Source: https://www.makespecialeducationwork.com/tag/parent-advocacy/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:19:16+00:00

Document:
It is an article of faith in the special education community that parents have the legal right to request a Team meeting at any time, for any reason, and the school must comply. A search of the Internet reveals multiple trusted websites and state parent guides making this claim. The problem is that a careful examination of IDEA’s statutes and regulations doesn’t turn up anything that explicitly grants parents this right.
This is a concern, as parents have written us about schools ignoring their requests for Team meetings to discuss important issues. When this happens, what authority can parents cite to request a Team meeting and have the school comply? It is an unfortunate reality that parents need a firm legal footing to convince a reluctant school district of their child’s rights.
Some states, such as Arizona and California, have laws that allow parents to request a meeting, but with certain restrictions.
In Arizona, a “parent or public education agency may request in writing a review of the IEP, and shall identify the basis for requesting review,” and the review has to take place within 45 school days of the receipt of the request (Arizona Administrative Code R7-2-401(G)(7)). Since most reasons to request a Team meeting probably have to do with an issue that is in, or should be added to, the IEP, this is a pretty broad mandate.
California tells parents: “you can request an IEP meeting whenever you think one is needed in order to review or change the program.” Once the parent makes a written request, the school has 30 school days to hold the meeting according to California Education Code Sections 56343(c) & 56343.5. This wording is even broader than Arizona’s, though it is likely that “program” is intended to refer to the IEP.
However, searching the text of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), statutes 20 USC §1400 through 20 USC §1482, and regulations 34 CFR §300.1 through 34 CFR §300.818, reveals nothing that grants parents the right to request a Team meeting at any time and for any reason. While 20 USC §1414(d)(4)(A) “Review and Revision of IEP” goes over the reasons for calling a Team meeting, it doesn’t mention who can request the meeting. Section (III) comes the closest by stating that the Team should meet when the parents present “information about the child provided to, or by, the parents.” This hints at the right of parents to request a Team meeting but still doesn’t address it directly.
So, What Gives Parents the Right?
The answer to this question appears in The Federal Register, the official journal of the federal government. This document compiles government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices. Rules initially published in The Federal Register are ultimately organized and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which are authorized by the statute law found in the United States Code (USC).
The comment and discussion halfway down the left-hand column is about parents having the the right to change their mind when excusing an IEP Team member from attending a meeting. The concern is that it might become apparent during a Team meeting that the absence of an excused member could inhibit the development of the IEP. This would make the IEP developed at the meeting incomplete at best and possibly even inadequate. The question being addressed is: would it be worthwhile to modify the regulations to expand a parent’s rights regarding excused Team members?
The discussion in answer to this question focuses on the fact that there is nothing in IDEA that prevents a Team from reconvening to continue developing or modifying the IEP, as long as it is done “in a timely manner.” Then comes the pertinent sentence: The parent can request an additional IEP Team meeting at any time and does not have to agree to excuse an IEP Team member. The discussion concludes with the statement that no changes are needed to the regulations, which means that the discussion is considered to be settled law.
In other words, government regulators believe IDEA, as it is currently written, gives parents the right to request a Team meeting “at any time,” and that the meeting must be convened “in a timely manner.” The discussion does not mention any restriction to this right. So, when a school tries to tell you that you can’t have more than one Team meeting a year, this gives you the legal authority to request additional meetings and the school must convene the meeting without undue delay.
First, show your liaison or special education director the discussion in The Federal Register. Politely explain that the school has an obligation to hold a Team meeting at your request and without undue delay. Also know that only you have the right to excuse a Team member from attending the meeting. If the school is simply unaware of its obligation, this should work.
Otherwise, you can request mediation from your state department of education. Every state has mediators who will arrange a meeting at no charge to the parent to resolve issues between parents and schools. In our experience, mediators are honest brokers who do their best to observe the letter of the law. In fact, it is possible that once you explain the issue, it is likely that a simple phone call from the mediator to the school will resolve the issue.
Of course, nothing is ever certain, but we have found that the more informed you are, the better the chance you have to convince your child’s school to provide the appropriate education your child deserves and by right should have.
This entry was posted in IDEA, IEPs, Parent advocacy, special education law and tagged education advocacy, Parent advocacy, special education law on September 16, 2018 by Carson Graves.
Recently, our local newspaper carried a front page story about a high school student on an IEP who was being told by the state’s high school athletic association that he couldn’t play in his school’s football games. According to the article, their rules said he had used up his eligibility to play because he was taking an additional year to graduate.
Needing additional time to complete school is typical for students in special education. In our book, we write about how our son’s school in Massachusetts tried to force him to graduate before he had earned enough credits to apply to a four-year college, and how we had to file for a hearing to prevent this from happening.
IDEA is very clear that schools must allow students on IEPs to participate in extracurricular activities “to the maximum extent appropriate to the child.” The student in question, Noah Britton, had been on the varsity football team the previous year and had played in scheduled games with other schools. There is no question that Noah has the right to continue to play football to the maximum extent appropriate for him.
Athletic Association Rules or IDEA?
The state athletic association, however, cited a rule that a student can’t continue to play varsity sports after eight semesters of high school enrollment. By taking an extra year to graduate, Noah would be in his ninth semester during the fall football season.
So, does the athletic association rule supersede federal law? We don’t think so, and the confusion is just one more example of why parents with children in special education need to be aware of their child’s rights or run the risk of their child losing out on an appropriate education.
Below, we have attached the letter we wrote to the Asheville Citizen-Times regarding the athletic association rules verses the legal requirements of IDEA.
