: [IEP_guide] © Wayne Steedman 2005 www.wrightslaw.com

June 10, 2006

(from IEP_guide

1

10 Tips: How to Use IDEA 2004 To

Improve Education for Children with

Disabilities

www.wrightslaw.com by Wayne Steedman, Esq.

On July 1, 2005, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of

2004 (IDEA 2004) went into effect. In

10 Tips: How to Use IDEA 2004 to Improve Education for Children with

Disabilities, you will learn how

to use IDEA 2004 and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to ensure

that the needs of children with

disabilities are met, while improving educational outcomes and

results.

1. Use the Findings and Purposes in IDEA 2004 to Establish a Higher

Standard for a Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

In 1982, the U. S. Supreme Court issued the first decision in a

special education case in Board of

Education v. Rowley, 458 U.

S. 176. In Rowley, the Court held that

school districts did not have to provide

the " best " education for disabled students but merely had to provide

services so the child received " some

educational benefit. " Rowley established a low standard for a " free

appropriate public education " (FAPE).

When you read the Findings and Purposes of IDEA 2004, you will see

that Congress raised the bar for a

free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Prepare Children to Lead Productive, Independent Lives

In " Findings " of IDEA 2004 (Section 1400©), Congress found that

" 30

years of research and experience

has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can

be made more effective by having

high expectations for such children, " educating them in the regular

classroom so they can " meet

developmental goals and, to the maximum extent possible, the

challenging expectations that have been

established for all children and be prepared to lead productive and

independent adult lives, to the

maximum extent possible. " (Section 1400©(5)(A))

Prepare Children for Employment, Independent Living – and Further

Education

In " Purposes " of IDEA 2004 (Section 1400(d)), Congress describes what

they intend the law to

accomplish. In IDEA 2004, Congress added " further education " as a

purpose of the law:

The purposes of this title are to ensure that all children with

disabilities have available to them a free

appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and

related services designed to

meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education,

employment and independent

living. (Section 1400(d)(1)(A))

When Congress added " further education " to the Purposes of IDEA 2004,

they established a new

outcome for special education, an outcome that had never been

identified before.

When you read in " Findings " that disabled children should be given

the opportunity to meet the

" challenging expectations that have been established for all

children " and " improve academic

achievement and functional performance… to the maximum extent

possible " (Section 1400©(5)(E))

and you read that one Purpose of the law is to prepare children

for " further education, " you are looking

at a new legal standard for a free appropriate public education.

2

As a parent or teacher, you need to understand that when Congress

reauthorized IDEA 2004, they raised

the bar. To meet these new legal requirements in IDEA 2004, schools

will have to use scientifically based

instruction and provide more intensive special education services.

Meet Developmental Goals & Challenging Expectations Established for

Non-

Disabled Children " to the Maximum Extent Possible "

While the phrase " to the maximum extent possible " was included in

earlier amendments to IDEA, there

is significant qualitative difference in how this phrase is used in

IDEA 2004. In IDEA 1997, the phrase " to

the maximum extent possible " described the need to provide disabled

children with access to the general

curriculum and prepare children for life after school.

In IDEA 2004, the phrase " to the maximum extent possible " describes

the requirements to meet the

developmental goals and challenging expectations established for non-

disabled children, to prepare

children with disabilities to lead independent and productive adult

lives, and to improve their academic

achievement and functional performance.

Provide Teachers with Knowledge & Skills in Scientifically Based

Instructional

Practices

Congress also found that the education of children with disabilities

can be made more effective if all

school personnel who work with children with disabilities

receive " high quality, intensive " professional

development and training to ensure that they have " the skills and

knowledge necessary to improve the

academic achievement and functional performance of children with

disabilities, including the use of

scientifically based instructional practices, to the maximum extent

possible. " (Section 1400©(5)(E))

2. Use IDEA 2004 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to Obtain a Better

Individualized Education Program (IEP).

When Congress reauthorized IDEA 2004, they specifically noted the

intent to coordinate IDEA 2004

with the No Child Left Behind Act. (Section 1400©(5)©) Many

definitions in IDEA 2004 come

directly from NCLB, including the requirements for highly qualified

teachers.

