Children are our priority. Ensuring their needs are met is our goal.
U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) clears up misconceptions about this requirement in its new guidance document “Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services” and the “Dear Colleague” letter accompanying it.
The documents address how these medical conditions “can be disabilities for purposes of Section 504 . . . when these medical conditions trigger protections under Section 504, what kind of modifications an educational institution may need to take to avoid unlawful discrimination, and what an institution may need to do to remedy past discrimination.”
In addition, they provide descriptions of the medical conditions and examples of how the conditions can affect a student’s experience in school.
Released January 22, 2024, “Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services” and the “Dear Colleague” letter accompanying it provide long-needed guidance addressing the important role technology plays in ensuring all learners are afforded “meaningful access and engagement in education”.
OSEP monitors all IDEA Part C and B programs through its DMS system and “differentiates its approach for each state based on the state’s unique strengths, progress, challenges, and needs.” This cyclical monitoring process focuses on states’ general supervision systems. OSEP will continue to provide support and technical assistance that is differentiated based on each state’s needs.
Teachers will engage with student to ensure student understands and accurately records all assignments in student’s planner.
Now imagine attending an IEP meeting at which this goal is being discussed. You push for more details, but the staff member helming the meeting insists that engage means the following:
“It’s not that they’re waiting for to come to them. They’re going to engage with .”
What could go wrong?
In 2008, Virginia Department of Education issued “2008 Parents’ Guide to Special Education Dispute Resolution.” Although a lot’s changed in the past 15 years, the guide “designed to assist parents in understanding Virginia’s dispute resolution systems of mediation, complaints, and due process hearings” has remained the same.
The following is helpful information that I hope VDOE considers should it revise the guide. It comes from advice that long-time Fairfax County Public Schools lawyer John Cafferky provided to FCPS staff. In its 2008 guide, VDOE acknowledged John on a list of individuals who “contributed to the development of this document and/or who served as a reviewer.” Hence, it seems fitting that the following advice be considered for a future edition.
“The IEP will share reading data with parents on a monthly basis.”
After six months of meetings, your internal parent alarm starts going off because the data provided by the school doesn’t match what you’re seeing at home.
You submit a FERPA request for all reading data related to your child.
The FERPA response provides you negative reading data that the school didn’t previous share with you.
You want to complain to the school and/or submit a complaint to the state, but . . .
The school followed the IEP. It did share reading data on a monthly basis. There wasn’t anything in the IEP that stated all data had to be provided.