Public Schools Have Made Your Child the Enemy and You, the Taxpayer, Are Funding Their Battle – Part II (A Case Study)

An Open Letter to the Williamson County (TN) School Board and Williamson County (TN) Commission from a Concerned Parent . . .

[Reprinted with permission.  Names withheld to protect the identity of the child.]

 

Dear County Commissioners and School Board Members,

I am writing regarding a resolution that both the Williamson County School Board and the County Commission are being asked to approve. The resolution includes amending the 2017-2018 general purchase school budget so that $575,000 can be used for legal fees for special education due process cases The resolution is attached. I am asking the School Board and the County Commission to ask two important questions before voting on this resolution:

1) How many special education due process cases is this $575,000 in legal fees being used for?

2) What was the total amount of money that these parents were asking Williamson County Schools to pay in their due process claim(s)?

If the $575,000 in legal fees surpasses the amount that Williamson County Schools was asked to pay the parents in the first place, as a taxpayer, I encourage you to ask district leaders additional questions.

I am a parent of one of the current special education due process cases against Williamson County Schools and because of this know information that you may not be aware of. Over the years of raising four children there have been times where one of them was struggling but wasn’t ready to talk about it. In some of those instances I remember encouraging them to share with me and telling them that I can’t help what I don’t know. I too believe that people who are elected to serve the community can’t help what they don’t know and it is with that in mind that I write to you today.

In the last five years Williamson County Schools used $570,000 of the taxpayer’s money to pay The Law Office of Melinda Jacobs to fight special education due process cases. As a taxpayer, I am alarmed at the amount of money I see Williamson County Schools spending in our one small claim. I believe that Williamson County Schools is easily on their way to spend more in legal fees with The Law Office of Melinda Jacobs and their expert witnesses to fight our claim prior to the first day of trial than the amount of money I am asking to be reimbursed. My claim is only for the special education services I paid for and not a penny more. Here are just a few of many examples that make me concerned about how tax dollars are being spent.

There is a large amount of taxpayer money being spent on unnecessary depositions. The Law Office of Melinda Jacobs is spending more days doing depositions than the total number of days allotted for our entire trial. They are deposing at least 21 of our people and are flying to New York, California and Missouri to depose providers that only spent a few hours with my child. Some of the people they are deposing didn’t even provide services during the time period of this due process claim so are irrelevant to the case.

There is a large amount of taxpayer money being spent on unnecessary expert witnesses. Williamson County Schools hired two expert witnesses which will likely cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. They hired David Rostetter to observe my son in his private school in April of 2018 even though our case is for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 school years. If Mike Looney and Carol Hendlmyer expect you to approve this they should have to explain to you how an observation in April of 2018 is relevant and necessary especially when there were already reports from a Williamson County School psychologist and a Williamson County School special education teacher who observed my child in this private school when developing the 2015/2016 IEP.

I encourage you to ask Mike Looney and Carol Hendlmyer how much money Williamson County Schools have paid their expert David Rostetter in the past and how much they anticipate paying him in our case and compare that figure alone to the amount of our claim. I think you will find it alarming. In addition, you might want to ask if there are any concerns with David Rostetter’s ability to conduct an observation being that he has been legally blind since the age of 12.

There is a large amount of taxpayer money being spent on other unnecessary attorney fees. Williamson County Schools paid for THREE attorneys from The Law Office of Melinda Jacobs as well as several school employees to go to a mediation for our case when they had zero intentions of settling the case that day. Did the taxpayers really need to pay for three lawyers and several Williamson County School employees that day when they already knew that they were not going to even attempt to settle the case

In addition, I would encourage the School Board or the County Commission to speak to Melinda Jacobs or another attorney special education attorney about the merits of the special education due process cases before approving this money.

In closing, over the last five years Williamson County Schools used $570,000 of taxpayer’s money (126 pages of invoices) to pay The Law Office of Melinda Jacobs to fight special education due process cases. More money may have been paid to other law firms as well. Now, they are asking you, us, for $575,000 more.

