Put Communications Between Teachers and Parents in the IEP

A new tactic being used by schools against parents of children with disabilities is to require / funnel all communications with the school through one person, usually the case manager.  We’ve seen numerous questions by parents if this is illegal or whether parents can request two-way communication be listed as an accommodation in the IEP.

Yes it is, yes it can and it should be.

But you won’t find the requirement in IDEA.  You’ll find it in ESSA.  Read on.

Not in IDEA

IDEA does not have a requirement or regulation that says that there should be ongoing communication between teachers and parents of children with disabilities.  Probably because Congress felt that such communication was basic common sense and they wouldn’t need to actually write it into a law.

What IS in IDEA is the following:

IDEA guarantees parents and their child with a disability numerous legal rights identified as “Procedural Safeguards”.  See 20 U.S.C. §1415; 34 C.F.R. §§300.500-520.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is not only the child with the disability that has legal rights under IDEA, but the parents are also entitled to assert legal rights on their own behalf under IDEA.  Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 127 S.Ct. 1994, 1996 (2007).

One of the key Procedural Safeguards is “an opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability . . . to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child.”  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1) (emphasis added.)  The parents of a child with a disability are mandatory members of the IEP Team.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(1).  Indeed, “the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child” is critical in developing the child’s IEP.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(1)(ii); see also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) (Parents play “a significant role” in the development of each child’s IEP.)

Parental participation in an IEP meeting is so vital, it is set forth twice in the IDEA regulations.  34 C.F.R. §§300.322(a), (c) and (d) (emphasis added); 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1).

But that is all concerning parental participation in the development of an IEP.  These provisions don’t discuss the daily, ongoing communication with the school.

Now, we look at ESSA . . .


In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (2017) (“ESSA”).  This was an amendment of the prior No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”).

The ESSA guarantees parents of a child with a disability to participate “in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities” and “play an integral role in assisting their child’s learning.” To accomplish that goal, parents are “encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s education at school . . . [and carry] out of other activities, such as those described in section 1116.” 20 U.S.C. §7801(39) (emphasis added.)

The activities referenced in “section 1116” state that parents may engage in to participate in their child’s education include, inter alia, ongoing communications between teachers and parents and classroom observation. 20 U.S.C. §6318(d) (emphasis added.)

Put Two-Way Ongoing Communication in Your Child’s IEP

Thus, since Congress deemed this so important that they wrote it into law, it is important enough to make it part of your child’s IEP.  Show them the law quoted above.  (Maybe even print out this article and bring it to the IEP meeting.)  Tell them that you want this accommodation written into the IEP, especially if the school is trying to deny this right of access.

I’m quite sure that even teachers would welcome such ongoing dialogue.  The key is not to abuse this right – don’t contact the teachers several times every day.  Be reasonable as teachers have other students and their parents to meet this obligation.  But, if you do so reasonably, there is no legal basis for a school to block such regular and common sense communication.

It’s no longer just common sense – it’s now the law.


Bullying and the Gebser Letter

You probably know what bullying is. You may not know what a Gebser Letter is or what it does. Sit down, grab your cup of coffee and read on.

The Effects of Bullying

First things first. It is now widely accepted as fact that children with disabilities are more likely to be bullied than their neurotypical and able-bodied peers.  About 20% more likely, to be precise.  A study was performed by Chad Rose of the University of Missouri College of Education and Nicholas Gage of the University of Florida examining 6,500 students from K-12 during the years 2011-13.  Although the study did not include online bullying (which has now become more pervasive through social media), it found that students with disabilities were bullied more than other kids particularly in grades 3 through high school graduation.

More about the study can be found in this excellent article “Disabled children more likely to be bullied during school years, study says” by HealthDay News.  There is even more helpful information on the statistics on bullying and harassment of students with disabilities at the National Bullying Prevention Center’s website.

It is also now widely accepted that bullying negatively affects a student’s ability to learn.  It directly impacts that student’s education.  The U.S. Department of Education’s official blog published an article called “Keeping Students With Disabilities Safe from Bullying” that highlighted a 2013 Guidance Letter on bullying.  A year later, the USDOE’s Office of Civil Rights issued an even stronger Guidance on how schools should handle bullying.

What is a Gebser Letter?

