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: 19 
MONTH-YEAR: May - 2001
IN RE: In re Casey M.
APPELLANT: Albert City Truesdale Comm. Sch. & AEA 5
APPELLEE: Tracy & Nancy M.
KEYWORDS: Special Education Classification
DETAILS: Casey is a 4th grade student at the Albert City-Truesdale District.  Caseys attendance and health have been good.  One exception was an early indication that Caseys hearing may be a concern.  Records provided evidence that school personnel have shared concerns with Caseys parents regularly, and at the end of his kindergarten year, retention was recommended.  Caseys parents refused to have Casey retained.  They enrolled him into first grade, where limited progress in reading, math and language skills, and poor listening, direction following and independent work skills were noted. These problems were also noted during second grade.  Casey started receiving Title I services and those have been continued since that time.  An individual evaluation was conducted during the spring of 1999 which reported that Casey was performing at the bottom of his class.  On the basis of this evaluation, special education services were recommended, but Tracy M. refused to give consent for Casey to receive special education services.
  Casey enrolled in third grade where his progress continued to be slow.  The District initiated a pre-appeal process in the spring of 2000 which resulted in a mediation session.  It was decided Casey would be enrolled in 4th grade during the 2000-2001 academic year with individual interventions designed and implemented, and the parties would exchange information regarding Caseys progress. The plan developed during the mediation conference was implemented fully.  By November 2000, the parents indicated frustration with plans to provide Casey with additional home instruction as Casey had begun to resist working on the assignments.  Despite modifications made to all subject areas, Casey continued to score at the bottom of his class.  A comprehensive evaluation of Caseys skills was completed in March 2001 by AEA 5.  Caseys test scores showed his performance below grade level. AEA and District personnel met with Tracy M.  The professional members of the multidisciplinary team recommended that Casey receive special education services in the areas of reading and written language and Level 1 services should be delivered via Caseys participa-tion in resource room programming. Tracy refused to give his consent for Casey to receive special education services and an IEP was not developed. The AEA filed a request for a due process hearing with IDOE as a result.
  The issue to be decided in this matter is whether AEA 5 and the District should be allowed to declare Casey an individual entitled to special education services and to proceed with delivering Level 1 services without the consent of his parents. Requirements and procedures to provide an IEP are stated in the IDEA (C.F.R. 300, 1999) and IARSE (281--IAC 41. Evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that appropriate assessment tools and procedures were utilized and assessments designed to gather information from several sources to consider decisions and recommendations were used.
  Casey clearly meets the criteria for classification as an individual eligible for special education services.  Ongoing efforts to address his educational needs with special education have been undertaken.  The District and AEA should proceed with the development of an IEP and a decision regarding Caseys placement.  The multidisciplinary teams recommendation prepared and presented to Tracy M. on March 23, 2001, is approved and the team should proceed with scheduling a meeting to develop an IEP to make a decision regarding his placement.