Whether the individualized education program (IEP) contained a placement that was appropriate to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
Whether school division must reimburse parents for expenses incurred in connection with a private placement?
Whether the extended school year (ESY) programming contained a placement and services that were appropriate to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether the school division denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to fully implement the 2002-03 individualized education program (IEP)?
Whether the 2003-04 IEP contained a placement and services that provided FAPE?
Whether the proposed 2004-05 IEP contained a placement and services that provided FAPE?
Whether the school division must reimburse the parents for expenses incurred in connection with a private placement?
Whether the individualized education program (IEP) contained a placement that was appropriate to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
Whether the IEP contained services that were appropriate to provide FAPE?
Whether the school division committed procedural violations during the development of the student's individualized education programs (IEPs)?
Whether the school division failed to properly implement the student's 2003-04 IEP?
Whether the school division failed to provide the student appropriate extended school year (ESY) programming?
Whether the 2004-05 IEP contained a placement that was appropriate to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
Whether school division must reimburse parents for expenses incurred in connection with a private placement?
Whether the individualized education program (IEP) contained a placement that was appropriate to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
Whether a noncompliance finding by the Virginia Department of Education in a state complaint was incorrect?
Whether the school division properly demonstrated that the child's behavior in sexually harassing two students was not a manifestation of the child's disability?
Whether the student's alternative educational placement was appropriate?
Whether the individualized education program (IEP) contained an appropriate placement, modifications, and accommodations?
Whether the school division denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by not allowing an amendment to the student's individualized education program (IEP) to provide for a specific accommodation?
Whether the offered individualized education programs (IEPs) for the student provided for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when specific amounts of one-to-one instruction were not provided?
Whether the parent should be reimbursed for private placement in a Lindamood-Bell program with related services?
Whether an Independent Hearing Officer may proceed to a due process hearing when there is no actual dispute between the parent and the school division?
Whether an Independent Hearing Officer may conduct a due process hearing on a claim for damages from the school division on behalf of the student?
Whether the school division's proposed individualized education program (IEP) offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) so that the parent would not receive reimbursement for a private placement initiated by the parent?
Whether notice of a long-term suspension was provided to the student and his parents?
Whether the local educational agency (LEA) considered all relevant and material information regarding the student, including information supplied by the parent?
Whether the individualized education program (IEP) team included necessary persons?
Whether the behavioral intervention plan (BIP) of October 8, 2004 was properly implemented by the local educational agency (LEA)?
Whether the student's disability impaired the student's ability to control the behavior subject to the disciplinary action?
Whether the local educational agency (LEA) must reimburse the parent for the costs of an independent educational examination (IEE)?
Whether the parent is entitled to reimbursement for certain special education services obtained by the parent prior to the eventual finding of eligibility for services?
Whether the current due process proceeding is barred by a final decision in a prior due process proceeding covering the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and related services for the same time period?
Whether a parent may obtain an independent Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) as part of the independent educational evaluation (IEE) process?
Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that was reasonably designed to provide educational benefit for the student?
Whether the parent was entitled to reimbursement for a unilateral private placement of the student?
Whether the student is eligible for retroactive access to Virginia's Comprehensive Services Act funds when a current individualized education program (IEP) does not support the placement?
Whether the student has been discriminated against by the school division because of a delay in establishing a certain placement thereby warranting relief under Section 504?
Whether the school division provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student without the constant presence of a Russian speaking dedicated aide?
Whether a student can switch from a modified standard diploma to a standard diploma program without an individualized education program (IEP) team determination?
Whether student was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) by placement in a MR-Adaptive classroom rather than a MR-Academic classroom?
Whether the parent provided effective consent to a change in placement?
Whether the placement of the student complied with his current individualized education program (IEP)?
Whether the school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) without certain supplemental services?
Whether the parent is entitled to reimbursement for certain private placements when the school division offered placement in an appropriate public school setting?
Whether a parent's request for a due process hearing under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is time barred for events that occurred more than one year prior to the request?
Whether an Independent Hearing Officer has jurisdiction to adjudicate special education issues in a due process hearing when the student is enrolled in another school division?
Whether the school division is required to provide extended school year (ESY) services to a student who does not exhibit regression when substitute services are provided by the parent during academic breaks?
Whether the student was entitled to IDEA protections because the school division knew or should have known that the student was a child with a disability because of certain e-mail messages that the student's parent sent to the student's teachers and the student's lack of academic progress?
Whether there was discrimination against the student in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when the student was suspended and transferred to another school building?
Whether the school division violated its child find responsibilities by failing to conduct an earlier evaluation of the student?
Whether a proposed placement of an emotionally disturbed student in a particular self-contained program in conformity with the student's individualized education program (IEP) provides the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Was the manifestation determination review decision warranted in light of student's emotional disturbance (ED) disability?
Did the student's individualized education program (IEP) which included a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student?
Did procedural errors committed by the local educational agency (LEA) deny the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether or not the refusal of the student's parents to grant consent for the school division to conduct an evaluation of their child for purposes of determining his eligibility for special education services should be overridden?
