IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS HEARING DECISION AND ORDER

 

In the matter of:

 

Chelsea B. vs. city of Chicago SD 299

ISBE Case Number: 005104

 

Procedural Background:

The parent requested a due process hearing via letter from her attorney dated June 26, 2006. The district received the request on June 29, 2006. The Illinois state Board of Education received the request on July 10, 2006. This hearing officer was assigned to the case by the Illinois state Board of Education on July 11, 2006. The district issued a response to the request for a due process hearing via letter dated August 1, 2006. The parent submitted a reply to that response on August 2, 2006.

 

The hearing officer sent the parties a notice of the prehearing conference on July 14, 2006. The prehearing conference was held via teleconference on August 2, 2006.The parties were provided a copy of the prehearing conference report via US Postal Service on August 2, 2006.

 

The due process hearing was scheduled and held on September 26 & 27, 2006. This constituted an extension of the 45-day timeline by mutual request of the parties due to their busy schedules.

 

Legal counsel represented the parent and the district. The parent elected to have the hearing closed. The parent elected to have the student testify.

 

The parent submitted an evidence packet of 125 pages, which are not presented in chronological order, [PD1-PD125]. The district submitted an evidence packet of 45 pages [DD 1-DD45].

 

The due process hearing was conducted over two consecutive days. The names of witnesses and their relationship with respect to this hearing are listed below WITNESSES APPEARING ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2007:

1.      Angela Patterson, Special Education Teacher/Case Manager

2.      Mary Jackson, Reading Teacher

3.      Crystal Vance, School Social Worker

4.      Patricia Hillstrom, School Psychologist

5.      Carmelia Shipp, General Education Math Teacher

6.      Peggy Salter, Assistant Principal [hereafter (AP)]

 

 

WITNESSES APPEARING ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2006;

1.      Lillian Edmonds, General Education Teacher 4th grade

2.      Brenda Asaju, LD Resource teacher

3.      Pamala Dukes, General Education Teacher 5th grade

4.      Pat Wakefielf, General Education Teacher 6th grade

5.      Mamie B., General Education Teacher 7th grade

6.      Dan Ramscher, General Education Teacher, 5th grade

7.      Chelsea B., Student

8.      Carlette B., Mother

9.      Kathy Folks, Independent Evaluator

10.  Debra Seid-Lenardi, Substitute Independent School Psychologist

Here after the witnesses shall be referred to by their title to protect the identity of the student.

 

The hearing officer has jurisdiction to hear this matter under Section 14.02(g) of the School Code, 34 CFR 300.506-509. and 23 Illinois Administrative Code 226 Subpart G.

 

ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PARENT:

1.      Whether the district failed to conduct an appropriate Child Find and whether the student required and the district failed to provide the student with a timely assessment from June 26, 2004 to January 14, 2006.

2.      Whether the student required and the district failed to adequately assess the student in the potential areas of disability and need for special education in auditory processing, communication, assistive technology and occupational therapy.

3.      Whether the student required and the district failed to provide the student with social work and/or school psychology services.

4.      Whether the district failed to provide the student with appropriate research based instruction.

5.      Whether the IEP Team failed to develop an IEP with accurate statements of present levels of performance, appropriately identified student needs and potential, and lacked measurable goals and objectives to determine student progress.

6.      Whether the district was required and failed to obtain and present appropriate measures of academic performance for the December 2005 annual review.

 

REMEDY SOUGHT BY THE PARENT:

1.      The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to pay for an independent educational evaluation obtained by the parent in the areas of auditory processing, communication, assistive technology and occupational therapy.

2.      The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to place the student at specifically named private special education day school.

3.      The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to provide the student with school social work services and transportation as a related service at the specifically named private day school.

4.      The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to provide the student with a placement at the specifically named private day school and/or after school tutoring for failure to provide the student with an appropriate education for the past two years.

5.      The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to convene an IEP meeting to implement the above relief.

6.      The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to provide the student with unspecified relief [to have been disclosed 5-days prior to the due process hearing].

 

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1.      The student is a 12 year 10 month old female from an English speaking home. She is receiving 200 minutes of LD resource service per week in 7th grade in a regular education public school.

2.      The student comes from English speaking home. She, her mother, a 14-year-old brother and a 7-year-old sister reside with her great grandmother and great grandfather. In addition, her motherís sister along with the sisterís four and sometimes five children live in the same home. The household constitutes three families with a total of four adults and seven to eight children in a single-family unit.

