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
Minor revision of IEP
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="Martie" data-source="post: 71799" data-attributes="member: 284"><p>OK,</p><p></p><p>I'm back and sorry that I lost the post. That does not happen very often to me anymore.</p><p></p><p>Here is what I wanted to bring up: an IEP that is validly constructed trumps the principal because it is based in federal law. Further, the IEP team does not decide the placement FIRST. The invariant order is as follows: Evaluation, CSE meeting, eiglibility determined (in your case this has been done) <strong>IEP development to determine needs </strong> and FINALLY, the LRE where the IEP can be implemented is determined. If you child needs advanced math and science, then the LRE is going to be the advanced regular class. However, for English, perhaps he needs a smaller class to become motivated to compensate for his problems in which case (as an example) a smaller resource class would be the LRE for English. When IEP comes BEFORE placement decisions, individualization is easier. With children such as yours, it is very important to remember that special education is a service NOT a place. Also, the ADA protects "otherwise qualified" individuals from discrimination based solely on disability. You have a strong case in my opinion that difficult child is "otherwise qualifed" for advanced science and the principal is being very arbitrary which is a close cousin to discriminatory.</p><p></p><p>A really important addition to IDEA 2004 allows an IEP to be amended to make "minor changes" without a full meeting as long as it is in writing, the parent agrees and signs it. You will certainly have enough SD personnel there, so if you can go this route, I would. The only thing left to argue about is whether or not adding an advanced science class is a "minor change." I would contend it is minor because advanced math was in the prior IEP and math and science are closely related subjects.</p><p></p><p>Special Education is INDIVIDUALIZED in all regards and failing English has nothing to do with math and science levels as the principal should (and probably does) know.</p><p></p><p>On a personal note: it is in part due to this issue that my son ended up in a private high school after EGBS. He got fairly consistent D's in English but needed advanced math and science as well as German. The Due Process Hearing Officer actually said she had never seen a Special Education student with these sorts of needs and it was most inconvenient. I was really sorry about having an "inconvenient" kid.....Sheesh.</p><p></p><p>I think that in addition to the SD treading lightly because you are an attorney, the SD may want this IEP to be amended either to force the principal to comply or use it as an issue with her. There may be an agenda here besides your child which is unfortunate in one way, but may be turned to your advantage in another. I think the superintendent is getting ready to push the principal out on a limb; it's just a feeling, but based on your description, something else seems to be going on. I generally think that it is a bad idea to get on the wrong side of the principal, but you have little to lose here since she already does not like your child.</p><p></p><p>Finally, I think the superintendent saying you have exhausted administrative remedies means "informal" remedies. Both mediation and Due Process Hearings are considered "administrative" and must be undertaken before you can bring suit in federal court. in my opinion I do not think this will go to Due Process let alone court because the individualization of Special Education and the primacy of the IEP has been reinforced so many times by the Supreme Court. In addition, <em>Winkelman </em>settled whether or not you can represent your son, so the SD has that to worry about also although perhaps <em>Winkelman </em>does not apply because you ARE an attorney. However, the other important part of <em>Winkelman </em>is that parents have rights under IDEA independent of the rights of the child.</p><p></p><p>Best to you,</p><p></p><p>Martie</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Martie, post: 71799, member: 284"] OK, I'm back and sorry that I lost the post. That does not happen very often to me anymore. Here is what I wanted to bring up: an IEP that is validly constructed trumps the principal because it is based in federal law. Further, the IEP team does not decide the placement FIRST. The invariant order is as follows: Evaluation, CSE meeting, eiglibility determined (in your case this has been done) [b]IEP development to determine needs [/b] and FINALLY, the LRE where the IEP can be implemented is determined. If you child needs advanced math and science, then the LRE is going to be the advanced regular class. However, for English, perhaps he needs a smaller class to become motivated to compensate for his problems in which case (as an example) a smaller resource class would be the LRE for English. When IEP comes BEFORE placement decisions, individualization is easier. With children such as yours, it is very important to remember that special education is a service NOT a place. Also, the ADA protects "otherwise qualified" individuals from discrimination based solely on disability. You have a strong case in my opinion that difficult child is "otherwise qualifed" for advanced science and the principal is being very arbitrary which is a close cousin to discriminatory. A really important addition to IDEA 2004 allows an IEP to be amended to make "minor changes" without a full meeting as long as it is in writing, the parent agrees and signs it. You will certainly have enough SD personnel there, so if you can go this route, I would. The only thing left to argue about is whether or not adding an advanced science class is a "minor change." I would contend it is minor because advanced math was in the prior IEP and math and science are closely related subjects. Special Education is INDIVIDUALIZED in all regards and failing English has nothing to do with math and science levels as the principal should (and probably does) know. On a personal note: it is in part due to this issue that my son ended up in a private high school after EGBS. He got fairly consistent D's in English but needed advanced math and science as well as German. The Due Process Hearing Officer actually said she had never seen a Special Education student with these sorts of needs and it was most inconvenient. I was really sorry about having an "inconvenient" kid.....Sheesh. I think that in addition to the SD treading lightly because you are an attorney, the SD may want this IEP to be amended either to force the principal to comply or use it as an issue with her. There may be an agenda here besides your child which is unfortunate in one way, but may be turned to your advantage in another. I think the superintendent is getting ready to push the principal out on a limb; it's just a feeling, but based on your description, something else seems to be going on. I generally think that it is a bad idea to get on the wrong side of the principal, but you have little to lose here since she already does not like your child. Finally, I think the superintendent saying you have exhausted administrative remedies means "informal" remedies. Both mediation and Due Process Hearings are considered "administrative" and must be undertaken before you can bring suit in federal court. in my opinion I do not think this will go to Due Process let alone court because the individualization of Special Education and the primacy of the IEP has been reinforced so many times by the Supreme Court. In addition, [i]Winkelman [/i]settled whether or not you can represent your son, so the SD has that to worry about also although perhaps [i]Winkelman [/i]does not apply because you ARE an attorney. However, the other important part of [i]Winkelman [/i]is that parents have rights under IDEA independent of the rights of the child. Best to you, Martie [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Minor revision of IEP
Top