STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
South Windsor Board of Education v. Student - CT SDE Case No. 20-0234
Case No. 20-0234
South Windsor Board of Education and Student
Appearing on behalf of the Student: None
Appearing on behalf of the Board: Attorney Linda Yoder Shipman & Goodwin LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT. 06103-01919
Appearing before: Attorney Ann F. Bird Hearing Officer
ISSUE:
Has the Board of Education fulfilled its obligation to offer the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The South Windsor Board of Education (Board of Education) initiated this special education due process case on November 26, 2019. This Impartial Hearing Officer was assigned to the case on December 18, 2019, when another hearing officer recused herself. A Prehearing Conference was convened on January 10, 2020. Attorney Linda Yoder appeared on behalf of the Board of Education. The Student did not appear. The initial deadline for filing the final decision was January 10, 2020. An evidentiary hearing was initially scheduled for March 5, 2020 and March 6, 2020. On February 14, 2020 the Board of Education requested cancellation of the March 5, 2020 hearing. The parent did not express a position on the request and the March 5, 2020 hearing was cancelled.
On January 10, 2020, February 4, 2020 and March 2, 2020 the Board of Education requested extensions of the deadline to file the final decision. The parent did not take a position on these requests and they were granted, resulting in a deadline of April 2, 2020 for the final decision.
On March 6, 2020 an evidentiary hearing was conducted pursuant to a duly issued Notice of Hearing. The Student did not appear for or participate in the hearing.
The following witnesses testified at the hearing:
Marshall Gladstone, Ph.D. Consulting Neuropsychologist Thomas Parvenski Director River Street School Jessica Kuckel Director of Special Services
Hearing Officer Exhibits A and B were entered as full exhibits. In addition, Board of Education Exhibits B 1 through B 17 were entered as full exhibits.
All motions and objections not previously ruled upon, if any, are hereby overruled.
To the extent that the procedural history, summary, and findings of fact actually represent conclusions of law, they should be so considered, and vice versa. Bonnie Ann F. v. Calallen Independent School District, 835 F. Supp. 340 (S.D. Tex. 1993); SAS Institute Inc. v. H. Computer Systems, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 816 (M.D. Tenn. 1985).
SUMMARY:
The Board of Education brought this request for special education due process hearing in order to establish that it has fulfilled its obligation to provide the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the Board of Education has fulfilled its obligation to offer the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education. In addition, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Student’s parent’s hostility toward and refusal to cooperate with, the Student’s educational program has stalled the Board of Education’s ability to deliver an appropriate program to the Student.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:
This matter was heard as a contested case pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) Section 10-76h and related regulations, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 1400 et seq., and related regulations, and in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (U.A.P.A.), C.G.S. Sections 4-176e to 4-178 inclusive, Section 4-181a and Section 4-186.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
I find the following facts:
1. The Hearing Officer mailed several documents to the Student’s parent, including the Notice of Hearing, via United States Mail, postage prepaid to the address on file with the Board of Education. None were returned as undeliverable or otherwise. In addition, the Hearing Officer e-mailed several documents, including the Notice of Prehearing Conference, to the Student’s parent using an e-mail address on file with the Board of Education and used by the parent in communicating with the Board of Education. None of these were returned. (Representations of the Impartial Hearing Officer; Exhibit B; Exhibit B -11)
2. The Student’s parent notified a Board of Education representative that he did not intend to participate in the due process hearing via e-mail dated December 19, 2019. (Exhibit B-11)
3. The Board of Education hand delivered its proposed exhibits to the Student’s parent at the address on file with the Board of Education. These exhibits were accepted by a person who identified herself as the Student’s parent’s mother. (Representation of Attorney Yoder)
4. The Student had actual notice of the evidentiary hearing in this matter, but chose not to attend or participate in the hearing. (Findings of Fact Nos. 1 – 3)
5. The Student was born on January 18, 2004, and is now sixteen years of age. He currently attends River Street School, a public self-contained program for students with autism and similar disabilities operated by the Capitol Region Education Council (CREC). CREC is a public regional educational service center for the Hartford, Connecticut Region. River Street School is located in Windsor, Connecticut. (Testimony of Parvenski (T Parvenski); Exhibit B-8)
6. The Student lives with his father in South Windsor, Connecticut. (Exhibit B-8)
