DueProcessIllinois.Org

Illinois State Board of Education

Due Process Summaries 2006-

About this file
 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
 
Links:
July1997, through October 2004 DueProcessIllinois.org summary
back to DueProcess Illinois home
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/html/due_process.htm (source documents)

Page Contents:
Decisions Issued Between April 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006
Decisions Issued Between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006


Decisions Issued Between April 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006

Case No. 004698 Ė Robert E. Lehrer, Hearing Officer
Independent Educational Evaluation
Decision and Order Issued April 18, 2006
The district initiated the due process request in response to the parentís request for an independent educational evaluation (IEE). The parentís request for the IEE came on the heels of a prior set of independent evaluations the district had provided following mediation of a previous due process request. The parent refused to participate in either a resolution session or mediation and failed to provide a written response to the districtís request. The hearing officer convened a proceeding to allow the district the opportunity to provide support for its case following the districtís motion for a default judgment. The hearing officer found that there were no material changes in circumstance of the student to merit the granting of a second set of independent evaluations. Accordingly, the hearing officer granted the districtís motion, thereby denying the parentís request for a new IEE.
The district was represented by an attorney.
The district initiated the hearing request
.
Case No. 004631 Ė Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Unilateral Placement, Compensatory Education
Decision and Order Issued May 11, 2006
The parents initiated the due process request seeking compensatory education in the form of six years of placement at a private therapeutic school for LD students. Prior to the due process hearing, the parents notified the district of their intent to reject the then-current placement offer by the district and placed the student at the therapeutic school in question. At hearing, the parents claimed that the district had engaged in a series of procedural violations dating back six years related to the studentís eligibility and the services offered by the district since the studentís initial eligibility determination in 2001. The hearing officer found that all alleged violations occurring before 2003 could not be considered given the two-year statute of limitations on due process claims. Additionally, the hearing officer found that any delays or interruptions in service the student experienced were the result of parental actions rather than a failure of the district to act. Analyzing the districts actions, the hearing officer concluded that the district had provided FAPE to the student during the period in question. Thus,
the hearing officer held that the district should not be liable for the compensatory education claims, nor for prospective placement in the therapeutic school.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.
Parents initiated the request.

Case No. 004572 Ė Carolyn Ann Smaron, Hearing Officer
Placement, LRE
Decision and Order Issued May 12, 2006
The parents requested a due process hearing to challenge the districtís 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 studentís performance. Therefore, the hearing officer held that the districtís current placement remained appropriate for the student.
The district was represented by an attorney.
Parent initiated the hearing request.

Case No. 004163 Ė Gail Friedman, Hearing Officer
Consent for Evaluation, Unilateral Placement
Decision and Order Issued June 30, 2006
The district initiated the hearing to override the parentsí 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 parentsí 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 parentsí 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.


Illinois State Board of Education-Due Process Summaries

Decisions Issued Between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 

Case No. 004959 Ė 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 districtís 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 studentís needs and abilities. On this basis, the hearing officer denied the parentís claim for payment of prospective private tutoring for the student.
The parties were both represented by attorneys.
Parent initiated the request.

Case No. 004992 Ė Ann Breen-Greco, Hearing Officer
Consent for Initial Evaluation
Decision and Order Issued July 18, 2006
The district requested due process to override the parentís 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 studentís 1st grade year, the district had undertaken a range of interventions to address the studentís increasing academic and behavioral difficulties without success. During the studentís third grade year, after continued difficulties addressing the studentís 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 Ė 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 districtís 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 studentís 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 districtís 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 parentís choice of a placement in the general education setting with modifications and accommodations. The hearing officer therefore found that the districtís 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 Ė Marie Bracki, Hearing Officer
Placement, Methodology
Decision and Order Issued August 1, 2006
The parents requested a due process hearing to challenge the districtís proposed placement; to seek reimbursement for private tutoring; and to correct alleged failures in the districtís 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 parentsí claim for reimbursement based on the hearing officerís finding that the prior IEPs were appropriate.
Both parties were represented by attorneys.
Parent initiated the hearing request.

Case No. 004960 Ė Sheana Hermann, Hearing Officer
Transportation, FAPE
Decision and Order Issued September 1, 2006
The parent initiated the due process request to challenge the districtís 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 districtís 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 studentís disabling condition required transportation. In response to the parentís 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 Ė 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 districtís 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 studentís 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.
 



July1997, through October 2004 DueProcessIllinois.org summary
back to DueProcess Illinois home