Last month Williamson County taxpayers, 8,155 of them, voted for a sales tax increase to fund Williamson County Schools. I would have to think that a large number of them would not have voted the way they did if they were aware of the amount of money that is being wasted on special education due process legal fees. Mike Looney and Carol Hendlmyer have not been good stewards of taxpayer dollars in regards to these legal fees and your oversight is needed to avoid the mistakes that other districts have made. Take a look at the actions of another Tennessee county in the Deal v Hamilton County TN Bd of Ed (6th Cir 2004) where the district spent $2.3 million to fight and lose a special education due process case that they could have settled for $150,000:

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2005/3/14/63675/Atlanta-Law-Firm-Charges-To-County.aspx

At one point, Melinda Jacobs, the attorney Williamson County Schools is using against us, worked for The Weatherly Law Firm who was the law firm for the school district in this case. David Rostetter, the expert witness Williamson County Schools is using against us was one of the expert witnesses in this case and was paid $74,632.47 for his testimony. Melinda Jacobs who has practiced in Knoxville since 1999 opened up a second location here in Franklin on August 15, 2016.

How much more of Williamson County taxpayer’s money is she expecting to make this second location worth her while? Would her other clients pay to put her up in expensive hotels like the Franklin Marriott as Williamson County Schools does? Again, your oversight is needed.

Who is on the IEP Team?

Perhaps one of the most confusing parts of special education law for parents (and some schools) is who is on the IEP team.  There are both “mandatory” members of the IEP team as well as “permissive” members.  IDEA makes this very clear.

Mandatory Members of the IEP Team

There are five (5) mandatory members of the IEP team set forth in IDEA.  They are (in order as the statute lists them):

  1. The parent(s);
  2. At least one regular education teacher who interacts with the child in a general education setting;
  3. At least one special education teacher or provider who interacts with the child;
  4. A representative of the school district (“local educational agency”) who meets certain requirements (see below); and
  5. “an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results” (who may be also #2-4).

20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a).

Before moving on to the permissive members, let me clarify some things about the mandatory members.  The word “and” is underlined above, because that means ALL five are required.  If Congress meant that only 3 or 4 of those persons were necessary, they would have used the term “or”.  Remember Conjunction Junction from School Kids Rock?

The Parent(s)

At least one parent must be present at an IEP meeting. If there are two parents, both are not required to be there – one can act for both.  But, notice the parent(s) are listed first.

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) . 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) (emphasis added.)

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) ; 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1).

The LEA Representative

The representative of the school district can’t be just anyone.  Often the school will send a case manager or principal or other administration staff member as the representative, but such person might not meet the requirements of IDEA.

The LEA representative must be:

  • qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
  • knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and
  • knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency (school district).

20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B)(iv); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(4).

In other words, this person must have supervisory capabilities over special education curriculum and services, know the general education curriculum, and know the services available as well as placement options within the district.  If the person the school district sends to the IEP meeting is constantly having to check with someone else about whether the school district can provide such services, the wrong person is in the meeting.

The Evaluation Interpreter

While the fifth mandatory member is only stated as “an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results”, IDEA is no more specific and doesn’t define who this is.

Typically, this person is the school psychologist because that person’s role is to translate evaluation reports into special education and services to be provided to meet the needs of the child.  Most parents don’t know how to interpret evaluation reports.  Heck, even some highly skilled teachers don’t know how either.

Make sure someone is in the meeting who can put testing results into actions and services for your child.

Permissive Members of the IEP Team

IDEA allows other persons to be on the IEP Team.  Specifically,

  • “at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate”
  • “whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.”

These are “permissive” members because they are not required to be there and are only there if the other IEP team members think it is appropriate or necessary.

