IEP Draft Changed After Annual Meeting

[Amanda SM]

Hello - my daughter is going into second grade.  We had her annual meeting at the end of May and her Sped teacher put a 2:1 Teaching Assistant in her IEP for next year.  This was for both safety (due to elopement) and academics as she needs everything broken down, a lot of repetition, and refocusing.  The second grade classroom also has less adult support than the first grade room.  We discussed this in my daughter's meeting and agreed to it for next year.  I just received the final copy in the mail and the section regarding the 2:1 teaching assistant is no longer in the IEP.  The PWN states that there will be a Sped teaching assistant in the classroom when the Sped teacher is not there.  But it doesn't state that it'll be 2:1 and there's nothing defined in terms of what the TA will be doing.  So my question is, can the district just remove this after it was agreed to in the meeting?  Advice on how to handle this?

The other child that was included in the 2:1 is my daughter's best friend.  Same situation with him, the 2:1 TA wasn't included in the final copy of the IEP.

Additional information...I heard from a friend that subs as an aide at the school that the Sped teacher had a meltdown a week after our meeting and left in the middle of the day.  He didn't return to school after that.  However, he emailed me the updated draft on the second to last day of school and I sent him a couple of corrections.  He then forwarded the email to the speech therapist and said he was no longer employed with the district.  Not sure if this is relevant.

[Carolyn Rowlett]

I would reach out to the director of special education and relay what happened.  If they are going to take away something that was agreed upon during the meeting, they need to hold another meeting - so request one.  Also, at a minimum, the PWN should state that you requested a 2:1 aid, were denied this, and the reasons why.

[Amanda SM]

1 hour ago, Carolyn Rowlett said:

I would reach out to the director of special education and relay what happened.  If they are going to take away something that was agreed upon during the meeting, they need to hold another meeting - so request one.  Also, at a minimum, the PWN should state that you requested a 2:1 aid, were denied this, and the reasons why.

Thanks!  I suspect that it was the CSE director that took it out.  The school doesn't have a psychologist at the moment and the Sped teacher that ran the meeting was fired so that only leaves the principal or the CSE director.  There was nothing in the denial section about it.  Interestingly, I didn't request it.  The Sped teacher said that he got approval from the district due to elopement and the set up of the second grade classrooms.  I would've requested more adult support if the Sped teacher didn't volunteer it. 

Would it be helpful if I posted what was on the draft and the PWN?  

[Carolyn Rowlett]

That might be helpful, but I still think I would advise requesting a meeting so that you can ask why something was removed that was agreed to during a meeting.  I would also advise asking for a PWN that states the 2:1 aid "agreed to during the meeting" (since you didn't actually request it) was denied and the reasons why.  You might also call your state department of education, tell them the scenario, and ask what can be done.  Finally, I would advise recording the next and all future meetings if you are in a one-party state.  Given what has happened, that would not be an unreasonable thing to do.  If you are not in a one-party state and can afford it, take an advocate with you or have one participate via zoom.  At a minimum, take a friend or relative as another set of ears.  If the school district takes notes during the meeting, ask for a copy of those notes afterwards.

[Amanda SM]

1 hour ago, Carolyn Rowlett said:

That might be helpful, but I still think I would advise requesting a meeting so that you can ask why something was removed that was agreed to during a meeting.  I would also advise asking for a PWN that states the 2:1 aid "agreed to during the meeting" (since you didn't actually request it) was denied and the reasons why.  You might also call your state department of education, tell them the scenario, and ask what can be done.  Finally, I would advise recording the next and all future meetings if you are in a one-party state.  Given what has happened, that would not be an unreasonable thing to do.  If you are not in a one-party state and can afford it, take an advocate with you or have one participate via zoom.  At a minimum, take a friend or relative as another set of ears.  If the school district takes notes during the meeting, ask for a copy of those notes afterwards.

I'll post the draft and PWN later tonight.  I did record the meeting and had an advocate.  Unfortunately, the advocate wasn't very helpful.  I really appreciate your thoughts!

[JSD24]

So the 2:1 was in the draft, discussed at the meeting as staying in the IEP, and was deleted from the final version.  There definitely needs to be a explanation in the PWN as to why something agreed to was removed from the IEP.

With a case manager leaving their job between having an IEP meeting & getting the final draft to the family, I would hope that the LEA would be the person to do the edits on the IEP so it's someone who was at the meeting.

