GET YOUR ARD COMMITTEE INTO SHAPE: Top 10 Exercises to Develop Legally Fit IEPs

Transcription

1 GET YOUR ARD COMMITTEE INTO SHAPE: Tp 10 Exercises t Develp Legally Fit IEPs Presented By: Jan Watsn & Michael Clark The infrmatin in this handut was created by Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ, P.C. It is intended t be used fr general infrmatin nly and is nt t be cnsidered specific legal advice. If specific legal advice is sught, cnsult an attrney. 505 E. Huntland Dr. Suite 600 Austin, Texas (512) E. 3 rd Street Weslac, Texas (956) N.E. Lp 410 Suite 900 San Antni, Texas (210) Marquette, N.W. Suite 1360 Albuquerque, NM (505) Decker Curt Suite 600 Irving, Texas (214) Richmnd Ave. Suite 750 Hustn, Texas (713) Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 1 f 21

2 #1 Get Off t a Gd Start with Parents 1. Hw shuld we respnd t parental cncerns abut their student s prgress? Teachers and ther staff wh wrk with parents need t practice gd listening skills and treat parental cncerns abut their student seriusly. In additin, teachers shuld knw hw t help parents access the persn/persns wh will be able t assist them with navigating the Respnse t Interventin (RTI) prcess, and/r the referral prcess fr either special educatin r Sectin What if we are respnding t cncerns abut the student s lack f expected prgress in general educatin? Referral f students fr a full and individual initial evaluatin fr pssible special educatin services shall be part f the district s verall, general educatin referral r screening system. Prir t referral, students experiencing difficulty in the general classrm shuld be cnsidered fr all supprt services available t all students, such as tutrial; remedial; cmpensatry; respnse t scientific, research-based interventin; and ther academic r behavir supprt services. If the student cntinues t experience difficulty in the general classrm after the prvisin f interventin, district persnnel must refer the student fr a full and individual initial evaluatin. This referral fr a full and individual initial evaluatin may be initiated by schl persnnel, the student s parents r legal guardian, r anther persn invlved in the educatin r care f the student. 19 Tex. Admin. Cde (emphasis added). Practical Strategies Ensure parents are infrmed that their student is receiving interventins and supprts thrugh the RTI prcess. Prvide parents peridic prgress updates regarding the student s respnse t interventins. Ensure staff is sensitive t whether parents are nw requesting special educatin evaluatin triggering timelines and additinal legal requirements. #2 Meet Required Timelines 3. What timelines are yu referring t? If a parent r legal guardian makes a written request t a schl district s directr f special educatin services r t a district administrative emplyee fr a full and individual initial evaluatin f a student, the district shall, nt later than the 15 th schl day after the date the district receives the request: (1) Prvide an pprtunity fr the parent r legal guardian t give written cnsent fr the evaluatin; r (2) Refuse t prvide the evaluatin and prvide the parent r legal guardian with ntice f prcedural safeguards under 20 U.S.C. Sectin 1415(b). Tex. Educ. Cde (c) Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 2 f 21

3 Practical Strategies Designate and prvide training t the District administrative emplyees wh will receive written requests fr special educatin evaluatin frm parents. Ensure staff members have crrect cntact infrmatin fr parents t use in prviding a written request fr a full and individual initial evaluatin. Address parental requests thrugh active campus supprt teams wh meet t determine whether we have reasn t suspect a disability and shuld prvide the parent an pprtunity t give written cnsent n later than the 15 th schl day after the date the district receives the request. If we d nt suspect a disability, we need t prvide prir written ntice regarding a refusal t evaluate and a cpy f the Ntice f Prcedural Safeguards. #3 Obtain Parental Cnsent Prir t Cnducting an Evaluatin 4. Families are becming increasingly cmplex with multiple peple acting as a parent. Hw d we determine wh the parent is fr purpses f btaining cnsent fr evaluatin? (a) Parent means (1) A bilgical r adptive parent f a child; (2) A fster parent, unless State law, regulatins, r cntractual bligatins with a State r lcal entity prhibit a fster parent frm acting as a parent; (3) A guardian generally authrized t act as the child s parent, r authrized t make educatinal decisins fr the child (but nt the State if the child is a ward f the State); (4) An individual acting in the place f a bilgical r adptive parent (including a grandparent, stepparent, r ther relative) with whm the child lives, r an individual wh is legally respnsible fr the child s welfare; r (5) A surrgate parent wh has been appinted in accrdance with r sectin 639(a)(5) f the Act. (b) (1) Except as prvided in paragraph (b)(2) f this sectin, the bilgical r adptive parent, when attempting t act as the parent under this part and when mre than ne party is qualified under paragraph (a) f this sectin t act as a parent, must be presumed t be the parent fr purpses f this sectin unless the bilgical r adptive parent des nt have legal authrity t make educatinal decisins fr the child. (2) If a judicial decree r rder identifies a specific persn r persns under paragraphs (a)(1) thrugh (4) f this sectin t act as the parent f a child r t make educatinal decisins n behalf f a child, then such persn r persns shall be determined t be the parent fr purpses f this sectin. 34 C.F.R What d we d abut divrced parents? In situatins where the parents f a child are divrced, the parental rights established by the Individuals with Disabilities Educatin Act ( IDEA ) apply t bth parents, unless a curt rder r State law specifies therwise. 71 Fed. Reg (August 14, 2006). 6. Wh is the parent when fster parents are invlved? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 3 f 21

