Skip to Main Content 
Home Arrow Icon Laws & Regulations Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions Arrow Icon Appeal Decisions -- Search & Display

Appeal Decisions

Search

Keyword    Type   
1 Matching Record
If you have questions contact Nicole Proesch, legal counsel for the Department and the State Board,
at 515-281-8661 or nicole.proesch@iowa.gov.
BOOK: 13 
DECISION: 157 
MONTH-YEAR: April - 1996
IN RE: In re Kratisha H.
APPELLANT: Brenda & Timothy H.
APPELLEE: Cedar Rapids Community School District & AEA 10
KEYWORDS: Special Education
FULL TEXT: https://www.educateiowa.gov/documents/appeal-decisions/2014/01/book-13-decision-157 
DETAILS: Kratisha H. was a 17-year-old student with multiple and severe disabilities.  She is not able to ambulate on her own, has extremely limited communication abilities and needs assistance with all daily-living skills. Appellants decided to have Kratisha attend Kennedy High School rather than Jefferson High School.  Their application was granted for the 1995-96 school year.
  In correspondence, the District informed Appellants that the District would not provide transportation for permit students. It became the responsibility of the parents.  Appellants raised an objection regarding the provision of such transportation and requested the District provide it. Appellants argue that failure to provide transportation for Kratisha falls under the auspices of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
  Appellees contend that the District has a responsibility to consider cost and duplication of services. They did not contest the conclusion that Kratisha requires transportation. FAPE and related services were not the primary issue in these proceed-ings. The full array of instructional and support services needed by Kratisha were provided at Jefferson High School.  The parents asserted their right to request another school and were informed of the conditions surrounding the exercise of such an option. Appellants asserted that the District could not condition the participation of Kratisha in the transfer program on their agreement to forfeit District-provided transportation as a related service. 
  Appellants asserted that such a condition could be applied to students with disabilities WITHOUT mobility-related disabilities bust if a student has such mobility-related needs the denial of transportation constitutes violations under IDEA and Section 504. However, in this case, Kratisha was determined to be receiving appropriate programming at Jefferson High School. The Kennedy High School program would not be offering needed program elements not available at Jefferson. With regard to transportation services, the evidence doesnt support Kratishas disability-related need to attend a school outside of her geographical attendance area or to be provided transportation.
  Nothing beyond parental preference lead to the need to have transportation services provided.  Appellees prevailed on this issue in this proceeding.
OUTCOMES: N/A