Could use some assistancec understanding this...

Discussion in 'General Parenting' started by Shari, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. Shari

    Shari IsItFridayYet?

  2. flutterby

    flutterby Fly away!

    Sorry. Clear as mud to me. But I don't see how they could say it's not a pattern. They would have to become very creative.
     
  3. Marguerite

    Marguerite Active Member

    Shari, half days constitutes a pattern of removal. I think what this one is trying to say, is that if the staff feel that the reason for suspension is not connected to the child's disability or not part of a regular pattern of behaviour, then they don't have to count it. It sounds like it could be used (or they might at least try to use it) as a catch-all way of opting out of responsibility.

    But if you can show that it IS all connected, he's getting suspended for the same sort of problem each time, then they're not going to be able to use this one.

    Possibly the catch is, "school personnel decide...".

    If the child is out for more than 10 days consecutively then the school staff can't claim it's not connected. By the same logic, half days also MUST be considered a pattern. And a lot of what you're claiming here, includes all those half days they foisted on wee.

    Looking at those next three points (over the page) - it is bleedin' obvious that wee's removals DO constitute a pattern. So if the school somehow manage to claim on paper that the absences are unconnected, you should be able to appeal. Either there should be formal proceedings options available to you, or you simply scream loud and long to everybody who will listen, and make a very loud fuss to the media if you have to, about failure of due process to protect a child form educational bungling and self-serving.

    Shari, they'd have to be idiots to try this one. It's just too flamin' obvious that wee's absences ARE connected.

    It's one thing for someone to say that his behaviour is unpredictable, and they can't understand why he can be OK one day and not the next; but a very different thing for them to claim that his suspension in Incident 1 is totally unrelated to his suspension in Incident 2.

    I don't blame you doing your homework like this - it's what I'd be doing too. But this loophole is definitely closed to them. If they try it, I'll be laughing. And they will have proven themselves to be even more brainless than we already suspect.

    Marg
     
  4. busywend

    busywend Well-Known Member Staff Member

    You have a pattern.
    Have you talked with Sheila or Martie over on our Special Education Forum? I think you should PM Sheila right away. She has sadvocated for people - even members from the site - in the past. She will be able to give you specific steps to take.
     
  5. SRL

    SRL Active Member

    Shari, you'd better check with the advocate or attorney in your state, but as I read this, you're at 300.40--Manifestation Determination--so the lesser stages don't apply to this hearing. At this stage, it's the district, parent, and members of the IEP that make the determination of whether the the conduct was caused or was not caused by the child's disability. Based on that outcome, together the group proceeds to 300.50 or 300.60. That's all.

    The lesser stages are legally what should have been happening prior to reaching the manifestation determination request. Districts that are careful about following the law will go through those steps formally, others will free style it and/or not follow it unless held legally accountable by a parent.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2010
Loading...