school. The hearing
officer found that the parent did not present any competent testimony or other
evidence that the school district was not providing services and supports as
delineated in the IEP. The hearing officer affirmed the district's recommendation
placement in a therapeutic day school. Legal counsel represented the district;
the parent was not represented.

Case #001798 (Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Sufficiency of Services, Case Dismissed
The parent requested a hearing because of concerns about sufficiency of
services. It was determined that the child had been hospitalized and those
records were to be shared with the school district and another IEP conference
was to be scheduled. The district asserted that the child was appropriately
placed and receiving services listed in his IEP. The parent failed to participate in
a second prehearing conference and was unavailable to the hearing officer or the
school district for discussion. The case was dismissed for failure to proceed to
hearing. Counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #001852 (Susan Einspar-Wayne, Hearing Officer)
Residency, Reimbursement for Transportation
The parent, seeking individual transportation for their son due to his asthma,
requested the hearing. During the pendency of the due process hearing, the
parents and the school district entered into a mediation agreement. The district
agreed that the student would sit in the front seat of the van and that the van
would be fumigated after each use. The district also agreed to monitor tobacco
products and inappropriate language and behavior in the van. The district
agreed that the students with alleged smoke residue on their clothing would be
placed in the rear passenger seat. Despite the fact that the school district
complied with the mediation agreement, the family found the plan unacceptable
and requested the hearing to obtain reimbursement for transporting the student
to school.
The district contended that they had complied with the mediation agreement and
that they had no further obligation as the student no longer resided in the district.
According to the findings of the hearing officer, the residency affidavits supplied
by the parents were not sufficiently detailed. The hearing officer found that the
parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the provision of individual
transportation for the student as they were not residents of the school district.
Legal counsel represented the district; the parents were not represented.

Case #002173 (Frank Nowik, Hearing Officer)
Revoke Consent for Evaluation, Consent for Placement
Both the parent and the district requested the hearing. The parent requested the
hearing because she objected to the district's eligibility determination and she did
not what her child labeled as a special education student. The district counter-filed
seeking an order to place the student in special education. Based on the
evidence submitted, the child was placed in a special education class prior to
being staffed in that class. The district's position was that this was done as part
of an intervention to deal with the serious behavioral issues the child was
presenting. The parent indicated that she was unaware that this was a special
education class. The hearing officer found that the placement of the child in that
class prior to the staffing and prior to the parent's consent was inappropriate.
However, the IEP of April 6, 2001, was appropriately conducted, thus the
recommended placement of the child by the district was ordered. Legal counsel
represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case # 002051 (Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer)
Consent for Initial Evaluation
The district requested the hearing seeking an order that would direct the district
to proceed with an initial evaluation of the student to determine if the student was
eligible for special education and related services. At the time of the hearing, the
student was fifteen years old and was referred for a case study evaluation due to
disruptive behavior that was interfering with his ability to participate in class
discussions and his refusal to complete classroom assignments. The hearing
officer ordered that the district proceed with a case study evaluation. Legal
counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #001996 (Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer)
Agreed Upon Order, LRE, ESY
The parents requested the hearing noting the district's failure to provide an
appropriate LRE placement with appropriate aids and services, failure to instruct
the student in his mode of communication and other concerns. An agreed upon
order was entered reimbursing the parents for tuition, fees, and services provided
during the academic year and including extended school year services. Counsel
represented both parties.

Case #002198 (Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer)
Extended School Year Services
The student in this case was an eleven-year-old boy with autism. For the past
two years his special education placement had been in a district program. The
parents were seeking an order that would direct the school district to provide the
student appropriate access to the regular education curriculum, reasonable
opportunity to participate in appropriate after school activities, and an appropriate
ESY program. At the pre-hearing the parents agreed that all issues except for
ESY could be removed from the hearing.
In this case the school district had recommended an ESY program for the
student of five weeks (24 days) with four hours of instruction per day. The
parents concurred with the total number of days proposed by the district but
insisted that the child should receive six hours of instruction rather than four
hours per day.
Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this case, the hearing
officer concluded that the district had developed an appropriate IEP for the
student relative to the regular school year and that the student made progress
this past year with respect to his IEP goals and objectives.
The hearing officer found that the district's recommended ESY program was
appropriate for the student. Legal counsel represented both parties.

Impartial Due Process Decisions Issued between July 1, 2001 and November 30, 2001

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued
between July 1, 2001 and November 30, 2001. Each summary identifies the
case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's disability
(if known), the hearing officer's finding, and whether legal counsel represented
the parties. This summary is provided so that you are aware of the issues
currently being brought before hearing officers. If you would like to receive a
copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions summarized, please
contact Bobbie Reguly at 21/782-5589. You are reminded that these decisions
are not precedent-setting; they represent how hearing officers have ruled after
reviewing specific facts placed before them.

Case # --002298 - Richard W. Brimer, Hearing Officer
Unilateral Placement in a Private School/Facility, Residential Placement,
Compensatory Education beyond Age 21, FAPE
The hearing was requested by the parents seeking reimbursement for the
student's unilateral placement in a residential facility, compensatory educational
services beyond the age of 21 and FAPE. When the student entered the high
school district, she received special education and related services as a student
with emotional disorders and behavioral disabilities. The IEP developed by the
school district was designed to meet her needs. In February 2000, the parents
withdrew the student from the school district's high school and enrolled the
student in an academy of arts. Since the student presented several problems, on
July 13, 2000, the parents placed the student in a private, out-of-state residential
facility. Subsequently, the parents requested reimbursement of the educational
expenses from the school district. The school district re-evaluated the student
and determined that the student's current residential placement was an
appropriate placement. While the school district recognized that the current
placement was appropriate, it planned to transition the student to an approved in-state
residential placement at a time when it would be more appropriate to move
the student. It was ordered that the school district fund the student's placement
from March 1, 2001 through the end of the 2001-02 school term jointly with the
Illinois State Board of Education in the proportion established by Section 5/14-7.02
of the Illinois School Code. A Settlement Agreement and General Release
was also entered into the decision.
Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case # 000919 - Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services for 23 Year Old Student
The mother requested the due process hearing for her son who graduated high
school during the pendency of the due process hearing and is now 23 years of
age. She raised a series of issues related to lack of services, inappropriate IEP
development and implementation, lack of transition plan, lack of notice prior to
graduation, and failure to provide a FAPE consistent with the IDEA. The mother
was seeking compensatory education. In light of the school records, the
testimony and evidence presented, it was found that the student had received
sufficient services, the IEPs complied with the law, transition plans were
incorporated into the IEPs, and the student did receive adequate notice regarding
graduation. It was determined that the student received a free appropriate public
education.
The mother represented her son, appearing Pro Se, while the school district was
represented by legal counsel.

Case # 002274 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Placement, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Content of IEP
The due process hearing was requested by the parents of an eighteen year old
son who is eligible for special education services in the areas of Emotional
Disturbance and Learning Disabilities. Having enrolled in the school district just
prior to his eighteenth birthday, the parents wanted their son placed in a
residential program but the IEP team determined he should be placed in a
therapeutic day school. The parents contended that the school district failed to
properly conduct the IEP conference, failed to complete required evaluations,
and failed to provide an appropriate placement for the student.
The hearing officer found that the school district was in violation and ordered the
student to be placed in an approved residential program for one year. Prior to
placement, the district was ordered to conduct a proper IEP conference that
included the consideration of further evaluations.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case # 002311 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Placement
The school district requested the hearing to compel consent to place the student
in a special education program. The student had exhibited numerous behavior
episodes and was achieving dramatically below the grade in which he was
enrolled. The school district sought permission from the parent to contact an
eligibility determination. The parent initially refused, but later yielded and
authorized the school district to evaluate the student. The school district found
that the student was eligible to receive special education and related services
and developed an individualized education program on behalf of the student.
The parent objected to the placement decision and requested the student remain
in the general education program. The school district requested a due process
hearing to resolve the placement dispute. The court decisions of Rowley, Daniel
R.R., Greer, and Oberti were used to determine the appropriate placement for
the student. It was determined that the school district had met the standards
specified in these cases. It was ordered that the student be placed in the special
education program recommended by the school district.
The district was represented by in-house legal counsel. The parent was
represented by an advocate.

Case # 002295 - Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Agreed Order - Placement Evaluation Compensatory Services, Sufficiency
of Services
Prior to the beginning of the due process hearing, the parent submitted a series
of pre-hearing motions to which the school district responded. The parties then
inquired about other issues related to the procedural aspect of the hearing and
then decided to meet in closed session regarding settlement. After two days of
deliberations, the parties entered into an agreed upon order. The district agreed
to pay the parent $1,500 as monetary reimbursement in consideration of the
parents' waiver of claims for any of the following: recovery or reimbursements for
costs paid or incurred for all expenses related to the child's enrollment at Cove
during the summer of 2000 and 2001, any and all private evaluations completed
prior to the date of the agreement and, any and all attorney fees and costs.
Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case # 002216 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Initial Evaluation
The district requested the hearing seeking an order permitting them to proceed
with an initial case stud y evaluation of the student without the parents' consent to
determine if the student was eligible for special education and related services.
Prior to the hearing the parents withdrew the student from the district. They are
not requesting any services from the district. The hearing officer denied the
district's request to conduct the case study evaluation without the parent's
consent when the parents have no intention of ever returning the student to the
district, accepting services from the district, or requesting compensation from the
district. Both the district and the parents were represented by counsel.

Case #001749 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Consent of Initial Evaluation, Related Services, Independent Evaluation,
Development of the IEP, Comparable Services
The parents of an eleven year old son requested the due process hearing. The
student was diagnosed as having unilateral moderate hearing loss in the left ear
with normal hearing in his right ear. It was the position of the parents that the
school district denied their son FAPE because (1) the IEP did not address the
needs of the student, (2) the district did not complete authorized testing and
ignored two separate mediation agreements, (3) the student was not placed in a
safe school environment, and (4) the need for granting an independent
evaluation.
In seeking relief, the parents requested an independent evaluation. This
prompted the school district to make a request for a due process hearing as well.
The requests were joined i nto the one hearing. The parents also sought to have
their child either placed in another public school district or be provided a host of
changes in the student's current educational program.
The hearing officer found that the school did not deny the student FAPE on any
of the aforementioned issues.
Legal counsel represented the district; the parents were not represented.

Case # 002292 - Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Appropriateness of Placement, Inadequate Notice to Parent, Draft
Evaluation Reports
The parent requested the hearing on behalf of her six year old son who was
eligible for special education and related services under the category of speech
and language impairment. At the time of the hearing, the child was attending an
early childhood program and a kindergarten class in his district of residence. The
parents claimed that the district had committed procedural violations that denied
her the right to be involved in the development of her son's educational plan.
Other issues involved the availability of the child's records, and a disagreement
regarding the district's recommendation to retain the student in kindergarten.
The hearing officer found that the district was not required to give the parent
drafts of reports prepared by evaluators. The final reports were properly given to
the parent. The student's placement for the following school year was not
predetermined. It was considered and determined through the IEP process. The
student's placement in a full-day kindergarten program was up held and the IEP
was found to be reasonably calculated to enable him to receive educational
benefits. Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case # 002242 - Frank Nowik, Hearing Officer
Evaluation Timelines Not Met, Independent Evaluation
The parents requested the hearing alleging that the district failed to conduct a
reevaluation of their child in a timely manner and therefore were seeking
reimbursement for an independent evaluation. The district asserted that the
parents requested the reevaluation of their child, but refused to sign the consent
form necessary for the district to proceed with the reevaluation until the district
made known to the parent the names of the evaluators and the tests to be done.
The hearing officer ruled the district has the right to conduct its own evaluation of
the child and the parent did not have the right to approve the district's evaluators
prior to giving consent for the reevaluation.
The district was represented by legal counsel. The parent was not represented.

Case # 001793 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Private vs. Public School Placement, Residential Placement, Free
Appropriate Public Education, Calculation of Educational Benefit
In August of 1997, the student entered the elementary school district enrolling in
the 6 th grade. Without holding an IEP meeting, the school district immediately
changed his placement. While the student progressed academically, his
behavioral problems increased in frequency and severity. To obtain answers
which the school district did not provide, the parents obtained a psychiatric and a
psychological evaluation which they hoped would form the basis of the IEP. In
April of 2000, the elementary school district held an IEP conference. The
resultant IEP would serve the student for the remainder of the school year and
for the beginning of the next school year in the Township High School District.
The Township High School District did not rewrite, revise or write a new IEP; the
school district accepted and implemented the IEP for the fall. This IEP did not
meet state and federal regulations, and this IEP cannot be reasonably calculated
to provide the student with an educational benefit. The school district's program,
therefore, cannot provide the student with a FAPE. Furthermore, the Township
High School District had not secured a placement for the student at the start of
the school year with the student remaining at home for the first two weeks of
school. It is unclear how much longer the student would remain out-of-school,
but it would be, at least, another week and probably longer. Frustrated, the
parents enrolled the Student in a private residential school. The parents are
subsequently seeking reimbursement for their expenses and continuing payment
to the residential school until the student is discharged from the program.
Referencing the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School
District v. Rowley, the School Committee of the Town of Burlington v.
Department of Education of Massachusetts, and the Florence County School?July 1, 2001 through
District Four v. Carter, it was decided that the parents fulfilled the two-prong
analysis of Burlington and the third point enumerated in Carter. It was ordered
that the Township High School District reimburse the parents for their expenses
and pay for all subsequent expenses associated with educating the student at
the residential site.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002299 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal
Hearing officer dismissed the case for want of prosecution.

Case #002303 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Early Childhood Placement, Pre-kindergarten
The parents' requested the hearing seeking placement in the Disney Magnet
School pre-kindergarten classroom. The local school district initially placed the
student in an early childhood special education classroom at a Magnet School.
Admission to the magnet school was apparently controlled by lottery and the
magnet school principal refused to allow the student to continue her enrollment
because the student was not selected in the magnet school lottery. The hearing
viewed with great disfavor what happened to this child all in the name of the
magnet school lottery system and the discretion of a building principal. The
hearing officer ordered that the student be placed in the magnet school pre-kindergarten
classroom.
The district was represented by legal counsel. The parent was not represented.

Case # 001852 - Susan Einspar-Wayne, Hearing Officer
Payment of Services, Related Services, Residency, transportation
The hearing was requested by the parent on behalf of their son who was eligible
for special education and related services under the category of autism and a
secondary disability of other health Impaired. The parents requested the
hearing alleging that their son suffered from asthma and therefore, placement on
a school van with children that had smoke residue on their clothing was
unacceptable. The parents contended that second hand smoke on the clothing
of the other students posed a health hazard to the student due to his asthma.
There were no allegations that the student suffered any asthma attacks while
being transported or following transportation. During the pendency of the hearing
the parents and the school district entered into a mediation agreement. The
district agreed that the student would sit in the front of the van and that the van
would be fumigated after each use. Following the winter break, the parents
insisted that the school district pay them to transport their son. The school
district filed a Motion to Dismiss the due process as; the district believed the
parents no longer resided in the district. The parents requested an opportunity to
respond to the motion. The residency affidavits supplied by the parents were not
sufficiently detailed. The hearing officer found that the student and parents were
no longer residents of the school district and the parents were not entitled to
reimbursement for the provision of individual transportation for the student.
Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case # 001847 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Placement, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Consent to Implement IEP,
Motion for Summary Judgment
The district requested the hearing because the parent would not provide written
consent for placement of the student in special education. A Motion for
Summary Judgment was filed by the Chicago Board of Education attorneys after
the parent refused to consent to a special education placement. After the case
study conference found the student eligible the mother refused any further
cooperation. Many written and telephonic attempts by the district and the
hearing officer were to no avail. The district's Motion for Summary Judgment
contained proof of compliance with all applicable laws including notice
requirements to the mother. The case study evaluation was completed correctly
and demonstrated a need for special education and behavioral intervention plan.
The district was ordered to reconvene the IEP conference, review the continued
eligibility and modify the IEP for 2001-2002 school year and implement the IEP
without parental consent.
The district was represented by legal counsel. The parent did not participate in
the hearing.

Case #002264 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal
Hearing officer dismissed the case for want of prosecution. The district was
represented by legal counsel. The parent was not represented.

Case #002011 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Consent for initial special education placement
The district requested the due process hearing to override the parent's non-consent
for initial placement of the student. A second evaluation was conducted July 1, 2001
through November 30, 2001 changing the student's eligibility from "mental impairment" to "learning disability."
The parent still refused consent, refused to participate in the hearing, and
intended to place the child in a private school. The district filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. The district was ordered to implement its IEP. The district
was represented by counsel. The parent did not participate and was not
represented.

Case # 001950 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Consent for Placement
The district requested the hearing because the parent would not provide written
consent for placement of the student in special education. The hearing officer
found that the student was entitled to a free appropriate public education and that
without special education services he would continue to fall further and further
behind and would never achieve an appropriate education. The hearing officer
ordered that the district reconvene the IEP meeting to review the case study
evaluation and to determine its continued appropriateness and applicability.
The district was represented by legal counsel. The parent did not participate and
was not represented.

Case #002051 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Evaluation
The local district filed for an impartial due process hearing after the parent of the
student refused to consent to an initial case study evaluation. The local school
district, through documents and testimony, established that it had a reasonable
belief that the student might be eligible for special education and related services
and the hearing officer overrode the parent's refusal and ordered that the district
proceed with the evaluation.
Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case #001999 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal
Hearing officer dismissed the case for want of prosecution.

