|
|
|
| Home > News > JP v. School Board of Hanover County: Another Great Autism Decision by Pete Wright, Esq.(09/01/06) |
| |
Analysis of JP v. School Board of Hanover County Print
this page Hearing Officer's Decision: Inadequate, Incorrect JP's parents were concerned that he was not making progress. They asked the school to conduct the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills (ABLLS), a comprehensive test that assesses a child's pre-academic and social developmental strengths and weaknesses. Did JP Make Progress? As evidence that JP made progress, the school presented testimony by two speech therapists. The speech therapists kept a progress log. The district claimed that the log was "objective data." The Court found "HCPS claims that the log is objective data, and HCPS is correct in the sense that the log states what the therapists observed and wrote down. But, it is not empirical, comparable, or standardized, as are the test scores obtained in the speech and language testing." (Decision, p. 48) "... entries in the log skip many days. The record contains no explanation for the incomplete, somewhat erratic recording in the log ... the log is more like a diary than a systematic recording of JP's curriculum and progress. The log entries are not referenced to the goals in the IEP so direct assessment of progress on IEP goals is not easily achieved ... sometimes, the log only describes what task was done on a particular day without stating how JP did." (Decision, p. 49-50) Charting Out Test Scores In JP v. Hanover School Board, the Judge used JP's test scores to determine if he was making progress or regressing. Baseline testing and findings in subsequent administrations of tests were key evidence that the public school program was not appropriate, and that the private program was appropriate. In the decision, the Court compared the child's subtest scores on repeated administrations of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, (PPVT) Oral and Written Language Scale, (OWLS) Preschool Language Scale (PLS-4), Visual Motor Integration test (VMI) and Woodcock Johnson (WJ-III). At the end of the decision are three appendices. Appendix A are benchmark grades from the IEP and Mrs. P's assessment. Appendix B is a table of Speech and Language Testing with standard scores and age equivalent scores. Appendix C is a table of JP's scores on Woodcock Johnson (WJ-III) subtests, and changes in the subtest scores over time. Testimony by School Witnesses Negated by Other Evidence The Judge described testimony by one speech therapist that placement in an ABA school "would deprive JP of social interaction with typical students, which is important and necessary for speech development ... [this] testimony was negated by other evidence." The other speech therapist 'largely echoed" the testimony of her co-worker, but "she acknowledged that JP has very limited verbal output, makes very few spontaneous utterances, and had difficulty with yes/no questions and pronouns. Inexplicably, the log actually shows that JP did very well with these last two areas. This contradiction undercuts the reliability of the log, and it adversely affects the weight given to [her] testimony." (Decision, page 53) Testimony by School Witness Impeached: "Language Necessary Prerequisite to Social Interaction" "[Speech therapist] Augustine testified that JP should not be at an ABA-type school because he needs social interaction with typical students to develop his language skills. She stated that socialization is important ... as a language development tool ... However, Augustine's testimony was significantly impeached when, on cross examination, she admitted that a basic understanding and competence in language is a necessary prerequisite to social interaction, and that JP lacked the basic language skills needed to communicate with his peers. This impeachment significantly damages the weight and credibility of Augustine's testimony." (Decision, p. 53) "The record shows that, if JP could not communicate with his peers, socialization would do him little good, and could actually cause him frustration, anxiety, and emotional trauma." (Decision, p. 54) The Court found that JP did not make progress under the 2004-2005 IEP. Since the IEP proposed for 2005-2006 was "essentially the same IEP ..." it was inappropriate. (Decision, page 73) In their post-hearing briefs, the school district argued that the IDEA intended schools to provide a "basic floor of opportunity." In his decision, the Judge cited the Findings in IDEA 2004 that "implementation of this chapter has been impeded by low expectations and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities." (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(c)(4) (page 67) (see also Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004, page 30) "The legislative history of the EAHCA and the IDEA show quite clearly that Congress did not enact the statutes for the purpose of meeting the minimal level of service urged by HCPS." It is refreshing when a Judge goes to such lengths and reads the transcript, takes new evidence, studies the exhibits, reads cases (and cites footnotes from cases), and uses objective test data in his decision. Autistic Child's Parents Prevail in Virginia - Judge Rules against Hanover, Orders School System to Pay Student's Private Tuition by Bill McElway of the Richmond Times Dispatch describes the judge's decision, resistance from the school system, (including a threat to file trespassing charges against the parents), and other noteworthy decisions by Judge Payne in RT v. School Board of Henrico County-I and RT v. School Board of Henrico County-II earlier this summer. More special education caselaw: https://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm To
Top
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