The first of these options has been interpreted to include “education advocates” for parents; social workers or therapists contracted by the school district; or, anyone else who might have valuable input into the formation of an IEP.  There is no restriction on the number of these individuals so long as they have the requisite knowledge about the child or services and it doesn’t bog down development of the IEP.

The second option is at the discretion of the parent(s).  Whether you bring your child to an IEP meeting is up to you and most agree that the child should only attend if (a) he/she is emotionally capable of hearing about areas where the boy or girl is struggling; and (b) he/she has valuable input to offer, such as when or where he/she is having difficulties (e.g. “I struggle in math class because of the classroom noise.”)

Is it a properly assembled IEP meeting?

The most important lesson of this article is for both parents and school districts to understand when an IEP meeting is properly constituted.  As stated above, all of the mandatory members must be present [especially the parent(s)].  Without all of the mandatory members present, the proposed IEP may either be improperly designed (because not all of the necessary input was received) or not implemented (because the district does not have the necessary resources) or both.  If there are no permissive members, the meeting can still go forward.

Parents have the motivation to make sure that an IEP meeting is properly assembled so their child receives a FAPE.  School districts have the motivation to ensure that the IEP cannot be challenged on these grounds.  All of this is intended to benefit the child with a disability.

So, if the law is followed on the IEP team, it is a win-win-win.

 

 

 

Relentless – A Michigan Man

I’m going to tell you something about myself, but first I’m going to tell you a story.  You’ll wonder for a paragraph or two where this is going, but stick with me.  You will learn why this post is on my special education law blog.

What is a “Michigan Man”?

There are many articles and blog posts and other sources that try to explain this undefinable quality.   In “What Does It Mean To Be a ‘Michigan Man’?”, author John U. Bacon (a frequent writer about things Michigan, including the football team), admitted that “ultimately, to define it, I have to resort to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s description of pornography: ‘I know it when I see it.’”

He’s right.  And you have to be a Michigan Man to understand why he’s right.  First, you need a deep association with the University of Michigan (no, not that silly green and white agriculture college in East Lansing, but the Maize and Blue Wolverines of Ann Arbor).  [Note: I hate when after telling people where I graduated, they say “Oh, yeh, Michigan State.” Grrrrr.]

Not this!

Second, you need a passion about doing good work.  That passion requires hard work, sound ethics, and a focus unmatched by competitors.  This quality could be no better demonstrated than in the Amazon Show “All or Nothing: The Michigan Wolverines”.  [Outstanding television if you haven’t seen it yet.]

You strive to be a champion in everything you do, but you are not arrogant or presumptuous in that effort.  Perhaps, most importantly, you must be RELENTLESS.  Opponents always want to take you down and if you let your guard down for a moment, they will defeat you.  [Much like Michigan’s loss to Division II Appalachian State in 2007.]

You must be relentless to be a Michigan Man.

What Has This Got To Do With My Law Practice?

I am a very proud 1984 graduate from the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts.  I received a Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major and a double minor.  I guess even in my undergraduate studies I was eager.

I don’t pretend to satisfy all of the qualities of a Michigan Man, but I will admit that is my goal.  That is where the practice of law, especially in the area of special education, comes into play.

I am relentless – in my search for justice; in representation of my clients; and in enforcing special education legal rights.

To my clients: Know that I will be relentless on behalf of you and your child with a disability.  If a school district is not meeting the requirements of the law, I will fight to change that so they come into compliance.

To my adversaries: Know that I will be relentless against your tactics.  I have been in litigation for nearly all of my 30 years of practice.  I have witnessed every strategy and method by opponents to try to get clients to back down.  [Some lawyers call this a “Scorched Earth” approach, because the lawyer will try anything – including burning everything – in order to get a favorable result.]  It won’t work with me.  I won’t give up.

Why?

Because I’m relentless.  Because I strive to be a Michigan Man.

