You are on page 1of 7

Due Process/Parent Participation

Parent Participation / Due Process Trina Kelsey EDU-720 Special Education Law for the Classroom February 22, 2012 University of New England

Due Process/Parent Participation Case 10.1 Dan Question To what extent were the following legal guidelines followed in the development of Dans IEP? Informed parental consent for initial placement in special education. IEP team consideration of the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child. Assurance by the school district that parents of a child with a disability are members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their child

Response In order to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education, an IEP team must ascertain whether the current placement is meeting the individual needs of the child (Hulett, 2009). If the child is not making progress, an evaluation may need to be done to see if special education services are warranted. Dans mother gave written permission for him to receive testing, because he was struggling with his academics. She didnt necessarily have full understanding of the testing process, but she wanted help for her son. The school clearly did not inform *her+ about specifics related to the content of the various instruments and the potential implications for *the+ child (Hulett, 2009) as required by IDEA. Dans inability to keep up with his classmates prompted an evaluation, so that he could receive an individualized program to meet his needs, because the development of educationally and legally sound IEPs is essential to ensuring a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for every student with a disability (Hulett, 2009). The team assembled to

Due Process/Parent Participation discuss Dans educational program, but it seems that the document and services had been predetermined and there was little involvement of the parent in the decision making as

required by IDEA. In addition, the educational terminology was not thoroughly explained to the parent, which caused anxiety and worry for the mother. It is important that practitioners avoid educational jargon and acronyms with which parents or guardians might not be familiar in order to maximize their understanding of the discussion and the resulting IEP (Hulett, 2009). Dans mother felt as though her questions were not addressed and she was being told, rather than being included as part of the IEP team. The parents expertise on her child was disregarded which is a critical mistake. Parents know more than anyone else about their child and should be considered among the most important members of the IEP team and are expected to be equal participants in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their child (Hulett, 2009). In Dans case, this did not happen. The IEP meeting was used as a means of telling the parent what services were going to be received, rather than working in collaboration to come up with the best service possible. When creating the IEP for Dan, the team did not consider that ultimately, parents or guardians must give permission for placement (Hulett, 2009). The team was placing themselves in a vulnerable position by alienating the parent, because she may have refused to sign the document. This entire situation could have been handled in a much more sensitive, inclusive, positive manner so the family felt good about Dan receiving extra supports throughout the day.

Due Process/Parent Participation BC Perspective The IEP process is much the same in BC as it is in the US. We have similar components that we are required to fill out. When we write about a students needs, we also write about the strengths that the child exhibits to present a more balanced impression of the child. There is a requirement that a school board must ensure that a principal offers to consult with a parent of a child who has special needs regarding the student's placement in an educational program (BC Ministry of Education, 2011). Often the principal asks the Learning Resource teacher to make the parent contact because a relationship of trust and communication happens between the parents and the LRT. To pursue testing, a permission slip must be obtained from the parents and then the test results are explained without educational jargon. We complete IEP meetings with parents and strive to have meaningful parent participation (Hulett, 2009), which is beneficial for all involved.

Due Process/Parent Participation Case 10.2 Maria Question According to IDEA, describe the procedures for changing an IEP. To what extent did this social worker follow those procedures? Response In 2004, congress adjusted the requirements surrounding IEPs to reduce the amount of time that teachers spend in IEP meetings and IDEA now permits adjustments to the IEP to be made without a formal meeting (Hulett, 2009). There are still requirements that must be met in order to complete the process in a proper manner, so adjustments are done with agreement from the LEA and the parents (Hulett, 2009). In addition, written documents *must+ be submitted to make minor adjustments to an IEP (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 614(d)(3)(D)) (Hulett, 2009). This is where the school social worker made an error. His quick, unscheduled phone call home was not a written submission and the adjustments that were proposed were not minor, they drastically altered the amount of service that Maria would receive each week. To call the phone call a conference where the decision was made

(Weishaar, 2007) is a stretch as well. It actually was the social worker informing the parent that service was going to be withdrawn during an impromptu call. In order to increase Marias likelihood of being successful in her kindergarten placement, the team decided that she would receive the services of a social worker several times per week. This allows her to stay in the Least Restrictive Environment. Unfortunately the social worker was not at the meeting and he does not feel he can sustain that level of service to the student. There is a mandate to have students participate in the general education

Due Process/Parent Participation

curriculum, make progress toward annual goals, and be educated with regular education peers as much as possible (Hulett, 2009) and this is at risk with the removal of services. Services should not be pulled without the consultation of the IEP team, including the parents. In order to maintain procedural safeguards, parents should be given notification of meetings at which the IEP will be developed, reviewed, or revised(Hulett, 2009). To give the parent adequate time to prepare, the notification should be given a reasonable period of time in advance of the meeting and indicate the purpose of the meeting (Hulett, 2009). This did not happen in Marias case and her mother was put on the spot. In addition to the parent not being supportive of the plan, the rest of the IEP team does not seem to be aware of the change in Marias service level therefore the social worker did not have the authority to change the IEP. BC Perspective In our district only the case manager has access to changing the IEP, because the IEPs are accessed through a web-based program that is password protected. A social worker, or another member of the team can read the IEP online, but they cannot change it. We have planned meetings once a year to review the goals, services and transition plans. Occasionally there are other meetings or phone calls as issues arise, but they are not considered to be IEP meetings. They are problem solving meetings that address concerns. The outcomes may be recorded in the IEP, but most often they are recorded in our School Based Team (SBT) meeting minutes. A change to a students program would need to be discussed at the weekly SBT meeting and then the case manager would call the parent to discuss any changes that may arise after consultation with the whole School Based Team.

Due Process/Parent Participation References BC Ministry of Education, (2011). Special education services: A manual of policies, procedures and guidelines. Retrieved from website: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/special_ed_policy_manual.pdf Hulett, K. E. (2009). Legal aspects of special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Weishaar, M. K. (2007). Case studies in special education law. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

You might also like