At this time, and in light of The District’s aforementioned jurisdictional objections, the District will only generally respond to the 6 specific allegations and the single proposed resolutions contained in the Complaint. By not offering a response to each and every factual allegation made in Petitioner’s Complaint, the District in no way are waiving its right to contest any relevant factual allegations in the due process hearing in this matter.
A review of Petitioner’s educational records demonstrates Petitioner is a 17 year-old, 11th grade student who attends Sam Rayburn High School as a transfer student. Petitioner’s attendance records at Sam Rayburn High School include excessive absences and indicate that Petitioner has an active truancy …show more content…
Without any dates or relevant factual information the District is limited in its ability to identify the actual issue and provide a respond to Issue No. 1. That being said, the District believes that the Petitioner has concerns with truancy proceedings and documentation provided to the local prosecutor’s office. Further, Issue No. 1 includes an allegation pertaining to truancy for a student other than the Petitioner.
Issue No. 1 involves truancy and does not allege any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A).) The District respectfully submits that Petitioner’s issues involving the unidentified truancy proceedings for Petitioner is outside the scope of this Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction. Additionally, issues involving the truancy proceedings for Petitioner’s sibling, who is not a named party in this matter, are likewise outside this Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction. Therefore, based on the above the District respectfully moves that Issue No. 1 be dismissed for lack of …show more content…
These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. Petitioner’s Complaint does not withstand this
A review of Petitioner’s educational records demonstrates Petitioner is a 17 year-old, 11th grade student who attends Sam Rayburn High School as a transfer student. Petitioner’s attendance records at Sam Rayburn High School include excessive absences and indicate that Petitioner has an active truancy …show more content…
Without any dates or relevant factual information the District is limited in its ability to identify the actual issue and provide a respond to Issue No. 1. That being said, the District believes that the Petitioner has concerns with truancy proceedings and documentation provided to the local prosecutor’s office. Further, Issue No. 1 includes an allegation pertaining to truancy for a student other than the Petitioner.
Issue No. 1 involves truancy and does not allege any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A).) The District respectfully submits that Petitioner’s issues involving the unidentified truancy proceedings for Petitioner is outside the scope of this Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction. Additionally, issues involving the truancy proceedings for Petitioner’s sibling, who is not a named party in this matter, are likewise outside this Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction. Therefore, based on the above the District respectfully moves that Issue No. 1 be dismissed for lack of …show more content…
These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. Petitioner’s Complaint does not withstand this