4 Nte: The Texas Educatin Agency ( TEA ) has recently published a dcument addressing issues fr fster care available frm the TEA website lcated at: The dcument entitled Texas Fster Care and Student Success Resurce Guide specifically indicates that the curt may appint a surrgate parent t make educatinal decisins fr a child. Practical Strategies If parents are separated r divrced, we may presume that each parent retains educatinal decisin making authrity. Cnsent fr evaluatin may be btained frm ne f the divrced parents. Hwever, each is entitled t receive Ntice f Evaluatin. If we are unaware f the address f ne parent, we may ask the parent wh is taking primary respnsibility in wrking with the schl t prvide the cntact infrmatin fr the ther parent. We shuld d this discretely and dcument the respnse. If ne parent infrms us that the ther parent des nt have rights t make educatinal decisins r t participate in Admissin, Review, and Dismissal ( ARD ) cmmittee meetings, we shuld ask t review an fficial cpy f the divrce decree t cnfirm the parent s cmments. Parents are entitled t receive ntices and attend ARD cmmittee meetings until parental rights have been terminated. Special cnsideratins may apply when the family is under investigatin by Child Prtective Services ( CPS ). Remember that parents f adult students are entitled t receive cpies f ntices fr ARD cmmittee meetings, ntices f evaluatin, and prir written ntices. 7. When des the timeline fr evaluatin begin? The 83 rd legislative sessin changed the timeframe fr special educatin evaluatins under 34 C.F.R (c)(1)(ii), as fllws: A written reprt f a full and individual evaluatin f a student fr purpses f special educatin services shall be cmpleted as fllws, except as therwise prvided by this sectin: (1) Nt later than the 45 th schl day fllwing the date n which the schl district, in accrdance with 20 U.S.C. Sectin 1414(a), as amended, receives written cnsent fr evaluatin, signed by the student s parent r legal guardian, except that if the student has been absent frm schl during that perid n three r mre days, that perid must be extended by a number f schl days equal t the number f schl days during that perid n which the student has been absent: Tex. Educ. Cde (a)(1). 8. What happens t the timeline if the teacher receives it and des nt prvide it t the diagnstician fr a few days? The timeline begins when the district receives signed cnsent frm the parent. The teacher is a district emplyee and he/she received it. Cnsequently, the timelines began. 9. What if the date the parent signed the dcument is a mnth befre we received it? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 4 f 21

5 The timeline des nt begin until we receive signed cnsent. Hwever, we may need t prve when we received the signed cnsent dcument. This can be achieved by having all dcuments marked with the date received when pened r when we receive it in persn. Practical Strategies We need t develp a prcedure fr ensuring that we mark items received frm a parent by mail r in persn with the date received. Schl districts need t ensure that cnsent dcuments are frwarded t the diagnstician r the directr f special educatin as sn as they are received t ensure we cnduct evaluatins within timelines. Nte that the written reprt and nt just testing must be cmpleted within timelines. #4 Obtain Infrmatin frm Parents During the Evaluatin Prcess 10. What infrmatin shuld we btain frm parents during the evaluatin prcess? Cnduct f evaluatin. In cnducting the evaluatin, the public agency must (1) Use a variety f assessment tls and strategies t gather relevant functinal, develpmental, and academic infrmatin abut the child, including infrmatin prvided by the parent, that may assist in determining i. Whether the child is a child with a disability ; and ii. The cntent f the child s IEP, including infrmatin related t enabling the child t be invlved in and prgress in the general educatin curriculum (r fr a preschl child, t participate in apprpriate activities); (2) Nt use any single measure r assessment as the sle criterin fr determining whether a child is a child with a disability and fr determining an apprpriate educatinal prgram fr the child; and (3) Use technically sund instruments that may assess the relative cntributin f cgnitive and behaviral factrs, in additin t physical r develpmental factrs. 34 CFR (b). 11. What d we d when parent infrmatin des nt line up with the schl s bservatins? We need t ensure that parents have the crrect instructins prir t cmpleting an evaluatin checklist. Simply handing the parent a checklist withut any guidance regarding hw t cmplete it is cunterprductive and ptentially intimidating and frustrating t parents. Sme checklists suggest using an interview frmat t assist parents in ging thrugh the prcess. In additin, we need t treat any infrmatin prvided by parents thrugh the evaluatin prcess seriusly. Evaluatin reprts that ignre parent input that cnflicts with infrmatin btained by district staff diminish the veracity f the reprt by ignring infrmatin regarding hw the student is functining utside f the schl envirnment. Practical Strategies Dcument effrts t btain parental input fr evaluatins. Prvide instructins t parents regarding hw t cmplete checklists r scales. Ignring discrepancies between infrmatin reprted by parents and infrmatin btained frm district staff can create prblems. Avid using cnclusry statements. Reprt data and suggest reasns fr any discrepancy withut presenting the appearance f judging parenting practices Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 5 f 21

6 #5 Encurage Parental Participatin in the ARD Prcess 12. Scheduling ARD cmmittee meetings can turn int a nightmare. What is the bttm line? We need t begin scheduling the meeting early enugh t enable us t wrk with the family t ensure parent participatin. Each public agency must take steps t ensure that ne r bth f the parents f a child with a disability are present at each IEP [Individualized Educatin Prgram] team meeting r are affrded the pprtunity t participate, including (1) Ntifying parents f the meeting early enugh t ensure that they will have an pprtunity t attend; and (2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed n time and place. 34 C.F.R (a). 13. What timelines apply t prviding Ntice f ARD cmmittee meeting t parents? A district shall invite the parents and adult student t participate as members f the Admissin, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) cmmittee by prviding written ntice in accrdance with 34 Cde f Federal Regulatins (CFR) , , and Tex. Admin. Cde (a). Reasnable time required fr the written ntice t parents under 34 Cde f Federal Regulatins (CFR), , is defined as at least five schl days, unless the parents agree therwise. 19 Tex. Admin. Cde What if the parent cannt cme t the meeting? If neither parent can attend an IEP Team meeting, the public agency must use ther methds t ensure parent participatin, including individual r cnference telephne calls, cnsistent with (related t alternative means f participatin). 34. C.F.R (c). When cnducting IEP Team meetings and placement meetings pursuant t this subpart, and subpart E f this part, and carrying ut administrative matters under sectin 615 f the Act (such as scheduling, exchange f witness lists, and status cnferences), the parent f a child with a disability and a public agency may agree t use alternative means f meeting participatin, such as vide cnferences and cnference calls. 34 C.F.R In Dug C. v. State f Hawaii, Dep t f Educ., 113 LRP (9 th Cir. 06/13/13), the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue f whether the Department s effrts t include Dug C. in the Nvember IEP meeting were sufficient t meet the requirements f the IDEA. Spencer is an 18-year-ld student wh was diagnsed with autism at age tw. The Ninth Circuit heavily relied n its previus decisin that the nly time a district may cnvene an IEP team meeting withut a parent is when the parent affirmatively states that he/she will nt attend the meeting. Testimny indicated that the members f the educatin team all agreed fr the meeting t ccur n Octber 28 th. The parent indicated that he thught the date was tentative. When staff called him n Octber 22 nd t cnfirm the date, the parent reprted he was unavailable. And they agreed n either Nvember 4 th r 5 th. Once again the parent testified that he thught the dates were tentative pending his ability t check his calendar and cnfirm. He called the Department the next day and cnfirmed the 9 th. Hwever, Dug C. ed the Department at 7:27 a.m. n the 9 th and reprted that he was ill. He indicated that he culd be 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 6 f 21

