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

Appeal Decisions


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
BOOK: 14 
MONTH-YEAR: May - 1997
IN RE: In re Amanda S.
APPELLEE: Webster City Community School District & AEA 5
KEYWORDS: Special Education
DETAILS: At dispute in this proceeding were the adequacy of the IEP formulated by the District and AEA; the adequacy of the notice to Appellants regarding a critical staffing on February 11, 1007; and the appropriateness of the District and AEAs recommendation of an out-of-district treatment program in relation to a FAPE to children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Amanda was a 12-year-old sixth grade student in the Districts middle school. Amandas educational diagnosis of behavior disorder was first made in 1991.
  Significant problems emerged in September 1995 as Amanda began fifth grade. She was suspended 3 times by the Ft. Dodge schools, leading to the Districts refusal to provide special education.  She was returned to the District in late September 1995, which resulted in problems because the District did not have a self-contained with little integration program for students with BD. Numerous incidents occurred between September 1995- February 10,1997.  Amandas academic aptitute according to a comprehensive evaluation conducted in 1991 is slightly above average; however, her academic achievement is slightly below avage.
  Although different diagnoses appeared in Amandas psychiatric records, all were in the board ategory of externalizing disorders involving behaviors intended to cause harm. An extensive review of Amandas educational program indicated that she had relatively little contact with regular education classrooms or students due to her defiant, noncompliant, and periodic serious outbursts.  She was placed in a self-contained special education class with little integration. Daily disruptive behaviors as well as the out-of-control episodes had a substantial, negative impact on other students and teachers, threatening their physical safety and disrupting an orderly educational environment.  On the basis of the threat to others alone, the day treatment program would be justifiable legally.
  Amanda was deriving educational benefits from her placement in terms of academic achievement.  The usefulness of those skills was put at such serious risk by her behavioral problems that any speculation of superior academic benefits was overshadowed by her behavioral programming needs. Responsibility for the non-educational costs also are the responsibility of the school since Amanda needed a program with a clinical-therapy component in order for the student to receive an appropriate education.
  A parents health insurance benefits may be used to pay for special education and related services under certain circumstances.  First, the insurance billing must be voluntary if any threat of financial loss to the parent exists. Insurance billling also requires parental consent.