 

 

Evaluations vs. IEP Meetings – A Very Important Distinction

A client recently told me they received a notice for an “evaluation meeting”.  Huh?  I asked, do you mean an IEP meeting?  The client wasn’t sure because the notice said just that – evaluation meeting.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVALUATION MEETING!

Since I figured school districts are trying to confuse parents by using the terms “evaluation” and “IEP meeting” interchangeably, let me clarify the difference between the two for everybody.

What the law says

IDEA is very specific about what an “evaluation” is and what an “IEP meeting” is.  And they are in separate sections of the statute.  Here is what that law says:

Evaluation, 20 U.S.C. §1414(a), (b), and (c)

Initial evaluation: “A State educational agency, other State agency, or local educational agency shall conduct a full and individual initial evaluation . . . before the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability under this subchapter.”  20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(1).

In other words, before a student can receive special education and related services for the first time, the school must conduct an initial evaluation of the child.  This is part of their “Child Find” responsibility if someone suspects that the child has a disability that impacts their education.

The next few subsections discuss the procedures used and the purpose of an initial evaluation (“to determine [eligibility]  within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation”) and parental consent.

Reevaluation: “A local educational agency shall ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted . . . if the local educational agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrant a reevaluation; or if the child’s parents or teacher requests a reevaluation.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(2).

Thus, re-evaluation of a child must occur if the school believes a change in services is necessary or if a parent or teacher requests it.  Here is a very important part:

Reevaluation MUST occur at least every three (3) years, but not more than once a year, unless the parents and school agree that reevaluation is not necessary.

20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(2)(B).

What does an evaluation involve? “In conducting the evaluation, the local educational agency shall use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent (to determine if there is a disability and what will be necessary in an IEP); shall not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining (disability or the education program); and use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.”  20 U.S.C. §1414(b)(2).

What the heck does all that mean?

It means that the school must use valid testing methods and get input from the parents and others who know the child in performing the evaluation.  The school can’t simply rely on what the teachers say.

This is where the trouble starts, because schools think that they can conduct an “evaluation” or “reevaluation” by simply having a meeting.  They can’t.

Let’s continue.

IEP Meeting, 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)

IEP Meeting:  The IEP Team (parents, at least 1 gen ed teacher who knows the child, at least 1 special ed teacher who knows the child, a representative of the school district who knows the resources available, a person who can interpret evaluation results, and possibly others) must assemble to develop an IEP for the child.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B) and (C).  This is an IEP meeting.

The Team must meet to ensure that an IEP is in effect for each child with a disability in the school district by the beginning of the school year in the Fall.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(2)(A).    The IEP meeting must occur “periodically, but not less frequently than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved.”  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(4)(A).

So, hopefully you’re still with me.  And you can see that the law is crystal clear that an evaluation is something different than an IEP meeting.

So why are schools getting this mixed up (maybe on purpose)?

One sentence in IDEA may be the culprit:

“To the extent possible, the local educational agency shall encourage the consolidation of reevaluation meetings for the child and other IEP Team meetings for the child.”  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(E).

The statute doesn’t explain what a “reevaluation meeting” is, but I think it refers back to the section quoted in Reevaluation above, namely a meeting to determine if a reevaluation is needed.  It is not a meeting where an evaluation takes place, but rather to decide if one is necessary.

Nevertheless, ASK the school what they mean by an “evaluation meeting”.  Ask them if they mean a meeting to decide whether reevaluation is necessary or if they mean an IEP meeting or a combined meeting.  And, as always, DO IT IN WRITING!

If you want further information on this, get our book SchoolKidsLawyer’s Step-By-Step Guide to Special Education Law or contact us for a consultation.

 

 

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 . . .

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.

 

What is a “reasonable accommodation”?

Recently I was asked to explain what a “reasonable accommodation” is.

The person put the question in some context:   Their child’s “special education school thinks a table in classroom with curtain is a reasonable accommodation for his bathroom needs. The class is coed teenagers with different cognitive and physical abilities.”

