Glasgow High School In Middle Of Scandal With Fake IEP Meetings & Loss Of Funding

The quickest way to lose special education funding is to lie about holding IEP meetings.  Such is the case with Glasgow High School in the Christina School District.  If this were one or two IEP meetings that would be one thing.  But sources are telling me this could be upwards to 70 IEP meetings.  The situation is so bad that the school lost a ton of funding for these special education students.

How does a school hold up to 70 fake IEP meetings?  You set them up in the system, set up a date for the meeting, and then do NOTHING ELSE.  Who gets blamed for this?  Is it Principal Butch Ingram?  The education diagnostician for the school?  The school psychologist?  The teachers?  Was the then head of special services for the district, Michele Marinucci, aware of this situation?  (Marinucci is now the Head of School at Academy of Dover.)  Did the IEP team members actually sign off on IEP meetings that never happened in the first place?  Tons of questions here folks!

Sources for this horrible news are laying very low.  The situation is playing out but the September 30th unit count report is going to look very different for Glasgow H.S. compared to previous years.  That report usually comes out in November courtesy of the Delaware Department of Education.  Speaking of the DOE, how long have they been aware of this mess?  Why has NONE of this been made public until the scrappy little blogger from Dover had to stick his head out of the sand to write about this?

While I’m sure Christina’s CFO Bob Silber and the other fine district folks are scratching their heads and trying to figure out how to do damage control over this latest debacle, I would hope someone in the district is considering the impact this will have on the actual students with disabilities.  How many services will they go without this year because the adults screwed up?  For a school that had a little over 15% of its population listed as students with disabilities, that amounts to 114 out of the 753 kids that attended the school during the 2018-2019 school year.  That’s a ton of funding for the school to be losing!  What say you Superintendent Richard Gregg?

Chances are good this story is going to keep on growing.  I’m just breaking the ice here.  I have no doubt there is much more going on here.

The Dream Becomes A Reality: Exceptional Advocacy for Delaware Students

It all starts with an idea.  But ideas that roll around in your mind will always be just that.  It is now time for action!  Therefore, this is the birth of Exceptional Advocacy for Delaware Students.

For almost four years I’ve been writing about education in good old Delaware.  It’s taken me from the bottom of Sussex all the way to the tip-top parts of the state.  I’ve been to Legislative Hall and the Delaware DOE building more times than I can count.  And nothing has changed.  In fact, I’m going to say it is getting worse.  Especially with special education.  But it isn’t just that.  It is also issues dealing with school discipline, race, gender, bullying, classroom management, class sizes, safety, and trauma coming into our schools in ways our educators are just now starting to fathom and understand.

To that end, I am taking my email/Facebook/social media/cell phone advocacy out of the digital world and into the schools.  This will be a huge task and I need your help!

These are the issues I am willing to advocate for students:

Special Education: whether it is IEPs or 504 plans, it is important to know your child’s rights, the parental rights, and the rights of the school.  Many parents feel overwhelmed in IEP meetings.  Trying to learn about federal IDEA law, Delaware State Code, and all the pending special education legislation is a task in itself.  Do you have a child with a unique disability that may warrant very specific goals or accommodations in their IEP?

School Discipline: does the punishment fit the crime?  Does the punishment meet the criteria of the school student code of conduct?  Does it follow state law?  If a student has an IEP or 504 plan was it a manifestation of their disability or just poor choices?  What are the rights of students when there are School Resource Officers, constables, or armed security?  When is physical restraint warranted?  How does it work with transportation and busing when a discipline issue comes up?

Trauma: Is your child going through a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder based on violence in their neighborhood?  Or in their own home?  Are their grades falling behind as a result of this?  Are they acting out?  These are students that may not be special education but need an advocate to help schools and teachers sift through these issues so they can give your child the best education possible.

Bullying: Is your child being bullied?  Are you finding the school isn’t doing everything they can to put a stop to it?  What steps can you take to make sure they do?

These are my goals:

To serve any of the above needs or potential conflict a parent may have with a school.

