(a) General.

(1) Each public agency must ensure that extended school year services are available as necessary to provide FAPE, consistent with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(2) Extended school year services must be provided only if a child’s IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with 300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child.

(3) In implementing the requirements of this section, a public agency may not—

(i) Limit extended school year services to particular categories of disability; or

(ii) Unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services.

(b) Definition. As used in this section, the term extended school year services means special education and related services

that—

(1) Are provided to a child with a disability—

(i) Beyond the normal school year of the public agency;

(ii) In accordance with the child’s IEP; and

(iii) At no cost to the parents of the child; and

(2) Meet the standards of the State Educational Authority (SEA).

IDEA does not define how to determine which children will need ESY to be provided FAPE, but it does say that it will be up to each IEP team to determine eligibility and services on an individualized basis.  There is however, case law which can help guide the IEP team on ESY eligibility and services:

1. The IEP Team must not use one single criteria as a sole qualifying factor;
2. The IEP team must review how much regression the child will have during the time away from school.  Regression is defined as a decline in knowledge and skills that can result in a disruption in education;
3. The IEP Team must review how long the recoupment period would be after the time away from school.  Recoupment is defined as the amount of time it will take to regain the prior levels of functioning;
4. The IEP team must review whether the child has any new or emerging skills that might be lost during a prolonged time away from school;
5. The IEP team must review whether benefits gained during regular school year will be significantly jeopardized during a prolonged time away from school.  These benefits could include academics, behavior, life skills and other special circumstances or factors;
6. The IEP Team must review the degree of the child’s disability; and
7. The IEP team must review the ability of the parent’s to provide structure at home.

It is important to note that ESY also extends to Related Services in the child’s IEP.  Thus, if a child is eligible for ESY they may also receive related services during ESY.

April 24, 2013

Dear Colleague:

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education (Department) is responsible for enforcing Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age by recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipient(s)) from the Department.1 Although a significant portion of the complaints filed with OCR in recent years have included retaliation claims, OCR has never before issued public guidance on this important subject. The purpose of this letter is to remind school districts, postsecondary institutions, and other recipients that retaliation is also a violation of Federal law.2 This letter seeks to clarify the basic principles of retaliation law and to describe OCR’s methods of enforcement.

The ability of individuals to oppose discriminatory practices, and to participate in OCR investigations and other proceedings, is critical to ensuring equal educational opportunity in accordance with Federal civil rights laws. Discriminatory practices are often only raised and remedied when students, parents, teachers, coaches, and others can report such practices to school administrators without the fear of retaliation. Individuals should be commended when they raise concerns about compliance with the Federal civil rights laws, not punished for doing so.

The Federal civil rights laws make it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by these laws.3 If, for example, an individual brings concerns about possible civil rights problems to a school’s attention, it is unlawful for the school to retaliate against that individual for doing so. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual because he or she made a complaint, testified, or participated in any manner in an OCR investigation or proceeding. Thus, once a student, parent, teacher, coach, or other individual complains formally or informally to a school about a potential civil rights violation or participates in an OCR investigation or proceeding, the recipient is prohibited from retaliating (including intimidating, threatening, coercing, or in any way discriminating against the individual) because of the individual’s complaint or participation. OCR will continue to vigorously enforce this prohibition against retaliation.

If OCR finds that a recipient retaliated in violation of the civil rights laws, OCR will seek the recipient’s voluntary commitments through a resolution agreement to take specific measures to remedy the identified noncompliance.4 Such a resolution agreement must be designed both to ensure that the individual who was retaliated against receives redress and to ensure that the recipient complies with the prohibition against retaliation in the future. OCR will determine which remedies, including monetary relief, are appropriate based on the facts presented in each specific case.

Steps OCR could require a recipient to take to ensure compliance in the future include, but are not limited to:

• training for employees about the prohibition against retaliation and ways to avoid engaging in retaliation;
• adopting a communications strategy for ensuring that information concerning retaliation is continually being conveyed to employees, which may include incorporating the prohibition against retaliation into relevant policies and procedures; and
• implementing a public outreach strategy to reassure the public that the recipient is committed to complying with the prohibition against retaliation.

If OCR finds that a recipient engaged in retaliation and the recipient refuses to voluntarily resolve the identified area(s) of noncompliance or fails to live up to its commitments in a resolution agreement, OCR will take appropriate enforcement action. The enforcement actions available to OCR include initiating administrative proceedings to suspend, terminate, or refuse to grant or continue financial assistance made available through the Department to the recipient; or referring the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.5

OCR is available to provide technical assistance to entities that request assistance in complying with the prohibition against retaliation or any other aspect of the civil rights laws OCR enforces. Please visit http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm to contact the OCR regional office that serves your state or territory.