In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in a case titled Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the opinion for a divided court.  The Court decided that under Title IX, you cannot sue a school district for damages for bullying or harassment unless you have notified a school official who has the ability to take corrective measures on the district’s behalf of the misconduct and the school district is “deliberately indifferent” to the notice.

Out of that case came the very simple concept of preparing a letter – a so-called Gebser Letter – to provide the proper notice to the school.  The only question was whether the school then acts with deliberate indifference to the conduct.

This case emphasizes our constant mantra in special education law – If it ain’t in writing, it never happened. Document everything!

We strongly urge you to consult with a lawyer on the proper format and language of a Gebser Letter and/or if your child has a disability and is the victim of bullying.  We have provided a form Gebser Letter in our packet of special education legal forms, which are FREE to download, but remember that these forms do not constitute legal advice and are not a replacement for consultation with a lawyer in your state.  But the letter could get the ball rolling for your child and you.

Free Special Ed Legal Forms on SchoolKidsLawyer.com.

You can also have a 30 minute consultation with us for $100 to discuss your child’s case.


Public Schools Have Made Your Child the Enemy and You, the Taxpayer, Are Funding Their Battle

You pay federal taxes.  You have schools in your town.  Those schools have special education programs.  If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably a parent of a child with special needs.

Well, guess what?  If you have a dispute with your school about your child’s IEP or otherwise not meeting your child’s special education needs, YOU are paying for the school to fight against you and your child.

Guess what else? Even if you don’t have a child with special needs or don’t even have a child in the school district, YOU are still paying to have the school fight against the child with a disability and his/her family.

Yes, you heard that right.  YOU are paying to fight against children with disabilities in your community – maybe your own child.

Let me explain this in greater detail and why the system should change.

Federal Funding For Schools

The federal law known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq. or “IDEA” protects students with disabilities and guarantees they receive an appopriate education from their local schools.  This is accomplished and enforced through a federal funding mechanism within IDEA.  If a state receives federal funding for its schools, it must provide special education and related services to children with disabilities in its public schools.  20 U.S.C. § 1412.

In other words, some of the federal taxes you pay goes to fund special education and related services for students with disabilities.  You probably don’t object to ensuring a wheelchair-bound child can access the school via ramps or a child with diabetes having access to the school nurse to administer insulin shots.  You also likely don’t object to a chid with a learning disability receiving extra help in the classroom so they can achieve with their non-disabled peers.

YOU don’t object . . . but the schools are.

Where Does the Funding Go?

Those federal funds for special education – your tax dollars – are supposed to be used to assess if children have disabilities and evaluate their needs, prepare Individualized Education Programs or “IEPs” with special education adn related services to meet those needs, and decide the best location to provide those services for the child.  20 U.S.C. §1414.  Just as non-disabled children can get their education at their local public school for free, the goal of IDEA is to provide the same for children with disabilities, called a Free Appropriate Public Education or “FAPE”.  20 U.S.C. §1401(9).

Still sounds pretty reasonable, right?

How Does A School Make Sure It Provides a FAPE?

Schools are supposed to ensure a child with a disability provides a FAPE via two main mechanisms: (1) assembling an IEP team; and (2) ensuring that the rights of the child are protected and the parents are active participants in enforcement of those rights.  Tax dollars pay for schools to assemble an IEP team, which consists of the child’s parents (and the child if appropriate) and several key school personnel, to discuss how best to provide FAPE for the child with a disability.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1).  States and schools must also put procedures in place to secure the legal rights of the child with a disability and his/her parents.  20 U.S.C. §1415.

This is where the system usually breaks down.  Because the parents and the school staff don’t alawys agree on how the IEP is developed or what services are provided to the child with a disability.  Thereby, a dispute arises.

How IDEA Addresses Special Education Disputes – The Problem

IDEA provides mechanisms to address these special education disputes between parents and schools.  If a school wants to do something with which the parents don’t agree or if the school doesn’t want to do something the parents have suggested, the school can issue a Prior Written Notice or “PWN”.  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(3) and (c)(1).  Parents can review their child’s education records kept by the school as a check on whether the school is providing a FAPE.  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1).

There are other “Procedural Safeguards” in IDEA, but none that causes as many problem as a party’s right to file a complaint challenging the “identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child” a/k/a a “Due Process Complaint.”  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(6) and (f).

Why is this a problem?  Well, anytime lawyers get involved, there’s a problem, right? [He says half-jokingly, half-seriously.]  Each party to a Due Process case has “the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel.”  20 U.S.C. §1415(h)(1).