To guide parents on the appropriate ways to deal with the folks in the schools.  This isn’t as simple as it looks, and when things escalate, there is a proper chain of steps to go through.

To work with every school district and charter school in the state to make sure Parent Council Groups for special education are up and running.

To advocate meaningful dialogue between parents and schools.  This is crucial.  But it is also important to make sure there is one adult in the room who can be unbiased and impartial.  Screaming heads don’t get you far.  It might feel good in the short-term, but it is not conducive to the best interests of the one person who matters the most- your child!

To inform parents of their child’s rights and how that applies to the school setting.  To inform parents of the differences between legislation and regulation and what is enforceable and what is not.

To make sure due process rights are followed to the letter of the law in discipline situations.

I am not an attorney nor do I pretend to be.  I am just a parent with my own special needs child who has run the gauntlet with Delaware schools.  If your child’s school building doesn’t know me directly, they know of me.  All the district and charter leaders know me as well as the legislators.  I have contacts all over the place and know exactly who to go to when things need to happen.  I’ve helped parents out for years but it is time to take it to the next level.

I will be doing this work at no cost.  But any organization or business (whatever this turns out to be based on demand) needs funding.  Pure and simple.  So I am asking for donations from folks in Delaware who see this growing need in our state.  Whether it is a dollar or more, every bit counts.  I am willing to go up and down our state to help our kids.  I am centrally located in Dover so my door is open for all!

If you are of mind to help get this going and help sustain this, any contributions are certainly welcome!  Please go to the Exceptional Advocacy for Delaware Students page here: https://www.gofundme.com/exceptional-advocacy-for-delaware

If you are a parent who needs help in dealing with a situation involving your child at a Delaware school, please contact me as soon as possible.  My email is kjohlandt70@gmail.com and we can exchange phone numbers from there.

Sussex Montessori Appears To Be Clueless On Special Education & Basic Charter Formation

Sussex Montessori School went through their first Charter School Accountability Committee meeting in their application process.  I thought for sure, given this was their second attempt to apply for a charter, they would get it right and everything would be smooth sailing.  Instead, their application is missing a lot of information.  The committee smacked them up and down the court.

These are my favorite quotes from the report: Continue reading

Delaware State Board of Education Interfering With IEP Process & Matt Denn Is Not Happy About It

Regulation 926 is up for a vote on Thursday at the State Board of Education meeting.  Dealing with IEPs and the Procedural Safeguards pamphlet parents or guardians receive prior to an IEP meeting, Regulation 926 actually attempts to water down the Procedural Safeguards.  Attorney General Matt Denn is NOT happy about this.

Under state and federal law, it is mandatory for parents to get the Procedural Safeguards prior to an IEP meeting.  The language in the pamphlet is very specific in defining the rights for a parent or guardian of a student with disabilities.  Instead, the DOE wants to make sure it is “available” and gives a summary instead of parents actually receiving the legal document when a notice of an IEP meeting goes out.

Denn cites the concern that some parents or guardians may not have access to the internet or email.  This isn’t the first time Denn has challenged the State Board of Education over IEP concerns.  As the Chair of the IEP Task Force a couple years ago, Denn was adamant about making sure parents’ rights with IEP meetings were the central focus.  This was one of the central tenants of the legislation that came out of the task force, Senate Bill 33.

I can’t understand why the State Board, as directed by the Delaware Department of Education continues to change what doesn’t need to be changed.  When it comes to special education, they are silent over the lack of basic special education funding for students in Kindergarten to 3rd grade.  Special Education has very strict laws in Delaware State Code and federal law under IDEA.  But it almost seems like they purposely try to change the law any chance they get because they think they can.  Last week, the State Board of Education was put on Sunset Review by the Delaware General Assembly members of the Joint Sunset Committee.

