education pictures
Decision Number
Mother, on behalf of Student v. School District and Area Education Agency
Community School District and AEA

Mother, out of concern for her son who has a number of educational and health challenges, does not believe that placement of her son at the High School is appropriate to meet his educational needs. Mother is concerned that the proposed placement, at a larger and more heavily student-populated attendance center, will result in serious and long-term (possibly permanent) regression. Mother believes, based on prior history of transition between schools, that regression in acquired skills is predictable and that loss of academic, verbal and social skills is highly predictable. Further, Mother predicts that his physical aggression toward others will increase, and he will attempt to escape the building. Other concerns expressed include student's inappropriate increased dependence on para-educator, becoming withdrawn in reaction to stressful situations, and getting lost even in familiar places.

Testimony and documentation of the AEA and the District staff involved in the educational planning for the student's future education appears to be exemplary. At the May 2010 IEP meeting, several goals were considered for updating and change but were put on hold at the request of the Mother.

At the close of the July 2010 hearing, parties acknowledged that much additional planning for the student's educational program and transition needed to be completed. A framework for the IEP was in place with the goals and general type of instruction to be provided, but many of the details remained to be explored and agreed upon. The IEP team, including the Mother and Father, could work on those details.

ALJ finds that, even though the then current IEP was not fully completed and "placement" was not fully implemented at the time of hearing, in its then current form, that IEP represented an appropriate planned IEP to be implemented in the High School setting. As a matter of clarification, he further finds, that the planned location for the implementation of the IEP at the High School was an appropriate decision. As a result, he finds in favor of the Respondents (Appellees) on the issue(s) of the appropriateness of both the IEP terms, as then constituted, and the planned location of the implementation of the IEP at the High School.