Thank you for your help in ensuring that America’s educational institutions are free from retaliation so that concerns about equal educational opportunity can be openly raised and addressed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Seth M. Galanter

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1 OCR enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Act), and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Boy Scouts Act). OCR also shares enforcement responsibilities with the Department of Justice for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in state and local government services, programs and activities, regardless of whether they receive Federal financial assistance.

2 The Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that retaliation is a violation of the Federal civil rights laws enforced by OCR. See, e.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005); Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2003); Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002).

3 See 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (Title VI); 34 C.F.R. § 106.71 (Title IX) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (Section 504) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); and 34 C.F.R. §108.9 (Boy Scouts Act) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference). Title II and the Age Act have similar regulatory language. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (Title II); and 34 C.F.R. § 110.34 (Age Act).

4 See OCR’s Case Processing Manual for more information about resolution agreements, available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.html.

5 See 34 C.F.R. § 100.8.

Originally Published: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201304.html

As a speech pathologist and a mother of a child with autism, I have been on both sides of the IEP table. Despite significant advocacy on my part as a parent, I sat across the table from poorly informed individuals who may have had good intentions, but who were unable to serve my child appropriately because of their lack of skills and understanding. The outcomes for my child were not great, and luckily, we had the education level and resources to withdraw her and find a more adaptive setting. But it was infuriating! And, for most families, withdrawing their child from school is not an option. In my opinion, we owe it to the greater public school community to ask loudly and specifically for what our children need. If we can do that effectively, it gets better for everyone. The federal laws under NCLB and IDEA are in place to protect our children.

No matter how well your child’s IEP is written, an IEP is only as strong as the people who are implementing it. As a therapist, working in a clinic-based setting, I am often invited to IEP meetings for my patients who attend public school. I have developed a set of questions for parents to ask their providers to help find out what exactly is going on and how the IEP is being implemented.

Do you see children in groups or individually?

If your child struggles with group learning, this is important to know. His or her therapist may be following the letter of the IEP by seeing your child 2 times a week for 30 minutes. However, if that time is spent in a group with 4 other children, being constantly redirected, corrected or punished, how productive is that time? The answer that I would be looking for would go something like this: “It depends on the needs of the child. I may group children who are working on similar issues, if they have the ability, desire and self-regulation skills to participate in small-group learning activities, and if doing that would help that child develop meaningful relationships.”

How do you group the children on your caseload?

Grouping based on the convenience of schedules is one my pet peeves these days in school-based settings. So, if your child is in a group with 4 third graders who have disparate needs, how is that working for anyone in the group? Children with high-functioning autism need to be grouped with other children who have similar needs and skill levels, or with supportive peer models. Consider advocating for a lunch bunch or an afternoon snack group. Not only will this shield your child from the overstimulation of the cafeteria, it will allow for social grouping that is focused around a typically social activity: sharing a meal. Another possibility that is actually backed by research is pairing your ASD child with a more socially sophisticated peer mentor, for practicing target thinking skills.

What activities do you do to support social-emotional learning? What key concepts do you teach to all of the children on your caseload?

Whether your child is seen in a group or individually, it is important that the school-based clinician be skilled in social learning. He or she can gain a foundation in this important and growing area by reading the wealth of information at www.socialthinking.com and other sites that have resources for social emotional learning. Some key concepts to look for are: knowing what is expected and unexpected, using a social behavior map, learning about perspective taking and developing narrative skills to both understand what’s happening and be able to retell what has happened.

Do you use technology in your language and social interventions? What apps do you use to target different skills?

Understanding all of the technological options out there and becoming a discerning user will be important as technology becomes more and more ubiquitous. I am just as wary of old-school clinicians who use nothing but worksheets as I am of people who can’t function in the world without a device. There are some solid apps out in the mobile world that have the 3 components that make apps great:

• clean uncluttered design interface
• clinical soundness
• interactivity

By interactivity, I mean that the app does more than just provide the user with virtual flashcards or multiple choice questions. The apps that I am currently using are:

First Phrases

I use this app to help children who are working on combining words to make phrases. I love that the child can record themselves and play it back to assist with accuracy. They love hearing their own voices.

