Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Legal Responsibilities of Educators
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sheila" data-source="post: 124194" data-attributes="member: 23"><p><strong>Key Concept:</strong></p><p>You cannot selectively implement an IEP.</p><p><strong>2. <em>Maryland-Montgomery County Public School</em> (6)</strong></p><p><strong>Facts:</strong> A student with a mild learning disability had attended district schools for 7th, 8th and part of 9th grade year. In the 9th grade year, parents removed student to 8th grade curriculum in private school, claiming that school failed to implement IEP and failed to provide an adequate IEP. School had used methods such as counselor involvement, parent conferences, consultations with specialists and colleagues, adjusted workload, preferential seating, student conference, modifying methods and materials.</p><p><strong>Ruling:</strong> School failed to meet goals of student's 7th and 8th grade IEP's, which called for specified hours of weekly SPED services and thereby deprived student of appropriate education for two years. School's 7th, 8th, and 9th grade IEP's were inadequate, because they were based on student's emotional problems, and not on consideration of how she learned. Parents entitled to private school tuition reimbursement, plus transportation and related costs, and two academic years of compensatory education.</p><p><strong>Note:</strong> Hearing Officer stressed that it was clearly unrealistic to set same exact goals for 9th grade IEP which were never met in 7th and 8th grade IEP's. Officer discredited testimony of student's classroom teachers that they believed the student was learning, given her poor grades and test scores.</p><p><strong>Key Concepts:</strong></p><p>Repetitive IEP goals are a "red flag" in many cases.</p><p>Progress is still measured the "old fashioned way," by whether the student makes the grades and test scores, and not simply by the perception of a teacher that a student has progressed.</p><p><strong>B. The Dangers of Unilateral Changes to an IEP: A case in point</strong></p><p>The IEP is a document that may only be modified in a Team setting. Educators do not have the latitude to unilaterally alter an IEP.</p><p><em>Penn-Tyrone Area School District</em> (7)</p><p><strong>Facts:</strong> An eight-year-old student with mental retardation and speech and language impairment had attended District's alternative school since kindergarten. The state Special Education Bureau found that the school was not age appropriate. The District then prepared a new IEP, without convening the team and without parental participation, which transferred student to another alternate regular school. District claimed it did not include parents because it knew they opposed transfer and that "no meaningful benefit" would be obtained from holding an IEP team meeting.</p><p><strong>Ruling:</strong> Court declared the IEP a "nullity". District had to convene IEP team and start anew.</p><p><strong>Key Concept:</strong></p><p>Never unilaterally deviate from an IEP without first convening a team meeting to modify the IEP.</p><p><strong>C. Flexibility in Methodology: A case study of a "right way"</strong></p><p>A District does have flexibility in the methodology it uses to reach an IEP's goals and objectives. However, it is important that the methodology be consistent throughout the educational program.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sheila, post: 124194, member: 23"] [B]Key Concept:[/B] You cannot selectively implement an IEP. [B]2. [I]Maryland-Montgomery County Public School[/I] (6) Facts:[/B] A student with a mild learning disability had attended district schools for 7th, 8th and part of 9th grade year. In the 9th grade year, parents removed student to 8th grade curriculum in private school, claiming that school failed to implement IEP and failed to provide an adequate IEP. School had used methods such as counselor involvement, parent conferences, consultations with specialists and colleagues, adjusted workload, preferential seating, student conference, modifying methods and materials. [B]Ruling:[/B] School failed to meet goals of student's 7th and 8th grade IEP's, which called for specified hours of weekly SPED services and thereby deprived student of appropriate education for two years. School's 7th, 8th, and 9th grade IEP's were inadequate, because they were based on student's emotional problems, and not on consideration of how she learned. Parents entitled to private school tuition reimbursement, plus transportation and related costs, and two academic years of compensatory education. [B]Note:[/B] Hearing Officer stressed that it was clearly unrealistic to set same exact goals for 9th grade IEP which were never met in 7th and 8th grade IEP's. Officer discredited testimony of student's classroom teachers that they believed the student was learning, given her poor grades and test scores. [B]Key Concepts:[/B] Repetitive IEP goals are a "red flag" in many cases. Progress is still measured the "old fashioned way," by whether the student makes the grades and test scores, and not simply by the perception of a teacher that a student has progressed. [B]B. The Dangers of Unilateral Changes to an IEP: A case in point[/B] The IEP is a document that may only be modified in a Team setting. Educators do not have the latitude to unilaterally alter an IEP. [I]Penn-Tyrone Area School District[/I] (7) [B]Facts:[/B] An eight-year-old student with mental retardation and speech and language impairment had attended District's alternative school since kindergarten. The state Special Education Bureau found that the school was not age appropriate. The District then prepared a new IEP, without convening the team and without parental participation, which transferred student to another alternate regular school. District claimed it did not include parents because it knew they opposed transfer and that "no meaningful benefit" would be obtained from holding an IEP team meeting. [B]Ruling:[/B] Court declared the IEP a "nullity". District had to convene IEP team and start anew. [B]Key Concept:[/B] Never unilaterally deviate from an IEP without first convening a team meeting to modify the IEP. [B]C. Flexibility in Methodology: A case study of a "right way"[/B] A District does have flexibility in the methodology it uses to reach an IEP's goals and objectives. However, it is important that the methodology be consistent throughout the educational program. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Legal Responsibilities of Educators
Top