-
Initial Team Meeting as a Result of Parent Referral
-Student had difficulty with her speech for several years
-Student had begun to exhibit frustration with her progress in reading and writing
-Parent informed the school department that the student was on a wait list to receive private tutoring utilizing LiPS programming -
Parent Initiates Private Tutoring
-LiPS tutoring at the Center for Communication
-District is aware of tutoring -
Student Identified as SLD and found Eligible for Special Education and Related Services
-IEP goal developed to address reading skills
-Services of one hour per day of specially designed instruction were included -
Annual Review
-Team noted fluency issues
-One goal created for fluency
-An additional 45 minutes per day of specially designed instruction was added to the plan
-Parents were not comfortable with the plan but were unsure of what to request -
IEP Progress Report
-Goal rated as Satisfactory
-Student's Fall 2010 NECAP results were Profient in reading
-NWEA placed student in the 75th percentile in reading -
Mid-Year IEP Meeting
-Student performing at grade levle on benchmark assessments
-Team felt student should be mainstreamed for reading, writing, and spelling
-SDI was decreased to 15 minutes per day to target fluency and to decrease omission of ending sounds
-Parents noted pleasure with student's progress and observed her increased ability to self correct -
IEP Progress Report
-Goal related to reading graded as Satisfactory -
Change in Private Tutoring Provider
-Change made to provider of private tutoring due to insurance coverage
-New provider: Hyperion Learing Services -
Evaluation by Hyperion Learning Services
-Composite scores all in average range; borderline to below average subtest scores
-Recommended two hours of tutoring per week
-Student attended one hour per week due to the time demands on the family -
SDI Reduced
-May 2011, IEP services reduced to 15 minutes per day
-Student would work with special educator at the start of each day to review multi-syllable words that she would be encountering
-Special educator stated child had skills to be in the general education setting -
IEP Progress Report
-Goal rated as satisfactory -
IEP Annual Meeting
-Parents expressed confusion about the student's ability to perform well on tests and in the school setting because she struggled with such tasks at home.
-IEP Team wrote one goal regarding reading fluency to be delivered through 10 minutes of specially designed instruction daily and consultation.
-Consideration given to moving up the child's triennial evaluation by one year; but was rejected by parents due to fear that the child's services may be discontinued if the child no longer qualified. -
Evaluation by Hyperion Learning Services
-TOWL-4 was used to evaluate the child
-Not all subtests were given
-Not all composite scores were able to be generated -
Parents Meet with District Administration
-Parents meet with Special Education Director and Vice Principal to discuss concerns from October IEP meeting regarding the reduction of IEP time by 5 minutes per day
-Parents felt student's written product was misrepresented at the meeting
-Parents and District agreee to re-evaluate the child -
IEP Progress Report
-Goal rated as Adequate progress -
District Psychological Evaluation
-All scores in the average range
-Child reported to the evaluator that she perceived that she was slower than other students
-Evaluator did not believe the student required special education services
-Evaluator did not believe that the phonological weaknesses were "holding her back" -
Classroom Observation and SLP Evaluation
-No adverse effect noted in classroom observation done by the special education director
-SLP scores all in the average range -
Academic Evaluation Completed
-All scores in the average range
-Recommendation: Child needed increased exposure to content vocabulary and grade level word lists to develop automaticity of word recognition and increase fluency -
OT Evaluation
-All scores in the average to above average range -
Triennial Evaluation Meeting
Although the team agreed that the student displayed a phonological memory deficit that was 1.5 SD below the mean on the C-TOPP, they also determined that the student did not present with a specific learning disability after completing the Learning Disability Evaluation Report. Exit plan was created. Parents as well as Hyperion Learning's tutor disagreed and expressed concern regarding the student's ongoing struggles with language. -
Exit Plan Implemented
Exit plan that was created at the triennial evaluation meeting included continuation of IEP services through 02/17/2012. Exit plan to be implemented on 02/23/2012 in the general education setting and would continue through 12/15/2012 with monthly consultation between special education and regular education teachers. -
Final Grades for the year
-Final grades for the year in reading and writing all rated as secure by the classroom teacher -
Parents file request for hearing
-Was FAPE in place up until time services ceased?
-Was FAPE violated when eligiabilty was terminated?
-Is the family entitled to a remedy and what remedy is appropriate? -
Due Process Hearing - First Issue - Parent's Argument
-Student was denied FAPE because of the school district's failure to provide services specific to one on one LiPS Seeing Stars program
-Parent's argued that FAPE was denied while they were expected to provide specialized services (private tutoring) needed to remediate child's ability and for her to continue to progress in school
-Parent's maintained that 15 minutes per day of preteaching was insufficient and concluded that the IEP failed to be reasonably calculated, thus denying FAPE -
Due Process Hearing - First Issue - School District's Argument
-Student was provided FAPE during the time the IEPs were implemented up until termination of child's eligibility
-School maintains that data indicated meaningful progress over the time period in question
-School district concludes that student's IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide meaningful benefit and she did indeed receive benefit -
Due Process Hearing - Second Issue - Parent's Argument
-Parents contended that school district inappropriately terminated student's eligibility in January 2012; erred by using only MDOE's LD Eval Report to determine eligibility and did not examine her ability to achieve without special education services
-Parents contended school district errred by not considering the effect the private tutoring had on her progress
-Parents argued that evidence showed that the student struggled academically despite the provision of special education services -
Due Process hearing - Second Issue - School District's Argument
-District argued that IEP team correctly concluded that student no longer met IDEA eligbility standards for a specific learning disability
-District cited caselaw that isolated low subtest scores are insufficient to conclude that a student has failed to achieve adequately
-District argued that the student was able to progress effectively in the regular education program
-District noted Exit plan would permit further assessment of student's performance without an IEP -
Due Process Hearing - Issue Three - Remedy
- Because no violation was found, the parties' arguments as to an apprpriate remedy did not need to be addressed.
-
Order
Hearing officer determined the following:
-District provided the student with IEPs designed to provide her with FAPE until it was determined that she was no longer eligible for services
-District did not violate student's right to FAPE by terminating her eligibility in January 2012
-No remedial order needed to be issued