CHALLENGE YOU BE THE JUDGE: 4th grade student has dyslexia. While the IEP does not specify a methodology for reading remediation, the school utilized Read 180, which did not address the students significant deficits in decoding and encoding. The student did not make progress. After several evaluations and IEP meetings, the school continued with the IEP, and while the IEP itself did not mention a particular reading program, the minutes reflect that the school intended to continue to use at least a portion of Read 180. Parents withdrew their student, placed him in a private school and sued for reimbursement. The trial level judge found that the school had denied the student FAPE, but as a remedy, ordered the school to instruct the student utilizing Orton Gillingham through the 6th grade year, while denying the parents claim for reimbursement. Parents still left their child in the private school and appealed. Who wins? (hint: keep in mind that there are 2 issues at play -- beyond whether the school denied FAPE: compensatory education for past failures, and prospective education for the districts inability to educate the student going forward...).
Posted on: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:10:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015