Is this legal?

In my experience, there is a form included with the IEP that lists any members of the team who are not present, which the parent signs at the meeting. The team member/s who were absent later sign the finalized IEP.

This is an important form, considering both the law and the fact that some schools have hundreds of students on IEP's, which makes it unrealistic for every member to attend every meeting.

 

And we wonder why parents get such a poor view of the school system. Some think they are above the law.

 

It's not illegal to list absent team members on an IEP and have them sign later acknowledging the existence and terms of the IEP, is it? There's no deception happening since the ones absent are clearly named.

 

I should clarify that a parent has the right not to sign the form and to request all members be present. I should also point out that this form ensures that the IEP is consistent with, not above the law.

 

So, the co-ordinator of the meeting informs the parent PRIOR to the parent coming to the school that particular personnel will be missing? They also explain the law to the parent that says they should be present and why they should be present? Do they also explain that signing that paper says the parent is releasing the the members and the parent is giving up the right to have them there? Other option, schedule another meeting (in which someone else might just not show up without notice).

Or does your school wait until the parent takes the day off of work, shows up, and says Ms. Jones can't make it today. Is that ok Ms. Smith? Here, we will just list here that she isn't in attendance for our documentation purposes.... We really have all we need already (indicating that the IEP decisions have already been made by the team, excluding the parent) and there really is nothing the parent needs to ask of the missing member.

Sorry, but when I hear responses like it is unrealistic for every member to show up at IEP meetings, I get that feeling in the pit of my stomach which says, let's see if we can sweet talk Ms. Smith around us following the law. Wonder what Ms. Smith is really told.

 

What would be the point of sweet talk? What would the SPED teacher be trying to hide? If not everyone can attend (which is often the case) I call the parent before the meeting and explain everything. Procedural safeguards along with the IEP draft and notice of meeting are sent home before the meeting. The parent is part of the team. I can change an IEP anytime. My goal is making sure the individualized need of the student are met. I can't even write up the goals etc unless I have input from the child's parents and teachers. Yes, I know the law and I know what my district requires. I guess I just don't get why a SPED teacher would want anything but an individualized plan. It is unrealistic for every member to show up unless the meeting can be held after school. But if a parent can't show up after school and has 20 minutes during their lunch time to spare...then I will explain and go with the parents wishes. Don't forget I am speaking to the parent before the meeting to set up the time. I work with parents other then IEP times. I see them at back to school night. I communicate with them at parent/teachers. I complete progress reports 4 times a year. I talk and e-mail parents daily. I don't have an agenda to screw IDEA. I have a kid that has needs and I match their needs to plafaps and goals. I do the best I can with what I have.

 

Sorry, donziejo. It wasn't directed at you and apparently you work for a district on the up and up. Reading your post, it was apparent that you do not work in this manner. Some districts are on the up and up. Some are not. If you work in one that isn't you would understand. What you say makes logical sense, but that isn't always the case. Again, I apologize if you at all thought it was directed at you in particular.

Why would a district sweet talk a parent? Let me count the ways.

All IEPs for many of the special education population (particularly SLD, high-functioning autistic, and similar disabilities) look almost identical. No need to get all staff there when parents are stonewalled into a pre-determined IEP and placement. Some schools have this decided before hand and don't tell parents that there are options. So, why waste the time of the staff when it was already pre-determined. Make the parent think that they have no worries and everything is ok. Make the parent think it isn't necessary. Typically kids in these systems don't thrive because it isn't individual it is pre-determined goals, help, placement regardless of needs.

Districts that work like this tend to not inform parents about the law and their rights but hand a pro-district version of the parents procedural safeguards. I have yet to hear them explained to a parent even when the parent asks what they can do. Since most parents trust the school districts to do the right thing, they can say just about anything without coming out and lying completely. The savy parent finds out about the lies and is judged a PITA. Well, yes, a district would actually have to work with that parent and they might have to give something that wasn't pre-determined.

Districts like this don't always inform parents about what they are signing and the real ramifications of it.