Case #001864 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal
Hearing officer dismissed the case for want of prosecution.?July 1, 2001 through Nove mber 30, 2001

Case # 002231 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Eligibility Criteria, Consent for Case Study Evaluation
The district requested the hearing to compel parental consent to conduct a
comprehensive case study evaluation. The hearing officer concluded that the
student has academic and behavioral problems which interfere with her ability to
progress through high school at the typical rate. 34 CFR 300.505(b) and 20 USC
1415 (a) states that if a parent refuses to consent to an evaluation, the agency
must initiate a due process hearing in this matter with an impartial hearing officer
making the determination. The hearing officer concluded that the school district
met its burden of proof and ordered the school district to conduct a
comprehensive case study evaluation on behalf of the student.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #001898 -Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal
Hearing officer dismissed the case for want of prosecution.

Case # 2178 - Karen Anderson, Hearing Officer
Suspension for Nine (9) Days
The hearing officer issued this decision in response to a Motion for Summary
Judgment, finding that the student had not been suspended for more than ten
consecutive school days. No relief was granted to the parents.
The district was represented by legal counsel. The parent was not represented.

Case # 001924 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Independent Educational Evaluation
The district requested the hearing after denying a parental request for an
independent evaluation at public expense. The hearing officer found that the
district complied fully and completely with all procedural requirements of the law.
The hearing officer ordered that the parent was not entitled to an independent
evaluation at public expense. Legal counsel represented both parties.

Case # 002209 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Regular Education vs. Special Education Placement?July 1, 2001 through Nove mber 30, 2001 10
The district requested the hearing in order to place the student in a self contained
special education program housed in his neighborhood school without parental
consent. The parents wanted the student to remain in the regular education
placement. At the time o f the hearing, the student was 8 years old entering the
3 rd grade and receiving speech therapy and counseling. The hearing officer
found that the district had conducted an appropriate IEP conference and
developed an IEP that was reasonably calculated to provide benefit to the
student. The placement recommended by the district was affirmed. The district
was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002173 - Frank Nowik, Hearing Officer
Revocation of Consent for Case Study Evaluation, Special Education
Placement without Parental Consent
The parent requested the due process hearing objecting to the district completing
a case study evaluation after she revoked her consent. The parent also objected
to the district's placement of the child in a special education program prior to the
completion of the evaluation. However, both the parent and the district agreed
that the child was doing better in the special education classroom and seemed to
have fewer problems. The child's placement in special education prior to being
staffed into that class was done as part of an intervention to deal with serious
behavioral issues. The hearing officer affirmed the district's recommended
placement. The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not
represented.

Case # 002181 - Stephen B. Rubin, Hearing Officer
Case Dismissed, Dispute over Placement
The parent requested the hearing one week after receiving Hearing Officer
Einspar-Wayne's decision in which she affirmed the district's recommended
placement. The district filed a Motion to Dismiss the parent's request for a due
process hearing on the grounds that the parent was using an improper method
for pursuing an appeal. The parent did no t file a response to the District's
motion. The hearing officer found that the request was an attempt to appeal the
prior decision and order. The request for a due process hearing was dismissed.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002184 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Order of Dismissal
Hearing officer dismissed the case for want of prosecution.?July 1, 2001 through Nove mber 30, 2001

Case #002207 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement vs. Therapeutic Day Placement
The parent requested the hearing on behalf of his 15 1/2 year old daughter who
was eligible for special education under the category of Emotional Disturbance
(ED). The father asked the hearing officer to fund the student's placement at
Brown School to allow her to develop the skills she needs to function as an
independent adult. He believed she needed full time intervention and that the
least restrictive environment for her was a structured residential therapeutic
facility. It was the district's position that residential placement was not necessary
to meet the student's educational needs. It was noted that the student had spent
long periods of time in residential treatment with no noticeable progress. The
hearing officer concluded that there was no reason to believe that another year
or two at another distant residential placement would turn out any differently.
The hearing officer relied on were Dale M. v. Bd. Of Ed. Of Bradley-Bourbonnais
H.S. D. 307, 237 F. 3 rd 813 (7 th C. 2001) and Blickle v. St. Charles CUSD 303,
1993 U.S. Distr. LEXIS 10396 (N.D.E.D., Il 1993).
The hearing officer found that the district's proposed placement in a day
therapeutic programs was appropriate. Both parties were represented by legal
counsel.

top of page

Due Process Hearing Decision Summaries December 1, 2001 through February 28, 2002

Following is a summary of impartial due process hearing decisions issued
between December 1, 2001 through March 29, 2002. Each summary identifies
the case number, moving party, the issue or issues in dispute, the student's
disability (if known), the hearing officer's findings, and whether legal counsel
represented the parties. This summary is provided so that you are aware of the
issues currently being brought before hearing officers. If you would like to
receive a copy of the non-personalized due process hearing decisions
summarized, please contact Bobbie Reguly at 217/782-5589. You are reminded
that these decisions are not precedent setting; they represent how hearing
officers have ruled after reviewing specific facts placed before them.

002189 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Education, Tutoring Services
The 20-year-old former high school student and his parents requested a due
process hearing approximately 10 months after he graduated. The student with
above average intelligence has severe learning disabilities and received special
education services prior to and during his four years in high school. The student
and his parents maintained that the school district failed to provide FAPE,
violated their procedural rights, inappropriately graduated him from high school,
and failed to have an appropriate transition plan. As a result, the student and his
parents were seeking compensatory education tutoring services for one year,
counseling, further psycho-educational and vocational evaluations, vocational
training, and reimbursement for costs of post-high school tutoring services. The
hearing officer found that the school district did deny the student FAPE and that
receipt of a regular high school diploma did not negate the student's rights to
compensatory education. The school district was ordered to provide
compensatory education for the equivalent of one (1) school year post high
school's tutoring services, and provide transition assistance.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

002191 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Disagreement with IEP - Motion to Dismiss
The hearing officer issued an order in response to a motion to dismiss filed by
the local school district. The parties agreed to a settlement of all issues, but the
parents refused to withdraw the request for due process.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

002503 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Consent for Case Study Evaluation
The hearing officer issued a decision and order in response to a motion filed by
the district asking for an order to compelling a case student evaluation of the
student. Due to the parents' refusal to cooperate with the case study evaluation
and their removal of the student from services and their refusal to participate in
the due process proceedings, the district was relieved of its obligation to conduct
a reevaluation.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

002427 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Order to Dismiss
The parents requested the due process hearing on behalf of their son who is
deaf and who had two cochlear implants. Because of the lack of parental
participation, the case was dismissed.
Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

002414 - Frank Nowik, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services during the School Year, Change in Location of
Services
The parent requested a due process hearing seeking an order returning her
son's special education class to its previous location in another school. She
claimed that the program at the new location would not meet the IEP of her son.
The hearing officer ruled that the program in the new location with his previous
teacher and aide was able to meet the educational needs of the student as
described in his IEP. The hearing officer ordered two weeks of compensatory
education because of the two week delay in getting the classroom properly
equipped for the student.
The district was represented by counsel and the parent by advocates.

001877 -- Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Case Study Evaluation, Compensatory Education
The 16-year-old high school student suffered a sexual assault as a freshman at a
private school. After displaying physical and emotional symptoms, the student
transferred to the public high school. There, the student attended sporadically
and the high school entered into a series of agreements with the parents
whereby the student would receive homebound ins truction. The homebound?services
continued for over 1 1/2 years until the student's psychiatrist and other
medical professionals indicated the student could be reintegrated into the school
program. The parents continued to request homebound services. The school
district requested a case study evaluation of the student to determine whether
she was eligible for special education, to which the parents objected. The school
district filed for a due process hearing requesting to do the evaluation. The
parents counterclaimed, arguing the school district's request should be denied
and the student should receive compensatory education for the educational
services either delayed or not provided by the school district. In the course of the
pending due process heari ng, the parents requested a sta y put placement to stay
the student within the college bound track of courses and to stay the student in
higher level courses pending the outcome of the due process hearing. Based
upon the weight of the testimony and evidence, it was determined the school
district's request to carry out a case study evaluation was warranted and the
student was to receive four weeks of compensatory tutoring because of a one
month delay by the school district in providing agreed upon homebound
instruction. It was also found that the student did not have the right to continue
homebound instruction under the IDEA absent a finding that the student was
eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA and a further
finding that homebound service placement provided the student with FAPE in the
least restrictive environment.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.

002373 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Private vs. Public School Placement
The student is a 4-year-old male with Down Syndrome who is currently enrolled
in a preschool program primarily composed of students without disabilities. He
uses a total communication approach for both receptive and expressive
communication. In the 2000-2001 school year, the parents requested a due
process hearing. An agreed order resolved the dispute; it directed the school
district to reimburse the parents for the placement and related services. The
agreed order also directed the parties to hold an IEP conference to discuss
placement and services for the 2001-2002 school year. The school district held
the IEP meeting on July 23, 2001; immediately following the meeting, the parents
requested a due process hearing. The Board of Education of the Hendrick
Hudson Central School District v. Rowley established a basic floor of opportunity
which consists of two steps: the school district's compliance with the procedural
safeguards identified in the IDEA and if the IEP can be reasonably calculated to
provide the student with an educational benefit. It was concluded that the school
district met its requirement and ordered the student to be placed in a public
school program.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.?

002063 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Placement, Dispute Over Sufficiency of Services, Compensatory Services,
Content of the IEP
The mother of the student removed the student from an out-of-state residential
facility without the knowledge of the local school district, placed the student in a
regular education summer program without advising staff at that setting that the
student had a then existing IEP for EBD students, and then complained that the
local school district did not secure a new residential placement for the student
quickly enough so that the student could start school in August 2000. The
student was subsequently terminated from the residential placement and the
then 18-year-old student and the mother insisted on a regular education
placement at the student's last regular education placement. The mother
objected to the IEP developed upon the student's return to the local school
district and filed for due process. The student successfully completed his senior
year in high school and graduated without contest in June 2001, rendering many
of the mother's requests for relief moot. With regard to compensatory
educational services, the hearing officer essentially found that the mother caused
the placement problems and the local school district worked as quickly as it could
once it understood that the mother never intended that the student return to the
out-of-state placement.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

002428 - Frank Nowik, Hearing Officer
Placement, Sufficiency of Services, Development of IEP, Inclusion
After two half days into the hearing the parties negotiated a settlement
agreement that was read into the record and made part of a consent order.
The district was represented by an attorney; the parents by an advocate.

0002380 - Frank Nowik, Hearing Officer
Reimbursement for Conductive Education
The facts are not in dispute, the parents withdrew their request for a due process
hearing after there were three days of hearing at which they presented a part of
their case. During the conference telephone call on November 28, 2001, the
parents stated that their attorney's fees were at $16,000.00 and they could not
afford to continue. The district claimed to have incurred substantial expense
preparing to defend themselves from the claim of the parents. The district sought
to have the withdrawal allowed but with prejudice or if the due process hearing is
voluntarily dismissed or closed without prejudice as a result of the parent's
request, that an order be entered, that should the parents file a subsequent due?
process hearing based upon or including the same claims against the district,
that the parents pay for the district's costs incurred related to the defense of the
due process hearing that they voluntarily dismissed. The hearing officer ruled
that the parents withdrew their request for a due process hearing because of lack
of funds to continue the hearing, the withdrawal will be allowed without prejudice.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

002100 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Evaluation, Prior Written Notice, Independent Evaluation,
Compensatory Services
The district requested the due process hearing after denying the parents' request
for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. In a counter-complaint
the parents asserted that the district denied the student a free
appropriate public education by failing to conduct an IEE at public expense,
failing to respond to a previous request for an outside evaluation, violating child
find procedures, failing to give prior written notices of the determination that the
student was ineligible for special education and related services and denial of the
previous request for an evaluation, by failing to provide an educational program
reasonability calculated to enable the student to obtain meaningful benefits for
her education, by failing to provide compensatory education and extended school
year services.
The hearing officer found that the previous evaluations were appropriately
comprehensive and met the standards contained in the IDEA and Illinois law, that
the district acted appropriately in denying the parents' request for a case study
evaluation and an IEE at public expense, that the district provided adequate prior
notice, and that the district did not violate its Child Find responsibility.
The parents and the district were represented by legal counsel.

002352 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Private vs. Public Placement, Content of IEP
The student was unilaterally placed at Cove School by his parents in August
1999 for his 5 th grade year. In June 1999, prior to the student's placement at
Cove, the mother requested a due process hearing which was subsequently
conducted and a decision reached in favor of the district. The mother did not
return the student to the district but maintained him at Cove School for this fifth
and sixth grade years. In May 2001 the mother was notified of a conference
scheduled to review the student's educational status, develop an IEP and review
an independent evaluation. The IEP meeting resulted in a recommendation that
the student be placed into a regular program for most of the school day. The?
student was diagnosed as multi-physically disabled, dyslexic, ADHD, emotionally
fragile and socially delayed. The mother, by letter from her attorney, requested a
due process hearing to again challenge the district's recommended placement
decision. The parent's expert evaluator testified that the IEP proposed by the
district would not address the student's needs. The fact that the student himself
was never met by five of the eight District participants in the development of the
IEP raised questions in the hearing officer's opinion. The hearing officer found
that the District's proposed IEP was not calculated in a matter that would allow
the student to derive educational benefit. The hearing officer ordered that the
child's placement at Cove for the 2001-2002 school year was appropriate. The
district was ordered to reimburse the parent for the tuition at Cove School
beginning June 2001, and for the cost of the evaluations and testing done by the
independent evaluator.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

002543 - Richard W. Bremer, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement
In December 2000 the student was unilaterally placed in an out-of-state
residential center. At the advice of the residential center's staff, the student was
placed in a different out-of-state residential facility. The residential facility
provided a structured and consistent environment; in that setting the student
progressed and improved. In August 2001 the school district and the parents
entered into a settlement agreement. In part, this agreement stated that the
student's placement was appropriate for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school
years and the summer of 2001. The agreement also indicated that the
residential services will be provided at public expense. Subsequently, the school
district submitted the settlement agreement to ISBE seeking reimbursement at
the proportion established by Section 5/14-7.02 of the Illinois School Code. In
September and November of 2001, the ISBE denied the school district the
residential reimbursement. At that point, the parents requested a due process
hearing. The hearing officer ordered that the ISBE reimburse the school district
at the rate established and approved by the Governors Purchased Care Review
Board of the 2000-20001 and 2001-20002 school years and the summer of 2001.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.

002449 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Change in Location, Compensatory Services, Occupational Therapy, FAPE
The parents requested the hearing on behalf of their child who is eligible for
special education and related services due to a severe and profound cognitive
impairment. The parents alleged that the child had regressed while being served?
by the district and the classroom assignment was medically hazardous. The
parents introduced no testimony or documents but instead relied upon cross-examination
of the local school district's witnesses. All of the witnesses and the
documents submitted by the local school district supported a conclusion that the
local school district had provided a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment. Further, the witnesses and documents supported a
conclusion that the student had made progress while being served by the local
school district and that the progress was consistent with that of a student as
profoundly impaired as this student. There was not credible evidence offered in
support of the parent's allegation that the classroom assignment was medically
hazardous.
The hearing officer entered a finding in favor of the local school district and
ordered the district to implement the last IEP should the student return to the
assigned classroom.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

001693 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Free Appropriate Public Education, Compensatory Education, Related
Services
The parents initially requested the hearing because the district had not changed
the student's diagnosis to autism. The parties attempted resolution, including
mediation, for almost a year. After the mediation and subsequent IEP meetings,
the district contacted an international expert in a utism, who had also been
contacted by the parents to conduct an evaluation. The district paid for the
evaluation. The expert found the child to be autistic and mildly mentally retarded
and also diagnosed him as medically complex. The district placed the student in
a program recommended by the expert. Prior to that placement, the student had
been removed from the previous placement at the direction of his doctor, who
sought to stabilize him on medication. The district provided a qualified tutor
during that period but the tutoring was not successful and the parents terminated
the tutor's services. While not in placement, the student was taught by an
educator identified by the parent. At the time of the hearing, the parents were
satisfied with the label and placement but wanted a finding of FAPE based on the
time between the district's first notice of autism and the time the district changed
the label; additional services; related services; reimbursement for the educator
and their doctor's evaluation. A comparison of the student's pervious placement
and new placement demonstrated a number of the same techniques used and a
teacher skilled in working with autistic children; there were also other autistic
children in the previous program. Based on Rowley (the law does not require a
guarantee that the IEP will be successful, only that the IEP when written was
reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit), the hearing officer
determined there was no denial of FAPE. The hearing officer denied the request?
for reimbursement of the parent's doctor's evaluation. The Hearing Officer
ordered reconvening the IEP to include parent training and counseling. The
district was ordered to demonstrate appropriate prior notice; pay for the educator
unilaterally obtained by the parents, and to pay for some limited additional
services from this educator. The district was also ordered to assist the parents in
identifying community resources, based on the recommendation of the expert.
However, the distinct has no responsibility to pay for such services.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

002500 - Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Placement, Inadequate Notice, Free Appropriate Public Education
The district requested the hearing seeking an order to confirm the district's
recommended placement in a therapeutic day school and to obtain consent to
obtain a psychological evaluation. The recommendation to change the student's
placement from a self-contained special education classroom to a therapeutic
day school resulted in part from several violent episodes that occurred on and off
the school bus. The district conducted an IEP meeting to discuss the behavior,
however, before the meeting could be concluded, the parents left. Later the
parents claimed they did not receive adequate prior written notice of the meeting
and that they did not understand the purpose of the meeting. This claim was
rejected by the hearing officer.
The hearing officer upheld the district's proposed change in placement as being
appropriate for the student due to his acts of anger and rage.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

002548 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Evaluation
The district requested the hearing in order to receive order allowing an initial
evaluation of a 10-year-old, 4 th grade student suspected by district personnel to
have eligible disabilities. The parent's refused to consent to the evaluation. The
parents did not participate in the hearing process. Upon receipt of the district's
Motion for Summary Judgment, an order was entered allowing the district to
evaluate the student.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent did not participate in the
hearing process.

