38 | Case Law (cont.)

38 | Case Law (cont.)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Case 4

Student: Eleven-year-old student initially diagnosed with cerebral palsy; while case pending diagnosis changed to PKAN.

School’s Participation: IEP indicated a communication plan based on "thumbs up/thumbs down" system and an iPad with buttons or icons.

Problem: "Thumbs up/thumbs down" system not "appropriately ambitious"; iPad not designed to provide "meaningful access to education based on his individual needs."

Results: School was considered in violation of IDEA for not providing a FAPE.

In re:  Student with a Disability, 71 IDELR 119 (SEA NM 2017)

Case 5

Student: High School student who is moderately to profoundly deaf but uses assistive listening devices for amplification struggles to hear in class, misses much of what is said, often leaves school with a headache, makes good grades, and participates in school.

School’s Participation: Provided an FM system for assisted listening and other aids and met the student’s need for a FAPE.

Problem: Student was not provided effective communications under the ADA.

Results: School was made to provide Communication Access Real-Time Translation or CART services for the student.

by Harrington v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 113 LRP 52143 (SD Cal 2013)

Case 6

Student: Ninth grader with autism, a speech-language impairment, and former diagnosis of intellectual disability on an IEP transitioned from a middle school building to a high school building within the same school district. Student previously used an iPad to achieve educational goals.

School’s Participation: School indicated in the student’s IEP the need for an iPad to achieve educational goals. School provided student with an iPad for educational purposes in middle school. When the transfer of the iPad did not occur in a timely manner from the middle school, student was provided a Kindle Fire to use at the high school.

Problem: Technical difficulties, including licensing issues, delayed the transfer of the iPad to the student at the high school until March of the ninth grade year. Once the student received the iPad, the support teacher and one-on-one aide were not trained in using the iPad as assistive technology to support the student.

Results: School was considered in violation of IDEA for not providing a FAPE. The district was ordered to contract with a private speech pathologist and/or an expert in iPad educational application technology to research, acquire, and teach the student, parent, teachers, and aide how to use appropriate educational applications to assist the student in a variety of ways and how these applications can be useful in supporting the IEP goals.
School District of Philadelphia, 114 LRP 37532 (Pennsylvania SEA 2014)