Student is eligible for special education and related services with emotional disturbance as a primary eligibility category as well as secondary categories of other health impairment, due to a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder; and specific learning disability.
School officials failed to act after suspicions of abuse, against students having disability, were raised by district employee.
School administers were found guilty of allowing wrestling coach to have direct contact with children despite having prior knowledge of allegations related to sexual abuse.
Even after finding out about petition created to kill the student, teachers did not notify her parents. School administrators were at fault for not taking any appropriate action against bullying.
The instruments used by school for assessment of student were “technically sound” and IEP team had adequate information to determine the nature of Student’s behaviors and consider whether changes in services were necessary. Hence, school did not fail to assess student in all areas of suspected disability.
School failed to provide any legal authority that relieved it of the responsibility for conducting a thorough cognition assessment. The IEP team did not have sufficient information concerning Student’s needs in the area of language and speech. Hence, mother was substantially impaired in her ability to fully participate in the collaborative IEP process
IEP of new school was consistent with IEP offered by previous school.
NPS offered by school was appropriate based on student’s needs. Hence, school was not required to reimburse expenses incurred by parents on placement of student in NPS of their choice.
Student was properly assessed in all areas of suspected disability as per issues reported by parents and parent’s objections on the assessments were of subjective nature. Hence, school did not deny FAPE to the student in any way.
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.
Watch our videos
Adam Wasserman discussion about homeschooling
Adam Wasserman talks about doing your child’s homework