Many of you Loyal Daily Dawg Readers have heard me rattle off a string of IDEA-related acronyms at a conference. It always draws a laugh. I usually conclude this particular shtick by asking “how many of you recognized 80% of that? If you did, you are a SPECIAL ED TYPE!!”
In its recent decision in favor of Riesel ISD the 5th Circuit outdid me, and they did it by way of explaining why they ruled in favor of the district on all issues. So here is the court’s explanation:
For those who prefer acronymic efficiency, however, our holding is roughly as follows: RISD did not violate IDEA with respect to K.S. because, as the SEHOs correctly found at the DPHs: (1) the ARDC’s IEPs for K.S., which included the PLAAFP statements, TEKS goals for K.S.’s grade level, various accommodations, and a transition plan, were appropriately individualized in light of K.S.’s SLD; and (2) no actionable violation resulted from wrongly excluding K.S. from the Sept. MDR, which reviewed K.S.’s prior FIEs, FBA consultations, his IIE, Ms. H’s reports of K.S’s ADHD (an OHI), TBI, and mood disorders, and concluded that K.S.’s SLD did not cause him to commit the assault for which he was assigned to DAEP. And, in sum, the D.Ct. did not err in holding that K.S. received a FAPE in the LRE in compliance with IDEA.
I think somebody enjoyed putting that paragraph together. It’s Leigh Ann H. v. Riesel ISD, decided by the 5th Circuit on November 22, 2021. And by the way, did you get 80% of that? If so, congratulations!
DAWG BONE: “ACRONYMIC EFFICIENCY” INDEED!Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at email@example.com.