A " highly qualified teacher " has full State certification (no

waivers), holds a license to teach, and meets

the State's requirements. Special educators who teach core academic

subjects must meet the highly

qualified teacher requirements in NCLB and must demonstrate

competence in the academic subjects

they teach. (Section 1401(10))

Closing the Gap

The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act is " to ensure that all

children have a fair, equal, and

significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach,

at a minimum, proficiency on

challenging State academic achievement standards and State academic

assessments. " (20 U.S.C. 6301)

The purpose of NCLB can be accomplished " by meeting the educational

needs of low-achieving students

[including] children with disabilities… " and " closing the

achievement

gap between high- and lowperforming

children and " ensuring access of children to effective,

scientifically based instructional

strategies and challenging academic content. (Section 6301(3),

Section 6301(9))

IDEA 2004 requires states to establish performance goals for children

with disabilities that are the same as

the state's definition of adequate yearly progress under NCLB.

(Section 1412(a)(15))

Attacking Low Expectations

Congress also found that implementation of the IDEA " has been impeded

by low expectations and an

insufficient focus on applying replicable research and proven methods

of teaching and learning for

children with disabilities. " (Section 1400©(5))

3

School personnel often assert that it is unreasonable to expect a

child to achieve more than one year of

academic progress in one year. School personnel assert this even more

vigorously when they develop IEP

goals for disabled children, goals that often reflect their low

expectations.

But if a disabled child is two, three, or more academic years behind

his nondisabled peers, the only way to

" close the gap " is for the disabled child to make more than one year

of academic progress in one year.

When children with disabilities receive intensive instruction from

teachers who are skilled in the use of

scientifically based instruction, it is not unusual for these

children to make more than one year of

progress in an academic year.

Parents and teachers must learn about the requirements of NCLB and

IDEA 2004 to ensure that these

legal requirements are met. Although there is no private right of

action under NCLB (i.e., parents cannot

sue schools when they fail to meet NCLB's requirements), the failure

to meet NCLB requirements can be

used as evidence that a child did not receive an appropriate

education. (To learn more about No Child

Left Behind and IDEA, see slaw: No Child Left Behind, published

by Harbor House Law Press.)

3. Include Research Based Methodology in the IEP.

Congress found that implementation of IDEA " has been impeded by the

failure of schools to apply

replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning. " IDEA

2004 includes numerous

references to " scientifically based instructional practices "

and " research based interventions. " In

describing permissible uses of federal funds, IDEA 2004

includes " providing professional development to

special and regular education teachers who teach children with

disabilities based on scientifically based

research to improve educational instruction. " (Section 1411(e)(2)©

(xi))

The child's IEP must include " a statement of the special education

and related services and

supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to

the extent practicable to be

provided to the child. " (Section 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV))

In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability,

IDEA 2004 describes a process by which

the IEP team " may use a process that determines if the child responds

to scientific, research based

intervention as a part of the evaluation process. " (Section §1414(

(6)()

This language in IDEA 2004 creates new requirements for schools to

use scientific research based

instructional practices and interventions that are based on accepted,

peer-reviewed research, if such

research exists.

School officials often refuse to write educational methodologies into

the IEP. They argue that teachers

should be free to use an " eclectic approach " to educating children

with disabilities, and should not be

forced to use any specific methodology.

Congress rejected this practice when they reauthorized IDEA 2004.

By including frequent references to the need to use scientific,

research based instruction and

interventions, Congress clarified that methodology is vitally

important. By requiring the child's IEP to

include " a statement of special education, related services and

supplementary aids and services, based on

peer reviewed research … " (Section 1414(d)(1)(A)) Congress

clarified

that IEPs must include researchbased

methodology.

Including methodology in the child's IEP will benefit the child's

parents and teachers. As participants in

developing their child's IEP, parents will benefit by having input

into the instructional methods used to

teach their children. The teachers who implement the IEP will benefit

by having guidance from a team of

professionals who are familiar with the child and who have reviewed

the research to determine the

interventions and instructional methods that are most likely to

provide the child with educational

benefit.

4

This is a win, win situation for all – especially for children who

will benefit when they receive effective

instruction from teachers who are trained in research-based

instructional methods.

4. Ensure That Annual Goals are Comprehensive, Specific and

Measurable.

IDEA 2004 eliminated short-term objectives and benchmarks for

students with disabilities, except for

those students who take alternate assessments. (Section 1414(d)(1)(A)

(i)(I)) Although Congress may

think they did teachers a favor by eliminating short-term objectives

and benchmarks, they made teachers'

jobs more difficult. Annual goals will have to be far more

comprehensive than they were under IDEA

1997.

