28 IDELR 904

28 LRP 5097

Georgetown Independent School District

Texas State Educational Agency

214-SE-398

June 2, 1998

Case Summary

The hearing officer addressed the allegations relating to the discipline imposed on a 12-year-old student with a LD and ADHD who brought a knife to school, and concluded no violations occurred. The student was assigned to an alternative school after a manifestation meeting was conducted, at which it was determined the student's misconduct was not related to his disability. While attending the alternative school, the student had access to the general curriculum, his IEP was implemented, and the district took steps to ensure he would not engage in similar misconduct again. The alternative school was an appropriate placement, and the student made progress during his placement there. The parents absence from an administrative placement review meeting did not result in a procedural violation, as parents have no right to attend this meeting. Further, the district complied with all procedural requirements when imposing discipline on the student.

After being caught with a knife at school, a 12-year-old student with a learning disability and ADHD was suspended for three days and assigned to an alternative school for 20 days. The decision to assign the student to the alternative school was made after an administrative placement review meeting. The parents were unable to attend this meeting, and the district refused to reschedule it. Shortly thereafter, the parents requested a due process hearing, claiming the district denied the student a FAPE. According to the parents, the district committed procedural and substantive violations with respect to the imposition of discipline, identifying the student, the provision of related services, the student's placement and his IEPs. As relief, the parents sought compensatory education, a summer program, a district-funded IEE, and reimbursement for the costs of two IEEs the parents arranged for. The district filed a counterclaim challenging the request for reimbursement of the IEEs, asserting its recent evaluation of the student was appropriate.

HELD: for the district.

First, the hearing officer addressed the allegations relating to the disciplinary proceedings, and concluded no violations occurred. The student was assigned to the alternative school after a manifestation determination meeting was conducted, and it was determined the student's misconduct was not related to his disability. While attending the alternative school, the student had access to the general curriculum, his IEP was implemented, and the district took steps to ensure he would not engage in similar misconduct again. The alternative school was an appropriate placement, and the student made progress during his placement there. The parents' absence from the placement review meeting did not result in a procedural violation, as parents have no right to attend this meeting. Further, the district complied with all procedural requirements when imposing discipline on the student. Based on these findings, the hearing officer concluded no violation occurred during the disciplinary proceedings. Second, the hearing officer determined the student was classified appropriately. Contrary to the parents' assertions, the student did not qualify for services under the categories of serious emotional disturbance, speech impairment, hearing impairment or visual impairment. There was no evidence indicating the student should be classified under any other category but learning disabled. Although the student had been diagnosed with dysthymia, there was no evidence his performance at school was affected by his condition. Next, the hearing officer concluded the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of the IEEs they arranged. The recent district evaluation was appropriate, therefore, IEEs were unwarranted. Lastly, the hearing officer determined the student's IEP provided him with a FAPE in the LRE. There was no evidence the student's placement was inappropriate, and he was making academic progress. The student was placed in the LRE due to his placement in regular education with supplementary aids and services. Because the district provided the student with a FAPE in the LRE, the hearing officer refused to award compensatory education or order the district to provide the student with a summer program.

Judge / Administrative Officer

Janis Herd., Hearing Officer

Full Text

Counsel for Parents: Karen Key Johnson, Austin, TX.

Counsel for District: Denise Hays, Elena Gallegos, Bridget Robinson, Walsh Anderson et al., Austin, TX.

Statement of the Case

David A. (David), by next friend Diane A., requested a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.

Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that Respondent Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) failed to: timely assess and identify all suspected disabilities; provide a timely and proper manifestation determination based on appropriate assessment data; provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE); provide placement in the least restrictive environment appropriate; provide appropriate assessments and appropriate related services, including occupational therapy, counseling, parent counseling and training, social work services, and tutoring; provide an appropriate IEP with appropriate modifications and measurable goals and objectives; provide a timely behavioral intervention plan; provide a stay-put placement after David brought a knife to school; ensure the attendance of David and his parents at an administrative disciplinary committee meeting; provide notice of parental rights; provide a proper ARD committee meeting because a meeting was recessed by school personnel and not reconvened within 10 days of recess, and because a juvenile probation officer was present at the meeting.