002509 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Evaluation
The district requested the hearing to compel parental consent for an initial case
study evaluation. The student was 9-years-old and in the 3 rd grade and
experienced academic and behavioral problems in school. The hearing officer
ordered the district to conduct an initial case study evaluation and analysis of
functional behavior of the student without parental consent.
Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

002496 - Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Special Education Transportation and Change in Location of Services
The parents requested the due process hearing requesting that the district
provide special education transportation, a psychiatric evaluation and transfer the
student to a different middle school within the district. The parents asserted that
the student's attendance and school performance had been affected by threats
and attacks from neighborhood gang members. The hearing officer concluded
that there was sufficient testimony and evidence to conclude that the student be
provided transportation to and from school. The mother testified during the
hearing that she had moved into the district where the school the student
requested was located. The school district did not appear to have the new
address and agreed to transfer the student to his requested middle school. The
district was ordered to convene an IEP meeting to consider the parent's request
for additional testing. No further action regarding the placement was ordered.
The parent was represented by an advocate; the district was represented by
legal counsel.

002479 - James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Independent Educational Evaluation, Compensatory Education, Tutoring,
Private Special Education Day Placement
The parents requested the hearing seeking independent educational evaluations
and placement at public expense in a private special day school. The parents
were also requesting compensatory tutoring services for missed school time. At
the time of the hearing the student was in the 7 th grade and eligible for special
education and related services under the classification of learning disabilities.
The underlying issue of this hearing was the student's deficiency in reading. The
student had a history of excessive school absences. In the 6 th grade he missed
58 days while attending school for 114 days of which he was tardy 10 days. He
was suspended for 21 of those days and there was no indication as to why the
student was absent for the other 37 days. Suspensions during the current school
year have not exceeded seven days. While not an issue of the hearing, it was
found that the student had failed vision screenings on two occasions but does not
have corrective glasses.
The hearing officer found that the district had fulfilled its responsibility to conduct
an appropriate evaluation, the IEP was appropriate and no compensatory
tutoring warranted, and the student was receiving a free appropriate public
education.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

002482 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement, Free Appropriate Public Education
The matter to be decided was whether a residential placement was the
appropriate one for the student. It was found that she derived educational benefit
from her therapeutic day school instructional program with related services. A
residential placement was ordered based on non-educational reasons,
specifically significant concerns about the student's mental health and risky
behaviors she exhibited in the community. It was requested that DHS and ISBE
be joined as parties in the matter. They were not because both agencies
indicated that an agreement to provide a residential placement, if necessary, is in
effect. The district was ordered to facilitate a residential placement for the
student by informing the Illinois State Board of Education of its responsibilities
under IDEA; and requiring that the interagency agreement with DHS be acted
upon to provide such placement. The hearing officer stated in the order that the
district was not required to fund the placement but should be a significant entity
in its development.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

002461 - Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Expedited Hearing, Discipline
The 12-year-old male student was suspended on both 9/7/01 and 10/2/01 in
connection with incidents that caused the school district staff grave concern in
light of their judgments concerning the rapid onset and intensity of the student's
anger, as well as the extreme loss of control and level of violence he displayed.
The school district thus requested an expedited due process hearing at which it
contended that: (a) maintaining the current placement of the student is
substantially likely to result in injury to the student and others; (b) the student's
current educational placement is appropriate; (c) the school district has made
reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the student's current
placement, including the use of supplementary aids and services; (d) the interim?
alternative educational setting the school district proposed would permit full
implementation of the student's IEP and include services and modifications
designed to prevent the undesirable behavior of the student from recurring.
Based upon a full review of the evidence and testimony presented by both
parties at the expedited due process hearing, the hearing officer upheld the
position of the school district.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

002139 - Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Summary Judgment, Independent Educational Evaluation
On a motion for Summary Judgment the hearing officer ruled that the parents
were not entitled to reimbursement for the independent educational evaluation
they obtained.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Illinois State Board of Education

Due Process Summaries Issued Between March 1, 2002 - June 30, 2002

Case #001844 - Marian F. McElroy
Dispute over Sufficiency of Services, Related Services, Initiation of Services
The parents requested the hearing alleging that the District denied the student
FAPE for failing to provide an effective Voice Output Communication System
(VOCS), making an inappropriate determination of the student as mentally
impaired, failing to provide appropriate services required for the student to
access the general curriculum, failing to implement appropriate ESY services,
and violating procedural safeguards under IDEA by failing to provide prior written
notice (PWN).
The hearing officer found that IEPs developed for the student were reasonably
calculated to enable the student to receive education benefits and that the
School District complied with the prior written notice requirements of 20 U.S.C.
Section 1415(b)(3). The hearing officer ordered the School District to convene
an IEP meeting with regard to the student's program for the 2002-03 school year.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002778 - Stacey Stutzman
Physician's Referral for Occupational Therapy
The District requested the hearing because the parents refused to provide the
requisite physician's referral for Occupational Therapy. The parents' refusal to
provide the referral was interpreted by the District as an implicit revocation of
their consent for occupational therapy services. The District was seeking an
order to obtain a physician's referral allowing OT services and to conduct an OT
re-evaluation.
The hearing officer ordered that the District be permitted to seek and obtain a
physician's referral at its own expense, that the District be permitted to provide
OT services to the student upon receipt of the physician's referral, and that the
District conduct an OT re-evaluation.
The School District was represented by legal counsel; parents were not
represented.

Case #002651 - Charles Aschenbrenner
Placement
The School District requested the hearing seeking an order to place the student
in a therapeutic day school. This hearing involved a 16-year-old emotionally
disturbed student who had been serviced in the School District's Off-Campus
Learning Center for most of the student's high school career. The IEP team
determined the Off-Campus program was not meeting the student's needs and
recommended placement in a therapeutic day school. The parent disagreed.
The hearing officer ordered that the student be placed in a therapeutic day
school and progress be monitored on a quarterly basis. An additional psychiatric
evaluation was also ordered, if necessary.
The District was represented by legal counsel. There was no representation on
behalf of the parent at the due process hearing, and the parent chose not to
attend the proceedings.

Case #002606 - Carolyn Ann Smaron
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, IEP, FAPE
The parents requested the hearing alleging that the School District should have
conducted a case study evaluation of the student in February 2002 upon receipt
of a document indicating that the student has been diagnosed with Asperger's
Syndrome. Instead, the School District modified the student's 504 Plan. In April
2001, the parties agreed upon a neuropsychological evaluation and an
independent speech and language evaluation. Thereafter, the student was found
eligible for special education as a student with Asperger's Syndrome, a form of
high functioning autism. The parties prepared an IEP on November 12, 2001 but
the IEP was left incomplete pending consultation with the Taz-Mason Autism
Team regarding curricular and classroom modifications. The parents alleged that
the consultants retained by the School District were not sufficiently trained and
could not offer appropriate suggestions to the student's teachers.
The hearing officer found that all of the decisions made by the School District
were reasonable given the circumstances then existing and the parent's apparent
agreement and that all of the decisions represented a good faith effort on the part
of the local School District to provide the student with a meaningful educational
opportunity.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002478 - Dr. Richard Brimer
Private vs. Public School Placement, FAPE
At the time of the hearing, the student was enrolled in the eighth grade. The
parent contended that the School District did not provide the student with a free
appropriate public education (FAPE). In particular, the student scored
significantly below his grade and age expectation in reading and in mathematics
and profoundly below his grade, age and cognitive expectations in written
language expression. The student also had significant problems in penmanship
with his writing being slow, labored and difficult to read. Since the parent
believed the School District was not providing the student with an appropriate
education, she unilaterally removed the student from the School District's middle
school and enrolled him in a private school in a neighboring community.
Subsequently, the parent requested the School District to reimburse her for the
expense associated with educating the student in the private school.
The issue in this matter centered on whether the School District provided the
student with a FAPE. The Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central
School District v. Rowley established a basic floor of opportunity which consists
to two steps: a) The School District's compliance with the procedural safeguards
identified in the IDEA, and b) If the IEP can be reasonably calculated to provide
the student with an educational benefit. The hearing officer concluded that the
School District met the IDEA's requirements and ordered that the School District
was not required to reimburse the parent for the expenses associated with
educating the student in a private facility.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002666 - Carolyn Ann Smaron
Consent for Initial Evaluation
The local School District requested this due process proceeding after the parents
of the student refused to consent to a case study evaluation. After consideration
of the documents and an Affidavit attached to the School District's motion for
summary judgment, the hearing officer overruled the parents and ordered a case
study evaluation.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parents were not represented.

Case #002147 - Carolyn Ann Smaron
Placement, IEP, Independent Evaluation
The parents requested the hearing alleging that the School District failed to
provide the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least
restrictive environment (LRE) and that as a consequence thereof, the student
was unilaterally placed in a residential facility. The Illinois State Board of
Education's mediation system produced resolution of many issues but the
dispute resurfaced as a dispute over the payment of money for the residential
facility. The parties jointly stipulated to the remaining facts and after
consideration of the joint stipulation and the IEP for the student, the hearing
officer ordered ISBE to reimburse the local School District for the costs
associated with the residential placement.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002628 - Dr. James Wolter
FAPE, Speech/Language Evaluation, LRE
In spite of a technical error made by the District's IEP team, their
recommendation for a special education resource placement was granted over
the parent's request for a full-time individual instructional assistant. The District's
refusal to provide the student with an independent speech/language evaluation
was sustained. The District was ordered to conduct a Functional Behavioral
Analysis and implement a Behavioral Intervention Plan. The number of days the
student was suspended from school was not found to be excessive and the
parent's request for compensatory education for days the student was
suspended was denied.
Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case #002808 - Stacey Stutzman
Consent for Initial Evaluation
The District requested the hearing on the issue of consent for evaluation. The
parents were divorced and educational decisions were to be made jointly. The
father consented to the evaluation, however, the Mother neither consented to the
evaluation nor participated in the hearing. The District presented evidence of
need for an evaluation. The hearing officer granted the District its request to
conduct a full and individual evaluation of the student.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002584 - Marian McElroy
Payment of Services
Parents filed a due process hearing request seeking reimbursement for
expenses for a private residential placement in Kansas. The parents claim that
the School District's failure to conduct a case study evaluation of the student
violated child find provisions of state and federal law. The School District argued
that it recommended a case study evaluation to the parents but the parents
elected not to follow the School District's recommendations. The parents
unilaterally placed the student at a residential treatment facility.
The School District found the student ineligible for IDEA in that her behavior did
not fit the eligibility criteria for emotional disturbance. The School District did
develop a 504 plan for the student. The hearing officer found that the School
District met its child find obligation and that the parents were not entitled to
reimbursement absent a showing that the student's behavior affected her
academic performance.
Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case # 002596 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Appropriate Placement, Independent Evaluation
The parent filed a request for due process claiming that the District failed to
provide a free appropriate public education, failed to consider an independent
evaluation, and failed to provide an IEP. The District requested that the hearing
officer dismiss the matter citing that the student was home-schooled and,
therefore, not entitled to the same safeguards under IDEA. Further, the District
stated the hearing officer had no jurisdiction to reconsider a previous order
issued in 2001, and that the guardian had not cooperated with the District to
allow it to provide FAPE. The request was dismissed.
The District was represented by an attorney. The guardian was assisted by an
advocate.

Case #002804 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement, LRE
The District requested the due process hearing because the parent objected to
the District's proposed change of placement. At the time of the hearing the
student was completing the 5 th grade in a self-contained special education class
within a regular education school setting. The District was seeking an order to
place the student in a public special education day school contained within a
regular education school building. The parent did not consent to the change of
placement. Based on the testimony of District personnel, including the child's
teachers, the hearing officer determined that the student's special education and
related service needs would be appropriately met in the public special education
day school. The District's proposed change of placement was affirmed by the
hearing officer.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002789 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Placement in Special Education
The District requested the due process hearing seeking an order to compel
placement in special education without parental consent. A previous hearing
was held to compel consent to conduct a case study evaluation. The District's
request to conduct the evaluation was granted. The hearing officer found the
student eligible for special education under the category of learning and
behavioral disabilities. However, the parent refused to provide consent for
placement in special education. At the time of this hearing, the student was nine
years old and enrolled in a third grade classroom. The District was seeking an
order to place the student in a therapeutic day school. The hearing officer found
that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the student's educational
needs could best be met in a BD self-contained special education program.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002807 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Consent for Reevaluation
The District requested a due process hearing to conduct a triennial evaluation of
the student. The District attempted on multiple occasions to gain the parent's
signature for consent for reevaluation. The hearing officer made numerous
attempts to secure the parent's participation in the hearing proceedings. The
District made a Motion for Summary Judgment. Timelines were given for
response. An Order was made directing the School District to conduct a
reevaluation of the student.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002362 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Sufficiency of IEP, Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement,
Reimbursement for Independent Evaluation
The parent requested the hearing asserting that the District's proposed
placement was inappropriate and the proposed individual education program was
insufficient to provide for the student's individual needs. The parents requested
reimbursement for a unilateral placement at a private school for the 2001-2002
school year, continued placement at the private school and transportation, and
reimbursement for evaluations, a private educational consultant and out-pocket
expenses related to the private evaluation.
It was concluded that the District was able to provide free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment. Parents were denied
reimbursement for the unilateral placement and other expenses and the
continued placement at the private placement.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002596 - Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Independent Education Evaluation, Unilaterally Placed in Private School
(Home Schooled)
The child's guardian filed a request for due process claiming that the District
failed to provide a free appropriate public education, failed to consider an
independent evaluation, and failed to provide an IEP and special education
services. The District requested that the hearing officer dismiss the matter citing
that the student was home-schooled and, therefore, not entitled to the same
safeguards under IDEA. Further the District stated the hearing officer had no
jurisdiction to reconsider a previous Order issued in 2001, and that the guardian
had not cooperated with the District to allow it to provide FAPE. The case was
dismissed.
The District was represented by an attorney. The guardian was assisted by an
advocate.

Case #002744 - James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Eligibility Criteria, Independent Evaluation, Content of IEP, Services on IEP
Not Provided, FAPE
The parents on behalf of their 15 year old son requested the hearing seeking a
private evaluation and vision therapy. The student was eligible for special
education and related services under the category of LD and had a history of
reading difficulties. The hearing officer found that the parents had fully
participated in the IEP process. It was further found that the student was deriving
appropriate benefit from his special education placement. The parents' motion to
have the District pay for a private evaluation by an optometrist and vision therapy
by the optometrist was denied.
Neither party was represented by legal counsel.

Case #002553 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Appropriate Placement, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Eligibility
Criteria, Unilateral Placement in Private School
The parents filed for the hearing alleging that the School District failed in their
"child find" responsibilities, failed in their responsibilities to properly evaluate the
student, and in denying eligibility for special education, failed to provide the
student a free appropriate public education. The parents unilaterally placed the
student in an out-of-state residential facility, changed the student's placement to
an in-state facility, and sought reimbursement for this unilateral placement.
The hearing officer found that the school District did not attempt to identify the
student as a student eligible for special education and related services on a
timely basis and as a consequence, the student was denied a free appropriate
public education in the least restrictive environment; that the student met the
criteria of severely emotionally disabled and as a consequence, should have
been found eligible for special education and related services at the
multidisciplinary conference; and that the least restrictive environment for this
student is her current placement in Quincy, Illinois.
The hearing officer ordered an independent educational evaluation at School
District's expense, development of an appropriate IEP, stay-put placement in the
current placement; and reimbursement for unilateral placements.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002743 - Robert F. Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Dispute Over Non Custodial Parent's Consent for Evaluation
The custodial parent requested the hearing because she objected to the District's
decision to conduct an evaluation of her daughter based on the written consent
provided by the non-custodial parent. The District submitted a motion to dismiss
the Parent's request for due process. The Hearing officer provided the Parent an
opportunity to respond to the District's motion to dismiss. It was the District's
position that consent from the student's natural father was legally sufficient,
contending in this regard, that "absent a court order to the contrary, both parents
in a divorce have the right to participate in and make educational decisions for
the child." The District further argued that "there is no language in any divorce
Decisions Issued between March 1, 2002 - June 30, 2002 8?decree that has
been provided to the District regarding the mother's sole right to
make educational decisions." The hearing officer accepted the position of the
School District. In the opinion of the hearing officer, viewing a District as required
to obtain consent for evaluation from only one of the student's parents (even in
cases where neither parent has the exclusive right to make educational decisions
for the Student under a court ordered divorce decree) is highly congruent with a
reasonable interpretation of the basic purposes and values underlying the IDEA.
The Hearing Officer dismissed the case and later through clarification amended
his order dismissing the request and replaced it with a Summary Judgment in
favor of the School District upholding its right to evaluate the Student.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002767 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Motion to Dismiss - Student Parentally Placed in Private School
The hearing officer dismissed the case on the grounds that 23 IAC 226.350(c)
does not apply to disputes between a local school District and parents of a
student unilaterally enrolled in a private school.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002472 - Marian F. McElroy, Hearing Officer
Summary Judgment Decision - Consent for Reevaluation
The District requested the hearing seeking an order to compel parental consent
to conduct a reevaluation on a student who had not been evaluated for four
years. The District documented repeated attempts to obtain parental consent.
The parent was also unresponsive to the communications of the hearing officer
regarding the hearing proceeding. The hearing officer ordered that an evaluation
be conducted for the student immediately without the consent of the parent.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002567 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Independent Educational Evaluation, FAPE, LRE
The hearing was initiated to resolve a parental request for an independent
education evaluation. However, before this matter got to hearing this issue was
resolved because the District completed the independent evaluation. The only
remaining issue was whether the District's IEP recommending a private day
school placement denied the student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
This case went to due process hearing initially in November 2000. It was
Decisions Issued between March 1, 2002 - June 30, 2002 9?resolved at the
hearing with an agreement regarding a private day placement.
Subsequently the parent refused to enroll her son in the placement and the
District was unable to implement the agreement. On May 14, 2002, the District
developed a new IEP recommending private day placement. The hearing officer
found that the District met its burden and concluded that the District had provided
the student FAPE in the LRE.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002738 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Change of Placement, LRE
The hearing was requested by the parents because they objected to the District's
recommended change of placement from a cross-categorical self-contained
program in a public school to a public therapeutic day school. The School
District alleged that the student's proposed placement in a therapeutic day school
was necessary as the student's present behavior interfered with her ability to
learn and that she was in need of intensive daily social and psychological
services. The grandmother/legal guardian objected to the placement focusing
her attention on the student's aide. The hearing officer found in favor of the
District's recommended change of placement.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002407 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement
This hearing was requested by the parent seeking a residential placement for her
son who was eligible for special education and related services under the
category of LD. The student was diagnosed with Disruptive Behavior Disorder,
Impulsive Control Disorder, ADHD, Depression and possible Bipolar Disorder.
Following a hospitalization precipitated by an episode of aggression the student
was placed in a therapeutic residential facility with some educational services
provided in a laboratory school. During the hearing the School District and the
parent reached agreement concerning the educational placement for the student
for the next year. Pursuant to that agreement the hearing officer ordered the
residential placement for the student be provided by the school District.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002649 - Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
Dismissal Order, Parent Lack of Standing, Consent for Placement
The hearing was requested by the child's mother who objected to the student's
proposed placement in an EBD program which the child's father had consented
to. The parents were divorced and entered into a Parenting and Custody
agreement that provided the father with final decision making authority on
educational issues. On a pre-hearing motion filed by the School District, the
hearing officer dismissed the case finding that the mother had no standing to
request the due process hearing.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002542 - Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Reimbursement for Tutoring Services, Compensatory Educational
Services, Money Damages for Alleged Pain and Suffering
The parent requested the hearing alleging that her son had been wrongfully
excluded from school. The District requested that the hearing officer dismiss the
case arguing that the allegations were either without merit or the remedy being
sought was not available under IDEA. Because the mother was unrepresented
the hearing officer went over the District's motion point-by-point. The case was
dismissed on a Motion for Summary Judgment.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002644 - Stephen B. Rubin, Hearing Officer
Consent for Full and Individual Evaluation
The hearing was requested by the District seeking permission to conduct a full
and individual evaluation without parental consent. According to the District the
student was not receiving educational benefits from a general education program
despite several interventions. At the time of the hearing, the student was
repeating the third grade for the third time. The hearing officer ordered the
district to promptly conduct a full and individual evaluation of the student without
parental consent.
The district was represented by legal council; the parent was not represented.