Still not a bad thing until you realize who is paying the school district’s lawyer’s bill.  The answer is . . . you probably guessed it . . . YOU ARE!

Paying For The School District’s Lawyer

That’s correct.  Whether attorney’s fees are paid directly by the school district’s Board of Education or through insurance (which is purchased using school budget money), the source of the money paid to the lawyers fight against your child with a disability is tax dollars.  YOUR tax dollars.

Schools are misdirecting funds intended to provide education to children with disabilities by spending it on legal bills or insurance to fight special education cases.

So what does that mean?  It means YOU, the taxpayer, are paying for the attorney sitting across the table from you and representing the school district.  The harder the school district lawyer fights, the more YOU are paying him/her.  The school district never has the incentive to resolve the dispute because they’re not truly paying the bill.

Now, I don’t know if you have ever been in a lawsuit before, but if you have, you know what a financial burden it is to pay a lawyer.  You have the incentive to get it over as quickly as possible because, in all likelihood, you are not Bank of America (or Citibank or Goldman Sachs or some other big bank).  But if you didn’t have to pay for your lawyer, you’d fight to the ends of the Earth, right?  That’s how the school district views it.

Not What IDEA Was Designed To Do

IDEA was not set up to favor the school districts.  In fact, IDEA was designed by Congress to “level the playing field” so that parents had a stronger role in the education of their child with a disability.  Specifically, Congress stated: “The purposes of [IDEA] are to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected; and to assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities” among other goals.  20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1).

IDEA was meant to improve collaboration and cooperation between schools and parents to help children with disabilities receive better education.  Certainly, Congress did not intend for states and schools to use federal funds to wage bitter lawsuit wars against parents and their children with disabilities.

But that is what it has become.  Ask any of my colleagues at COPAA.

So What Can You Do About It? – TAKE ACTION!

If you are like me and fed up with this system of injustice and abuse of taxpayer money, you can take action.  What school districts and their attorneys don’t want you to know is that because the source of funds paying the lawyer fees is public tax money, they MUST disclose such payments to the public who are paying those taxes.

In other words, if you live in a school district that is waging a special education war against a child with a disability, you have the RIGHT to know how much the school is paying its lawyers.

How do you find this out?  You make a Freedom of Information Act or “FOIA” request (or your state’s version of FOIA; for example, in New Jersey it is called the Open Public Records Act or OPRA).

Each state has a website for FOIA requests (I’ve listed a few below as examples) and usually a form to fill out.  On the form ask to see “All fees and costs paid to lawyers by XYZ Schooll District for special education disputes or legal disputes under IDEA for the last 5 years” or something similar.  Prepare for a fight, but you have the lawful right to that information as long as you live in XYZ School District.

New Jersey OPRA Records Request Website and Form

Florida Public Records Act Website and Forms

Texas Open Records Requests Website and Forms

Pennsylvania Open Records Request Website and Forms

For those not listed here, Google “[Your state] FOIA request” and look for an official state website URL.

Go get ’em!

Websites for Parents of Twice Exceptional (2e) Kids








What is your worst special education experience with a school district?

In the Comments describe your worst experience advocating for a child with a disability with your school district.  Did they fail to adequately find or evaluate a disability?  Did they design a poor IEP?  Did they fail to take your suggestions for the IEP?  Are you unhappy with the placement or classroom for your child?  Did the school district not provide the services they agreed to in the IEP? Is your child with a disability being bullied and the school district is not doing anything about it?  Something else?

Please stick to FACTS and not just namecalling.  Also, include your city, state, and name of the school district so that others can be aware.  If you don’t feel comfortable publishing that with your name, you can either post anonymously or only include your state.  We’d love to hear from you.

If you need a special ed lawyer to help you, visit the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates at www.copaa.org and start your search there.  If you are in NJ or PA, we at SchoolKidsLawyer.com can assist you.