[Amanda SM]

Attached are the draft with the Teaching Assistant and the PWN that came with the final copy.  The PWN has the teaching assistant included but it's no longer in the services section.  

I emailed the speech therapist since I know she's working this summer and was at the meeting.  The CSE director and principal were not in attendance and the school psychologist resigned mid year.  

Let me know if you have any other thoughts.  Thanks!!!

[Carolyn Rowlett]

I would request a meeting and make sure the principal and director were there.  Ask for the 2:1 to be put in the services section or at a minimum the TA.  I would also request a new or revised PWN setting forth that the 2:1 agreed to at the meeting was removed without another meeting being held and the reasons why it was removed.

[JSD24]

I'm not sure the TA was removed.  The IEP doesn't specify in the related services grid how much time the TA will spend with your child.  Under 'description of actions proposed or refused', it does say the TA will be there except when H is in speech therapy.

What I feel is needed is clarification.  You could do that in a letter/email:

Looking to clarify that H will have a TA with her 2:1 except when she goes to speech therapy.  The amount of time the TA will spend with her is not specified in the Related Services grid.  I want to make sure we are all on the same page as far as when the TA will be helping her.

My thought is that when your child is in therapy, the TA will be able to get lunch, use the bathroom and relieve the teacher so they can step out to use the bathroom.  Often these paraprofessionals are scheduled for every moment of the day and get burned out.  This allows them breathing room.

[Amanda SM]

On 7/18/2024 at 6:51 PM, JSD24 said:

I'm not sure the TA was removed.  The IEP doesn't specify in the related services grid how much time the TA will spend with your child.  Under 'description of actions proposed or refused', it does say the TA will be there except when H is in speech therapy.

What I feel is needed is clarification.  You could do that in a letter/email:

Looking to clarify that H will have a TA with her 2:1 except when she goes to speech therapy.  The amount of time the TA will spend with her is not specified in the Related Services grid.  I want to make sure we are all on the same page as far as when the TA will be helping her.

My thought is that when your child is in therapy, the TA will be able to get lunch, use the bathroom and relieve the teacher so they can step out to use the bathroom.  Often these paraprofessionals are scheduled for every moment of the day and get burned out.  This allows them breathing room.

Thanks for that perspective!  My concern is that the TA won't be 2:1 based on the language in the PWN and will be working with additional kids regularly.  This was an issue this year as there were always 3 adults in the room and my daughter was still able to elope.  Also, by taking it out of the grid there's no definition around what the TA will be helping with.  I emailed the speech therapist and she forwarded it on to the CSE director and the principal.  We'll see what they have to say.  Thanks so much for your input!

[Amanda SM]

I just spoke with the speech therapist who talked with the CSE director...the CSE director took it out because the SpEd teacher "wasn't authorized to make personnel decisions."  They did add a SpEd TA to the room but it's not a 2:1 and that only makes 2 adults in the room.  There were 3 last year and my daughter was able to elope.   Guess we'll see what happens at the meeting!

[JSD24]

I read back to your original post.  It starts out 'We had her annual meeting...'  At every IEP meeting, there is an LEA who is authorized to make decisions on what can & cannot go into the IEP.  (They hold the purse strings.  This should include the authority to make personnel decisions.)  The LEA should have spoken up at the meeting if they didn't see the need for a 2:1.  The TA was written into the draft.  The LEA should have spoken up at the altar and not after your child was pronounced student & IEP.

If there was no one at the meeting who is allowed to make decisions about the things going into the IEP, then you didn't have an IEP meeting back in May when your annual was due.  Every IEP meeting must have an LEA as well as other attendees who are required.  With no annual meeting in May, the school is out of compliance with special ed timelines.

From my perspective, someone at the May meeting who could authorize the TA being 2:1 with your child needed to be at this meeting.  If there was no one who could do this, you didn't have an annual meeting.  I feel like the school is gaslighting you.

Who was at the meeting you had in May?  Required members of the IEP team are a gen ed teacher, sp ed teacher, person to explain evals (if evals were done), and an LEA.  Parents are not required (they are excusing themself if they fail to show up).  Parents can also excuse other required IEP team members but not the LEA.