I doubt this is a “reasonable accommodation”, but let’s explore how we get there.

504 and ADA, not IDEA

First, “reasonable accommodation” is 504  and ADA language, not IDEA.  Under IDEA, a school must develop an IEP that meets all needs of a student with a disability.  This is not an ‘accommodation’; rather it is a legal requirement so that a child may receive a FAPE.

What does 504 require?

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (504 for short) is a federal law that prohibits a  facility that receives federal funds from discriminating against a person with a disability.  Under 504, a public school must ensure that a child with a disability has equal access to education and services.  To accomplish that, the school must provide modifications to education and services or a “reasonable accommodation” to such student so that he/she is not discriminated against because of his/her disability.

What does the ADA require?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is very similar to 504 and applies to schools equally.  The purpose is to prevent and prohibit discrimination against students with disabilities, so it requires the same as 504.

How is “reasonable accommodation” defined?

Unfortunately, neither 504, ADA, nor their regulations define this specific term.  We know from caselaw that schools are required to make reasonable accommodations according to a person’s disability unless such changes would fundamentally alter the nature of the school’s purpose, i.e. providing educational services.

There are obvious accommodations like making sure there is wheelchair access to all parts of the school for a student confined to a wheelchair.  There are slightly less obvious accommodations like assigning a staff member or student to assure that child in a wheelchair can get out of the building in case of fire or a fire drill.   But this is still reasonable.

Types of “reasonable accommodations”

There are several types of accommodations already determined to be reasonable.  They fall under categories.

a. Accessibility: This includes the wheelchair example above and a special needs bus or transportation.

b. Service Animals: For children who need the assistance of a service animal, schools must allow access to accommodate that child’s needs.

c. Interpreters: Access to sign language interpreters or hearing aids for those who have hearing disabilities or access to other interpretors like Braile materials or interpreters when a child with a disability does not speak English.

d. Auxiliary Aids and Services: A school may need to provide a medical plan or extra access to a nurse for a child with diabetes, epilepsy, or other illness requiring medication and/or monitoring during the school day. Or perhaps a child’s disability requires a smaller classroom, less noise, less distraction, different lighting, etc.

e. Removal of Barriers: If doors or stairways or other typical structural aspects of the school are a barrier to a child with a disability, the school must find alternate ways to accommodate that student.

There are several others, but these are the major categories in which schools must provide accommodations.

Is the accommodation reasonable?

Reasonableness is going to be determined by what the disability is and how it interferes with the child’s access to educational services.  So, accommodation may be decided on a  case-by-case basis, but, again, can’t change the fundamental purpose of the school.

Some guidelines (not legal advice):

– Identify your child’s specific needs

– Suggest an accommodation (don’t necessarily rely on the school to design one themselves, as it may not be appropriate)

– If the school finds your suggestion unreasonable, ask them to state why

– Ask the school to suggest an accommodation

– Provide medical documentation if appropriate

– Ask the school to respond to request in a reasonable time

Is the bathroom example in the question reasonable?

Although the person did not reveal what the disability of the child is, a desk in a room with other children with a curtain does not seem reasonable for numerous reasons: anxiety of the child because of the location; potential health risks because of unsanitary conditions; and may not appropriately address the need of the child.

Final word

Follow the guidelines above (and think of more yourself) to determine a reasonable accommodation that the school should make in order for your child with a disability to access the educational services.  If the accommodation that the school provides seems shocking or inappropriate, it is not likely reasonable.

 

Websites for Parents of Twice Exceptional (2e) Kids

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Audio Recording IEP Meetings – Is It Allowed?

Having an audio recording of what happens in an IEP meeting is powerful evidence, especially when school districts deny what was said or fail to put a service in writing into the IEP.   For example, an audio recording can prove or disprove what was actually discussed during the meeting, whether the parents were given proper opportunity to participate, and what decisions or objections were made.   For those reasons, parents often wonder if they are permitted to record an IEP meeting.

