Source: http://dickmanalliance.com/letter-to-pasternack-osers/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:10:00+00:00

Document:
Do parents participating in an IEP meeting have the right to be informed as to the qualifications of the instructor designated to deliver the particular methodology or specifically designed instruction identified in the IEP?
Robert H. Pasternack, Ph. D.
IDEA places emphasis on the need for informed parental consent.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.500(a)(1-3).
“NJCLD strongly believes that professional development is an ongoing process of continuous improvement, not an event.
The comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD) is a federal and state mandate that recognizes the need for special education personnel that are qualified to met the needs of children with disabilities. The law specifically addresses in-service (post certification) as well as pre-service preparation. In other words, the CSPD requirement in both federal and state law recognizes that certification alone is not enough to protect the needs of children with disabilities.
The practical implication of Congress’ focus on replicable research and promising practices is reflected in changes to the IEP process contained in the reauthorized version of IDEA effective July 1, 1998. (1) The IEP Team must include “an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results. . . .” [20 USC § 1414(d) 1(B)(v)]. (2) The IEP must include “a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child – (1) to advance appropriately toward attaining annual goals; . . .” [20 USC § 1414(d)(1)(A)(iii), emphasis added].
Parents cannot help to determine (as part of the IEP team) what supports should be provided “for school personnel on behalf of the child, if they are not permitted information as to the qualifications of the personnel involved.
In Evans v. The Bd. Of Educ. of the Rhinebeck Central School Dist., 24 IDELR 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) the court held that the facts demonstrated “that an integrated, multi-sensory, sequential method is a necessity rather than an optimum situation.” Evansat 348. The Evans Court in 1996 anticipated the findings of Congress contained in the most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 USC § 1400 et seq., to wit: “the implementation of this Act has been impeded by low expectations and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities.” 20 USC § 1400(c)(4).
Case law recognizes that instructional methodology can be an important consideration in the context of what constitutes an appropriate education for a child with a disability. At the same time, these courts have indicated that they will not substitute a parentally-preferred methodology for sound educational programs developed by school personnel in accordance with the procedural requirements of the IDEA to meet the educational needs of an individual child with a disability.
In light of the legislative history and case law, it is clear that in developing an individualized education there are circumstances in which the particular teaching methodology that will be used is an integral part of what is ‘individualized’ about a student’s education and, in those circumstances will need to be discussed at the IEP meeting and incorporated into the student’s IEP. For example, for a child with a learning disability who has not learned to read using traditional instructional methods, an appropriate education may require some other instructional strategy.
Other students IEPs may not need to address the instructional method to be used because specificity about methodology is not necessary to enable those students to receive an appropriate education. There is nothing in the definition of ‘specially designed instruction’ that would require instructional methodology to be addressed in the IEPs of students who do not need a particular instructional methodology in order to receive educational benefit. In all cases whether methodology would be addressed in an IEP would be an IEP team decision.
Specially designed instruction and appropriate teacher training are necessary in order for some children to receive an educational benefit. How can parents contribute as equal members of the “IEP team” if they are denied the information necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of the decisions made by the team?
As a member of the IEP team it would appear that parents are entitled to sufficient information to determine if the individual(s) assigned is qualified to deliver the goals, objectives, and the “instructional methodology addressed in the IEP.” Your assistance in clarifying this issue would be most appreciated.

References: § 300
 § 1414
 § 1414
 v. 
 § 1400
 § 1400