School denied student a FAPE by failing
– to invite parents to IEP meetings and failing to adequately explain IEP offer to parents at each IEP meeting.
– to implement during student’s distance learning his operative IEP, specifically specialized academic instruction, behavior services and supports, and counseling.
– to provide appropriate behavior services and supports for in-person learning during a school year

School neither offered appropriate academic and behavior services and supports IEP nor offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment such that it may implement the IEP without Parent’s consent.

School’s psychoeducational assessment and academic assessment were conducted by qualified and experienced professionals and complied with all procedural aspects. Hence, the said assessments were appropriate.

School’s representative called student’s attorney and attempted to discourage her from expressing family’s viewpoint. Hence, the development of IEP by school did not meet the procedural requirements, and therefore does not provide Student a FAPE.

Student’s behavior at the incident was planned. He responded throughout the incident, knew difference between preferred and un-preferred staff and understood the situation clearly. Hence, his conduct had no direct or substantial relationship with his disabilities.

Inappropriate NPS was suggested by case manager, who neither had sufficient knowledge about case history nor did he consider the disagreement of IEP team members and parents. Hence, Parent’s unilateral placement of Student at an NPS was appropriate and reasonable.

A disabled student younger than age 16 is not required to have post-secondary goals and transition services unless the IEP team determines this is necessary. An appropriate behavior monitoring system requires students to rate their own behavior, receive feedback from the teacher, and earn a reward for demonstrating appropriate behaviors. Any monitoring system that does not perform these functions, is not an appropriate behavior monitoring system.

School used appropriate psychoeducational assessments for student but failed in its child find obligation despite being aware that grades of a highly gifted pupil are lowering continuously. However, being weak in one subject does not make student eligible for special education.

Student’s violent behavior caused such a substantial risk of injury to student or others that school may remove Student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days, without Parent’s consent

District had sufficient information regarding psychoeducation, mental health services and health issues but failed to provide proper re-assessment.

NPS terminated the contract with district as student was aging out of the program offered by them and located another NPS for the student which had appropriate program.