IT’S “ZOOMING WITH THE DAWG” DAY!! HOPE TO SEE YOU AT 10:00 FOR A LIVELY DISCUSSION OF AI AND ITS IMPLICATIONS.

The court in Pennsylvania cited the usual standard about disputes over educational methodology:

…there is no requirement that it [an IEP] use specific language or terminology to define the method or approach that will be used by educational professionals…. A lack of specific methodology in an IEP is not a procedural error warranting compensatory education or tuition reimbursement.

The court also noted the extensive communication and numerous meetings with the parents, concluding that the parents were “intimately involved in the process of crafting [the student’s] IEP.” They were not denied “their participation rights.”

Standard stuff. But what stood out to me was the casual comment the court made about the testing done by the independent expert retained by the parent:

Along with her battery of testing, Ms. Ganges administered the Dynamic Evaluation of Motor Speech Skill (“DEMSS”); however, she did not administer this test in accordance with publisher guidelines. Ms. Ganges used only 19 of the words out of the 65 from the DEMSS—she did not note this deviation in her expert report.

The publisher guidelines are important. Failure to follow them, or to have a good explanation why you did not do so, will undercut the credibility of the expert’s report.

It’s M.S. v. Downingtown Area School District, decided by the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 28, 2022. It’s published in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Reporter at 82 IDELR 32.

DAWG BONE: FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.

Tomorrow: my trip to the laundromat….