Opinion ID: 770963
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural History: District Court

Text: 18 M.S. appealed the SRO's decision to federal court, see 20 U.S.C. 1415(e)(2) (1994), and the court decided the case on cross-motions for summary judgment. 19 As to the appropriateness of the education furnished by the School Board, the district court concurred with the SRO's determination that the 1997/1998 IEP was not reasonably calculated to enable S.S. to receive educational benefits. The district court emphasized: 20  Dr. Peterfreund found in May 1997 that S.S. continued to need significant improvement in word analysis, phonic skills and decoding skills. 21  The IEP failed to describe the extent of S.S.'s disability, ignoring his difficulties with word analysis, decoding skills and spelling and ignoring as well that when adding double digits S.S. proceeded from left to right. 22  The IEP failed to include objective data to establish a baseline from which S.S.' progress could be measured during the year. 23  The IEP's annual goals were vague. 24 As to whether M.S. had met his burden of establishing the appropriateness of the Stephen Gaynor School, the district court disagreed with the SRO. The district court emphasized that at his new school: 25  S.S. received an individualized program which included frequent use of manipulatives suited to S.S.'s love of hands-on activities. 26  S.S. received math instruction in a group of five students, reading instruction in a group of four students, and remedial reading, math and language instruction from specialists in a group of two students twice a week. 27  S.S. learned all digraphs, his phonics improved greatly, and he learned regrouping in math very satisfactorily. His reading level improved from an initial 2.0 grade-level to a 2.5 grade-level. 28  S.S. was given weekly phonetic packets to help his spelling. 29 The district court also held that the IDEA's least-restrictive environment requirement did not bar reimbursement, relying on Warren G. v. Cumberland County School District, 190 F.3d 80 (3d Cir. 1999). In Warren G., the Third Circuit held that an appropriate private placement is not disqualified because it is a more restrictive environment than that of the public placement. Thus, the test for the parents' private placement is that it is appropriate, and not that it is perfect. Id. at 84 (citing Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 249 & n.8 (3d Cir. 1999)). 30 The School Board appeals the entirety of the district court decision.