Procedural question - changes to an IEP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - I imagine they will try to say that in light of the goals and what they observe so far from your DC they believe he can meet those goals with the amount of hours they are proposing.

You need to figure out how to prove that he needs more hours in support services to meet them. Did they do any evaluation at all since he's been in this school?

I was planning on going in with the following logic:
1. DC had a previous IEP that is in effect in the same state. Federal law requires that the LEA provide services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, until a new IEP is adopted
2. Since the previous IEP had a significant higher # of hours, and school has been in session for 6 weeks, the school should have seen significant progress with accessing the curriculum and achieving the standards and have evidence that a reduction is appropriate
3. Since they have not seen any progress, a significant reduction in hours is questionable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - I imagine they will try to say that in light of the goals and what they observe so far from your DC they believe he can meet those goals with the amount of hours they are proposing.

You need to figure out how to prove that he needs more hours in support services to meet them. Did they do any evaluation at all since he's been in this school?

I was planning on going in with the following logic:
1. DC had a previous IEP that is in effect in the same state. Federal law requires that the LEA provide services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, until a new IEP is adopted
2. Since the previous IEP had a significant higher # of hours, and school has been in session for 6 weeks, the school should have seen significant progress with accessing the curriculum and achieving the standards and have evidence that a reduction is appropriate
3. Since they have not seen any progress, a significant reduction in hours is questionable

Are you certain they've been providing all the hours specified in the previous IEP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - I imagine they will try to say that in light of the goals and what they observe so far from your DC they believe he can meet those goals with the amount of hours they are proposing.

You need to figure out how to prove that he needs more hours in support services to meet them. Did they do any evaluation at all since he's been in this school?

I was planning on going in with the following logic:
1. DC had a previous IEP that is in effect in the same state. Federal law requires that the LEA provide services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, until a new IEP is adopted
2. Since the previous IEP had a significant higher # of hours, and school has been in session for 6 weeks, the school should have seen significant progress with accessing the curriculum and achieving the standards and have evidence that a reduction is appropriate
3. Since they have not seen any progress, a significant reduction in hours is questionable

Are you certain they've been providing all the hours specified in the previous IEP?

I doubt they have been - but wouldn't they be in violation of the law if they have not been? and opening themselves up to a complaint?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - I imagine they will try to say that in light of the goals and what they observe so far from your DC they believe he can meet those goals with the amount of hours they are proposing.

You need to figure out how to prove that he needs more hours in support services to meet them. Did they do any evaluation at all since he's been in this school?

I was planning on going in with the following logic:
1. DC had a previous IEP that is in effect in the same state. Federal law requires that the LEA provide services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, until a new IEP is adopted
2. Since the previous IEP had a significant higher # of hours, and school has been in session for 6 weeks, the school should have seen significant progress with accessing the curriculum and achieving the standards and have evidence that a reduction is appropriate
3. Since they have not seen any progress, a significant reduction in hours is questionable

Are you certain they've been providing all the hours specified in the previous IEP?

I doubt they have been - but wouldn't they be in violation of the law if they have not been? and opening themselves up to a complaint?

They would. And you'd theoretically be entitled to compensatory hours. But you also need to decide how you plan on working with these people for the next several years. Think through your strategy for both now and the long run.

[Anonymous]

As someone pointed out, hours should never be sent home on a draft IEP. There are certain sections we are never allowed to prefill and that is one. I agree with calmly discussing with the school, giving them a chance, and if they disagree then get an advocate.

Are you moving from a more restrictive setting to a less restrictive setting? That could also be part if they don't have the resources to support the number of hours. Of course, still a discussion that needs to happen, not just trying to slip it by on another draft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A draft IEP shouldn't contain suggestions for hours, because hours should be set after goals are finalized. This sequence is very clear in the law.

Generally, a draft IEP will either list 0 hours, or if it's built off a previous IEP, will contain the hours that were there before.

There should be no PWN about hours until the hours are agreed upon at the meeting.

But there should absolutely be discussion of hours at the meeting. The fact that they didn't have one is hugely concerning. I would ask that the IEP be reconvened. I agree that an advocate would help immensely.

In DC, there is no requirement for IEPs to be signed, other than that initial IEP. After that if a team writes an IEP, the IEP goes into effect unless a parent requests due process to block it.

Good luck!

Can you clarify - PWN?

Do you know - or know where I can find the answer: our original IEP was through a different LEA (the charter), the new IEP is through DCPS. Given that this is the 1st IEP through the new LEA does this count as the 1st and require signature?

I am not sure what lever I need to use to fight for the hours - and right now my thinking is that the procedural element is the only thing I have so I am trying to get smart on the law.

Prior Written Notice is the document that is sent home that says "We're starting or stopping or changing X" A previous poster had said that that PWN about the change in hours should have been sent home before the meeting. That is not correct, the only PWN that comes home before a meeting is the notice that a meeting is occurring.

The only IEP that requires a signature under DC and federal law is the first one after a student is found eligible for the first time. Even if a child transfers LEAs or states, there is no signature required.

