The special ed types out there may recall that the 2004 version of IDEA put in the requirement that the services in the student’s IEP should be supported by “peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable.”  There was much speculation about exactly what that would mean, and how it would be interpreted.

Twelve years later we can report that it comes up rarely, and when it does, courts usually cite the phrase “to the extent practicable” as particularly significant.  IEPs are not regularly being shot down because they lack “peer-reviewed research.”

That’s what makes L.M.H. v. Arizona DOE, 68 IDELR 41 (D. Ariz. 2016) particularly interesting. This is a rare case that relies on the “peer reviewed research” requirement to conclude that the district denied FAPE.  After rejecting numerous procedural complaints by the parent, and complaints about ESY, the court held that the district denied FAPE by failing to consider any peer-reviewed research.   Whether the student made progress or not was deemed irrelevant, as the IEP would be judged as of the time of its development, not afterward.  The parent had provided ASHA recommendations regarding speech therapy.  The court held that the district did not have to comply with the ASHA recommendations, but had to consider them or some other “peer-reviewed” research.

It’s always a good idea to “consider” whatever useful information you have and to be sure that the minutes of the ARDC meeting reflect that consideration.

DAWG BONE: LET’S HOPE SOMEONE IN YOUR DISTRICT IS KEEPING UP WITH THE RESEARCH!

 File this one under: SPECIAL EDUCATION