Due Process Hearing Decision No. 2225

State Department of Education

Due Process Preceding

State of Oklahoma

DUE PROCESS HEARING DECISION

CASE NO. 2225

PETITIONER: [PARENT NAME]

REPRESENTATIVE: PRO SE

RESPONDENT: [SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME] PUBLIC SCHOOLS

REPRESENTATIVE: [SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY]

Due Process Hearing Decision

On May 4 and May 6, 2026, the Petitioners’ Amended Due Process Complaint came for hearing. The hearing was held in the conference room of the [District Name] Public Schools Special Services Center, [City, County], Oklahoma. Petitioners [Parent Names] are the student’s parents and appeared in person, pro se, on behalf of the student. [Director Name], Special Services Director, appeared for [District Name] Public Schools (the “District”). The District was represented by attorneys [Attorney Names].

Introduction and History of the Case

Petitioner’s original Due Process Complaint Notice (“the Complaint”) dated February 23, 2026, was filed with the State Department of Education on February 24, 2026. The original complaint contained three issues. The third issue, related to a school bus incident that damaged [student initials]’ wheelchair, was dismissed pursuant to Respondent’s Objection to Sufficiency.

The first two issues survived Respondent’s Objection to Sufficiency and were preserved for hearing.

Procedural Safeguards

The District has complied with all aspects of the required procedural safeguards set forth in 20 USC §1415. In particular, the parties met the full disclosure requirement by exchanging lists of witnesses and documentary evidence at least five days prior to the hearing. By agreement of the parties on the record, the deadline for the Hearing Officer to enter his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision was extended to allow the parties to provide written closing arguments. Written closing arguments were due on June 3, 2026. Both parties submitted their closing arguments in a timely manner. The deadline date for this written decision is today’s date, June 23, 2026.

Issues and Purpose of the Hearing

The Petitioner’s issues for which evidence was heard are the following:

3.1 Vision Services

Petitioners allege that from February 2024 to February 2026, the District failed to provide the student with appropriate vision services that resulted in a denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).

3.2 Transition Services

Petitioners allege that the District failed to provide the student with appropriate full-time transition services after the student’s graduation from [School Name] High School in May 2024.

Findings of Fact

  1. The student was born on [date of birth]. He is currently [age] years old and will be [age] years old prior to September 1, 2026. Respondent’s Exhibits 15, 19, 23.
  2. The student is diagnosed with Dandy-Walker Syndrome and is non-verbal, non-ambulatory, and visually impaired. Petitioners’ Exhibit 4.
  3. The student receives special education services as a child categorized as Multiple Disability with Intellectual Disability. Petitioners’ Exhibit 4.
  4. The 2024-2025 IEP lists the student’s projected graduation date as May 16, 2024, and identifies the type of diploma he would receive as “Alternate Diploma”. Respondent’s Exhibit 15.
  5. The student began the 2024-2025 school year on August 21, 2024, as a full-time transition student. Petitioners’ Exhibit 2.
  6. [Parent Names] are the student’s parents and have regularly participated as members of the student’s IEP team. Respondent’s Exhibits 15, 19, 23.
  7. On February 8, 2024, [Parent Name] agreed with and signed the student’s IEP. Respondent’s Exhibit 15.
  8. The February 8, 2024, IEP did not list visual services as an educational need. Respondent’s Exhibit 15.
  9. On January 28, 2025, both [Parents] agreed with and signed the student’s IEP. Respondent’s Exhibit 19.
  10. The January 28, 2025, IEP did not list visual services as an educational need. Respondent’s Exhibit 19.
  11. On January 26, 2026, both [Parents] virtually attended the student’s IEP meeting and verbally agreed with the student’s IEP. Respondent’s Exhibit 23.
  12. [VI Teacher Name] is a certified teacher who teaches students with visual impairment. Tr. Day One p.114:10-16.
  13. [VI Teacher] has been certified since 2008. Tr. Day One p.114:10-16
  14. [VI Teacher] has been employed by the District since August 2025. Tr. Day One p.115:19
  15. The January 26, 2026, IEP listed a goal whereby the student “will demonstrate functional visual attention by fixating on, physically pointing to and/or touching the presented instructional materials with no more than 3 prompts by 01/25/2027.” The goal would be evaluated by observation. Respondent’s Exhibit 23.
  16. In the January 2026 IEP meeting, [VI Teacher] indicated she developed the goal because she would be providing collaboration services with the student’s teachers. Tr. Day One p.166:22-23.
  17. The Petitioners have the burden of proof in establishing their claims by a preponderance of credible evidence that, although visually impaired, there is an educational need for the student to access his educational materials.
  18. The Petitioners further have the burden of proof in establishing their claims by a preponderance of credible evidence that the student’s educational progress was harmed when he was initially enrolled in a shortened day transition program that was later amended to a full school day.