7. The Student received services from an early age through Connecticut’s Birth to Three program as a result of delays in communication, motor and cognitive development. He has attended the River Street School autism program through the Board of Education since 2011, first at its Bloomfield campus and, since September 2018, at its Windsor campus. (Exhibit B-8; T Parvenski)
8. The Student’s primary disability category is Autism. (Exhibit B-8) The Student experiences both severe autism and significant cognitive deficits. These disabilities render him extremely distractible, highly impulsive and destructive. He is unable to focus on learning tasks for more than a few minutes at a time, even with direct adult support. He is physically aggressive towards persons and property, and sometimes requires restraint by as many as three adults. (T Gladstone; T Parvenski)
9. Moreover, the Student’s capacity for social interaction is very much inhibited due to his disabilities. He has no “social reciprocity”, meaning that he is unable to give his attention to the existence or behavior of others, much less the interests of others. He does not appreciate how his conduct impacts others and has no interest in interacting with other people. (T Gladstone)
10. As a result of his cognitive limits and severe autism, the Student does not have sufficient communication skills to get his needs met. He cannot say “I’m upset” or “I need”. The Student may respond to verbal inquiries, but uses sentences of no more than 3 to 5 words. He does not engage in conversation. (T Gladstone; T Parvenski)
11. Notably, the Student’s disabilities render him unable to learn through participation with peers at this time. In order to learn from peers, a child must have a reciprocal relationship with others. The Student, however, does not have any relationship with others. He does not care about others and he does not learn in any meaningful way from others. As a result, Modeling has not been an effective strategy to teach the Student socialization or other skills through peer interaction. (T Gladstone; T Kuckel)
12. The Board of Education performed a comprehensive Multidisciplinary Three Year ReEvaluation of the Student’s various areas of disability in July, August and September 2019. This ReEvaluation included administration of various standardized assessments of the Student’s cognitive and adaptive skills as well as review of his education record. (Exhibit B-8)
13. This ReEvaluation, including comprehensive reports of the Student’s progress on goals and objectives and current levels of performance in the areas of Socialization, Leisure, Independent Living, Functional Reading and Language Arts and Functional Math, Speech and Language and Occupational Therapy as well as his Behavior Support Plan, were presented at an annual review meeting of the Student’s Planning and Placement Team (PPT) on September 19, 2019. (Exhibit B-8)
14. The Student’s cognitive ability continued to be assessed in the Very Low range in all domains. His scores translate to an approximate age equivalence of below five years of age. Similarly, the Student’s adaptive skills for Communication and Daily Living are very low, with age equivalencies of less than three years of age. (Exhibit B-8)
15. The ReEvaluation also revealed that the Student continues to exhibit several significantly dangerous and disruptive maladaptive behaviors, including Aggression, Property Destruction, Ear Strikes and Mouthing (putting things in his mouth). (Exhibit B-8; Exhibit B-17)
16. The Student’s PPT developed an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the 2019-2020 School Year using information and data developed through the annual review. (Exhibit B-8)
17. The Student’s IEP provides for delivery of special education and related services in an out of district self-contained program as follows:
Academic and Social Skill instruction 5 hours 18 minutes per day in individual or small group setting
Speech/Language Therapy 90 minutes per week in individual or small group setting
Occupational Therapy 60 minutes per week in individual or small group setting (Exhibit B-8)
18. This program is offered for 5.8 hours per school day over a school year of 209 days. (Exhibit B-8)
19. Notably, the Board of Education provided both extended school day and extended school year services for the Student in previous school years. (Exhibit B-3; Exhibit B-4; Exhibit B-5; Exhibit B-6) Unfortunately, the Student’s parent refused to allow extended school day or extended school year services as part of the Student’s IEP for 2019-2020. (T Kuckel; Exhibit B-7; Exhibit B-8)
20. The Student’s PPT identified the following areas of “Concerns/Needs” requiring specialized instruction in the Present Levels of Performance section of his IEP:
Academic/Cognitive: Language Arts: Reading Comprehension Academic/Cognitive: Math: Using a calculator, rounding, measurements Other Academic/Nonacademic Areas: Social and Leisure skills Behavioral/Social/Emotional: Aggression, self-injury, property destruction, time spent out of program Communication: Sentence length and structure, concepts, adjectives Vocational/Transition: Follow instructions, use calculator, maintain materials Fine and Gross Motor: Work readiness skills Activities of Daily Living: Sweeping, clothing care, measurement, kitchen tools Other: Physical Education (Exhibit B-8)
21. The Student’s IEP also includes a set of Annual Goals and Objectives and Modifications and Accommodations that target each of the areas of Concerns/Needs identified in the Present Levels of Performance section of his IEP. (Exhibit B-8) These goals and objectives are set forth in the attached Addendum.