Districts like this often don't want certain teachers coming to meetings because they may have something to tell the parents the director doesn't want them to say because it would then require the district to do something other than what they want.

Districts like this have teachers forge papers sometimes stating they were in attendance. How would a parent who did not tape the meeting or collect her own sign in sheet prove that wasn't the case?

There are some awsome schools out there looking out for the best interests of the students. There are some that are looking out for nothing but themselves. I've seen districts spend Millions of dollars to deny a service that would cost 10,000 which was necessary for the student.

So, when I read posts about how it is impossible for the teachers of the student with a disability to show up for all meetings bells ring and flags go up. What if the parent wanted to ask the teacher questions? Isn't that the point of the law so that the IEP is made as a team with all members there to brainstorm what will work best for the student? How can you make a quality IEP without all of the members of the team unless it was already made and the meeting is just a formality?

 

Where I teach (not the in US so IDEA doesn't apply), my students have 8 teachers. To have 8 teachers, plus Sp Ed plus admin, plus counselling attend 100 meetings would be just insane. In terms of cost, we are into the thousands for supply teachers. Our IPRCs require about 4 full school days to complete. To release 8 teachers at a time (assuming we had supplies that could continually rotate through classes to replace a teacher while they went to a meeting) would require about 12 teachers a day (because our supply teachers have prep time so they can't teach all 7 hours). At 220$ a day per supply x 12 teachers x 4 days, we are over 10,000$. That is about 10 times the budget I have for resources for the entire spec. ed population so I truly can't imagine a bigger waste of money. To me the purpose of an IPRC (where we review the IEP) is to ensure programming is suitable for the student and ensure placement is suitable. This requires input from the 8 teachers but does not require attendance. If the parent has questions for the classroom teacher, they can access them at an point during the year. If there was some urgent question pertaining to the IEP that teacher could be called but really in 4 years of IPRCs I've never had that type of issue - plenty of times parents have questions regarding their child's progress in a given course and arranging a meeting or phone call regarding that is quite easy. To waste 10,000$ per year on meetings to me would be just that - a waste. If schools can meet the requirements without spending that type of money that seems a better idea to me.

And of course perhaps we are different up here in Canada but the IEP is definatley written prior to the meeting. The meeting is to review and change as needed. Also our IEPs are living documents so the IEP could also change the day after the meeting. The meeting isn't to set the IEP in stone, it is to maintain communication with parents and request their input.

 

The expectation is not that all the general education teachers attend, only one. That general education teacher, whoever it is, should be one that knows the student and has/will have the student in his/her classroom. Thus, it usually takes one or two subs to rotate around the classrooms for the day as needed while teachers attend meetings. Hardly breaking the budget, given how much we spend on the countless programs our schools operate.

As for IEPs being written before the meeting, the law may be different in Canada and parental involvement take a different role. In the U.S., however, it is permissible to complete most of the IEP before the meeting, but no decisions about placement and services should be made nor written before the IEP meeting. The parent should be an active and equal member of the team and the reason we have the meeting at all is to have an in-depth discussion with all IEP team members present. It shouldn't be a case of "Well, the parent didn't call me during the year and say anything so we'll just go ahead and make the decision."

As a2z points out, the reality is that many districts make decisions long before the IEP meeting and basically ramrod parents (who are unaware of their rights) into whatever decision the school has already made.

 

DaveG,

While the legality may be that one Gen Ed teacher is to attend, one of the questions a2z posed was in regards to wanting to request information from the classroom teacher. To be able to pose questions of the classroom teacher in Canada would require all 8 teachers to be there.

As for the IEP being written I understand the difference and it is different. I can't imagine how long these meetings must require in the US if your IEPs are anything such as ours. Our IEPs are 8 pages long and require on average about 1-2 hours to write.