7 available n the 16 th r 17 th after the deadline fr the annual IEP team meeting ccurred n Nvember 13 th. When the Department indicated that they must cmply with the timelines, Dug C. said he might be able t d the 12 th r 13 th if he felt better. The Ninth Circuit fcused n parent participatin instead f cmplying with prcedural timelines where the parent indicated he was ill and unable t attend the annual IEP team meeting fr his teenager, when it reversed the decisin f the district curt. Hwever, the schl district decided that an indefinite pstpnement f the meeting was nt apprpriate due t the pending statutry timeline fr the meeting t ccur. We cnclude that the Department vilated the IDEA s explicit parental participatin requirements. The Department held Spencer s annual IEP meeting withut parental participatin even thugh Dug C. did nt affirmatively refuse []t attend, but rather actively sught t reschedule the meeting in rder t participate. By denying Dug C. the pprtunity t participate in the IEP prcess, the Department denied Spencer a FAPE. It is imprtant t nte that the nly Hrizns Academy staff member n Spencer s IEP team als did nt attend. The IEP team changed the student s placement frm Hrizns Academy t the Wrkplace Readiness Prgram at Maui High Schl. They had nt changed Spencer s placement in six years. After the meeting, the special educatin crdinatr sent the cmpleted IEP t Dug C. fr his review. In additin, they cnvened a fllw-up IEP meeting n December 7 th with Dug C. and a staff member frm Hrizns where the team reviewed the cmpleted IEP line by line. Dug C. had filed a request fr special educatin due prcess hearing the day befre and refused t participate in the meeting. There may, f curse, be circumstances in which accmmdating a parent s schedule wuld d mre harm t the student s interest than prceeding withut the parent s presence at the IEP. Fr example, in A.M., it was apprpriate fr the schl t cnvene an IEP withut the parents participatin because the student was new t the schl, and therefre did nt have any IEP in place, and the student s parents were unwilling t reschedule fr an entire mnth after having canceled a scheduled IEP review that was itself already almst ne mnth verdue. [A.M. v. Mnrvia,] 627 F.3d at 780. We trust, hwever, that such circumstances will be rare given the central rle parents have in helping t develp IEPs. Here there is strng likelihd that the benefits f placement at Hrizns Academy, Dug C. s preferred placement fr his sn, wuld have been mre thrughly cnsidered if Dug C. had been present at the meeting. It likely that the merits f cntinuing placement at Hrizns Academy were nt adequately cnsidered in light f the fact that the IEP team member frm the Academy was als absent. Practical Strategies We need t dcument all effrts t try t ensure a parent participates in an ARD cmmittee meeting. Many f ur infrmal cnversatins d nt prpse definite dates. We need t reach the pint where we prpse a date and ask fr alternatives if the parent is nt available. D nt delay sending the ntice f ARD cmmittee meeting. It is pssible that we may want t delay prpsing a majr change t the IEP until we can ensure the parent wh wants t attend is available. In J.N. v. District f Clumbia, 53 IDELR 326 (D.C. 2010), the curt held that the district denied the parent the pprtunity t have meaningful participatin at the IEP Team meeting by cnducting the meeting withut the parent and at a time t which the parent had bjected. The district sent three ntices prpsing alternate dates, and received n respnse t the first tw; therefre, the third ntice stated when the meeting wuld be 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 7 f 21

8 held. The parent respnded t the third ntice with phne calls asking that the meeting be rescheduled, but the district did nt d s. The federal district curt pinted ut that: (1) the September 21 date was never agreed t; (2) there was n evidence that the parent culd nt be cnvinced t attend the meeting; and (3) the parent made timely, diligent and reasnable effrts t reschedule the meeting. The curt cncluded that the schl had effectively eliminated the parent s ability t participate. The curt nted that this was a prcedural errr that undermine[s] the very essence f the IDEA. 15. What d we d when the parent des nt respnd t effrts t schedule the ARD cmmittee meeting and timelines are appraching? A meeting may be cnducted withut a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable t cnvince the parents that they shuld attend. In this case, the public agency must keep a recrd f its attempts t arrange a mutually agreed n time and place, such as (1) Detailed recrds f telephne calls made r attempted and the results f thse calls; (2) Cpies f crrespndence sent t the parents and any respnses received; and (3) Detailed recrds f visits made t the parent s hme r place f emplyment and the results f thse visits. 34. C.F.R (d). In Rachel L. v. State f Hawaii, Dep t. f Educ., 59 IDELR 244 (D. Haw. 2012), detailed recrds f effrts t schedule an IEP team meeting undermined a parent s claim that she was excluded frm develpment f the 12- year-ld s educatin prgram. Mther claimed that she had infrmed the staff that the address she had previusly was discntinued. Hwever, she cntinued t use it after that date. In additin, the Department had sufficient dcumentatin f vic messages, mail, and registered mailings t prve effrts t schedule the meeting at a mutually agreeable time. The evidence shwed that the Department f Educatin made reasnable effrts t schedule the meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place. In J.G. v. Briarcliff Manr Unin Free Schl District, 54 IDELR 20; 682 F.Supp.2d 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), the curt held that the parents were nt denied the pprtunity fr meaningful participatin, even thugh the schl held a meeting withut them. As sn as the schl fund ut that the parents were dissatisfied with the prpsed IEP, the schl attempted t set up an IEP Team meeting. The parents asked that the meeting be pstpned, but the district was unwilling t d s due t the pending start f schl and the requirement t have an IEP in place at that time, but the schl ffered t include the parents by telephne and t have anther meeting in September. The curt fund that the schl acted reasnably and did nt deny the parents the pprtunity t participate. 16. We have a parent wh wants t meet at 6:00 p.m. n Friday evenings. D we have t have an ARD cmmittee meeting utside f regular schl/business hurs t accmmdate the parent s request? The IDEA requires schl districts t schedule the meeting at a mutually agreed n time and place. 34 C.F.R (a)(2). In Letter t Thmas, 51 IDELR 224 (OSEP 2008), OSEP explains: Althugh Part B des nt prhibit public agencies frm scheduling IEP Team meetings in the evening, it des nt require that they d s. Therefre, it is nt unreasnable fr public agencies t schedule meetings f the IEP Team nly during regular schl hurs r regular business hurs because it is likely that these times are mst suitable fr public agency persnnel t attend these meetings Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 8 f 21