22. The Student’s IEP also includes an extensive set of Program Accommodations and Modifications provided in all sites and activities in the categories of Materials/Books/Equipment, Tests/Quizzes/Assessment, Grading, Organization, Environment, Behavioral Interventions and Support, Instructional Strategies and Other. (Exhibit B-8)
23. Among the most significant of these Program Accommodations and Modifications are the Environment elements of a highly predictable self-contained, small classroom environment with quiet area and very limited distractions, as well as highly structured and predictable routines and transitions, posted visual schedules, checklists and intense one to one adult support. (Exhibit B-8; T Parvenski)
24. In addition, the Student’s Program Accommodations and Modifications include important Behavioral Interventions and Support, including a Behavior Intervention Plan with constant collection and charting of data, consistent and clear expectations, frequent cueing of expected behavior, de-escalation strategies and positive reinforcement. (Exhibit B-8)
25. Finally, these critical Program Accommodations and Modifications provide the Student with a one to one paraprofessional throughout the school day as well as the indirect service of speech and language and occupational therapist consultation for thirty minutes per week and a Case Manager and Behavioral Analyst for consultation as needed. (Exhibit B-8)
26. The Student’s Annual Goals and Objectives, Modifications and Accommodations, instructional services and related services appropriately target each of the areas of Concerns/Needs identified in the Present Levels of Performance section of his IEP. In addition, these services are reasonably calculated to enable the Student to receive educational benefit. (Exhibit B-18; T Parvenski)
27. Early in the 2019-2020 School Year, River Street School gave notice that it would disenroll the Student from its program. This was a highly unusual step, taken only a few times in River Street School Director Parvenski’s 42 year tenure with the program. (T Parvenski; T Kuckel)
28. River Street School’s reason for taking this highly unusual action is that the relationship between River Street School and the Student’s parent has broken down irretrievably due to the parent’s abusive treatment of school staff, chronically inconsistent and irrational demands for changes in the Student’s program and refusal to consent to services that would benefit the Student. (T Parvenski)
29. The parent repeatedly and notoriously expressed his discontent with the River Street School and its staff in the most offensive and discourteous way possible, including calling them names, such as “Nazis” and “trolls” in the presence of other students and parents. (T Parvenski)
30. In addition, the Student’s parent habitually changed his position about his demands. For instance, at one point, the parent demanded increased opportunities for the Student to engage in vocational activities in the community. The Student was moved from the Bloomfield campus to the Windsor campus of the River Street School in order to facilitate this request, at great inconvenience to the staff and disruption to the Student. When River Street School proposed to add the vocational elements to the Student’s program, the parent objected, and refused to consent to his son’s participation in community outings.
31. The combined effect of the Student’s parent’s abuse of the staff and refusal to cooperate with initiatives that would benefit the Student lead inexorably to River Street School’s decision that it would not continue to provide services for the Student.
