Sunday, March 7, 2010

Brain Thaw

The sun has come out. I have my formal complaint filed, I am just waiting to here from the State BOE. If interested, here it is. Hope this helps if any of you ever have to do it, although I pray you never will. (all names have been replaced with *****) Let me know what you think, now that I feel I have a degree in special education law! LOL

Attachment to Formal Complaint

Note: Exhibits are attached with complaint. Recording is in minutes from the recording this parent made during the meeting.


#1 Failure to do Reevaluations in a timely manner.
--The District failed to not only provide but did not even begin the reevaluation process within the required time frame. The triennial reevaluations were due on March 8, 2009. (Exhibits A, B, C, D) The District did not even request for the reevaluations to be done until September 23, 2009 (Exhibit E). The District is out of compliance with IDEA part D Sec 300.303. Even being late, they were not done in a timely manner nor provided in a timely manner. The reports were still being done up until the IEP meeting on February 8, 2010. (Exhibit F.1) The District is out of compliance with IDEA part D Sec 300.301 (c) 1.i.
#2 Failure to comply with request to Review Records and Inspect Records in a timely manner
--The District failed to allow this parent to inspect and review any and all reports prior to the IEP meeting scheduled on January 26, 2010. An email was sent to *****, Resource & Case Manager, on January 20, 2010, requesting any of the reports, updates evaluations (which should have been triennial reevaluations) prior to the January 26, 2010, IEP meeting (Exhibit G) Only 2 reports were received, occupational therapy & physical therapy. The meeting had to be re-scheduled for February 9, 2010. Again, an email was sent on February 1, 2010 requesting the remaining reports (Exhibit H). An incomplete speech/language report was sent home with ***** on February 8, 2010 (Exhibit F.2). The District is out of compliance with IDEA 300.613 (a) comply with a request without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP
#3 Failure to comply with request to Review Records and Inspect Records in a timely manner
-- The District failed to allow this parent to review & inspect the psychology triennial reevaluation when requested. Emails were sent by this parent on January 20, 2010 & on February 1, 2010 (Exhibits G, H), requesting to review any reports prior to the IEP meeting. An email was sent on February 4, 2010, by *****, Resource & Case Manager. It stated that the school psychologist’s supervisor rather them go over the results with parents in person & she would be happy to do it 30 minutes prior to the meeting (Exhibit I). I then inquired during the IEP meeting on February 9, 2010 (which was recorded by this parent & The District), why I couldn't have had the report prior to since it is my right. *****, school psychologist, stated “it is our county policy to not” (Recording 1:46:52). The District is out of compliance with IDEA 300.613 (a). comply with a request without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP
--The District has failed to allow this parent to review any data collection or anecdotal made supporting the IEP goals. This parent asked multiple times during February 9, 2010, IEP meeting to see the data supporting goals from disciplines (SL/T Recording 1:40:12, 59:44; OT Recording 1:03:34; Resource Recording 21:05). As of this writing, no data has ever been provided to this parent. The District is out of compliance with IDEA 300.613 (a). comply with a request without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP

#4 Failure to do Re-evaluations in a timely manner.
---The District failed to do a formal physical therapy reevaluation for my daughter’s triennial reevaluation (Recording 1:12:45). The physical therapist, *****, submitted a report to us on January 27, 2010, for the February 9, 2010, IEP meeting (Exhibit J,). The report was almost the same report from January 2009 (Exhibit K). It had errors in it as well (Exhibit J.1, J.2). The District is out of compliance of IDEA part D Sec 300.303 (b) (2) must occur at least once every 3 years.