[Amanda SM]

18 hours ago, JSD24 said:

I read back to your original post.  It starts out 'We had her annual meeting...'  At every IEP meeting, there is an LEA who is authorized to make decisions on what can & cannot go into the IEP.  (They hold the purse strings.  This should include the authority to make personnel decisions.)  The LEA should have spoken up at the meeting if they didn't see the need for a 2:1.  The TA was written into the draft.  The LEA should have spoken up at the altar and not after your child was pronounced student & IEP.

If there was no one at the meeting who is allowed to make decisions about the things going into the IEP, then you didn't have an IEP meeting back in May when your annual was due.  Every IEP meeting must have an LEA as well as other attendees who are required.  With no annual meeting in May, the school is out of compliance with special ed timelines.

From my perspective, someone at the May meeting who could authorize the TA being 2:1 with your child needed to be at this meeting.  If there was no one who could do this, you didn't have an annual meeting.  I feel like the school is gaslighting you.

Who was at the meeting you had in May?  Required members of the IEP team are a gen ed teacher, sp ed teacher, person to explain evals (if evals were done), and an LEA.  Parents are not required (they are excusing themself if they fail to show up).  Parents can also excuse other required IEP team members but not the LEA.

Meeting attendees were the gen ed teacher, sped teacher, speech therapist, OT, PT, myself, my husband, and our advocate (who did nothing).  Usually the principal is there but she wasn't and neither was the CSE director.  So no, there wasn't an LEA.  Honestly, they're professionals at stalling, ignoring questions that they need to get back to you on, talking you out of things, etc.  I've asked for an assistive tech eval for 3 years and they denied it for the 3rd time after trying to convince me that it's not needed, but haven't sent a PWN, even though I've asked for it.  

[Carolyn Rowlett]

It may be time to file a state complaint on the procedural violations of not having an LEA present at the meeting and therefore no annual meeting was held, making changes to the IEP without agreements, and failure to provide PWN's.  In the meantime, keep requesting a meeting so that the state knows you're trying on your end.

[JSD24]

No LEA = No IEP meeting.  IMO, your school didn't have an annual IEP meeting so you should file a state complaint.

They are admitting that there was no LEA given that something was discussed, there was agreement that it's needed and it was removed because no one at the meeting was authorized to make the personnel decision the IEP team agreed was needed.

I feel they shot themself in the foot if they put in writing that the CSE director took it out because the SpEd teacher "wasn't authorized to make personnel decisions."  You have the proof needed to show the state DOE there was no LEA & therefore no annual meeting.

[Amanda SM]

On 8/1/2024 at 9:47 AM, Carolyn Rowlett said:

It may be time to file a state complaint on the procedural violations of not having an LEA present at the meeting and therefore no annual meeting was held, making changes to the IEP without agreements, and failure to provide PWN's.  In the meantime, keep requesting a meeting so that the state knows you're trying on your end.

I have a meeting scheduled on the 14th.  I haven't filed a complaint before.  How does it work and how would my child benefit from filing?

[Carolyn Rowlett]

You would need to contact your state department of education to ask about procedures and forms for filing a state complaint.  (It should also be in your procedural safeguard provided by the school district - if these were not provided, that is another procedural violation.)

The benefit to your child would be (hopefully) having the state take a look at your school district's procedurals and forcing them to make changes.  Also, knowing that you are an actively involved parent may make the school district react quicker to your requests and dot their i's and cross their t's better when it comes to your child.

[Amanda SM]

5 hours ago, Carolyn Rowlett said:

You would need to contact your state department of education to ask about procedures and forms for filing a state complaint.  (It should also be in your procedural safeguard provided by the school district - if these were not provided, that is another procedural violation.)

The benefit to your child would be (hopefully) having the state take a look at your school district's procedurals and forcing them to make changes.  Also, knowing that you are an actively involved parent may make the school district react quicker to your requests and dot their i's and cross their t's better when it comes to your child.

Thank you for the explanation!  I have a meeting scheduled for next week and plan to bring up the following:

Why was 2:1 TA removed?

If the sped teacher wasn't authorized to make personnel decisions, who was authorized to make those decisions at the meeting?

FBA - I've asked for this for 2 years and they've said that she needs to have behaviors 80% of the time and she doesn't.  She's avoidant and oppositional all day long and has learned pretty much nothing in 2 years.  Plus the elopement.

AAC - I've asked for an eval for 2 years and they haven't done it.  Last year they put an app on her ipad but it didn't get used.  Need a specialist to do an eval due to complex nature of apraxia and selective mutism.  Also need programming, implementation support, and training for my daughter and the team if the specialist supports the need for AAC.