Articulation Station

This app is designed to give drill practice for target sounds at the sound, word and sentence level. It has a matching game component. It also has a recording and playback feature and the design interface is very easy on the eyes.

ToonTastic

ToonTastic is a cartoon-making app that helps children understand the arc of a narrative. Children get to create a setting, decide on the characters, map out a story with a problem or climax, and then create a resolution. This is a great tool for exploring big reactions, self-regulation, retelling events, or just developing vocabulary in context by creating new stories.

storysmart

I am really partial to this app because I helped develop it! I saw the need in the app world for story apps that supported social communication. This is my go-to app to help work on narrative skills, explain expected/unexpected and expectations in different settings, emotional regulation and executive function. There is a fabulous reading comprehension component – the user needs to comprehend the story in order to help the characters make good choices. The user can record their personal happy/sad sounds to get reinforcement, when they make different kinds of choices.

I also use a visual timer app to help students who need to see how much time each activity will take, or to help students who need visual support with transitions.

How do you provide consultation to classroom teachers?

Helping your child’s classroom teacher carry over key concepts and phrases in the mainstream environment is just as important as the time spent in direct treatment with your child. In order for social communication and thinking concepts to work successfully for children with social learning deficits, they need to be practiced and  reinforced  in the student’s natural setting.  Find out what social communication concepts the classroom teacher is using for the whole class. Request that the speech pathologist meet at least monthly with your child’s classroom teacher and ask for a quick email recap of the consult meetings.

Don’t Hesitate to Advocate!

Sometimes, it feels like, as parents, we need to be experts in every area of development, in order to be successful advocates. As a clinician, I really appreciate it when parents ask me specific questions about how I am delivering services to their child. You are the expert on your child, and the IEP process is, by law, supposed to be parent-driven. Don’t hold back when it comes to asking specific questions about your child’s service delivery plan.

Have a question? Send me a message at @rubycubeapps or jen@rubycubeapps.com.

Jen Minnelli is a Speech Language Pathologist with over 15 years’ experience in pediatrics. She currently works at Duke University Health System in outpatient pediatrics. Jen is also the President and co-founder of rubycube apps, www.rubycubeapps.com, developing mobile apps for exceptional minds.

I was fairly confident that I had made some headway explaining the importance of teaching spelling using an explicit, systematic, multisensory technique. I was also fairly certain I was clear that it was important to teach spelling and not to only teach sight words. I also agreed that teaching sight words was important as well. One thing I did not share in my previous article was that this student’s decoding was below average and his fluency was about 92CWPM at the end of the 5^th grade. We had also requested an Assistive Technology (AT) assessment that was completed and found to be appropriate for this student. So, as we (at the Dyslexia Training Institute we advocate in teams of two) walked in to the third IEP, yes the third IEP for a spelling goal, we were expecting a quick and easy meeting. When will I learn? Nothing is quick and easy when it comes to advocacy and dyslexia.

Are you sitting down? Below is the suggested goal for spelling verbatim:

Jake will revise his writing assignments and improve his spelling by using a word processor or portable spell checker to correctly spell at least 95% of the words measured by student work samples.

Do you need a moment to pick your mouth up off the floor? Is your heart racing with sheer frustration? If not, maybe this will get you going. I read this goal before the team had gotten there so I continued to flip through the pages in the hopes that this was just one goal of three for spelling. I was sure there another goal to actually teach spelling and one to teach the spelling of sight words. I would be wrong. This was the sole goal for spelling. Ok, now how are you feeling? If you are anything like me, this would render you speechless for a minute or two while you control your racing heart and think about the questions the attorney or compliance officer that may eventually get this case now needs you to ask.

As the resource teacher began to nonchalantly read the goal to the team I was actually expecting her to laugh and say, ‘just kidding,’ but that never came. With a straight face accompanied by the straight faces of the principal, general ed teacher and school psychologist, she looked up and said, “Are we all ok with new goal for spelling?” What? Come again?

My response: “Just to clarify, are you suggesting this goal in place of a spelling goal?”

Her response, “Yes.” – the tape is rolling.

My response: “So, you have decided that you are no longer going to teach Jason to learn to spell. Is that right?”

Her response: “Yes. Yes.” – the tape is rolling

My response: “Ok, just to be clear, you are proposing that Jason use spell check and we will no longer be teaching him to spell?”

Her response: “Yes.”

