© engler callaway baasten & sraga, llc 1 · 2019-03-01 · conducting the annual review, the...

© Engler Callaway Baasten & Sraga, LLC 1

IAASE Fall Conference

September 29, 2016

Cynthia M. Baasten, Esq.

Engler Callaway Baasten & Sraga, LLC

DEALING WITH CONFLICT:

How to Navigate the IEP Process When Opinions Differ and Tempers Flare

I. IDEA’S PARENT PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS

The IDEA regulations provide that a school district mustobtain informed consent from the parent of a studentbefore:

Conducting an initial evaluation or reevaluation of thestudent; and

The initial provision of special education and relatedservices to the student.

34 C.F.R. §300.300.

PARENT PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS


The IDEA regulations provide that parents aremandatory IEP team members.

34 C.F.R. §300.321.


Each district must take steps to ensure that one orboth of the parents are present at each IEP meetingor are afforded the opportunity to participate,including scheduling a meeting at a mutuallyagreed on time and place.

34 C.F.R. §300.322(a).


If neither parent can attend the IEP meeting, thedistrict must use other methods to ensure parentparticipation, including individual or conferencetelephone calls or videoconferences (e.g.,FaceTime, Skype).

34 C.F.R. §300.322(a) and (c), §300.328.



The school must take whatever action isnecessary to ensure that the parentunderstands the proceedings of the IEPmeeting, including arranging for aninterpreter for parents with deafness orwhose native language is other than English.

34 C.F.R. §300.322; 23 Ill. Admin. Code§226.530.


An IEP meeting may be conducted without a parent inattendance if the district is unable to convince the parents thatthey should attend. In such case, the district must keep a recordof its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place,such as:

Detailed phone records, including the results of those calls;

Copies of correspondence sent and received;

Visits to the home or place of employment and the results ofthose visits.

34 C.F.R. §300.322(d).


Also, an IEP meeting does not include:

Informal or unscheduled conversations involving district personneland conversations on issues such as teaching methodology, lessonplans, or coordination of service provision if those issues are notaddressed in the child’s IEP, or

Preparatory activities that district personnel engage in to develop aproposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at alater meeting.

34 C.F.R. §300.501(b).



A procedural violation will constitute adenial of FAPE if the violation significantlyimpedes the parent’s opportunity toparticipate in the decision-making processregarding the provision of FAPE.

20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(i) & (ii).


II. AVOIDING PRE-IEP MEETING MISSTEPS

A. Scheduling the IEP Conference

AVOIDING PRE-IEP MEETING MISSTEPS


What should school districts do ifparents/guardians refuse to attend IEPmeetings? Or repeatedly reject proposedmeeting dates?

What steps should be taken beforeproceeding with an IEP meeting withoutparents/guardians?

SCHEDULING THE IEP CONFERENCE

Rockwall v. Independent School District , 67 IDELR 108 (5th Cir. 3/10/16):

The court held that the parents acted unreasonably when they refusedto attend a second IEP meeting. The IEP team, including the parents,met to review the student’s IEP but did not finish their discussions.When the district proposed dates for a second meeting to complete thestudent’s IEP, the parents responded that “there was no point” inhaving another meeting if the district refused their proposal for thestudent stay in her unilateral placement for the school year. The courtconcluded that the communications between the district and parentsshowed that the parents were unwilling to cooperate with the districtunless it agreed to their placement proposal.


Rockwall (cont.):

The court noted that although the IDEA imposes extensiveprocedural requirements to provide parents with an opportunityfor meaningful input, parents do not have the right to dictate anoutcome. The court held that the parents adopted an “all-or-nothing” approach to the development of the student’s IEP,which broke down the IEP process. Consequently, the courtdenied the parents’ request for reimbursement of the costs of thestudent’s unilateral placement.



Special School District of St. Louis County, 114 LRP31064 (MS SEA 7/11/14):

A school district did not violate the IDEA when itproceeded with a manifestation determination meetingwithout the student’s parent. The district called andnotified the parent of the scheduled meeting. The parentresponded that she would attend on the scheduled date.However, on the meeting date, the parent did not showand when the district called the parent to participate byphone, the parent hung up on the district staff twice.


