Adam Wasserman Site

Student v. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

What constitute as a major discrepancy between the services required by the child’s IEP and the services offered by the District? A major discrepancy between the services required by the child’s IEP and the services offered by the District is denial of FAPE.

Student v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Failure to assess student for eligibility under the category of emotional disturbance is not denial of FAPE unless student has a condition exhibiting one or more of the characteristics provided under 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(4); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (b)(4) over a long period of time, and to a marked degree, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

Student v. GATEWAY COLLEGE AND CAREER ACADEMY

Student is not entitled to receive IEP services comparable to his/her last implemented IEP where Student does not transfer from one public school to another within the same state during the same academic year or between school years.

Student v. TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Services can only be offered after proper assessment and in case parents do not give consent to the assessment, District’s failure to offer services is not denial of FAPE.

Student v. GOLETA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Failure to communicate with parents in their native language and failure to provide reasons for denial of their request impedes their opportunity to participate in decision making. Hence, the same is denial of FAPE.

Student v. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Application of an impermissibly narrow view of student’s disability which is highly inconsistent with his/her history makes the manifestation determination review inappropriate.

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Student

Where student is aware of the severity of his actions, lacks empathy, and continues to fantasize harming others, school may decide an appropriate interim alternative educational placement without parent’s consent.

Student v. BELLA MENTE MONTESSORI CHARTER ACADEMY

A manifestation determination is not legally and procedurally compliant if it only lists assessment scores, statements of students and parents, IEP goals, etc. without providing any analysis of all this information and does not allow parents a meaningful participation.

Featured Posts


Recent Posts

Student v. YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Student v. PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Student v. ASPIRE INSKEEP ACADEMY CHARTER, ASPIRE…

HUENEME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Student

Student v. CABRILLO POINT ACADEMY

Student v. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Student v. SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Student

Student v. HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED SCHOOL…

Student v. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Archive