I ended the conversation there, because at that point I had the information that the attorney or compliance officer would need. It seemed we had reached a point of absurdity and to belabor the point past three IEP meeting was going to be ineffective and it was time to pass this case on to the next level. In hindsight I was happy with my questioning, but I always have the “I should have said this and I have should have said that,’ and because I intend my articles to be practical, I would advise you to add the following should you ever find yourself in this situation be it spelling, reading, writing or math:

“Do you believe that by denying Jason a spelling (or reading or math) intervention you are providing him a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE)?”

“What pedagogical theory are you relying to support this decision?”

“Do you believe Jason can learn to spell (or read or do math) with the correct intervention?”

There is a happy ending. I would not be a good advocate if I allowed the IEP to remain this way and when all was said and done, we had a great spelling goal (which I wrote ahead of time and brought with me):

When given 50 multisyllabic words that contain close, open, v-c-e, and vowel team syllables, Jason will correctly spell them with 90% accuracy in 4/5 trials as measured by teacher-kept data.

So, Jason will learn to spell and he will do so with an evidence-based program that was agreed to in the IEP meeting. The teacher is now obligated (against her will) to teach him to spell so that this GATE-identified student can be as educated to his potential.

This extremely frustrating and absurd IEP adventure got me thinking. Physicians take the Hippocratic oath to practice medicine ethically. Should educators take an oath to educate everyone? I find it unethical to deny the student spelling instruction when he is capable of learning. If there had not been an advocate involved in this case, this student would have been marginalized to the point of never knowing how to write a letter to his mom – should he decide he wanted to do that.

Dr. Kelli Sandman-Hurley is the co-founder of the Dyslexia Training Institute (www.dyslexiatraininginstitute.org and www.dyslexiadr.com.) She is currently writing, Putting the D in to the IEP, and is the co-producer of Dyslexia for a Day. She received her doctorate in Literacy with a specialization in reading and dyslexia from San Diego State University and the University of San Diego. Dr. Sandman-Hurley a Certified Special Education Advocate assisting parents and children through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and 504 Plan process.  Kelli is trained by a fellow of the Orton-Gillingham Academy and in the Lindamood-Bell, RAVE-O and Wilson Reading Programs. Kelli is the Past-President of the San Diego Branch of the International Dyslexia Association. She has presented at numerous conferences as well as provided professional development for k-12 teachers. Join the Dyslexia Training Institute at www.facebook.com/dyslexiatraining, www.twitter.com/dyslexiatrainer and www.dyslexiadr.blogspot.com.

But first, want to acknowledge that if you are like most of the parents I know raising a child with special needs, you are stressed and you are worried.

And you have good reason to be stressed.  You have good reason to be worried.

So before we talk about skills and strategies and ways to manage the big challenges on our agendas let us first say that whatever you are thinking and feeling about the situation you find yourself it is likely extremely reasonable.

When our children struggle, we struggle.  Often our children need us to be cheerleaders and advocates but we are also scared and anxious.  We are worried about the future and we may be struggling in the present.

We are all in a tricky situation.

There is the undeniable reality that things are hard.  This is especially true if you are in a transition with your child.  For example, if you are trying to find them new services or a new educational setting or you are challenging an IEP.  There is a lot of waiting involved and a lot of uncertainty.

Here is another thing: when you are raising a special needs child you do not have the luxury of pretending everything is going to be just fine.  Often, in fact many different types of professionals outline in great detail all of the ways things are not fine.

Of course families of children with special needs face all of the typical stressors that all typical families face such as issues with work, money and juggling busy hectic schedules.

So it is tricky.  These are children that need more of you but yet they are the source of a lot of stress and distress.  They need us to be the calm foundation of the family (as all children do) but yet their particular needs and demands often create very strong emotional reactions for us as parents.

The thing is though, how you deal with your personal emotional reactions matters.  How you are coping matters.  It matters for you and it matters for your children.

Here are two of my best coping techniques. I do not just teach them and talk about them as a psychologist.  I live them as the parent of a child with special needs.

1)      Letting go of Catastrophic Thoughts 

In cognitive behavioral therapy, imagining the worst possible scenario is known as catastrophic thinking.  We all do this at times. But it can lead us into very difficult emotional terrain.

Because how we think is tied to how we feel it is very important to tease out our worries and fears.  When we think in negative ways we stir up our sense of distress and doom. When this happens we may not always be able to be open to the possibilities or seeds of change in the present.

This is not to say you should you should not worry or that you should assume a good outcome when all the data points in the other direction.

Some fears and some worries are appropriate, motivating even.  No parent should ever be told not to worry or that worry is irrational. This is especially true for parents of children with special needs.  We specialize in worry.

