Ms. S. v. Vashon island sd

1
Ms. S. v. Vashon island sd

• By Jillian Durgen, Kim Kokias, Patty Solano-Fah,
  Lindsay Wilson

2
Facts

• G. is the child of Ms. S and has a diagnosis
  of Down Syndrome and Mild Mental Retardation
• G. began receiving special education services in
  Seattle Public Schools
• 1992-1993 Kindergarten G.s educational
  placement was ½ day general education and ½ day
  special education
• 1993-1994 1st Grade Ms. S. requested a general
  education placement, which Seattle felt was not
  educationally appropriate. The district
  compromised by offering placement at an
  alternative school setting which was a unique,
  experimental multi age classroom combining
  special education and general education students.
  Ms. S agreed, but did not sign the IEP.
• 1995-1996 3rd Grade G. moved to the Vashon
  Island School District

3
Facts, continued.

• Ms. S. received a letter that the district wanted
  to place G. in a temporary 30-day self-contained
  special education placement until she was
  properly assessed.
• Ms. S. did not sign the paperwork. On the same
  day, she wrote back to the director of Student
  Services, stating that the district was refusing
  to assess G. until she was placed in a
  self-contained classroom.
• In September, October, and November, several
  unsuccessful attempts from the district were made
  to Ms. S. to assess and evaluate G. and to
  discuss an IEP.
• Due to attendance, VISD filed for due process.
• The ALJ ordered VISD to reassess G.
• Ms. S. disagreed with the results and demanded an
  IEE. VISD filed for another due process hearing.
  

4
issues

• Did VISD violate the procedural requirements of
  the IDEA by failing to have an IEP in place at
  the beginning of the school year?
• Did VISD predetermine Gs placement before
  involving Ms. S. ?
• Did VISD fail to implement the last agreed upon
  IEP under stay put?
• Did VISD attempt to schedule the first meeting to
  initiate or change Gs placement without prior
  written notice, contrary to statutory and
  regulatory command?
• Did VISD violate the substantive provisions of
  the IDEA by failing to place G, to the maximum
  extent appropriate in a general education
  classroom with normally developing peers?

5
Holding

• Because VISD had an IEP in place at the beginning
  of the school year, FAPE was not violated.
• VISD did not violate the parents procedural
  rights to participation in the IEP process.
• VISD did not violate the stay put provision and
  were not obligated to provide identical placement
  provided by the old agency.
• There were minor procedural violations in
  providing notice, but those technical errors did
  not deny FAPE.
• VISD offerred G. an interim placement that
  provided for mainstreaming to the extent
  appropriate.

6
Reasoning/Rationale

• If a child with a disability has been receiving
  special education in one district, and moves to
  another, the new district may implement the last
  IEP from the old district (WAC 34 C.F.R.
  Pt.300app. C, no. 6 (1995).
• The school district repeatedly provided the
  parent with the opportunity to participate
  (Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm).
• The new district must adopt a plan that
  approximates the students old IEP as closely as
  possible until dispute between parent and school
  district is resolved (Honig).
• Not every procedural violation amounts to a
  denial of a FAPE (Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 892)
• Under the 4-part test, LRE was offered to G.
  (Rowley, Clyde K. v. Puyallup, Sacramento City
  Unified SD BOE v. Rachel H.)

7
Significance

• The court upheld LRE student is entitled to
  education with nondisabled peers in a general
  education setting to the maximum extent
  appropriate as determined by the 4-part test
  (Sacramento City Unified SD BOE v. Rachel H.).
• Not every procedural violation amounts to a
  denial of FAPE.
• If a school district does not have an identical
  program to the one that is specified in a
  transfer students previous IEP, they do not need
  to create an identical program. They must offer
  a new placement that is sufficiently close to the
  previous placement.