#5 Failure to make Assistive Technology Available in order to receive FAPE
---The District has failed to provide what is required for my daughter to access all of her learning materials through her Assistive Technology (a label maker for answering worksheets, a word processor for writing homework) (Exhibit L). Instead the District has continued to require me to fund the label maker & refills, printer ink for school, printer ink for home, paper etc. (Exhibits M & O, Recording 53:40, 53:32 52:19) The occupational therapy reevaluation (January 12, 2010) clearly shows a need for Assistive Technology, listing label maker & computer (Exhibit N). The OT also stated during February 9. 2010, meeting that “underlying skills to complete written expression in a traditional fashion are limited and delayed, so there has to be some type of strategies for written expression” (Recording 54:28). The District has also refused to include the exact needs within the IEP as requested, only placing AT- Adapted Writing Tools under Supplementary Aids on the IEP (Exhibit R). The District is out of compliance with IDEA 602 (2) (B) purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by such child; 300.6 (c) Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing assistive technology devices & 300.105 (b) On a case-by-case basis, the use of school-purchased assistive technology devices in a child's home or in other settings is required if the child's IEP Team determines that the child needs access to those devices in order to receive FAPE.

#6 The District Failed to provide FAPE by addressing goals that were met, instead continued to just allow the skills to stagnate instead of proposing new objectives/goals for there to be consistent educational progress (Exhibits P & Q).

#7 The District has failed to appropriately include within the IEP what is necessary for my daughter to travel safely on the bus under supplementary aids/services. A letter of concern in regards to bus safety was submitted by Dr. ***** at IEP meeting held April 28, 2009 (Exhibit S). These parents also expressed concern in The District wanting to remove daughter from a five point harness on the bus at meeting on February 9, 2010 (Recording 1:07:39). The principal, ***** stated “Assistant said she is getting too big for car seat on the bus. The driver has suggested maybe looking at a seat belt.” (Recording 1:09:34, 1:08:00) Parent stated “Seems straps need to be readjusted every morning like a smaller child rides in the seat too” (Recording 1:06:25, 28:37). The District is out of compliance with **** State Board of Education Rule 0520-1-9-.05 (3) (d). There were also bussing recommendations made at April 28, 2009 meeting that were not added back to current IEP (Exhibit T, PT discussed this Recording 1:09:15). A letter with list of objections was sent on February 23, 2010, to **** (Exhibit U). As of writing of this complaint, no reply has been made by The District.

#8 The District has continually failed to appropriately include any of our parental concerns on the IEP (Exhibits U& V). The February 9, 2010 IEP Parent Concerns part is left blank, even though we had several concerns in the meeting (Exhibit V, Recording: 1:28:45, 57:03, 56:00, 30:42, 24:50, 14:42) We were never formally asked our concerns as meetings in the past. The IEP is left blank on the parents stated draft (Exhibit V).

5 comments:

Candace said...

Ouch, girl! Put them in their places for your daughter's sake! Hope it brings about some positive changes in the schools....

The Henrys said...

Wow, good job on this. Keep us posted.

Nancy said...

LMAO!!! This is freaking fantastic. What is mind boggling to me is just how out of compliance they are. I could barely make it past your first point without laughing. And to just leave the parent concerns blank?? Good lord, that is the second thing you do in any meeting. The first is go over current levels of performance overall and the very next thing is address parent concerns.
How many special education children are in the district? Just think about what the other IEPs look like for kids who have parents that don't know what their child is entitled to! That's the scariest part to me. Not sure if this is an option, but is there someway that you could pursue an audit on the district to look at all of their IEPs? Cause I am sure MM is not the only child who is suffering at the hands of these people. Maybe an audit follows when a suit is brought against the district, not sure. It might be something to ask your lawyer about though. If you can get the district audited, then all of this will be worth the struggle as not only will things be better for MM, but for all of the kids who do have IEPs there.
Good luck! I can't wait to see what they have to say to this.

MeghatronsMom said...

I have no idea how many SE kids are in the district. Some of this is just THIS school. When I called the BOE they asked if I tried to work it out- DUH, the freakin' principal sits in all of our meetings since I am a "high profile" parent (what that means is I know my rights & won't take their BS). I can almost guarantee there are so many others who are suffering in this district.

Even if I only make one ounce of difference, then yes, this is ALL worth it. This is for the children & especially MY child.

I too am anxiously awaiting a reply from the state BOE.

Nancy said...

I had to giggle at your "high profile" comment. That is exactly what we call some parents in our district. Although the term has a little bit of a different meaning in my district. Most of the parents I deal with definitely know their rights before even entering the building, but they have a tendency to be a bit demanding. So that's what we use the term for.

I can not wait to hear what they have to say about all of this!!