Source: http://dickmanalliance.com/parents-have-the-right-to-be-informed-as-to-the-qualifications-of-teacher-assigned-to-deliver-special-education-instruction-to-their-child/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:40:59+00:00

Document:
The need and the right to be informed as to a teacher’s qualifications and training, beyond certification, is situation specific. In other words “staff training in resuscitation techniques and seizure protocol” has been found necessary to permit a pupil to benefit from special education instructions. Silsbee Indys. Sch. Dist., 25 IDELR 1023, 1026 (SEA, Texas, 1997). A child with a specific learning disability is also uniquely in need. In Essex Junction Sch. Dist., 22 IDELR 315 (SEA, Vermont, 1995) the Hearing Officer evaluated the training of the school district personnel in reaching his decision.
Essex Junction Sch. Dist, 22 IDELR at p. 327.
Essex Junction Sch. Dist., 22 IDELR at 324.
The issue before this court is whether parents are entitled to information regarding the teacher’s ability to deliver and implement the “individually” and “specially” designed instruction called for in the IEP. No allegation is being made that parents have the absolute right to explore every nook and cranny of the background of every teacher assigned to their child. History, English, Math, Science, etc. — state certification to teach would be presumptive evidence of ability. However, when “individually designed instructional activities” are identified in the IEP, parents are entitled to information concerning the teachers qualifications to implement or deliver such program.
“in more than a few instances, that GCSD failed to provide Reece B.s parents with answers to the questions that they asked.
Gwinnett County Sch Sys. 4 ECLPR at 429.
Providing information to parents is not equivalent to giving parents the right to choose a particular method or a particular teacher. If the method provided by the school district is appropriate and the training of the instructor is appropriate the parents have no right to insist on an alternate method or teacher, even if the alternate method or teacher may be considered better. However, if the method or teacher appears to be inappropriate to the parent, the school district has the burden to support its recommendations.
Furthermore, both the parents and the district have an interest in assuring that a handicapped child receives an appropriate education. In that setting, the adversary nature of the proceedings should yield to obtaining the right result for the handicapped child. Thus, the distinction between the burden of proof and the burden of production may be less critical than it would be in another context. To conclude, we believe the obligation of parents at the due-process hearing should be merely to place in issue the appropriateness of the IEP. The school board should then bear the burden of proving that the IEP was appropriate.
Lascari v. Ramapo Indian Hills Sch. Dist., 116 N.J. 30, 46 (1989).
If the school district does not have to disclose the training of the instructor, it is never faced with the burden of supporting the appropriateness of its choice.
the will of Congress to promote “proven methods of teaching and learning” (20 USC §1400(c)(4)) is thwarted.
In Hendrick Hudson District Bd of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) the Supreme Court directed that “courts must be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable education methods upon the states.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207.
In Evans v. The Bd. of Educ. of the Rhinebeck Central School Dist., 24 IDELR 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) U.S. Dist. Court Southern Dist. of NY, 1996) the court distinguished its finding from the Rowley directive by holding that the facts demonstrated “that an integrated, multi-sensory, sequential method is a necessity rather than an optimum situation.” Evans at 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 U.S.C. §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 U.S.C. 1400(C)(4).
Clearly, if parents are not aware of the methods the school district intends to employ to address a specific weakness, such as learning to read, and the ability of the instructor to employ such methods, the parents lack the ability to participate in the planning process and to evaluate the results of such process for appropriateness.
PARENTS ROLE ON THE INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAM.
The law clearly recognizes the right and the need of parents to participate, consult, be a part of, cooperate, and collaborate in the process of determining an appropriate education for their child.
(i) the parents of a child with a disability;” (IDEA § 614(d)(l)).
Under IDEA (20 U.S.C. S1400 et seq.) the opportunity for parents to provide input into the process of developing an appropriate education for their child is deemed of utmost importance.
20 USC § 1414 (a).
The Federal Regulations require that the “public agency ensure” that parents are participants (34 CFR §300.344) and that parents participate (34 CFR §300.345).
“IDEA created an arena in which a committee composed of special education experts, teachers, and parents could cooperatively determine what constitutes an appropriate education for each disabled child.
Heldman v. Sobol 18 IDELR 915, 916 (2nd Cir. 1992).
D.B. Ocean Twp. Bd of Educ. 27 IDELR 151 at 191, 192 (D.N.J. 1997) emphasis added.
Cooperate: 1. to work together toward a common end or purpose.
Collaborate: 1. to work together, esp. in a joint intellectual effort.
Participate: 1. to take part; join or share with others.
Consult: 1. to seek advice or information of – to exchange views.