Why Common Core is Evil

Soapbox time. Many of you don’t know what Common Core is or don’t care (because you don’t have children in K-12 any longer), but I’m here to tell you the evils of Common Core throughout our society. And it’s not as obvious as you would think.
Common Core was established to sound good and is not based on sound teaching principles. It was started in response to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which established minimum standards for schools to meet in order to show that they were successful in teaching students. Failure to show success meant loss of federal funding for those school districts. Sounds great, right? Accountability is good, right? But here is where the wheels fell off the wagon.
The way states and school districts began to measure and try to exhibit success was through standardized testing. If a school district could provide data that the students were doing well on these tests, they would satisfy the NCLB requirements. So, through Common Core, they could teach what was necessary to do well on the testing. Hence the start of ‘teaching to the test’.
Long before there was Common Core and standardized testing, there was teaching how to learn. Kids were taught how to learn things in their own way and how to think (and I’m not talking about kids who require special education, because that is an entirely different analysis). For example, memorizing the ‘times table’ – to this day I can quickly tell you what any single digit number x any single digit number equals because of such memorization. Very few kids in school (or recent graduates for that matter) can do that.
Here is another example: when my youngest child was learning division in math, he asked for my help. So I began by drawing the long division symbol (you know, the right parenthesis with the horizontal line on the top). My son says, “What is that?” I said, “It’s the division symbol, for long division.” He says, “I’ve never seen that.” I asked him, “Aren’t they using this to teach you division?” and I showed him an example of how it worked. He said, “No.” I thought to myself, WHAT? How on Earth are they teaching division? Again, Common Core destroys a very basic (and for decades successful) method of teaching math.
“So what?” you say. Who cares? Well, I’ll tell you, beyond the fact that our kids aren’t learning how to learn.
Imagine now you’re at your job (or you are the business owner) and an employee doesn’t know how to make sure a customer is paying the correct amount? Or they don’t know how to do simple accounting / bookkeeping? Or whether the sale is profitable? Or how to solve a problem? Or how to speak to a customer with proper grammar? Or how to write a report? etc. etc.
You now have a profound negative impact of Common Core on our economy – both in a micro and a macro sense. We are graduating an entire generation of people dependent upon computers and calculators, instead of thinkers and problem-solvers. And life is not a series of standardized tests. Indeed, life is a series of unexpected tests with varying problems that require independent, critical thought to solve.
Common Core is evil to the core. And regardless of the good intentions of those who came up with the concept, the implementation of it is atrocious and harmful to our kids.

Beast of Burden

You may look at the title and think you’ve accidentally wandered onto a blog about pack animals.  No, don’t worry, you’re in the right spot.  I’m not talking about actual beasts of burden, but rather the beast of the burden of proof in special education disputes and how to overcome the beast that it is (or how school districts and hearing officers interpret it to be).

IDEA does not say who bears the burden of proof (“BOP”) in special education disputes between parents and school districts.  However, BOP is a critical legal issue in litigation.  In simplest terms, the BOP means who has to prove their case and how strong the proof needs to be.  Most people are familiar that in criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the alleged defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  In civil cases, the standard of proof is not that high and is typically “by a preponderance of evidence.”

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Schaffer v. Weast.  That case says that when a parent challenges an IEP, the parent has the burden to prove that the IEP is not appropriate for the child with a disability in the special ed context.  So, this means the parent must put on a strong case to convince the administrative hearing officer that the IEP is either poorly designed or improperly implemented for the child.  This is a difficult proof.

As a result of the Schaffer v. Weast case, most people in the special education legal arena assume that the parents always have the BOP, probably because it is usually the parents challenging an IEP.  But the BOP is not always on the parents and recently this has become a very important issue.  One example is when parents demand an Independent Educational Evaluation (“IEE”) of the child with a disability at the public school’s expense after rejecting the school’s evaluation, the school has two options: (1) pay for the IEE or (2) file a Due Process case.  If the school files for Due Process to defeat an IEE, the school district bears the BOP.

Another example is placement of a child with a disability and here is the recent critical trend.  A school district always bears the BOP that it is in compliance with IDEA.  A Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) is required whenever a school proposes to change the placement of a child with a disability.  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(3).  A PWN must include at least a description of the proposed change in placement by the school district, an explanation of why the school proposes to change the placement and the basis for such explanation, and a statement that the parents of a child with a disability have the right to challenge such action. 20 U.S.C. §1400(c)(1).

Now, if parents seek to change placement of the child with a disability (usually from the public school to a private school that the parents believe is more appropriate), the parents are always entitled to pay for such private placement out of their own pocket.  If the parents want the school district to pay for the private placement, they will have to file for Due Process and prove that the public school did not provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) to the child and that the private school is more appropriate.  34 C.F.R. §300.148(c); see also Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 129 S.Ct. 2484, 2493, 2496, 174 L.Ed.2d 168 (2009).