 

A2Z.. Thanks for the explanation. I did get a tad riled up there for a moment. Dave, glad you have subs for gen ed and sped. I don't know any district that makes decisions before IEP meetings.(not saying there aren't any).... I think parents should be aware of their rights.(Besides what I am legally obligated to tell them) What with the internet and parent's rights groups (Wrights law is online) all the info is there free. Maybe I am naive but I honestly believe Sped teachers are doing everything they can to have a legal IEP. I have been reading over the 2004 IDEA law and there is a place for parents to sign if the whole team is not at the meeting. Now that doesn't mean they haven't had input it means the meeting that is held (that is mutually agreed on by teacher and parent) comes at a time when the gen ed teacher is teaching a class. If a parent chooses to bring outside representation they also must let me know beforehand or I can reschedule the meeting. The relationship the sped teacher builds with the student and parent is very important. I want the parent to feel comfortable enough to let me know anytime something at home may interfere with what's going on at school.

 

CanukTeach My IEP's take a couple of hours to write because I need to collect the data from teacher generated tests and assessments given by the gen ed teachers. Since I co-teach it is easier for me to get the info in two core classes. Also I meet weekly with grade level teams and once a month with non core teachers, so I always know firsthand where my IEP students are. Our IEP meetings should be no longer then 30 minutes. I have been talked to by my district specialist... as I have on many occasions let the meetings run overtime (if they are after school.) In fact I have to attend a training on how to end IEP's. That training is sometime in May....guess I can use the info I get for next year.

 

Only one gen ed teacher has to attend, not all eight. They tend to try to get the gen ed teacher in the area that the student is having difficulty or where the teacher doesn't... understand the IEP.

My IEP in HS was 30 pages. The IEP meetings would take 15 minutes because they'd just rush us through and force us to sign everything

 

30 minute IEP meeting, wow that's fast. I've been on both sides of the table as special education and regular education teacher and I've never had a meeting shorter than 30 minutes, unless the parent didn't attend. Usually our meetings last 45 minutes to 1 hour.

And reevaluations take upwards of 1 hour-3 hours.

 

I think I am going to rile you up again with my opinion. Sorry in advance but we really see things differently here.

To say that meetings should be no longer than 30 minutes, and you have been trained how to cut them off really makes me think that your district is not interested in what the parent thinks about what the student needs. You prepare the IEP, present it, and expect signature. By saying the meeting will be 30 minutes either you have IEP light with no substance to discuss (which I don't believe by the time you spend writing) or it is already assumed that parents will be cajoled into signing.

So, what do you do with the parent that doesn't agree with your suggested IEP goals and pre-determined placement (because if you put that much work into it you have already made up your mind where this kid belongs).

 

A2Z... not riled as I agree with you. My training isn't until May. I will be asking the same questions. My guess is that I will be told that I am sending home the draft IEP.. so the parents should know what they want to address before they get there. But not to worry...I know I can't cut them down to 30 minutes especially on a reevaluation. I will continue to do what I have been doing. I will post in May when I hear the suggestions

 

Seems you are going to be slightly misaligned with the directions your district wants you to take. I, for one, will look forward to hearing how the trainer addresses your issues.

I'm all for learning communication skills to mediate a conversation and get it back on track (both sides) so that the tangent doesn't take up all the time. It takes a keen sense to get to the heart of the needs of both sides and come to an agreement.

I can't wait to hear how you are trained to cut off the parent that still has concerns after 30 minutes.

 

Here is what I think about the 30 minute IEP and where my teacher specialist is coming from. First, I don't feel that after the training if my IEP's run over I will get in any kind of trouble. I get the impression that my feet won't be held to the fire as in some of the other directives the district has given me. But this is what I think (and this is speculation) we don't have subs for IEP meetings. I mentioned to my teacher specialist that I was in communication with other teachers and that some of them had subs. Her answer was to tell me that I have 30 minute's afterschool. I reminded her that 1 night is faculty meeting and 2 nights are mandatory after school tutoring. (teachers get paid for 1 hour) that leaves 2 nights a week at the most.( and I am talking about having the gen ed teacher stay for the meeting) We have 5 furlough days and then the other holidays. At that point she told me that she would take the information back to the district and they would have to talk about it...then she said other teachers were uncomfortable about 30 minute IEP's so that the district would be gathering some data and having a training meeting in May. What I would like to see happen is for the district to realize that we do need subs to have IEPs during the day. In the meantime I will keep holding IEPs as I have been doing. I also took others suggestions from this forum and asked my departmet chair to see if she could get it okayed to have other's named as LEAs. She told me that is what they had done in the last state she taught in (which was Georgia). So I am hopeful. Keep your fingers and toes crossed.

