Due Process Hearing No. 2219

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DUE PROCESS PROCEEDING

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

EXPEDITED DUE PROCESS HEARING DECISION

CASE NO. 2219

PETITIONER: [PARENT NAME]

REPRESENTATIVE: PRO SE

RESPONDENT: [SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME] PUBLIC SCHOOLS

REPRESENTATIVE: [SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY]

Background

This is an expedited due process regarding a student who is in kindergarten at an elementary school within the respondent school district. Parent filed her expedited due process alleging school failed to conduct a manifestation determination review following her contention that there had been a cumulative disciplinary removal from school for in excess of 10 days.

Procedural Safeguards

The school district has complied with all aspects of the required procedural safeguards. The parties exchanged witness lists and exhibits 5 days prior to the hearing. The parties participated in a resolution conference. All time requirements have been complied with including the timeliness of the decision.

Issues and Purpose of the Hearing

Parent requests an order requiring school to conduct a manifestation determination review contending that school has not properly counted the student’s disciplinary removals from school. School contends that they have complied with the requirements of the IDEA and its regulations and that the student’s cumulative suspensions did not exceed 10 days, therefore, no manifestation determination review was necessary.

Was the student suspended (removed from [their] current placement) for a period of more than 10 cumulative days and, therefore, was school required to have a manifestation determination review?

Findings of Fact

  1. Student is in kindergarten at one of district’s elementary schools since August 2025.
  2. Student qualifies under the IDEA as Other Health Impaired.
  3. School acknowledged that IDEA testing was necessary on October 7,2025.  Parent Exhibit 7
  4. Student had an outside diagnosis which indicated student had a need for special services prior to August 20,2025.  Parent Exhibit 6
  5. School was aware of the outside diagnosis on August 20,2025, however, school did not receive copies of the outside diagnoses until shortly before October 7,2025.  Testimony of School Psychologist
  6. Student’s first removal from school was September 23,2025 which was prior to October 7,2025. See number 5 above. District Exhibit 17 page 5
  7. Student’s second removal from school was a suspension for one day November 5,2025.  Parent Exhibit 2, District Exhibit 17 page 4.
  8. The events leading to the November 5,2025 suspension began on November 4,2025. The incident occurred during lunch at 12:10 pm. Parent was called to pick up student at 1:10 pm. Student was in principal’s office where [student] was not receiving [their] education.  Parent Exhibit 2, District Exhibits 17 and 18, Parent testimony.
  9. The November 4,2025 afternoon in principal’s office was a one half day suspension (change of placement).
  10. Student was suspended November 5,2025 for one day. Parent exhibit 2, District exhibit 17 page 4
  11. Student’s third removal from school was November 19,2025. Parent picked up student from school following an incident. The Behavior Detail Report states the resolution detail was parent took student home because [they] did not have any clothes.  District Exhibit 17 page 3.  The Student did not return to school. This was not a suspension (change of placement).
  12. Student’s fourth removal from school was a suspension for one and one half days from the afternoon of December 10 through December 11,2025. There was no evidence as to where the student was from the time of the incident until 12:15pm when the suspension began. District exhibit 17 page 2,3, Parent exhibit 2, Parent testimony
  13. Student’s fifth removal from school was a suspension for one and one half days December 15 and 16,2025. Although the incident started in the morning of December 15 there was no evidence as to where the student was from the time of the incident until the time of suspension.  Parent exhibit 2, District exhibit 17 page 2
  14. Student’s sixth removal from school was a suspension for 2 days, December 18 and 19,2025. On December 17,2025 parent received a telephone call to [location] to go to student’s classroom to help clean up. Assistant principal told parent she needed to take student home the afternoon of December 17,2025. District exhibit 17 page 1, Parent exhibit 2, Parent testimony. The afternoon December 17,2025 removal is a one half day suspension (change of placement).
  15. Student’s final removal from school was a suspension for 3 days, January 7,8,9, 2026. District exhibit 17 page 1, Parent exhibit 2
  16. All suspensions were close in time some occurring immediately after a return from a suspension. See numbers 12,13 and 14 above.
  17. All student removals from school were as a result of a violation of school’s student code of conduct.
  18. The out of school removals (change of placement) totaled ten days:
    • November 4  one half day
    • November 5  one day
    • December 10  one half day
    • December 11  one day
    • December 15  one half day
    • December 16  one day
    • December 17  one half day
    • December 18  one day
    • December 19  one day
    • January 7  one day
    • January 8  one day
    • January 9  one day
  19. The removals from school occurred within approximately 63 calendar days but approximately only 30 school days.
  20. The student’s behavior for all removal incidents was substantially similar.
  21. The removals from school did not exceed 10 cumulative days.
  22. The school did not conduct a manifestation review.

The Law

34 C.F.R. 300.530(e) sets out when a manifestation determination review is required:

Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the child’s IEP team…must review all relevant information…to determine—

(i) If the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability;

There must be a determination that the removal from school was a change of placement. 34 C.F.R. 300.536 addresses change of placement for disciplinary removals.

For purposes of removals of a child with a disability from the child’s current educational placement … a change in placement occurs if —

  • The removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days; or
  • The child has been subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern
    • Because the series of removals total more than 10 school days in a school year;
    • Because the child’s behavior is substantially similar to the child’s behavior in previous incidents that resulted in the series of removals; and
    • Because of such additional factors as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another.

A suspension is a change in placement. Honig v. Doe 484 U.S. 305, 328

The issue of whether there is a “change in placement” is fact driven:

  • An educational placement is changed when a fundamental change in, or elimination of, a basic element of the educational program has occurred. Erickson v. Albuquerque Public Schools 199 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 1999) citing Sherri A.D. v. Kirby 975 F.2d 193, 206 ( 5th Cir. 1992)

The removal must be for a violation of the code of student conduct. 34 C.F.R. 300.530(e).

Discussion and Rationale

The exhibits and testimony prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following:

  1. Student is a student with a disability.
  2. The school knew of the student’s disability prior to September 5,2025, however, the school had not received written notice about the student’s disability until the communication with the school psychologist on October 7,2025.
  3. Student was removed from school for a cumulative period of 10 school days.
  4. The removals were for substantially similar behavior.
  5. The removals occurred within a period of 30 school days.
  6. The removals were for violations of the code of student conduct.
  7. During the removals the student’s educational program was eliminated, which constitutes a change in placement.
  8. Notwithstanding the above numbers 28 – 34 the school was not required to conduct a manifestation determination review because the student removals from school did not exceed 10 cumulative days.

Decision

Parent has not met her burden of proof. All necessary elements of her expedited due process were proved by a preponderance of the evidence except the IDEA requirement that the change in placement exceed 10 days. School is not required to conduct a manifestation determination review until the 11th day of change in placement.

Appeal Statement

Unless appealed, this decision is binding upon all parties. Either party may appeal this decision by filing a written notice with the State Department of Education, Special Education Services, 2200 N. Lincoln Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105. The appeal must be made within 30 days of receipt of this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2026

[HEARING OFFICER SIGNATURE]

Hearing Officer

Hugh Rineer

Attached [Not Attached in Published, Redacted Document]: 

  • Appendix I — Witness List
  • Appendix II—Admitted Exhibit List

Certificate of Delivery

This is to certify that on this 12th day of February, 2026 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing decision was emailed to the following:

[PARENT NAME]

[parent email address]

[SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY NAME]

[school attorney email address]

[HEARING OFFICER SIGNATURE]

Hugh Rineer