Student v. Canyon Independent School District By: Quentrella Cain

Introduction Due Process Hearings The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Bill of Rights

Summary of the Due Process Hearing Officer’s Decision The Petitioner (Student) The Respondent (Canyon ISD) The Case

Major Tenants Involved in Student v. CISD Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Zero Reject Due Process Rights Non-Discriminatory Testing Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Definition Medical History General Education Class Schedule

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) Definition Individual Education Plan (IEPs) FIE Re-Evaluation

Zero Reject Definition Testing

Due Process Rights What is Due Process Rights

Non-Discriminatory Testing Definition Testing Tools

Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) Definition The importance of Dates

Implications of the Hearing FAPE Scheduling Agenda Training

Agree or Disagree With the Hearing Results FAPE – Agree Parental Rights – Disagree Lawyers Fee’s Paid – Disagree

Conclusion ISSUE: Whether school district failed to provide FAPE within the least restrictive environment to *** school student with OHI, VI, and SI, significant medical history including *** and subsequent ***, and complex academic and behavioral needs. HELD: For the student in part and the school district in part. Student met burden of proving school district failed to provide a FAPE ISSUE: Whether school district failed to provide student with FAPE due to alleged violations of Student and parental procedural rights. HELD: For the school district. School district provided timely reports on Student’s progress towards meeting IEP goals and objectives under the terms stated in Student’s IEP and in compliance with IDEA regulations. ISSUE: Whether school district failed to protect student and parents from bullying, harassment or retaliation. HELD: For the school district. School district took reasonable steps to protect student from ***. Student did not meet burden of proving those actions rose to level of bullying or harassment to constitute denial of FAPE.

Questions Thank You

References Alquraini, T. (2013). An Analysis of Legal Issues Relating to the Least Restrictive Environment Standards. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume 13 · Number 2 ·152–158. Retrieved from: a ded22de%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4209http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stthom.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=16&sid=dc2dcd67-82b a ded22de%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4209 Essex, N. (2012). School Law and The Public Schools.Person Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Estes, M. (May, 2003). Zero Reject and School Choice: Students With Disabilities in Texas’ Charter Schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 213–235. Retrieved from: 27cb6026b709%40sessionmgr4001&hid= cb6026b709%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4107 Ford, D. & Trotman, Y. & Frazier, M. (2000). The Office for Civil Rights and Non- Discriminatory Testing, Policies, and Procedures: Implications for Gifted Education. Roeper Review, Vol. 23, Issue 2. Retrieved from: 27cb6026b709%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ Heward, W.L. (2013). Exceptional Children an Introduction to Special Education. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Texas Education Agency. ( ). Special Education Due Process Hearing Decisions. Retrieved from: Wolfe, P. & Harriott, S. (1998). The Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): What Educators and Parents Should Know. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities.Volume 13, Number 2. Retrieved from: 82b a ded22de%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4209http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stthom.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=dc2dcd67- 82b a ded22de%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4209 Zirkel, P. (2012). Is It Time for Elevating the Standard for FAPE Under IDEA? Council for Exceptional Children. Vol. 79, No. 4, pp Retrieved from: 27cb6026b709%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4107