The Student Did Not Require Special Education Transportation; District Provided FAPE
Student v. Lamar CISD, Dkt. No. 050-SE-1014 (Hearing Officer Brenda Rudd, March 9, 2015).
Facts: The student qualified for special education and related services as a student with autism. The student was placed in a general education setting with in-class support for reading, math, English, science, and social studies. The student had private tutoring help as well. A Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE) showed that the student had an overall intellectual ability in the average range of the student’s peers. At an ARD meeting to plan for the 2014-2015 school year, the parents requested that the student be placed at a school that was not the student’s home campus. While transportation was initially offered, difficulties in arranging the bus schedule to accommodate the transportation led the district to inform the parents that transportation would no longer be provided. The parents ultimately requested a due process hearing, challenging the District’s programs and services and requesting extended school day programming and special education transportation.
Holding: The hearing officer determined that the District provided the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and that the student was not entitled to special education transportation services. Throughout the student’s school career, there was no evidence of a need for special transportation. The student had no behavioral problems or serious health conditions that required specialized transportation. In addition, the evidence showed that it would have been unreasonable to expect the District to provide transportation to the student’s school of choice. According to the hearing officer, when a student with a disability elects to attend a school other than the assigned campus closest to the child’s home, generally, the district is not required to provide special transportation as long as the assigned campus is able to provide the student with a free appropriate public education.
The parents also argued that the failure to consider extended-day programming significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The evidence showed, however, that the parent was present at all Admission, Review and Dismissal Committee meetings during the relevant time period and took an active role in all discussions about the student’s progress and educational programming. Although the District may have committed a procedural error in failing to consider all elements of the Autism Supplement, including extended day programming, the procedural error did not result in the denial of FAPE. The District provided the student with a program reasonably calculated to provide the student FAPE. The fact that the student received private tutoring did not demonstrate a denial of FAPE, when the tutoring was designed to bring the student above grade level. The District’s program met IDEA requirements in that it provided the student with a basic floor of opportunity and the student demonstrated meaningful educational progress.
Read next article – Hot off the press #3