CASE NO.2018070224

SUMMIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS-DENALI, v. Parent

Counsel for Student: Parent

Counsel for School: Megan Moore and Rachael Tillman

Representative for School: Kevin Bock

ALJ: Penelope Pahl

Date of Decision: August, 2018

Significant areas of law: Implementation of assessment plan without parental consent, lack of clarity in IEP offer.

ISSUES:

• May school assess student pursuant to its assessment plan including the diagnostic placement, without parental consent?
• Does school’s IEP, including its offer of placement, FAPE services, and accommodations, provide Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment?

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Student was 16 years old and was eligible for special education and related services with emotional disturbance as a primary eligibility category as well as secondary categories of other health impairment, due to a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder; and specific learning disability.

CONCLUSION:-

• School CANNOT assess student pursuant to its assessment plan including the diagnostic placement, without parental consent.

Rationale:-

– The school’s recommended assessment plan lacked in following:-

• No time frame for the “diagnostic placement” was provided.
• Neither a plan for lunch visits to another campus nor transportation to the school’s recommended placement was provided.
• No safety plan, taking into consideration Student’s 24-hour suicide watch, for the lunchtime socialization or for the “diagnostic placement” was provided.
• No academic subject for Student’s general education was specified.
• The method of selecting an academic subject for the diagnostic placement was neither included in student’s assessment plan nor in the prior notice sent to parents.
• No details as to the type of data to be collected or the criteria to be used to evaluate the placement were included.
• student was required to change placements as a precursor to a required assessment.
• the proposed location designated for the assessment has already been closed

– None of the School’s witnesses could articulate the criteria to be applied to evaluate the “diagnostic placement” and no evidence was presented that any methodology had been identified or developed to assist in drawing conclusions about how the diagnostic placement was proceeding.

– On denial of parent’s consent to assessment for “diagnostic placement” school refused to conduct other assessments consented by parent, which was unjustified.

• School’s IEP, including its offer of placement, FAPE services, and accommodations, DOES NOT provide Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.

Rationale:-

– The IEP offer made by school included an offer for both the regular school year and extended school year instruction. However, evidence did not establish whether the two offers were to be implemented concurrently or sequentially.

– The IEP offer failed to clarify a lot of important things including but not limited to Student’s placement to be implemented, how long the offered placement would last, method of providing Career and College awareness instruction, how Student was to socially interact with peers, subject matter to be taught in the general education setting etc.

REMEDIES/ORDER:-

• Not applicable.