← All hearing tools

Hearing Tool 39: The claim inventory: naming the claims a hearing officer can actually decide

THE RULE

A hearing officer decides claims, not feelings. "The school failed my child" is true and it is not a claim. A claim is a named legal wrong tied to the provision it arises under, and an ordinary IDEA case is built from a short, known list of them.

There are seven places an IDEA claim lives. Identification, the district's duty to find and identify a child who may have a disability (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.111, 300.301). Evaluation, whether the district evaluated your child in all areas of suspected disability, with valid instruments, on time (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.301 to 300.311). Eligibility, whether the district correctly decided your child does or does not qualify. IEP content, whether the written program contains the goals, services, and supports the law requires (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 to 300.324). Placement and least restrictive environment, whether your child is educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 to 300.117). Implementation, whether the district actually delivered the program it wrote. And the procedural violation, the district's failure to follow the process the law requires.

The substantive standard behind most of these is the FAPE standard: an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances (Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 399 (2017)). That is the yardstick a content or placement claim is measured against, and H-Tool 53 shows you how to hold the IEPs and the progress data up to it.

The procedural claim carries its own trap, and it is the most important sentence in this tool. In a due process hearing seeking a FAPE remedy, a procedural violation supports that remedy only where it impeded the child's right to a free appropriate public education, significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, or caused a deprivation of educational benefit (34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)). A procedural foot-fault that changed nothing, a meeting notice that arrived a day late but everyone attended, will not by itself win a FAPE remedy at hearing. But that is a statement about the hearing remedy, not about the violation itself. The same violation may still support corrective action on the State complaint road, where the SEA determines whether the district broke a rule and, when appropriate, addresses corrective action and effective implementation (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151(b), 300.152(b)(2)). Separate the two theories, and do not discard a real violation just because it cannot carry a FAPE remedy on its own. Pleading a changed-nothing violation as your FAPE theory is still the most common way a strong hearing case picks up a weak claim; routing it to the State complaint process may be the answer.

WHY IT MATTERS

A case is judged by its claims, and a claim you did not name is a claim the hearing officer will not decide (H-Tool 44 carries the rule that an issue left out of the complaint is usually left out of the case). So the inventory you build here becomes the spine of the pleading.

Two failures happen at this stage. The first is under-naming: a parent feels the whole year was a loss but pleads only "the IEP was inadequate," and the evaluation gap, the implementation failures, and the LRE problem never get named, so they never get decided. The second is over-naming: a parent lists every procedural slip the district ever made, and the case arrives at hearing carrying four weak procedural claims that changed nothing alongside the one strong substantive claim that would have won on its own. Weak claims do not add weight. They give the district easy points and make the whole case look like a grievance.

The procedural-violation rule is where over-naming does the most damage. Districts miss deadlines and mail notices late constantly, and it feels like proof. But unless the slip actually cost your child FAPE, cost you your seat at the table, or cost educational benefit, it will not carry a FAPE remedy at the hearing, and dressing it up as your hearing theory tells the hearing officer you cannot tell a real wrong from a paperwork error. That violation may still belong in a state complaint (H-Tool 38); it just does not belong at the front of the hearing case.