Another Lewis With Fake Credentials Destroys Something Good

Fake Credentials.  It’s a stupid thing to do in this day and age.  And you will get caught.  Putting a fake college name on your resume or LinkedIn is just asking for trouble.  For one special education advocate, this is exactly what happened.  But this isn’t just any special education advocate, this one the CEO of a major advocacy company called National Special Education Advocacy Institute.  I just wrote about this company a month ago when I received notice they were having certified special education advocacy courses in Wilmington at $195 a class.  Someone tipped off Fox29 in Philadelphia because they did a huge investigation into Marie Lewis, the CEO of this company.  The video and article make it crystal clear why I can not and will not endorse this company.  Fraud is fraud and it absolutely disgusts me someone with fake credentials would try to profit off students with disabilities and parents trying to help.

Where she’d go to school? It just says “R.U.”

“Where’s your Ph.D. from?” Cole asked.

“From Rockville University,” Lewis said.

“Where’s that, ma’am?” Cole followed-up.

“And so, why are you asking that question?” Lewis asked.

We wanted to know where it is.

“Well, Rockville used to be in Maryland, and they moved, and they actually were absorbed by another school,” Lewis told us.

We checked with Maryland’s Higher Education Commission. No college or university may operate in the state without commission approval, and it has no record of a “Rockville University” when Lewis claims she got her Ph.D. in 2008.

There are also huge issues with their IRS certification as well with questions if they are a for profit or non-profit business.  In the title to this I mentioned another Lewis with fake credentials.  This distinction belongs to Ann Lewis, the former Head of School of the now closed Pencader Business School in New Castle, DE.

Looking For Delaware Advocates For IEP Meetings

For the past year, I’ve had a link on here up at the top that says Delaware advocates.  I have been negligent about keeping this updated.  If you are a Delaware advocate, and are offering your services to assist parents in IEP meetings, please let me know if you would like your name on this list.  I will post your email address and if you have a website please provide that as well.  If you are an organization that provides these services, please let me know.  If you have any questions, please comment on the article and feel to reach out to me at kevino3670@yahoo.com if you want to be added.

If you are already on this list and do not wish to have your name on here, please let me know.  Thank you!

Delaware IEP Task Force Final Report Released Today

Delaware Attorney General Matt Denn released the final report of the IEP Task Force today.  It’s a good start, but there is still a lot that needs to change in Delaware for special education to be great.  I really hope the 148th Assembly, beginning their legislative session on January 13th, will reassemble this task force.  I firmly believe there should be many more parents on this task force, and they could trim some of the heavy-handed school personnel.  If it does continue, parents need to come and give public comment.  I went to every meeting (more than some of the task force members).  Take the time special needs parents.  You never know, if enough people complain about the same thing, change could happen.

The Task Force’s Mission

Senate Concurrent Resolution 63 established an IEP Improvement Task Force in order “To Examine Means to Improve the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Process for Students in Delaware Public Schools.” The resolution noted that the process of developing IEPs “is, at best, difficult for parents to understand and navigate, and at worst in some instances, unfair and intimidating to parents,” and that it “does not always result in the best outcome for students with disabilities.” Most significantly, the task force was tasked with recommending to the General Assembly and Governor “potential legislative, regulatory, funding, or other improvements to Delaware’s IEP process.” The task force was also charged with informing the General Assembly and Governor about practices being used in other states that are different from Delaware’s, different IEP practices used within Delaware, research and other academic evidence regarding best practices in IEP development, and federal and state law restrictions on changes to the Delaware IEP process.

Members of the IEP Improvement Task Force

The Hon. Matthew Denn Chair
Dr. Pam Atchison Delaware Association of School Administrators
Marissa L. Band, Esq. Delaware State Bar Association
Tracy Bombara School service provider
Dafne Carnright Governor’s Advisory Council on Exceptional Citizens
Tricia Dallas Special education teacher
Bill Doolittle Governor’s Advisory Council on Exceptional Citizens
Diane Eastburn Kent County Parent Representative
Rep. Debra Heffernan House Majority Caucus
Mike Hoffmann Delaware State Education Association
Seth Kopp Special education teacher
Ruth Lavelle New Castle County Parent Representative
Sen. Dave Lawson Senate Minority Caucus
Laura Manges Delaware Association of School Administrators
Maryann Mieczkowski Department of Education
Rep. Joe Miro House Minority Caucus
Sen. Nicole Poore Senate Majority Caucus
Shawn Rohe Developmental Disabilities Council
Howard Shiber Governor’s Advisory Council on Exceptional Citizens
Meedra Surratte Parent advocate
Jossette Threatts School service provider
Liz Toney Delaware PTA
Brian Touchette Governor’s designee
Karen Wagamon Sussex County Parent Representative

