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 ‘reevaluation’

Teacher observations, progress reports enough data to develop IEP

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014

D.B. v. New York City Department of Education, 61 IDELR 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2013): A federal U.S. District Court excused a school district’s failure to conduct a triennial re-evaluation, as such failure ultimately did not deny the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE).  Although the school district did not conduct any updated testing, the IEP team had various progress reports evaluating the student’s ability levels, as well the feedback from the student’s teachers and other service providers.  There was no indication at the IEP team meeting that anyone, including the student’s parents, believed the information available to the IEP team was insufficient or otherwise inadequate.  Accordingly, as the resulting IEP was suitably designed to provide the student with FAPE, any procedural violation committed by the school district was excused.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Teacher observations, progress reports enough data to develop IEP

District has obligation to at least reevaluate a returning student if it was aware that the student received special education services before transferring to private school

Thursday, May 30th, 2013

Regional Sch. Unit No. 51 v. Doe, 60 IDELR 163 (D. Me. 2012)—in this case, a student with severe ADHD had received special education services at his district’s public school during fourth grade. He attended a private school for fifth grade, and returned to the district for sixth grade after his family moved to a different town. The student did not have a current IEP when he returned to the district, and the district did not reevaluate the student to determine whether he still needed an IEP. Instead it was concluded that all accommodations could be provided through a section 504 plan. After struggling until his eighth grade year, a special education referral was formally sought and an IEP was finally developed for the student. The court reaffirmed the Hearing Officer’s findings that the District erroneously de-classified the student without providing written notice to the parents or advising the parents of their right to challenge the decision. The student maintained his IDEA eligibility, even when he transferred from private to public school with an expired IEP, until a reevaluation showed otherwise and the District denied him a FAPE by failing to recognize him as an IDEA-eligible student until halfway through his eighth grade year.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on District has obligation to at least reevaluate a returning student if it was aware that the student received special education services before transferring to private school

Student’s refusal of IEP accommodations triggered school district’s duty to reevaluate student

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Rockbridge County (VA) School Division, 57 IDELR 144 (OCR 2011): The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that a school district did not discriminate against a student with an emotional disability by not implementing the student’s IEP when the student began refusing his IEP accommodations.  Nevertheless, OCR stated that the school district should have reevaluated the student and reconvened an IEP meeting to determine how this refusal impacted the student’s educational goals.  As an adult, the student had a right to refuse IEP services.  However, since the student’s parent was still a participant in the student’s IEP Team meetings, the parent should have been provided with an opportunity to discuss, and to have the IEP Team address, the student’s refusal of his accommodations.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Student’s refusal of IEP accommodations triggered school district’s duty to reevaluate student

District’s behavior accommodations and psychologist’s analysis provide a FAPE, even though the district did not conduct an FBA or a full psychological evaluation.

Thursday, November 11th, 2010

Connor v. New York City Department of Education, 53 IDELR 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2009):  A U.S. District Court denied tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement of a student with Asperger’s Syndrome and classified as other health impaired.  The parent, appealing the decision of the state review officer (SRO), argued that the IEP was invalid because the school district did not conduct a required psychological evaluation, nor conduct a functional behavioral assessment despite the student’s behavioral difficulties.

However, the SRO found (and the Court agreed) that the FBA was not necessary since the student displayed appropriate behavior in the classroom, and since the district took steps to assess the student’s behavioral needs.  Although there was no FBA, the district still took enough steps to identify the challenges the student faced as a result of his behavior.

The Court also agreed that even though the psychologist did not conduct a reevaluation when the IEP team met in 2007 (and the last psychological evaluation was conducted in 2003) the student was not denied a FAPE based on the circumstances in that case.  In particular, the school psychologist conducted a classroom observation in January of 2007, and also had the student’s September 2006 diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, a March 2007 augmentative and alternative communication evaluation, and a June 2007 educational evaluation available to determine the student’s needs.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on District’s behavior accommodations and psychologist’s analysis provide a FAPE, even though the district did not conduct an FBA or a full psychological evaluation.

Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS).