I would ignore his unreasonable demand that you cease communicating with the teacher. I can't imagine what he can claim that you have done to warrant that kind of treatment. If you want to be nice, then cc him on your commuications. Of course, he always has the right to respond on behalf of the teacher.
The settlement agreement is probably boiler-plate. I would decline to sign if and only if you are actually giving up rights that you believe you will be invoking. Furthermore, some rights you cannot sign away in certain circumstances. Harm from future incidents in school should fall under that category. The statute of limitation for minors doesn't start running until their 18th birthday.
There is also the issue of whether the District is required to provide the vision therapy. I seem to recall that certain medical treatments, even if your DS needs it, the District is not obligated to provide.
Quantum, I tried to ignore the communications mandate. The teacher is not responding to me and it is causing problems b/c she is not allowed. It needs to be stopped immediately.
The waiver may be boilerplate but it is clearly designed to deprive us and our son of all of the every right provided to us by IDEA, federal, and state law for any claims from the beginning of time, known or unknown, etc. I was strongly advised by both my advocate and an attorney not to sign the waiver.
As for the vision therapy, as Mana pointed out VT can fall under related services. See this case
http://204.186.159.23/odr/HearingOfficerDecisions/00962-09-10.pdf Sometimes, it takes a hearing to get to that conclusion:
Specific types of related services and sub-definitions are part of the regulatory language (34 C.F.R. §300.34(b)(c)) and do not include vision therapy. Nothing in the statute or regulations, however, indicates that the related services at 34 C.F.R. §300.34 are an exhaustive list, excluding a developmental, corrective or other supportive service not contained in that section that might still be required to assist a child