Federal Statutory Law Governing Delaware’s IEP Process

Because Delaware receives federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, it is required to submit a plan to the United States Secretary of Education showing that the state has in effect policies and procedures to ensure that an individualized education program meeting the requirements of federal statute is developed, reviewed, and revised for each child with a disability.

The federal IDEA statute has a number of very specific requirements as to what must be included in a student’s IEP. The IEP must include:

a statement of the child’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance (including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, for preschool children as appropriate how the disability affects the student’s participation in appropriate activities, and for children who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate standards, a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives);

a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to meet the child’s need resulting from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet each of the child’s other educational needs arising from the child’s disability;

a description of how the child’s progress towards meeting annual goals will be measured and when periodic progress reports will be provided;

a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child;

an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in regular classes and activities;

a statement of accommodations necessary for the student to take the state’s student assessment or explanation of why the student must take an alternate assessment and why that alternate assessment is appropriate;

the projected date for the start of services and the anticipated frequency and duration of services; and

for IEPs that will affect students 16 and older, measurable post-secondary goals and transition services needed to assist the student in reaching those goals.

These required elements of an IEP are minimum standards set by federal statute, but there is no reason that a state cannot add additional required elements.

The federal IDEA statute also contains minimum requirements for who must be on a student’s IEP team. Required team members include parents, at least one regular education teacher if the student has one, at least one special education teacher, at least one district or charter representative who is qualified to supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the needs of children with disabilities, an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results (who may be a member already required by another provision of the statute), any individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child who the parents wish to have present, and whenever appropriate the child in question. The statute also enumerates the factors that must be considered in developing the IEP, and requires consideration of positive behavioral interventions and supports for students whose behavior impedes learning and other special factors for students with other specified disabilities.

The federal IDEA statute requires that the student’s IEP be reviewed at least annually to determine whether annual goals are being met, to be revised to address lack of expected progress, the results of any re-evaluations, information provided by parents, or other matters.

Finally, the federal IDEA statute contains a number of detailed formal procedural safeguards in addition to those described above. They include provisions governing parents’ access to records, designation of educational surrogates for students whose parents cannot be located, written notice to parents of proposed changes (or refusals to change) an IEP, opportunities for mediation, the contents of required notifications to parents of complaints relating to due process and other procedural irregularities, and the specific procedures that must be followed by the state when a parent files a due process or administrative appeal of a school district or charter school’s decision.
Enhancements to the IEP Process Under Delaware State Law

In 2010, the Delaware General Assembly amended the Delaware Code to provide for a substantially more detailed definition of the “Free and Appropriate Public Education” that is required by the IDEA statute (and therefore required to form the basis for an IEP), and to incorporate specific terminology from case law in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that was more favorable to students with disabilities than the standard that was being applied by some school districts prior to the 2010 amendments. Under House Bill 328, IEPs must provide for an education that is individualized to meet the unique needs of the student, provides significant learning to the student, and confers meaningful benefit on the student that is gauged to the student’s potential.

Delaware law also contains new provisions requiring that certain elements be included in the IEP of a student 7 years or older who is not yet readingand a student who is deaf or has a hearing deficiency, and a relatively new provision requiring that that local school boards be kept better apprised of appeals of IEP decisions.