A.L. v. Jackson County School Board, 66 IDELR 271 (11 th Cir.12/30/15):

Where the district attempted to schedule four separate IEPmeetings with the parent from August – November and the parenteither missed or refused to agree with the proposed date, the courtheld that the parent’s actions were tantamount to refusing toattend the IEP meeting. As such, the court concluded that thedistrict did not violate the IDEA when it proceeded with the IEPmeeting without the parent. The court noted that while parentparticipation is certainly an important goal of the IDEA, thestudent’s educational goals had stagnated because of the parent’scontinuous requests to reschedule the IEP meeting.


Christina School District, 68 IDELR 30 (DE 1/15/16):

A school district violated the IDEA’s proceduralrequirements when it conferred with the parent’sadvocate, but did not confer with the parent, about amutually agreeable date/time for the IEP meeting. Thedistrict indicated that it sent the parent a notice ofconference but had no proof that the parent actuallyreceived the notice. Also, the district did not give propernotice of the meeting because school staff gave conflictinginformation about whether the meeting was an IEPmeeting or a “best interest meeting.”



Sacramento City Unified School District, 114 LRP 6937(1/16/14):

The hearing officer voided a student’s IEP because the districtheld the IEP meeting without the parent. The district explainedthat the parent refused to attend one IEP meeting and, when heattended another meeting, he was confrontational andaccusatory, refused to cooperate with the meeting agenda, andrefused to set aside his complaints to review the student'sprogress and update the IEP. As a result, the district did notmeet the annual review timeline.


Sacramento (cont.):

For the third IEP conference, the district sent the notice ofconference to the parent one day before the meeting and did notcall or e-mail the parent about the scheduled meeting. Theparent did not attend that IEP meeting. The hearing officer heldthat the parent’s uncooperative demeanor during the previousIEP meeting did not excuse the school district’s obligations toprovide the parent with written notice of IEP conference andopportunity to attend the meeting.


What should districts do ifparents/guardians will not agree tomeeting during the school day/staffcontractual hours?



B.H. v. Joliet Sch. Dist. No. 86, 54 IDELR 121 (N.D. Ill.3/19/10):

A school district did not violate the IDEA when itoffered numerous alternative dates and times for theIEP meeting that were all within the school day. Thecourt held that school districts are not generallyrequired to schedule IEP meetings during evenings orweekends, although there may be situations wheresuch an accommodation would be required.


Silver Falls School District, 115 LRP 24115 (OR SEA 4/9/15):

A school district was not required to schedule an IEP conference at adate/time in which both parents, who shared educational decision-making authority, were available. The mother indicated that shecould not attend IEP meetings during school hours because sheworked during that time and was not permitted to talk on the phonewhile at work. The father indicated that he had flexibility in hiswork schedule and could attend a meeting during the school day.The hearing officer found no violation of the IDEA because only oneparent’s participation is necessary.


How should school districts proceed when there arecompeting IDEA procedural requirements – i.e., parentparticipation vs. deadlines for reviewing evaluationsand developing IEPs, conducting annual reviews, etc.?



Ashland School District 5, 114 LRP 38608 (OR SEA 8/8/14):

Where the school district had several communications withthe parents and their advocate in attempt to find a mutuallyagreed upon date and time for the IEP meeting, but wasunsuccessful in agreeing on a date prior to deadline forconducting the annual review, the school district’s decision toprioritize the parents’ participation in the IEP meeting overstrict compliance with the annual review deadline was clearlyreasonable.


B. Deciding on IEP Meeting Participants


What if parents/guardians insist that acertain school staff member or thedistrict’s attorney be excluded from IEPmeetings?

DECIDING ON IEP MEETING PARTICIPANTS


In addition to the stated required team members, the IEP team mayinclude other individuals with knowledge or special expertiseregarding the child. The determination of the knowledge or specialexpertise of any other individual must be made by the party whoinvited that individual to the meeting. E.g. ~

Related service providers; Staff from a cooperative or private program; Consulting evaluators/specialists; or Advocates or attorneys.

34 C.F.R. §300.321; 23 Ill. Admin. Code §226.210.


Grandview Heights Schools, 116 LRP 31033 (OH SEA 7/12/16).

Even though a school district had agreed to the parent’s request that thebuilding principal would not attend a prior IEP meeting, the district did notviolate the IDEA when it declined to continue exclude the principal from allof the student’s IEP meetings.

The parent sent an e-mail requesting assurance that the building principalwould not attend any IEP meeting and, stating that the principal was“detrimental to the collaborative process” and “including him would serveno other purpose than to intimidate the Parents…[and] his attendance wouldadd an additional layer of tension to what has already become an unpleasantand imbalance dynamic….”?

The district responded that due to his supervision of the programs andservices provided in the school, the principal might attend future meetings.