Conclusion of Law

Under the IDEA, the District is required to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), which means special education and related services (20 U.S.C. §1401(9)) that:

  • have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;
  • meet the standards of the State education agency;
  • include an appropriate preschool, elementary school or secondary school education in the State involved; and
  • are provided in conformity with the individualized education program (“IEP”) required under section 1414(d) of this title.

The IDEA defines the term “special education” as specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and instruction in physical education (20 U.S.C.§1401(29)).

“Transition services” means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability (20 U.S.C. §1401(34)) that:

  • is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation;
  • is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests; and
  • includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation (20 U.S.C. §1401(34)).

The term “child with a disability” means a child with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech-language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this chapter as “emotional disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services (20 U.S.C. §1401(3)).

The term “individualized education program” or “IEP” means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with section 1414(d) of this title (20 U.S.C. §1401(14)).

The IEP Team is defined as follows:

  • The public agency must ensure that the IEP Team for each child with a disability includes:
    • The parents of the child
    • Not less than one regular education teacher of the child if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment;
    • Not less than one special education teacher of the child or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the child;
    • A representative of the public agency who:
      • is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
      • Is knowledgeable about the regular education curriculum; and
      • Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency.
    • An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results
    • At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special experience regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and
    • Whenever possible, the child with a disability (FR 300.23, 300.321(a)).

Decision

In making this decision, I want to emphasize that I am basing it solely on the evidence before me at the hearing. I have reviewed the transcripts of both hearing days and the exhibits that were admitted.

As to the first issue regarding the failure of the District to provide vision services to the student for the two years prior to the filing of the due process complaint, I find that the IEP team, including the parents, did not find vision services were required for the student to be able to access his educational materials. The evidence was clear through the certified vision specialist that the reason for the goal for vision services on the January 2026 IEP was based on her belief that a goal on the IEP was required of her in order to provide collaboration services to the teacher or parents. [VI Teacher]’s testimony further indicated that it is common for a child to have a visual impairment and not meet the eligibility for special services for visual impairment. My decision on this issue is that the Petitioners have failed to prove by a preponderance of credible evidence that failure to provide vision services to the student was a denial of FAPE. No remedies are required.

Now, regarding transition services. In the testimony of [Parent] and others, it was clear that there was confusion regarding what the school year would look like after [Student] graduated with an alternate diploma. The confusion wasn’t just with parents but apparently included educators as well. Unfortunately, [Student] was one of the students that was affected as the kinks were being worked out of the new program. In special education, there are so many opportunities for the parents and the District to communicate effectively. The testimony clearly showed that in July 2024, the plan for transition services was not fully formed, or the communication between the District and parents wasn’t clear. I hope by now, the communication by educators with parents of similarly-situated students is much clearer. Despite that, I find based on the evidence, that although the initial intention was for [Student] to only attend from 11 AM to 2 PM for transition services, the District accommodated the [Family] and moved [Student] to a full school day. I also find that [Student] began the school year on August 21, 2024. I therefore find the Petitioners have failed to prove by a preponderance of credible evidence that the student was denied FAPE related to transition services. No remedy is required.

Appeal Statement

Unless appealed, this decision is binding upon all parties. Either party may appeal this decision by filing a written notice with Special Education Section, State Department of Education, 2500 N Lincoln Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73105. The appeal must be made within 30 days of the receipt of this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of June 2026.

[HEARING OFFICER SIGNATURE]

Hearing Officer

Russell S. Cochran

Attached [Not Attached in Published, Redacted Document]: 

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

Certificate of Service

On June 23, 2026, a true and correct copy of this Decision was emailed to the following:

[PARENT NAME] at [parent email address]

[SPED director Name] at [SPED director email address]

[School District Attorney Name] at [school attorney email address]

[HEARING OFFICER SIGNATURE]

Russell S. Cochran
Hearing Officer