Move her eval date up to this coming school year due to her not having a formal eval since 2020.  They did an abbreviated eval when she was entering K, but she really struggled due to selective mutism.  Now she knows the building and staff so they should be able to test her.

Change her classification from Speech to Multiple Disabilities

Testing for learning disabilities.  Dyslexia occurs frequently with apraxia as well as dysgraphia.   Maybe there's others I don't know of?

Her sped time was reduced from 2 hours a day to 90 minutes.  She didn't meet any of her goals so why the reduction?  What data do they have to support a reduction?

What do you think?  Am I over the top?  Anything I'm forgetting?  What should I prioritize?

Thanks!

[JSD24]

Ask to see what data they have that shows the 2:1 TA is no longer needed - changes to the IEP should be based on data.

Who was the LEA at the May meeting?  Do they have a sheet to sign into the meeting?  My state (PA) has this - very easy to look at the LEA line & see whose name is there.

Just an FYI - avoidant is a behavior.  Ask to see their data that shows it's not 80% of the time.  (I'd hate being a teacher if I was teaching a class where everyone was oppositional or avoidant even 20% of the time.  80% seems like a very high threshold.  I'd think the data would be in comparison to typical students.  I know with my child, I asked them to take data on him being on-task and also look at a typical classmate for comparison.)  Also, everything we do is a behavior.  A child gets on the bus & sits quietly and jokes with their seatmate is a behavior.  Child waits their turn & follows directions getting off the bus is a behavior.  Getting from the school door to their classroom (can be done while running, walking purposefully, with side trips) it's all behaviors.  On-task is as much a behavior as off-task.  Same with compliant with adult instruction and oppositional.

You want at AT eval - not an AAC eval.  An AT eval looks to optimize what's out there to the student.  (I like the WATI more than the SETT.)  This can be part of a moved-up reevaluation.  Doing them when the child you see IRL doesn't match the child described in the eval paperwork is a good thing.  And remind them that you want an FBA so you can come up with a strategy to address the antecedent to when she elopes.

An MD classification will tend to put a student in a self-contained classroom and off of a diploma track.  I wouldn't want to change the box that's checked.  No matter which box is checked, all areas of suspected disability should be evaluated & addressed through the IEP.

I'm in a Facebook group with autistic & apraxic individuals/parents.  What I'm seeing is many are not dyslexic.  Rather, they are gifted - like reading at age 3 type of gifted.  Do a YouTube search for the movie Spellers.  Watch this with your child & see how they react to it.  (My friend's son's story starts at 46:00.  I'd put the link here put that delays my post as anything with a link must be approved.)  I call it the hat trick:  dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia.  Not associated with apraxia, from what I can tell but these tend to be comorbid with ADHD.

Ask for the data showing why special ed support was reduced from 120 to 90 minutes.  IEP change should be data driven and not 'this is what we do with all IEPs in 3rd grade'.

Type up the list and email to the team 7-10 days before you're scheduled to meet so they can be prepared.  This also puts things in writing to avoid the he said/she said BS that can happen when you're discussing a bunch of things.

[Amanda SM]

Update:  I ended up hiring an advocate (I had one previously that was not helpful in the slightest) and at the meeting we agreed on a full re-eval with an FBA and AT eval.  I also pointed out that the district had decreased all of her service minutes across the board by going from weekly to monthly.  Their reason was because they have assemblies and school breaks.  No data to back up the reduction.  The advocate and CSE director argued about it for awhile and the advocate requested a PWN multiple times before the CSE director finally relented and put all of her services back the way they were.  The advocate also asked for a PWN regarding the 2:1 which the district clearly didn't want to do.  Also, I found out that there was only going to be one adult in the classroom for several hours a day even though the prior PWN said Sped Ta when the Sped teacher isn't in the room.  So we agreed to put the TA in the IEP as a 3:1 for the full day until the FBA and BIP can be completed.  3 because there's 3 kids in the classroom with IEPs.  I don't like that even though they're acquiescing and doing the 3:1, they're basing it off staffing and other students, but it'll have to work for now.     

 

[Carolyn Rowlett]

Thank you for the update.  Although maybe not completely what you wanted, definitely a step in the right direction.  Glad you found an effective advocate that would fight for your child.