Goldstein, Ackerhalt & Pletcher
70 Niagara Street, Suite 200 Buffalo , New York, 14202
Phone: 716-362-1533
Fax: 716-362-1534

The GAP Attorneys Blog

Meeting the needs of people with disabilities, their families, educators & service providers

Posts Tagged ‘Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)’

Integrated Co-Teaching placement supports IDEA’s requirement to educate student in LRE

Friday, August 24th, 2012

T.L. v. Department of Education of the City of New York, 58 IDELR 213 (E.D.N.Y. 2012): The parents of a student with ADHD and visual processing deficits were denied private school tuition reimbursement since the school district’s recommendation to place the student with integrated co-teaching services for all his academic classes complied with the IDEA’s requirement that the student to be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE) appropriate.  Prior to the school year at issue, the student had been placed in a self-contained 12:1:1 classroom setting, where the student made progress.  The integrated co-teaching recommendation would have placed the student in a larger class size with disabled and nondisabled students co-taught by a regular education teacher and a special education teacher.  Despite the parents’ objection to the larger class size, the Court concluded that the integrated co-teaching recommendation was appropriate since the student would have benefited socially and academically from exposure to general education students and would have been provided with sufficient support to make progress.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Integrated Co-Teaching placement supports IDEA’s requirement to educate student in LRE

School district violated child-find obligation by failing to evaluate student in all areas of his suspected disability

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

School Board of the City of Norfolk v. Brown, 56 IDELR 18 (E.D. Va. 2010): Although a school district had previously evaluated and classified a student with cerebral palsy and seizure disorder as a student with a disability under the category of “other health impairment,” the court affirmed the decision of an impartial hearing officer who had concluded that the school district had violated its child-find obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to evaluate the student in all areas of his suspected disability.  The school district should have also provided the student with a functional behavioral analysis (FBA) and behavior intervention plan (BIP) due to the evidence of the student’s history of engaging in behaviors that impeded the student’s learning or that of others.

The court also affirmed the hearing officer’s conclusion that the school district violated the IDEA by conducting a procedurally flawed Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) following a behavioral incident that led to a suspension.  In particular, the MDR team failed to consider a psychiatric report that was generated as a direct consequence of the behavioral incident and the MDR team failed to afford the parents an adequate opportunity to participate at the meeting.

Moreover, the court agreed with the hearing officer that the school district procedurally violated the IDEA when it placed the student in an alternative setting during the student’s suspension.  The decision to place the student in the alternative setting was made by the school board, but should have been made by student’s IEP team.  Moreover, the placement substantively violated the IDEA because it was not the least restrictive environment (LRE) in which the student could receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on School district violated child-find obligation by failing to evaluate student in all areas of his suspected disability

Placement in mainstream, general education classroom provided oral-deaf student with cochlear implants with FAPE in LRE

Tuesday, April 12th, 2011

J.W. v. Fresno Unified School District, 55 IDELR 153 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): The Court of Appeals adopted in its entirety the district court’s decision that an oral-deaf child with cochlear implants was provided with a FAPE when he was placed in a mainstream, general education classroom in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Although the school district was unsuccessful in preventing the parents from challenging the student’s placement after they had initially requested and agreed to the mainstream placement, the school district successfully argued that the general education classroom provided the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The placement provided the student with significant academic and nonacademic benefit and allowed the student to communicate with typically hearing peers.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Placement in mainstream, general education classroom provided oral-deaf student with cochlear implants with FAPE in LRE

Parents awarded reimbursement for placement of autistic child at private school for children with autism since public school’s IEP and recommended placement were inappropriate

Monday, March 28th, 2011

M.H. and E.K. v. New York City Department of Education, 54 IDELR 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2010):  The district court ruled that the parents of a student with autism were entitled to tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement of the student at a private school for children with autism.  The Court deferred to the Impartial Hearing Officer’s (IHO’s) conclusion that the program proposed by the public school, which was to utilize different methodologies in addressing the student’s behaviors with an emphasis on TEACCH, was inappropriate.  The IHO concluded that the appropriate methodology for the student was 1:1 discrete trial Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA).  Although the evidence showed that the student required 1:1 educational support, the student would not have such an intense level of support in the school district’s proposed placement.  Moreover, the Court agreed with the IHO’s conclusion that the unilateral placement was the student’s least restrictive environment since the student required the intensive 1:1 ABA program in order to make progress.  The public school’s proposed placement would not have been appropriate for the student since the student was much more advanced than the other student’s in the public school classroom.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Parents awarded reimbursement for placement of autistic child at private school for children with autism since public school’s IEP and recommended placement were inappropriate

Continuum of placements and LRE requirements apply to public charter schools

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Letter to Anonymous, 53 IDELR 127 (OSEP 2009):   The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) stated that a public agency’s responsibility to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of students with disabilities, applies to public charter schools, regardless of whether the charter school is a school of a Local Educational Agency (LEA) (i.e. a school district), is a LEA itself, or is run by the state.  Public charter schools must also ensure that students with disabilities are placed in the least restrictive environment.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Continuum of placements and LRE requirements apply to public charter schools

Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS).