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.
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.”
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.
January 24, 2020, Samantha Hollins, assistant superintendent of VDOE’s Department of Special Education and Student Services, provided incorrect guidance on the recording of resolution meetings.
She first indicated that there is a Virginia regulation prohibiting the recording of resolution meetings.
This access is key to ensuring parents are able to meaningfully participate during IEP meetings and provide informed consent (or refusal) to a school’s proposal/s.
Access to education records, meaningful participation, and informed consent are three rights afforded to parents under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Thankfully, it isn’t the parent’s job to create IEPs that are written with clear, concise language that ensures provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). That’s the school division’s job.
And yet . . . Vague and broad language persists and the Virginia Department of Education has allowed this.
“Teachers should not intentionally allow other students to know that XXXXXX has an IEP and receives special education services.”
The parent didn’t understand that privacy is a right, not an accommodation, simply because the privacy violations modeled by the teacher pointed in the opposite direction.