Horen v. Board of Education of City of ToledoPublic School District, 2013 WL 2403999 (N.D.Ohio 5/1/13):

The court held that the school district did notdeny the parents meaningful participation in theIEP process when it declined the parents’demands to exclude the district’s attorney andallow them to record the IEP meetings.



Letter to Andel, 116 LRP 8548 (OSEP 2/17/16):

OSEP reiterates its longstanding position thatattendance of attorneys at IEP conferences isstrongly discouraged (but not prohibited).


Letter to Andel (cont.):

OSEP notes that the IDEA regulations provide that otherindividuals who have knowledge or special expertiseregarding the child may attend the IEP conference at thediscretion of the parent or the school district.

OSEP explains that, even if an attorney possesses theknowledge or special expertise regarding the child, anattorney’s presence could have the potential for creating anadversarial atmosphere that would not necessarily be in thebest interest of the child.



If a parent brings an attorney to an IEP meetingwithout prior notification to the school district, thedistrict may reschedule the meeting to anotherdate/time if (a) the parent agrees, and (b) thepostponement does not result in a delay or denial ofFAPE.




A school district may not tell a parent that it willproceed with the IEP meeting only if the parent’sattorney does not participate, because that wouldinterfere with the parent’s rights under the IDEA.


What if parents/guardians demand thatthat a certain school staff member bepresent at the IEP meeting?


Pikes Peak BOCES, 116 LRP 29302 (CO SEA 4/19/16):

A school district did not violate the IDEA by declining theparents’ request to have the paraprofessionals assigned to thestudent attend the IEP conference.

The hearing officer found that nothing in the IDEA regulationsrequires a school district to make an employee available for IEPmeetings. The hearing officer concluded that, where a schooldistrict includes the required IEP team members, parents maynot compel the district to have a particular school employeeattend an IEP meeting.



B. Planning vs. Preparation


Letter to Helmuth, 16 IDELR 503 (OSEP 1/30/90):

Either prior to or during an IEP meeting, a districtmay share with parents a draft IEP. However, sucha document may be used solely for purposes ofdiscussion and development of the child'scompleted IEP, and may not be presented to theparents as a completed IEP.

PLANNING VS. PREDETERMINATION

O.L. v. Miami-Dade County School Board, 63IDELR 182 (11th Cir. 7/2/14):

Predetermination occurs when a district makeseducational decisions too early in the planningprocess, in a way that deprives the parents of ameaningful opportunity to fully participate in IEPdevelopment, review, or revision as equalmembers of the IEP team.



O.L. (cont.):

District members of the IEP team should not come into anIEP meeting with closed minds, having already decidedmaterial aspects of the child's educational programwithout parental input. This is not to say that a districtmay not have any pre-formed opinions about what isappropriate for a child's education; however, any pre-formed opinion must not obstruct the parents'participation in the planning process.


O.L. (cont.):

Parental participation must be more than mere form -- it mustbe meaningful. It is not enough that the parents are presentand given an opportunity to speak at an IEP meeting.

To avoid a finding of predetermination, a district must show it hasan open mind and might possibly be swayed by the parents'opinions and support for the IEP contents that they believe arenecessary for their child. A district can make this showing bybeing receptive and responsive at all stages to the parents'position, even if it is ultimately rejected.


Harrison School District Two, 116 LRP 34796 (CO SEA 6/30/16):

A hearing officer found that the school district predetermined thestudent’s placement when the IEP team discussed the pros and cons ofthree placement options and then the district had the IEP team membersvote on the placement. The IEP team consisted of the parent, a teacherfrom the child’s unilateral placement, and district personnel (whooutnumbered the parent). When the parent asked for an explanationabout the reasoning for the staff members’ recommendation, the districtcut off the parent and stated that the IEP team had voted and determinedthe student’s placement. The hearing officer concluded that the districtmay no true effort to build consensus on the placement determination.



Practical Tips when planning for contentious IEP conferences:

Consider whether an administrator or additional staff member(s) shouldattend to facilitate the meeting discussions.

Confirm availability of the administrator or additional staff member(s)prior to sending out the notice of conference.

State a reasonable time period on the notice of conference.

Send a written confirmation to the parent for any verbal communicationabout scheduling the meeting.

Develop a specific meeting agenda (e.g., allocating time frame for eachagenda item, explanation/response format).


Review e-mails/other correspondence between school staff and parents.