9 17. Have we satisfied ur duty if we just ffer t have the parent participate by phne? 34 C.F.R (c) states: Other methds t ensure parent participatin. If neither parent can attend an IEP Team meeting, the public agency must use ther methds t ensure parent participatin, including individual r cnference telephne calls, cnsistent with (related t alternative means f meeting participatin). Accrding t the Ninth Circuit, the ther methds shuld be ffered nly after the schl makes adequate effrt t schedule the meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place s that the parent can participate in persn. In Drbnicki v. Pway USD, 53 IDELR 210 (9 th Cir. 2009), the district scheduled the IEP meeting withut asking the parents abut their availability. The parents infrmed the district that they were unavailable n the scheduled date and wanted t reschedule. The district did nt cntact the parents t arrange an alternative date; hwever, the district ffered t let the parents participate by speakerphne. Whether the parents actually had a cnflict des nt matter accrding t the Curt. The Curt fund that the ffer did nt fulfill the district s affirmative duty t schedule the IEP meeting at a mutually agreed upn time, stating: The use f [a phne cnference] t ensure parent participatin is available nly if neither parent can attend an IEP meeting. The District s prcedural vilatin deprived the parents f the pprtunity t participate in the IEP prcess and denied the student FAPE. Practical Strategies Offer t use a telephne cnference if we have nt been successful in ensuring parent participatin therwise. Wrking parents have lunch breaks that culd be used fr ARD cmmittee meetings by telephne cnference call. 18. What infrmatin has t be n the ntice? The ntice required under paragraph (a)(1) f this sectin must (i) (ii) Indicate the purpse, time, and lcatin f the meeting and wh will be in attendance; and Infrm the parents f the prvisins in (a)(6) and (c) (relating t the participatin f ther individuals n the IEP Team wh have knwledge r special expertise abut the child), (f)(relating t the participatin f the Part C service crdinatr r ther representatives f the Part C system at the initial IEP Team meeting fr a child previusly served under Part C f the Act). 34 C.F.R (b). In W.K. v. Harrisn Sch. Dist., 113 LRP (8 th Cir. 2013, unpublished), the Arkansas district failed t prvide prper ntice fr the emergency IEP team meeting. The district curt determined that the effect f the prcedural errr was mitigated because W.K. and E.K. knew befre the meeting that C.K. s aggressive behavir and the safety f HSD staff wuld be issues n the agenda, and thus they were prvided sme level f participatin in the meeting. C.K. was suspended fr an assault after his paraprfessinal had t seek emergency medical services. The Eighth Circuit determined that there was n clear errr in the district curt s determinatins that C.K. s placement was nt decided befre the September 2 meeting, and that W.K. and E.K. were given multiple pprtunities after September 2 t meet with HSD and wrk ut placement fr C.K. The district backed ff f its initial recmmendatins fr hme instructin in respnse t the parents ppsitin Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 9 f 21

10 In Wrthing City Sch. Dist., 59 IDELR 149 (SEA OH 2012), an Ohi hearing fficer determined that the district failed t prvide prper ntice fr an IEP team meeting when it failed t indicate that the special educatin supervisr wuld be serving as the administratr in an upcming IEP team meeting. The special educatin supervisr was listed as ther. 19. Can a parent require the district, charter, r shared services arrangement t have specific emplyees attend an ARD cmmittee meeting? N. Accrding t the U.S. Department f Educatin: [I]t is imprtant t emphasize that it is the public agency that determines the specific persnnel t fill the rles fr the public agency s required participants at the IEP Team meeting. A parent des nt have a legal right t require ther members f the IEP Team t attend an IEP Team meeting. Therefre, if a parent invites ther public agency persnnel wh are nt designated by the LEA t be n the IEP Team, they are nt required t attend. 71 Fed. Reg (August 14, 2006). In Letter t Rangel-Diaz, 58 IDELR 78 (OSEP 2011), OSEP states: If the public agency designates the related service prvider as a required IEP Team member, the public agency must ensure that the individual attends the child s IEP Team meeting, unless the excusal prvisins in [the regulatins] are met. OSEP cnfirms that a parent des nt have a legal right t require a public agency persn t attend the meeting. The letter ntes, the general rule that related services prviders d nt have t attend IEP Team meetings, but then muddies the water by adding that if a child with a disability has an identified need fr related services, it wuld be apprpriate fr the related services persnnel t attend the meeting. 20. Can a parent require us t have all f the general educatin teachers fr a particular student at an ARD cmmittee meeting? Accrding t the U.S. Department f Educatin: With regard t situatins in which there is mre than ne regular educatin teacher, the IEP Team need nt include mre than ne regular educatin teacher. The regular educatin teacher wh serves as a member f a child s IEP Team shuld be a teacher wh is, r may be, respnsible fr implementing a prtin f the IEP s that the teacher can participate in discussins abut hw best t instruct the child. If the child has mre than ne regular educatin teacher respnsible fr carrying ut a prtin f the IEP, the LEA may designate which teacher r teachers will serve as the IEP member(s), taking int accunt the best interest f the child. An LEA culd als agree that each teacher attend nly the part f the meeting that invlves mdificatin t, r discussin f, the teacher s area f the curriculum. 71 Fed. Reg (August 14, 2006). 21. Can we require parents t prvide advance ntice f any persns they intend t bring t an ARD cmmittee meeting? We can ask, but we cannt require the parent t tell us. Frm Letter t Marshall, 211 IDELR 266 (OSEP 1981): [T]here is n prvisin in the [IDEA] regulatins which requires parents t give prir ntificatin t the agency regarding thse peple they intend t bring t an IEP meeting. The agency may request this infrmatin as a curtesy, but they may nt [require ntificatin] in advance f that persn's intentin t cme. 22. Can a parent bring an advcate t an ARD cmmittee meeting? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 10 f 21

