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

How do you write an IEP for a student who is way behind in reading?  Age level? Grade level?  Reading level?

Consider Jefferson County Board of Education v. Lolita S., 64 IDELR 34 (11^th Cir. 2014).  The court held that the IEP denied the student FAPE because it was not individualized.  The court pointed out that the student read at a 1^st grade level, but his goal for reading was “derived from the state standard for ninth-grade students.”  And there was no explanation in the IEP as to how this would be accomplished.  It did not help the district’s case that the IEP had another student’s name on it, which was crossed out and replaced with this student’s name.  The transition section was also inappropriate, due to the use of “stock language.”  For example, the goal was “student will be prepared to participate in post-secondary education” but this did not match the student’s diploma track.  He was not on track for a regular diploma or post-secondary education.

We don’t know what happened in this case, but we suspect that the NCLB goal of all students being proficient at grade level, and being tested at grade level, may have played a part in this decision. But remember: IEPs must be individualized, tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of the particular student.  It sounds like this IEP started out with a good description of “present level.” The student was reading at a first grade level. But if that’s the case, how is the district going to get the student to the 9^th grade level in one year?  Such an ambitious goal looks unrealistic and doomed to failure.  At a minimum, such an IEP should provide a clear road map for how such a goal would be accomplished.

So chew on this Dawg Bone for today:

DAWG BONE: EVEN IN THE NCLB ERA, IEPs MUST BE INDIVIDUALIZED