So, can you do it?

Federal Law

There is no federal law prohibiting a parent or school official from recording IEP meetings.  IDEA and the other special education laws are silent on that specific issue.

However, IDEA does say a few things that are relevant to the discussion:

  • Parents are critical members of the IEP team
  • Parental participation in IEP meetings is vital and if a school blocks such participation, it is a denial of FAPE
  • Parents have the legal right to understand the IEP and, if necessary, have it explained to them

Audio recording an IEP Meeting, when the IEP Team is aware and consents to it, is not a violation of federal privacy law.

So that means you can do it, right? Not so fast.

The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has issued a letter opinion and Policy Memorandum on this subject in June 4, 2003 (PDF file).  The bottom line of the analysis is that it is a local policy issue and depends on several factors.

When a federal law is silent on an issue, the individual states can decide or legislate on the issue.

State Privacy Laws

The next hurdle to overcome is what state law says on privacy and audio recordings.  Each state has its own laws regarding the consent required to audio record events, even if they are ‘public’ events.

Some states are known as ‘dual consent’, which means both parties must know about and agree to the recording.  Some states are ‘single consent’ which means that only one of the interested parties (usually the parent who wishes to record the IEP meeting) has to agree to it.

While not exhaustive of every state’s law, the Digital Media Law Project collected links to some state’s laws on this issue.  This site is not being kept up to date, so make sure you check your own state’s law on recording or consult with a local attorney.

School District Policies

It is therefore left to the State Educational Agency (SEA) or Local Educational Agency (LEA) to determine the policy on audio recording these sessions.

The SEA or LEA (local school district) may issue a policy requiring, prohibiting, limiting or in any other way regulating audio recording of IEP Meetings.  If the public agency has a policy that prohibits or limits the use of recording devices at IEP meetings, the policy must have exceptions necessary to protect parental rights, such as the ability to understand the IEP or the IEP process. Any such policy on tape recording IEP meetings must be uniformly applied.

Protecting Access to Recordings

Any recording of an IEP meeting maintained by a public agency is an “education record,” within the meaning of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)[1] and would be obtainable by the parents through a written request.  It would also be subject to the protections of FERPA prohibiting its release to anyone not authorized under that law.

So what do you do?

Parents wishing to use audio or video recording devices at IEP meetings should consult state laws or local school policies for further guidance or consult with a local education attorney.

——————–

[1] 20 USC §§1232g and 1232h; Regulations 34 CFR §99.1 et seq.

Transportation is a Mandatory “Related Service” for Special Ed Kids That Need It

Under IDEA, transportation is a “related service” that must be provided to kids with an IEP.1  Transportation must also be provided to infants and toddlers as part of Early Intervention Services.2

Transportation includes travel between home and school; between schools (if the child attends more than one campus); travel within and around school buildings (if that is a challenge); and specialized equipment like ramps, lifts, or adapted buses if required to transport the child with a disability.3

What kind of transportation will be provided to my child? This depends entirely on what your child’s needs are. If your child has Sensory Processing Disorder, he/she may not be able to ride the regular large bus to school. If your child is in a wheelchair or has other physical impairments, he/she might require a specially-adapted vehicle. Alternatively, you as the parent may be reimbursed by the district if you provide the transportation agreed to by the IEP team.

Transportation needs should be discussed during an IEP meeting or 504 planning meeting. If the school district needs to send the child with a disability outside the school for services or places the child in an ‘out of district’ program or private school, the school district must also provide transportation to those services or program.

Learn more about how school buses and transportation for your child with a disability fits into planning for your child’s education and IEP in our book SchoolKidsLawyer’s Step-By-Step Guide to Special Education Law.


1. 20 U.S.C. §1401(26)(A); 34 C.F.R. §300.34(a).
2. 20 U.S.C. §1432(4)(E)(xiv); 34 C.F.R. §300.34(a).
3. 34 C.F.R. §300.34(c)(16).