Petitioner's requested relief included compensatory services, summer school, an independent psycho-educational assessment, and reimbursement to the parent for all expenses relating to assessments and counseling.

Held for Respondent.

Procedural History

Petitioner's request for hearing was filed with the Commissioner of Education on March 18, 1998. Petitioner was represented by Karen Key Johnson, Attorney at Law, Austin, Texas, who was assisted at hearing by Carol Sprott, paralegal. Respondent Georgetown ISD was represented by Denise Hays, Elena Gallegos, and Bridget Robinson of Walsh Anderson et al, Austin, Texas.

On March 25, 1998, the Hearing Officer issued an order setting the due process hearing for April 16 and 17, 1998. A continuance was requested by Respondent due to a scheduling conflict of Respondent's counsel. The continuance was granted and the hearing was reset to April 20 and 21, 1998. On April 2, 1998, Respondent filed a counterclaim on the issue of whether Petitioner was entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense. The Hearing Officer ordered that issue to be heard as part of the due process hearing already scheduled.

During the first day of hearing, Petitioner's counselor requested additional time to present Petitioner's case. This request was granted and the hearing lasted approximately 3.5 days, taking place on April 20, 21, and 22, and May 4, 1998. Sixteen witnesses testified on behalf of Petitioner. Eight witnesses testified on behalf of Respondent.

The parties agreed to file post-hearing closing statements and briefs on May 19, 1998, and agreed that the Decision by the Hearing Officer would be issued on or before June 2, 1998. Respondent timely filed its post-hearing closing statement and brief. Petitioner requested and received an extension, and filed a post-hearing closing statement and brief on May 21, 1998.

Based on the evidence and arguments of counsel, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

Background

1. David A. is a 12-year-old male student who was in sixth grade at the time of the hearing at Tippit Middle School in Georgetown ISD (GISD). He is classified for special education purposes as a student with a learning disability in written expression. His placement was changed from resource to regular education with content mastery during or after second grade. He previously carried the additional classification of speech impairment, but was dismissed from speech at the end of third grade when he no longer met eligibility criteria. He was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 1991, for which he takes Ritalin.

2. David has difficulties with spelling and writing, and in completing his math homework. He is in regular education classes with content mastery support. He receives appropriate classroom modifications to address his disabilities and his health problems, including a vision problem and ADHD.

Assessments

3. A comprehensive individual assessment (CIA) of David was completed on March 1, 1998, by Regina Gilchriest, GISD educational diagnostician, based on testing and information gathered in February 1998. David continued to be eligible for special education under the classification learning disabled in written expression.

4. A psychological assessment of David was performed by Dr. Douglas Keene on April 1, 1998, while David was attending the Georgetown Alternative Program (GAP). Dr. Keene diagnosed ADHD and Developmental Expressive Writing Disorder. He found that David is sensitive to rejection, tends to react to rejection with social withdrawal and anger, may bottle up his feelings, was unhappy and anxious about attending the GAP, and looked forward to returning to his regular campus. However, Dr. Keene found David not to have an emotional disturbance. David's anxiety is a normal response to being arrested and placed on an alternative campus. Dr. Keene reviewed school records and records of prior assessments. His own testing and the assessments he reviewed included at least four self-reports in which David consistently described himself as generally happy and having friends and reasonably good self-esteem. David's mother told Dr. Keene that David's medication had been adjusted two weeks prior to the assessment date.

5. A psychological assessment, dated April 15, 1998, was obtained by the parents from Dr. Kevin McFarley, based on testing performed by Dr. McFarley and his assistant, Carol Mitchum, M.A., L.P.C. intern, on April 3 and April 6, 1998. Dr. McFarley diagnosed David as having dysthymia, which is chronic low-grade depression. Dr. McFarley administered the Children's Depression Inventory but used a version he got from a journal some years ago rather than the official published test, and did not use the accompanying manual for the test. He also used his own scoring system for the Hansburg Separation Anxiety test administered by Dr. Keene, rather than the standard scoring instrument. According to Dr. Keene, Dr. McFarley made clerical and numerical errors on the form he used to interpret the Hansburg test.