11 Yes. In fact, OSEP has interpreted IDEA t permit a parent t have an advcate at an IEP Team meeting even if the parent is nt present: We find nthing in [the IDEA regulatins] that wuld require that a parent be present at the IEP meeting in rder t have a persn that the parent determines has special knwledge r expertise regarding the child at the meeting as a member f the IEP team. Letter t Serwecki, 44 IDELR 8 (OSEP 2005). 23. One f ur principals rutinely tells the advcate nt t speak in an ARD cmmittee meeting. Shuld we d that? OSEP has stated: individuals wh are invlved in an IEP meeting at the discretin f a child's parent(s) are participants in the IEP meeting and are permitted t actively take part in the prceedings. Letter t Tkarz, 221 IDELR 316 (OSEP 1983). 24. Can we require parents t prvide advance ntice f any issues they intend t raise at an ARD cmmittee meeting? N, but we can ask. The Office fr Special Educatin Prgram (OSEP) addressed this issue in its Letter t Nrthrp, 113 LRP (OSEP 5/21/13). In respnse t an inquiry regarding whether the schl district s new plicy requiring parents t prvide ntice f any issues they plan t raise at an ARD cmmittee meeting at least three days befre the meeting. The district relied n a previus OSEP letter prviding guidance t public agencies develping criteria specific t the intrductin at IEP meetings f a privately-btained evaluatin, as the infrmatin in that evaluatin culd be cmplex and may require significant review by the public agency prir t any discussins regarding its utility. Practical Strategies Begin scheduling an ARD cmmittee meeting well in advance f the deadline t avid last minute pressures t cmply with timelines. Remember t dcument all effrts t cntact the parent; including printing cpies f s, making phne lgs, and making certain the parent has a cpy f the ntice f ARD cmmittee meeting in hand at least five schl days befre the meeting. Cmplete the ntice with required infrmatin, including wh will be attending the meeting t avid any claim that parents were unprepared, because they did nt knw wh wuld be attending. Avid predeterminatin in drafting the ntice. Send a cpy f the final evaluatin reprt t parents prir t any ARD cmmittee meeting t review an evaluatin r reevaluatin. If yu send a draft IEP dcument, make certain that it is clearly marked Draft. Encurage parent input in all cmmunicatins abut the draft dcument. Offer and dcument the ffer f alternative methds fr participatin when a parent refuses t attend the meeting. We can ask parents if they have cncerns they plan t raise in an upcming ARD cmmittee meeting. Hwever, we cannt require them t prvide this infrmatin in advance f the meeting. We can ask whether a parent is bringing an advcate t the meeting, but the parent is nt required t tell us Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 11 f 21

12 #6 Exercise Leadership During the ARD Prcess 25. We are struggling t get thrugh the ARD prcess. D yu have any suggestins? We recmmend using an agenda t facilitate parent participatin and t ensure efficient use f time in ARD cmmittee meetings. Using an agenda can assist the nte taker in memrializing the decisins f the ARD cmmittee in the deliberatins. 26. What rder shuld we use in the agenda? We recmmend trying t fllw the rder f ur paperwrk t develp an agenda that wrks fr the district. 27. What d we d when the parent r an advcate refuses t fllw the agenda? We recmmend prviding an pprtunity early in the meeting fr parent cncerns. This may help facilitate the prcess. In additin, when they insist n mving frward with an item ut f rder, redirect them t where in the agenda their particular cncern will be addressed. Encurage the parent r advcate t make a nte if they are cncerned that they will frget it later. Cnsider stpping during each prtin f an evaluatin t prvide parents the pprtunity t ask questins. The same strategy may be helpful in addressing prgress reprts, present levels, gals and bjectives, accmmdatins, and deliberatins. 28. What can we d t ensure that the parents have the pprtunity t participate meaningfully in the ARD cmmittee meeting? (1) Treat everyne with respect. Ensure that mdel gd ARD etiquette by nt interrupting the parent r each ther. Avid all side cnversatins during the ARD cmmittee meeting. Train staff t maintain prfessinal bdy language and facial expressins. (2) Keep an pen mind at the meeting. Remember, answers such as we ve never dne it that way befre, r we dn t d that here, r yu can suggest it, but that desn t mean we have t prvide it, can get the schl district int truble if the parents later challenge that they were denied the imprtant prcedural safeguard f participatin in the develpment f their child s IEP. (3) Use the agenda t guide the IEP team meeting. When preparing the agenda fr the IEP team meeting, always include a statement n the face f the agenda that parents are encuraged t participate thrughut the prcess, asking questins and vicing suggestins and/r cncerns. (4) Cnsider prpsals made by the parents very carefully. Dn t autmatically discunt thse prpsals r suggestins. Cnsider them. While nt every suggestin made by the parents must be adpted, each shuld be cnsidered. (5) Cnsider prpsals made by private experts r evaluatrs. Once an IEE reprt has been furnished t the schl district, the IEP team must cnsider the results f that evaluatin. Statements such as n matter what the independent evaluatr says, the District has already decided what the prgram will be, r we are refusing the utside reprt, can be used later against the schl district as evidence f predeterminatin. (6) Maintain gd dcumentatin. #7 Knw What Cnstitutes a Free Apprpriate Public Educatin (FAPE) 29. What is a Free Apprpriate Public Educatin (FAPE)? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 12 f 21

13 FAPE is defined in Federal Regulatins as fllws: Free apprpriate public educatin r FAPE means special educatin and related services that (a) Are prvided at public expense under public supervisin and directin, and withut charge; (b) Meet the standards f the SEA [State Educatin Agency], including the requirements f this part; (c) Include an apprpriate preschl, elementary schl, r secndary schl educatin in the State invlved; and (d) Are prvided in cnfrmity with an individualized educatin prgram (IEP) that meets the requirements f thrugh C.F.R Case law prvides additinal assistance in understanding FAPE. The United States Supreme Curt in Hendrick Hudsn Central Sch. Dist. v. Rwley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), applied a tw prng analysis t determine whether a schl district had met its bligatin t prvide a FAPE, as fllws: (i) (ii) Whether the district cmplied with the prcedural requirements f IDEA, and Whether the district ffered a prgram t the student that was reasnably calculated t prvide educatinal benefit. In additin, the Fifth Circuit, in Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir. 1997), prvided a fur-factr test t analyze whether a District prvided a FAPE: (i) (ii) Whether the prgram is individualized n the basis f the student s assessment and perfrmance; Whether the prgram is administered in the least restrictive envirnment (LRE); The Fifth Circuit prvides factrs fr determining the Least Five Factrs fr Determining LRE: (1) Has the district taken steps t accmmdate the child with a disability in regular educatin? (2) Are the effrts sufficient r tken? (3) Will the child receive an educatinal benefit frm regular educatin? (4) What will be the child s verall educatinal experience in the mainstreamed envirnment, balancing the benefits f regular and special educatin? (5) What effect des the presence f the child with a disability have n the regular classrm envirnment? Daniel R.R. v. SBOE, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989). (iii) Whether the services are prvided in a crdinated and cllabrative manner by the key stakehlders; and (iv) Whether psitive academic and nn-academic benefits are demnstrated. #8 Use the Deliberatins Sectin t Dcument the Prvisin f a FAPE 30. What d we have t put in the minutes r deliberatins sectin f ur ARD dcument? There is n legal requirement fr us t include deliberatins in the ARD dcument. Hwever, [t]he written reprt f the ARD cmmittee shall dcument the decisins f the cmmittee with respect t issues discussed at the meeting. 19 T.A.C (e) (emphasis added). 31. What are the benefits f well-written deliberatins? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 13 f 21