Even if there is a procedural error, and the only one I see is about not discussing the hours at the meeting, that won't get you a change in hours. The change in hours will have to come because there is evidence to support the higher hours, or no evidence to counteract the previous LEA's evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone pointed out, hours should never be sent home on a draft IEP. There are certain sections we are never allowed to prefill and that is one. I agree with calmly discussing with the school, giving them a chance, and if they disagree then get an advocate.

Are you moving from a more restrictive setting to a less restrictive setting? That could also be part if they don't have the resources to support the number of hours. Of course, still a discussion that needs to happen, not just trying to slip it by on another draft.

IEPs are written based on what a student needs, not what resources the school already has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A draft IEP shouldn't contain suggestions for hours, because hours should be set after goals are finalized. This sequence is very clear in the law.

Generally, a draft IEP will either list 0 hours, or if it's built off a previous IEP, will contain the hours that were there before.

There should be no PWN about hours until the hours are agreed upon at the meeting.

But there should absolutely be discussion of hours at the meeting. The fact that they didn't have one is hugely concerning. I would ask that the IEP be reconvened. I agree that an advocate would help immensely.

In DC, there is no requirement for IEPs to be signed, other than that initial IEP. After that if a team writes an IEP, the IEP goes into effect unless a parent requests due process to block it.

Good luck!

Can you clarify - PWN?

Do you know - or know where I can find the answer: our original IEP was through a different LEA (the charter), the new IEP is through DCPS. Given that this is the 1st IEP through the new LEA does this count as the 1st and require signature?

I am not sure what lever I need to use to fight for the hours - and right now my thinking is that the procedural element is the only thing I have so I am trying to get smart on the law.

Prior Written Notice is the document that is sent home that says "We're starting or stopping or changing X" A previous poster had said that that PWN about the change in hours should have been sent home before the meeting. That is not correct, the only PWN that comes home before a meeting is the notice that a meeting is occurring.

The only IEP that requires a signature under DC and federal law is the first one after a student is found eligible for the first time. Even if a child transfers LEAs or states, there is no signature required.

Even if there is a procedural error, and the only one I see is about not discussing the hours at the meeting, that won't get you a change in hours. The change in hours will have to come because there is evidence to support the higher hours, or no evidence to counteract the previous LEA's evidence.

So if my DC had 10 hours a week of specialized instruction in the last IEP - and they have decided that 30 minutes a day is appropriate. Is there an expectation for the school to state why they think the child can meet state standards with such a significant change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A draft IEP shouldn't contain suggestions for hours, because hours should be set after goals are finalized. This sequence is very clear in the law.

Generally, a draft IEP will either list 0 hours, or if it's built off a previous IEP, will contain the hours that were there before.

There should be no PWN about hours until the hours are agreed upon at the meeting.

But there should absolutely be discussion of hours at the meeting. The fact that they didn't have one is hugely concerning. I would ask that the IEP be reconvened. I agree that an advocate would help immensely.

In DC, there is no requirement for IEPs to be signed, other than that initial IEP. After that if a team writes an IEP, the IEP goes into effect unless a parent requests due process to block it.

Good luck!

Can you clarify - PWN?

Do you know - or know where I can find the answer: our original IEP was through a different LEA (the charter), the new IEP is through DCPS. Given that this is the 1st IEP through the new LEA does this count as the 1st and require signature?

I am not sure what lever I need to use to fight for the hours - and right now my thinking is that the procedural element is the only thing I have so I am trying to get smart on the law.

Prior Written Notice is the document that is sent home that says "We're starting or stopping or changing X" A previous poster had said that that PWN about the change in hours should have been sent home before the meeting. That is not correct, the only PWN that comes home before a meeting is the notice that a meeting is occurring.

The only IEP that requires a signature under DC and federal law is the first one after a student is found eligible for the first time. Even if a child transfers LEAs or states, there is no signature required.

Even if there is a procedural error, and the only one I see is about not discussing the hours at the meeting, that won't get you a change in hours. The change in hours will have to come because there is evidence to support the higher hours, or no evidence to counteract the previous LEA's evidence.

So if my DC had 10 hours a week of specialized instruction in the last IEP - and they have decided that 30 minutes a day is appropriate. Is there an expectation for the school to state why they think the child can meet state standards with such a significant change?

There should have been a discussion in the meeting about hours.

The question isn't about meeting state standards. Some students with IEP will never meet state standards regardless of hours, and some may have surpassed them and still need specialized instruction.

The question is how did they decide that this level of service will let the child meet the IEP goals that are already set at that point in the meeting.

There's no question that the meeting wasn't conducted correctly, but you don't get changes in hours as a punishment to the district. You'd get another meeting and a chance to ask the questions and have the discussion that was missed. It's possible that you'd get a judgment that the old hours stay in effect until the new meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There should have been a discussion in the meeting about hours.

The question isn't about meeting state standards. Some students with IEP will never meet state standards regardless of hours, and some may have surpassed them and still need specialized instruction.

The question is how did they decide that this level of service will let the child meet the IEP goals that are already set at that point in the meeting.

There's no question that the meeting wasn't conducted correctly, but you don't get changes in hours as a punishment to the district. You'd get another meeting and a chance to ask the questions and have the discussion that was missed. It's possible that you'd get a judgment that the old hours stay in effect until the new meeting.

Thanks for framing it out this way. It is incredibly helpful