6. Dr. McFarley referred David for a psychiatric consultation with Dr. Harry B. Rauch to consider whether his ADHD medication should be changed. At the time of the hearing, Dr. Rauch had seen David only once, on an emergency basis on April 13, 1998, due to urinary retention symptoms. Dr. Rauch testified he "saw him as having an adjustment disorder with anxious mood at the very least," and wanted to see David subsequently "on a month-long basis and see if I could include . . . a formal diagnosis of . . . anxiety disorder. . . . " Tr. 93. Dr. Rauch did not see the knife incident as indicating a psychiatric disorder and agreed that it could be described as a stupid mistake by a sixth grader. He attributed the adjustment disorder to the arrest and other recent events surrounding the knife incident, not just the GAP placement.

7. The urinary retention problem is of recent origin and was first reported while David was attending GAP, but also recurred after he left the GAP and was back in his regular placement. Urinary retention can be exacerbated by Ritalin, as Dr. Rauch testified.

8. Mr. Jose Cardenas, a social worker, counseled David during 1991 and 1992, and again for several visits after the knife incident. He described David as immature, having fluid self-esteem, nonaggressive, and anxious about the arrest and GAP placement. He attended David's ARD committee meetings on March 6 and March 24, 1998, and opposed placing David in the GAP.

9. Neither Dr. McFarley, Dr. Rauch, nor Mr. Cardenas had visited the GAP or had outside knowledge of it other than the parent's description of it.

Disciplinary Procedures

10. On February 26, 1998, David brought a switchblade knife to school. The arresting officer found the knife to be an illegal weapon and arrested him. School officials initially considered expelling David. Mrs. A. was told that an administrative meeting would be held March 6, 1998 to decide David's placement, but that meeting did not take place till later. At one point school staff notified the parents that David would only serve three days suspension and then attend in-school suspension. David served a three-day suspension beginning the day of the arrest, then returned to his regular program for several days.

11. An ARD committee meeting was held on March 6, 1998, to review the March 1, 1998 CIA and determine if David's behavior of bringing a knife to school was a manifestation of his disability. Petitioner's attorney was present and Respondent's attorney was not. A juvenile probation officer also was present for at least part of the meeting. Petitioner questioned his identity but did not request that he leave. The March 1, 1998 CIA was reviewed. David's teachers described his progress in their respective classes. Ms. Ferguson, the content mastery teacher, noted a drastic improvement in his attitude about accepting her help in recent weeks. At the request of Petitioner's attorney, the committee agreed to provide a psychological evaluation, although district personnel did not believe a psychological evaluation was warranted. Before the manifestation determination was performed, Stephanie Blanck, special education director, recessed the meeting because she believed the district needed the advice of its legal counsel to proceed.

12. Spring break for GISD was March 9-13, 1998. Therefore, no school days occurred for purposes of computing procedural timelines during that week. Tippit Middle School principal Carlos Cantu, by letter dated March 10, 1998, informed the parents that in lieu of expulsion, he was ordering David to attend GAP for 20 school days, beginning on March 17, 1998, pending the result of a District Placement Review Committee meeting on Monday, March 16, 1998. David and his family were unable to attend the review committee meeting because it coincided with David's great-grandmother's funeral. On March 16, 1998, Mrs. A. left a message with school staff requesting that the meeting be rescheduled to after the funeral so that the family could attend. Linda Taylor, the GAP principal and the facilitator of the review committee meeting, knew about the funeral but chose to go forward with the meeting as scheduled. The review committee agreed with the principal's assignment of David to GAP. The district's actions in changing its plans about how to discipline David and in holding the review committee meeting without them resulted in stress and confusion to David and his parents.

