Tracy Lapreziosa 0:07 Welcome back to Assistive Technology & Special Education Law. This is Episode Four, Assistive Technology Cases & Principles of Case Law. If this is your first time joining us, don't forget to catch up with other episodes in the series. Judy Gran 0:23 Some of the principles I think we see from the case law. Our first, failure to evaluate a student's need for assistive technology may represent a denial of the right to a free appropriate public education, just that failure to evaluate, and students have received compensatory education for that failure. Judy Gran 0:55 Some of the principles I think we see from the case law: Our first, failure to evaluate a student's need for assistive technology may represent a denial of the right to a free appropriate public education, just that failure to evaluate, and students have received compensatory education for that failure. Second, failure to incorporate recommended assistive technology in a student's IEP may represent a denial of the right to a free appropriate public education. So districts need to be very careful when they get an evaluation with a lot of assistive technology recommended in it, and they don't have an evaluation of their own that says it's not needed. That evaluation and those recommendations may really create a situation in which a district will be ordered to provide what was recommended. Another principle is that the - the school district may not limit the use of assistive technology to the classroom. They can't have a general policy that they will not allow the student to take the device outside the classroom or take it home. Judy Gran 1:48 And finally, that assistive technology may prevent unnecessarily restrictive placements. Rosa McAllister 1:55 The question do you think, do you think that this is part of the reason why Schools seem oftentimes very hesitant to even seek evaluation for assistive technology for a child? Judy Gran 2:07 Yes, I do. And I think the most school districts here in Pennsylvania that I have encountered, use the set process, which is not really an evaluation. It's an action planning process. And it's not done by the IEP team. It's done by some other group of people within the school. And it may result in the acquisition of appropriate devices, and it may result in good services. But that accountability to the IEP team process is really what's missing in that process. And I think that's why that's why districts are reluctant to formally refer the student for assistive technology evaluations. Judy Gran 2:56 First, I'd like to talk about some cases about evaluations. Well, first case is a very simple one. Christopher was a student who had difficulty with written language and paper and pencil tests. And the case went to a hearing over the issue of whether the district should have evaluated his need for assistive technology. Judy Gran 3:18 And the hearing officer and appeals panel said yes, his needs were quite obvious and awarded 270 hours of compensatory education, just for the failure to consider his assistive technology needs. And as a result, in addition to that compensatory education, the district was ordered to provide a computer for Christopher's use until he graduated or ceased to reside in the district. But they did not have to give him a computer and voice to text software that he would personally own. And that's another I guess, I should have identified that as a principle that is the limit of the district's responsibility. They don't have a responsibility to actually buy a device for the student to to have and keep. Judy Gran 4:14 Another evaluation case concerned Jenna, who was deaf and moved to Pennsylvania from another state, and she had received assistive technology there. And after she moved to the district, the district just didn't bother to reevaluate her, but just reviewed the paperwork and concluded that she really didn't need Assistive Technology Services. Judy Gran 4:44 And the hearing officer ruled that the district had violated Jenna's right to a free appropriate public education by just concluding that she didn't need assistive technology. They should have evaluated her first. Judy Gran 5:05 Very interesting case involves a student named Kaitlyn who had spinal muscular atrophy. And the school district again failed to conduct an assistive technology evaluation and the hearing officer ordered a comprehensive evaluation that must make specific recommendations about equipment, materials, and software. So that was really a powerful result. And it didn't end there because the hearing officer also ordered the district to actually provide the assistive technology that Kaitlyn needed, and said this could include a computer, printer, modem, internet access, and software for her use at home as well as training for Kaitlyn, her parents, and the district staff. And the school district had to provide 450 school days of compensatory education for the failure to evaluate Kaitlyn. Bearing in mind that a year is 180 days, that's really a lot of compensatory education. Judy Gran 6:16 Gregory's case was about a middle school student whose parents had specifically requested an assistive technology evaluation and never got it. The school district conducted a record review and referred Gregory for the set process. And a team of teachers and administrators, not the IEP, team met and decided to try out a laptop and Kurzweil software which is... Rosa McAllister 6:47 We haven't explored it yet specifically, but I think some groups will be um talking about that a little bit more of it. It's a very powerful piece of Instructional Technology actually that can do many, many things to assist students they can do voice to text, text to voice, and do a number of other things. Judy Gran 7:08 Well, Gregory had a severe reading disability. He was a very bright student who had dyslexia. And so he was using it for text to voice output primarily to read. And he used the laptop for 30 days and the district decided to return it. I think they said he was pushing the CD player in and out. [laughter] [Rosa McAllister interjects, "I'm covering my head]", he was 13. Judy Gran 7:41 And he was only allowed to use the Kurzweil software in the special education resource room where he was for about an hour a day. And the staff were supposed to collect data on what he did with the Kurzweil device but they really didn't. They just took a few notes here and there. Judy Gran 8:06 So his case went to a hearing. And one of the big issues was the adequacy of the district's evaluation process. And the hearing officer held that the set process was adequate that that was okay. But the appeals panel reversed and held that if you just apply the regulation, on what an evaluation is, and what you need to look at in terms of assistive technology, the set process really doesn't doesn't pass muster. So the appeals panel held that that the school district had never actually evaluated Greg's needs for assistive technology. Tracy Lapreziosa 8:49 This concludes today's episode of assistive technology and special education law. We hope this program has been helpful to you and welcome your comments. Please join us for other episodes in this series. Transcribed by https://otter.ai