Here comes the tricky part to which I want you to pay close attention.  Let’s say the parents have done that.  They’ve taken on the school district and met their BOP that the school did not provide FAPE to their child with a disability and that placement in the private school is appropriate, so the administrative hearing officer or judge has said the public school has to pay for the private school.  Let’s assume that a week after the parents have won that case, the school calls another IEP meeting and wants to change placement of the child back to the public school.  Do the parents now have to bear that beast of burden of proving once again that the school does not provide FAPE and the child should remain at the private school?  Is that fair?

Well, I argue it is not.  And in my brief recently filed in the 9th Circuit case of J.M. v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii, Case No. 16-17327, I argue that the parents in that exact scenario should not again have the BOP immediately after they have won the private placement case.  Cross your fingers that this becomes good law for parents who are fighting this same tactic by school districts across the country.

If you have questions about burden of proof in special education cases or need any assistance with your child with a disability, please contact us via our website schoolkidslawyer.com or via email at info@schoolkidslawyer.com.

Parents IEP Bill of Rights #KnowYourRights

If you are a parent of a child with a disability, READ UP! This is YOUR Bill of Rights for your child’s IEP:

  1. Your child is entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as provided by an IEP.
  2. An IEP must be in place at the beginning of each school year your child is eligible for special education.
  3. An IEP must be reviewed by the IEP team at least once every year.
  4. You must receive notice of when an IEP meeting is scheduled and YOU have the right to participate.
  5. The IEP team must have at least 5 members present at an IEP meeting, including YOU and any “other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child” that you wish to bring.
  6. At an IEP meeting, you must be given a copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice – a list of YOUR RIGHTS.  And if you don’t understand them, the school representative must explain them to you (and/or provide you with a translation into your native language).
  7. The IEP must have a definite, specific implementation (start) date.
  8. You do not have to sign the IEP at the time of the IEP meeting.  You may take it home with you to read and review.  You also have the right to disagree and reject the proposed IEP.
  9. Your child must be educated by “highly qualified” teachers and service providers.
  10. Once an IEP is signed, it is a contract and the school must provide everything agreed to in the IEP, including periodic progress reports to YOU.

These are not your only Rights.  There are more, but we picked 10 of the most important ones.

For more information on IEPs or to learn more to #KnowYourRights, please visit our website SchoolKidsLawyer.com or purchase our book SchoolKidsLawyer’s Step-By-Step Guide to Special Education Law: Workbook for Parents, Advocates and Lawyers.

What documents should be in your child’s special education binder?

If you are a parent of a special education student or advocating for one, do yourself a favor and . . .

PRINT OUT THIS ARTICLE (or at least the plan below).

Not only will this article save you time and lots of money, it will help you understand how best to help your child with a disability.

When clients contact me, most are armed with a box (or seven) of documents about their child’s special education.  It is wonderful that they are documenting their child’s path and what the school district is doing (or not doing) for their child.  It should be the mantra of every parent of a child with a disability: DOCUMENT EVERYTHING!

But . . .

Usually, the documents clients provide me are overkill and disorganized.  Inside the box(es) is a pile of papers, often not in order. I doubt highly that a client wants me to bill them at $375.00/hour to go through those papers to organize them and figure out what I need.  Thus, before you meet with a lawyer or advocate, you should organize your child’s special education documents first.  You should do this even if you are advocating for your own child.

Here is a plan to explain which documents you need, which documents you don’t need, and how to organize them.


1. Get a 2″ 3-ring binder with dividers.  Label the dividers as follows: MEDICAL, FAMILY BACKGROUND, EVALUATIONS, IEPs / 504 PLANS, and SCHOOL DOCS.

2. Under MEDICAL, include any papers from the original diagnosis of your child.  Also include any changes to that diagnosis (e.g. ADHD -> Autism Spectrum Disorder).  Also include a list of any major medical events, such as surgeries, hospital in-patient stays, broken bones, major or chronic illnesses, and allergies (don’t forget dental events, such as tonsillectomies, baby teeth extractions, etc.)  As best you can, document the dates and locations of these medical events, as well as treatments received.  Finally, if there are any related medical or psychological disorders in the immediate family, note those here as well (e.g. grandfather diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, uncle diagnosed with ADHD, etc.)  Finally, in the front of this section, place a list of all current physicians and medical providers seen by your child – primary care physician, occupational therapist, physical therapist, psychiatrist, psychologist, speech therapist, etc.  Make sure you have their name, the service they provide, and contact information (phone number, email address, website).