Although there are lengthy federal and state regulations that also govern the IEP process, they do not affect the facets of the IEP process addressed in this report in a way that differs from the statutory framework described above.
Best Practices With Respect to the IEP Process

There does not appear to be any national or academic consensus on what constitutes best practices with respect to the preparation of IEPs. Although the National Center for Learning Disabilities and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education have endorsed “standards-based IEPs” as a best practice, there has been controversy both in Delaware and nationally as to what that term means and how it is actually used with respect to the preparation of individual IEPs. For that reason, the task force takes no stance at this time with respect to using standards-based IEPs. With respect to the specific issue of the preparation of IEPs for students age 14 and older, there does appear to be a consensus — including a recommendation from Delaware’s State Transition Task Force – that IEPs for children age 14 and older should be student-led when possible.

TASK FORCE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The task force met eight times, and at each meeting also allowed members of the public to speak. Early in the tenure of the task force it became apparent that the list of issues that task force members and members of the public wished to address relating to the IEP process was longer than the task force would have time to thoughtfully discuss in the time permitted by its enabling legislation. Therefore, the task force members settled upon a number of priority recommendations, which are reflected below. However, the task force also recommends that it be reconstituted by the General Assembly so that it may return to some of the important issues that were raised but could not be discussed due to time restrictions, including district and charter school determinations of eligibility for services, and the use of standards-based IEPs.

The task force recommends that the state take the following steps as soon as reasonably possible in order to improve the IEP process for students and their parents. The task force’s recommendations apply to all public schools, both traditional public schools and charter schools. The task force recognizes that there are time commitments and costs associated with some of its recommendations, to the extent that those could be specifically calculated they are reflected in the recommendations.

Structural Support for Parents and Students in the IEP Process

Ensuring Representation at IEP Meetings for Parents Who Need Assistance. Several task force members and members of the public noted the complexity and potentially intimidating nature of IEP meetings, and thought it necessary (a) for parents to clearly understand that there were organizations that could either prepare them to better handle IEP meetings or attend those meetings with them, and (b) for those organizations to have adequate resources to be able to assist parents who might reasonably require their assistance. The task force focused on two options currently available to some Delaware parents requiring assistance with the IEP process. One is the Parent Information Center, which provides training and advice to parents and, in some instances, has non-attorneys attend IEP meetings with parents. The second is Community Legal Aid Society of Delaware, which provides free legal representation to a limited number of parents with specific legal issues in the IEP process. Therefore, the task force makes the following recommendations:

The state should require schools to provide specific, clear guidance to parents as soon as (a) the school has notice that their child has a disability, (b) a child is identified by the parent or school as needing evaluation for a potential disability, or (c) a child transitions as he/she approaches age three from the state’s Child Development Watch program, that the parents may be able to receive assistance through the Parent Information Center, Community Legal Aid Society, or private legal counsel.

The state should ensure that the resources necessary to meet the anticipated demand for legal services are made available to the Parent Information Center and Community Legal Aid. Specifically, the task force urges the General Assembly to grant the request of CLASI’s Disabilities Law Program for $100,000 in funds to continue its special education advocacy project, which would allow it to train or assist 250 families in the IEP process, and to make $88,500 available to the Parent Information Center in order to allow it to hire two additional full-time parent consultants to meet anticipated increases in its demand for its services.

Parent Councils. The task force saw great value in schools facilitating communication between parents of students with special needs new to the IEP process and parents who have more experience with the process. Therefore, the task force recommends that the state require school districts and charter schools to facilitate the creation of parent councils for the parents of students with disabilities. These parent councils would have two purposes: first, to advocate generally for children with disabilities within their school districts, and second, to provide person-to-person support for individual parents and children attempting to navigate the IEP process.

Procedural Changes to the IEP Process

Eliciting Input From Parents Prior to IEP Meetings. The task force believes that a more open-ended effort to solicit parents’ input about their children’s needs prior to an IEP meeting would result in IEPs that better reflect the viewpoints of parents and children about the unique educational needs of that child. For that reason, the task force recommends that Delaware statute require school districts and charter schools to formally elicit, through the use of a voluntary questionnaire, the viewpoints of parents and (where age appropriate) children in advance of the preparation of a draft IEP or holding of an IEP meeting. The questionnaire should elicit the parent and child’s views on the child’s progress to date and additional steps that should be taken to adjust the child’s goals, curriculum, services, aids, modifications or other elements of the student’s IEP.