14 Well-written deliberatins dcument parent participatin at a time prir t any litigatin being anticipated. In ur experience the deliberatins supprt the checked bxes in the ARD dcument. 32. What are sme helpful pinters fr deliberatins? We d nt recmmend attempts t take dwn wrd-fr-wrd deliberatins. Inevitably, we will include nly the issues and fail t include the final decisins f the cmmittee. We suggest inclusin f a statement that the minutes are nt intended t serve as a transcript. Avid cnclusry statements. The deliberatins prvide pprtunity fr clarificatin regarding hw an accmmdatin is ging t be implemented, hw success will be determined befre mving t a lesser restrictive envirnment, hw data will be cllected, hw frequently the parent will be cntacted, r ther items that are nt included elsewhere in the ARD paperwrk. 33. Shuld we write dwn wh attended the meeting in the ARD deliberatins? We recmmend using an attendance sheet at the beginning f the meeting t dcument wh is in attendance. This helps the administratr check t be sure all required members are present. If a member wh is nt a required member f the ARD cmmittee leaves early, the attendance sheet culd serve t dcument the time they left the meeting r yu may d s in the deliberatins. 34. What d we need t put in the deliberatins if the parent brings an Independent Educatinal Evaluatin r infrmatin frm the student s physician t an ARD cmmittee meeting? If a parent brings in an independent educatinal evaluatin, the deliberatins need t reflect ur review and cnsideratin f it. We need t include a reference t the additinal time taken by the cmmittee t read the reprt. Where the recmmendatins cntained in the IEE supprt ur prgramming we need t nte it. If we disagree with a recmmendatin r a finding, we need t indicate the reasn fr the disagreement in the deliberatins. 35. What shuld I d if my minute taking skills are nt able t keep up with the pace f the ARD cmmittee meeting? We are nt making a transcript. We are nt curt reprters. The ARD cmmittee deliberatins indicate the matters that were discussed and memrialize any decisins that are nt therwise indicated in ur paperwrk. In sme instances, infrmatin frm the deliberatins clarifies entries made in ther sectins f the ARD dcument (i.e., preferential seating away frm the dr, nte-taking assistance by having the student shw a gd faith effrt t take minutes t receive an additinal cpy f the teacher s ntes, etc.). 36. What if I get behind? We recmmend asking the cmmittee t wait a minute t permit the nte taker t catch up with the discussin. Duble check t be sure yu are nt including t much infrmatin. 37. What shuld be included in the deliberatins? Our deliberatins need t reflect careful cnsideratin f parent cncerns and requests. Deliberatins shuld reflect the parent s cncern and the district s respnse. Incmplete thughts are nt helpful when it appears that we did nt respnd. 38. Are there any ptential prblems regarding deliberatins? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 14 f 21

15 Yes. Staff r parents will ccasinally make statements that appear t indicate an administrative reasn fr decisins made. Frequently, this is crrected withut reference in the deliberatins. In additin, we will catch the first part f a statement and miss the clarifying infrmatin that fllws. Active listening is essential. In additin, deliberatins cntaining incrrect infrmatin may lead t cnfusin in implementatin. If there are internal incnsistencies between the ARD paperwrk and the deliberatins, we are nt clear what services were agreed t by the ARD cmmittee. 39. What can we d when it takes frever t review the deliberatins? We can stp at a reasnable place in the ARD prcess, review the minutes t that pint, and make a nte in the deliberatins that the minutes were reviewed t that pint. This ensures that parents d nt relive each area f cnflict after we reach cnsensus. This prvides the administratr with the pprtunity t encurage staff t pay attentin as we review the deliberatins t ensure the deliberatins accurately dcument what the ARD cmmittee decided t d. 40. What if the parent refuses t sign ff n the deliberatins? We d nt recmmend apprving f r signing ff n the deliberatins. We just need t review them t make any changes that are clearly errneus. If the parents suggest things they want included, prir t making any changes, ensure that their suggestins actually ccurred during the meeting. If they prpse many changes r additins, prvide them the pprtunity t attach their wn statements t the ARD dcument t avid extensive cnflict ver the deliberatins. 41. What d we d when the parent s versin f the deliberatins is nt the same as urs? Remember, we attach any parent statement t the ARD dcument. It remains with the dcument. Hwever, smene needs t review the dcument t ensure that the parent is nt raising additinal cncerns in the parent s versin f the ARD deliberatins that require ARD cmmittee actin and were nt discussed by the ARD cmmittee. 42. What if we run ut f time? If we d nt have enugh time, the ARD cmmittee can agree t adjurn and recnvene n anther day t finish develping the student s IEP. See 19 T.A.C (h)(1). We shuld nte that the cmmittee ran ut f time in the deliberatins. If the cmmittee determined a date t cntinue the meeting, we shuld include the new date and time in the deliberatins. 43. What d we d if the parent des nt indicate agreement n the signature page? When mutual agreement abut all required elements f the IEP is nt achieved, the party (the parents r adult student) wh disagrees shall be ffered a single pprtunity t have the cmmittee recess fr a perid f time nt t exceed ten schl days. This recess is nt required when the student s presence n the campus presents a danger f physical harm t the student r thers r when the student has cmmitted an expellable ffense r an ffense which may lead t a placement in an alternative educatin prgram (AEP) 19 T.A.C (h)(1). The date, time, and place fr cntinuing the ARD cmmittee meeting must be determined by mutual agreement prir t the recess. 19 T.A.C (h)(3). In this circumstance, the ARD deliberatins shuld include the new date and time. 44. What d we d during the recess? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 15 f 21