But we can do without the thoughts and worries that lead to scary and irrational places.

Let us examine the thought that tends to create a lot of distress for me.  Here it is: if we do not get my smart but severely dyslexic daughter placed in the exact right program for next year she will never learn to read and will have a life of failure.

When I start thinking this way I start to get very upset.

I start to calm down when I say this to myself: we are gathering all of our information and will make an educated decision that is the best possible decision at this time.

And even more importantly, even if our decision is not perfect (and what is perfect) it will move us forward and we will learn and grow.  And we will rally and address any problems that come up.  Even if the worst happens.  And that is a big IF.  We will deal with it. As we always do.

Here the trick is calming down the irrational thoughts, which then calms down the feelings. Change the thought. Change the feeling.

Separate the worries and fears that are useful and move you forward from the ones that immobilize you and overwhelm you.

It actually works.

Interrupt your litany of fears and worries.  Hold them up to the light of day and see which ones are truly serving you and which ones are only fueling panic and distress.

2) Focus on the here and now or practice mindful parenting

Commit to a focus on the here and now. Living mindfully is a great way to cope with catastrophic thinking and anxiety in general because it focuses our attention on what is actually happening instead of what could happen.

Of course no one is mindful all of the time. No one.  But committing yourself to trying it out on a regular basis can truly have a calming effect on everyone in the family.

We can do mindful parenting in many different ways.  Bake a cake and focus on the cake. Play a game and focus on the game.  The idea is to turn off,  temporarily, the technology and other sources of stress and tune in to our children.  Build a fort. Listen to a favorite song.

Expect that your thoughts will wander into the worry or into the fear or the future.  Do not judge. This is normal and it happens to even to most experienced mindfulness experts.  Just gently bring your attention back to whatever you are doing right now.

When we focus on what we are actually doing right now we take the power out of our worries for the future.  We prioritize actual problems instead of imagined catastrophe.  We live fully with our wonderful quirky children.  We bring our whole selves to parenting.  Of course in the end this is the best thing we can do for our children and for ourselves.

Allison Andrews PsyD is a psychologist committed to supporting stressed out families and couples, particularly the parents of children with special needs.  To this work, she brings her training as a clinician as well as her experience as a mom to a quirky kid (and a neuro-typical kid) and her experience growing up with a sister with special needs.

www.allisonandrewspsyd.com

Follow her on twitter at @AllisonPsyD

My reaction is caused partly by the thought that if family life is already stressed and parenting is a difficult challenge, then bringing in another family member might not be such a good idea right at that time. It’s important to make sure that the current family members are living respectfully together before a new member is added.

Here are 5 ideas to incorporate into parenting a special needs child – before you start looking for a puppy.

1. Special needs does not mean “More important than everyone else”

Of course, the special needs person is important – but not at the exclusion of other family members. Keep every family member in the loop. Share time, energy, and focus on all family members. In stressful times, family members have a special responsibility toward each other. Keep the caregivers healthy. Every member of the family is important.

2. Keep the family on track

Try hard not to let the behavior of the special needs person disrupt the legitimate activities and plans of other family members. Especially, keep the marital relation active and healthy even when the special needs person objects. After all, it was the first family relationship.

3. Look for improvement and not perfection

As Dr. William Glasser said, “No one is crazy all of the time.” Translated into parenting – no child or special needs person has disruptive/disrespectful behavior all of the time. Seize these islands of opportunity (normal behavior) to do your best teaching. Teaching is different than praising. Try to describe to the child their self-control and improved behavior. The soothing but firm voice of a parent is a healing agent.

4. Plan ahead

Anticipate when personal and family agendas will stress the special needs person.

• Alert them and teach them BEFORE the event occurs.
• DURING the event, remind them of your prior conversation.
• AFTER the event, express appreciation for the positive conduct of the special needs person.
• (See Parenting Groove’s Rule of Three for more ideas.)

If this method has difficulty taking hold, keep repeating the pattern. Do not let the special needs person thwart your teaching. Remember, most special needs persons have some level of understanding and teach-ability. Again, look for modest gains and not perfection. Be positive.

5. Have compassion for yourself

In Maria Lin’s Huffington Post article, “7 Things You Don’t Know About a Special Needs Parent,” she complied a list of the feelings she has experienced as the mom of a boy with Chromosome 18 Disorder. Her very real and touching emotions bring awareness to this aspect of parenting. She writes, “Raising a special needs child shatters all the “should be’s” that we idolize and build our lives around, and puts something else at the core: love and understanding.”

