Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional Things are getting very bad

BTW, your IEP has "stay-put" provisions in it, procedurally.

What does that document state about communication between you and the classroom teacher?

If it's mandated that you (or s/he) be communicating with one another, then your princ. is wilfully violating that document, and you need to document this thoroughly and prepare a complaint.

By all means give the district time to resolve it before filing that complaint-- but let them know that you're aware it's a major procedural violation.

That's important because the feds generally don't enforce specific accommodations/provisions with the same vigor that they pursue procedural violations as I suspect this is.

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

Irena, absolutely do what your advocate and attorney advise. I don't know the specifics of your history with the district, so my comments were meant to be practical from my experience of drafting/revising some ridiculous settlement agreements to push deals through while keeping my eye on the practical stuff.

So vision therapy falls in the gray area and as a practical matter the parent may be forced to initiate a hearing to get a determination that it should be a required service.

Good luck.

Hi all, thanks again for all your help. HowlerKarma, I used some of your exact words so thanks!

So, just to update where we are. Basically, we were at a stand-off until a few moments ago. So, I had contacted the assistant superintendent and talked with her (she was nice, and seemed, at the time, helpful), She gave me the impression the barrier to communication between parents and teachers would be lifted and she would talk to principal basically stopping him from enforcing such a mandate. I was relieved and thought all was fine. She said she would get Special Ed Director to step in more assertively.

Two hours after I talked with her I got another email from principal, it stated: "Dear Mr. and Mrs., Please send all e-mail communication regarding DS's school program to me. I will relay any questions/concerns to the appropriate persons and will respond to you. I have no concerns about what teachers will say in their e-mail responses as I trust their abilities to respond professionally; however, teachers have become uncomfortable with the tone of some of your e-mail communications and it would be best if I facilitated this communication. As this is not an IEP issue, it will not be discussed at the upcoming IEP meeting. I would like to adhere to the agenda I previously sent as I think that this would bring about a productive result and serve DS's best interest." It was like a slap in the face (as I am sure he intended it to be). It was cc'd to the assist. superintendent leading me to believe he did this with her blessing and that she supported this for some reason despite our earlier conversation.

{Just as an aside, there is nothing wrong with any of my emails. Absolutely nothing - no threats, no bullying, no name calling, etc. In my opinion they do not like me documenting and they do not like taking the risk that the teacher may inadvertently indicate an iep violation. And even if they aren't crazy about "my tone," how is that a legitimate reason to totally alienate parents who integral members of the iep team? I don't like their tone often! I don't like when then tell me I am "enabling my son's disability" that I am "micromanaging him," that I am "short-changing him," that I am "not thankful enough," that I am "too pushy." I don't like that I have to keep educating and explaining to them over and over and over again DS's disability - how it is neuromuscular and what that means. And how he is not at the level of peers, even if you keep insisting he is, and we know this for a fact because he just had OT evals (some by the school) that put him two years delayed in writing. But I do and I do it nicely and politely.}

Anyway, I called the assist. superintendent to ask about this email and she was unavailable. I gave her 45 minutes to get back to me and then I called my lawyer colleague and explained the situation. He said, of course, he'd be happy to represent me and we discuss. He isn't available for the iep meeting this Tuesday so we discuss dates he is available to that it can be rescheduled so that he can attend.

Then, the assist superintendent calls me back and tells me she hasn't checked her email so she had no idea that principal had sent around an email confirming that the communication ban between parent and teacher was still in place. She says she'll talk to principal and fix it. I give her some time but when I do not hear anything, I email the entire team and assist. superintendent and advise that my DH and I feel that we have no choice at this point but to have legal representation going forward and, so, we need to reschedule current IEP meeting date to accommodate attorney's schedules. Ten minutes later I start getting some phones calls.

It appears they are not crazy about involving attorneys. I am not sure if it is just a money thing with them or if they do not want it to escalate further or what. But giving them official notice that we are bringing an attorney seemed to finally motivate some people to do something! Special Ed Director called within 10 minutes and we discussed the VT agreement (and I was happy with the discussion), we discussed the communication ban and she also said she would serve as LEA at the iep mtg instead of principal b/c she thinks maybe principal needs to step back and take a break. Not sure what that means but I did say that, as much as I do not want to cut people out, it does seem like it has gotten very personal between him and me and he seems so blinded by anger/annoyance with me that it is affecting his ability to do his job in a reasonable manner. I didn't agree to anything but told her I would talk it over with DH. I talked it over with DH and he and I agreed that before we call off the lawyer and agree to proceed on Tuesday without one, we need a communication to go out asap to everyone involved that clearly states that the communication ban that Mr. Principal put in place has been lifted and that teacher and parents are free to communicate. DH called Spec.Ed. Dir yesterday and left a message to that effect on her cell phone and then we didn't hear form her at all. We had to call her back today again and leave another message.