13. The ARD committee meeting that recessed on March 6, 1998, was reconvened on March 24, 1998. The committee performed a functional behavioral assessment and developed a behavioral intervention plan. The school staff members of the ARD committee concluded that David's act of bringing a knife to school was not a manifestation of his learning disability or his ADHD, and that the GAP was an appropriate placement for him. David's parents and his social worker, Mr. Cardenas, disagreed with the manifestation determination and with the placement at the GAP.

14. David received an appropriate education at the GAP that allowed him to continue participating in the general curriculum and that addressed his special education needs and provided appropriate modifications, as well as providing a program to deter future instances of bringing a weapon to school. At least three special education teachers were available at the GAP, and his content mastery teacher, Ms. Ferguson, visited the GAP and discussed his modifications with his teachers there. Ms. Ferguson and other staff observed him participating in group activities and interacting normally with other students while at the GAP.

Educational Program

15. Several ARD committee meetings were held during fall 1997 at the request of David's mother to address his frustration and difficulty in completing math homework. He spends long periods of time on his math homework and his parents believe he would not get it done without his father's help. Dr. McFarley testified that David's problems with getting his math homework finished may be due to having ADHD and consequently having trouble staying on task. David's mother told the ARD committee in March 1998 that his medication has completely worn off by evening.

16. David's sixth-grade math teacher, Sherlyn Novak, had 18 students in her class. David received classroom modifications and content mastery support for math, as well as other subjects. Additional math modifications were added during the fall 1997 ARD committee meetings. Modifications provided by Ms. Novak included redirecting, refocusing, preferential seating near the teacher, extra time to complete assignments, reduced assignments, modified tests, and modified problem sets. To address his vision problems, Ms. Novak supplied paper copies of notes and of information she put on the overhead projector, although David preferred to look at the overhead instead of the paper, and was able to read what was on the overhead out loud to her. To fulfill the assignment notebook modification, a separate notebook for math was provided, containing his modified problems sets for the week.

17. David finished his tests in math class promptly, within 45 minutes. He received direct instruction from Ms. Novak, and went to Jennifer Ferguson in content mastery for the independent practice part of the class. During fall 1997, Ms. Ferguson began using a timer to remind her to check David's progress on math problems approximately every five minutes. David attends content mastery at least 30 minutes per week in math. During the third nine weeks, he spent 1200 minutes in content mastery, according to Ms. Ferguson.

18. David's grades in math and other academic subjects were B's and C's during fourth and fifth grades. In sixth grade, at the time of the hearing he had made B's and C's in all subjects for me first three nine-week grading periods, with the exception of math. He made a failing grade of 63 in math the second nine-week grading period, but brought it up to 76 for the third nine-week period. The improvement followed a change in his medication in the fall of 1997. His math average while assigned to the GAP was 90. David passed both the reading and math portions of the 5th grade Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test. Both the March 1, 1998 CIA and Dr. McFarley's report found David to be at or above grade level in mathematics.

Assessment and Identification of Disabilities

19. Both before and after the knife incident, David's demeanor at school is perceived by his teachers as a normal boy who is making educational progress, is generally compliant, and is not a discipline problem. Other than one discipline referral in August 1996 for kicking another student, he has not received office referrals prior to the knife incident. He makes B's and C's for the most part, and passes from grade to grade. He tends to get off-task in class, especially when his medication for ADHD is wearing off, but usually is easily redirected by his teachers. At times his activity level is high. The March 1, 1998 CIA reflects that concern was expressed by one or more teachers that he has difficulty working with peers; however, he has been observed by numerous school staff participating in games and normal social interactions with his classmates, at both his regular campus and the GAP. His off-task behavior at school frequently consists of talking to his classmates.

20. David has friends at school. He has satisfactory relationships with peers and teachers. He has not exhibited at school a characteristic over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects his educational performance. His anxiety about being arrested and placed in AEP was not abnormal for a boy who has never been in serious trouble before, and such anxiety has not been exhibited over a long period of time. Further, it did not affect his educational performance at the GAP, where he did well academically and behaviorally.