For the child. For herself.

Now about that dog….

Annie Keeling, MFA, founder of the Parenting Groove blog, is an educator, writer, music teacher, and parent. She teaches elementary children’s group music education classes as well as parent/child early education Music Together classes. The families involved have been a springboard for material involving parenting, music, and education (especially ideas around building respectful behavior of all family members.) Raised by a family therapist who created the 3R’s Learning Center for Behavior Education, Annie incorporates many of his teachings in her writing. She has a BS in Dance Therapy and Dance Education from UW-Madison, a Masters in Dance from UCLA, and a Masters in Creative Writing from Goddard College.

Recently you have published a report entitled; “Rethinking Special Education Due Process” which you claim is intended to spark a thoughtful, new dialogue about the need for critical changes to the special education dispute resolution system.  In reality what we have gotten is an attempt by your organization to use its influence to strip our children of their civil rights and their right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).  A report so blatantly disrespectful and bigoted that S. James Rosenfeld the Director of the National Academy for IDEA Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers has issued a response distancing himself from it:

I was asked to review and comment upon a January 2013 draft of the Report, probably because it cited quotes from my article “It’s Time for an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure,” 32-2 NAALJ 544-567 (Fall 2012) that were critical of many aspects of special education due process hearings. Those references were included in the final Report, which also listed me in acknowledging “the many people who have been involved in the development of this report.” 

My concern is that readers of the Report, looking simply at the quotes from my NAALJ article and the statement “acknowledging” my “involvement” in development of the report, may conclude that I support the AASA’s recommendations. That is incorrect. While I have many concerns about due process, most of them could be ameliorated by assuring that parents have competent counsel. I have never suggested or advocated that a litigation option be removed from IDEA. Moreover, I never saw the recommendations included in the final report.

Most importantly, I fundamentally disagreed then and now with the Report’s assessment of the place of children with disabilities in the public education system.

AASA, what you have proved with this sweeping indictment of the place of children with disabilities in the public education system is that you will say anything, do anything and use unsubstantiated facts to get your way.  Once again, I could not have said it better than S. James Rosenfeld when he stated in his response, “To be candid, I find the article surprisingly insensitive to the needs and concerns of children with disabilities and their parents – with one surprising exception. That is the first paragraph of the section titled “Reconsidering a due process framework for IDEA,” which sounds like it was written by a different author. I understand, obviously, that the article is written from and designed to explain the school administrators’ perspective, and it does that well.”

Mr. Rosenfeld went out of his way to provide his comments prior to publication of your report and not only did you ignore them you made it appear like he endorsed your findings.  At the very minimum this was a premeditated act of omission.  What I would love to know is how many other people tried to weigh in and were ignored if they disagreed with your agenda.

I did however notice that parents were never even asked to weigh in prior to the publication of this report and were ignored right from the start.  As my friends at the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) point out in their response to this piece of fiction, “In its press release announcing its suggestion to “revise” the IDEA Due Process System, the AASA notes that it gathered information from “discussions with superintendents, special education administrators, special education lawyers, professors and researchers in special education litigation matters, hearing officers, state officials, and other education policy experts.” Given the tone of the rest of the release and the AASA report, it is disappointing at best that neither parents of students with disabilities, nor students themselves, appear to have been worthy of consultation in this process. Nor, apparently, were teachers or related service personnel who work with these children.”

If you have not read COPAA’s response in its entirety I implore you to do so and as they aptly point out, “AASA contends the due process system is inequitable and unpopular. The fix to inequality is not to do away with due process of law. The goals of IDEA have never been intended to win a popularity contest and indeed the goal of families is not and never has been for greater numbers to access Due Process.”

As a parent of a child with special needs I never wanted to file for due process but yet I have it done it three times in the past seven years.  All three times I have filed for Due Process I have been offered settlements prior to my hearing based on the merits of my case.  I did not take these filings lightly and did it when I felt I had right on my side.  The first time I filed was when the School tried to exit my son from his IEP and speech services in Kindergarten. After an Independent Educational Evaluation paid for by the District and Private Evaluation paid for by me he was neither exited nor did he lose any services.  That was 7 years ago and my son is about to finish his first year of middle school and still receives special education services via his IEP.  He is flourishing and has made the honor roll all year based on the support and services that his IEP provides.  Without the due process of law I cannot even imagine where he would be today and for this reason and all of the others I listed above I find your report to be despicable and your organization unworthy to lead our children into the future.

