Select Page

Student v. Killeen ISD, Dkt. No. 136-SE-0116 (Hearing Officer Tommy L. Broyles April 25, 2016).

Facts:  The parent enrolled the student in Killeen ISD and informed the district that the student received special education services from the previous district.  The parent did not reveal that the previous district had actually released the student from special education.  The district attempted to conduct a full and individual evaluation (FIE), but the parent requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) instead.  Meanwhile, the student had been placed on homebound services at the parent’s request due to headaches.  A disagreement arose over the delivery of homebound services, the parent requesting 2 hours per day by video or phone, and the district recommending 4 hours per week in person.   Ultimately the parent requested a due process hearing raising numerous claims against the district.   At the due process hearing, the parent testified but offered no expert testimony that supported the claims.

Holding:  The hearing officer denied all relief requested by the parent.  The record showed that the student’s ARD Committee implemented many of the parent’s suggestions and offered in-person homebound services.  While the district implemented multiple accommodations for the student to help the student meet IEP goals and objectives, the parent was not in agreement with many of the district’s decisions.  The parent prevented the district from discussing the student’s needs with the student’s physician, which hampered the district’s efforts to design an effective program for the student.  The student stopped attending school and the parent provided no documentation of health reasons for the student’s extended absence.  At the due process hearing, the district provided numerous examples of how it tried to work with the parent to design and implement the IEP.  According to the hearing officer, the parent demanded the most restrictive environment for the student while denying the ARD committee access to medical information to implement such restrictions.  In addition, the parent was working against the district, wanting to dictate every action of the ARD.  The video-conference homebound services requested by the parent were not appropriate, and yet the parent refused the face-to-face services.  The hearing officer held that the district provided the student FAPE and that the parent did not prove any procedural and substantive violations of the IDEA.


Read next article – Hot off the presses #2

Back to the list of articles in this issue.