We're very excited to be able to
present The State of New
Hampshire Department of Education re: Hunter P. in which the Hearing
Officer found that the programming of a Cochlear Implant is a related
service pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 300.24 (b) (1). In this ruling, there is
also testimony from an expert witness that, in her opinion, a speech
pathologist would need additional training to work with a child with a
Cochlear Implant over and above the standard training received by a
pathologist. We wish to thank the parent, and their attorney, for
allowing us to share this important decision with you.
The United States District Court affirmed the hearing officer's
decision fully. Click here to
read the decision. |
In an Ohio case by taken on by the AG
Bell's Educational Advocacy Initiative,
the School District was found responsible for the costs of mapping and
audiological testing services for a student with a cochlear
implant.
Read that
decision here.
OCR (Office of civil Rights) and OSERS (Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services) Department of Education Letter
re: Harassment Based on Disability - If it gets to
the point where the child's
education (FAPE) is affected, then the schools must address this
problem.
-
Free
Appropriate Education-- The Supreme Court's First Decision
-
OCR Letter re: Failing to Provide
Qualified Interpreters
-
OCR
Letter re: Sign Language Interpreters
-
OCR Letter re: Access by Students with Disabilities to Accelerated
Programs
-
OSEP Letters. OSEP is a sub-branch of the United States
Department of Education and are responsible for ensuring States'
compliance with and implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
- OSEP-Reviewed IDEA '97
Materials - From NICHCY
- Board of Education v. Rowley
- Armstrong v. Charlotte County School Board - The
administrative law judge determined the district denied the student FAPE due to problems
with the interpreter. According to the ALJ, the interpreter used an inappropriate method
of signing to the student. The interpreter did not use the method most familiar to the
student, and the student only understood the interpreter approximately 50% of the time.
The district was ordered to furnish the student with an interpreter who used English only.
The district was also ordered to attempt to find a certified interpreter, but the ALJ
stated that this might be difficult given the nature of the market for interpreters.
- Armstrong v. Charlotte County School District - When the
district in the case above failed to hire a new interpreter, the parents sought an
injunction compelling the district to comply with the ALJ's order. It was
ruled that because the IDEA was enacted for the benefit of disabled children, the stay-put
provision cannot be enforced against prevailing parents and their children.
- Doe v. Board of Education of the Detroit Public Schools
- The hearing officer ruled that the district program would not meet the needs
of this child who uses ASL as his primary mode of communication, but that MSD
did. The Board of Education of the Detroit Public Schools contended that MSD was
not the child's least restrictive environment. The hearing officer had this to
say:
- "In developing an IEP for a child who is deaf, OSEP noted it is important to take into
consideration such factors as: the communication needs and the child's and family's preferred
mode of communication; linguistic needs; severity of hearing loss and potential for using
residential hearing; academic levels; and social, emotional and cultural needs, including
opportunities for peer interactions and communication. OSEP went onto state that:
"any setting,
including the regular classroom, that prevents a child who is deaf from receiving an appropriate
education that meets his or her needs, including communication needs, is not the LRE for that
individual child.'"
- Eureka Union Sch. Dist./Placer County Office of Educ -
The
hearing officer examined the proposed district program for the student and concluded it
was inappropriate. The district program was not designed to address the student's need for
improvement of his listening and auditory skills and would have required him to learn a
new form of communication. The district program emphasized sign language, which the
student did not need to communicate and would possibly result in the regression of the
student's listening and speaking skills. The private program provided the student with a
FAPE, since it addressed his listening and auditory skills.
-
Illinois Case #001231 - "Parents requested hearing on the issues of FAPE, specifically the
district’s failure to provide Auditory-Verbal Therapy and a sound field system
for their 4 year-old hearing impaired child and failure to place the child in
a regular preschool classroom with non-disabled peers. The hearing officer
held for parents on the issues of Auditory-Verbal Therapy and placement and
for the district on the issue of provision of sound field system. District was
ordered to pay for private AVT and preschool tuition and to reimburse parents
for past payment of these expenses." This ruling was upheld on appeal in
Federal Court.