Providing Parents With Information Prior to IEP Meetings. One problem that was repeatedly identified by task force members was the fact that in some IEP meetings, parents were presented for the first time at an IEP meeting with a draft IEP report and expected to comprehend, consider, and approve the draft IEP in a single sitting. One proposal made by the task force to improve this process was to amend Delaware statute to require that a draft IEP be offered to parents prior to an IEP meeting if one is to be considered at the meeting itself, so that the parent has the option of carefully reviewing the draft IEP before the meeting and better participating in the meeting. Any draft document provided to the parent prior to the IEP meeting should be clearly and prominently labelled as a draft document that is for discussion purposes at the impending IEP meeting. The draft IEP would be offered to parents only if such a document had been created prior to the IEP meeting, and would be accompanied by a letter clearly indicating to parents that the document is a draft for discussion and possible revision rather than a final document. In addition to a draft IEP, parents should also be able to request prior to the IEP meeting data pertaining to their child’s needs and/or disability. With respect to this recommendation and the prior recommendation relating to eliciting input from parents, information should either be provided to parents in their native language where required by law or assistance should be offered to parents to translate the information.

Providing Protections to Teachers and Staff To Ensure Free Discussion During IEP Meetings. Some task force members noted that teachers, staff, and contractors of school districts and charter schools can feel constrained from freely engaging in discussion at a child’s IEP meeting for fear of later repercussions for their comments. The task force recommends that the General Assembly amend the Delaware Code to prohibit School Districts, Charter Schools, and/or the Department of Education from retaliating or causing teachers, staff, or contractors to face other negative repercussions as a result of their expression of a student’s needs and/or rights in connection to the IEP process.

Discouraging the Use of Acronyms and Technical Terminology in the Preparation of IEPs. The task force noted that the use of acronyms and technical terms in IEPs can be confusing to parents and children and discourage those parents and children from understanding the IEP and participating in its preparation and revision. The task force recommends that the state, in its training and instructional materials for school districts and charter schools, discourage the use of acronyms and technical terms where they need not be used, and provide a glossary to parents and children so that they can comprehend those terms where they must be used.

Enhanced Discussion of Transition Planning. Although funding challenges make it unlikely in the short term that individual representatives from relevant state agencies can participate in IEP meetings at an earlier stage than they presently enter the process, the task force strongly recommends that schools and school districts hold informational meetings for parents of students who are approaching transition age where parents and children can receive information from relevant state agencies and incorporate that information into the IEP process. The task force also recommends that each school district and charter school have an employee who serves as a designated transition coordinator.

Prioritizing Competitive and Integrated Employment Options. Competitive and integrated employment settings should be thoroughly discussed during the IEP process as the top priority employment option for students with disabilities. This is consistent with HB319 signed into law July 2012 which declares that it is the policy of this state that competitive employment (including compensation at or above minimum wage) in an integrated setting shall be considered the first and priority option when offering or providing services to persons with disabilities who are of working age (14 years of age or older).

Format and Structure of the IEP Meeting Itself

Participation of Relevant Faculty and Staff. Several task force members and members of the public noted that in some cases, paraprofessionals and other staff who may work with a child more extensively than anyone else at the school are not included in IEP meetings. The task force did recognize the logistical challenges presented by having multiple staff people present at IEP meetings, at the same time that all other students in the school need to be supervised and educated. In an effort to balance these realities, the task force recommends (a) that parents be explicitly invited prior to each IEP meeting to recommend any staff members who they believe should be present at the meeting, and (b) that schools be required to ensure that those staff members be present for at least a portion of the IEP meeting, even if their schedule does not permit them to participate in the entire meeting. This recommendation reflects not only what the task force believes to be a good practice, but also applicable federal law.

Preparation Time for Teachers and Staff. Teachers and staff members on the task force who participate in the preparation of IEPs expressed concern with the absence of sufficient time to adequately prepare for IEP meetings. The task force recommends that school districts and charter schools develop a mechanism by which the scheduling demands on teachers and staff specifically allow for preparation time for IEP meetings.