16 The ARD cmmittee members cnsider alternatives, gather additinal data, prepare further dcumentatin, and/r btain additinal resurce persns t help the ARD cmmittee reach mutual agreement. 19 T.A.C (h)(2). 45. Is there anything else we need t d after the ARD cmmittee ends? We must cmply with the legal requirement t issue a prir written ntice cnsistent with 34 C.F.R Remember we need t keep ur prmises. If prmises are made during the meeting, we shuld nte wh is respnsible fr each prmise. #9 Prvide PWN When Required 46. What infrmatin d we have frm TEA regarding Prir Written Ntice? On Octber 14, 2010, the Texas Educatin Agency (TEA) published the TEA Q&A dcument pertaining t Prir Written Ntice, which can be fund at: TEA wants us t pay mre attentin t PWN, what must be included, when it must be issued, and reminds us that PWN must be issued fllwing an ARD cmmittee meeting even in thse instances when all parties agree. 47. What must be included in a Prir Written Ntice? The prir written ntice must include: (1) A descriptin f the actin prpsed r refused by the agency; (2) An explanatin f why the agency prpses r refuses t take the actin; (3) A descriptin f each evaluatin prcedure, assessment, recrd, r reprt the agency used as a basis fr the prpsed r refused actin; (4) A statement that the parents f a child with a disability have prtectin under the prcedural safeguards f this part and, if this ntice is nt an initial referral fr evaluatin, the means by which a cpy f a descriptin f the prcedural safeguards can be btained; (5) Surces fr parents t cntact t btain assistance in understanding the prvisins f this part; (6) A descriptin f ther ptins that the IEP Team cnsidered and the reasns why thse ptins were rejected; and (7) A descriptin f ther factrs that are relevant t the agency s prpsal r refusal. 34 C.F.R (b). If the dcumentatin yu create thrugh use f yur district s sftware cmbined with yur minutes des nt clearly satisfy each f the seven factrs listed abve, yur ARD dcumentatin is nt in cmpliance with IDEA r recent TEA guidance. If yu discver that yur dcumentatin is nt in strict cmpliance, we recmmend use f a separate frm fr issuance f PWN. Please als nte that best practice is t always prvide a cpy f the Ntice f Prcedural Safeguards t the parent(s) and t nte in the minutes if they accepted (r rejected) their cpy. 48. May we use the ARD recrd (printut f ur sftware-assisted dcumentatin plus written minutes r tape-recrded minutes) as the Prir Written Ntice? 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 16 f 21

17 Yes, but nly if that dcumentatin meets all f the elements f PWN listed abve. The U.S. Department f Educatin wrte: There is nthing in the Act r these regulatins that wuld prhibit a public agency frm using the IEP as part f the prir written ntice s lng as the dcument(s) the parent receives meet all the requirements in Fed. Reg (emphasis added). Mre recently, the Office f Special Educatin Prgrams (OSEP) agreed and wrte: Written ntice required under 34 CFR must meet the cntent requirement in 34 CFR (b). The Analysis f Cmments and Changes t the regulatins indicate that nthing in the IDEA r the regulatins wuld prhibit a public agency frm using the IEP as part f the prir written ntice s lng as the dcument(s) the parent receives meets all the requirements in 34 CFR Letter t Lieberman, 52 IDELR 18 (OSEP 2008). 49. Why is cmpliance with the seven cmpnents f Prir Written Ntice s imprtant? Failure t prvide PWN culd subject the schl district t legal liability beynd the ne year statute f limitatins. In Texas, a parent must request a due prcess hearing within ne year f the date the cmplainant knew r shuld have knwn abut the alleged actin that serves as the basis fr the hearing request. 19 Tex. Admin. Cde (c). There are tw exceptins t the applicatin f the statute f limitatins rules under the IDEA. Claims that arse prir t the State's ne year statute f limitatins are nt barred if the parent was prevented frm requesting the hearing due t -- (i) (ii) Specific misrepresentatins by the lcal educatin agency that it had reslved the prblem frming the basis f the cmplaint; r The lcal educatin agency's withheld infrmatin frm the parent that was it was therwise required t prvide. 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(D); 34 C.F.R (f)(1)(2). Hearing Officers and curts interpret (ii) t include the prvisin f PWN since it is infrmatin that a schl district is required t prvide the parents pursuant t 34 C.F.R (a). The ther required infrmatin referred t by (ii) is the Prcedural Safeguards. 50. Under what circumstances are schls required t give parents Prir Written Ntice? IDEA states that written ntice must be given t a parent: A reasnable time befre the public agency (i) (ii) Prpses t initiate r change the identificatin, evaluatin, r educatinal placement f the child r the prvisin f FAPE t the child; r Refuses t initiate r change the identificatin, evaluatin, r educatinal placement f the child r the prvisin f FAPE t the child Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 17 f 21