Case #002773 - Charles L. Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Removal Agreed Order
The District requested the hearing to resolve a hygienic situation regarding a 10-
year old mentally impaired student. At the pre-hearing conference the School
District's representative presented a proposal to resolve the dispute. The
parents accepted the proposal. An Agreed Order was entered which stated that
if the student came to school in a non-hygienic (unclean) condition, the principal
could suspend the student for the remainder of that school day, as well as, the
next two school days.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002426 - Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Case Dismissed Against Elementary District
The student waited 15 months and into the second school year after graduating
from the elementary school district to request a due process hearing. The letter
requesting the hearing described the nature of the problem as a 1995 change by
the District to a "full inclusion format" which illegally changed the student's
placement. Nowhere in the hearing request or in the filing in response to the
motion to dismiss was there anything that indicated that the parents were
unaware or uninformed or their rights under IDEA, thus the hearing officer
concluded that the District's Motion to Dismiss the Due Process Hearing due to a
lack of jurisdiction because of non-residency of the requested party should be
granted.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

top of page

Due Process Summaries Issued Between July 1, 2002 and October 1, 2002

Case #002535 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE, Discipline, Related Services
The parent requested the hearing asserting that the school district failed to
appropriately train staff in behavioral support, management, and interventions;
failed to account for the student's lack of reasonable progress and to account for
this regression emotionally, behaviorally and academically; failed to provide
appropriate related services to address the student's sensory, academic,
emotional and behavioral needs; created a hostile environment for the student
where school staff ridiculed, humiliated, degraded, breached his right to
confidentiality and physically abused the student, failed to provide a sufficient
IEP; and, failed to provide procedural safeguards to parents.
It was concluded that the district denied the student a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment; compensatory services were
awarded to the student. Both the parent and district were represented by
counsel.
Link: ISBE2535.PDF

Case #002829 - Stephen B. Rubin, Hearing Officer
Child Find, Unilateral Placement in Private School
The hearing was requested by the parent seeking reimbursement for tutoring and
testing in the amount of $3,085 and tutoring services provided in a parochial
school rather than a district school. Since the child was unilaterally placed in a
private school for non-educational reasons, the issues pertaining to the delivery
of services on the IEP were not subject to a due process hearing. The only issue
the hearing officer considered was whether the District violated its child find
obligations with respect to this child.
The hearing officer found that the District did not violate its child find obligations
with respect to this student. The parents' request for relief was denied.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002558 - Richard W. Brimer, Hearing Officer
Private vs. Public School Placement, Unilateral Placement in Private
Facility, FAPE
The student is a three-year-old boy who was diagnosed with a profound hearing
loss at the age of six months. A little over the age of one, the student received a
cochlear implant from a university hospital. Somehow, the electrodes to this
implant became detached and the student received a second cochlear implant
approximately 18 months after the first implant. The student greatly benefited
from this second implant. At the recommendation of their otolaryngologist and
their clinical audiologist, the parents enrolled the student in a private day school
which focused on an "oral-aural" program. Since enrolling in this program, the
student made significant progress in receptive language, expressive language,
behavior, and socialization skills. The school district held an IEP meeting in
September of 2001. At that time, the school district recommended a cooperative
total communication program for the student.
The two-prong test of Rowley was used to determine whether the student was
provided with a FAPE. The school district committed substantial procedural
errors rendering the school district's proposed program inappropriate under
Rowley. In addition, the school district's IEP did not address the substantive
requirements of Rowley. In contract, the private day school provided an
appropriate program that met the student's needs.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002322 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services, Residential Placement, FAPE, Services beyond
Age 21
The hearing was requested by the parents through their attorney. At the time of
the hearing, the student was 20 years old and was institutionalized at Chester
Mental Health Center where he had been committed since August 2000. The
student had a history of behavioral problems, beginning in first grade and
worsening in recent years. While initially eligible for special education and
related services under the category of LD, he was later labeled as EMH/BD. In
1996 his diagnoses was changed to Asperger's Disorder. No evidentiary hearing
was held.
The school district, the parent and the hearing officer all agreed that the student
should be placed in an out-of-state residential facility for the 2002-2003 and the
2003-2004 school years, including ESY services at district expense.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002923 - James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Change of Location, Promotion from 7th to 9th Grade
The parent requested the hearing because of the district's refusal to promote the
student per their request from the 7th grade to the 9th grade. The hearing officer
explained to the parents that the authority of a hearing officer was limited to
special education matters and grade placement was not within the realm of
authority of a hearing officer. Other issues included whether the IEP was
reasonably calculated to benefit the student, the appropriateness of regular
classroom accommodations, and the monitoring and reporting of the student's
progress to the parents.
The hearing officer found that the IEP developed by the district was appropriate.
As such, the district demonstrated that the student's IEP was reasonably
calculated to provide educational benefit.
Legal counsel represented the district; the parent was not represented.

Case #002953 - James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Least Restrictive Environment, Initial Consent for Placement
The district requested the hearing to compel placement of the student in a fullday
special education kindergarten placement. At the prehearing conference call
the parent informed the hearing officer that there would be no need to proceed
with the due process hearing because she had given the district written
authorization to place the student in a special education kindergarten program
and to review the student's progress every three months. The district agreed
with the parent and made a motion for a directed summary judgment.
The motion was granted. The district was ordered to provide the student with a
half-day regular education program and half-day special education kindergarten
program commencing the 2002-03 school year.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002855 - Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Related Services, Transportation
The parents' requested a due process hearing on issues related to the provision,
qualifications, and training of bus aides for the student. The parent sought an
order requiring the district to provide First Responder and emergency training to
the bus aides. The parent also wanted the district to provide the student with a
qualified bus aide per the child's needs and to provide a substitute bus aide when
the regular bus aide was absent. The hearing officer found that the district
violated FAPE by its failure to provide a bus aide and for its failure to provide a
substitute aide in the regular aide's absence. Since the district had offered first
aid and emergency training to the bus aides, no violation of FAPE was found on
that issue.
The district was ordered to assign bus aide(s) to the student for the 2002-03
school year that meet the desirable minimum qualifications, per the Guidelines
for Principals of the Chicago Public Schools Served by Children's Welfare
Attendants and/or School Bus Aides. The bus aides must attend all mandatory
in-service sessions provided to bus aides by the district. The school principal
must directly supervise the bus aides assigned to the student and secure a
substitute bus aide as needed.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002632 - Judge Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Appropriate Placement, Home Bound Instruction, Sufficiency of Services,
Unilateral Placement, Content of IEP, FAPE, Methodology
The parents of a 10 1/2 year-old boy diagnosed with Autism requested the hearing
because they were dissatisfied with the educational program being provided by
the school district. The parents argued that the district's program was not
challenging enough and didn't use ABA/DTT. The parents removed the child
after an incident where a teacher sprayed him in the face with a cleaning
substance. Neither party prevailed on all issues.
The hearing officer found that the parents were justified in their decision to
remove the child following the "spraying" incident. The district was faulted in not
offering the parent another placement and for not appropriately addressing the
child's needs for ESY. It was also found that the IEP goals and objectives were
appropriate but in need of much more detail on the academics.
The parents were awarded reimbursement for the home program from the time
the child was removed from school through the summer. However, the district's
program and IEP were found mostly appropriate with no procedural violations.
The District was ordered to provide autism training to staff and to provide
ABA/DTT type instruction at school for the child. Additional help in integrating
the child into the classroom was also ordered.
The district was represented by legal council; the parent was not represented.

Case #002137 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
FAPE, One-on-One Aide, Compensatory Damages
The parents of an 11 year-old daughter who has been diagnosed as having
significant cognitive deficits associated with autism requested the due process
hearing. The issue was whether the special education program and services for
the student were appropriate and provided her a FAPE. The parents wanted the
following relief: (1) 100% one-on-one aide, (2) year round schooling with no more
than two weeks off, (3) the student's staff to be trained in ABA discreet trail and
behavior techniques, (4) speech and language for 90 mpw to 225 mpw, and (5)
compensatory damages.
The hearing officer found the school district provided the student with a FAPE.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parents were represented by
an advocate.

Case #002463 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Appropriate Placement, Private v. Public School Placement, Residential
Placement
The parents unilaterally placed the student in an out-of-state facility and
requested a hearing to determine whether or not they should be reimbursed for
said placement. The parents also alleged that the local school district failed to
identify the student in a timely manner. The hearing officer found that the local
school had demonstrated that it identified and evaluated the nature and severity
of the student's suspected or identified disability on a timely basis and that it
offered a FAPE in the LRE to this student.
The hearing officer found that the parents had not met the requirements for
unilateral placement and as a consequence, the hearing officer would not order
reimbursement.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was pro se.

Case #002692 - Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Unilateral Placement, Excluded Medical Services, Compensatory Services,
FAPE
In this case the parents requested reimbursement for their unilateral placement
of the student, a 10-year old autistic child, in a residential program. The parents
also requested compensatory education for the student, contending that the
student's program during the 2000-2001 school year was inappropriate in virtue
of not having in place an adequate functional behavior analysis and behavior
management plan to address the student's severe behavior problems. The
parents also requested reimbursement for diverse expenses incurred in
connection with educating the student.
The hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents on all major issues in this case.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002542 - Judge Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Appropriate Placement, Termination of Services, Revocation of Consent
The parent requested the hearing because they wanted the student returned to
general education. Pursuant to 23 IAC 226.540(a)(3) and (i) a parent who
desires to revoke consent must request a due process hearing; the mother did so
in this instance. During the 2001-02 school year, the student was enrolled in a
language arts/reading pull-out program for students with learning disabilities. It
was the hearing officer's finding that the psychological evaluation, which
consisted of two pages, was inadequate to support placement in special
education.
The hearing officer ordered the student be removed from all special education
services and placed in a standard 7th grade curriculum.
The both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002700 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
FAPE, Cued Speech vs. Total Communication
The hearing was requested by the parents of a four-year old student diagnosed
with sensorineural hearing loss. The district offered placement in an early
childhood program (600 mpw); phonology class (240 mpw); individual
speech/language services (60 mpw); individual hearing itinerant services (300
mpw); and monthly monitoring of hearing and transportation. The parents
rejected the district's program and filed for due process seeking reimbursement
for a cued speech program.
The hearing officer found that the district met its burden and concluded that the
district had offered the student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
However, the hearing officer ordered the IEP reconvened to include related
services to the student to assist him in moving from the cued speech setting to
the early childhood setting and appropriate related services to the parents for
training and counseling.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002798 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Evaluation, Dispute over Sufficiency of Services, Content of IEP
The parent requested a due process hearing alleging that the three-year
evaluation of her son was incomplete and the IEP developed thereafter was
insufficient. Subsequently, the parent alleged that the annual review was
incomplete and the IEP developed thereafter was insufficient.
The hearing officer found that the local school district met its burden and
established that it identified and evaluated the nature and severity of the
student's suspected and identified disability and that it was providing the student
a FAPE in the LRE, consistent with procedural safeguards and in accordance
with the IEP.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002819 - James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Independent Education Evaluation, Motion for Summary Judgment
The hearing was requested by the District in response to the mother's request for
an independent evaluation at public expense. The mother requested the
independent evaluation because she believed that the District's evaluation was
not appropriate because it did not identify the specific special education program
needs for the child. The mother argued that by not using all current evaluation
instruments the evaluation was not helpful in developing an appropriate program
for the child. The record showed that the student had had four evaluations in the
past two years.
The hearing officer found that the student's current evaluation was appropriate in
nature and degree to provide the IEP team with an understanding of the
student's special education needs and to formulate an IEP to address those
needs. The record indicted that the mother and her attorney participated in the
last IEP meeting. The hearing officer found that there was no need to hold
another IEP meeting. The district's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Dismissal was granted in full.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002757 - Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
Dismissal Order, Initial Case Study Evaluation
The hearing was requested by the parent seeking an initial case study
evaluation. The district had no objection to the parent's request and attempted
on several occasions to set the matter for mediation. Each time the matter was
set for mediation the parent was unavailable. The hearing officer unsuccessfully
attempted to contact the parent regarding the hearing.
Due to the lack of cooperation on the parent's part, the School District's Motion to
Dismiss was granted.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002837 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Eligibility Criteria
The parents requested the due process hearing on behalf of their 13 year-old son
whom they suspected had a disability. Consequently, the student was referred
for a case study evaluation which was completed by the school district in the
spring of the school year. Prior to scheduling the eligibility determination
conference, the student was involved in an incident which warranted an
expulsion action by the school board. It was determined by the IEP team that the
student did not have a disability and was not eligible for special education
services. Subsequently, the school board took official action that expelled the
student for the remainder of the school year. Immediately following the school
board action, the parents requested the due process hearing maintaining that the
district failed to provide an adequate evaluation and failed to determine the
student's educational needs. As a result, the district did not properly identify the
student as being eligible for special education. The parents sought a finding from
the hearing officer that the student be eligible for special education, receive
compensatory services, and have the expulsion expunged from the school
records.
The hearing officer found that the student was eligible for special education
services and awarded compensatory relief. The hearing officer did not order that
the expulsion be removed from the educational record.
The district was represented by the Director of Special Education; the parents
were represented by an advocate.

Case #002648 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Consent for Triennial Evaluation
The district requested the hearing when the parent failed to consent to a triennial
evaluation which the district was required to conduct pursuant to 23 IAC 226.578
(c). The District filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the
hearing officer.
The hearing officer authorized the district to proceed with the reevaluation of the
student.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002541 - James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Sufficiency of IEP, Notice of Dismissal
The hearing was requested by the parents because they disagreed with the
wording on the student's IEP for the 2002-2003 school year. The student had
been promoted from the K-8 district named in this due process hearing.
Since the dispute was with the High School District, the hearing officer dismissed
the case against the elementary district, finding that the K-8 School District was
not the appropriate party to the action.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002550 - Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement, Order of Dismissal
The hearing was requested by the mother objecting to the district's
recommended placement of the student in a residential placement. While the
hearing was pending, the student appeared in juvenile court and pleaded guilty to
charges of theft and residential burglary. The student was allowed to withdraw
his guilty plea and was found unfit to stand trial. He was remanded to the
custody of the Department of Human Services. The district requested that the
due process hearing be dismissed. The parent did not respond to the district's
motion.
The court ordered the mother and the minor to comply with all recommendations
of the school district regarding the residential placement of the minor. The case
was dismissed in its entirety.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #000989 - Richard W. Brimer, Hearing Officer
FAPE, Placement, Student Incarcerated
On June 30, 1997, the attorney for the parent filed a request for due process
objecting to the student's placement. Under a separate proceeding, a due
process hearing officer issued an agreed upon order in which he stated that he
would retain jurisdiction for one year. The agreement did not resolve the dispute,
and a second hearing was conduced in 1998 but a decision was not issued. In
May 1999, another hearing officer was appointed to the case and an interim
order was issued. In 2001, the student was sentenced to three years in an adult
penitentiary.
The hearing officer dismissed this case finding that the student once incarcerated
was no longer a resident of the school district. The hearing officer further found
that the responsibility for educating this student now rests with the Board of
Education of the Department of Corrections.
The parent and the district were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002799 - Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Agreed Upon Order, Manifestation Determination, Behavior Management
Plan, Alternative Educational Setting
The parents initiated the hearing alleging several violations dealing with a
manifestation determination and the results, including a behavior management
plan without parental consent and placement in an alternative school without an
IEP. The parties submitted to the hearing officer a settlement agreement and
asked that the hearing officer enter an order based upon the agreement.
In accordance with the stipulated agreement, the hearing officer ordered that the
district provide the student with 50 hours of tutoring to be delivered by the tutor
selected by the parents and specified the criteria for grade promotion.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002841 - Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Consent for Reevaluation
The District requested the hearing to compel parental consent for a special
education reevaluation. At the time of the hearing the student was an eight yearold
boy in the second grade. He was last evaluated shortly after entering
kindergarten at the parent's request. At that time the District concluded that the
student was not eligible for special education and related services. By the end of
the 1st grade, the student was able to read only three or four word sentences.
The mother objected to the reevaluation because she had arranged for the
student to receive reading instruction three times a week after school. The
mother further argued that she believed that the school district staff wanted the
child removed from his regular education placement because of his behavior.
Based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing
officer concluded that the district had valid reason for wanting to reevaluate the
student.
The District was represented by legal counsel; the parent was not represented.