In reading your story about Noah Britton’s dispute with the North Carolina High School Athletic Association, it appears that the association is unaware of the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law that protects the rights of students with identified disabilities to receive an appropriate public education up to age 21 or high school graduation, whichever comes first.
In particular, the association seems to be out of compliance with regulation 34 C.F.R. § 300.117, which states in part that “each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in the extracurricular services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the child.” A related regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 300.107(b) makes it clear that “extracurricular services” includes athletics. So yes, the IEP extends to sports, and always has. It is Noah’s right to continue to participate in the football program to the maximum extent appropriate for him.
It is also worth noting that IDEA requires schools to address the social and emotional development of students with disabilities, not just academics. Reading about how happy Noah was to play in an actual game is the definition of what this means. Too many students in special education are made to feel like second class citizens, and we applaud Asheville High School and coach David Burdette for what they have done for Noah.
From our lay reading of the law, it seems clear that Asheville High School is required to allow Noah full participation in the football team’s activities, including games, and that the North Carolina High School Athletic Association is attempting to violate federal law by preventing Noah’s participation.
We hope that the NCHSAA will reconsider its opposition without further delay. If not, we would like to point to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which was explicitly written to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) allows the “prevailing party” in a lawsuit over a violation of the statute to collect “a reasonable attorney’s fee” as part of the cost of remediation.
We heard back from the newspaper a few days ago. Our letter was not printed because it contained too many words.
This entry was posted in IDEA, inclusion, special education law, Uncategorized and tagged education advocacy, Parent advocacy, special education law on June 3, 2018 by Carson Graves.
There is an aspect of special education that often goes unnoticed by parents. It can be subtle, but it is real. It is the possibility of a conflict between the needs of your child and the interests of the people working with your child.
Conflicts of interest can affect both school personnel and even outside professionals. Both groups can have relationships and financial ties that influence how they write evaluations, how they make recommendations for students, and how they interact with parents and other professionals. In this article we will analyze conflicts of interest for school employees.
Conflicts of interest can occur in all aspects of life, but in special education where appropriate instruction for students with disabilities can be expensive, school personnel are often faced with a difficult situation. Do they advocate for a student who may need costly services, knowing that there may be personal consequences for their advocacy?
There are many examples of teachers who have lost their jobs or have been demoted after advocating for services and accommodations that the school administration did not want to provide. In one well-documented case, a Portland, Oregon, school district retaliated against and fired a teacher after she advocated for things like wheelchair ramps in the local high school.
This kind of conflict occurs primarily as a result of how special education services are funded. The people who approve services are frequently the same people who control the school budget or who are working for those who control the budget. If a potential service is too involved or costly, it is less likely that the school will provide it regardless of how beneficial it might be for a student. A school employee who goes against this unwritten rule is likely putting their job at risk.
It is important to note that we have encountered many school professionals who have a strong sense of professional responsibility and ethics. Unfortunately, they are not usually the ones who have the power to authorize services or accommodations that will cost the school money. The result is that employment security forces many school professionals to choose between what is best for them and what is best for the student.
In 1988, Galen Alessi, a psychologist and professor at Western Michigan University, conducted a survey of 50 school psychologists from around the country, each of whom had handled approximately 100 cases during the previous school year. That yielded 5,000 case studies. The goal was to determine the cause of learning and behavior problems in students.
The survey identified five probable causes of problems: faulty curriculum, ineffective management practices by the school administration, lack of parental support, and a student’s physical or psychological problems. All the school psychologists agreed that each of these could play a role in a student not learning properly or having behavior problems.
Yet, when the 5000 evaluations written by the psychologists were examined, every one concluded that the student’s physical and/or psychological problems were the primary cause of the students’ learning difficulties. Some also concluded that a lack of parental support or the home environment were contributing causes. None of the evaluations stated that the curriculum, teaching, or administrative practices were factors.
When asked about this, most of the psychologists in the study stated that school culture dictated that their conclusions be restricted to the student and family. Many said they could lose their jobs if they blamed school-related factors such as the curriculum or poor administrative practices.
Although this study focused on school psychologists, you should consider the implications when working with all school professionals. Bear in mind that the real client of any school employee working with your child is the school district, not you or your child.
Try to find ways to work cooperatively with school personnel, realize their limitations, and maybe together you can come up with a creative plan to help your child without ringing budgetary alarm bells.
Obtain a copy of your school district’s code of ethics and study it. Most districts post their code on the school website, or you can ask for a copy at the school office. While there are exceptions worth looking for, most codes don’t acknowledge the kinds of conflicts discussed in this article. At the least, however, it will show you what the school formally expects from its employees.
Check the certification of any school professional who works with your child. Some schools attempt to economize on their special education budgets by employing staff with interim certification or even no certification. This information is in the public domain. Most districts have websites where you can check this information, or you can ask at your school district office.
If you do suspect a conflict of interest, realize that you will probably not get honest and objective information regarding your child. The best remedy is to independently learn as much as you can about your child’s disability and what is necessary to obtain an appropriate education. Then you will be better able to ask pertinent and specific questions of school personnel to reveal the possible conflict and decide what action, such as filing for mediation or a due process hearing, is necessary.
Ultimately, the best use of your time and money may be to consult a professional who is outside of your school district to perform evaluations and make recommendations based on what your child truly needs.
The last suggestion is not foolproof, however. Our next blog article will cover potential conflicts of interest with outside professionals and how to find one who is truly independent of your school district.
You will find more information on this topic in Chapter 5: “Conflicts of Interest,” in our book, Parents Have the Power to Make Special Education Work.
This entry was posted in Parent advocacy and tagged education advocacy, Parent advocacy on February 6, 2018 by Carson Graves.

References: §1400
 §1482
 §300
 §300
 §1414
 § 300
 § 300
 § 794