In M.S. v. Downingtown Area School District, No. 20-CV-5085-JMY, 2022 WL 16531962, 122 LRP 42748 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2022), the court considered a tuition reimbursement case involving a student with significant developmental delays, including oral apraxia and childhood apraxia of speech. These conditions manifested in delays in cognitive development, communication, social-emotional development, and physical development.
The student had been served in a preschool program, and the district proposed a half-kindergarten, half-life-skills program. The parents rejected the proposal and unilaterally enrolled the student at a private placement known as The Talk School. The parents then filed a due process complaint. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district.
As summarized by the court, the parents contended on appeal:
that the District’s IEP failed to provide the programming M.S. required to address her unique and severe Childhood Apraxia of Speech and oral apraxia diagnoses, which greatly impacted her ability to communicate and access her education. They argued that the programs offered by the District did not address M.S.’s motor speech and language needs. Specifically, they asserted that the District failed to conduct motor speech and language testing when developing the IEP, failed to include motor speech and language achievement goals, and failed to provide motor speech and language therapy. They further argued that the District’s IEP would have placed M.S. in a regular education classroom for the majority of her school day without appropriate academic goals or programming.
Id. at *8.
The parents sought specific speech-language methodologies—Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets (“PROMPT”) and Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (“DTTC”)—both of which involve tactile cues to promote correct muscle movements for speech production and eliminate extraneous movements.
The court explained that the District presented evidence that DTTC is an educational term of art that encompasses techniques already used in its speech-language programming. As a result, although DTTC was not explicitly identified in the IEP, the District argued that the revised August 22, 2019, IEP nonetheless offered speech-language therapy consistent with the DTTC method. The District declined to provide the PROMPT methodology. Id.
The court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision in favor of the District, including on disputed factual issues concerning whether the parents had received the final IEP (the parents contended they had received only a prior draft). The court found that the final August 22, 2019, IEP did offer motor speech-language therapy consistent with DTTC and that there was no evidence the District was unable to implement the IEP.
The court emphasized that an IEP is not required to explain in detail every educational opportunity offered to a student, nor must it use specific language or terminology to define the methodologies employed by professionals. The hearing officer properly relied on testimony regarding how the IEP would be implemented, and the court found that the relevant information had been conveyed to the parents prior to their filing of the due process complaint. The court further reiterated that parents may not compel a school district to provide a specific program or methodology so long as the district offers an appropriate education.
The court rejected the parents’ tuition reimbursement claim due to the absence of a deprivation of FAPE, stating that “credible evidence presented at the due process hearing supports the contrary conclusion that the August 22, 2019, IEP offered speech/language therapy with clear motor speech/language achievement goals and objectives.” Id. at *15. The court also agreed that standardized testing of the student’s motor speech skills was not feasible due to the nature of her disability. Placement in a regular education classroom for part of the school day, as well as the provision of life-skills instruction, was supported by the evidence.
Additionally, the court rejected the parents’ request for reimbursement for a private evaluation, noting that the parents had not informed the District of any disagreement with the District’s evaluation. The court also found insufficient justification to reopen the hearing record to admit testimony from witnesses who could have been called during the due process hearing.
Without expressly addressing its relevance, the court included detailed discussion of the parents’ communications with the private school and their preparations for private placement prior to issuance of the IEP. It remains unclear whether this information influenced the court’s ultimate decision regarding reimbursement.
This case is noteworthy primarily for its discussion of the level of specificity required in an IEP. While the parents may have had a stronger argument regarding an earlier draft IEP, both the hearing officer and the court concluded that the final, last-offered IEP adequately addressed the student’s motor speech needs and included appropriate services and goals. The court also credited evidence that the parents received this IEP before filing for due process.