Case #002448 - Stephen B. Rubin, Hearing Officer
Unilateral Placement in Private Day School
The hearing was requested by the family through their attorney. The parents
were seeking reimbursement for three years tuition and expenses at Hyde Park
Day School and reimbursement for additional services secured by the parents to
compensate for services allegedly not rendered or rendered inappropriately by
the District. At the time of the hearing, the student was eligible for special
education and related services under the category of speech and language
impaired and learning disabilities.
In July 2000, counsel for the parents wrote to counsel for the district rejecting the
district's IEP calling for placement in the public school fifth grade classroom and
giving notice of their intent to enroll the student at Hyde Park Day School at
public expense.
The hearing officer found that the June 2000 IEP failed to provide a free
appropriate public education and the parent was entitled to reimbursement for
the amounts expended for tuition and related services at Hyde Park Day School
from September 2000 to the date of the hearing. The district was ordered to
convene an IEP meeting for the purpose of transitioning the student to a less
restrictive environment taking into account the recommendations of the outside
evaluators. The parents were ordered to cooperate fully in the formulation and
effectuation of the program adopted by the district and to not criticize the
program or its implementers for at least one semester after the program has
been put into effect.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Case #002904 - Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
8th Grade Graduation, Promotion to High School
The parents requested the hearing in order to dispute the decision of the district
to promote the student to high school. Specifically, the objection was to making
the decision based on age (number of years in the program) as opposed to
achievement of IEP goals. The parents argued that 105 ILCS 5/10-20.9a(b)
applies to students with disabilities and that the student should not be promoted
to a higher grade based solely on age or any other social reason. The district did
not disagree, but pointed out that 105 ILCS 5/14-6.01 states that no student shall
be denied promotion, graduation, or a general diploma ....based on the student's
disabling condition (paraphrased), and also on the provision therein that the high
school district accepts financial responsibility for students on their fifteenth
birthday.
The hearing officer ordered the student enroll for the 2002-03 school year at the
Junior High School, in the class he attended in the 2001-02 year. The district
was also ordered to conduct an augmentative communication evaluation and
provide a one-on-one aide. The district was also ordered to facilitate a smooth
and gradual transition to high school.
The district was not represented by legal counsel; the child was represented by
his father.

Case #002866 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Grade Promotion
The parents requested the hearing because they disagreed with the district's
decision to promote the child from the 1st grade to the 2nd grade. The parents
were seeking an order promoting the student from the 1st grade to the 3rd grade.
The parents contended that the district retained the student in the 1st grade
without giving the parents proper notice. The district argued that notice was not
provided because they wanted to measure the child's progress over the summer
before making a decision regarding retention. The district stated that the
student's achievement test scores at the beginning of the 2nd grade would make
it very difficult for the student to participate in the 3rd grade.
The hearing officer found in favor of the district on the grounds that the due
process hearing officer has not legal authority with respect to retention/
promotion. The student's grade placement is a matter that is at the discretion of
the district.
The district was represented by legal counsel; the parents were not represented.

top of page

Due Process Summaries  Issued Between November 1, 2002 and August 31, 2003

Case #002084 – Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE, Payment of Services, Compensatory Services, and FAPE
The primary issue was whether the district placements provided the student with a free
and appropriate public education. The parent requested relief in the way of
reimbursement for various outside services she had contracted and prospective
compensatory education as relief for violations of procedure and failure to provide FAPE.
The order supported the district's procedures and its efforts to provide FAPE, including
considering outside experts' opinions regarding the child's diagnosis.

Compensation was ordered to the parent for an examination and testing by a recognized
expert in Fragile X syndrome. All other relief was denied.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #002101 – Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Payment of Services
The issue concerned reimbursement regarding an outside evaluation. The district was
ordered to reimburse the parents for the uninsured portion of a psychological
examination and the uninsured portion of laboratory charges associated with that
examination.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case # 002336 – Carolyn Smaron, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parents unilaterally placed the student in an out-of-state facility and requested a
hearing to determine whether they should be reimbursed for said placement. The
Hearing Officer initially found the local school district identified and evaluated the nature
and severity of the student's suspected or identified disability on a timely basis and that it
offered a FAPE in the LRE to this student based on the facts available to the school
district at the time of placement recommendations.

Based upon subsequent events, the Hearing Officer found the parents had met the
requirements for unilateral placement and consequently, the Hearing Officer ordered the
district to reimburse the parent for costs associated with an out-of-state placement.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #002420 – Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Payment of Services, and Individualized
Educational Program
Upon entering high school, the student was underachieving in the classroom. Since the
student studied nightly and had the potential for higher performance, this dilemma
distressed the parents. To understand the scope of the problem and to seek remedies,
the parents met with the teachers who did not offer any suggestions except to monitor
his performance more closely. After receiving the first semester grades, the parents
again met with the teachers. Their only suggestion was to "Put him on Ritalin”. The
parents took the student to his pediatrician for a physical examination and sought the
advice of an educational consultant. After testing the student, the consultant suggested
to the parents they request a case study evaluation. From her findings, the consultant
indicated the student qualified as a child with other health impairments and a learning
disability. During the eligibility conference, the school district offered to develop a 504
plan on behalf of the student but refused to develop an IEP on behalf of the student. At
that point, the parents requested a due process hearing.

The decision determined the student was deprived a FAPE and the teacher did not
make a good faith effort to educate the student to fulfill the benchmarks and goals
specified in the IEP. It was ordered the school district reimburse the parents for a
pediatric evaluation, the educational evaluation conducted, and any additional direct
educational services after the student entered high school.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002468 – Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Placement, Dispute over Sufficiency of Services, Payment of Services, and
Individualized Educational Program
The district claimed the parents placed the student in a private facility unilaterally without
a 10-day notice and without valid emergency. Placement was in a non-approved school
in the Berkshires in Massachusetts. Facility was not approved or licensed by any
agency. The student showed up after 4 weeks of school, stayed 9 days and was
removed by parents to Massachusetts. The 2002-2003 IEP was finalized after 12.5
hours of meetings and the parents rejected it. The parents alleged IEP violations. The
2001-2002 IEP was never finished. The IEP was found appropriate and in compliance
with LRE and the law. Reimbursement for the facility was denied.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
 

Case #002647 – Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
Dispute over Sufficiency of Services
The parents objected to services provided and to the psychologist who tested child.
They requested more speech services, a central language evaluation, and other
changes to the IEP. Hearing Officer found the district had provided FAPE and child was
doing well in current placement.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002791 – Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Dispute over Sufficiency of Services, Inadequate Notice to parent, and
Related Services
The parents are divorced. The mother has custody of the student. In this role, she has
the right to make educational decisions for the student, including special education
decisions. Pursuant to the divorce decree, the father retains certain rights. The Federal
Court has ruled these rights include the right to obtain school records and the right to
receive notice of school meetings that address the student’s disability. The father
received pertinent notices of IEP meetings and he received copies of his son’s school
records. His request for year-round services and a certain teaching method for dyslexia
are denied because those are decisions for the mother to make. The district and mother
do not need the father’s consent to schedule IEP meetings although they should try to
accommodate his schedule.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002832 – Marian F. McElroy, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parent filed a due process hearing request stating the school district had
denied the student FAPE by not implementing the student's IEP for the student's
7th and 8th grades, failing to implement Assistive Technology, failing to implement
social services and the Behavior Plan, failing to properly identify the student's
disability, failing to provide transition plan to High School and change of placement
without parent notification and denial of meetings requested for review of IEP.

The Hearing Officer held the student derived minimal educational benefit from his
instruction and the school district failed to implement the student's IEP. The parent
requested placement in a private day school. The Hearing Officer denied placement at
the private school because the school district had a program that could duplicate the
services at the private school. The Hearing Officer ordered the student receive Extended
Year Services and Assistive Technology.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002841 – Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation
The school district requested consent to re-evaluate the student in order to determine
whether processing deficits and /or other conditions that would qualify him to receive
special services may be interfering with his ability to advance in the area of Reading.
Based upon the evidence and testimony presented by the school district in connection
with the due process hearing, the Hearing Officer ruled the school district proceed with
its plan to revaluate the student.

The district was represented by legal counsel.
District initiated request

Case #002844 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services, Individualized Educational Program, FAPE, and
Other Services
The issues are whether the district’s IEP denied the student a free, appropriate public
education (FAPE) for the sixth grade year of 2001-2002 and if so, is the student
entitled to compensatory education and whether the extended school year (ESY)
program the district offered for summer 2002 violated the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and constituted a denial of FAPE and if so is the student
entitled to reimbursement for his unilateral placement and/or provision of services.
The student is a fourteen-year-old boy with Down Syndrome and cognitive and verbal
limitations. He was in a full inclusion program at an elementary school in his home
school from kindergarten through fifth grade. In third grade, the student's IEP team
recommended that he attend SED Educational and Life Skills (ELS) program. The
parents, however, wanted him to remain in the neighborhood school and did so. By
the student's fifth grade year, parents agreed that he needed the ELS program for
sixth grade. Data are collected regularly as part of the program to assess goals.
Some staff changes occurred when the student was in sixth grade but other team
members were consistent. During this time, the student had his required services.
Data from a number of sources shows the student has made progress each year
since third grade, with more progress being made once he was placed in the ELS
program in sixth grade. For the summer of 2002, the IEP team recommended the
student attend the SED ELS ESY program, which runs for six weeks, five days a
week, half-days in the mornings, and ending four weeks before the beginning of the
next school year. For a number of summers, including 2002 and 2003, the student's
parents enrolled the student in a private religious school as they had in previous
summers. The student did not receive any of his related therapies. Data taken after
summer, winter, and spring breaks reflect no regression for the student in nearly all
of his skill areas with very slight exception, showing improvement in some areas or
the ability to recoup any lost ground very quickly. Summer regression/recoupment
data showed little or no regression after a three-month absence from the ELS
program. The parents filed for a hearing when the district refused to pay for the
private camp. The issues are whether the district's IEP denied the student a free,
appropriate, public education (FAPE) for the sixth grade year of 2001-2002 and if so,
is the student entitled to compensatory education and whether the extended school
year (ESY) program the district offered for summer 2002 violated the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and constituted a denial of FAPE and if so is the
student entitled to reimbursement for his unilateral placement and/or provision of
services. The parties stipulated as follows with respect to the issue of extended
school year for the summer of 2003: Whatever the Hearing Officer decides with
respect to the appropriate extended school year program for the student for summer
2002 would also apply to summer 2003. The hearing officer, after a review of all
evidence, has made findings the district properly identified the student's needs and
the district provided services to address his needs in the ELS program and offered
an appropriate ESY program. The Hearing Officer concluded the IEP and its
implementation comported with the requirements for a FAPE in accordance with
IDEA and parents request for relief was rejected.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #002848 – Carolyn Smaron, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parents allege the school district inappropriately concluded the student was no
longer eligible for special education at the conclusion of a three-year re-evaluation. In
support of their position, the parents introduced the testimony and evaluations of various
independent evaluators, none of whom had observed the student in his classroom prior
to reaching the conclusion the student was disabled and none of whom could provide
any evidence the student suffered any adverse educational benefit from his alleged
disabilities. The school district successfully met its burden that it had evaluated the
student in a proper manner and that its evaluation conclusion was correct.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002851 – Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer
Independent Evaluation
The district requested a due process hearing after denying the parent's request for an
independent educational evaluation at public expense. The parents claimed the IEP
developed did not address the child's emotional needs that were the result of being
bullied at school. The Hearing Officer found the district's evaluations were appropriate
and had considered and addressed the child's needs.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request
 

Case #002870 – Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Eligibility Criteria
The parent requested a due process hearing to determine whether the school district
should be required to provide at public expense an independent educational evaluation
(IEE). After reviewing the student's records, discussing his academic skills with his
previous and current teachers and after reviewing a previous eligibility determination, a
multidisciplinary team recommended the student did not warrant another eligibility
determination. After the rejection by the multidisciplinary team (which included the
parent, a representative and other relatives), the parent requested an independent
educational evaluation and compensatory educational services for the time the student
missed from school because of problems associated with an automobile accident. It was
the order of this Hearing Officer that the student did not warrant another eligibility
determination and the parent did not justify a request for an independent educational
evaluation. Compensatory education was not granted.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request

Case #002886 – Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Placement and FAPE
The student attended an early childhood special education program in his home school
district. In his final year in the early childhood program, the school district proposed
placing the student in a neighboring school district's self-contained special education
program. Enrolled in this program are students who are achieving at approximately the
same level as this student. The parents challenged this proposed placement and
instead recommended the student remain in his home school district and spend part of
the school day in a special education and related services program and part of the
school day in an inclusion general education program. The parent requested a due
process hearing to resolve the placement dispute. The court decisions of Rowley,
Daniel R. R., Greer, and Oberti were used to discern the appropriate placement for
the student. It was determined the school district had met the standards specified in
these cases and ordered the student be placed in the special education program in a
neighboring school district for the 2002-2003 school year.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002896 – Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Placement, Eligibility Criteria, Independent Evaluation, and LRE
The issue involved the parent’s request the student be placed in a self-contained
learning disability (LD) class, undergo an independent evaluation and received
compensatory education. The district’s eligibility determinations of LD, BD, OHI, and S/L
are proper. The student’s BMP was designed and revised to respond to serious
misbehavior. His suspensions from school did not constitute a change in placement. The
parent’s request the district pay for an independent evaluation is denied. The district’s
request the student be placed in a therapeutic day program is denied. The parent’s
request for eight days of compensatory education is denied.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002914 – Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parent requested the hearing asserting the district's proposed placement of
student in a therapeutic day school was inappropriate. After hearing evidence and
reviewing documents, it was concluded the district's proposed placement of the
student in a therapeutic day school was appropriate.

The parent appeared pro se on the first day of the hearing and failed to appear on the
second day of hearing.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002926 – Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation
The district requested a due process hearing to determine whether the student should
be re-evaluated in an effort to provide the student with an appropriate education. Since
enrolling in school, the student exhibited academic and behavioral problems. While in
the first grade, the student failed language arts and mathematics and was required to
repeat the first grade. At that point, the student was referred for an eligibility
determination. He was found eligible for special education and related services and he
was classified as learning disabled. Subsequently, the student was placed in a learning
disabilities program. In that program, the student began to exhibit several unacceptable
and severe behaviors some of which involved a female student in his classroom. The
school district became increasingly concerned with the nature and frequency of the
student's behaviors, and requested permission from the parents to re-evaluate the
student. The parents did not respond to the school district's request. After several
attempts, the school district requested a due process hearing. The Hearing Officer
granted permission for the school district to re-evaluate the student.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request
 

Case #002937 – Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer
Placement, Dispute over Sufficiency of Services, Inadequate Notice to
parent, Independent Evaluation, and Payment of Services.

The parents requested a hearing seeking reimbursement for an independent
evaluation and vision therapy services for their son. They also alleged the
district failed to inform properly them of their procedural rights and the IEP
developed did not contain measurable goals. The Hearing Officer found the
district had provided the appropriate services to the student and denied the
parents requests for reimbursement. The parents were given notice of all
IEP meetings and provided with the opportunity to have those rights
explained to them. The IEP's goals were measurable. The Hearing Officer
found the district had provided the appropriate services to the student and
denied the parent’s requests for reimbursement.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #002954 – Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Placement, Compensatory Services
The main dispute was whether the IEP developed and placement offered by the
school district provided a FAPE. There was no dispute about the identification and
diagnoses or the need for services and placement. The parents had been
providing a home-based ABA program since September 2002 because they did
not believe the district could provide an adequate placement. The order noted the
most recent IEP was designed to provide meaningful educational benefit for the
child, but for a child with the array of problems with which this one presents it is
difficult to determine what is appropriate, best, or ideal. Compensatory education
was ordered for the homebound program for the duration of the academic year
and retroactively based on significant gaps in the child's previous educational
programming.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #002964 – Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer
Placement, Dispute over Sufficiency of Services, Payment of Services,
Compensatory Services, Related Services, Individualized Educational
Program and FAPE
The parents requested a due process hearing alleging the placement of their son in a
regular classroom with 200 minutes per week of pullout resource and 40 minutes per
week of speech and language services would not provide FAPE. They sought
reimbursement for the cost of their placement of son in a private school. The Hearing
Officer found the services offered by the district were not reasonably calculated to confer
an educational benefit to the student. The district was ordered to reimburse the parents
the cost of the private placement.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request

Case #002997 – Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Independent Evaluation
On May 31, 2002, the parent requested an independent education evaluation (IEE) at
public expense on behalf of the student. The request for an IEE was based on a 30-point
lower intelligence quotient obtained from a recent testing session compared to a similar
test given three years earlier. Even though the school district believes their testing was
accurate and appropriate it agreed to the pay for the IEE. The parent selected an
evaluator who did not satisfy the criteria established by the school district. Instead, the
school district submitted the names of three acceptable examiners to the parent. The
parent objected to the recommended examiners and requested a due process hearing to
resolve the dispute. Even though the independent examiner exceeded the cost criteria
established by the school district, the needs of the student required a more extensive
evaluation than what the school district proposed. The Hearing Officer ordered the
evaluation be conducted and expenses paid by the district for the evaluation.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003012 – Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE, and Other
In the case where the parents were divorced, the mother requested due process hearing
on issue of LRE. The father agreed with the district’s recommendation of self-contained
cross–categorical classroom with mainstreaming for lunch only with third grade students
labeled “EBD” by the district. Mother wanted inclusion 100% of school day with a full–
time aide under the direction of a behavior therapist.