21. David has a musculature problem with his eyes, for which he wears glasses. He has had eye surgery in the past to correct crossed eyes, and is expected to have eye surgery again. His corrected vision with glasses is 20/20. He receives classroom modifications such as preferential seating and written copies of work put on the overhead projector, and his vision does not interfere with his classwork. Although his mother has reported that he has vision problems at home and alerted his teachers to watch for this, his teachers have not seen this at school and have seen no interference with his education due to his vision. During her testing for the March 1, 1998 CIA, Ms. Gilchriest noticed his eye pulling to the left at one point and asked David if he wanted to take a break. His testing was not affected. The CIA's performed by the district dated April 24, 1995, and March 1, 1998, tested visual-motor integration and indicated that David was in the average range of reproducing and integrating visual information.

22. David does not have a hearing problem or auditory processing problem that affects his education. David is appropriately classified as learning disabled in written expression. David has received timely and appropriate assessments by the district.

Discussion

Disciplinary Procedures

On February 26, 1998, David, a sixth-grader, brought a switchblade knife to school and showed it to another student, who took it to the principal. District personnel called police, who identified the knife as an illegal weapon and arrested David. He was suspended from school for three days, beginning the day of the arrest. District personnel initially informed his mother that he would be expelled, apparently believing they had no choice due to the "mandatory" expulsion provision for bringing a weapon to school in Tex. Educ. Code § 37.007. The district ultimately assigned David to an alternative educational placement, the GAP, for 20 school days, of which he attended approximately eleven days. He was not expelled and no expulsion hearing was held. The GAP placement was appropriate and the relevant IDEA procedural safeguards were provided for this placement. Twenty days in an alternative education placement was not an excessive or inappropriate consequence for bringing a knife to school, and took into account David's status as a special education student and one who had not serious prior disciplinary infractions. His placement there was designed to address the behavior of bringing a knife to school and prevent a recurrence. He was provided an appropriate education and performed well at the GAP, both academically and behaviorally.

Tippit Middle School principal Carlos Cantu, by letter dated March 10, 1998, informed the parents that in lieu of expulsion, he was ordering David to attend GAP for 20 school days, beginning on March 17, 1998, pending the result of a District Placement Review Committee meeting on Monday, March 16, 1998 (which was the first school day after spring break). David and his family were unable to attend the review committee meeting because it coincided with David's great-grandmother's funeral. On that day, Mrs. A. left a message with school staff requesting that the meeting be rescheduled to after the funeral so that she could attend. Linda Taylor, the GAP principal and the facilitator of the review committee meeting, knew about the funeral but chose to go forward with the meeting, testifying that district policy does not require parental presence at such meetings.

The timing of the review committee meeting was unfortunate, but Petitioner did not demonstrate that the district thereby violated any rights under IDEA. IDEA authorizes school personnel to order a change in the placement of a child with a disability to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 days if the child carries a weapon to school or a school function. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(A). This provision is an exception to the stay-put provision in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j).

The statute does not prescribe which school personnel will make the placement decision or what procedures they will use. It does not require that a committee of administrators review the principal's initial recommendation, as was done in this case, and it does not require that parents attend this or other administrative meetings of school staff concerning the disciplinary decision. IDEA does, however, prescribe detailed procedural protections for the student in this situation, and the district complied with these by holding a timely ARD committee meeting and performing a manifestation determination and a functional behavioral assessment, developing a behavioral intervention plan, and determining that the GAP was an appropriate AEP setting. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B) and (3)-(7).

At the ARD committee meeting held on March 6, 1998, Petitioner's attorney was present and Respondent's attorney was not. After the March 1998 CIA had been reviewed, but before the manifestation determination had been performed, the special education director, Stephanie Blanck, recessed the meeting because she believed the district needed the advice of its legal counsel to proceed. Petitioner argues that the recess was a procedural violation because only a parent can request an ARD committee recess. That argument is without merit. Ms. Blanck and Petitioner's attorney were in disagreement about the application of various special education laws, and the district was entitled to recess to have its attorney present. However, Ms. Blanck incorrectly asserted during the meeting that parents must speak for themselves. Parents can choose to have an attorney or other advocate speak for them at an ARD committee meeting, and their doing so would not be a valid reason for the district to recess a meeting.