32. The Board of Education is not able to offer the Student an appropriate “in district” program. The Student’s need for an extremely structured, predictable and distraction free self-contained environment cannot be satisfied at any of the Board of Education’s schools or facilities, including its middle school or high school. (T Kuckel; T Gladstone; T Parvenski)
33. Accordingly, the Board of Education searched for alternative approved “out of district” programs to which the Student might be transitioned. One such program, The Gengras Center, in nearby West Hartford, Connecticut, reviewed the Student’s records and agreed to consider admitting him. (T Kuckel)
34. A PPT meeting was convened on September 19, 2019 to discuss possible alternative placements for the Student, including The Gengras Center. A representative of The Gengras Center attended the meeting by telephone. The Student’s parent refused to consider placement at The Gengras Center and even refused to hear a description of the program. He screamed and abused The Gengras Center representative. As a result, The Gengras Center is not willing to provide services to the Student. (T Parvenski; T Kuckel)
35. There are two other possible approved out of district special education programs that can provide an appropriate program for the Student: Adelbrook in Cromwell and Oak Hill in Hebron. Neither of these programs – nor any other approved out of district special education program in Connecticut – will consider admitting any student without the cooperation and consent of the Student’s parent or guardian. (T Kuckel)
36. The Student’s parent has repeatedly stated that he will not cooperate with placement of the Student in any out of district special education program. The Student’s parent most recently demanded that the Student be placed at the Board of Education’s South Windsor High School, where it would not be possible to provide the Student with an appropriate program. (T Kuckel)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION:
1. The overriding goal of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections 1400 et seq (IDEA) is to open the door of public education to students with disabilities by requiring school systems to offer them a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192 (1982) (Rowley).
2. In Rowley, the United States Supreme Court set out a two-part test for determining whether a local board of education has offered FAPE in compliance with IDEA. The first part of the test is whether there has been compliance with the procedural requirements of IDEA, and the second part is whether the student’s IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit in light of the student’s individual circumstances. Id. at 206-207. See also, Endrew F. v. Douglas City School District, 580 U.S. __, __ (2017); Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist. 427 F.3d 186, 191 (2d Cir. 2005); M.S. v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 103 (2d Cir. 2000).
3. Significantly, IDEA also demands that each student’s program be implemented in the least restrictive environment, so that children with disabilities are educated in integrated settings with non-disabled peers “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a); Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998).
4. The sufficiency of an IEP under IDEA is assessed in light of information available at the time the IEP is developed; it is not judged in hindsight. Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999). "An IEP is a snapshot, not a retrospective." Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Board of Education, 993 F.2d 1031, 1036 (3rd Cir. 1993). It must be viewed in terms of what was objectively reasonable when the IEP was developed. Id.
5. The Board of Education had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the IEP it offered to the Student was both substantively appropriate and in compliance with IDEA’s procedural requirements. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (R.S.C.A.) Section 10-76h-14(a); Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998).
6. The first prong of the Rowley inquiry, whether the Board of Education complied with IDEA’s procedural mandates, is a critical one. As the Supreme Court said in Rowley, Congress based IDEA on the “conviction that adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP." Rowley at 206. The procedural requirements of IDEA are designed to guarantee that the education of each student with a disability is individually tailored to meet that student's unique needs and abilities and to safeguard against arbitrary or erroneous decision-making. 20 U.S.C. Sections 1412(1) and 1415(a)-(e); Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036, 1039, and 1041 (5th Cir. 1989).
7. From a procedural standpoint, each IEP must include: (a) a statement of the student's present level of performance in each area of disability as determined through periodic assessments; (b) a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, that are designed to meet each of the student's educational needs resulting from the disability; and (c) a statement of the special education and related services to be provided in order to enable the student to attain his or her goals and to progress in the general education curriculum. 20 U.S.C. Section 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.320.
8. The evidence presented here established that the Board of Education fulfilled its procedural requirements. The Board of Education administered formal, standardized assessments of the Student’s cognitive and functional levels in July, August and September of 2019, as it had done previously. In addition, the Board of Education assessed the Student’s areas of disability through observation and review of his progress in the various domains of his program. Through those assessments the Student’s PPT developed Present Levels of Performance for each area of his disability.
9. In addition, the Board of Education included measurable annual goals and objectives and program accommodations and modifications designed to meet each of the Student’ educational needs in his IEP.
10. The second inquiry under Rowley is whether the Student’s IEP satisfied IDEA’s substantive requirement that it be reasonably calculated to allow the Student to make appropriate progress in light of his individual circumstances. Rowley at 206-207; Endrew F. v. Douglas City School District, 580 U.S. __, __ (2017).
