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: 20 
MONTH-YEAR: April - 2002
IN RE: In re Alexander P.
APPELLANT: Allen and Nadine P.
APPELLEE: West Des Moines Community Schhol District & Heartland AEA 11
KEYWORDS: Placement/Appropriate Education Programming
DETAILS: Alex is currently served by an IEP in the third grade.  He is 8 years old and has been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome. He is entitled to the protections of the IDEA. His first IEP was developed in April 2000 and identified 2 goals: Given anger management techniques, opportunities and reinforcement for useage, Alex will decrease his anger management outbursts to 0; and given verbal and non-verbal prompts for classroom activities and student behavior, Alex will comply with the task or behavior-related directions to initiate, change or discontinue a behavior on 90% of opportunities monitored.
  Alex had a difficult first grade and was evaluated during the summer by a licensed clinical psychologist, who indicated a BD classroom would not be appropriate for Alex. Alexs IEP was reviewed three times in the Fall of 2000. He began third grade in the general education classroom with a one-to-one associate.
  The administrative law judge had to consider the question of whether Alexs presence in the general education classroom created such a changed environment so as to significantly change the climate and subsequently impair the learning of his peers. The ALJ also considered whether the supports provided for Alex have been provided to meet the standards of reasonableness. The question of whether Alex is progressing within his current program and services is pivotal. In contrast, the consequence of Alex being placed in a more restrictive setting and the potential negative consequences of an intensive compliance based program being proposed by school personnel was be weighted.
  Appellants asserted that Alexequires more structured instruction in the area of social skills instruction.  Testimony supported the need for such services.
OUTCOMES: Appellants prevailed in both of the substantive matters in this case. The need for Alex being placed into the specialized behavioral disorders/social skills program was not supported.