(July 1, 2011 - September 30, 2011)

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
Anne Arundel County Public Schools	11-H-AARU-10459	7/15/2011	Parent/Guardian	Nonpublic Placement/Tuition Reimbursement
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that AACPS was able to implement the student’s IEP during the 2009-2010 school year and that the placement proposed by the school system for the 2010-2011 school year would provide the student with a FAPE.  As a result, the ALJ concluded that the parents are not entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Baltimore County Public Schools	11-H-BCNY-22519	8/11/2011	Parent/Guardian	IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement/LRE
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the IEP proposed by BCPS for the 2011-2012 school year offered the student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment and therefore denied the parent’s request for the student to be assigned to another public school.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Frederick County Public Schools	11-H-FRED-14997	8/23/2011	Parent/Guardian	Identification/Evaluation/Reevaluation, Placement, Tuition and transportation reimbursement
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the IEP implemented by FCPS for the 2009-2010 school year did not provide the student with a FAPE and that, as a result, the parents were entitled to reimbursement of tuition for their unilateral placement of the student.  However, the ALJ further concluded that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the travel expenses they incurred in transporting the student to school and were not entitled to the prospective placement of the student.

Public Agency	OAH Case # ______________	Decision Date	Hearing Requested By	Issues
Montgomery County Public Schools	11-H-MONT-16691	08/09/2011	Parent/Guardian	IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement , Tuition Reimbursement
Decision Summary ____________	The ALJ concluded that the parents did not meet their burden of proof to demonstrate that the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide the student with a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.  As a result, the ALJ determined that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for tuition and expenses for their unilateral placement.