The ARD committee meeting was resumed on March 24, 1998, which was within the timelines required by IDEA for the manifestation determination and other procedural requirements discussed above.

Petitioner did not demonstrate error in the ARD committee determination that David's bringing a knife to school was not a manifestation of his learning disability or his ADHD. The knife incident appears to be an isolated instance of poor judgment, perhaps triggered by his pride in the knife collection he keeps at home. The manifestation determination was based on a recent CIA completed shortly after the knife incident. Information was provided by the parent as part of the CIA and also in the ARD committee meeting held to do the manifestation determination. David has been well-behaved at school both before and after bringing the knife to school. He did not threaten anyone with the knife and appeared remorseful about having made a mistake. Under the circumstances, the fact that he brought a knife to school did not trigger a duty to perform a psychological assessment, and did not render the recent CIA inappropriate because it did not include a psychological assessment. The school later did provide a psychological assessment at the parent's request, and it found David not to have an emotional disturbance.

Assessment and Identification of Disabilities

Petitioner did not demonstrate that David should be classified as having a serious emotional disturbance (SED). Petitioner asserted that David has dysthymia, an adjustment disorder, and possibly an anxiety disorder. The school's March 1, 1998 CIA and Dr. Keene's psychological evaluation found no such disabilities, and Petitioner did not demonstrate that David has exhibited a symptom or characteristic over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects his educational performance. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(b)(9). Although he has ADHD, it is controlled by medication and addressed by classroom modifications, and does not warrant an SED classification. As Dr. Keene testified, David's anxiety about being arrested and placed in an AEP appears normal for a boy who is not accustomed to being in trouble. Anxiety did not impair his educational performance because he did well at the GAP, earning "merits" for good behavior and making good grades. His urinary retention problems emerged while he was at the GAP, but were not shown to be caused by anxiety about the GAP, because his mother testified that the problem had recurred at least once after he returned to the regular classroom. The urinary problems are recent, have not occurred over a long period, and may be caused or aggravated by Ritalin. Both Dr. McFarley and Dr. Rauch expressed concerns that David needed his Ritalin dosage adjusted and/or a different medication.

Although Dr. McFarley testified that David has dysthymia, David has not exhibited symptoms of even mild depression at school. Other than the isolated knife incident, David exhibits good behavior at school, and his parents have reported good behavior at home. He appears to have normal social interactions, and in fact plays and talks with other students enough that his teachers must sometimes intervene and redirect him to his work. David has been generally successful at school, making B's and C's in recent years with the exception of failing math one nine-week period last fall. He passed both the reading and math sections of the TAAS in fifth grade, and has moved to progressively less restrictive placements during his academic career.

David is appropriately classified as learning disabled in written expression. Petitioner did not demonstrate an educational need for identifying David as having vision impairment, speech impairment, auditory processing or hearing impairment. Petitioner also did not demonstrate a lack of timely and appropriate assessment of David's disabilities.

Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)

Respondent filed a counterclaim as part of this proceeding, asserting that its March 1998 CIA and the psychological assessment the district provided were appropriate, thereby precluding Petitioner's claim that the district pay for the IEE obtained by Petitioner. Respondent's CIA and psychological assessment were appropriate. Petitioner is not entitled to an IEE at public expense.

Educational Program

The burden is on Petitioner, the party challenging the educational program, to prove it is not appropriate.Tatro v. State of Texas, 703 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1983), aff'd 468 U.S. 883 (1984). Petitioner did not demonstrate that David's IEP, placement, or program were inappropriate. David was in a resource placement early in his elementary years. He was moved out of resource prior to third grade, and dismissed from speech therapy at the end of third grade. David's current placement is in the regular classroom with content mastery and appropriate classroom modifications to address his learning disability, his ADHD, and his vision problems. He receives numerous classroom modifications, but he does not receive modified grading criteria, and he is passing from grade to grade. He is receiving a FAPE in the least restrictive environment appropriate.

