Analyzing Due Process Decisions

Student’s name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Analyzing Due Process Decisions
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 mandates the school districts to offer them free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students who have disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The process is complex and many times issues and conflicts may arise due to different opinions from the parties involved. When disagreements occur, different methods of dispute resolution can be used to resolve the conflict. Essentially, the formal procedures that are used to resolve disputes in special education are mediation, resolution and due process hearings (Blackwell and V. Blackwell 1).
In April 2016, Yuma Union High School District, a petitioner, filed a due process complaint at the office of administrative hearings. The action was to affirm the school’s decision to transfer a student to Vista Alternative High School from San Luis High School after a disciplinary action. The respondents to this case were the student by and through the parents. The student was receiving special education and services under the eligibility category of Other Health Impairment and Emotional Disability from the petitioner school district.
The school argued that since his freshman year at San Luis High School, the student’s behavior issues has been escalating over time, and he was becoming a threat to other students and teachers. The behavior issues that were exhibited by the students included fighting, bullying, harassment, assault, sexual harassment, insubordination and use of inappropriate language.

The school claimed that the move to transfer the student was necessary for the safety of the student, other students, and teachers. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the move was legal in relation to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provisions. The student’s parents, on the other hand, claimed that the student had not caused anybody harm or injury to others and the escalation of his inappropriate behavior was as a result of the failure of the school and the teachers to implement the IEP program as written by the IEP team in October 2015. Additionally, the parents argued that the transfer of the student was illegal according to IDEA and will affect the student’s placement.
Each side, during the hearing, presented evidence through various witnesses by testimonies and exhibits to support and substantiate their claims. The school, to prove that the student was becoming a threat to others, it cited different incidents where the student reportedly harassed either another student or a teacher. On one of the incidents, the respondent student had threatened to follow a female student and rape her. On another incident, the student had intentionally bumped into a teacher and threatened to hire someone to shoot at a theater where the teacher worked. A testimony during the due process hearing indicated that a temporary restraining order was issued against Student after the incident. Among the exhibits by the petitioner school was the Prior Written Notice (PWN) that indicated that the school had considered long-term suspension since the student still violated the code of conduct after the short-term suspension. Regarding the implementation of IEP, the school claimed that the student started one hour services per day after school when the student was not allowed on campus due to temporary restraining order. Moreover, the petitioner testified that the student, at Vista Alternative High School, would be at the same placement choice on the continuum of alternative placements and would get the services as indicated by his IEP.
On the respondent’s side, the student’s mother testified that there were times when no one was available after school to offer the services to the student. The testimony was to dismiss the claim by the petitioner school that it had complied with the IEP even when the students were not allowed in camps. In relation the respondent student being a threat to others, the parents provide an exhibit from student’s IEP that showed that the misconduct of the student was a manifestation of the disability of the student and no drugs or weapon that were involved. IEP team had also indicated that there was no bodily injury.
Based on the testimonies and exhibits that were presented by the parties involved during the due process hearing, the administrative law judge made findings and conclusions in regard to the law. The findings and conclusion were used to make a ruling. In the ruling of the case, the petitioner’s due process complaint was granted. The judge said that the school had a legal authority under the provisions of IDEA to return the respondent to the same educational placement, and the change of school was an administrative decision to change in physical location and did not affect the educational placement of the student (Cms.azed.gov 8).
The judge used the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifically part 300 of 34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) to support his ruling. The provisions of 34 C.F.R., § 300.530(f) (2) states that if it is determined that the conduct of the student is a manifestation of his/her disability, the IEP must return the student to the placement from which the child was removed. The judge concluded that the petitioner school district complied with this provision hence the ruling. I agree with the ruling. The transfer of the student was necessary for the safety of the others. The respondent student had threatened other students and teacher. The transfer also was legal since it did not affect the student’s educational placement. Furthermore, the change of location was an administrative decision and not IEP’s, and the move did not inconvenience the student as the school is to provide transportation. The petitioner school district was trying to find a long lasting solution since short-term suspension had failed.
Works Cited
Blackwell, William H., and Vivian V. Blackwell. “A longitudinal study of special education due process hearings in Massachusetts: Issues, representation, and student characteristics.” Sage Open 5.1 (2015): 2158244015577669.
Cms.azed.gov. https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=57757c32aadebe0e14802199 Retrieved 20 February 2018.