3.      On September 3, 1998, the student was enrolled in an afternoon pre-kindergarten class for students at risk [DD 42]. She remained at that school through 2nd grade, moved to another district for 3rd grade and returned to her school of origin for 4th, 5th, 6th and now 7th grades [DD 42 & 43].A narrative of the studentís school history is presented in her social assessment [PD 66].

4.      With the exception of the 2002-2003 school year, the student was enrolled in her current school from September 3, 1998 to the present. [DD 43]. She started school in a pre-kindergarten program for at risk children. An undated referral for an educational assessment was made by her first grade teacher [PD 16}. There was no documented action taken on that referral. A second referral for an educational assessment was made by the second grade teacher on September 28, 1991. Again, there is no documented action taken on the referral. A third request for an educational assessment was made by the parent on January 6, 2003 [PD 41]. The parent signed a consent for case study evaluation form on February 3, 2003 [PD 42]. The only documented action to this referral is an undated student screening form for the child study team [PD 43]. That form indicated intervention strategies were initiated within the regular education class which included more time to complete assignments and a reduction in the length of assignments [PD 44-45]

5.      The special education teacher/case manager testified that a case study evaluation was initiated when the student returned to her school of origin. On October 15, 2004, the parent signed a consent for evaluation form [PD 57]. The special education teacher/case manager further testified that multi-sensory techniques and devises were utilized to implement the studentís IEP as drafted.These techniques and materials are consistent with best practice in the field of special education.

6.      On December 22, 2004, the parent received a copy of the Explanation of Procedural Safeguards [PD 107].

7.      A case study evaluation was started on October 15, 2004 [PD 65] completed in December 2004 [PD 60-83].

8.      On January 14, 2005 the parent and district considered the case study materials, the student was declared eligible for special education under the LD criteria and an IEP for the initial placement was developed[PD 74-87]. The school psychologist testified that the present levels of performance listed on the IEP are consistent with the psychological evaluation of December 10, 2004. This testimony is substantiated by the documents [PD 74-78& 80-81] and [PD 60-62]. The case manager testified the IEP contained measurable annual goals and benchmarks consistent with the studentís special education needs. The written record substantiates the testimony [PD 80-81]. The case manager testified and the written record indicates the student achieved her quarterly benchmarks [PD 80-81]

9.      The school psychologist testified that she did not find the student in need of psychological services to benefit from her special education placement. The student showed no anxiety during testing. She is able to take necessary risk to learn and tolerate failure. The student was able to establish rapport with her, worked vigorously to do her best on the assessment. The school psychologist stated the student has benefited from her special education placement as illustrated by an increase in her achievement scores from December 10, 2005 [PD 60] to July 19 & 21, 2006 [PD 116]. The school psychologist testified that her evaluation included an assessment of auditory processing and communication. This claim is substantiated by the written record [PD60-62].

10.  The district acknowledged that it did not provide the student with an assessment in the areas of assistive technology and occupational therapy. The district felt the student did not demonstrate a need for such assessments but offered to provide them in their response of August 1, 2006. The parent refused the offer on August 2, 2006 because the parent was going to obtain an independent evaluation. The independent evaluation was conducted on July 17 & 21, 2006 [PD 110]. The independent evaluation did not include an assessment of the studentís need for assistive technology or occupational therapy.

11.  The school social worker testified that the student does not require school social work service to benefit from her special education placement. She saw no signs of social/emotional difficulties.The record indicates the student is able to establish and maintain meaningful relationships with teachers and peers [PD 67-68]. Of particular note in the social assessment is that on January 4, 2005, the family was living in a four bedroom home and the children were happy to have their own rooms [PD 67]. It is noted that this corresponded the term the student had the least absences from school [DD 43] indicating the studentís maladaptive behavior subsided when her home environment improved.

12.  The parent consented to the initial placement January 14, 2005 [PD 89].

13.  The parent and district developed an IEP on December 22, 2005 [PD 93-106]. That IEP contains a typographical error. The ďarea of needĒ for the studentís current performance in mathematics is listed as ďLanguage/English/ReadingĒĒ [PD 98] rather than ďMathematicsď. That error aside, the present level of performance as stated on that IEP is consistent with the oral testimony by all witnesses and the written documentation.

