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.
IEPs are the responsibility of the school to implement from day one of the school year.
If you run into issues with the date of implementation and implementation by teachers, you’ll want to look at some of these regulations.
Are your child’s struggles and your gut feeling enough for your child to qualify for special education?
No. However, your gut feeling and your child’s struggles shouldn’t be discounted either.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that child find must include “Children who are suspected of being a child with a disability under §300.8 and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade”. (Emphasis added. See 34 CFR 300.111(c)(1).)
Parents have key roles in evaluations preceding eligibility determinations, in the actual eligibility determinations, and in IEP development following determinations. For evaluations, as one example, members must draw upon information from various sources, including parent input. This doesn’t mean schools simply have to consider parent input and then decide if they’ll use it or not. They are required to draw from parent input.
In this article, you’ll find federal regulations (as well as Viriginia regs for those in the area), that define and guarantee parents’ rights.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), in its 1.29.19 Letter to Zirkel, “IDEA does not define RTI . . . RTI is only mentioned in IDEA when determining eligibility for specific learning disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(2).”
However, the United States Department of Education has stated that, “States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of implementation of an RTI.”
Today, just two months after oral arguments were presented, Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, which had to decide 1) whether, and in what circumstances, courts should excuse further exhaustion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) administrative proceedings under Section 1415(l) when such proceedings would be futile, and 2) whether Section 1415(l) requires exhaustion of a non-IDEA claim seeking money damages that are not available under the IDEA.
The case was based on the experiences of Miguel Luna Perez, who was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for years while attending Sturgis (Michigan) Public Schools (SPS). For 12 years, SPS advanced Miguel Luna Perez from grade to grade and inflated his grades to the point he repeatedly made honor roll, even though he couldn’t read or write—and then just before graduation told his family he would receive a certificate of completion but not a high school diploma.
Makes you think that the mediator lined up for your mediation will be impartial—and won’t be an employee of the SEA or LEA—right?
That sort of thinking does make sense, but in this Bizarro World of special education regulations and laws and school divisions and lawyers and parents and kids . . . Things don’t always turn out as they should.