Although David struggles with math homework, he is passing math and he passed the fifth-grade math TAAS test. Both the school's March 1998 CIA and Petitioner's own expert, Dr. McFarley, found him to be on or above grade level in math. David's parents are frustrated that he did not finish more of his math homework during content mastery and spent a lot of time on math at home. His medication has worn off by evening and it is difficult for him to stay on task at that time. While the school needs to continue to take initiative to ensure that he works diligently on math during content mastery, Petitioner has not demonstrated a denial of FAPE concerning math or other academic subjects.

Conclusions of Law

1. David A. qualifies for special education and related services as a student who has a specific learning disability in written expression. He also has medical diagnoses of ADHD and a problem with the musculature of his eyes. He is entitled to a free appropriate public education under IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and related statutes and regulations; 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(a)(10).

2. David A. resides in Georgetown ISD, a legally constituted independent school district within the State of Texas.

3. David A. has an appropriate IEP, has received a free appropriate public education and an educational benefit, and has made educational progress in Georgetown ISD. Hendrick Hudson District Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

4. David A. is placed in the least restrictive environment appropriate. Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Educ.,874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).

5. David A. was appropriately placed by the district in an alternative education placement for 20 days. The district timely provided the procedural safeguards prescribed by IDEA for placing a disabled student who brings a weapon to school in an alternative education placement, including a timely ARD committee meeting, performing an appropriate manifestation determination and functional behavioral assessment, developing an appropriate behavioral intervention plan, and determining an appropriate alternative education setting. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B) and (3)---(7).

6. The manifestation determination performed by the ARD committee was based on proper assessment, as well as information supplied by the parents, observations of the child, and consideration of the child's IEP and placement. Petitioner did not prove error in the determination that David's bringing a knife to school was not a manifestation of his learning disability or his ADHD. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4).

7. Petitioner did not show an IDEA violation on the part of GISD in its recessing an ARD committee meeting attended by Petitioner's legal counsel so that the district's legal counsel could attend.

8. Petitioner did not show an IDEA violation on the part of GISD in its failure to reschedule an administrative disciplinary committee meeting so that David and his parents could attend.

9. Petitioner did not show an IDEA violation on the part of GISD by the presence of a probation officer at the March 6, 1998, ARD committee meeting.

10. The Georgetown Alternative Program was an appropriate placement for David and he received an appropriate education while attending there. He continued to participate in the general curriculum, received services and modification described in his IEP, and received services and modifications designed to prevent his behavior of bringing a weapon to school from recurring. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3).

11. Under the exception to the stay-put provision for bringing a weapon to school, David A. was not entitled to a stay-put placement in regular education pending the decision of the Hearing Officer in this due process hearing. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(ii).

12. Petitioner did not prove that GISD failed to provide appropriate and timely assessments, or that GISD failed to timely identify a disability or disabilities. David A. was not shown to qualify for special education as a student who has a serious emotional disturbance, vision impairment, speech impairment, hearing impairment, or auditory processing disorder. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7.

13. David A. was not shown to meet IDEA criteria for serious emotional disturbance because he was not shown to have a condition over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects his educational performance in conformity with 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9).

14. The March 1998 comprehensive individual assessment was an appropriate CIA. The April 1998 psychological assessment by Dr. Keene was an appropriate assessment. Petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement for the independent educational assessment obtained by the parents. 34 C.F.R. § 300.503.

15. Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof necessary to prove entitlement to related and support services including occupational therapy, counseling, parent counseling and training, social work services, or tutoring. Tatro v. Texas, 703 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1983).

16. Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof necessary to show entitlement to compensatory services, summer school, an independent psycho-educational assessment, or reimbursement for expenses relating to assessments and counseling. Tatro v. Texas, 703 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1983).

Statutes Cited

20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(A)

20 U.S.C. 1415(j)

20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(B)

20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3)-(7)

20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(4)

20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3)

20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(ii)

Regulations Cited

34 C.F.R. 300.7(b)(9)

34 C.F.R. 300.7(a)(10)

34 C.F.R. 300.7

34 C.F.R. 300.7(9)

34 C.F.R. 300.503