Opinion ID: 156357
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Present Levels of Performance

Text: 66 Molly's IEPs, as amended, contained a statement of her present levels of performance in a number of specific areas, including listing her strengths and needs. It included the pre-printed statement See Special Ed. file for specialists' reports. Appellant's App. Vol. 4 at 44. It described her general intelligence as low-average to borderline ability. Id. Under Educational performance it referenced scores ranging from 55 to 77 on various measures of educational achievement, such as reading and math. Id. They rated her motor skills as 5 years and 10 months. Id. at 66. 67 The hearing officer determined that the statement of present levels of educational performance was adequate. The reviewing officer disagreed, finding that [t]he strengths and needs listed do not accurately or clearly describe the effects of M[olly]'s disability on her performance in the areas listed[;][r]aw scores are reported to describe present levels of functioning[;][and][t]he raw scores reported are not self-explanatory and no explanation is included on the IEP. Review Officer's Decision at 15-16, Addendum to Appellant's Br. at 40-41. 68 The district court in turn reversed the reviewing officer on this point, deciding that the O'Tooles actively participated in the formulation of [Molly's] IEPs during which [her] present level of educational performance was thoroughly discussed and explained. O'Toole, 963 F.Supp. at 1012. The court's other rationale for reversing the reviewing officer on this point was that Molly's IEPs also address all of the issues mentioned in [Kan. Admin. Regs.] § 91-12-41(f)(1) with the requisite specificity. Id. 69 We agree with the reviewing officer that the IEP does not clearly convey Molly's present levels of educational performance in a way that relates those present levels to her disability, nor does it, on its face, explain the import of the raw test scores contained therein. However, it does refer to the specialists' reports, which presumably contain more detail and which the O'Tooles do not argue were unavailable for reference. Moreover, there is no doubt that Molly's parents and her teachers were fully aware of Molly's present levels of educational performance and discussed them in detail in formulating her IEPs. Given that one of the primary goals of the procedural requirements of the IDEA is to ensure parental participation in the formulation of a child's IEP, and to ensure that the program developed actually reflects, and is based upon, the child's present levels of performance, we conclude that the statement of present levels of performance in the IEPs did not violate the procedural requirements of the IDEA and Kansas law.