14.  The assistant principal testified that she served on the committee that selected instructional materials for the school. She stated that the materials utilized in the studentís class [DD 3-41] were researched based to meet the needs of special populations and were in accord with state standards. No evidence was presented to refute this assertion.

15.  Testimony by district personnel as substantiated by the record indicates the student has missed an excessive amount of school. In the seven years, the student has attended her current school she has been absent a total of 212 days and tardy 30 days [DD 42 & 43]. A record of her attendance for 3rd grade was not available to the hearing officer. In addition to the recorded absences and days tardy, testimony indicates the student routinely complains of being ill in school, calls her mother and then goes home early. There was no documentation presented to indicate the frequency of her early leaving.

16.  The mother testified that the school is not within her attendance area. The district allowed the student and her siblings to re-enroll in the current school after moving out of the school district for a year, with the stipulation that the mother would provide transportation for her children to the school. She stated that she has moved six times in the past two years. She states the student resists going to school and sometimes she has to drag her to school. The testimony is consistent with the written evidence in which the mother states the student plays sick on days the mother does not go to work [PD67].

17.  The mother testified that the studentís other school district provided the student an independent evaluation during the 2003-2004 school year but the independent evaluator refused to release the evaluation to that district because the district did not pay the evaluator. District personnel confirmed that they tried to obtain the evaluation from the former district to no avail.

18.  The mother testified that she visited the private special education day school when she took the student there for an independent evaluation. She liked the small class size and the amount of attention each student received. She thinks her daughter would do better at that school where the students stay in one room. She does not think her daughter will do well in the districtís departmentalized program where she has to go from class to class.

19.  Testimony by the teachers indicates the student requires eyeglasses. The district provided the student with glasses but she does not wear them. The teachers provide her with seating at the front of the room near the teacherís desk so that she can see work on the chalkboard and they can monitor her ability to keep track. The student testified that she lost her glasses during the 2005-2006 school year.

20.  The teachers testified that the student does not complete homework assignments.

21.  Testimony by teachers indicates the student frequently, almost daily, falls asleep in class first thing in the morning. The student acknowledged this and attributed it to a side effect of the medication she takes for diabetes. She also stated that she has nightmares about two times per month and does not go back to sleep after that. The mother reported that she has her children go to bed by 8:30 PM and cannot explain why the student sleeps in class.

22.  In addition to diabetes, the student has asthma. She testified that she has had occasion to use her inhaler in school, which relieved her breathing problem.

23.  The student testified that school is going OK this year. She has about seven or eight girl friends. One boy bothers her but he bothers all girls. She says she feels unhappy and frustrated every day. She has had two spelling tests, failed the first one and got a ďCĒ on the second. She says she does her homework, gets help from her mother but does not like to ask for help. The student attributed her sleeping in school to a side effect of her diabetes medication.

24.  The independent evaluator reviewed the results of the educational testing she completed on the student. [PD 110-120]. She reported that the results of the independent evaluation were generated by the test publisher on a computer printout in the form of grade equivalents. The printout indicated the student scored two to five years below grade level. The independent evaluator concluded the student has significant room for growth and can be achieving significantly higher than present. Under cross-examination she acknowledged the computer print out indicated the scores were not statistically significant for the student [PD 119 & 120]. She also clarified that her testimony that the student has significant room for growth meant that the student could be achieving at or near grade level. She was aware that the student needed glasses and thought the student was wearing them at the time of testing but was not sure. When she was informed that the student was not wearing glasses because she had lost them prior to testing, the evaluator said that should not have affected the studentís performance on the tests. The studentís need for glasses but failure to wear them during the independent evaluation and the effect or lack thereof not wearing glasses was not discussed in the independent evaluation.

25.  The independent psychologist that performed the independent psychological evaluation [PD 121-124] was to appear as a parent witness did fail to show up for the due process hearing. The parent presented a substitute independent psychologist to testify in the independent psychologistís stead. The substitute independent psychologist reported there was no significant difference between the independent psychological evaluation and the one preformed by the district [PD 60-62]. The independent psychological evaluation did not recommend school social work or school psychology services for the student.†††††††††††††††

 

 

CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DISCUSSION:

A summary of the findings of fact indicated the student is a 12 year 10 month old female from an English speaking home. She is receiving 200 minutes of LD resource service per week in 7th grade in a regular education public school. She started school in a pre-kindergarten program for at risk children. She was referred for an educational assessment by her teachers and parent in first, second and third grades. The district did not act on those requests. The student attended third grade in another district. Upon returning to her school of origin, the parent requested another educational assessment. The district completed the initial case study evaluation in December 2004 and the student was provided 200 minutes of LD resource per week starting January 2005.