It is impossible to collaborate, cooperate, participate, or consult in an environment where others involved in the process refuse to share the information upon which their decisions are based. Such collaboration is, as the saying goes, like the “sound of one hand clapping.” No matter how hard that hand thrashes about (and it trashes more and more as its efforts prove repeatedly futile) there is no sound, there is no conclusion, and there is no closure.
FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT.
“a comprehensive system of personnel development that is designed to ensure an adequate supply of qualified special education . . . personnel that meets the requirements . . . relating to personnel development in subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(3)(D) of Sec. 1453.” [20 USC §1412(a)(14)].
“State improvement plan shall — … (3) describe the strategies the State will use . . . including — . . . (D) how the State will address the identified needs for in-service and pre-service preparation to ensure that all personnel who work with children with disabilities . . . have the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the needs of children with disabilities, including a description of how — . . . (vii) the state will acquire and disseminate, to teachers … significant knowledge derived from educational research . . . and how the State will, when appropriate, adopt promising practices . . .” [20 USC §1453(c)(3)(D)(vii)].
“Today professional development must include high-quality, ongoing training that reflects a variety of approaches, with intensive follow-up and support. NJCLD strongly believes that professional development is an ongoing process of continuous improvement, not an event.
The very culture of the school must support continuous inquiry and reflection on the implementation and development of best practices.
The New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) codifies the spirit, intent, and mandates of the Act.
“Each district board of education shall have policies, procedures and programs in effect to insure the following: . . . 13. The in-service training needs for professional . . . staff who provide special education . . . are identified and that appropriate in-service training is provided. . . .” NJAC 6A:14-1.2(b)13.
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 meet 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 is not enough to protect the needs of children with disabilities.
If parents are not permitted access to information relating to mandated personnel development, it would be like posting speed limits on roads with no police presence.
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].
“Meetings to develop or review the IEP . . . shall include the following participants: . . . iv. At least one child study team member who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results; . . .” NJAC 6A:14-2.3(I)2.iv.
“… the IEP shall include, . . . 3. A statement… of the program modifications or supports that shall be provided for school personnel on behalf of the student…” NJAC 6A:14-3.7(d)3.
A parent 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. Without such information parents cannot evaluate the efficacy of the supports identified or, therefore, the “appropriateness” of the IEP (Lascari, 116 N.J. at 48).
A PARENT HAS THE RIGHT TO INSIST THAT THE DISTRICT USE “PROVEN METHODS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING,” BUT MAY NOT CHOOSE AMONG SUCH METHODS WHICH ONE THE DISTRICT MUST EMPLOY.
A poor analogy might be that parents would naturally rely on their child’s physician to choose what antibiotic to employ to fight a severe bacterial infection, but would question the physician’s decision to subject their child to bloodletting. In a similar fashion a school district may identify a particular method not only in response to the needs of the child, but also considering the availability of resources and the training of personnel. The decision of the district, if the method employed confers an educational benefit, is not subject to being overruled or successfully challenged by the parent. The parent, however, is entitled to sufficient information to judge whether the program offered is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206). In other words, are they being offered antibiotics or bloodletting.
FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AS WELL AS MANY NATIONAL READING AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE NEED FOR TEACHER’S TO HAVE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE IN ORDER FOR THE CHILDREN THEY TEACH TO RECEIVE A MEANINGFUL EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT.
Do parents have the right to inquire as to the qualifications and training of a teacher assigned to deliver special education services to their child? Do parents have the right to inquire as to whether such teacher has the “skills and knowledge necessary to enable [him/her] . . . to meet [their child’s] developmental goals”? (20 USC § 1400(c)(5)(E)(I)).
* Federal and State law requires that the IEP include “a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel. . . to advance appropriately toward attaining annual goals” (20 USC § 1414(d)(I)(A)(iii); NJAC 6A:14-3.7(d)3).
* Congress, researchers, teacher’s associations, and a multitude of educational and learning disabilities organizations all agree that continuing professional development is essential to ensure that teachers have the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the needs of children with disabilities.
Unless parents have knowledge as to the teacher’s qualifications and training they cannot form an opinion as to the ability of the teacher to meet the needs of their child, they cannot participate in the determination of what program modifications or supports the teacher may need to “advance appropriately toward attaining annual goals”, and the IEP is, thereby, incapable of being evaluated for appropriateness.” (Lascari, supra at 48). Parents have the right to be informed as to the qualifications of a teacher assigned to deliver special education instruction to their child.
Note: Since this article was written OSEP has provided clarification on the issue of a parent’s right to know the qualifications of the chosen instructor.
← Getting the Right Method!

References: v. 
 §1400
 v. 
 v. 
 §1400
 § 614
 § 1414
 §300
 §300
 v. 
 §1412
 §1453
 § 1414
 §1414
 § 1400
 § 1414