- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Divisions
  Overview
  Academic Policy & Innovation
  Accountability, Assessment, and Data Systems
  Career and College Readiness
  Communications, Partnerships, and Grants
  Curriculum, Assessment & Accountability
  Educator Effectiveness
  Early Childhood Development
  Finance
  Information Technology
  Library Services
  Office of the State Superintendent
  Rehabilitation Services
  Special Education and Early Intervention
     Overview
     Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
     Information
     Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
     Mod-HSA Procedures and Processes
     Interagency Rates
     Upcoming Events
     Fact Sheets
     Family Support and Dispute Resolution Branch
        Hearing Decisions
           2010
           2011
           2012
        Complaint Letters
     IDEA
     State Interagency Coordinating Council
     Policy and Accountability Branch
     Interagency Collaboration Branch
     Specialized Services Branch
     Resource Management and Monitoring Branch
     Programmatic Support and Technical Assistance
  Student, Family, and School Support
Divisions
Divisions > Special Education and Early Intervention > Family Support and Dispute Resolution Branch > Hearing Decisions > 2011
Due Process Hearing Decisions - FY11 - 1st Quarter

(July 1, 2010 - September 30, 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
Allegany County Public Schools
10-H-ALLG-20943
7/29/2010
Public Agency Identification/Evaluation/Reevaluation-Part B, IEP Development/Review/Revision
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ determined that the school system's evaluation was inappropriate and the parent is entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense that will assess the student in all areas of suspected disability including a specific learning disability.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Baltimore City
Public Schools
10-H-CITY-20229 8/6/2010 Parent/Guardian Placement/LRE/complaint requesting less restrictive
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that the IEP and placement proposed by the school system for the 2010-2011 school year were appropriate.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
10-H-MONT-11603 7/9/2010 Parent/Guardian IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that the school the student attended during the due process hearing did not violate "stay put." The ALJ also concluded that the IEP and placement are appropriate to provide the student FAPE and, therefore, denied parents request for continuned placement at a nonpublic.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
*10-H-MONT-16716 9/17/2010 Parent/Guardian IEP Development/Review/Revision, Tuition Reimbursement
Decision Summary
____________

The ALJ concluded that the IEP for the 2009-2010 school year and the IEP for the 2010-2011 school years were appropriate and denied the parents request for tuition reimbursement for the nonpublic school in which they had placed the student for both the 2009-2010 and the 2010-2011 school years.

Appeal information: US District Court Case #11-cv-0124 (JFM)


Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
10-H-MONT-18299 9/8/2010 Public Agency Identification/Evaluation/Reevaluation-Part B, IEP Development/Review/Revision
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that the school system made reasonable efforts to obtain the parent’s consent to conduct an initial evaluation of the student but the parent refused to provide consent. The ALJ concluded that the school system established grounds to override the parent's refusal to provide consent and may conduct assessments without the parent’s consent.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
10-H-MONT-23736 9/16/2010 Parent/Guardian IEP Implementation-Placement, IEP Implementation-speech/language services
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that the parent did not prove that the student failed to receive the correct amount of speech-language therapy services during the 2009-2010 school year. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that the parent did not prove that the school system's IEP for the 2010-2011 school year was inadequate to provide a free appropriate public education. The ALJ dismissed the case.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
10-H-MONT-28248 9/29/2010 Parent/Guardian IEP Development/Review/Revision, Placement
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that the IEP and placement for the 2010-2011 school year were appropriate.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Worcester County
Public Schools
10-H-WORC-17038 7/7/2010 Parent/Guardian ESY Determination
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that the parents' due process hearing request was rendered moot when the school system provided the ESY services that the parents sought. The ALJ dismissed the hearing request.


Contact Information
Maryland State Department of Education
Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
MSDE Privacy Statement Disclaimer  | Copyright © 2003 MSDE