 

The studentís living situation is unstable. Her family has move six times in the past two years. For the most part the moves have been to friends of the mother or family. In the current living situation four adults and seven to eight children from three families are living in a single-family unit. The student has missed at least one and a half years of school due the absences, days tardy and early leaving. On a daily basis she comes to school sleepy and sleeps in class during the morning. She is provided preferential seating in class because she requires glasses but does not wear them. Additionally the student has asthma and diabetes.

 

The parent obtained an independent evaluation. It corroborates the districtís evaluation. The student currently exhibits low average potential and is achieving from two to five years below grade level. The achievement test scores are not statistically significant from her expected score given her ability. Additionally the achievement scores are approximately a year higher that her scores on the district evaluation conducted approximately a year and a half earlier. This supports the districtís contention that the student is deriving benefit from her current special education placement.

 

Applicable Statutes and Regulations in this Matter:

Since the district received the request for the due process hearing prior to July 1, 2006, IDEA Ď97 and the corresponding Codified Federal Regulations, as well as the School Code of Illinois and 23 Illinois Administrative Part 226 as amended April 28, 2003 are applicable in this matter. For purpose of this case, the two-year statute of limitation extends back to June 26, 2004.

 

Case Law Submitted by and referenced by the parties for considered in this Matter:

 

Brian SCHAFFER, a minor, by his parents and next friends, Jocelyn and Martin SCHAFFER, et al., Petitioners v. Jerry WEAST, Superintendent, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL, 44 IDELR 150 (105 LRP 55797) (U.S. 2005)

As applied to this matter, the parent is the moving party. Therefore, the burden of persuasion is incumbent upon the parent. The parent failed that burden in all areas with the exception of the issue pertaining to the districtís failure to conduct an appropriate child find. This resulted in the district failing to provide the student with a timely case study evaluation and prevented the student from receiving a free appropriate public education until January 2005.

 

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 553 IDELR 656 (EHLR 553:656) (U.S.1982)

The district has demonstrated that once the student was referred for a case study evaluation in November 2004, the district complied with all applicable procedures to insure the parent was a full participant in developing the studentís IEP and subsequent placement in the least restrictive environment. An examination of the facts of this case indicates the IEP was designed to provide the student with substantive benefit, which in fact the testimony, school records and independent evaluation confirm.

 

Knable v, Bexley City Sch. Dist., 34 IDELR 1 (6th Cir. 2001)

The parent submitted this case in support of their claim that placement in a private school is warranted when the district fails to develop an appropriate IEP for a student. Knable differs from this matter in several ways but most significantly, in that the parents in Knable felt compelled to send their child to a private school when the district failed to develop an IEP after repeated requests by the parent. In failing to develop an IEP, the district failed the procedural and substantive tests set fourth by Rowley and the court ordered the district to reimburse the parents for the cost of their unilateral placement in a private school setting. In this due process hearing, the district provided and implemented an IEP for the student that meets the procedural and substantive tests in Rowley.

 

Lachman ex rel. Lachman v. Illinois State Bd. Of EdÖ 441 IDELR 156 (EHLR 441:156) (7th Cir. 1988).

The district submitted this case to illustrate the courtís deference to the professional educatorsí judgment in terms of deciding the appropriate methodology of educating children with disabilities. The parent did not articulate a preferred methodology be used to educate the student. Therefore, other than the courtís proclivity to defer to the judgment of educators in matters pertaining to the education of children, Lachman is not germane to the remedies sought by the parent.

 

A.E. v. Independent School District No,25 of Adair County., 936 F.2d 472 (10th Cir 1991).

The district presented this case to counter the parentís request for school social work services and/or school psychology service. The court held that A.E. was not seriously emotionally disturber under IDEA. It held that children who were socially maladjusted were excluded from coverage under the act unless they were also seriously emotionally disturbed. As indicated in the findings of fact in this matter, the studentís major impediments are the excessive absence from school, tardiness to school, coming to school in need of sleep and leaving school early. Finding of Fact (11) indicates that, when the studentís living environment improved, her school attendance and school performance improved. This is indicative of social maladjustment rather than serious emotional disturbance. More importantly, the student has demonstrated that she has derived substantive benefit from the special education placement provided by the district.

