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: 124201" data-attributes="member: 23"><p>An example of how one school district erred is demonstrated by the case of <em>North East Indep. School District (TX)</em>. (20) A student with autism and speech impairment had been in the district's preschool program for children with learning disabilities. His parents unilaterally withdrew him from the district before his first grade year and placed him in private school, because of their complaints about the district program's class size and lack of teacher training. In his kindergarten year, the student had been placed in a general classroom with therapy, a personal assistant, and an at-home trainer, but his behavior deteriorated and punitive measures were used. Based on student's behavior and the conclusions of a private psychologist, the school proposed placing student in resource room. Parents objected to proposed placement and district's proposed first grade IEP. Parents further claimed that the district withheld important information regarding behavioral interventions, thereby denying them effective participation in the IEP process.</p><p>The hearing officer ruled that the parents were denied meaningful input into the IEP process, because the district failed to provide the parents with information about the punitive behavior management strategies used during the kindergarten year, which violated parent's procedural rights. The parents were awarded compensatory education and partial reimbursement of private school tuition. The hearing officer also stressed that parent participation involves the opportunity to have meaningful input into the IEP process</p><p>The case of <em>City of E. Chicago School (Ind.)</em>, (21) is another illustration of the consequences for failing to keep a parent/guardian informed. The guardian of a mentally handicapped student complained that the school had not provided the guardian with progress reports on a regular basis. The student's IEP specifically required progress reports at certain intervals. The hearing officer ruled that the school's failure to provide the reports violated the requirements of the IDEA. As an additional precaution, the district was also ordered to meet with the guardian at the conclusion of each grading period to report on student's progress and goal attainment.</p><p><strong>Key Concepts:</strong></p><p>The regular education teacher should carefully adhere to any notice or communication requirements provided for in a student's IEP.</p><p>School personnel should be vigilant about providing notice for both procedural, (e.g., notice of a meeting), and substantive, (e.g., notice of a child's pattern of misbehavior) matters.</p><p>In hindsight, more information will always be seen as better than less information, so err on the side of inclusion when determining how much information to communicate to a parent.</p><p>Timeliness is key to adequate communication: meet all procedural deadlines for notice and promptly communicate any issues that arise.</p><p> </p><p style="text-align: center"><strong>Return to Table of Contents</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>ENDNOTES</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>1. 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B); 20 U.S.C. &#167;1414(d)(3)(c)</p><p>2. 24 IDELR 199, February 2, 1996</p><p>3. 25 IDELR 1027, April 9, 1997</p><p>4. 20 U.S.C. &#167;1412(a)(1)(A); 20 U.S.C. &#167;1412(4)</p><p>5. 31 IDELR 87, February 9, 1999</p><p>6. 31 IDELR 70, August 12, 1999</p><p>7. 31 IDELR 20, March 22, 1999</p><p>8. 31 IDELR 25, December 29, 1998</p><p>9. 20 U.S.C. &#167; 1415(k)(1),34 C.F.R. &#167; 300.121(d); 34 C.F.R. &#167; 300.520(a)(1)</p><p>10. 20 U.S.C. &#167; 1415(k)(1),34 CFR &#167; 300.121(d)</p><p>11. 20 U.S.C. &#167; 1415(k)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. &#167; 300.520(b);34 C.F.R. &#167; 300.523)</p><p>12. 31 IDELR 41, January 19, 1999</p><p>13. 31 IDELR 60, February 16, 1999</p><p>14. 24 IDELR 824 (D. Ariz. 1996)</p><p>15. 25 IDELR 387</p><p>16. 31 IDELR 60, February 16, 1999</p><p>17. 31 IDELR 89, February 12, 1999</p><p>18. 31 IDELR 38, December 31, 1998</p><p>19. 31 IDELR 15, October 9, 1998</p><p>20. 31 IDELR 101, September 25, 1998</p><p>21. 31 IDELR 45, November 6, 1998</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sheila, post: 124201, member: 23"] An example of how one school district erred is demonstrated by the case of [I]North East Indep. School District (TX)[/I]. (20) A student with autism and speech impairment had been in the district's preschool program for children with learning disabilities. His parents unilaterally withdrew him from the district before his first grade year and placed him in private school, because of their complaints about the district program's class size and lack of teacher training. In his kindergarten year, the student had been placed in a general classroom with therapy, a personal assistant, and an at-home trainer, but his behavior deteriorated and punitive measures were used. Based on student's behavior and the conclusions of a private psychologist, the school proposed placing student in resource room. Parents objected to proposed placement and district's proposed first grade IEP. Parents further claimed that the district withheld important information regarding behavioral interventions, thereby denying them effective participation in the IEP process. The hearing officer ruled that the parents were denied meaningful input into the IEP process, because the district failed to provide the parents with information about the punitive behavior management strategies used during the kindergarten year, which violated parent's procedural rights. The parents were awarded compensatory education and partial reimbursement of private school tuition. The hearing officer also stressed that parent participation involves the opportunity to have meaningful input into the IEP process The case of [I]City of E. Chicago School (Ind.)[/I], (21) is another illustration of the consequences for failing to keep a parent/guardian informed. The guardian of a mentally handicapped student complained that the school had not provided the guardian with progress reports on a regular basis. The student's IEP specifically required progress reports at certain intervals. The hearing officer ruled that the school's failure to provide the reports violated the requirements of the IDEA. As an additional precaution, the district was also ordered to meet with the guardian at the conclusion of each grading period to report on student's progress and goal attainment. [B]Key Concepts:[/B] The regular education teacher should carefully adhere to any notice or communication requirements provided for in a student's IEP. School personnel should be vigilant about providing notice for both procedural, (e.g., notice of a meeting), and substantive, (e.g., notice of a child's pattern of misbehavior) matters. In hindsight, more information will always be seen as better than less information, so err on the side of inclusion when determining how much information to communicate to a parent. Timeliness is key to adequate communication: meet all procedural deadlines for notice and promptly communicate any issues that arise. [CENTER][B]Return to Table of Contents[/B][/CENTER] [B]ENDNOTES[/B] 1. 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(c) 2. 24 IDELR 199, February 2, 1996 3. 25 IDELR 1027, April 9, 1997 4. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(1)(A); 20 U.S.C. §1412(4) 5. 31 IDELR 87, February 9, 1999 6. 31 IDELR 70, August 12, 1999 7. 31 IDELR 20, March 22, 1999 8. 31 IDELR 25, December 29, 1998 9. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1),34 C.F.R. § 300.121(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(a)(1) 10. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1),34 CFR § 300.121(d) 11. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(b);34 C.F.R. § 300.523) 12. 31 IDELR 41, January 19, 1999 13. 31 IDELR 60, February 16, 1999 14. 24 IDELR 824 (D. Ariz. 1996) 15. 25 IDELR 387 16. 31 IDELR 60, February 16, 1999 17. 31 IDELR 89, February 12, 1999 18. 31 IDELR 38, December 31, 1998 19. 31 IDELR 15, October 9, 1998 20. 31 IDELR 101, September 25, 1998 21. 31 IDELR 45, November 6, 1998 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Legal Responsibilities of Educators
Top