If you have some teachers who don’t seem to take IEPs seriously, you might want to make them aware of M.S. v. Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, 64 IDELR 11 (D. Utah 2014).

The court held that the district properly implemented the student’s IEP in one year, but not the second year.  Critical to this holding was the unilateral decision of the teacher to discontinue the use of an FM System.  Key Quote:

While some deference should be given to teachers, the IEP is created by a team of individuals with various areas of expertise and requires the classroom teacher to implement the components, even the ones that the teacher may not agree with or care to implement.

The word “unilateral” usually spells trouble for a school district in a special education case, where committee decision making is required. The ARD Committee is the architect; the teacher is the builder. The builder is not permitted to deviate from the architectural plans.

Teachers who disagree with IEP content should bring those concerns to the ARDC.  If a campus has a widespread problem along these lines, perhaps it is due to administrative neglect. Administrators who become aware of teachers who are not implementing IEPs faithfully should take corrective action.  Write up the teacher in a clear directive memo. It need not be harsh or threatening—just clear. Then you can let the teacher’s lounge do the rest of the work for you.

DAWG BONE: TEACHERS NEED TO IMPLEMENT IEPs FAITHFULLY, COMPLETELY