Kerr Law The Last Frontier - Alaska Page [ Home ] [ Who is Sonja Kerr? ] [ Special Education Glossary ] [ Contact Information ] [ Links ] [ Legal News and Updates ] [ The Last Frontier - Alaska Page ] [ Search Page ] [ Calendar ]

Welcome to information about special education in Alaska, the Last Frontier!

Children with disabilities in Alaska have the right to special education and related services, notwithstanding remote areas and the vastness of our great state.

In Alaska, the law is still being developed in special education. Here are some recent decisions and links to those decisions so you can read about how other parents have successfully advocated for their child:

Recent 9th Circuit Decision in Brooke M. v. State of Ak. DEED

The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has recently affirmed an earlier decision in which it was decided that a parent must exhaust administrative remedies by pursuing a Due Process Hearing.

*** This case was not brought by Kerr Law Office ***

STATE CORRECTS NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ERROR

The Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) has corrected the Notice of Procedural Safeguards (NOPS) to correct an error concerning the statute of limitations. The change clarifies that parents of children with disabilities in Alaska have just ONE YEAR to file any due process hearings to contest the appropriateness of services for their children. This is an important correction. Parents whose children have been affected by this error, prior to the correction, may have special rights in this regard.

STATE HEARING OFFICER RULES FOR PARENTS OF CHILD WITH AUTISM

State hearing officer Linda Cerro, one of the most experienced hearing officers in the state, has ruled for the parents of D.S, a little boy with autism and cerebral palsy. Finding that the parents had proved the Anchorage School District did not provide D.S. with a free appropriate public education, Cerro ordered the ASD to pay reimbursement for the parents' private program and to use Autism Partnership, a private program to manage the child's program forward. The ASD is appealing to federal court. Besides the substantive decision, the case is significant because:

1. The IHO found that the school district failed to fully consider a private evaluation the parents brought to the IEP team.
2. The IHO found the school district did not properly inform the parents of the length of time they had to bring a complaint through the due process system. State law says one year. State notice forms say up to three or that it may be a continuing violation implying no limit.
3. The IHO found that the school district did not properly write goals for the child's IEP. Goals must be measurable and objective and the goals for D.S. were neither.

Under the law the school district has the burden now to prove the IHO was wrong. The IHO's 64 page decision is well-written and completely justifies her ruling.

Breaking News, Final Decision and Order in HR 07-09:  We just received a ruling in an Alaska Due Process Hearing regarding ABA which was very positive. It also recognizes one of the exceptions to the statute of limitations finding a one year SOL even though Alaska state law provides for a one year SOL because the NOPS was incorrect (and remains incorrect, btw). The case was a hearing open to the public. It also applies the analysis of the 9th Circuit and Oregon District Court in Bend-Lapine that golly gee, goals must really be measurable and present levels of performance must be objective!!

Sitka School District v. C.I.R.: C.I.R. is a very talented bright young lady with an unusual seizure disorder. Because of this, she was having great difficulty in school. Her parents requested and successfully obtained first a hearing officer order and then a Court order requiring the Sitka School District to pay for C.I.R. to attend Eagle Hill. Eagle Hill is a well respected residential program for children with average or above average IQs, who are college bound, and who have difficulty with learning.

N.S. v. ASD: N.S. is a young boy with autism. After the Anchorage School District repeatedly failed to implement his IEP, including transportation, his parents requested a special education hearing. The hearing officer found N.S. had been denied a Free Appropriate public education, ordered remedies, including transportation reimbursement.

ASD v. M.P.: M.P. was a five year old with autism who was supposed to receive 20 hours a week of assistance from special education staff while he was in his kindergarten class. His parents showed that M.P. was not provided these services, violating his right to a free appropriate public education. When the school district appealed, Superior Court Judge Bolger agreed with the hearing officer.

[ Home ] [ Who is Sonja Kerr? ] [ Special Education Glossary ] [ Contact Information ] [ Links ] [ Legal News and Updates ] [ The Last Frontier - Alaska Page ] [ Search Page ] [ Calendar ]