| This file combines the several ISBE files containing the summaries
of the due process opinions entered between April 2006 through September
2006. Although this file is large, it enables you to do a single
search in one file, instead of repeating the search on the smaller files.
Use your browser's search command (usually Edit>Find, or Control-F) to
specify the hearing officer, decision number, disability or the topic you
wish to find. Again, these summaries were written by the ISBE, and
only the hard copy of the opinion is reliable as to its content. We hope
to restore some of the formatting and to add summaries as they are posted.
Again, another work in progress.
. The ISBE has not posted decisions for the period October 2004 through March 2006 |
Page Contents:
Decisions Issued Between April 1, 2006 and June
30, 2006
Decisions Issued Between July 1, 2006 and September
30, 2006
Case No. 004572 – Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE
Decision and Order Issued May 12, 2006
The parents requested a due process hearing to challenge the district’s
placement of the student in a cross-categorical, self-contained setting.
The parents claimed that the student would be most appropriately served
in a general education setting or, alternatively, in a private therapeutic
setting. The student, who was eligible for services under the categories
of LD and OHI, was found during his 5th grade year to have a significant
learning disability compounded by ADHD. The district initially tried to
support the student in a general education setting, but changed the placement
(via an IEP meeting) to a self-contained setting at the end of 5th grade.
The student remained in a self-contained setting through his 8th grade
year, at which time the due process request was initiated. At hearing,
the hearing officer found that the placement was supported by ample evidence
derived from his evaluations and the student’s performance. Therefore,
the hearing officer held that the district’s current placement remained
appropriate for the student.
The district was represented by an attorney.
Parent initiated the hearing request.
Case No. 004163 – Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Consent for Evaluation, Unilateral Placement
Decision and Order Issued June 30, 2006
The district initiated the hearing to override the parents’ refusal
to provide consent for an evaluation of the student. Subsequent to this,
the parents placed the student unilaterally in a private day-school setting
and filed a counter-request for due process to seek reimbursement and prospective
placement in the private setting. Pursuant to a motion for summary judgment
by the district, the hearing officer held that there was no basis for the
district to be held liable for the costs of the parents’ unilateral placement,
especially where the district had not been given authority to conduct its
own evaluation. Accordingly, the hearing officer authorized the district
to proceed with its own evaluation of the student when and
if the student returned to the district for education. In addition,
the hearing officer denied the parents’ claim for reimbursement and placement
in the private setting.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.
District initiated the hearing request. Parent filed a counter-request.
Case No. 004959 – Robert F. Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Placement, Compensatory Education
Decision and Order Issued July 17, 2006
The parent requested a due process hearing seeking payment for private
tutoring to compensate the student for the failure of the district’s educational
program. The student, who was eligible for support in the category of LD,
had a demonstrated reading level far below his same-age peers and continued
to show only very modest progress in reading. The student was, nonetheless,
still on track to graduate from high school with his peers. The hearing
officer found that the district had developed an IEP based upon a thorough
identification of the student’s needs and abilities. On this basis, the
hearing officer denied the parent’s claim for payment of prospective private
tutoring for the student.
The parties were both represented by attorneys.
Parent initiated the request.
Case No. 004992 – Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Evaluation
Decision and Order Issued July 18, 2006
The district requested due process to override the parent’s refusal
to grant consent for an initial case study evaluation. At hearing, which
the parent opted not to attend, evidence was produced showing that since
the student’s 1st grade year, the district had undertaken a range of interventions
to address the student’s increasing academic and behavioral difficulties
without success. During the student’s third grade year, after continued
difficulties addressing the student’s needs, the district attempted to
secure parental consent for an initial evaluation, but without success.
The hearing officer held that the district had ample justification for
seeking an evaluation and ordered the district to proceed.
The district was represented by an attorney (parent did not attend).
District initiated the request.
Case No. 004823 – Robert F. Ladenson, Hearing Officer
Independent Educational Evaluation, Placement, LRE
Decision and Order Issued July 25, 2006
The parent requested a due process hearing to challenge the district’s
placement and to seek an independent educational evaluation. In response,
the district filed a counter-request to demonstrate that the existing evaluation
of the student was appropriate. The hearing officer first disposed of the
independent evaluation claim by granting summary judgment in favor of the
district, then proceeded to hearing on the remaining issue of the student’s
placement.
The hearing officer, in deciding the issue of the independent evaluation,
held that the district had complied with the requirements of 34 CFR 300.523,
thereby demonstrating that the district’s evaluation was appropriate. As
to the placement, the hearing officer found that the district had shown
that its placement, a self-contained placement for students with MR, was
the appropriate placement over the parent’s choice of a placement in the
general education setting with modifications and accommodations. The hearing
officer therefore found that the district’s placement could proceed.
The district was represented by an attorney.
Parent initiated the hearing request and the district filed a counter-request.
Case No. 004879 – Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Placement, Methodology
Decision and Order Issued August 1, 2006
The parents requested a due process hearing to challenge the district’s
proposed placement; to seek reimbursement for private tutoring; and to
correct alleged failures in the district’s prior IEPs for the student.
The student, who has Downs Syndrome and mild hearing loss, has received
progressively more rigorous IEPs over the past several years and has been
predominantly educated in the general education setting. The hearing officer
found that the prior IEPs developed for the student were appropriate, but
ordered the district to conduct a new IEP meeting with the assistance of
an agreed-upon facilitator to develop new goals, benchmarks and placement
for the student. The hearing officer denied the parents’ claim for reimbursement
based on the hearing officer’s finding that the prior IEPs were appropriate.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.
Parent initiated the hearing request.
Case No. 004960 – Sheana Hermann, Hearing Officer
Transportation, FAPE
Decision and Order Issued September 1, 2006
The parent initiated the due process request to challenge the district’s
decision not to provide transportation to the student. The student, who
was 5-years old and identified as DD, lived six blocks from the school.
In addition, the district’s general policy was not to provide transportation
to students living within 1.5 miles of the school they attended. The hearing
officer found no evidence suggesting that the nature of the student’s disabling
condition required transportation. In response to the parent’s further
claim that the district had failed to develop a behavior intervention plan
for the student, the hearing officer found that the behaviors in question
were manageable through regular interventions provided by the classroom
teacher. The hearing officer therefore found that the district had conferred
a FAPE upon the student.
The district was represented by an attorney.
Parent initiated the request.
Case No. 004498 – Janet E. Kidd, Hearing
Officer
Eligibility, Placement, LRE
Decision and Order Issued September 25, 2006
The parent initiated the due process request to challenge the district’s
proposal that the student no longer qualified for special education support.
The student, who had been previously eligible under the category of OHI,
had been diagnosed with ADHD. Though evidence indicated that the ADHD adversely
affected the student’s academic performance, the student was still achieving
academic progress and progressing from grade to grade. The hearing officer
found that although the student might not be performing to her intellectual
potential, the student was nonetheless capable of performing satisfactorily
with the support of an IEP. On this basis, the hearing officer held the
student did not require the support of an IEP, but did remain eligible
for support pursuant to a Section 504 plan. The hearing officer thus ordered
the parties to meet to develop a 504 plan for the student.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.
Parent initiated the request.