18 34 C.F.R (a). TEA guidance is clearly intended t remind us that the duty t issue PWN is much brader than the disagreement ARD cmmittee meeting. Fr example, see these TEA Frequently Asked Questins Prir Written Ntice issued in Octber 2010: Questin 4: Must an LEA prvide a parent r an adult student with prir written ntice in every instance where a student s IEP is changed? Respnse: Yes. Prir written ntice is required whenever a student s IEP is changed. Questin 5: Must an LEA prvide prir written ntice t a parent r an adult student even if the parent r adult student has agreed t the prpsed change? Respnse: Yes. An LEA must prvide prir written ntice regardless f whether the parent agrees r disagrees with the change. Frequently Asked Questins, available n the Texas Educatin Agency s website at: If Prir Written Ntice is required befre we prpse an actin, des that mean befre we suggest an actin? N. The use f the wrd prpse may be cnfusing because it culd be interpreted t mean that PWN is required befre the schl cnsiders r suggests r thinks abut prpsing an actin. Hwever, we believe that in recent TEA guidance, prpse means decided. Remember that the purpse f PWN is t dcument decisins made by ARD cmmittee and t give parents adequate ntice befre the decisin is implemented. The district cannt make any decisins abut placement r IEP cntent prir t an ARD meeting. The Department f Educatin explains it like this: Prviding prir written ntice in advance f meetings culd suggest, in sme circumstances, that the public agency s prpsal was imprperly arrived at befre the meeting and withut parent input. Therefre, we are nt changing t require the prir written ntice t be prvided prir t an IEP Team meeting. 71 Fed. Reg PWN is required befre an actin (the prpsal r refusal) is implemented, nt befre it is discussed. The Department f Educatin explains it this way, a public agency meets the requirements in s lng as the prir written ntice is prvided a reasnable time befre the public agency implements the prpsal (r refusal) described in the ntice. 71 Fed. Reg When is PWN required by IDEA? TEA reminds us that PWN is required befre the district prpses r refuses t initiate r change the identificatin, evaluatin, r educatinal placement f the child r the prvisin f FAPE t the child. If there is n initiatin r change then yu d nt have t prvide PWN regarding that particular issue f identificatin, evaluatin, educatinal placement r FAPE. Fr example, if the student was identified as a student with a Learning Disability ( LD ) at the previus ARD cmmittee meeting, and the LD eligibility is cntinued at the current ARD Cmmittee meeting, PWN regarding LD is nt required because there was n initiatin r change f identificatin regarding LD. PWN is nly required fr the initiatins r changes in identificatin, evaluatin, placement, r FAPE Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 18 f 21

19 53. Is Prir Written Ntice required befre implementatin f an IEP Amendment which is cmpleted utside f an ARD cmmittee meeting? Yes. Remember, PWN is required when the District prpses t initiate r change the identificatin, evaluatin, educatinal placement, r the prvisin f FAPE t the child- even if such decisins are made thrugh an IEP Amendment. Keep in mind, hwever, that placement decisins cannt be made thrugh an amendment utside f an ARD cmmittee meeting. Yur district can determine the prcedure regarding when t send PWN n an IEP amendment, but remember, a premature PWN can give the appearance f predeterminatin and cnsequentially, a denial f FAPE. Mst likely, the best time t send PWN n an IEP amendment is after the parent indicates agreement with the IEP amendment. 54. Are there ther circumstances in which Prir Written Ntice is required? PWN must als be given t a parent fllwing the parent s written revcatin f cnsent fr special educatin services, as fllws: If, at any time subsequent t the initial prvisin f special educatin and related services, the parent f a child revkes cnsent in writing fr the cntinued prvisin f special educatin and related services, the public agency (i) May nt cntinue t prvide special educatin and related services t the child, but must prvide prir written ntice in accrdance with befre ceasing the prvisin f special educatin and related services. 34 C.F.R (b)(4)(i). While this ntificatin is called Prir Written Ntice, mst schl districts use a specialized ntificatin frm when a parent revkes the right t special educatin. 55. Des IDEA include specific timelines fr prviding a Prir Written Ntice? N, except in the cntext f a due prcess hearing request, the IDEA and its implementing regulatins d nt specify a timeline, ther than a reasnable time befre the schl district prpses r refuses t initiate r change. The U.S. Department f Educatin (USDE) was asked t add a specific timeline t the regulatins but declined: We d nt believe that it is necessary t substitute a specific timeline t clarify what is meant by the requirement that the ntice be prvided within a reasnable perid f time, because we are nt aware f significant prblems in the timing f prir written ntices. In additin, prir written ntice is prvided in a wide variety f circumstances fr which any ne timeline wuld be t rigid and, in many cases, might prve unwrkable. 71 Fed. Reg Texas, n the ther hand, has substituted a specific timeline. Reasnable time required fr the written ntice t parents under 34 CFR is defined as at least five schl days, unless the parents agree therwise. 19 T.A.C An LEA must prvide prir written ntice at least five schl days befre it implements the prpsal r refusal described in the ntice, unless the parent r adult student agrees therwise. This means that a student s new r revised IEP cannt be 2013 Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 19 f 21

20 implemented until at least five schl days after the LEA prvides the prir written ntice. Frequently Asked Questins respnse t Questin # Is PWN required after the initial recessed r pstpned ARD cmmittee meeting? N. PWN is required after the district makes a decisin. The purpse f the ten-day recess is fr bth parties t gather additinal infrmatin and recnvene. It wuld be inapprpriate (and pssibly a sign f predeterminatin) fr the district t issue PWN befre the ten-day recnvened ARD cmmittee meeting. (Remember: PWN is nt prvided until after the ten-day recess because the meeting isn t ver until after the tenday recess). 57. Is Prir Written Ntice required befre a disciplinary change f placement? We d nt think s. If the district fllws the federal rules regarding disciplinary prcedures, the parent will have received plenty f ntice f the prpsed disciplinary actin befre the ARD Cmmittee meets. Remember that the principal is required t give the parent ntice f a prpsed change f placement n the day that decisin is made which is at least five schl days prir t the ARD meeting. Best practice appears t be t prvide tw dcuments that wuld satisfy the PWN requirement ne given by the principal befre the ARD and ne given by the ARD t dcument the decisins made at the meeting. Furthermre, remember that IDEA prvides that if the student s behavir is determined nt t be a manifestatin f his r her disability, schl persnnel may apply the relevant disciplinary prcedures in the same manner and fr the same duratin as the prcedures that wuld be applied t children withut disabilities. 34 C.F.R (c). Finally, parents f disabled children have the right t request expedited due prcess hearings related t disciplinary remvals. 34 C.F.R After a due prcess cmplaint is filed, students must remain in the disciplinary setting ( stay put des nt apply) unless the hearing fficer determines therwise. 34 C.F.R #10 Cmmunicate The majrity f legal issues can be traced back t a breakdwn in cmmunicatins between the parents and the schl district staff. It is critical that District staff keep parents infrmed n their student s prgress, and respnd t and infrmatinal inquiries made by a student s parent(s). Gd cmmunicatin can avid future legal issues. Practical Strategies Review deliberatins as yu g t avid reliving the events f the whle meeting. Ensure that the deliberatins reflect cnsideratin f infrmatin prvided by parents, including infrmatin frm Independent Educatinal Evaluatins (IEEs). Ensure dcumentatin f the district s respnse t parental cncerns. Optins cnsidered n the prir written ntice dcument may be anther gd place t dcument the district s cnsideratin f and respnse t parent cncerns Walsh, Andersn, Gallegs, Green & Treviñ P.C. Page 20 f 21