“We realize she only learned 7 new letters last year, but she has a learning disability…”

Now, this might not be so hidden after all. This is the most egregious form of marginalization of a student with dyslexia. The underlying message is: she has a learning disability so we really shouldn’t expect that much from her. She actually went on to say that they did not know she had dyslexia until halfway through the school year, so what did we expect.

Yes, I am pretty happy we were recording this meeting. There are a few problems with this situation and one question to ask her. The problems are that whether or not the child has a diagnosis of dyslexia (which was accomplished independently) does not excuse the school from the teaching the student. Secondly, the school is required to provide the student with at least a floor of opportunity to access the curriculum.

Your rebuttal: “So, if I follow your logic, you are saying that because she has dyslexia, in the absence of any intellectual or cognitive deficits, she should not be expected to learn?” Expect to hear silence…but your point will be made. Your child, or any other child with dyslexia, will not be marginalized.

“Well, he didn’t really meet the standards for this grade, so we are recommending that he be retained.”

The recommendation of retention at any grade really gets my blood boiling. This recommendation insinuates that the child needs to change. The child needs to change? Really? The child has dyslexia and that will never change. When a child with dyslexia is retained, nothing changes. He receives the same services, the same ‘intervention,’ the same curriculum and then moves on the next grade with lower self-esteem. If that isn’t marginalization then I don’t know what is. The solution is to allow this intellectually competent child to move on with his classmates, change the intervention, and provide the appropriate accommodations for the next grade level.

Your rebuttal: “No, my child will not be held behind. Instead, let’s investigate the reason he did not meet the standards needed to read and change the intervention.”

 “She cannot read, so what is the point in having a fluency goal?”

I cannot begin to count how many times I have figuratively rolled my eyes when I heard this in an IEP or see an IEP that did not have a fluency goal, or a reading comprehension goal or a phonics (or phonemic awareness) goal. According to the National Reading Panel and No Child Left Behind, reading instruction should be made up of five components: phonemic awareness, phonics, reading comprehension, fluency and vocabulary. All five components should be represented in every IEP, every time. The only exception could be phonemic awareness if the student has mastered that skill. Other than that, leaving out one of these components, leads to marginalization of the reading program for a student with dyslexia.

Your rebuttal: “According the NRP and NCLB, fluency is part of the reading intervention that is required for a student to learn to read independently. Now, let’s get a baseline, even it is 8CWPM and write a fluency goal.”

“Now that he is middle school, we don’t have time to read the tests to him and we think he should skip history and science for extra homework help.”

It seems to be a ubiquitous problem. When a student transitions from elementary school to middle school, the IEP seems to lose its power. The most egregious part of this statement is the suggestion that this student should miss content for homework help. This student is being marginalized by the staff assuming he cannot learn the content. They further deny that he be allowed to continue with the accommodations that were put in place in his IEP. Unfortunately, the culture in middle and high schools do not respond well to the needs of students with dyslexia and these students are still struggling at the time of this transition, they will begin to marginalize themselves.

Your rebuttal: “Well, the IEP is a legal document. If he still has the need for accommodations such as reading the tests to him, then you have the legal responsibility to give him that accommodation. Furthermore, this student is capable of learning history and science and if you do not offer him that opportunity you are denying him FAPE.”

Not only do the statements above do great harm and create a great injustice to all students with dyslexia, but it illustrates the pervasive misunderstanding of students with dyslexia. They are not the underdogs. They are not to be pitied. They are to be taught and given the opportunity to compete on an even playing field.

Dr. Kelli Sandman-Hurley is the co-founder of the Dyslexia Training Institute (www.dyslexiatraininginstitute.org and www.dyslexiadr.com.) She is currently writing, Putting the D in to the IEP, and you can read excerpts at www.dyslexiadr.blogspot.com. She received her doctorate in Literacy with a specialization in reading and dyslexia from San Diego State University and the University of San Diego. Dr. Sandman-Hurley a Certified Special Education Advocate assisting parents and children through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and 504 Plan process. She is an adjunct professor of reading, literacy coordinator and a tutor trainer. Kelli is trained by a fellow of the Orton-Gillingham Academy and in the Lindamood-Bell, RAVE-O and Wilson Reading Programs. Kelli is the Past-President of the San Diego Branch of the International Dyslexia Association. She has presented at numerous conferences as well as provided professional development for k-12 teachers. Join the Dyslexia Training Institute at www.facebook.com/dyslexiatraining

Maybe your child has been struggling with completing homework this year.  It might be a good idea to bring the IEP team together and discuss accommodations with regards to homework.  Remember that every new grade brings additional homework, especially in middle and high school.  If your child is having difficulty staying on task long enough to complete their homework, accommodations can made where your child will still be on track to graduate with their classmates.