-
Illinois Case # 002204 - Illinois
District Court Judge orders school system to pay for Auditory Verbal therapy
and reimburse day care costs for a child with a cochlear implant.
-
Indiana Board of Special Education Appeals Hearing No. 1128.99 -
Signing Aid.
- Jalen v. Alief
Independent School District - The school
district was ordered to provide 12 months of compensatory speech therapy
& A-V therapy and to coordinate with and consider retaining his current
AVT.
- [Student] v. Branford Board of
Education - Based on all the documentary evidence
and witness testimony, it was concluded that the IEP offered by the
Board was not reasonably calculated to provide the student educational
benefit. Although the IEP offered by the Board seemed to be the best it
could offer, it was not designed to address the student’s unique needs
as a profoundly deaf, cochlear implant child who has successfully
acquired the entirety of his speech and language by means of
auditory-verbal therapy, including committed parental participation, and
attendance in the regular education preschool setting.
- California - A direct link to these rulings does not work (we tried). To
give you access these rulings
we have put them in an Adobe Acrobat version for you.
-
Case No: 1076 - The Hearing Officer concluded that student's unique
needs, along with the unique needs of
her family, include auditory-verbal therapy and a regular education preschool setting.
-
Case No: 1383 and
1581 - The Hearing Officer concluded that student requires a program
that recognizes his auditory and oral skills and focuses on developing those skills and
that a DHOH class would, instead, provide student instruction in sign language, a mode of
communication the evidence established student did not need.
-
Case No: 593 - The Hearing Officer concluded that a preschool class
with 1:1 auditory training, 1:1 speech and language services, classroom carry-over, and
parent education--addressed student's unique needs and that a preschool class with
emphasis on the teaching and use of sign language, even though the District identifies the
class as using a total communication approach, did not.
-
Case No: 1382 - The Hearing Officer ruled that the person or persons
assigned as student's one-to-one aide must possess basic signing skills, be able to
effectively utilize student's receptive and expressive signing vocabulary, and be able to
expand upon his current signing vocabulary.
-
Case No: 890 - The Hearing Officer ordered that the School District
provide student (in a private school) with the services of a sign language interpreter for
academic classes and after-school basketball team for the remainder of the school year,
but that the interpreter need not assist student in her religion class or at on-campus
religious services. Also that The District provide student with aural handicapped/speech
and language services, once weekly for one hour, for the remainder of the school year (may
provide these services at a public school site at flexible hours).
-
Case No: 894 - The Hearing Officer found that so long as the plastic
slide remains in place on the kindergarten playground and the plastic chairs remain in the
classroom, the District's placement does not meet this three-year-old student's need to be
in an environment that addresses the physical limitations of his cochlear implant. He also
found that Sign language training for parents and extended family members did not provide
appropriate sign instruction for student's siblings, and that the student needs to receive
speech therapy, including auditory habilitation, for the entire summer, with no more than
a two-week break.
-
D.D.
vs FOOTHILL SELPA - We have AG Bell's Educational Advocacy
Initiative to thank for this one. Here is an excerpt from page 5:
"The real question is where the personnel designated by the
FOOTHILL SELPA to provide the services offered have the necessary
background, training, and experience to implement an appropriate
auditory/verbal program for Petitioner. The answer is that they do
not.
While the Foothill SELPS personnel have the requisite credentials,
credentials alone do not necessarily qualify an individual to
provide all possible services under that credential. Conversely, the
lack of a credential does not necessarily render a person
unqualified to perform a service. If that person has a proven record
of success, they are qualified to do the work."
-
United
States District Court of Maryland ruling in a case about ESY
-
Independent Panel for Special Education Advice
(IPSEA): case law - For and about the UK.
-
Related
Service or Medical Service?
-
Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime:
A Guide for Schools - By the National
Association of Attorneys General.
|
