Students-Special Education Where the board is authorized to make rules for he government of the schools, ALJ determined that while student was allowed to re-take failed quizzes ad tests, there was no agreement or evidence that the grades were to be changed based upon the re-takes. ALJ held, “allowing a student to repeat entire marking periods months later to earn better grades would compromise the integrity of the grading process and set a bad precedent. No requirement that district maintain the original physical quiz and test papers. 1/3/2019 A.O. v. Kearny
Petitioners and the District shall meet within thirty days of this decision to create a new IEP for R.T. to include for a period of one year the provision of ten hours per week of behavior analytic services to R.T. at home by a registered behavior technician or behavioral therapist and four hours per month of oversight by a BCBA.The IEP shall also be revised to include an additional four hours per month by a BCBA to provide parent and sibling training and that an IEP meeting shall be held in six months to determine if a reduction or termination of that training is appropriate.
Petitioner parents filed a request for due process claiming that the district failed to provide a FAPE to their student for the prior two school years and the then-upcoming school years. The district did not provide supporting evidence for its decision to terminate ABA services, and did not conduct appropriate evaluations in response to some issues raised, among other issues raised. The A.L.J. found that the IEP did not adequately address the student’s needs. However, the procedural deficiencies did not rise to the level that would cause a deprivation, and parents were also denied reimbursement for the costs associated with their home program as well as the evaluation costs. Petitioners were awarded compensatory education to include the recommendations per expert report. B.E. v. Edison Twp. Spl Ed,, 2019: Jan. 14.
Parents filed for emergent relief in the form of an order enjoining respondents from removing the student from his stay-put placements by issuing short-term suspensions to him as a form of discipline resulting from his conduct which is a manifestation of his disability. The district alleged that the students conduct was proper because he violated the school’s code of conduct and suspensions are a form of discipline to address the student’s violations of the code of conduct. The Administrative Law Judge denied the petitioner’s request for emergent relief in the form of an order enjoining the district from issuing any further suspensions. C.K. v. Mt. Ephraim, Spl Ed., 2019: Feb. 5.
Parents filed for emergent relief in the form of an order enjoining respondents from removing the student from his stay-put placements by issuing short-term suspensions to him as a form of discipline resulting from his conduct which is a manifestation of his disability. The district alleged that the students conduct was proper because he violated the school’s code of conduct and suspensions are a form of discipline to address the student’s violations of the code of conduct. The Administrative Law Judge denied the petitioner’s request for emergent relief in the form of an order enjoining the district from issuing any further suspensions. 2/5/2019: C.K. v Mount Ephraim
District properly provided FAPE during school year. IEP provided meaningful benefit allowing the student to advance. IEP is appropriately ambitious. Petitioners are not entitled to any
compensatory education for that school year, and their petition for due process
should be dismissed in its entirety. 1/15/2019: EE v Ridgefield
District properly offered IEP to student. Parent’s unilateral placement in private school extinguishes district’s obligation to provide FAPE. 2/13/2019: FH v West Morris
Petitioner parents filed a due process petition seeking FAPE, a functional behavioral assessment and psychological evaluation for their child. The petition also alleged that the district failed to find a least restrictive environment and violated ChildFind requirements. After extensive testimony, it was determined that the district did provide FAPE and did not violate any of the provisions of ChildFind.
Parent’s sought a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and reimbursement for a psychological evaluation. District sought to deny parent’s request for independent evaluation. District provided an IEP that provided a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Functional behavior assessments and behavior intervention plans are not required components of the IEP under federal regulations. While an FBA may help the IEP team address behavioral issues, the IDEA does not require the IEP team to conduct an FBA in order to meet this requirement. Parent’s request for due process denied. Petitioner’s request for compensatory education for the deprivation of the pull-out replacement math instruction granted. Request for IEE denied. K.S. v. Northfield Spl Ed, 2019: Jan. 28.
Student denied FAPE – seeking out of district placement, independent evaluation and extended school year. (ADHD, tics, fine motor skill delays and anxiety and writing disability called Dysgraphia) District is providing FAPE. The proposed private school would be wonderful but not entitled to best possible education, only FAPE. Unilateral placement reimbursement to parents denied. Parents unilaterally place child at their own risk. 2/11/2019: M.D. v Vineland