The district submitted a pre-hearing motion to dismiss mother’s request for lack of
standing. That motion was denied based on orders from Domestic Relations Judge in
the divorce case and on a recent 7th  circuit decision.

Mother submitted her witness list past the disclosure deadline and did not ask for
subpoena forms until 5 days before the hearing. She was allowed to testify herself, but
not to call a witness. The mother was allowed to cross–examine witnesses presented by
the district. The parties referred to mother’s 28 pages of documents and to the district’s
526 pages which mother adopted.

The custody agreement and subsequent order from Domestic Relations Court created
ambiguities as to mother’s status on making educational decisions and challenging
district’s special education plan for student. Mother was given a hearing on the merits.

Mother’s request for placement of student in a regular classroom 100% of the school day
with full-time aid working under the direction of the behavioral therapist was denied.

There was no question of fact as to the additional issue presented for the first time at the
pre-hearing conference by the mother. She alleged the district failed to provide FAPE by
not using regular 3rd grade curriculum to educate the student. The district’s teacher
testified that she did use the regular curriculum for the student. There was no evidence
to refute her testimony.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #003034 – Marian F. McElroy, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parents of a nine-year-old student diagnosed with autism requested the hearing.
The parents were seeking placement for their child at a private therapeutic day school.
At an IEP meeting convened on September 4, 2002, it was the consensus of the team to
place the student at the private day school. The principal disagreed and notified the
parents of a second IEP meeting to revisit the placement decision.

The parents alleged the IEP developed at the second meeting denied the student a
FAPE and there were procedural violations that resulted in a denial of FAPE.

The Hearing Officer found the IEP developed for the student denied him a FAPE and the
appropriate placement for the student was the private therapeutic day school.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #3042 – Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parent contended the current educational placement of the student, who is severely
autistic, does not provide him a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment. The parent sought an order from the Hearing Officer directing the school
district to develop and implement an appropriate program for the student at his
neighborhood school for at least a portion of the school day. Upon a full review of the
evidence and testimony presented, the Hearing Officer found the student’s current
placement educationally appropriate and in the least restrictive environment for him.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003061 – Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation
The issue presented was regarding whether the district may conduct a triennial re-
evaluation of the student without parental consent. The parents were duly notified about
the need for the tri-annual evaluation but failed to respond as requested by the district.
The district was ordered to conduct the tri-annual re-evaluation and to make placement
accordingly.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003065 – Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Independent Evaluation, Payment of
Services, Revocation of Consent, and Other
Three issues were presented. The first issue was to determine whether a parent could
request an independent evaluation for a student found non-special education eligible
nineteen months prior to the request for an independent evaluation. A second issue was
to determine whether a parent could file for due process alleging the district has failed to
provide an appropriate case study evaluation nineteen months earlier while at the same
time withholding consent for a new case study evaluation by the district and requesting
only an independent evaluation. The final issue was to determine whether the district
could do a new case study evaluation without the mother’s consent.

The CSE and MDC conducted by the district in March 2001 found the student ineligible
for special education services. In the summer of 2002, the district tried to get consent for
re-evaluation and the mother refused. On October 10, 2002, the mother requested an
independent evaluation. Mother had three doctors and a lawyer at some point in the
proceedings. The mother waited too long (nineteen months) from the first case study
MDC to disagree and request an independent evaluation. The mother tried to withdraw
on the eve of the hearing and request mediation but it was denied. The district also
requested several months before to do an re-evaluation on the student with a different
school evaluation team. The student‘s report card and failing grades were found to justify
a re-evaluation and the district was ordered to do so. The mother’s consent for a re-
evaluation was not required.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003113 – Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
Payment of Services
The parents requested reimbursement expenses for therapy and schooling at a park
district program they sent their child to during 2002-2003 school year.

The Hearing Officer found the district had offered FAPE, but the parents chose another
program. The district is to reimburse parents for speech services from a private provider
for services between August 2002–February 2003 per agreement. The parents had not
consented to services, so district could not implement them.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case # 003131 – James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parents request a due process hearing to collect reimbursement for the private
special education day school they sent their child to without district agreement. The
district claimed their proposed special education placement in a self-contained special
education program in a regular school setting was appropriate to the student’s needs.
Neither the facts of this case nor the law supported the parent’s request for
reimbursement of their unilateral private school placement.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003137 Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Placement of student
The issue in question involved whether a due process hearing requested involving an
Junior High school student was relevant since the student was now a high school
student. An order of dismissal was issued by the Hearing Officer since the student was
no longer in Junior High school.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003138 Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Discipline, Payment of Services,
Related Services, and Other
The parents requested a due process hearing alleging the district failed to observe
state intervention guidelines in implementing discipline techniques, staff training, and
restraint procedures; failed to provide an appropriate functional analysis of the
student’s behavior; failed to provide an appropriate behavior intervention plan with
positive reinforcement; failed to provide the speech language services; failed to
provide an occupational therapy evaluation; failed to notify the parents when removing
the student from school and of school suspensions; failed to conduct a proper
evaluation, taking into consideration the student’s disabilities, to adequately consider
the suggestions of Northwest Special Education Co-op, and to consider hiring a private
consultant to assist with student’s individual education plan needs, and failure to
provide adequate education services to the student from December 20, 2001, and until
May 20, 2002. The parent has requested reimbursement for private psychological
services, compensatory services equal to the number of school days missed in whole
or part, speech/language and occupational therapy evaluations by school personnel,
and comprehensive training in students with ADHD and behavior intervention
programs for all staff who have contact with special education students.

The Hearing Officer determined the student was progressing well in his present
placement and there was no evidence that the student's improvement was the result of
private therapy. Therefore, reimbursement was not warranted. It was found that the
student was not in need of speech/language and occupational therapy evaluations,
that he had maintained his level of performance in school with after school and
homebound tutoring. As a result, the student was not entitled to compensatory
services. Finally, the Hearing Officer ruled the staff had undergone training and were
continuing to participate in training dealing with appropriate behavior interventions.

Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003158 – Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Residency
The district requested a due process hearing be dismissed for a student who no longer
resided in the district. The district’s Motion to Dismiss was granted. The district did not
have educational responsibility for a student who was not a resident.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003161 – James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Placement, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Other
The parents disagreed with a Hearing Officer’s decision. They requested a second due
process hearing by another Hearing Officer.

A second due process hearing is not a “court of competent jurisdiction” to rehear a due
process hearing that has been decided. A due process hearing decision and order is
binding on all parties including a subsequent Hearing Officer unless overruled by a
court of competent jurisdiction or the circumstances of the placement of the student
substantively change. The second request for a due process hearing was dismissed
with prejudice.

The district was represented by legal counsel and the parent was represented by an
advocate.
Parent initiated request

Case #003165 – Robert Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Placement, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Discipline, and Inadequate
Notice to parent
The parent requested a due process hearing alleging the school district violated the
student’s right to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment
on the following five grounds: failure to identify the student as a child with an
educational disability; inappropriate discipline of the student; inappropriate and overly
restrictive placement; failure to notify, and invite participation of parent in meetings to
develop Interim Behavior Intervention Plan for the student; placement of defamatory
statements in the student’s school record.

The parent requested the Hearing Officer to order the school district to remove the
statements to which she objected from the student’s school record.
After full review of the evidence and testimony presented in the case, the Hearing Officer
ruled the school district did not violate the right of the student to a free appropriate
public education in the least restrictive environment for any of the reasons contended in
grounds (1) through (4) immediately above. In regards to ground (5), the Hearing Officer
concluded the parent’s contentions did not concern the right of the student to a free
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment and he lacked the
requisite jurisdictional authority to grant the relief the parent requested.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request

Case #003170 – Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Placement, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Dispute over Sufficiency of
Services, Compensatory Services, and a FAPE
The parents' requested the due process hearing to determine whether the school district
failed to train school personnel concerning the student’s educational and behavioral
needs and intervention process, whether the school district failed to provide a functional
assessment and behavior management plan, whether the school district failed to provide
FAPE during the period the student missed school in the fall and winter of the 2002-2003
school year resulting in a need for compensatory education.

The student was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. For special education purposes, the
student's disabilities included mild to moderate retardation, speech and language
impairment, and fine motor delays. The student also demonstrated defiant behavior
resulting in transitioning difficulties and physical distractions in the school setting.

Because of a school incident where the student was injured, the parents unilaterally
withdrew him from his public school placement and provided "home schooling" until a
mediated school placement was determined. Mediation concerning this case continued
up to the first day of the hearing resulting in the consideration of the following issues and
relief sought.
The Hearing Officer ruled the preponderance of evidence demonstrated the school
district provided the student with a FAPE utilizing trained personnel in a LRE setting.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003172 – Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation
The school district requested a due process hearing to gain consent for evaluation of a
student. The district alleged the student's disruptive behavior in the classroom suggested
that he might suffer from a disabling condition which if properly evaluated would result in
a finding the student was eligible for special education and related services. As required
by law the local school district sought the consent of the parent for said evaluation. The
parents refused and persisted in that refusal at the hearing. The Hearing Officer found
the documents submitted and the testimony offered by the local school district were
credible and persuasive. There was enough evidence in the record to support an order
overriding the refusal of the mother.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request

Case #003220 – Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Eligibility Criteria, Independent Evaluation, Payment of Services,
Compensatory Services, Related Services, Individualized Educational
Program, and Other
The parents requested a due process hearing alleging the district failed to provide FAPE
to their child. They claimed the district resource teacher lacked sufficient training and
improperly implemented the Wilson Reading curriculum while instructing their child with
a learning disability and requested the district reimburse them for private Wilson tutors
hired for the summer and during the school year. Additionally, they asked for
reimbursement for the cost of private psychological and audiological evaluations. The
Hearing Officer ruled the evidence demonstrated the district offered FAPE and tried to
work with the parents regarding their desires and concerns. The actions taken by the
parents were done unilaterally and not in accordance with regulations.
The parent’s request for reimbursement and compensatory education was denied.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003228 – Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Independent Evaluation and Other
The due process was requested by the parent. The matter that was proper for
consideration was the issue of re-evaluation of the student. The district was ordered
to arrange and pay for an independent neuropsychological evaluation of the student
by a professional selected by the parent and a functional behavior analysis was to
be completed within the same time frame. All other matters were dismissed since
they had been raised in previous requests for due process and resolved through a
mediation agreement. The parental concerns with enforcement were directed to
ISBE for oversight.

The district was represented by legal counsel. The parent-attorney represented himself.

Parent initiated request
 

Case #003230 – Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Placement and Eligibility Criteria
The district requested a due process hearing on issues of eligibility and initial special
education placement due to the guardian’s failure to consent to placement in a self-
contained special education classroom with mainstreaming for P.E., lunch/recess, and
music. The student was eligible to receive special education and related services due to
specific learning disability and O.H.I. (for ADHD). The Hearing Officer ruled the student
shall receive direct individual services outside the regular education second grade
classroom for 90 minutes per day. The district’s request to place the student in a self-
contained classroom for more than 60% of the day was denied.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request

Case #003249 - Alan Cook, Hearing Officer
Eligibility Criteria and Independent Evaluation
The parent requested a due process hearing alleging their child, who they claim is
learning disabled, was inappropriately expelled from school. The parents requested an
independent educational evaluation for their son. The district claimed they did not have
knowledge the student was eligible for special education and related services before he
was expelled on January 27, 2003. He was found, by the district, to be ineligible for
special education services. Hearing Officer ruled the district properly denied the parents’
request for an independent educational evaluation.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003273 - Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE, and Other
The mother claimed her son needed a full-time self-contained autism placement in what
she characterized “high functioning” autism. She refused cross-categorical placement
and did not want him in a regular education class with a full time 1:1 aide. Reports from
the University of Illinois regarding her son indicated his disability was not autism or PDD
spectrum but rather severe expressive and receptive language disorder SLD. The
mother disagreed claiming her son was autistic. She did not understand that “high
functioning” autistic kids were generally in LRE placement of cross-category or
mainstream not gathered in “high functioning” autistic classes.

The decision ordered the student into a cross-categorical placement for the next school
year with an aide and increased speech/language and OT services plus more social
work. The district was also to begin to mainstreaming the student by the second
semester. No autism program was required.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #003275 - James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services and Individualized Educational Program
The issues involved were whether the district failed to provide the student with the
special education services; he was entitled after he transferred schools. The parent
sought compensatory education and the implementation of the student’s IEP.
The district acknowledged that it failed to provide the student with special education
services per his IEP for a period of approximately four months. An IEP team meeting
was held at which the district made provision for compensatory education. The district
provided the student with computer software, a talking dictionary, and a Reading pen.
The district agreed to provide the student with books on tape but had to order them.

The district was ordered to provide ISBE with evidence that it ordered books on tape for
the student and provide evidence the high school the student will be attending next
school year was informed of his need for books on tape.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request
Case #003282 – Stephen Rubin, Hearing Officer
Placement, Graduation, Termination of Services, Related Services, and
Individualized Educational Program
The parents requested a due process hearing to determine whether the student should
be allowed to graduate from high school. The student completed credits for graduation
and the IEP in place was complied. The proposed IEP was appropriate with no
procedural impediments. The student graduated from high school.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case #003295 – Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation

The district requested the due process hearing after the parent refused to consent to an
initial case study evaluation of the student. When the parent refused to participate in a
pre-hearing conference and the documents regarding the procedure sent by the district
to the parent by certified mail to their last known address were returned unclaimed, the
district filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting that it be allowed to conduct the
case study evaluation. The district was ordered to conduct a case study evaluation.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request

Case #003318 – Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Discipline and Other (Expedited)
The hearing was requested to determine whether the behavior in question was a
manifestation of the student's disability because of a pending expulsion hearing. Two
bags of cocaine were found in the student's locker. The student had been diagnosed
with a learning disability and had average intellectual and verbal ability. The parent's
position was the student was verbally impulsive and allowed another student to place
the substance in his locker. The order rendered indicated the behavior was not a
manifestation of the student's disability.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request
Case #003343 – Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation and Other
The parent refused consent for the school district's re-evaluation. The school district
requested a due process hearing on the issue. The school district presented sufficient
evidence to determine a re-evaluation is necessary to provide the student with a free
appropriate public education and will help the school district identify appropriate services
for the student. Due to the fact the parent failed to attend the hearing after numerous
attempts at requesting her attendance, an ancillary issue was whether the due process
hearing could be held without the mother's attendance or representation. It was found
that a party's attendance at a due process hearing is not required to proceed with a due
process hearing so long as sufficient notice and opportunity were provided to the party in
advance of the hearing.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request

Case #003349 – Carolyn Smaron, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parents requested a due process hearing alleging the student has reached the
goals and objectives set forth within the IEP and the student should be transitioned to a
less restrictive placement that can meet the needs of a gifted student. The parties
agreed the student was ready to transition from a therapeutic day school but disagreed
as to the location of the regional gifted center where the student would be placed. The
parents alleged the last regional gifted center attended by the student was his home
school. The school district alleged the selection of a regional gifted center was an
administrative function solely within the province of the school district. The Hearing
Officer held that by law and by consideration of the facts specific to this student the
school district's choice of regional gifted center was correct.

The district was represented by legal counsel. The parents were represented by an
advocate.

Parent initiated request

Case #003414 – Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer
Placement, Discipline, and Individualized Educational Program
A nineteen-year-old student filed a request for a due process hearing alleging the
manifestation determination review was flawed since the IEP developed for him was
inappropriate. The Hearing Officer found the IEP was appropriate and the manifestation
determination review conclusion the student's misconduct of bringing drugs to school
was not related to his disability was correct.

The district was represented by legal counsel and the student was represented by his
mother
.
Student initiated request
Case #003435 – Kathleen Dillon Narko, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation

The school district requested a due process hearing. The school district evaluated the
student and found him eligible for special education as learning disabled. The student’s
guardian refused consent to student’s initial placement in special education. The school
district requested the due process hearing to override the guardian’s failure to consent to
the initial placement in special education. The impartial Hearing Officer granted the
guardian’s request to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Hearing Officer found the
OSEP opinion Letter to Cox to be persuasive when it stated, “The IDEA does not permit
public agencies to initiate a due process hearing if a parent refuses to consent to the
initial provision of special education and related services.” Related precedent further
supports the OSEP letter.

The guardian filed a request for a due process hearing on the subject of retention. The
Illinois State Board of Education joined the guardian’s request with the pending due
process request from the school district. The guardian, who is an attorney, stated the
due process request did not involve any special education issues. The impartial Hearing
Officer’s jurisdiction is limited to resolving special education issues. Accordingly, the
guardian’s request for a due process hearing was dismissed. The school district’s
request for a due process hearing was dismissed.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Guardian initiated request
Case #003455 – Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Placement, Conduct of Case Study Evaluation
The district requested the due process hearing after parent refused to consent to further
evaluations of the student. When the parent continued to refuse to participate in the
prehearing conference and again refused to consent to further evaluations, the district
filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that it be allowed to conduct further
assessments in the areas of social/emotional status, general intelligence, and academic
performance. The district was instructed to conduct a re-evaluation of the student.

The district was represented by legal counsel.