Use of Computer Programs for Preparation of IEPs. A number of task force members involved in the preparation of IEPs expressed strong concern with the computer program whose use the state has mandated for preparation of IEPs. Specifically, task force members stated that the computer system frequently does not work – that it shuts down or freezes during preparation of the IEP or the IEP meeting itself, not only inconveniencing parents, students, teachers, and staff, but also causing valuable instructional and therapeutic time to be lost. The task force believes that there is real value to the use of a working computerized IEP preparation program, but the current program often does not work and is an impediment to the preparation of IEPs and the overall instruction of students with disabilities. Therefore, the task force recommends that the state legislature direct that the Department of Education make a formal report to the General Assembly and Governor by March 1, 2015 on (a) the functionality of IEP Plus, (b) specific plans that are in place to remedy any problems with IEP Plus, and (c) available alternatives to IEP Plus which would provide a more usable computerized system for preparation of IEPs.

Reporting to Parents on Student Progress

Improving Reporting to Parents on Students’ IEP Progress. Task force members noted that the current manner in which some school districts and charter schools report student progress on their IEPs is not helpful or, in some cases, coherent. The task force recommends that the state adopt specific standards for districts and charters to report to parents on IEP progress, which should include a clear and simple manner of communicating whether a student is meeting his or her stated IEP goals and specific information reflecting the degree to which a student has received related services that are required by his or her IEP (e.g. speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy). Progress reporting for students with transition IEPs should include progress toward activities and services leading toward all post-secondary goals.

Random Auditing of District and Charter School Compliance With State and Federal Law

The Need for Random, Open-Ended Examinations of School Districts and Charter Schools to Ensure Compliance with State and Federal Law Governing IEPs. In the course of discussing other recommendations, it became clear to the task force that although the state reviews the written records of school districts and charter schools to ensure compliance with the law, and surveys parents anonymously to gather statistical information about the IEP process, there is no current effort to make inquiries with parents about the IEP process that would reveal concerns with that process which might not be evident from a review of written records. The task force recommends that the state directly inquire of a material number of parents from each school district and charter school each year who have participated in the IEP process as to their satisfaction with the process, and use the information gathered in the course of that inquiry to conduct follow-up examinations with school districts and charter schools as to their good faith compliance with IEP laws and regulations.

Specific Needs of Charter Schools

Technical Assistance and Professional Development for Charter Schools. The task force noted that there is a deficiency among charter schools, often because of their limited size compared to school districts, in training and expertise relating to the development of IEPs and knowledge of statewide programs that are available to assist with the education of students with disabilities. The task force recommends that charter schools be required to have responsible persons at their schools receive appropriate training from the Department of Education designed to ensure that they are aware of their legal responsibilities relating to IEP preparation and aware of the resources available to them to comply with those responsibilities.

 

Visually Impaired Students

Separate Task Force Recommendation. A number of public members and task force members believed that the unique educational needs of students with visual impairments were not being met through the existing IEP process, but that the number of changes necessary to remedy this problem exceeded the time or scope of this task force. Therefore, those members suggested – and this task force recommends – that the state set up a separate task force assigned to specifically address the needs of visually impaired students.

Why Schools Need To Be Okay With Upset Parents of Students With Disabilities

I posted my last article of 2014 last night, and I talked about how my son needed an MRI after he received a concussion at his school stemming from his 8th physical assault since the end of August.  Since then, the number one question I have received is why.  That’s not an easy question for me to answer.  If I knew the answer I could try to fix the problem

It’s very easy for me to focus on Priority Schools, FOIAs, charter school financial mismanagement and non-profit tax forms for educational lobbyist groups.  The answers come very easy for me with just a little bit of investigation.  Disability bullying is a very tough topic.  It’s personal for me because it involves my son.  And I will need help from other parents who have gone through or are going through these types of ordeals.  This needs to be an ongoing conversations between parents and schools.  It can’t just be the schools. Continue reading