 

Beth B. v. Lake Bluff School District #65, 282 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2002).

The district submitted this case as an example of the courtís deference to the judgment of educators with respect to determining the appropriate placement of students with disabilities.As in Beth B, the district demonstrated it successfully met the procedural and substantive tests established in Rowley for determining what constitutes a free appropriate special education placement.

 

 

With respect to the issues presented by the parent:

Whether the district failed to conduct an appropriate Child Find and whether student required and the district failed to provide the student with a timely assessment from June 26, 2004 to January 14, 2006.

The district holds that a case study was initiated in the fall of 2004, the student was declared eligible for special education service in December 2005 and was provided with appropriate special education services in January 2005. It is the districtís position that this constitutes an appropriate Child Find. The district might be correct in that assertion if the district had no previous experience with the student. However, the student was well known to the district and more specifically to the school. She had attended a pre-kindergarten program for at risk children and had three prior referrals for educational assessments. The district correctly states the statute of limitation in this matter only goes back to June 26, 2004 but that does not mean the history of the districtís inertia prior to that date does not exist. The district had substantial reason to know the student required a case study evaluation when she re-enrolled at the start of the 2003-2004 school year. That case study evaluation and special education services should have been initiated in September 2004.

 

The district failed to identify the student as in need of special education service as required in 34 CFR 300.111(a) and 23 Il. Adm. Code 226.100(a).

 

 

Whether the student required and the district failed to adequately assess the student in the potential areas of disability and need for special education in auditory processing, communication, assistive technology and occupational therapy.

The district and the independent evaluations assessed auditory processing and communication. Neither the district nor the independent evaluation included an assessment of the studentís need for assistive technology and occupational therapy. The parent did not present nor could the hearing officer find evidence that a need for such assessments exists. It is noted that the district offered to provide the student with those assessments in its response to the request for a due process hearing via letter dated August 1, 2006. For reasons not known to the hearing officer, the parent rejected that offer in its reply to that response on August 2, 2006.

 

The district is in full compliance with 34 CFR 300.530 - 300.536 and 23 Il. Adm. Code 226.120 -226.170.

 

Whether the student required and the district failed to provide the student with social work and/or school psychology services.

The parent presented no evidence that the student required related services in the areas of school social work or school psychological services to profit from her current special education placement. Testimony by the teachers and student as well as the written evidence indicates the student has benefited from her special education placement academically and socially.

 

The district is in full compliance with 34 CFR 300.34 and 23 Il. Adm. Code 226.310.

 

Whether the district failed to provide the student with appropriate research based instruction.

District personnel testified that the district only approves the use of and purchase of materials that are researched based. No evidence was presented that the materials utilized by the district are not research based. Additionally the results of the independent testing indicate the student has made academic progress. Further, this is not a requirement under IDEA Ď97.

 

This is a moot issue under IDEA Ď97. However, if IDEA 2004 were applied to the facts of this case, the district would be found to be in full compliance with 34 CFR 300.39(b)(3), 300.320(a)(2)(I) and 320.(a)(4).

 

Whether the IEP Team failed to develop an IEP with accurate statements of present levels of performance, appropriately identified student needs and potential, and lacked measurable goals and objectives to determine student progress.

As a finding of fact, with the exception of the typographic error as noted in Finding of Fact (13) above, the studentís current IEP is complete and appropriate.

 

This issue is moot.

 

Whether the district was required and failed to obtain and present appropriate measures of academic performance for the December 2005 annual review.

As a finding of fact, the present levels of performance on the December 2005 IEP are appropriate. The parent presented no optional present levels of performance for that IEP.

 

The district is in full compliance with applicable regulations; 34 CFR 300.347 and 23 Il. Adm. Code 226.200, 226.216, 226.220, 226.230.

 

 

 

With respect to the remedies sought by the parent:

 

The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to pay for an independent educational evaluation obtained by the parent in the areas of auditory processing, communication, assistive technology and occupational therapy.

