ISBE due-process decision · FY 2016

Illinois due-process decision 2015-0370: district prevailed

The parents sought an out-of-state residential placement, arguing the therapeutic day school could not provide needed intensity. The hearing officer found the IEP appropriate, the student progressing, and residential placement needed for supervisory or medical rather than educational reasons, denying relief.

Outcome: District prevailedDisability: AutismHearing officer: Kathleen FuhrmannFull decision (PDF, ISBE)
Filed by
The parent
Issues in dispute
Private/residential placement & reimbursementPlacement/LREIEP adequacy/implementationTransition/secondary services
Relief ordered
None; residential placement denied.
From the decision
The Parents' request for relief is denied.
ISBE removes the district's and student's names from every decision, so this case can't be linked to a specific district. The summary and outcome label were drafted with AI assistance from the decision's full text and checked against its order (how); the decision PDF is the authoritative record. This is not legal advice.

Decisions on similar issues

District prevailed The parent challenged the district's decision that the student no longer qualified for special education, alleging inadequate evaluation…
Parent prevailed The parents alleged the district denied FAPE in the least restrictive environment by failing to provide an appropriate general education…
District prevailed The parent challenged the residential facility the district chose to implement the agreed residential placement, later seeking…
District prevailed The self-represented parent alleged the district failed to implement the transfer student's IEP and improperly required a pre-start…
District prevailed The self-represented parents challenged the district's executive functioning services, implementation of IEP goals and accommodations…
Split decision The parents alleged the IEP's speech minutes were insufficient and the district missed five months of required speech services; the…
Case 2015-0350All decisionsCase 2015-0383