We got the SD evaluation today - they are not planning on offering anything anyhow. In spite of two outside evaluations to the contrary. Time to file for due process I guess. We are contacting lawyers.
I will check the required list. But since the person in question is a management type, the only reason I can think of for her to be there is as the LEA representative. And the school principle is there is that capacity in the meeting notice.
Required folks in my state:The FACT that he is not invited means that he has NO place. Put in writing that you want only those people in the meeting who are officially on the team. It's up to you if you want to table the meeting if this person (or another person who doesn't belong) shows up. You could. However, you might want to wait until the person gives you actual reason to stop the meeting. It always pays to LOOK as cooperative as possible. But then I'd write a follow-up letter asking for an explanation, in writing, for why this person intruded.
[QUOTE=adrien'smom]Look up Wrightslaw. Tzoya mentioned this before, and I looked it up for my state. If they have uninvited people there you have the right to cancel the meeting. You have the right to determine who belongs on that team and for what purpose. Not only for privacy, but because it concerns your child. All attending persons must be made aware of and everyone one on the team has to agree. You are a part of the team, you do not agree, that person can't be allowed to join. If they insist, you have the right to appeal their request with the district, region, or special education program of your state.
They will do whatever you say...it cost them a ton of money to go to court just because this person feels like showing up.
[/QUOTE]
What about if YOU invite someone who can't be there? What are your rights then? I've had this problem with my son's school. A state mediator got involved in the process "off the record" and when she did, the school got their hands slapped a few times for things they were doing wrong. At his last IEP meeting, the mediator was supposed to be present, but she called to say she had a scheduling conflict the day before the IEP was scheduled. When I tried to post-pone the IEP, the school refused and said they would proceed with the meeting with or without me/her. It was during that time that they made significant changes to my son's IEP (illegal changes violating IDEA) that ultimately resulted in me taking my son and leaving the school system that day. Can they legally proceed if a parent requests the meeting to be post-poned because all parties involved can't be present?
Hi Folks,
This is sort of a picky legal question. But we have an IEP coming up and I want to cover all bases. In the last IEP for our elder son one of the higher level management types showed up unannounced for the IEP meeting (she said she was early for something) and then took over the IEP meeting and proceeded to oversee the termination of services for that son. Since then she has been at most of the IEP meetings for our younger son and has been very good at saying "no" to anything we ask for, and writing the IEP to make it look like its our perference.
We are having an IEP meeting to re-qualify the elder son. Since the list of folks invited is largely folks we have not met before, and at the school level, we are hoping to get off on the right foot. Since our favorite high mucky-muck is not on the list we feel comfortable without our advocate. But if the mucky-muck does show up uninvited as she has done before is there a polite, legal way of saying "No fair surprizing us like that. We want to invite legal help before the meeting can proceed."
Re: shenom
I don't know how much I want to say up front. When I mentioned that we might have an advocate, the SLP in charge (I guess that she will be our case manager should our son re-qualifies) got nervous. We want to avoid the confrontational tone of our younger son's meetings since it is getting a bit expensive to have an advocate supervising, and the tension is taking a toll on the family. I'd really like to get off on the right foot here since we will be working with these folks for the next few years, if he qualifies.
I guess that there is no harm in asking the case manager if the special ed manager might show up. But I think that last time the case manager was as surprized as we were. At least things we have heard since the meeting suggest that.
The management type's position is a (the?) Special Education Manager. She is listed as "Administrator" in younger son's IEPs and so we think that we are stuck with her. So we bring our advocate to those meetings.
With the older son, she was not listed on the meeting she crashed, and she is not listed on the upcoming meeting. I think that, given her job title, no one in the school district will advise us as to having any rights to ask her to leave or stop the meeting. Clearly we can refuse to sign the IEP, but I would prefer to make it clear that we oppose uninvited guests. I will try the local parents' advocacy group. They have a legal questions section.
My thought here is that if she is not listed as a part of your son's IEP team, you can argue that there is a data privacy issue in discussing your son's needs with a stranger.Thank you Adrien's mom- I am checking out wrightslaw too.