11. A Free Appropriate Public Education under the IDEA does not implicate a "potential-maximizing education." Rowley at p. 197, fn. 21. Instead, the IEP must be one that "confers some educational benefit upon the handicapped child." Id. at p. 200.
12. The evidence established that the IEP offered by the Board of Education is reasonably calculated to allow the Student to make appropriate progress in light of his individual circumstances, including his severe autism and significant cognitive deficits.
13. Finally, IDEA requires that, to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities should be educated with children who are not disabled in the “least restrictive environment”. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a); Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998).
14. Indeed, Students should receive their education in self-contained settings or out of district programs only when the nature or severity of their disability is such that education in mainstream settings with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); Walczak v Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1999).
15. Where, as here, a Free Appropriate Public Education cannot be provided in a mainstream setting, the Board of Education is required to provide the program in a setting that can educate the student satisfactorily. P v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008).
16. The evidence demonstrated that, due to the nature and severity of the Student’s disability, it is not possible to provide him a Free Appropriate Public Education at South Windsor High School or any of the Board of Education’s schools with or without the use of supplementary aids and services.
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER:
The Board of Education has fulfilled its obligation to offer the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education.
The Student cannot receive a Free Appropriate Public Education in any Board of Education program or facility, including South Windsor High School.
The Board of Education is unable to deliver a Free Appropriate Public Education to the Student through an out of district placement without the cooperation of the Student’s parent or a guardian.
The Student’s parent has failed and refused to cooperate in placement of the Student in an appropriate program for provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education.
Addendum 1
2019-2020 School Year Goals and Objectives
Academic/Cognitive
Goal No. 1: Over the course of one year, [Student] will make gains in Functional Reading and Language Arts Skills by mastering all of the tasks related to the selected objectives
Objective # 1 [Student] will read short paragraphs and books at a DRA level of 12/14 and answer five multiple choice comprehension questions regarding the content with 90% accuracy for three consecutive weeks.
Objective # 2 [Student] will follow written multi-step instructions using prepositions and directionality with a minimum of 5 steps when provided with a single verbal direction with 80% accuracy for three consecutive weeks.
Objective # 3 [Student] will state all four seasons and identify days that are weekdays and weekends verbally when asked with 90% accuracy for 3 consecutive weeks.
Objective # 4 [Student will describe clothing for specific weather conditions in all four seasons based on temperature and activity with a single verbal cue with 90% accuracy for three consecutive weeks.
Objective #5 [Student] will fill in a single missing word to a 4-5 word incomplete sentence, at DRA Level 8/10, with a multiple choice response form when provided with a picture cue with 90% accuracy for three consecutive weeks.
Academic/Cognitive and Employment
Goal No. 2 Over the course of one year, [Student] will make gains in Functional Math Skills by mastering all tasks related to the selected objectives.
Objective # 1 [Student] will use a calculator to add and subtract 3 digit numbers and write the answer with paper and pencil with 90% accuracy for three consecutive weeks.
Objective # 2 [Student] will use a calculator to solve addition and subtraction of monetary amounts for at least 3 items from a shopping list, type his response and read the answer using “dollars” “cents” with 90 % accuracy for 3 consecutive weeks.
Objective #3 [Student] will round up the next whole dollar amount, up to $100, when presented with a monetary amount with dollar and cents using paper and pencil and reading the answer using “dollars” with 80% accuracy for three consecutive weeks.
Objective # 4 [Student] will determine the weight of objects using ounces and pounds and measure liquids and solids using ¼ cup, ½ cup, ¾ cup, 1 cup measurements using manipulatives and visual supports with 90% accuracy for 3 consecutive weeks.
Communication
Goal No. 3 [Student] will improve language and communication skills necessary for understanding, expression and social interactions.
Objective # 1 [Student] will express a sentence with correct grammatical structures (e.g. possessives, past tense) when describing a picture or situation with visual and auditory cues.
Objective # 2 [Student] will express concepts (e.g. spatial, quantity, temporal) when presented with a picture with auditory and visual cues.
