An offer for ESY must address all areas of student need. In the Garden Grove USD OAH Case # 2007080547, the judge ruled that The offer was not appropriate because it did not address occupational therapy services, which were necessary to prevent regression; however, Even though intensive behavior interventions (IBI) were not included in the ESY offer, it was established that the nature of the services provided to the child would prevent undue regression over the summer, particularly because the child was going to have a 1-1 aide. • In determining whether the content of ESY failed to provide a child with FAPE, it is important to consider the following legal interpretations. The standards for determining whether a child is entitled to an ESY placement in order to receive FAPE are different from the standards pertaining to FAPE in the regular school year. The purpose of special education during the ESY is to prevent serious regression over the summer months ( Hoeft v. Tucson Unified School District, 9th Cir. 1992 ; Letter to Myers ; OSEP 1989). In SS, JD, SS v. Henricoe County School Board (4th Cir. 2003) , the Hearing Officer found that ESY services “were not for the purpose of achieving goals not met during the school year.” The mere fact of likely regression is not enough to require an ESY placement, because all students "may regress to some extent during lengthy breaks from school.” The court ruled “ESY services are only necessary to FAPE when the benefits accrued a disabled child during a regular school year will be significantly jeopardized if he is not provided with an educational program during the summer months” (MM v. School Dist. of Greenville County, 4th Cir 2002) . It must be established that the significant skill losses were of such degree and duration so as seriously to impede progress toward his/her educational goals (Kenton County School District v. Hunt (6th Cir. 2004). The analysis must focus primarily on the adequacy of the proposed program. If the school district’s program was reasonably calculated to provide the student some educational benefit, the school district’s offer will constitute a FAPE even if the student’s parents preferred another program and even if the parents’ preferred program would have resulted in greater educational benefits to the student. The focus is on the appropriateness of the placement offered by the school district, and not on the alternative preferred by the parents (Gregory K.). An IEP is evaluated in light of information available at the time it was developed, and is not to be evaluated in hindsight.
Chapter 5 – Supports and Services, Desert/Mountain SELPA As of 10/18/19 D/M SELPA Steering Committee Approval
Page 83
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator