Children are our priority. Ensuring their needs are met is our goal.
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.
In the case of initial evaluations, §300.301(a) of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) is your go-to regulation:
Each public agency must conduct a full and individual initial evaluation, in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.306, before the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability under this part.
Within two hours of Superintendent Michelle Reid taking the extraordinary step of breaking with FCPS’ tradition of covering up noncompliance, her staff continued along the old, traditional path.
1. Admitted FCPS is at fault for systemic FERPA noncompliance (maintenance of, access to, and security of student educational records) and is owning the systemic noncompliance;
2. Hired an independent law firm to do an investigation, committed to sharing the findings of the investigation, saw that the investigation was completed in what to my knowledge is record time for FCPS; and today shared a summary of the findings;
3. Committed to fully addressing the noncompliance and implementing the changes recommended as a part of the investigation findings;
I’ve never understood why Individualized Education Programs (IEP) include goals for quarterly measurements. As a parent, if my kids failed to do their chores for a week, I wouldn’t wait until the end of the quarter to assess the situation. Why wait an entire quarter to address a problem that’s clearly getting worse? Why not assess sooner and narrow the goal until it can be expanded in full—or expand the goal if the student achieves the goal sooner than expected?