Objective # 3 [Student] will express adjectives when describing a noun in complete sentences when presented with a picture or object with auditory and visual cues.
Objective # 4 [Student] will greet, request or comment when interacting with a communicative partner during classroom activities (e.g. morning circle, game, ADL) with auditory cues.
Social/Behavioral
Goal No. 4 [Student] will increase appropriate behaviors by meeting the following objectives
Objective # 1 [Student] will request a break from the current activity (in the absence of target challenging behaviors) with up to 1 prompt for 90% of opportunities provided, as measures across 60 days of data collection.
Goal No. 5 Over the course of one year, [Student] will make gains in Socialization Skills by mastering all of the tasks related to the selected objectives.
Objective # 1 [Student] will participate in small group lessons attending to the teacher for at least 20 minutes and 6 verbal exchanges during group lessons (Science, Weekly Reader, and Morning Meeting) with shadowed staff support with 90% accuracy for 3 consecutive weeks.
Objective # 2 [Student] will take turns with a peer during a structured card game for 15 minutes demonstrating verbalizing “your turn” asking for needed items, and responding to peers yes/no questions 80% of opportunities with shadowed support for 3 consecutive weeks.
Objective # 3 [Student will complete the classroom attendance and deliver it to a designated mailbox 2 times per week demonstrating safety in the hall with a verbal prompt, 80% of opportunities for 3 consecutive weeks.
Objective # 4 [Student] will state the names of his classmates when asked with a single verbal cue with 80% accuracy for three consecutive weeks.
Goal No. 6 [Student] will decrease his occurrence [of] challenging behaviors by meeting the targeted objectives.
Objective # 1 [Student] will decrease his rate of aggression [sic] from the current average of 1.1 responses per day, 5.5 per week (4/15/19 - 8/9/19) to 4.2 responses or less per week, as measured across 60 days of data collection.
Objective # 2 [Student] will decrease his rate of Self-injury from the current average of 4.1 responses per day (4/15/19 - 8/9/19) to 3.1 responses or less per day, as measured across 60 days of data collection.
Objective # 3 [Student] will decrease his rate of property destruction from the current average of 9.7 responses per day (4/15/19 - 8/9/19) to 7.3 responses or less per day, as measured across 60 days of data collection
Objective # 4 [Student] will decrease his time out of program from the current average of 49.6 minutes per day (4/15/19 - 8/9/19) to 40 minutes per day or less, as measured across 60 days of data collection.
Gross/Fine Motor
Goal No. 7 Over the course of one year, [Student] will improve his participation in work readiness tasks by mastering all tasks related to the selected objectives.
Objective # 1 [Student] will maintain tools and materials in the workspace while performing a task (e.g. clerical or desktop task), in 4 of 5 opportunities, by the next annual review.
Objective # 2 With a staff or peer as a co-worker, [Student] will cooperatively setup, use, and cleanup tools and materials for the work task (e.g. vacuum, laundry, light housekeeping) in 4 of 5 opportunities, by the next annual review
Independent Living
Goal No. 8 Over the course of one year, [Student] will make gains in Independent Living Skills by mastering all tasks related to the selected objectives.
Objective # 1 [Student] will complete a sweeping routine that includes sweeping an 8 x 8 foot area with furniture (e.g., under desk), collect debris in dust pan, and empty dustpan in trashcan 75% of opportunities with shadowed staff support for three consecutive weeks.
Objective # 2 [Student] will use a visual schedule to complete 6 skills stations that involve hanging and folding clothing, fasteners, measurement of liquids and solids with measuring cups, appropriate use of kitchen tools, and pouring with shadowed support one time per week with 80% accuracy for four consecutive weeks.
Objective # 3 [Student] will sort recycling and trash into categories (paper, plastic, metal, trash) using picture representation with 90% accuracy for three consecutive weeks
Other
Goal No. 9 Over the course of one year, [Student] will make gains in Leisure skills by mastering all tasks related to the selected objectives.
Objective # 1 [Student] will learn and demonstrate the rules of play for at least three new board or card games, over baseline, playing with staff and one classmate, with 3 out of 4 opportunities for three consecutive weeks.