RUNNING HEAD: Due Process

Due Process
Samantha Olivieri
University of New England
EDU 720: Special Education Law for the Class
April 16th, 2016

RUNNING HEAD: Due Process

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:

SUPERINTENDENT X

FROM:

SAMANTHA OLIVIERI

SUBJECT:

DUE PROCESS

DATE:
CC:

Dear Superintendent X,
It has come to my attention that Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the parents of
Jane Smith, have filed for due process on behalf of their daughter. Jane has
been receiving services for a specific learning disability in reading and writing
since the third grade. The student has been suspended several times for
verbal incidents with peers and staff. The parents have requested the child
be evaluated for an ADHD diagnosis and compiled a list of demands. After a
recent IEP meeting to discuss their concerns, the IEP team expressed that
they felt Janes behavior was within her control. Our administrator informed
the parents that they could reconvene in the event they brought forth a
diagnosis from a physician. After this meeting, the parents hired an advocate
and filed for due process.
It is in the districts favor that the parents never notified the district in
writing of their concern regarding an ADHD diagnosis, nor did they request
and evaluation prior to the behavior incidents. Aside from the 1:1 aid, and
ADHD evaluation, the majority of parental requests are of minimal cost to the
district. Although writing has stagnated, Jane progressed in her reading
goals. The IEP currently feels as though Janes behavior is not a result of her
current diagnosis. If that were to be true, the district would not be at fault

RUNNING HEAD: Due Process

and her behaviors would not be considered a manifestation of her specific

learning disability. The parents were informed at the end of last year of an
annual review meeting. We ought to retrieve more information to determine if
the parents received two forms of written notice, in regards to the meeting/
amendments to the IEP, which were made without the involvement of Mr. and
Mrs. Smith.
The following areas should be of concern to the district. Janes special
educator was aware that her IEP was not meeting her needs, and made no
effort to adjust her programming in order to make progress toward her goals.
It is also worth noting, that the teacher took no recorded data over the course
of the year to prove or disprove Janes progress. This is in direct violation of
Janes right to a FAPE under IDEA (Hulett, 2009). The student has been
suspended for more than 10 days, which results in a manifestation
determination meeting and a change of placement since the incidents are
substantially similar. A formal meeting should have been held (K.12. WA.US).
At the most recent meeting the team stated that her behavior was not a
result of her disability, but if she is diagnosed with ADHD, as the parents
suggest, this could impact the manifestation determination. Based on the
initial indicators and the information presented, on the surface I predict that
Jane will qualify for an ADHD diagnosis.
It is my recommendation that we proceed with the following course of
action. I believe that we may be able to reconcile without having a due
process hearing. We ought to encourage the parents to engage in a
facilitated meeting with us. Allowing a neutral party to facilitate the

RUNNING HEAD: Due Process

conversation, and knowing that the teacher previously had a positive working
relationship with the family, we may be able to settle outside of a hearing. If
an agreement is not made in this session, we could move forward with an
ombudsperson (CADRE, n.d).
The district should encourage the parents to have a comprehensive
evaluation done through Janes pediatrician, suggesting that it provides a
more thorough analysis of her needs. This would save the district money,
however, I do not foresee them agreeing to this. At this point the district will
agree to evaluating Jane through an outside provider, as school psychologists
cannot diagnose, and we are required to evaluate upon request (CPSU, 2016).
In lieu of a costly 1:1 aid, we will add an organizational goal to her existing
IEP and add a 30-minute consultation weekly with her special education
teacher to meet her organizational needs. Rather than the teachers emailing home every day, Jane will be given an agenda, which her teachers
will sign after each class. This will be tied to her organizational goal. Since
Janes teacher made no documented efforts to improve Janes programming,
the district will provide Jane with a tutor for one month. The district will
provide Jane with an OT evaluation, and add services and goals accordingly. If
Jane is found to have ADHD, the district proposes to wait on an FBA to see
what improvements are made with the additional services she receives.
Additional accommodations will be added to the existing IEP to incorporate
sensory diet strategies such as frequent breaks.
If she does not receive a diagnosis, the district will refer Jane to the
school-based support team to initiate the intervention process. If at the end

RUNNING HEAD: Due Process

of the process, her behaviors do not improve, the district will utilize the BCBA
to implement a formal plan for Jane. If found to have ADHD, Jane will be
allowed to retake tests she failed during this time, as the family could argue
that the LEA knew about an existing disability. The district will agree to
shorten the length of in-assignments that involve reading and writing, and
Jane can utilize frequent breaks for other classroom tasks. Jane will be
allotted a one-day extension on assignments without penalty, with prior
acknowledgment from the associated teacher.
The first steps moving forward are that the district should reach out
and request a facilitated meeting with parents before moving to a hearing.
The district must determine whether the parents were notified appropriately
of the previous annual review of which they were not in attendance,
anecdotal or test results of the students working memory (possible sign of
ADHD), and determine whether a proper manifestation meeting was held
after the 10th day of suspension.

RUNNING HEAD: Due Process

References

CADRE. (n.d.) Continuum of processes and practices. Retrieved from

http://www.
directionservice.org/cadre/continuumnava.cfm
CDC. (2016). Symptoms and diagnosis. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov
/ncbddd/adhd/diagnosis.html
CPSU. Who can diagnose LD or ADHD. Retrieved from
http://drc.calpoly.edu/
content/eligibility/whoCanDiagnose

RUNNING HEAD: Due Process

Hulett, K.E. (2009). Legal aspects of special education. Upper Saddle
River,
NJ: Pearson.
K.12. US. WA (n.d.) Overview of discipline procedures for students
receiving special
education services. Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd
/Families/pubdocs/SpEd_DisciplineFlowchart.pdf