Case Studies
Case Study 1, Part 2
This case study continues Arwynn’s story from Chapter 12 and emphasizes LRE and FAPE, though family participation, Child Find, and evaluation regulations are also relevant to this portion of the case. In Chapter 12, the school team determined that a multi-disciplinary evaluation was needed to determine if Arwynn qualified for special education. Given the impact of Arwynn’s needs on her own learning, as well as that of her classmates, the team chose to work on an expedited schedule to complete evaluation components.
Evaluation and Supports
As the team worked quickly and diligently to gather the necessary information for the evaluation, the school psychologist collaborated with Ms. Anderson and the temporary teaching assistant to provide additional supports for Arwynn. They decided to modify Ms. Anderson’s picture schedule intervention by providing pictures for 2-hour increments of the school day, rather than the whole day. In addition to using Lego time as a reward, they also planned a walk in the school building every hour. Due to Arwynn’s propensity to run away and the school’s proximity to a major road, this required two staff members to walk with Arwynn. Ms. Anderson and the school psychologist collected data on Arwynn’s work completion, running away, and self-hitting to measure the effectiveness of these strategies. Over the 30-day intervention period, Arwynn decreased incidents of self-hitting by 30%. However, she did not complete any structured academic tasks and she continued to try to run away multiple times each day, including during the walks through the building.
In addition to supporting intervention and collecting data with Ms. Anderson, the school psychologist administered non-verbal measures of intelligence and also attempted elements of academic achievement tests. She was not able to get any formal measure of academic achievement. Arwynn completed some portions of the non-verbal intelligence measure. She was particularly engaged in the block design portions of the test and completed them at an average level for children of her age. Otherwise, no formal test scores could be obtained.
A speech pathologist and occupational therapist also evaluated Arwynn. They worked with her in a variety of settings and contacted her mother to see if there were particular materials or activities that would help them see Arwynn’s skills and interests.
Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Colatta completed the Gilliam Autism Rating Scales forms and returned them to the school psychologist. Scoring indicated a high probability that Arwynn had autism with characteristic responses in all six of the subscales.
Eligibility Meeting
Mrs. Maier, the assistant principal at Ridgewood Elementary, usually handled special education procedures and took over Arwynn’s case once she returned from maternity leave. She communicated closely with all of the evaluators and determined that the evaluations would all be done before the last week of April. She contacted Mrs. Colatta by phone to offer some dates and times and provide an overview of the eligibility process. Mrs. Maier followed up with a formal written invitation to the eligibility meeting that included the date, time, purpose of the meeting, and a list of all school personnel who would be in attendance. Mrs. Maier also included a copy of the Procedural Safeguards, Family Guide to Special Education, and her contact information so the Colatta’s could call or email if they had any questions. She informed the family that copies of all evaluation reports would be available at the school two business days before the meeting.
Mrs. Colatta attended the eligibility meeting. She and her husband had reviewed all of the reports and had listed questions related to each of them. All of the evaluators summarized their information and answered Mrs. Colatta’s questions.
The team quickly determined that Arwynn met all of the eligibility criteria for a child with autism, as well as the related services of Speech-Language and Occupational Therapy. Mrs. Maier explained that the team had 30 calendar days to develop an individualized learning plan that would describe goals for Arwynn’s education and the special education services that the school would provide to help her achieve those goals. The team, including Mrs. Colatta, determined that it would be better to meet the following week because Arwynn was continuing to demonstrate the unsafe behavior of running away and she had yet to engage in any structured academic work.
Mrs. Maier informed Mrs. Colatta that Ridgewood did not have a specialized program for students with autism. Students with disabilities at Ridgewood were served by a teacher who specialized in Learning Disabilities. That teacher, as well as a teacher from a neighboring school who specialized in supporting students with autism would work together to develop a draft of the IEP over the next few days. The IEP team would use the draft as the starting point for the discussion of Arwynn’s services when they met the following week.
IEP Meeting
The IEP team convened at the end of the first week in May. In addition to Mrs. Colatta, Ms. Anderson, and Mrs. Maier, the team also included the special education teacher from Ridgewood, the autism specialist from the neighboring school, a speech pathologist, and an occupational therapist. Mrs. Colatta said she and her husband had reviewed the proposed goals and were excited about having Arwynn work toward the identified skills in academics, social skills, communication, and social-emotional regulation. The team worked quickly and collaboratively through the process of reviewing and finalizing the present level of performance and the goals.