Brainstorm with staff to develop proposals and contingency plans for“hot” issues.

Ensure staff have all applicable data in support of theirproposals/recommendations.

Remind staff about inappropriate body language and attitudes (e.g.,eye-rolling, crossing arms, scoffing, interrupting the speaker).

Remind staff that they still need to speak up and provide theiropinions.


III. CONDUCTING A PRODUCTIVE IEP MEETING


A. Preliminary Meeting Issues

CONDUCTING A PRODUCTIVE IEP MEETING

If there are concerns that an IEP meetingis going to be contentious, should thestudent (in junior high or high school)still participate?

PRELIMINARY MEETING ISSUES

Gibson v. Forest Hills Local School District Board ofEducation, 2016 WL 3771843 (6th Cir. 6/15/16):

A school district's failure to invite the student to transition-related IEP meetings did not deny the student a FAPE. Thespecial education teacher and school psychologist testified thestudent would have been frightened if she attended the IEPmeetings because they involved “yelling and slamming doors.”The hearing officer found that the IEP meetings were highlycontentious and dominated by an “us vs. them” relationship.Significantly, evidence showed that the student would not havebeen able to articulate her views about preferences and desiresfor the future in such a formal setting.



May school districts precludeparents/guardians from audio recording IEPmeetings?


Letter to Savit, 67 IDELR 216 (OSEP 01/19/16):

School districts have the option to require, prohibit, limitor otherwise regulate the use of recording devices at IEPmeetings.

If district policy prohibits or limits use of recordingdevices, the policy must provide for exceptions ifnecessary to ensure the parent understands the IEP/IEPprocess or to implement other parental rights under theIDEA.


Letter to Savit (cont.):

The district must ensure that the policy is applieduniformly.

If the policy requires a parent to give prior noticebefore audio or video recording, then the districtmust give sufficient notice of the IEP meeting toallow the parent to meet such notice requirement.



Howard County Public Schools, 115 LRP 25611(MD SEA 3/6/15):

Any recording of an IEP meeting that ismaintained by the school district is an educationrecord under FERPA, and would be subject to therequirements under both FERPA and the IDEA[and applicable State confidentiality laws].


May school districts put time limits on IEPmeetings? If so, what is an appropriateamount of time?



In Re Student with a Disability, 109 LRP 26510 (SEA WA2009):

A school district violated the IDEA when it convened amanifestation determination meeting that lasted onlytwenty minutes and only the student’s attendancerecords and teacher observations were reviewed. Thehearing officer found that this reflected predeterminationof the manifestation determination.


Seattle School District , 114 LRP 32867 (WA SEA 6/6/14):

A school district did not deny the parents an opportunity to fully participate bylimiting an IEP meeting to review a reevaluation of the student to one hour. Thehearing officer noted that there is no legal requirement that an IEP meetingmust be held for a certain duration of time, and a claim that a meeting was soshort that it effectively precluded a parents’ participation must be determinedon a case-by-case basis.

The hearing officer found that the parents had an opportunity to participate inthe reevaluation as well as in the meeting, as evidenced by the fact that duringthe meeting the parents engaged in conversation and spoke about the student’sdisabilities, his needs, and areas where they believed he should receive services.Also, the hearing officer rejected the parents’ argument that they were deniedparticipation because the IEP team did not review every issue raised in a 5-pagee-mail that they sent the district at 4:39 a.m. on the morning of the meeting.


B. Controlling Meeting Discussions

CONDUCTING A PRODUCTIVE IEP MEETING

May school districts require or request thatparents/guardians submit their concerns inwriting prior to the IEP meeting?

If parents/guardians provide a written statementbefore/during the IEP meeting, must the schooldistrict give a response at the meeting?

CONTROLLING MEETING DISCUSSIONS


Letter to Northrop, 61 IDELR 264 (OSEP 05/21/13) and Letter toBreton, 62 IDELR 183 (OSEP 9/24/13):

OSEP explained that it would be inconsistent with the intent andrequirements of the IDEA for a school district to require parents toprovide a written statement of their concerns to the district prior to anIEP conference in order to have such concerns addressed at themeeting.

However, if parents seek a comprehensive or written response to aparent-provided statement or private evaluation report, it is notinconsistent with the IDEA for the school district to take a reasonabletime to respond in detail.


The U.S. DOE has explained that "parents havethe right to bring questions, concerns, andpreliminary recommendations to the IEP Teammeeting as part of a full discussion of the child'sneeds and the services to be provided to meetthose needs."