District initiated request

Case #003474 – Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Dispute over Sufficiency of Services,
Independent Evaluation, Payment of Services, Compensatory Services,
Related Services, Individualized Educational Program, FAPE, and Other
The parents requested a due process hearing to reimburse them for a private
neurocognitive assessment that they had done before signing consent for triennial
evaluation. They allege the school psychologist who learned of the private evaluation
when she was about to begin her intelligence testing, decided to accept the private
evaluators WISC-III scores, and chose not to do further I.Q. testing. No paid bills were
introduced regarding the private testing. The IEP team provided notice and conducted a
meeting to consider the private evaluation. The parents wanted the student’s classroom
assistant to be an “1:1 inclusion aide.” They wanted another student removed from the
class list for the upcoming school year so he would not be in the same class with the
student. The parents requested 90 minutes with the LD Resource teacher instead of 60,
and compensatory speech / language therapy, and reimbursement for summer tutoring
from a person they hired instead of accepting the district’s ESY. That person was not a
teacher, but a nurse. The Hearing Officer ruled for the district for all issues except the
district was ordered to provide seven - 60 minutes speech and language therapy
sessions to compensate for therapy not provided when school speech and language
therapist was on maternity leave.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

Case # 003488 – Francis Nowik, Hearing Officer
Residency
The parents filed a request for a due process hearing on behalf of the 18-year-old
student. The school district in which the parents and student reside tuition the student
into the school district named in the request. The attempt to substitute the student for the
parents as the party making the request for the due process hearing was meaningless
since neither the parents nor the student resided in the school district named. The
Hearing Officer found that neither the parents nor the student had standing to request a
hearing from the non-residency district. The reasons given for the request related to the
unfairness of the student’s suspensions, grading, threats, and lack of availability of
school staff to discuss the matter with the parents. The Hearing Officer found the
reasons for the requested hearing was outside the scope of his authority.
The district was represented by legal counsel.

Parent initiated request

top of page

Due Process Summaries Issued Between September 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003

Case # 2907 - Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Dispute over Sufficiency of Services,
The parents filed for a due process hearing but failed to participate in the rescheduled pre-hearing conference. The parents informed the school district that they were moving out of state and would be withdrawing their request for the hearing. The Hearing Officer and the school district never received the parent’s request for withdrawal after the parents moved. Consequently, the school district filed a Motion to Dismiss with the Hearing Officer on July 28, 2003. The Motion to Dismiss was granted. Further, it was noted by the Hearing Officer that the parents were inconsiderate to the school district, the Hearing Officer, and the Illinois State Board of Education in not following through with their obligation to properly inform and bring closure to their request for a due process hearing. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #002992 – Charles Aschenbrenner, Hearing Officer
Placement, Dispute over Sufficiency of Services, Independent Evaluation, LRE, Compensatory Services, Related Services, Individualized Educational Program, FAPE, Comparable Services
The mother of twin girls with Rett Syndrome requested the due process hearing alleging the school district failed to provide a Free & Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for her daughters. She contended the school district failed to individualize the twins’ IEPs, failed to include specific levels of performance, and failed to provide trained staff implement their IEPs. The mother claimed the school district did not provide a curriculum on a full-day basis equal to non-disabled children nor did it promote employment and independent living. She alleged the school district failed to provide adequate assistive technology appropriately at school and at home. Finally, the mother claimed the school district did not properly evaluate the twins for appropriate motorized wheelchairs and independent use of computers and other devices, nor did they provide financial assistance for the twins wheelchairs used at school. The Hearing Officer ruled that the school district did provide the twins with FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment. The relief requested by the parent was denied. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003013 – Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Related Services, Transition Plan
The major issue in this case was whether the school district was required to provide the student with transportation to a vocational school course that was noted on the student’s IEP’s transition plan. The course was modified to accommodate the student’s disabilities. The course was offered to the general school population with the caveat that transportation would not be provided by the school district. The Hearing Officer determined that since the transition plan is a part of the IEP, the student’s preferences and interests should be taken into account under the federal law. The vocational course, as part of the IEPs transition plan is a part of the student’s special education. Since the student was unable to drive herself to the course, in part due to her disability, the school district was required to provide transportation as a related service to the vocational school. Since cosmetology was listed among other courses in the student’s IEP and it was written into the student’s transition plan as an employment goal, transportation is a required related service under the IDEA for this student. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003306 – Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Placement, Eligibility Criteria, Independent Evaluation
The district requested a due process hearing to declare the student eligible under the emotional disturbance (ED) category and to place the student in a self-contained ED classroom absent parental consent. The district also requested that reimbursement for IEE be denied. The district’s request for ED eligibility and placement was denied. The student continued to be eligible for LD services and to be educated in regular classroom with LD resource and related services. The district was required to reimburse for IEE. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. District initiated request

Case #003415 – James Wolter, Hearing Officer
Placement
The parents allege a change in placement from a partial-day to a full-day instructional placement occurred without benefit of an IEP. Further, the parents allege FAPE was denied when the school sent the student home when the teacher was absent. The Hearing Officer determined the alleged issues did not occur. The school offered additional school social work services and an extended school year, which was appropriate. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003419 – Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Placement and Eligibility Criteria
The most significant matter to be considered was the appropriate placement of the student. The district proposed an instructional program for the student based on evaluations completed by the district and an area hospital to determine if the student fell under the definition of emotional disturbance. Concerns for the student’s violent outbursts resulting in harm to staff precipitated the district’s second evaluation and were ongoing to the time of the hearing. The mother requested the hearing but did not submit documents and did not attend the hearing. She had consulted counsel but no one contacted the Hearing Officer regarding representation or a request for continuance or any other consideration. The district demonstrated that it followed the procedural safeguards of IDEA and proposed and IEP and placement that met the student’s needs. The district was ordered to implement its IEP. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003428 – Carolyn Smaron, Hearing Officer
Placement, Eligibility Criteria, and Payment of Services
The parents alleged that the school district did not commence an evaluation of the student in a timely manner not did the school district conduct an appropriate evaluation. Specifically, the parents contended the school district did not comply with its “child find” obligations under IDEA. As a consequence of the actions of the school district, the parents unilaterally placed the student at Elan School. The Hearing Officer ruled the evidence and testimony did not support the parents contention the school district did not comply with its “child find” obligations. However, in all other respects, the Hearing Officer ruled with the parents contention the student should have been eligible for special education as an emotionally disturbed child. Further, the evidence and testimony supported the parents’ unilateral private placement and reimbursement was ordered. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003459 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
The due process hearing request was made by the mother asserting a lack of FAPE and requesting compensatory education, extended school year, and services. The 20 1/2 year old student was multiply impaired, diagnosed with microcephaly resulting in mental retardation, with a low IQ and limited verbal ability. In 1999, despite the district’s recommendation of the district high school, the mother successfully advocated for placement of the student in a public, separate school in another district, serving students with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities and behavior issues, from pre school through twelfth grade, up to age twenty-one. The program was structured, with behavioral supports and procedures in place. The student has remained at the School for five years. In March 2004, the student turns 21 and will graduate at the end of the current school year. Mother never objected to goals and objectives in the IEP. The Hearing Officer concluded that the IEP and its implementation comported with the requirements for a FAPE in accordance with IDEA and provided the student with educational benefit. Mother’s request for relief was rejected. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003465 – Kathleen Dillon Narko, Hearing Officer
Services
The parents requested a due process hearing. The parents requested a 40 hour-per-week home-based Applied Behavioral Analysis Program (ABA), revised speech goals, an ABA consultant, and parent training in ABA. The request for a homebound ABA program was denied. The district was ordered to provide ABA training through a consultant to classroom teachers. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003542 – Alan Cook, Hearing Officer
Graduation
The student with “ED” eligibility disputed the appropriateness of his graduation from high school. The district’s Motion to Dismiss was denied due to a finding that the student could contest the validity of his graduation. The Hearing Officer found the student met the criteria for receiving a regular high school diploma. The student’s request for a stay-put order was denied since he did not have a current educational placement when the request for a due process hearing was filed. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003568 – Julie Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer Graduation, Termination of Services An 8th grade student was found ineligible for special education services after a case study evaluation and MDS/IEP conference. Four months later the student graduated from 8th grade. Mother requested a due process hearing 3 weeks later, stating that she was not satisfied with the meeting, that it was unprofessional, and that they did not test for everything they should have. She then enrolled the student in the high school district and after a preliminary pre-hearing conference with the Hearing Officer and the school attorney, refused any further cooperation with the process. The school district filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction because of the graduation and failure of parent to state any grounds for a hearing. The motion was allowed since the due process request was not timely and no grounds were stated. 4
The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003570 – Carolyn Smaron, Hearing Officer
Compensatory Services, Placement, FAPE
The parents requested the due process indicating a disagreement as to the level and location of the services to be provided. The parents of an autistic child alleged the current school placement as inappropriate to meet the needs of the student and indicated a private placement as appropriate. The Hearing Officer determined the current school placement was appropriate but required modification of the student’s IEP plan to address the needs of the student. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003582 – Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Placement, Discipline, and Compensatory Services
The student’s temporary guardian requested a due process hearing to consider continued education at his current residential placement at district expense, and compensatory education due to illegal school suspensions beyond 10 days without provision of services for the15-year-old boy labeled ED and LD. The student was placed in Eau Claire Academy by the juvenile court system. The Hearing Officer ordered the student remain in his current residential placement at the district’s expense and found the need for compensatory services. The district was represented by legal counsel. Guardian initiated request

Case #003596 – Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Other (Non-Special Education student)
The mother requested a due process hearing and then was never reachable and never communicated with Hearing Officer or district. The attorney for the district filed Motion to Dismiss stating the student was not special education eligible. After numerous contact attempts, the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice was granted. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003613 – Vivian Gordon, Hearing Officer
Placement
The mother requested a due process hearing. The student was identified as an Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) student and mother had requested the student attend another high school in the district other than the school assigned by residence. After hearing testimony, the Hearing Officer ruled that a transfer to another high school in the district was not necessary but did require the IEP team to reconvene to review what additional services were necessary for the student to benefit from his education. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003615 – Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer Inadequate Notice to Parent, Compensatory Services, IEP The parent requested a due process hearing. The student is profoundly deaf. The district made a change in the student’s IEP without involvement of the IEP team. The district changed her elective drama class to an art class the student would attend with four other hearing-impaired students for a cost savings to the district. The district’s action denied the student an educational benefit. The district was directed to return student to her drama class with a sign language interpreter and to provide her with compensatory education. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003633 – Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer Placement The request for a due process hearing was made by the district regarding the appropriate placement of the student. The district had previously proposed an instructional program based on his academic and behavioral needs in the fall of 2002. The parent opposed the placement. The district again proposed an instructional program and the parent continued to disagree. The district presented evidence and testimony that substantiated the need for the proposed placement. The parent attended the meeting but did not participate. She presented no materials or information to refute the district’s position. An order was made to implement the most recently developed IEP, including placement in an instructional program and appropriate services. The district was represented by legal counsel. District initiated request

Case #003651 – Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer Conduct of Case Study Evaluation, Eligibility Criteria, Compensatory Services, Individualized Educational Program The parent alleged the student was hearing impaired and the school district failed to find that disability when it evaluated the student. The parents alleged the student did not receive the services set forth within his IEP. The evidence and testimony did not support a finding that the student was hearing impaired. The evidence and testimony did support that the school district did not provide the services called for within the IEP. The district was ordered to provide the services as established by the IEP. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003672 – Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer Appropriate Placement The parent requested a due process hearing. The parent of the student objected to the school district’s proposed placement for her son in a public day school. The evidence and testimony supported the proposed placement in the MAC program, a day treatment program. The district was represented by counsel. Parent initiated request

Case #003677 – Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer Placement, Discipline, Other (Expedited hearing) The district requested an expedited hearing for interim alternative placement while a regular due process was pending because of danger to self and others of behavior of 5½-year-old student. The student had already broken an arm and wrist of a fellow kindergarten student by pushing him off a piece of playground equipment. The district claimed the student was sexually precocious citing inappropriate touching, licking, exposing self, playing with self, grabbing at teacher, grabbing female students, spitting, poking, trying to cut another student with scissors, pushing and kissing other children, kicking teachers, using coarse and vulgar language and being generally out of control. The district provided substantial evidence of such behavior and their attempts to deal with it and the appropriateness of the requested interim 45-day placement services. Placement was allowed. The district was represented by legal counsel. District initiated request

Case #003679 – James Wolter, Hearing Officer Conduct of Case Study Evaluation The district requested a due process hearing to allow it to provide the student with a triennial case study evaluation, as required by State and Federal statutes without parent written consent. The district claimed they were required to conduct a case study evaluation at least every three years as provided for by 23 Illinois Administrative Code 226.109a. The Hearing Officer ordered the district to provide the parent with a Spanish translation of the order within five days of receiving this order. The district was to complete a triennial case study evaluation that consisted of but was not limited to an interview with the child, parent consultation, social development study, current academic functioning, vision and hearing screening, learning processing and educational achievement level, learning environment assessment, psychological evaluation and speech/language evaluation within thirty school days of receipt of this order. The district was represented by legal counsel. District initiated request

Case #003700 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Other (Expedited) Interim Alternative Placement
The district requested an expedited due process hearing because the student was considered a danger to himself and other students in his current placement. The fifteen-year old student was diagnosed with mental impairment, speech/language disorder, and autism. Academically, he was at pre-school level. In spring of 2003, the student was in the eighth grade at Canton. On May 8, 2003, the team developed an IEP, including a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), developed by a behavior/autism expert, to address the student’s behaviors. The IEP placement for the school year 2003-2004 was the district’s Exceptional Needs (EN) program, a self-contained setting with focus on functional life skills. Despite further consultation with the behavior/autism expert and the use of rewards and various structures and techniques in class, the district was unable to modify the student’s behavior in the EN setting. The student’s behavior has caused injury to himself, other students, and staff. The staff was not able to work effectively with the student on his IEP goals regarding development of functional life skills. The Hearing Officer concluded the district had proven beyond a preponderance of evidence that maintaining the current placement of the student resulted in injury to him and others; the district had made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the current placement, including the use of supplemental aids and services. The Hearing Officer ruled the alternative educational setting, a therapeutic day school, would permit full implementation of the student’s IEP and included services and modifications designed to prevent the undesired behavior from recurring. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request

top of page

Illinois State Board of Education Due Process Summaries Issued Between January 1, 2004 and March 31, 2004

Case 002996 – Stacey L. Stutzman, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE, Payment of Services, Compensatory Services, and FAPE
Decision and Order Issued January 10, 2004
The primary issues concerned private placement at an out-of-state residential school and eligibility for IDEA services beyond the student’s 21st birthday. The eighteen-year-old female was found eligible for special education and related services following parents’ unilateral placement of the student in a private day-school for students with learning disabilities. Following a change in placement to a private day school for students with emotional disorders, the parents unilaterally placed the student in an out-of-state residential facility in June of 2003. The Hearing Officer ordered the district to pay for the student’s out-of-state placement and to reimburse the parents for their costs in placing the student in the school. The Hearing Officer found that the district has failed to provide the student with FAPE due to its failure to consider private evaluations of the student, provide appropriate social work and speech services, and to provide an IEP and program designed to meet the student’s needs. The district was ordered to reimburse the parents $67,802.70 from June 2, 2003 through January 2004 for services provided. The district was ordered to provide special education and related services until the student reaches her 22nd birthday on October 31, 2007 as compensatory education. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request.

Case 003603 – Julie Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Summary Judgment, Attorneys Fees
Decision and Order Issued January 12, 2004
The parent requested due process to implement an IEP that required the provision of a classroom aide to the student. The parent then motioned for summary judgment, arguing that no issue of fact existed. The Hearing Officer found that the parties were in agreement that the student’s IEP required the provision of a classroom aide, and granted the parent’s motion. The school district was therefore ordered to provide a classroom aide to the student within 10 days of the order. The Hearing Officer also denied the parent’s motion for an award of attorney fees, finding that the Hearing Officer had no jurisdiction to make such an award. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request.

Case 003725 – James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Placement, FAPE
Decision and Order Issued January 12, 2004
The issue involved the parent’s request for the district to provide the student with a special education placement in a separate special education day school. Following a mediation, the school district conducted a case study evaluation but opted to maintain the student’s placement in a general education high school building. The Hearing Officer found that the school had complied with both prongs of the two-part test devised by the US Supreme Court in the Rowley case. The Hearing Officer found that the district followed all necessary procedures in developing the student’s IEP. In addition, the Hearing Officer found that although the student passed five of seven classes, the district had provided an IEP that was calculated to confer educational benefit. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request. Case 003550 – Kathleen Dillon Narko, Hearing Officer Cost of Placement, Residential Placement Decision and Order Issued February 5, 2004 The issue in this case was whether the school district was obligated to pay the non-educational component of a residential placement initiated by the Juvenile Court. The student had a long history of receiving special education services, including placement in a separate day school, but had been placed in a residential facility after becoming involved in the juvenile court system. The district had agreed to fund the educational component of the placement, but refused to pay the non-educational component, believing that the student was “socially maladjusted” rather than an Emotionally Disordered student requiring a residential placement to meet his educational needs. 2
The Hearing Officer found that the student’s long history of emotional issues necessitated placement in a residential facility for educational reasons and ordered the district to pay for the non-educational component of the student’s placement. The district was represented by legal counsel and the parent’s were represented by an advocate. Parent initiated request.

Case 003532 – Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Dismissal of Hearing Request, Section 504
Order Issued February 6, 2004
The issue was to determine if an individual with a Section 504 plan only could request a due process hearing. The parent requested the due process hearing, believing that the student’s Section 504 plan was not beneficial to the student. The parent agreed that the student was not eligible for services pursuant to IDEA. Following a motion by the district and response from the parent, the Hearing Officer dismissed the case, finding that there was no jurisdiction to pursue the parent’s hearing request. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request.

