The petitioner is a student who met the criteria of a student with Autism. The respondents were evaluated psychologically in order to access his concept of self, anger, anxiety, and disruptive behavior and based on the findings of the evaluation, it was recommended that the petitioner access a regular education counselor.
On reviewing the evaluation results in the presence of the student’s mother, an agreement was reached on the general education placement for the student. A Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) was then developed for the petitioner based on his assessment. The student’s Individual Education Plan was developed coupled with a social skills program. A meeting was convened to put measures in place to help the student stay awake in school, complete his assignments and comply with requirements to complete work.
In April 2007, allegations of cyberbullying via an internet chat room were made against the petitioner and after investigations; he was arrested and placed under juvenile detention for making a terroristic threat. Later on, the petitioner alleged that he too had been bullied in school. After a detention hearing, he was ordered to remain on house arrest under the supervision of his parents. In the conclusion of the school year, the petitioner passed all parts of the TAKS exam. He later enrolled in a home school program without prior notification to the respondent and described it as “less stressful”.
The conclusions of law were as follows; that the petitioner had the right to special education at no extra cost from his parents. The educational program by the district was deemed to be appropriate hence the petitioner bears the burden of proof as to the challenging party, which he failed to meet by demonstrating violation of rights under IDEA or a deprival of his participation in the development of his educational program. It was also ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to compensatory services. The petitioner had not shown any cause for the need for neither specially tailored Math instruction nor an extension for the school year. There was also no proof of the effectiveness of the Petitioner’s home school program.
The Petitioner’s complaint is basically about the Respondent’s educational program not being appropriate to his needs. There is a citation of this through allegations of bullying before the Petitioner’s threat to his peers. The Respondent, however, views the program as appropriate in all spheres and argues that the Petitioner did not show any evidence of any denial of Free Appropriate Public Education. This was demonstrated by the Petitioner’s improved educational progress under the Respondent’s program. Evidence shows access to a general education counselor by the Petitioner throughout his 2006/2007 school year. During the course of the Petitioner’s evaluation by the Respondent, he did not indicate any cases of harassment by his peers hence saw no need for additional counseling.
There was no evidence of the denial of training that is important for the special education program the Petitioner’s parents, on the contrary, the respondent attempted to engage them to be participants in the review and development of the Petitioner’s program through invitations to a conference and various training programs which they did not attend. The Petitioner had received a designed BIP upon him qualifying as a student with Autism. It included replacement and positive interventions.
The petitioner’s request for relief, including all or any additional relief that had not specifically ordered was denied. In addition, all findings of facts that could be viewed as conclusions of law or vice versa were to be accorded consideration.