As a finding of fact, the parent did not obtain an independent evaluation of whether the student required assistive technology and occupational therapy. The districtís evaluation addressed the areas of auditory processing and communication, as did the independent evaluation. The testimony of the independent psychologist was that the substitute independent psychological and district psychological were not significantly different. Further, the parent did not find fault with the district psychological and did not request the district to provide the student with an independent evaluation but unilaterally obtained it and retroactively requested reimbursement. Finally, the district offered to provide the student with evaluations in the areas of auditory processing, communication, assistive technology and occupational therapy on August 1, 2006 but the parent declined that offer. The parent failed to meet the conditions set forth for obtaining an IEE at public expense in 23 IL. Adm. Code 226.180 (b).

 

There is no basis to order the district to pay for the independent evaluation.

 

The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to place the student at specifically named private special education day school.

The parent has failed to demonstrate that the studentís special education needs are so profound and unique that the district is unable to provide her with a free appropriate public education. The major impediment to the student being more successful in school is her absenteeism, tardiness, coming to school sleepy, failure to complete homework assignments and failure to wear eyeglasses. These impediments are the result of the studentís living environment and beyond the scope of special education.

In spite of these impediments, the testimony and objective test results indicate the student is benefiting from her current special education placement and does not require a more restrictive special education placement. The studentís placement in a LD resource program within a public school is in full compliance with 23 Il. Adm. Code 226.204 and 226.300.

 

There is no basis to order the district to place the student in a more restrictive setting.

 

 

 

The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to provide the student with school social work services and transportation as a related service at the specifically named private day school.

The parent has failed to demonstrate that the student requires a placement at a special education day school. Therefore, there is no need for the district to provide social work services and transportation as a related service to that school.

 

This request is moot.

 

The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to provide the student with a placement at the specifically named private day school and/or after school tutoring for failure to provide the student with an appropriate education for the past two years.

It is the finding of this due process hearing that the district provided the student with an appropriate education from January 2005 to the present. However, the district had cause to know the student required a case study evaluation in September 2004 when she reenrolled in her school of origin. As stated above, there is no justification to order the district to place the student in a more restrictive setting. However, ordering the district to provide the student with after school tutoring to compensate for the special education service she did not receive is warranted.

 

An order directing the district shall provide the student with after school tutoring is warranted

 

The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to convene an IEP meeting to implement the above relief.

It is customary for a due process hearing order to contain directives to the parties on how to respond to the order. This order is no exception.

 

The parties are referred to the standard order format below.

 

The parent desires the hearing officer order the district to provide the student with unspecified relief [to have been disclosed 5-days prior to the due process hearing].

The parent failed to identify the unspecified relief sought by the 5-day disclosure period. Attaching the 5-day proviso to this request was done to provide the parent with an opportunity to give the hearing officer direction in terms of what relief the parent desired and to provide the district with an opportunity to respond to that specific request for relief.

 

This remedy is dismissed for lack of clarity.

 

Order:

1.      Within ten (10) school days receipt of the order, a representative of the district with authority to dispense district resources shall meet with the parent to devise a plan by which the district will provide the student with after school tutoring for the remainder of the 2006-2007 school year.

2.      Within fifteen (15) school days receipt of this order, the district shall provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Illinois State Board of Education.

 

 

 

Right to request clarification:

Section 14-8.02a(h) of the School Code, allows the hearing officer to retain jurisdiction after the issuance of the decision for the sole purpose of considering a request for clarification. A request for clarification must be submitted to me within five (5) days after receipt of the decision. The request for clarification shall specify the portions of the decision for which clarification is sought and a copy of the request shall be mailed to the other parties and to the Illinois State Board of Education. The request shall operate to stay the implementation of those portions of the decision for which clarification is sought. I shall issue a clarification of the specific portion of the decision or issue a partial or full denial of the request in writing within ten days of receipt of the request and mail copies to all parties to whom the decision was mailed.

 

FINALITY OF DECISION:

This decision shall be binding upon all parties.

 

 

RIGHT TO FILE CIVIL ACTION:

Any party to this hearing aggrieved by the final decision has the right to commence a civil action with respect to the issues presented in the hearing. Pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02(I) that civil action shall be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction within 120 days after this decision was mailed.

 

DATE OD DECISION AND ORDER:

This Decision and Order rendered this 5th day of October 2006.

 

 

 

James a. Wolter, EdD

Impartial Due Process Hearing officer