3. In the FAMILY BACKGROUND section, include notes of milestones in your child’s development (e.g. date first crawled, date first walked, date first spoke, first spoken words, etc.), especially any noted delays in such development.  Also provide a narrative of your family makeup and any major changes, such as number of living grandparents, parents, child’s siblings, aunts, uncles, etc.  It is critical to be honest about family events, such as divorces or separations, geographic relocations, domestic violence, financial or other stress, etc.  Place in this section other matters of importance in your family culture, such as religious beliefs, school history including any changes in school, ethnic celebrations, etc.  If you are in a divorced family, you should include anything that changes the name of the child and also any court order regarding physical custody, visitation, and especially legal custody or who has the right to make educational decisions for the child.

4. Do not include every evaluation of the child ever performed.  In EVALUATIONS, place only the most recent evaluations of the child.  These evaluations should be no more than 3 years old.  If the evaluations occurred more than 3 years ago, do not include them.  Thus, if this section is empty, one of the things you will be requesting is a new comprehensive educational evaluation of your child.

5. Like EVALUATIONS, within the IEPs/504 PLANS section do not include every IEP or 504 Plan since your child’s birth.  (That’s supposed to be humorous.)  My recommendation is to only include the current approved IEP or 504 Plan and all approved ones going back two school years.  You should only include a draft IEP or 504 Plan if it is related to the current approved IEP or 504 Plan (to show how the school changed or omitted certain information) or it is a current proposed IEP or 504 Plan with which you disagree.  Old drafts should be discarded because approved IEPs and 504 Plans overrule those drafts. Thus, this section should be at a maximum, 3-5 documents, especially since these are typically very long documents (you may consider only including pages from prior plans or drafts that conflict with the one currently at issue.)

6. The SCHOOL DOCS section is the trickiest of all.  My rule of thumb is when in doubt, include it.  First, if you haven’t done so already, send a FERPA request to the school for your child’s records.  (Click on the link to the left to read more about FERPA requests.)  At the beginning of this section, provide a list of all contact points at the school with names, phone numbers and email addresses of the superintendent, principal, assistant principal, all teachers that see your child, all service providers that see your child, all persons involved in lunch and/or playground monitoring, and any other person that your child may encounter in school.  Also include anyone on the IEP Team (Child Study Team) that is not included in the prior list, such as school psychologist.  [Why do this? First, it will assist your attorney or advocate into knowing who the players are.  Second, it will show the IEP Team that you are more than prepared when you show up at an IEP Team meeting with the list.  Can you imagine the fear on the faces of the IEP Team members when they see their names and contact information on a list in your notebook? Make sure you turn to that page in your binder when you first sit down.]  You should include here results from your child’s standardized tests, report cards, any disciplinary reports, absent/tardy reports, progress reports (triggered by the current IEP or otherwise), and any other key documents that discuss your child’s current levels of academic achievement and functioning in the school environment (sometimes emails from teachers or among teachers and administrators provide the true story).

Your binder may be huge, but volume is not the problem.  Disorganization is the problem which the binder resolves.  You, your attorney, or your advocate will appreciate this effort.  And, as stated previously, it will help zero in on the real issues your child with a disability is facing in the school environment.

[This article and other helpful tips for your child’s IEP are in our FREE report 5 Easy Steps for a Successful IEP MeetingDownload your copy here.]

For more on this and related topics, consider purchasing the book SchoolKidsLawyer’s Step-By-Step Guide to Special Education Law: Workbook for Parents, Advocates and Lawyers available now from Amazon.com or direct from SchoolKidsLawyer.com.



Guest Blog Post: Managing Classroom Behavior For Success – Antonia Guccione, M.S., M.A.

Any teacher will tell you that managing classroom behavior is critical to surviving the first days and weeks of the school year. But how? The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2009 provides guidelines of procedures that must be adhered to when disciplining students with Special Needs. Teachers have the legislation to guide them, but do they have a toolkit of strategies to help them manage classroom behavior in a supportive, non-confrontational way?

