In Abigail P. v. Old Forge School District, 105 F.4th 57, 124 LRP 21769 (3d Cir. June 26, 2024), the Third Circuit addressed the substantive adequacy and implementation of a modified individualized education program (IEP) during remote instruction at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic. The court affirmed a district court decision upholding a hearing officer’s determination that the school district did not deny the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when it shifted instruction to a remote model from November 25, 2020, through February 16, 2021, with four additional days of remote instruction in spring 2021 for specialized cleaning of school facilities.
The case involved a student with severe disabilities, including epilepsy, autism, global developmental delays, and other conditions. Under her IEP, the student was entitled to specialized instruction and related services, including three thirty‑minute sessions per week of speech‑language therapy and occupational therapy (OT), and one thirty‑minute session per week of physical therapy (PT) and physical education. In December 2020, the IEP team modified the IEP to reflect the shift to remote instruction.
The revised IEP provided for Zoom sessions five days per week, with optional Google Classroom assignments four days per week. Two days per week, the student’s mother elected to have the student participate in group “circle time” rather than OT due to a scheduling conflict. One behavioral goal related to following schedules was placed on hold because it could not be appropriately monitored in a virtual setting, and monitoring of task completion throughout the day was slightly reduced for similar reasons. The student’s mother agreed to each of these revisions. Id. at 62.
During the period of remote instruction, the student received the full amount of PT and speech‑language therapy, as well as some additional services, but she received less one‑to‑one instruction. On some days, instruction was provided by an aide, and the student received approximately fifteen minutes per day each of math and reading instruction. The student struggled with remote instruction and regressed in some areas. The district offered compensatory education, but the student’s mother declined because the student was enrolled in another program for the summer.
Deferring to the hearing officer’s factual findings, the court concluded that the modified program satisfied the standard for FAPE and was implemented adequately. The student received behavioral technician and behavioral analyst services, the full amount of PT and speech services, and most related services overall. The court noted that OT sessions were missed because the mother opted for circle time, not because the district failed to provide the service. The court further found that the student’s instructional time was only slightly reduced, that she received equipment to support independent activities, and that there was no failure by the district to implement substantial or significant provisions of the IEP. Id. at 66.
The court rejected the argument that remote instruction during the pandemic was a per se violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It emphasized that while a school district is never relieved of its legal obligations under IDEA, it must continue to offer an educational program reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefits in light of the child’s individual circumstances, which may be affected by a global pandemic. Id. at 66–67.
The decision reflects that modified IEPs implemented during extraordinary circumstances such as the COVID‑19 pandemic may satisfy FAPE where the record supports that services were largely delivered as revised, parental input was incorporated, and the student continued to receive educational benefit in light of her individual circumstances.