U.S. DOE Analysis of Comments and Changes, 71 FR46678.


How can school personnel control thestructure and content of discussions yet showthat parents/guardians were given ampleopportunity to participate in IEP meetings?



D.E. v. Chappaqua Central School District, 68 IDELR 48 (S.D.N.Y.6/28/16):

A court rejected the parents’ argument that the school districtpredetermined the student’s IEP. The court found that the IEP additionalnotes section stated that the parents expressed their agreement with therecommendations made at the meeting, and the parents never requestedthat the district correct the notes section of the IEP. Also, staff testifiedthat the parents raised a concern that quarterly meetings to discuss thestudent’s performance were insufficient, so the district added monthlymeetings to the IEP. The court concluded that the parents had not onlyattended the IEP meeting but were actively engaged in the formulation ofthe IEP. The court noted that the mere fact that the IEP did notincorporate every parental request did not render the parents “passiveobservers” or evidence any predetermination by the district.


D.B. v. New York City Department of Education, 67 IDELR241 (S.D.N.Y. 5/19/16):

A school district did not predetermine the student’sprogramming even though the district rejected one of theparent’s main requests because the parents were presentand given the chance to voice their thoughts at the IEPmeeting. The court found that the IEP meeting lasted twohours, the parents raised several concerns, and the IEPitself incorporated several of the comments and concernsof the parents and the teacher from the student’s privateplacement.


May school districts remove parents/guardiansor their representatives from IEP meetings forbeing overly disruptive, combative or otherwiseinappropriate?

If so, may the district proceed with the IEPmeeting without them?



Lake Oswego School District, 112 LRP 14681 (OR SEA 1/18/12):

A school district violated the IDEA when it proceeded with the IEPmeeting without the parents following a verbal altercation that resulted inthe district requiring one parent to leave school grounds before the start ofthe meeting. The Oregon DOE did not fault the district for asking theparent to leave the school because, upon arriving for the meeting, theparent had yelled and used profanity toward the principal in the schoolhallway. However, the district should not have proceeded with themeeting after the parent left the building. The DOE explained that thedistrict should have rescheduled the meeting, had the other parent stay toattend the meeting, or permitted both parents to participate by phone.


Blackman v. District of Columbia, 64 IDELR 169(D.D.C. 11/04/14):

A school district violated the IDEA by having thestudent’s attorney forcibly removed from schoolgrounds by law enforcement because the student wasnot present for the scheduled IEP meeting. Also, thedistrict improperly proceeded with the IEP meetingwithout the student or his representative.


When can school districts stop discussionson a particular topic and/or IEP meetingsbecause of unproductive dialogue, continueddisagreement, or unacceptable conduct?



School Board of the City of Suffolk v. Rose,2015 WL 5601944 (E.D. Va. 9/22/15):

Despite Congress’ intentions to promote activeparent participation in the IEP process,parents do not possess “veto power” over IEPteam decisions under the IDEA.


Letter to Richards , 55 IDELR 107 (OSEP 1/7/10):

The IEP team should work towards a general agreement, but theschool district is ultimately responsible for ensuring the IEP includesthe services that the child needs in order to receive a FAPE.

It is not appropriate to make IEP decisions based on a majority "vote."

If the team cannot reach agreement, the district must determine theappropriate services and provide the parents with prior written noticeof the determinations regarding the child's IEP and of the parents'right to initiate a due process hearing or file a State complaint.


Compton Unified School District, 115 LRP 15206 (CASEA 3/27/15):

A school district did not commit a procedural violationwhen it ended an IEP conference and indicated that themeeting would be reconvened on another date after theparent’s advocate insisted that a private school was theonly acceptable placement and refused to consider anyother placement options (including a district generaleducation with resource services and a special day class).



R.L. v. Miami-Dade County School Board, 114 LRP 30126(11th Cir. 07/02/14):

A school district violated the IDEA when a parent raisedconcerns about the student attending the general highschool building and suggested an alternative program asa placement option, and the district’s administratorresponded that, for administrative reasons, the suggestedalternative program was "not an option that's on thetable.”


Practical Tips For Running Contentious IEP Meetings:

Prepare and distribute expectations/ground rules for all meetingparticipants.

Assign different staff members to facilitate the meeting, completethe IEP documentation, and write the conference notes.

Direct the participants to follow the correct order of discussion(e.g., goals before placement).

“Parking lot” issues raised by the parents or staff members beforethe applicable agenda item/IEP section.


