Guillermo G. et al v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, District 299, No. 1:2014cv03319 - Document 30 (N.D. Ill. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 10/20/2014: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 16 , is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 19 , is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed final judgment order consistent with the findings in this opinion by November 3, 2014. [For further detail see attached order.]Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C, # 4 Appendix D)(psm, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Guillermo G. et al v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, District 299 Doc. 30 Att. 2 Appendix B 1 [Offer] Para 1. to provide all student records in its possession; and to provide any and all additional documents as they may become available. 2 Para 2. to conduct evaluations by CPS clinicians, including (but not limited to), a psychological evaluation, a central auditory processing evaluation, a social work evaluation, an occupational therapy evaluation, a speechlanguage evaluation and an assistive technology evaluation 3 Para 3. to fund the independent Psychological evaluation in the amount of $3,375.00 Para 4. to fund the independent Central Auditory Processing Evaluation in the amount of $600.00 Para 5. to place the student: a. at a CPS multisensory program that will provide Orton-Gillingham type systematic reading instruction; or b. at a separate day school, such as Acacia. placement would include transportation services to and from school 4 5 [Relief Obtained] No order re production of additional documents; but, finding that withholding of IEP “grid” was “a significant and egregious procedural violation” resulted in an order for High School services (Para 2 on p. 61), not mentioned in CPS offer Denied psych report and social assessments, but ordered payment for independent evaluations for the other four categories: CAPD, OT, Speech/language and AT, based on findings that CPS conducted an inadequate assessment (speech/language) or failed to conduct assessments (CAPD, OT, AT) Decision at pp 43-46). Not granted. Ordered, Para 5 at p.61. Para 1 at p. 59: IHO ordered: a) peer reviewed special education instruction in language arts (para 1(g) of Decision, at p. 59); b) placement in different school for 8th grade (para 1(a) of Decision at p. Dockets.Justia.com 59) and for 1st year of high school (para 2 of Decision at p. 6 7 8 9 61); transportation ordered (Id.). Para 6. to develop an IEP incorporating the IHO ordered IEP meeting parent's choice of placement as reflected in the within 10 days to arrange LRE section; to include the appropriate placement “at a public recommendations from the CPS evaluations and school or at one of the from any private evaluations provided by the district’s charter schools Parent for consideration. that can provide the placement required by, and described in, the 201112 LRE grid for language arts and math special education instruction. The parents shall have input into the placement, including visiting proposed schools that can implement the placement. The district shall provide round-trip transportation to the school” (Para 1(a) at pp 59-60). Para 7. to include Extended School Year (ESY) for Not ordered. Summer 2013. Para 8. to provide 140 one-hour sessions of afterIHO ordered 60 minutes school reading tutoring for compensatory per week hours of after education at the rate of 60 minutes per week school services in twice a week occupational therapy for two years and 60 mpw for two years in written language by a speech/language pathologist (para 3 at p. 61) CPS states this equals 144 hours of after-school services (Doc #20 at p.7). Para 1(b) at p. 59: Not mentioned Revise the draft IEP to reflect the special education placement and 10 Not Mentioned service minutes for language arts and math provided in the 2011-12 LRE grid. Para 1(c) at p. 60: Provide related services in the amount specified in the IEE reports, as follows: i. 90 minutes/week of individual and/or small group speech and language services; ii. 90 minutes/week of AT support to the student and additional consultation time with staff and the student’s parents; iii. Provide aural rehabilitation to address his central auditory processing disorder; iv. Provide 60 minutes/week of direct occupational therapy services and 45 minutes/month of consult occupational therapy services to teachers and staff who work with the student; Provide 30 minutes/week direct services, either by a qualified social worker or speech/language pathologist, to address the student’s difficulties in semantic language as they impact his peer relationships. If Dr. M-J is available to serve as a consultant to develop this 11 Not Mentioned 12 Not mentioned service and appropriate goals, the district shall retain her as a consultant for up to 10 hours and reimburse her at her normal hourly consultation fee. Para 1(d) at p.60: d. Provide the assistive technology recommended in Dr. MJ’s report, including: i. A laptop computer with Windows-based operating system and Internet capabilities, and a printer and scanner; ii. Franklin Speller (talking); iii. Live-scribe pen; iv. SOLO-6, which includes Talking Word Processor (Write:Outloud 6), word prediction program (Co:Writer 6), Draft:Builder-6, and Read: Outloud-6; Bookshare.org membership (free) with Read:Outloud 6 (free version); and, vi. Premier Assist Literacy Pack. Para 1(e) at p. 60 - 61: The IEP team shall revise the student’s IEP to include the Accommodations recommended in Dr. F.’s evaluation, found at pages PD 332-333, and the aural rehabilitation goals found at pages PD 337339. (see also Pl Add’l Facts, ¶¶1 through 3 and Exhibit S, at S- 5 through S-6, and Exhibit S-10 through S12). 13 Not mentioned 14 Peer reviewed instruction in math not mentioned 15 Not mentioned 16 Not mentioned 17 Not mentioned Para 1(f) at p. 61: The IEP team shall revise the student’s IEP to include the recommendations in Ms. B’s evaluation, found at pages PD 400-402. (see also Pl Add’l Facts, ¶4 ¶5, and Exhibit T, at T-25 through T-26). Para 1(g) at p. 61: The IEP team shall revise the student’s IEP to include a statement of the peer-reviewed special education instruction in language arts and in math that shall be provided to the student. Para 1(h) at p. 61: The IEP team shall revise the student’s IEP to include goals that have objective baselines and benchmarks with objective measures of progress. Para 1(i) at p. 61: The IEP team shall revise the student’s transition plan to include goals that address his need for developing fundamental, work related skills and his needs in independent functioning. Para 2 at p. 61: The district shall provide a placement for the student’s first year 18 Not mentioned 19 Not mentioned 20 Not mentioned of high school that includes 400 minutes/week of direct services in a separate class for language arts, 200 minutes/week of direct services in a separate class for math, and 200 minutes/week of direct service for math in a regular education class. Related services of OT and speech/language shall continue as specified above in c(i), (iv), and (v). Para 4 at p. 61: The district shall fund the independent speech/language evaluation and pay Dr. M-J $1,375.00. Para 6 at p. 61: The district shall fund the occupational therapy evaluation and pay Ms. B. $1,900.00, as indicated on her invoice on PD 404. Because the invoice indicates that the parents have paid Ms. B. $50.00 for the evaluation, the district shall reimburse the parents $50.00 within 15 calendar days of receipt of this Order, thus fully funding the independent OT evaluation. Attorney fees: $57,650.56 had accrued as of the date of the offer. See CPS memo, Doc #20 at p. 13 Dkt. 24-1 at 1-3.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
