Act 104, school, PEI and rejection. A decision of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court

In case of non-fulfillment of the goals set by the IEP, the student with a disability must be repeated the year

As we know, the IEP – Individualized Education Plan – is the key document that guide all didactic activity for pupils and students with disabilities, with a “differentiated” didactic program. IEP is the tool with which the Class Council expresses itself and tracks a path activities and Goal that can be followed and reached by the student during the school year.
But what if these goals are not achieved? If these objectives are not achieved, perhaps also due to an incomplete implementation of the inclusion measures in the same IEP, it is necessary to reject the student and get him to repeat the year to fill this gap.

This is basically the synthesis of a sentence by TAR from Lazio (judgment 6624/2022), which expressed itself on a appeal presented by the support administrator for a student with autism and severe disability certified in accordance with Act 104, Article 3, para. 3. The student had been admitted to the final state exam in the fifth year of high school for as 2020/2021 despite the lack of implementation of a satisfactory inclusive path and therefore in the presence of one insufficient overall performance.
With a subsequent ordinance he came accepted the precautionary statement formulated otherwise with appeal, injunction to re-enroll the student in fifth year of the high school attended.

Since the rebuilding of the TAR, teachers had found one during the year (not just out of support) significant regression of the pupil, result of incomplete implementation of the measures for inclusion provided by IEP as a result of the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic in the last two school years. At the meeting of the class council with functions regarding STAREduring the year it had also been changed IEP previously approved, revised to the disadvantage the training goals must be achieved, to make them better adapted to the student’s situation. However, the same “however, they have not been achieved (p. 3, cit. doc.).

Although it is interesting in relation to the present case what the TAR emphasizes in terms of the centrality of the EIP also in terms of student evaluation by the class council, which must be governed by the objectives of the Individual Education Plan. In fact, TAR mentions Guidelines for scholastic integration of students with disabilities“, adopted with a memorandum from August 2009 by MIUR, which in point 2.4 stipulates thisThe evaluation in tenths must be compared with the EIP, which is the reference point for teaching activities for the benefit of the student with a disability. It is also recalled that the evaluation in question must always be regarded as an evaluation of the processes and not only as an evaluation of performance ”.

In other words, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court reiterates pending the centrality of the EIP also for the purpose of evaluating performance school for disabled pupils, it is clear that in the present case, compared with several documents certifying failure to meet the objectives set out thereinDespite the positive evaluations of the first and second four months and the generic reference to regular schooling, highlighted by the class council in the final study, the student’s inclusive project was not implemented given the non – achievement of the objectives.
For these reasons, the complaint deserves approval, with consequent confirmation of the effects of the acceptance of the security request and the annulment of the contested deeds. Then it comes confirmed re-enrollment of the fifth-year student for the school year 2021/22.

To know more

Dom No. 6624/2022

Also read about this topic:

Handicap school. IEP in support of a decision of the Council of State

Editorial Board

Leave a Comment