- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 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
              Due Process Hearing Decisions - FY12 - 2nd Quarter
        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 > 2012
Due Process Hearing Decisions - FY12 - 2nd Quarter
(October 1, 2011 - December 31, 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
Howard County Public Schools
11-H-HOWD-34436 11/22/2011 Parent/Guardian Compensatory Services, Identification/Evaluation/Reevaluation-Part B, IEP Implementation-Placement
Decision Summary
____________

The ALJ concluded that during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, the school system developed an IEP that would have provided the student with a FAPE had the parents’ not unilaterally placed the student in a nonpublic school. The ALJ further concluded that the school system also included the parents as “equal participating members” of the IEP team and as a result of these determinations, the ALJ denied the parents’ request for tuition reimbursement.


Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
11-H-MONT-24917 12/21/2011 Parent/Guardian IEP Implementation-Placement, Tuition Reimbursement
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that the IEP and placement proposed by the school system was reasonably calculated to offer the student a FAPE. As a result of this determination, the ALJ denied the parents’ request for nonpublic tuition reimbursement.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools

11-H-MONT-28522

10/19/2011 Parent/Guardian Identification/Evaluation/Placement
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that IEP proposed by the school system was reasonably calculated to offer the student a FAPE and therefore, the ALJ denied the parent's request for a nonpublic placement for the 2011-2012 school year.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
11-H-MONT-28930 11/30/2011 Parent/Guardian IEP Implementation-accommodations, aids & services, modifications, Nonpublic Placement/Tuition Reimbursement
Decision Summary
____________
The ALJ concluded that IEP proposed by the school system was reasonably calculated to offer the student a FAPE and therefore, the ALJ denied the parent's request for nonpublic tuition reimbursement for the second half of the 2010-2011 school year and the first half of the 2011-2012 school year. The ALJ also denied the parent's request for a nonpublic placement for the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year.

Public Agency OAH Case #
______________
Decision Date
Hearing Requested By Issues
Montgomery County
Public Schools
11-H-MONT-31129 10/11/2011 Parent/Guardian Placement/LRE/FAPE
Decision Summary
____________

The ALJ concluded that the student's placement that was proposed by the school system for the 2011-2012 school year was the least restrictive environment in which the IEP could be implemented inorder to provide the student with a FAPE. As a result, the ALJ denied the parent’s request for change in placement.



Contact Information
Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone:  410-767-0238
Fax:  410-333-0664
MSDE Privacy Statement Disclaimer  | Copyright © 2003 MSDE