Get in the Game

Without specific training related to the modification of behaviors of children with special needs, it is no wonder that teacher turnover in the first five years in the classroom is so high. According to NPR. org, schools that do a better job of coping with behavioral issues have significantly better teacher retention rates. So, it is well worth the school’s time and effort to educate not only students, but also teachers in this significant area of professional development.

The good news is that there are a number of very simple techniques that, if applied correctly, can yield positive outcomes for both students and teachers. The bad news is that school districts must be committed to teaching them, but often are not. Many of these techniques have been adapted from work originally presented by Fritz Redl and David Wineman in their book titled Controls from Within: Techniques for the Treatment of the Aggressive Child. These techniques address how to interact with children and avoid confrontational, no-win situations. In the work done by Redl and Wineman, threats and punishments were never used, even with considerably challenging students.

In the Beginning

Long before a student and teacher are in a “no-win” situation that results in disciplinary action, there are things that can be done to create a “win-win” situation. Relationship building is key. People, in general, do things relationally with and for one another. A simple smile can break multiple barriers and set the stage for interventions aimed at establishing positive, caring, teacher-student relationships. One such intervention is called “hypodermic affection”. This is an infusion of affection aimed at breaking through a barrier laden with fear or distrust. When a teacher exudes affection and positive energy, it can go a long way to encouraging a positive reaction from the student.

“Hurdle Help” is another such technique. In this intervention, a student is helped over his barrier to learning and participating with a hint or a strategy. As such, students are helped over their “hurdle” and can participate in the learning and the lesson.

No Words Needed

Non–verbal interventions, such as proximity and touch control, let the student know that the teacher is close at hand if support is needed. On the other hand, planned ignoring can protect a student’s ego if he or she needs a little more time to process a request. To the untrained eye, it may look like a teacher is ignoring the student, but this is in fact a very specific move on the part of the teacher. Often, especially with young children, the purpose of misbehavior can be to gain attention…planned ignoring removes the audience.

Change is a Good Thing

Sometimes it is necessary to “restructure” an activity and redirect a student; change it up a bit! If a student is totally lost on one particular task, find a way to alter the task. For example, if the student is coming up blank for the assigned writing prompt, allow a different subject choice. If other students see this as “unfair”, shine the light on differences among all of the students in the class. If this rule is applied equally to everyone, the trust in the room will grow, as will the respect for one another.

A Little Help Goes a Long Way

Prompting and fading is another intervention that can allow for a non-threatening solution to an otherwise crisis situation, or “showdown”, between a teacher and a student. Prompts can be full physical, partial physical, modeling, gesturing, or positional. If using this intervention, it’s important to proceed from the least to the most invasive prompting and should include a plan for prompt fading to be implemented as soon as possible. Fading means that over time, and as a student masters a skill, prompting will not be needed at all.

Plan Ahead for Success

Equipped with techniques to avoid confrontations, lessons can proceed! Providing a structured learning environment means that a teacher thinks carefully not only about the lesson to be taught, but how it will be introduced, instructed, and practiced for mastery. Have an interesting “do-now” on the board that introduces the aim of the lesson right from the start will motivate cooperation and participation. An interesting little known fact can kick off a lively discussion in any classroom, regardless of the level of the students. Since students learn by doing, elements of activity should be built in to the learning process for optimal gain.

Big Ticket Item – Cooperative Planning

Classroom rules are a necessity for structure and order. It is best if the teacher and student create them together and agree upon them as a unit. Utmost attention should be given that no one is left out of the equation. Inclusion is not just the law; it is the right thing to do. If we can play, shop, and live together in neighborhoods outside of school, why should students be separated in school? A master teacher knows how to differentiate a lesson’s aim, activities, and assessment. Students learn to accept differences and practice social skills important for the world outside the classroom doors when inclusive education is infused within schools.

It’s a Cultural Thing

Practicing these simple techniques can improve the climate and culture of each teacher’s classroom, and by extension, the climate and culture of our schools.

This article originally appears in The Autism Notebook Magazine, Aug./Sep. 2016, South Florida Edition, p. 7.  Online edition can be viewed for free at:



Antonia Guccione, MA; MS is a consultant, educator, and writer. As an educator, she has forty years’ experience designing and chronicling model programs for students with a diverse set of Special Needs

SchoolKidsLawyer.com truly appreciates this.