Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 48 of 51concerns training, “to argue against the provision of trainingand consultation with respect to individual students rather thanto ‘school districts.’” (Joint Motion for Final Approval ofSettlement Agreement at 31.) According to the parties, ProvisionIV.7 does not prevent training and technical assistance withrespect to individual students, but rather requires such trainingand assistance identified by a needs assessment.The Court finds the parties’ argument to be persuasive.When considering the parties’ position in light of Dr. McGregor’stestimony at the Fairness Hearing, the Court determines thattraining and technical assistance are adequately addressed in theSettlement Agreement, as driven by the educational policy of theCommonwealth. Thus, the Court will overrule this objection.F. Failure to Increase State Funding to Local SchoolDistrictsParents of a child with a disability objected that theSettlement Agreement did not guarantee increased state funding toassist the school districts in meeting their obligations. First,Plaintiffs did not seek increased state funding in theircomplaint. Second, it is doubtful that the Court has the powerto require any specific expenditures of state funds under thecircumstances of the case. Third, to the extent that moneys areneeded to fund the Settlement Agreement, both the Secretary ofEducation and the Director of PDE’s Bureau of Special Education48
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 49 of 51testified at the Fairness Hearing that the Commonwealth had thefunds and resources to implement the provisions of the SettlementAgreement. (Fairness Hr’g Tr., 06/24/2005, 13, 23.)Accordingly, the Court will overrule this objection.G. Need for a Change in Placement PracticesOne parent proposed that children who have not metcertain testing and grading standards should immediately beplaced in a learning support program, while the school districtsand parents arrange for appropriate testing to determine thespecific learning disability and then tailor the IEP to addresseach child’s specific needs. According to the parties, theSettlement Agreement does not--and cannot--change the provisionin the IDEA that requires evaluation and development of an IEPbefore a student’s placement can be changed. 20 U.S.C. § 1414.The parties note, however, that the Settlement Agreement providesfor professional development, which may help teachers identifystudents in need of supplementary aids and services, but who havenot been identified as having a disability because they can beclearly included in a regular classroom. The Court concurs withthe parties and will overrule this objection.49
Page 4 and 5: Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330

Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?