(October 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010)
In cases where MSDE has been informed that a hearing decision is being appealed in accordance with Section 615(i) of IDEA 2004, an asterisk (*) is placed next to the OAH Case #. The civil or district court number of the case is provided when available.
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
Baltimore County Public Schools |
10-H-BCNY-30698 |
11/8/2010 |
Parent/Guardian |
IEP Development/Review/Revision |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the student's IEP and proposed placement for the 2010-2011 school year were inapprorpriate and the school system must convene an IEP team meeting and revise the student's IEP. |
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
Frederick County
Public Schools |
10-H-FRED-14168 |
10/20/2010 |
Parent/Guardian |
IEP Development/Review/Revision, Tuition Reimbursement |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the IEP and proposed placement for the 2009-2010 school year were reasonably calculated to offer the student FAPE and the parents are not entitled to tuition reimbursement for the nonpublic school in which they placed the student. |
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
Howard County
Public Schools |
10-H-HOWD-30064 |
11/10/2010 |
Public Agency |
Evaluation/Assessment, Independent Educational Evaluation Procedures |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the assessments conducted by the school system were appropriate and that the student's parent is not entitled to an IEE at public expense. |
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
MD School for the Blind |
10-H-MSB-37342 |
12/13/2010 |
Parent/Guardian |
IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement/LRE/complainant requesting less restrictive |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the parent failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the IEP for the 2010-2011 school year was inappropriate. |
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
Montgomery County
Public Schools |
10-H-MONT-22514 |
11/1/2010 |
Parent/Guardian |
IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement/LRE/complainant requesting more restrictive, Tuition Reimbursement |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the IEP and placement proposed by the school system for the 2010-2011 school year were appropriate and denied the parents' request for placement at a nonpublic school. The ALJ concluded that the math calculation goal required "re-drafting." |
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
Montgomery County
Public Schools |
10-H-MONT-27944 |
11/15/2010 |
Parent/Guardian |
IEP Development/Review/Revision |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the student's current placement is not a change in placement for the purposes of "stay put." The ALJ also concluded that the IEP and proposed placement for the 2010-2011 school year are appropriate. |
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
Montgomery County
Public Schools |
10-H-MONT-30246 |
10/14/2010 |
Parent/Guardian |
IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement /LRE/compainant requesting less restrictive |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the parent failed to meet the burden of proof to offer any evidence that creates a dispute about whether the school system failed to provide FAPE. The ALJ granted the school system's motion to dismiss the hearing petition. |
| Public Agency |
OAH Case #
______________ |
Decision Date |
Hearing Requested By |
Issues |
|
Worcester County
Public Schools |
*10-H-WORC-36825 |
11/22/2010 |
Parent/Guardian |
Behavior Intervention (COMAR regulations), IEP Development/Review/revision, IEP Implementation-accommodations, aids & services, modifications |
Decision Summary
____________ |
The ALJ concluded that the IEPs in effect for the student between October 2008 and October 2010 were appropriate. The ALJ concluded that the IEPs in effect were implemented, there was no delay in conducting the FBA, and the BIP, once developed, was implemented.
Appeal information: US District Court Case #1:11 cv711 |
|
|
|
|
Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
Maryland State Department of Education |
| 200 West Baltimore Street |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|