MommaNiki
All I have to say is I would take your advocate with you no matter what (they are an extra set of ears at least)...at the last IEP that we had ALL managers of depts were there at my request and also the ESE Director for the SB - it saved me time and made me feel more comfortable that things were getting done right the first time because he knows I mean business - he is my main contact now b/c I don't trust Payne's teacher or the ESE Chair at his school - he knows that already that is why is was there...he was a surprise guest FOR ME!... but if she is there for the intent and purpose to deny your son services that should be included and then write the iep as if you decided it - I would make them re-write the drafted iep or at least add a parental addendum, you could cancel the meeting in the hopes that she would not show, but she might be doing it on purpose...no guarentees. I think, personally, it would look bad if you cancelled it b/c she showed up - I would take my advocate to all meetings and TAPE RECORD THEM too. In florida I can invite ANYONE I want and they can invite anyone they want that pertains to the IEP and management counts - but they can't surprise me - I can them! I had Payne's daycare there too...it is important that we all stay on the same page. This IEP his daycare (homework helper), CARD rep, spec ed teacher - who is his tutor and the rest of the normal team will be there...I think I'll invite the guidance counselor that was so helpful last time too instead of the reg ed teacher if I can.In my opinion you should be able to say who you want in the meeting! I like what was said about saying that there is a privacy issue. I really wish the best for you and your family.
MommaNiki
Look up Wrightslaw. Tzoya mentioned this before, and I looked it up for my state. If they have uninvited people there you have the right to cancel the meeting. You have the right to determine who belongs on that team and for what purpose. Not only for privacy, but because it concerns your child. All attending persons must be made aware of and everyone one on the team has to agree. You are a part of the team, you do not agree, that person can't be allowed to join. If they insist, you have the right to appeal their request with the district, region, or special education program of your state.
They will do whatever you say...it cost them a ton of money to go to court just because this person feels like showing up.
In our area all attendees must be invited and approved in advance.No...the administrator does not need special knowledge of the child but any of the other invitees who are not on the "required" list (the administrator who has the authority to commit fund DOES have to be there, although it COULD be that a District gives someone WITH knowledge of the child that authority) need to be there because they have special knowledge of the child. For example, a principal of the school your child attends is NOT an invitee unless that principal has had significant interaction with that child (more than saying "hi" in the halls, for example) or is the person assigned by the District who has the authority to commit funds. Of course, if there are questions that pertain to what's available in the principal's school, the principal should be available to give that input (possibly by phone) but is not an official member of the IEP team (unless your state says so, officially) and should not be routinely at IEP meetings.
Having people introduce themselves into the tape is a good idea. I turn mine on in time for the introductions.
tzoya - we record all our IEP meetings anyhow, and the last IEP we were complained to for starting recorder w/o notifying everyone (the meeting seem to have started so I turned it on w/o interrupting). So maybe the thing to do is to wait for the meeting to start, and then say something along the lines of "OK, if the meeting is starting, I want to start my recorder" Start it and then read into the recorder the notice of IEP meeting, and the ask "Could you all please state you name for the recorder and also in what capacity you are here" then at least I would know why everyone is there. Probably good practice anyhow.On the IEP invitation, there is a list of those who are invited. I believe most school districts protect themselves by saying something like "not limited to." However, ANYONE at the IEP meeting who is not on the legal list (yes, check your STATE law on this since each state can be different as long as they invite at least those required by federal law) MUST have direct knowledge of the child in order to attend.
That said, you may or may not want to cancel a meeting should you arrive and find that they've brought someone not on the list. It might behoove you to have the meeting anyway. If it doesn't go your way, there's a procedural violation you can use against them in a dispute resolution. If there's someone unexpected there, mention it. Ask why he or she is there. Try, in some polite way, to say that it's your understanding that this person is not typically in IEP meetings and does not have actual knowledge of your child, so you'd prefer if he excuse himself. This can work. If it isn't working, I'd proceed anyway. You can always stop the meeting and go home if things start going south. If you refuse to meet, you could be postponing getting a good IEP for your child.
No, this psychologist works AT the high school....he is not the CSE chairperson.