Did your child have difficulty staying on task or inappropriate behavior in the classroom this year?  If so, you can request an IEP to discuss possibly changing to the Behavior Support Plan if your child has one; or the IEP team could implement a reward system that might help your child stay on task or behave appropriately.  If your child has a BCBA or School Aide assigned to them on a daily basis, then they or their supervisor should always attend the IEP meetings; they are quite familiar with your child’s behavior in school, so they are a vital component to the IEP team.

One of the most important reasons to request an IEP before the end of the school year is placement!  Finding the appropriate placement can be very tricky.  For many parents the subject of placement causes a lot of anxiety.  It’s important to hear from everyone in the IEP team as to how the year went in each subject, class and teacher.  As I’ve said in the past, nobody has a crystal ball; however, when you bring everyone in the IEP together to discuss placement, your child has a better chance of being placed in the appropriate class with the appropriate teacher.

These are just a few important issues which should be addressed at the end of the school year.  Bringing an IEP team together at the end of the school year will hopefully help your child be successful in the 2013/2014 school year; the best way accomplish that is to bring everyone together to communicate and brainstorm.  Don’t forget parents, you are a vital component to your child’s IEP so make sure you speak up and participate in the meetings!  All parties must remember it’s not just the parents or the school’s responsibility to make sure a child receives a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), it’s both parties collectively.  Every time an IEP team comes together to help a child receive (FAPE), it is a reminder of the old saying “it takes a village to raise a child.”

Let’s assume that the IEP team has agreedto your child’s present levels of academic and functional performance from a review of all available and current information.  And from that information, the team has also identified and agreed to the child’s needs that are to be addressed in the IEP. So where is the twist? It’s coming. 

Let’s further assume that the goals are written with near perfection by identifying the behaviors (e.g., social or academic, motoric, etc.) to be impacted through implementation of the IEP, citing the conditions under which the behaviors are to be observed (e.g., when given a third grade reading text of 250 words, without prompts, within 10 minutes, etc.) and are stated in measurable terms (e.g., with no more than 2 word identification errors, 90% of requests, with 85% accuracy, etc.). So what’s the big deal, right? Well here it is.

Now it is time to determine which services are to be provided, how much time, how often and where they will be provided. You feel that your child requires more speech and language services than in the past, but the school says that is not possible. You insist and the schools states that it is not necessary for progress to be made, but, you counter that there has been limited progress in the area of language development. A review of the data support your contention and the school offers more speech and language time, but with a needed reduction of adapted PE. You got what you wanted and accept.  After the meeting adjourns, you realize–yes here it is—you gave away a needed service that was previously determined to be necessary to meet one or more of your child’s needs and goals. You negotiated away one of your child’s needs.  And if you are thinking that this does not happen, it does.  But, there is a way to avoid the felt need to do so.

The process that should have been implemented is called the structured collaborative IEP process. It is an easy to use set of questions to be asked, and in a particular order, that will facilitate a collaborative IEP meeting. One which will result in an IEP that will meet your child’s needs and not, as in this case, that of the institution (school) or individual. It is a process of IEP development that poses six key questions to the team. The IEP participants are then responsible for reaching an agreed-to-answer.  The process is built on small steps of agreement, so that, for example, when it is time to determine how to meet the goal statements, the answers will be based on the previously agreed-to-answers and decisions. Negotiating is simply not necessary, as the evidence from which to base this decision (i.e., what services are to be provided) has already been established in the identification of needs and goal statements.  This makes a decision to lessen services, when the current provision of services is not being successful, as in the case presented, unwarranted

And what happens if the school does insist on reducing services as a bargain? You have become an advocate’s, investigator’s or attorney’s dream. Why? Because you have the documented team’s agreement to your child’s needs based on available data and you have measurable goal statements indicting what behavioral changes are anticipated.  To lessen the services would only serve to counter the existing evidence and would make the school responsible for the provision of all services needed by your child

You can learn more of this process by visiting my website to learn more of how to obtain training on the structured collaborative IEP process and stop negotiating away your child’s services. http://www.educationallearningandtraining.com/Getting_The_Yes_.html.  To be changed to www.IEPHelp.com in May. Check out IEPHelp.com in May for far more information.