Next the team discussed options for the setting in which Arwynn should be served. Mrs. Maier explained that Ridgewood only offered push-in special education in the general education classroom and pull-out support for reading and math through their Learning Disabilities program. If Arwynn were to stay at Ridgewood, she could receive support from the Learning Disabilities teacher in Ms. Anderson’s room for about 30 minutes a day and pull-out support for reading and math for about 30 – 45 minutes each. The Speech Pathologist and Occupational Therapist stated that the special supports that they would need to provide to meet Arwynn’s goals would generally be done though 60 minutes of service per week from each of the providers.
The other option that was presented was a placement in a self-contained autism program at one of the neighboring schools. The autism teacher shared that he supported a maximum of 8 students with autism in kindergarten through 3rd grade. He explained that his class was specifically structured to meet the needs of young children with autism. Most of his students completed all of their academic instruction with him or one of his assistants in the small group classroom. Most of the children attended lunch, recess, and related arts classes (art, music, PE, etc.) with their general education peers given the support of a teaching assistant. Some children attended general education classes in other content areas aligned with their academic strengths.
The team, including Mrs. Colatta, felt that the autism program was a better match for Arwynn. Mrs. Colatta asked if it would be possible for Arwynn to begin in the new school the following school year, since it was already May and there were only six weeks left in the school year. She felt that Arwynn was just beginning to adjust to Ms. Anderson and that the reduced self-hitting was a reflection of that. Although the school team members thought Arwynn would benefit from immediate supports from the autism program, they agreed to Mrs. Colatta’s request. They wrote the IEP to have Learning Disabilities services for 30 minutes per day in the general education classroom and 90 minutes per day in the special education classroom for the remainder of the school year. Occupational Therapy and Speech Therapy were scheduled for 60 minutes per week for an entire year.
The team then wrote a section of the IEP specifying that Arwynn would spend the full instructional day, other than lunch, recess, and related arts classes in the autism classroom beginning on the first day of the next school year. Mrs. Colatta was happy with the plan. She signed the IEP before leaving the meeting.
Arwynn finished the school year at Ridgewood with minimal progress toward any of her IEP goals.
The New School Year
Mr. Johnson, the autism teacher at Spring Brook Elementary, worked with Mrs. Colatta to introduce Arwynn to her new school and classroom in the weeks leading up to the new school year. Arwynn responded well to Mr. Johnson’s program. By the 4th week of the new school year, she had reduced self-hitting by 70% relative to what was observed at Ridgewood Elementary and she was only attempting to run away two to three times a week, usually from the cafeteria or related arts classes. Arwynn was beginning to participate in learning activities using hands-on materials or an iPad. She still was not interested in using any traditional writing tools. She enjoyed singing during the morning circle. She was very physically active and needed movement activities every hour or so, but Arwynn was beginning to show signs of progress on all of her IEP goals.
One day Mr. Colatta e-mailed Mr. Johnson to ask if Spring Brook Elementary had a sensory room. Mr. Colatta heard that a neighboring school had a sensory room and Arwynn’s private occupational therapist thought Arwynn would benefit from that. Mr. Johnson replied that Spring Brook did not have a sensory room, but that he collaborated with the Occupational Therapist and Physical Therapist to identify physical and sensory activities that helped all of his students self-regulate. Mr. Colatta emailed the principal of Spring Brook Elementary to ask for an IEP meeting. He wanted Arwynn moved to a school that had a sensory room.
A Contentious IEP Meeting
The principal of Spring Book scheduled the IEP meeting at Mr. Colatta’s request. Because a different school placement was being requested, the principal informed Mr. Colatta that a central office special education administrator would need to attend the meeting. Proper meeting notice was sent.
At the IEP meeting, Mr. Colatta explained that Arwynn’s private occupational therapist said that a sensory room might help Arwynn. He produced a letter from the therapist which stated that a sensory room that allowed Arwynn to engage in gross motor activities on demand could potentially decrease Arwynn’s agitated behaviors and help her engage in learning. The letter suggested that the sensory tools such as rock wall for climbing, swings, tricycles, and climbing tubes could meet Arwynn’s sensory needs. Mr. Colatta requested that these items be added to Arwynn’s IEP and that she be placed at a school that had these resources available.
The central office representative stated that none of the schools in the division had all of this equipment and that the nearest school with a sensory room and an autism program was at capacity. The team began discussing options for meeting Arwynn’s sensory needs at Spring Brook. They wrote an amendment to include the physical movement activities that Arwynn was using every hour, plus a consultation with a school-based occupational therapist who specializes in sensory supports for students with autism.
Mr. Colatta was unhappy with this proposal. He refused to sign the IEP, withdrew Arwynn from Spring Brook at the end of that week, and contracted a lawyer to help obtain a private school placement at public expense.