 

Yes, that can be done, if and only if, the person standing in has the authority to grant services and allot funding/staffing. At the point where the LEA says, I can't make that decision, Mrs. Jones makes those and I'm standing in for her today, the meeting is illegal. I've seen IEP meetings go awry because a school allows someone to sign as a different role but doesn't have the authority of the role. It causes problems and could be a procedural violation.

 

a2z, you make a number of statements which are not consistent with the law. For example:

You argue that the school must notify "the parent PRIOR to the parent coming to the school that particular personnel will be missing."

However, the law does not specify that prior notice must be given. "A member of the IEP Team described in 34 CFR 300.321(a)(2) through (a)(5) is not required to attend an IEP Team meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent of a child with a disability and the public agency agree, in writing, that the attendance of the member is not necessary because the member's area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting."

You also argue that you "once saw a PE teacher (IEP meeting out of compliance) used as the general education teacher of record."

However, the law does not specify which subject/s the regular education teacher must teach. In fact, the law indicates that under certain circumstances, a regular education teacher does not need to attend. "Not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment)".

You go on to argue that the LEA representative must have "the authority to grant services and allot funding/staffing."

Again, the law only specifies that the LEA rep is "A representative of the public agency (who has certain specific knowledge and qualifications)"

The law is as much about what is stated as what isn't. Please check your facts before making inaccurate statements and unfounded accusations.

 

30 minute IEPs are a bit odd

Sounds like a education reality show

I've heard of IEP meetings lasting for upwards of five hours.

 

Mr. E, you are misstating what I said. I did not say it was the law that one had to be notified who is NOT coming. I said two different things. First, you had to notify the parent who will be in attendance. Our district e-mails or snail mails this information prior to the IEP meeting. Second, I asked if the district called to inform the parents prior to the meeting if someone wasn't going to be attending. That is not required by law, but not doing so puts parents in a bind of showing up for a meeting that doesn't have the required staff. Some districts utlize this because they know they can talk the typical parent into releasing that person. That will allow the meeting to be legal if they sign to release, but it shows that the schools needs are more important than the students rights. So, no law will be broken but for the savy parent that knows the laws they will see right through the game and the relationship and trust between the school and parent will be broken. The school isn't holding their end of the bargin but wanting to wiggle out of their responsibilities. Not a good way to build trust in developing a FAPE for a student.

I did argue that the PE teacher was there instead of the gen ed teacher. However, the PE teacher was not a teacher of the student. I even stated this but you chose to ignore that information when you tried to show how wrong I was. Here is my quote, "PE teacher never met the student nor did this "gen ed" teacher know anything about an academic classroom. " Therefore, the meeting was out of compliance because the district did not notify the parent of their rights but said that any general education teacher will do. The district was still trying to work off on IDEA 97 in 2008.

If no one at the meeting knows of the resources and has authority to commit resources, then it isn't a valid IEP meeting. How can an IEP be written and signed if no one has the authority to commit the resources/services outlined in the IEP which is being developed in the meeting. You may want to say otherwise, you may want to "interpret" otherwise, but I bet dollars to donuts that a procedureal violation would be awarded to the parent if no one at the table can commit the resources needed to for the student.

Here is a resouce from the federal government explaining that the district's representative in the IEP meeting must be able to commit resources.
http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html
Bring up the page and search for "commit resources" and you will find the following text, "The individual representing the school system is also a valuable team member. This person knows a great deal about special education services and educating children with disabilities. He or she can talk about the necessary school resources. It is important that this individual have the authority to commit resources and be able to ensure that whatever services are set out in the IEP will actually be provided."