You see, I had to reschedule my CSE meeting. They had it at 8:30 am and I couldn't make that. (My kids get on the bus at noon for school, and I have no one to sit with them.) So, they are rescheduling it for 1:00 on June 7th. I haven't gotten the "official" notice from the district, so I'm waiting to see if this man appears on the list again. And, by the way, I just LOVE the way they list the people attending the meeting...it's the CSE chairperson first, and her full name, followed by everyone else who is "important" with the district and their full names....lastly is - parent. LOVE IT! We're the lowest of the low....
We've e-mailed each other before, but you may have forgotten (since you probably e-mail and talk with SO many people). You had suggested the Emotions to Advocacy book and I ordered it right away. I'm still getting through it.
I don't think I'm too stupid, but the laws confuse the crap out of me.
Thanks,
Patty
Was the psychologist from the High School the CSE chairperson? Oftentimes the psychologists are used as the administrator. Now is the time to go to the Part 200 and look up the official, legal members of the CSE. When you get an invitation, see if there are any members on the list who are not on the legal list of people who must be there. We parents are SO outnumbered, having fewer members of the CSE is important. No one who is not either on th legal list or has personal knowledge of your child should be there. Of course, YOU can bring anyone you want.
Go to www.nysed.gov and pull down the menu to VESID. When you get to the VESID home page, click on Publications. You can order a copy of the Part 200 and 201 (order 2 or 3). You can also access them on the VESID site, but it's important to have a hard copy to bring around with you and downloading and printing it will cost you lots of ink -- it's around 200 pages! You will only be able to properly advocate for your son if you know what the Part 200 contains (the Part 201 is about discipline -- in the sense of suspensions and expulsions, so that probably won't be germaine at his young age). Also, order FROM EMOTIONS TO ADVOCACY from www.wrightslaw.com I SO wish I'd had this book when I started out. I use it in the parent training classes I give and I refer to it, myself, ALL THE TIME. I have yet to find a better resource for helping us parents get on an even footing with the rest of the CSE.
Getting a private placement is defintely possible, but it usually requires going to a hearing and it also requires extenuating circumstances. I know you are aiming for public kindergarten, so that's not your current situation. But I wanted to mention that the CSE does not have the authority to simply OK a private placement unless it's a state-approved private school, which makes it like BOCES.
I just got a letter in the mail about my upcoming CSE meeting, and it included an additional psychologist!
Attending the meeting will be: the CSE chairperson, the two women from the district who evaluated my son (psych and speech), the two special ed teachers from the kindergarten district class!
Should I ask who this 2nd psychologist is and why he is going to be present at the meeting? He hasn't even MET my son!! How can he talk about him??
This is SO ridiculous and such a
Patty
If you have a parent member at the CSE, that must mean you live in NY. In NY it's absolutely IMPERATIVE that you get your child classified under AUTISM. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANY MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS. He only has to fit the definition of autism in the Part 200, NYS's regulation of special education lawhttp://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/lawsand regs/part200.htm#200.1
(1) Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that adversely affects a student’s educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. The term does not apply if a student's educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the student has an emotional disturbance as defined in paragraph 4 of this subdivision. A student who manifests the characteristics of autism after age 3 could be diagnosed as having autism if the criteria in this paragraph are otherwise satisfied.
If this is a transition from CPSE to CSE meeting or if your child is supposed to go to a different school, it may be that they want the psychologist from the old school as well as the new school. I think that's legitimate, although you CAN ask for only one. It might help you to have both there. You might want to ask now why there are two. You can check the Part 200 for the required members of the CSE. Go to www.nysed.gov and search CSE members.
Thanks, Joan...I will ask. And I do plan on having him classified as autistic. I find it hard to interpret the rules, but from what I can make out it pretty much entitles him to speech every day - which is what I want (among other things).
By the way, this additional psychologist is actually from the high school (I found out today from my neighbor)...so I'm not sure why he will be present at the meeting. But, again, I think that they think I'm asking for my son to remain at the private school, which means BIG BUCKS to them. I'm hoping that once they realize that I'm willing to give the district spec ed kindergarten a try, they will ease up on me.