Case 003739 - Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Motion to Dismiss
Order Issued February 10, 2004
The parent filed for a due process request on the basis the student “has on several occasions been left in pull-up pampers for half the school day and this has resulted in her developing a rash several times and she has developed urinary tract infections…” The school district filed a Motion to Dismiss indicating such action was not an issue connected with the identification, evaluation, or placement of, or provision of services to a student, pursuant to 23 Illinois Administrative Code Section 226.605. The Hearing Officer granted the district’s motion and the case was dismissed. The district was represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request.

Case 003842 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Expedited Hearing, Interim Alternate Educational Setting
Decision and Order Issued March 7, 2004
The parent requested the expedited due process hearing to challenge the district’s decision to move the student to a separate day school setting following an incident in which the student stabbed another student with a metal-tipped marker. The parent asserted that the removal was not warranted because the student had been provoked by another student and because, in the parent’s view, the facts surrounding the incident had been exaggerated by the District. The Hearing Officer found that the district had presented substantial evidence that the student’s continued placement in a general education setting would be substantially likely to result in harm to the student or others, that the student’s current placement was inappropriate, that the district had made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm, and that the district’s choice alternate setting would be able to implement the student’s IEP. Finally, the Hearing Officer found that the marker the student used to injure the victim was a weapon within the definition provided under 105 ILCS 5/10-22.6. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer ordered the district to proceed with placement of the student in a separate day setting for a period of 45 days. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request.

Case 003682 – Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer Standing, Retroactive Reimbursement, Motion to Dismiss Order Issued March 10, 2004 The parents requested the due process hearing seeking retroactive reimbursement for all expenses related to an 18-year-old student’s unilateral placement in a private facility including the parents’ travel expenses. The parents did not request any current or prospective special education program or services for the student since the student had moved to California at the time of the hearing. The district filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the student had reached the age of majority, and that the parents lacked standing to request a due process because they no longer enjoyed guardianship over the student. In addition, the district alleged that the student lacked standing as she was no longer a resident of the state of Illinois. The Motion to Dismiss was granted by the Hearing Officer, finding that both the parents and the student lacked standing to request due process against the district. Both parties were represented by legal counsel. Parent initiated request.

Case 003820 – James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Standing, Pre-Hearing Conference, Motion to Dismiss
Order Issued March 15, 2004
The parent initiated the request for a due process hearing on behalf of a 20-year-old student. The parent did not present evidence of guardianship over the student, nor participated in the scheduled pre-hearing conference. The school district filed a Motion to Dismiss the case based on lack of guardianship and failure to participate in the pre-hearing. The Hearing Officer found that the parent lacked standing to file the due process request due to lack of guardianship and held that the parent’s failure to participate in the pre-hearing conference was grounds for dismissal of the hearing request. Accordingly, the parent’s request was dismissed. Parent initiated request The district was represented by legal counsel.

top of page

Issued Between April 1, 2004 and June 30, 2004

Case 003804 – Stacey Stutzman, Hearing Officer
IEE
Decision and Order Issued April 7, 2004
The district requested a due process hearing after declining to pay for an
independent evaluation conducted by an evaluator not initially offered or agreed
to by the district. The district agreed to a neuropsychological evaluation at the
district’s expense and gave the parents the name of three evaluators, none of
which appeared on ISBE’s list of evaluators. The parents independently were
able to obtain the curriculum vitae on one of the three evaluators recommended
by the district after the district was unable to provide further information on the
three evaluators. While searching the ISBE list of independent evaluators, the
parents identified another evaluator that was not among the three recommended
by the district. The district would not agree to the parents choice nor provide
reasons for the rejection of the parents choice.
The hearing officer found that because the parent could not secure information
from the district concerning the evaluators on the district’s list, the parent’s choice
was appropriate per the requirements of 23 IAC 226.120. The district was
ordered to pay for an evaluation by the parent’s chosen evaluator.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
District initiated request.

Case 003867 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Consent for Evaluation, Summary Judgment
Decision and Order Issued April 9, 2004
The due process request was initiated by the district to obtain authorization to
evaluate a five-year-old student who was struggling academically. At the request
of the District, the hearing officer decided the case on a motion for summary
judgment supported by affidavits submitted by the district. The parent contended
that the student’s behavior at home did not conform to the student’s alleged
behavior in the school, but the parent could not dispute statements in the
affidavits relating to the student’s performance and behavior in school. On this
basis, the hearing officer granted summary judgment in favor of the district and
ordered the evaluation to proceed.
District was represented by legal counsel and the parents were represented by
an advocate.
District initiated request.

Case 002082 - Richard Brimer, Hearing Officer
Statute of Limitations, FAPE, IEE, Retaliation
Decision and Order Issued April 12, 2004
The parent requested due process to challenge the student’s placement and also
alleging improper, retaliatory conduct on the part of the school district. The
district itself requested due process in connection with its refusal to provide an
independent educational evaluation at school district expense. The district,
however, appears to have withdrawn its request before a determination could be
reached about the issue of the independent evaluation. The parent’s request
sought remedies for alleged violations by the district going back to the student’s
kindergarten year. The student experienced a wide range of learning and
behavioral issues since entering school in his kindergarten year. As a result, the
student had been placed in a variety of settings ranging from the general
classroom to self-contained placements outside the student’s home school.
The hearing officer initially held that any claims the parent raised that were more
than two-years old at the time of the due process request were time-barred. It
was determined the school district did not provide the student with a free and
appropriate public education. The hearing officer ordered the student be placed
in a non-public day school to obtain appropriate services with the school district
to pay for all appropriate expenses for the balance of the 2003-04 school year as
well as the entirety of the 2004-05 school year. In addition, if the student was
unable to attend the non-public school identified by the parent at hearing, the
parent was permitted to place the student in a school of the parent’s choosing.
The hearing officer also found that the school district had harassed the parent
and retaliated against the parent for inappropriate and threatening comments
made by the school district’s representative.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
Joint request by the school district and the parents.

003935 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Expedited Hearing, Interim Alternate Educational Placement
Decision and Order Issued April 16, 2004
The parent requested an expedited hearing to determine the appropriate dates
for the duration of a 45-day suspension. The parent asserted that the 45-day
placement provision also included vacation days, while the district contended that
the 45-day placement only began at the end the district’s spring break, which
coincided with the student’s placement in an Interim Alternate Educational
Placement (IAES). The student was suspended for ten days for a weapons
violation that began on March 12 and ended on March 24, 2004, during which
time the student was expelled for the weapons violation. The IEP team met
during the district’s spring break and formally placed the student in a 45-day
IAES. The parents agreed to the 45-day placement but disagreed with the date.
The Hearing Officer determined the 45-day placement is not based on the
number of calendar days, but rather on days on which the student will receive
services. Accordingly, the hearing officer held that the district’s position regarding
dates was accurate and appropriate.
District was represented by legal counsel and the parents were represented by
an advocate.
Parent initiated request.

003924 – Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Eligibility, Motion to Dismiss
Decision and Order Issued April 18, 2004
The parent filed a request for due process. In response, the district filed a motion
to dismiss, contending that the student was not currently eligible to receive
special education and related services. The parent did not dispute the district’s
assertion about the student’s eligibility. As a consequence, the hearing officer
granted the motion to dismiss.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.
Case 003890 - Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Consent for Evaluation, Summary Judgment
Decision and Order Issued April 19, 2004
The district initiated a due process request in order to conduct a three-year re-
evaluation as required by statute. Three years to the date of the student’s last
multidisciplinary conference, the school district conducted a review of the
student’s domains. Subsequent efforts to obtain parental consent by the district
to evaluate the student were unsuccessful. The parent contended that the
evaluation was unnecessary since the student had not attended school for three
consecutive years prior to the evaluation. Pursuant to a motion for summary
judgment by the district, the hearing officer authorized the district to conduct the
re-evaluation.
District was represented by legal counsel and the parent was represented by an
advocate.
District initiated request.

Case 003868 – Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Initial Case Study Evaluation, Summary Judgment
Decision and Order Issued May 24, 2004
The district requested due process to proceed with an initial case study
evaluation. The district unsuccessfully had utilized pre-referral strategies with the
student to address disruptive behaviors the student had displayed in the
classroom. Prior to filing for due process, the district had a number of
conversations with the parent, and convened a screening team meeting to
discuss going forward with an evaluation. After the parent refused an offer of
mediation and failed to respond to the district’s notice of its intent to file for due
process, the district initiated the present request.
The hearing officer granted the district leave to file a Motion of Summary
Judgment. The hearing officer then granted the motion, permitting the school
district to evaluate the child without the parent’s consent for evaluation.
District was represented by counsel.
District initiated request.

003963 – Carolyn Smaron, Hearing Officer
Transportation, Compensatory Education
Decision and Order Issued May 27, 2004
The parent filed for due process, claiming that the student was entitled to
compensatory education because of the routinely late arrival of the morning bus
to school. The parent claimed that the late arrival routinely caused the student to
miss receiving hot breakfast and the beginning of the teacher’s oral language
lesson.
The district presented evidence that the school bus only arrived late on a few
occasions. Further evidence indicated that although the student had on occasion
missed some instructional time, the student was still making satisfactory
educational progress and meeting IEP benchmarks. The hearing officer denied
the relief requested by the parent.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.

003907 – Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement, FAPE, LRE
Decision and Order Issued June 4, 2004
The parent requested due process, seeking residential placement for the student.
The fourteen-year-old student was eligible for special education services from
age three based on the eligibility of autism and mild mental impairment with a
secondary eligibility of speech-language impairment. In 1998 he was placed by
the district in a separate public facility. The parent presented evidence that the
student was prone to violent outbursts at home and at school. In response the
district presented evidence to show that the student’s behavior was being
managed at school, although some violent outbursts did occur. Although the
parent presented further evidence to show that the district did not conduct a
timely annual review, the hearing officer concluded that the procedural violation
did not amount to a denial of FAPE. Moreover, the hearing officer found that the
services provided by the district in the separate facility provided the student with
a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing officer held that the parent’s request for a
residential placement should be denied.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.

Case 003777 – Nancy Hablutzel, Hearing Officer
FAPE, Placement, Manifestation Determination Review
Decision and Order Issued June 4, 2004
The parent filed for due process to challenge the student’s placement in an
alternative school following a disciplinary incident. The student attempted to
intervene between law enforcement and another student on school grounds, after
which the student was arrested for battery. Upon arrest, the police found the
student possessed two knives.
A Manifestation Determination review was held and it was determined the
incident was not related to the student’s diagnosis of depression. The parent
attempted to provide a new diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) in
order to show that the incident was related to his disability.
The student was not expelled but was given the opportunity to attend Safe
School where he could work independently. The parents subsequently withdrew
the student for the 2003-2004 school year and indicated the student would be
home schooled. Later, the parents filed a due process request indicating their
desire to have the student placed in a residential setting for the balance of the
school year. After reviewing the testimony and documentation, the hearing officer
ruled the school district had at all times attempted to provide a free appropriate
education and instructed the school district to convene another IEP meeting prior
to the 2004-2005 school year.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.

004061 – Kathleen Dillon Narko, Hearing Officer
Expedited Hearing, Interim Alternate Educational Setting
Decision and Order Issued June 7, 2004
The parent requested an expedited hearing because of disagreement with the
Indian Springs School District 109’s decision to move the student to an Interim
Alternate Educational Setting (IAES) following a weapons incident. The incident
in question concerned a violent outburst in which the student broke a pointer and
waived a broken piece of the pointer at others in a threatening manner.
Following the incident, the district suspended the student for 10 days and placed
the student in a therapeutic day school on a 45-day IAES.
The hearing officer found that the student presented a likelihood of injury to self
and others, that the student’s current placement in a general education building
was inappropriate, that the district minimized the risk of harm to the student by
providing the student with resource services, and that the IEP could be fully
implemented in the therapeutic day placement chosen by the district.
Accordingly, the hearing officer held that the school district’s removal of the
student to an IAES was appropriate.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.

Case 003774 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Residential Placement, Reimbursement, FAPE
Decision and Order Issued June 9, 2004
The parents requested due process, seeking retroactive reimbursement and
prospective placement of the student at an out-of-state, non-public, residential
facility. The student, who had been diagnosed with Tourette’s Syndrome, ADHD
and depression, had been placed by the district in a separate public day facility to
address the student’s behavioral concerns. Prior to filing for due process, the
parents participated in an IEP meeting for the student in which the parents did
not object to the student’s continued placement at the day facility. Two weeks
after the IEP meeting, the parents unilaterally placed the student in an out-of-
state residential program. The parents did not notify the district of their intent to
place the student residentially, claiming that the escalation of the student’s
behavior at home necessitated an emergency placement without notice to the
district.
The hearing officer found that, despite the escalation of the student’s behavior,
there were no circumstances present to excuse the parents from providing notice
to the district of their intent to place the student in a residential facility. In
addition, the hearing officer found that the school district provided the student
with an IEP reasonably calculated to confer education benefit to the student.
Therefore, the hearing officer held that the district had no obligation to place the
student residentially, or to reimburse the parents for their costs associated with
the residential placement.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.

Case 003829 – Marian McElroy, Hearing Officer
FAPE, Methodology
Decision and Order Issued June 10, 2004
The parents requested due process to challenge the district’s recommended
placement for the student, who was three years old and identified with mild to
moderate autism. Prior to entering the school, the student began participating in
a home-based, applied behavioral assistance (ABA) program 30 hours per week.
Following a case study evaluation and a review of several early childhood
programs operated by the district, the school district met with the parents in an
IEP meeting which recommended placement in an early childhood (EC) program
for 750 minutes per week, which utilized the Heartland teaching method and
included speech-language and occupational therapy. The parents declined
placement in the EC but briefly accepted the related services offered in the IEP
before withdrawing completely from the district’s program. In addition to
challenging the district’s program, the parents sought reimbursement for costs
associated with the home-based program.
The hearing officer found that the district had offered an appropriate placement in
the EC program with related services. At the same time, the hearing officer
found that the student was also benefiting from the home-based ABA program.
The hearing officer therefore ordered an IEP meeting be held to devise a
program that included a transition plan to integrate the student’s ABA program
into the classroom, as well as nine weeks of extended school year support. The
parents’ request for reimbursement was denied.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.

Case No. 004012 – Julia Quinn Dempsey, Hearing Officer
Manifestation Determination Review, Expedited Hearing
Decision and Order Issued June 15, 2004
The parent requested due process to challenge the district’s finding that the
student’s conduct was unrelated to his disability and the finding that the student
was substantially likely to cause harm to others. Just prior to the incident in
question, evidence indicated that the student’s educational performance was
poor due to missing assignments and poor participation in class. The student,
previously identified with a specific learning disability, had been arrested for an
incident involving a weapon that occurred off school grounds and after school
hours. Based on the incident, the district chose to conduct a Manifestation
Determination Review (MDR) to determine whether an expulsion hearing could
proceed.
The hearing officer found that the incident, occurring as it did off school ground
and after school hours, was not a basis for the district to remove the student
unilaterally to a 45-day Interim Alternate Educational Setting. Moreover, the
evidence further indicated that the school district had no basis for removing the
student due to a substantial likelihood of harm to others. The hearing officer
found that the district had failed to implement an appropriate IEP for the student
and had failed to identify an appropriate alternate setting that could support the
student.
Because both parties wanted to find a new program for the student and based on
the foregoing, the hearing officer order the district to identify new candidate
programs appropriate for SLD students within 10 school days of the decision.
The hearing officer further ordered the district to place the student in an
appropriate SLD program for the 2004-05 school year.
The district was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated the request.

Case No. 003901 – James A. Wolter, Hearing Officer
Termination of Services, Summary Judgment
Decision and Order Issued June 17, 2004
The parent requested due process to challenge the district’s decision to drop the
16-year-old student from enrollment at the neighborhood high school. The
parent motioned for a directed summary judgment. The hearing officer found
that there was no dispute between the parties that the district had dropped the
student from enrollment at the high school without conducting an IEP meeting.
On this basis, the hearing officer ordered the district to reinstate the student and
to convene an IEP team meeting for the purpose of providing an extended school
year program for the student to compensate for the special education and related
services lost by the student due to being dropped from enrollment.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated the request.

Case No. 003844 – Alan J. Cook, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE
Decision and Order Issued June 18, 2004
The parent requested due process to challenge the district’s recommendation on
the student’s most recent IEP to place the child in a self-contained classroom in a
general education building. The student, who was diagnosed with Asperger’s
Syndrome, had been in several educational settings prior to entering the school
district in third grade. He was placed initially in the general education classroom
for third and part of fourth grade. In fourth grade, the student had an on-going
problem with making spontaneous noises and threats in the classroom. Even
after the implementation of a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), the student’s
behavior remained inconsistent. Therefore, the district recommended placement
in a smaller, self-contained setting.
Despite the parent’s contention that the school district did not exhaust all
attempts to modify the student’s behavior, the hearing officer found that the
district was not obligated to exhaust every possible intervention before moving
the student to the more restrictive placement. The hearing officer agreed with
the district’s position that the environment offered in the general education
classroom was not conducive to the student’s educational progress, given his
condition.
The hearing officer therefore ordered the district to proceed with the placement in
the more restrictive setting.
Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated the request.

Case No. 004068 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Hearing Request, Motion to Dismiss
Decision and Order Issued June 29, 2004
The parent requested due process seeking an order to have the student retained
in fourth grade. The school district in response filed a motion to dismiss the
parent’s request, arguing that the parent’s due process raised no issue related to
special education. The hearing officer granted the district’s motion, finding that
parent’s request did not fall within the definition of a permissible request under 23
IAC Sec. 226.605.
Neither party was represented by legal counsel.
Parent initiated request.
 

 back to DueProcess Illinois .org home
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/html/due_process.htm (source documents)

top of page