Keep the discussion open and collaborative but also structured.

Prompt the parent(s) to participate in discussion and give input.

Keep participants on task and focused on the relevant issues (if notrelevant, reduce details), but do not overly limit the parent(s).

Redirect conversation back to the available data.

Prompt all IEP team members to provide their feedback andopinions.



Invite dissenters to explain their rationale before making a finaldetermination.

Stop any personal attacks immediately.

Stop the IEP meeting if negative conduct by theparent/advocate/attorney (or staff) persists despite a warning torefrain from such behavior.

If the parent leaves the IEP meeting prematurely, document thedeparture time and consider whether to proceed or reschedule themeeting.


III. CONTINUING THE IEP PROCESS

What constitutes proper prior written notice(“PWN”) under the IDEA?

CONTINUING THE IEP PROCESS


Prior written notice (“PWN”) must be given to the parent withina reasonable time before the district:

Proposes to initiate or change the identification, evaluation,educational placement or the provision of a FAPE to the child;or

Refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation,educational placement or the provision of a FAPE to the child.

34 C.F.R. §300.503.


In Illinois, a “reasonable time” for the PWN isdefined as 10 [calendar] days.

23 Ill. Admin. Code §226.520.


The PWN must include:

A description of any action proposed or refused by the district;

An explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take theaction;

A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, orreport the district used as a basis for the proposed or refusedaction;

A description of other options that the IEP team considered and thereasons why those options were rejected;



A description of other factors that are relevant to the district’sproposal or refusal;

A statement that the parents have protection under theprocedural safeguards and the means by which a copy of theprocedural safeguards can be obtained; and

Sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance inunderstanding their rights under the IDEA.

34 C.F.R. §300.503(b).


Nothing in the IDEA or its regulations prohibits aschool district from using the IEP as part of thePWN so long as the document(s) meet allrequirements.

U.S. DOE Analysis of Comments and Changes, 71 FR 46691.


Parkrose School District 3, 115 LRP 17206 (OR SEA 3/16/15):

A school district violated the IDEA when the parent suggestedan accommodation during an IEP meeting, which the districtstaff discussed and rejected during the meeting, and the districtdid not provide the parent with a PWN stating the parent’srequested accommodation would not be included in the IEP andwhy the decision was made. The district was required toprovide all special education staff with training on all PWNrequirements as corrective action.



May school districts ever restrict or refuse torespond to parents/guardians whosecommunications are voluminous? Rude,offensive or insulting?


Stepp v. Midd-West School District, 65 IDELR 46(M.D. Penn. 2/23/15):

Where the director of special education announcedduring an October IEP meeting that the parent’scommunications with staff members would berestricted and the parent was required to communicateonly with the director for the rest of the school year,the school district denied the student a FAPE by failingto provide meaningful participation for the parent inthe student’s educational process.


Stepp (cont.):

The school district thought that the parent was makingtoo many demands on district staff and wanted to haveone point of contact so that all information sharedwould be the same.

The hearing officer's described the parent as a"handful" and found that the parent engaged in a highvolume of communication with the student’s teachersand service providers.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.clipartpanda.com/categories/notebook-clipart&ei=WNOQVMybLsesogSrtoC4Dw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNFPjzEHWKaZ_WfBPrbZvUWY4qAvYg&ust=1418863827239127



Stepp (cont.):

Prior to the due process hearing, the parent requested all educationalrecords concerning the student, including e-mails in which:

The director made a joke with another staff member which was apun concerning the parent’s last name that was intended to ridiculethe parent for being overweight.

The director joked with a staff member asking if he should "spank"the parent for sending an e-mail directly to the staff member.

The director referred to the parent as the student’s "mouthpiece."


Stepp (cont.):

The district did not attempt to meet with theparent to attempt to resolve the issue or limitthe number of communications beforeannouncing that the director would be the solepoint of contact for IEP purposes.


Stepp (cont.):

The court upheld the hearing officer’s conclusion that thearbitrary limit on the parent’s communication with the IEPteam, coupled with the ridiculing e-mails, "had a chillingeffect upon the mother's participation as a full and equal IEPteam member."

While acknowledging that the parent actively participated inIEP meetings with both an advocate and an attorney, thehearing officer determined that the limitation caused serioustrust issues between the parents and the school district.






Cynthia M. Baasten, Esq.

[email protected]

QUESTIONS

© engler callaway baasten & sraga, llc 1 · 2019-03-01 · conducting the annual review, the...

Documents