Special Education Connection through LRP provides great legal and practical documents, articles and resources for our Special Services Staff and Counselors. You may log in to Special Educaiton Connection by following this guidance.
Case name: In re: Student with a Disability, 124 LRP 29294 (SEA DE 07/12/24).
Ruling: The Delaware Department of Education determined that a district did not violate the IDEA when it declined to offer a student with a specific learning disability pullout services. It also found no evidence that the district denied the guardians an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the IEP process. The state ED closed the guardians' state complaint.
What it means: While pullout services may offer a student more one-on-one attention, not all students will need that level of support to receive FAPE. If a student makes appropriate progress in an inclusion classroom, that's a sign the placement is likely the student's least restrictive environment. These guardians wanted the student to receive pullout services for a portion of the school day. By pointing out that services in the current inclusion setting enabled the student to make progress toward his annual goals in decoding and sentence composition, the district demonstrated that a full-time placement in the inclusion classroom was the student's LRE.
Summary: Because a district could address a student's needs in decoding through additional supports in general education, he didn't need to receive specialized instruction in a separate setting during school day. Concluding that the district offered the student FAPE in the LRE, the Delaware ED closed the guardians' state complaint.
Under the IDEA, a district must educate a student with a disability with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.
The district complied with this LRE mandate when it declined to pull the student out of general education for certain services during the school day, the state ED determined. In this case, the guardians requested modifications, including pullout services, to address the student's deficits in decoding and reading. Although the district denied this request and maintained the student's in an inclusion classroom setting, this did not amount to a denial of FAPE, the state ED concluded.
The state ED acknowledged that the student continued to perform "well below grade-level benchmarks" even with IEP services. However, records indicated that the student made adequate progress toward his annual goals in decoding and sentence composition. What's more, the district appropriately proposed to increase the duration and frequency of services in the area of decoding to address the guardians' concerns. This included a research-based program that could be implemented in the student's current inclusion classroom, the state ED highlighted.
Because the student's overall progress established that services in the inclusion setting met the student's needs, the district acted reasonably when it declined to pull the student out of that setting for specialized instruction.
The state ED closed the guardians' state complaint, concluding that the district offered FAPE in the LRE.
September 3, 2024
Copyright 2024© LRP Publications
