I haven’t mentioned much about it, but for a while now, my wife and I have been working on a measure to help parents of children with disabilities navigate an often intimidating process when parents are dumped into an educational system that isn’t always friendly, especially when you’re facing the reality of educating a child with a disability for the first time.
House Bill 1218 has been introduced to establish certain requirements for schools regarding parental notice of and access to certain tests, assessments, evaluations, and observations. The measure is expressly designed to help families of children who receive special education in South Dakota schools under an IEP (Individual Education Plan) or other similar education plan.
The goal of this measure is to provide parents with access to information regarding assessments being completed involving their child(ren) and to ensure parents are given adequate opportunity to review the results of any assessments completed prior to attending meetings where those results will be discussed and decisions made using those results.
Currently, under the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) federal law, which is about 16 years old, it mandates that schools are to provide notices of assessments.
BUT, here’s the catch. Federal law is silent as to when. In fact, schools may claim that they’re complying with federal law but that’s not necessarily correct. Because IDEA also mandates that parents are to be equal partners in the IEP process. If parents lack the same information that schools have when sitting down to write the IEP, how can they be equal partners in the process?
My wife and I found this out the hard way.
Our daughter has long been on a IEP, and recently, as we’ve been working through the proposed changes to her IEP, we had asked for a return visit/observation from an outside specialist in Autism Spectrum Disorders. We felt that the school had been dragging their feet in getting this accomplished, so we expressly noted that we wanted to be informed when it was scheduled.
At the next meeting to discuss our daughter’s IEP, we brought it up for purposes of finding out when it was scheduled for and not only had it taken place, but they had purposefully not told us when it was taking place because they didn’t want us to possibly affect the outcome. And without providing us a copy of the report, expressed that the results supported their position, and that’s the way it would be.
(In fact, we finally received the report we were seeking a month and a half later.)
Can you imagine a school doing testing of your child, and purposefully not telling you they did it? And then not being provided a copy of the results? For a process where IDEA requires that everyone is equal in the process, it’s like an attorney withholding evidence that is required to be produced during discovery, only to withhold it from the other party, and use it in their argument to the court.
Judges don’t tolerate that in court. And parents shouldn’t have to fight for information they’re entitled to either.
An Individual Education Plan is designed to be a collaborative document where all parties, parents, teachers, and administrators (and when old enough students) are equal partners in determining the plan for the student’s education. By withholding documentation – particularly information that had been requested – the school turned what was supposed to be a collaborative meeting into an adversarial one.
We are not unsophisticated when it comes to special education. (At least my wife isn’t.) My wife Dr. Michelle Powers has been a special education teacher, a member of the Pierre School Board State Director of Special Education, Director of Special Education for the Brookings School District, and now an assistant professor of Special Education at Augustana University. This is what makes what took place all the more shocking to us.
While we resolved our issues with the school privately, the fact that it could occur concerned us enough to feel that a change in law needed to be made. Because if it could happen to us, what’s happening out there with people who are new to the process?
So working with a few legislators, several who are sponsoring it, we broke it down and came up with a way to enhance the federal law in a way that would enhance open government, help parents of children with a disability, and not cost anything in terms of time or effort. And it’s done on an opt-in basis.
What House Bill 1218 does in Section 1 of the act is to simply ask for the assurance that if a parent wants to know the date the assessment is scheduled, they can make that request and the school will provide the date – it’s a simple exchange of information.
For the second portion of the bill – as noted, there are currently no timelines that require districts in SD to provide those reports to parents prior to IEP meetings where those results are discussed. Section 2 changes this.
As noted above, IDEA federal law requires parents to function as equal partners in the special education process. By requiring that reports are provided to parents prior to IEP meetings, HB 1218 ensures school districts are acknowledging their responsibility to make that equal participation possible by sharing results beforehand, and giving families adequate time to review and consider before any meetings are held to discuss the results.
The bottom line is this proposal helps schools follow the IDEA requirement that parents be an equal partner at IEP meetings. It doesn’t request anything other than information federal law says parents are entitled to. There are also no specific delivery requirements for notice/reports, so they may be provided electronically.
We believe this is a positive step for schools, to require that information is provided on a “palms up” basis to help fully inform parents when it comes to the education of a child with a disability.
