Opinion ID: 77196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Efforts to Develop A Successor IEP

Text: 32 On January 21, 2003, the School Board and C.M.'s parents (with their attorney and C.M.'s AVT instructor) met in order to develop a successor IEP. C.M.'s parents felt that the meeting was a waste of time because the School Board was not going to agree to AVT. Nevertheless, C.M.'s parents participated in developing a successor IEP. 33 A successor IEP was drafted to cover the period from January 21, 2003, to January 20, 2004. The successor IEP indicated that C.M. should be placed in a regular education pre-kindergarten class of four-and five-year olds at Greynolds Park Elementary School. The class used the high Scope Curriculum, which is very language based and promotes constant communication in the classroom. C.M. was also to receive various supporting services including: (1) 60 minutes per week of specialized assistance from a teacher using VT techniques; (2) an extra 30 minutes per week of expressive/receptive [language] skills training; (3) 30 minutes per week of oral motor skills training; and (4) occupational therapy. The School Board representatives agreed that C.M.'s classroom should be acoustically sound and that C.M. should be given preferential seating. 34 C.M.'s parents disagreed with the successor IEP because it provided for the use of VT techniques instead of AVT. Therefore, C.M.'s parents kept her in private school and in private AVT.