Thanks,
Patty
Patty -- FETA explains EVERYTHING in plain English. It's really not that hard. But looking at the law in front of you can just seem TOO much. When you're ready, I'd order Special Education Law from Wrightslaw, too, since it has IDEA 2004 in its entirety with detailed commentary from Pete Wright. An excellent resource.
When the invitation comes, compare it to the list of required attendees in the Part 200. Then, anyone who is on the attendance list who is not required by the Part 200, call and ask the CSE Chairperson why that person is attending. It could be possible that only THAT person has the authority to "commit District resources." At least the District should be asked to justify the attendance of everyone in the meeting.
I'm sorry, Joan....everyone abbreviates too much for us newbies!! Please spell out what FETA means. I plugged in "FETA" in the Yahoo! search, and I'm getting cheese recipes....
Thank you!!
Patty
In this context FETA means "From Emotions to Advocacy" a book by P. Wright, or Wrightslaw. You can get it through their web site (google Wrightslaw) or Amazon.com (you probably know that one). Most parents take it as a bible. It was the first advocacy book I read.
Since this thread is still active I thought I'd post an update. We recently got the shaft again. So we went to a lawer. And you thought services were expensive. At any rate, his comment was that for procedural violations to matter -- that is a remedy is provided -- the parents must prove two things:
(1) That the procedural violation took place.
(2) That FAPE was denied or parent's input was ignored, which resulted in denial of FAPE.
Since proving that FAPE was denied is difficult, IMHO a lot of procedure violations will go ignored.
So having this person show up and deliver the coup de grace to my son's IEP is no cause for anything unless we can prove that my son would have been found to qualify had this person not shown up.
OMG....yes, of course....
Patty
The procedural violation rule has changed in IDEA 2004. Thru the INTENSE lobbying of the schools. YOu are totally correct. A procedural violation will go unpunished unless it harmed the child. However, that doesn't mean that you have no due process rights when it comes to procedural violations. The main one is State Complaint. The schools don't want the State to audit them, so that can be a good threat. In any event, I believe we need to call the schools on ALL procedural violations. They'll cut it out if we make the process difficult for them, for example, if we cancel meetings that are not duly constituted. The law is there for a reason, and ALL parties much follow the law. IDEA 2004 did not throw out procedural violations. It just has made it harder for parents to harass Districts by using procedural violations as a club (yes, there ARE parents who do this -- I've seen it myself). Of course, if the District follows the law to begin with, it gives parents NO ammunition for harassment. And procedures are there so that the child CAN BE ensured FAPE. I had a Hearing Officer tell me that, if there is a procedural violation, a good lawyer should be able to show how that denied FAPE was denied. Since procedures are DESIGNED to ensure FAPE, it stands to reason that violating procedures risks FAPE. Also, a Hearing Officer can order a remedy in a Hearing if the procedural violation denied parental participation, not just if it denied FAPE. Both Denial of FAPE and Denial of Parental Participation are legal reasons for the parents to prevail at a Hearing.
A good way to understand how IDEA is enforced is to go to the published decisions of your State's Hearings. It's very interesting and informative to see the patterns of the decisions. They follow the same pattern no matter which Hearing Officer is doing the Hearing. Since in FROM EMOTION TO ADVOCACY's recommendations, there is something called the Rule of Adverse Assumptions that says that we should all always be PREPARING for a Hearing and, that way, a Hearing will never happen, it might be enlightening to read what actually transpires at Hearings in your state. I know reading several Hearing Officer decisions helped me have much greater insight into what sorts of things I need to constantly be paying attention to.
SOrry about the FETA abbreviation. I don't think the book can be "read." It won't make a lot of sense unless you are "doing" along with the reading. It definitely made WAY more sense to me when I used it as a text in a parent training course I gave. I liked it before, but now it's my BIBLE.
I checked out the reports from my state's hearing office after hearing this from our lawer. It was depressing since I had to look hard to find a case where the parents prevailed at all. Our lawer was part of that case, so that part was encouraging. However in the cases I checked, the parents had to prove denial of FAPE before procedural violations made a difference. In several cases, there were procedural violation complaints (as part of larger cases) that were dismissed since the parents did not prove a practical impact to the child's placement or education (e.g., a denial of FAPE).