So, Special Ed Director finally calls back. She said she would send around the communication first thing on Monday saying that us parents and DS's teachers are to be able to communicate freely about any day to day stuff, any homework issues, behavior issues, medical issues, progress, class work, etc. She did say though that what Principal really wants (and she agrees) is that we not negotiate and discuss changes to IEP via email - that those concerns be only addressed to Mr. Principal and herself and then we'll schedule a meeting to resolve those issues. DH are okay with that. So all we need now is to see that email and then we will proceed on Tuesday without a lawyer. In the meantime, I need to research a good lawyer for a reasonable amount who has experience in our district. I like the guy who I have been dealing with recently but he has no experience in this particular district and he is not convenient to this area... also he doesn't take credit cards and I want to be able to charge representation so that money doesn't stop me from getting legal assistance. I will still be working on that even though I think all will be okay. Still, I need to have a really good attorney consulted with, interviewed and ready on speed dial... just in case. Lesson learned.

It appears they are not crazy about involving attorneys.

I'll just bet they aren't.

Probably because they know darned good and well that this won't fly.

I'm still not keen on the idea that there be zero documentation trail re: any input from you/your DH on possible changes to IEP ahead of meetings.

That seems unwieldy to me, and it circumvents part of what they ought to want to have happening-- that is, tweaks and discussion and thought ahead of formal IEP meetings so that there is a 'team' working to produce solutions in an efficient manner.

Shouldn't the classroom teachers be a part of that IEP team??

Anyway. That, too, smacks of "we don't want any of this in writing," but maybe I'm missing something.

Glad that things are moving again. Stalemating is awful.

Have you googled your district name + due process? When I did that I saw that my district almost never goes there - I found only one case. (This confirms what DSS told our consultant early on. "[District] never goes to Due Process. We always reach agreements.") Others here have mentioned that they get a lot of results. You can look at the names of the attorney's who represented the families in the cases that you find. (Since you are an attorney you may know a better way to accomplish the search to find cases that have been filed and withdrawn without a formal finding. Probably will get more info that way...)

Last year I cut out communication with most people at DD's school and started doing everything through folks at central office. Superintendent, assistant superintendent, director of pupil personnel services, director of special service, etc are very busy people. It is amazing how much less cr** people give you when busy, decision maker types have to be involved in ridiculous minutia. If assistant superintendent agrees that substantive communication about IEP matters should go through her and principal I would tell her that you think everything will just go to her - she can involve or not involve the principal at her discretion. After all, he is too close and needs a break - right? She will either be able to reach reasonable agreements with you and DH or she will spend a lot of time going back and forth with principal and then back and forth with you. But hey - if the principal is blinded by anger and needs a break then who are you not to give it to him?

A couple of things my consultant said when he met with our superintendent the other day may be helpful to you here:

1) Sometimes the district loses the parents' trust and the situation becomes unworkable. In those cases it costs the district some serious money to place kids OOD. Your district may be heading down that road with you. A calm head here can save them A LOT of money later.

2) This is a last ditch effort to save both the parents and the district legal fees. Wouldn't you really rather spend that money on the child?

Good luck and keep us posted!

I absolutely agree. And we attorneys are big on documenting everything. It is drilled into is from day one - "put it in writing!" "Get it in writing" "Document, document, document." We document 3 minute phone conversations. We use email to file our court filings. This is a legal procedure and a legal document... there must be writings and documentation. It's preposterous that they think there will not be. And I do intend to continue to document and communicate via email... I do think there will be lull of problems for a while, once this IEP meeting is done and over, which will help. We just needed to tweak the scribing accommodation, discuss communication and making specials teachers aware of IEP and finalize the VT agreement. I am thinking now we need to put something in the IEP about weekly/daily communication regarding progress, etc in the IEP so this doesn't happen again. I did not think it was necessary before but now clearly it is. However, I know they will try to shut me down because that topic is not really on the IEP agenda. Maybe I will call an IEP meeting beginning of next year and get it in then. Or I am thinking I could sneak in under the agenda topic of "Communication with Special Area Teachers and Paraprofessionals regarding Ben's IEP." Either way I had better get it in there.

My plan is to get this all under control (get this iep mtg done and VT contract done) and take some time to get some referrals and interview with attorneys in the area and get a decent attorney to consult with on this. It's still cheaper to get some consultations, etc. And when the school pulls the whole "you're not allowed to put anything in writing" or anything like this again have them on hand to jump right in...

Lots of good info here Pemberley! Thank you!



This is a great idea! No, I did not know to do this... Thank you!

Hmm I found a few cases (not many) but the attorneys are not listed ... They may have been redacted out prior to being put on the internet.