I’m going to quote the testimony of the speech pathologist and the occupational therapist in a recent federal court case from Colorado because I think they both provided the kind of “cogent and responsive” explanations for their recommendations that courts respect. The school recommended changes regarding both speech and OT—less direct therapy and more consult. The parent looked at the overall minutes of service and saw that there was a reduction. Thus the complaint. The court sided with the district, citing the testimony quoted below. The OT:

So increasing that consult time allowed a significant amount of more time for me to work with the educational team, paras and teachers alike, to carry out daily what, in essence, we were doing—I was doing with Alex. So instead of Alex getting therapy one or two times a week in a small setting, now he’s getting it daily through other people doing it. So he’s generalizing the skill. They’re using the skill throughout the entire school day versus an isolated spot with me. So on paper it might look like that is a decrease in services; but in essence, it’s actually an increase because now he’s getting this all throughout the week versus just one time in a therapy session.

The speech therapist:

Indirect minutes are those collaboration, consultation, working with the whole team, training them on the device….expanding his language, what to do if behaviors occur…So it was just a way to spread the wealth, I guess, of what I do and make it accessible for all the paras so that Alex had that consistent teaching throughout his natural environment. That’s the goal of all of our kids. We want them to generalize their skills into their natural environments, whether it be school, home, in the community. We want those skills to go beyond a one-on-one therapeutic box, so to speak.

The student was making progress on speech and OT goals, but had difficulty generalizing his skills. The move from direct to consult was designed to address this. Both of these witnesses spoke of the need to generalize skills, and pointed out that the consult model would improve the rate of progress.

The decision to reduce the amount of minutes was based on student need, not on staffing concerns or any other improper motivation. The decision was based on evaluation data. That’s why the court approved it.

It’s Alex W. v. Poudre School District No. 1, decided by the federal court in Colorado on July 15, 2022. It’s published by Special Educator at 81 IDELR 133.

DAWG BONE: COGENT AND RESPONSIVE IS THE STANDARD.

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

Tomorrow: a Quadrant Three student shows up