I would suggest before you try your best to be right and show that I am wrong that you check your facts carefully. Do not misrepresent what others say to push your agenda, and know the law. The government provides a lot of documentation that expalains some of these in very simple terms. Particulary the part where the representative of the district must be able to commit resources.

Now, exactly what did you say about knowing the facts before posting?

 

I don't think that most schools or districts are out to dupe parents into accepting IEPs that don't appropriately address the needs of the student. I think that they are actually trying the best they can to meet the needs of their students.

This thread makes me feel like its Big Bad Evil School versus Poor Unfortunate Uninformed Parents, and I don't think that's generally true. Perhaps it's true in certain situations or places, and perhaps some of the posters here have experienced that, but I haven't, nor have any of the teachers I work with and have talked to about this.

In an ideal world, sure, a 5+ hour IEP meeting per student per month sounds great. In reality? Not gonna happen. I doubt that most parents would even be available to attend meetings of that length and frequency. Given the resources we have, we're doing the best we can and acting in good faith.

This thread is really angry-sounding and I don't really find it helpful. Maybe somebody does, though.

 

a2z, unless you can support your claims by quoting the law, then they are nothing more than your opinions.

 

Your first complaint about what I said. Parental notification of meetings. Here is what a school needs to do.
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs,300,D,300%2E322,
If the link doesn't work google will.

Sec. 300.322 Parent participation.

(a) Public agency responsibility-general. Each public agency must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP Team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including--

(1) Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and

(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

(b) Information provided to parents.

(1) The notice required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must--

(i) Indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting and who will be in attendance; and

(ii) Inform the parents of the provisions in Sec. 300.321(a)(6) and (c) (relating to the participation of other individuals on the IEP Team who have knowledge or special expertise about the child), and Sec. 300.321(f) (relating to the participation of the Part C service coordinator or other representatives of the Part C system at the initial IEP Team meeting for a child previously served under Part C of the Act).


I also said that although the school is not required to notify the parent of changes or absences prior to a parent showing up for a meeting in which they were already informed of the presence of particular staff members, it is courteous to do so and with help build a good working relationship instead of a negative one. Yes. That is opinion.

You complained about the meeting which I stated was out of compliance because the PE teacher was the gen ed teacher of record but this teacher had NO KNOWLEDGE of the student. This teacher was not a teacher of the student. I provided the law regarding that already. You can go back and look that up.

Lastly was law regarding someone at the meeting that had the authority to commit resources. Apparently the governments own docuement explaining to parents what the law meant was not sufficient.

While the actual wording of the law says "``(III) is knowledgeable about the
availability of resources of the local
educational agency;
"
How can an IEP ever be signed in the meeting if no one has the authority to commit those resources?

We can quibble over the meaning, but the government's own Policy guideline explains what it means. I apologize for the previous link not working. However, I did give you the wording in the document that showed the government means it to mean that someone has to be there that has authority to commit resources.

http://www2.ed.gov/parent@s/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html

Paste in browser. Remove the @ sign to get it to work.

I provided all of the laws for each statement I made. If you google IDEA 2004 authority to commit resources you will see that not only the federal government policy guideline interprets this this way but so do many other state agencies.

 

Just a heads up, you are quoting a guide, not the law.

 

The five-hour IEP meetings that i've heard of were all of schools that knew they did wrong (and the parents have the proof) and are trying to provide too little too late to dissuade the parents from filing for due process.

 

Whatever, Mr. E. If you can't read what I gave you, that is your problem. I clarified both the law AND the guide. I also showed how others interpreted the law in the same manner as the government's policy guide. If that isn't enough for you, too bad.

Once again you are pulling bits and pieces and twisting words. Hope you are having fun! Maybe you should be studying up on the law instead of playing games. Oh, that's right. You spend your time trying to find loopholes you can use in the law.

 

And apparently you spend your time making assumptions about people you don't know.