Short Term Objectives

The problem is reminiscent of the game " Whack a Mole " where one

knocks one mole down, only to

have another mole appear in a different location. Since Congress

eliminated short-term objectives and

benchmarks, this information will now have to be included in the

annual goals.

Eliminating short-term objectives creates as many problems for

educators as it does for parents. Shortterm

objectives and benchmarks are steps that measure the child's progress

toward the annual goals in

the IEP. When written correctly, short-term objectives provide

teachers with a roadmap and a clear

mechanism to evaluate the child's progress.

Academic and Functional Goals

Although short-term objectives and benchmarks were eliminated in the

federal law, under IDEA 2004

the IEP must include " measurable annual goals, including academic and

functional goals. " (Section

1414(d)(1)(A)) IEP goals cannot be broad statements of what a child

will accomplish in a year, but must

now address the child's academic achievement and functional

performance. The IEP must specifically

identify all the child's needs, how the school will meet these needs,

and how the school will measure the

child's progress objectively.

If the IEP goals are not specific and measurable and do not include

academic and functional goals, the

IEP is defective and open to a challenge that it denies the child a

FAPE.

Parents must be vigilant. The danger is that the IEP team will

propose annual goals that are not specific

and measurable, do not meet the child's academic and functional

needs, and do not describe how the

child's progress will be measured.

Teachers will have to work harder and think more creatively to ensure

that the annual goals address all

the child's educational needs and that the goals are written in

clear, measurable language. If the IEP is

based on the child's " present levels of academic achievement and

related developmental needs, "

addresses the child's academic and functional needs, and includes

research validated instructional

methods, the IEP should adequately address the child's needs under

IDEA 2004.

5. Use New Evaluation Procedures to Monitor Academic Progress and

Progress on IEP Goals.

IDEA 2004 expanded the range of educational issues that must be

evaluated and the timeframe within

which these evaluations must be completed. After the parent provides

consent, the school must

complete the initial evaluation and determine if the child is

eligible for special education services within

60 days. (Section 1414(a)(1)) Interestingly, the Act does not specify

whether the required consent must

be in writing.

When conducting an evaluation, the school shall use " a variety of

assessment tools to gather relevant

functional, developmental, and academic information, including

information provided by the parents.

(Section 1414((2)) The child's academic achievement or functional

performance may necessitate a

reevaluation. (Section 1414(a)(2))

5

These references to measuring and improving the child's academic

achievement and functional

performance are new in IDEA 2004. The IEP team must now consider

functional, developmental and

academic information in developing an IEP that provides a child with

a free appropriate public education

(FAPE).

School personnel often claim that grades and performance on IEP goals

are separate, and that academic

failure does not mean that the child was denied a FAPE. IDEA 2004

rejects this claim. If the child is

making progress on his IEP goals, but is receiving failing grades or

is not making adequate progress in

academic areas, this may be evidence that the child is not receiving

a free appropriate public education.

To meet the threshold requirements for a FAPE, the school must ensure

that the child with a disability

makes adequate progress in academic achievement and functional

performance, and on the IEP goals. If

the child's academic achievement and functional performance are not

commensurate with the child's

progress on IEP goals, the child's IEP needs to be revised. The

parents and educators need to determine

what adjustments need to be made to the child's special education

program and IEP.

6. Give Consent Only for Evaluations or Portions of the IEP to Which

You

Agree.

IDEA 2004 requires the school to obtain parental consent before the

initial evaluation and before

implementing special education services in the IEP. Although the

wording of the statute changed in

IDEA 2004, the substantive effect is no different for initial

evaluations.

Parental Consent for the Initial Evaluation

Before conducting an initial evaluation (the first assessments

requested by a school when a child is

suspected of having a disability), the school must obtain parental

consent. (Section 1414(a)) If the parent

wants the child to receive special education services, there is no

reason for the parent to deny consent for

the initial evaluation unless the parent prefers to obtain

evaluations from a specialist in the private sector.

In that case, the parent may consent to the school doing some

evaluations. For example, the parent may

consent to the school conducting educational evaluations and have

their independent psychologist

conduct the psychological evaluation.

While IDEA 2004 requires IEP teams to review evaluations provided by

the parent, the team is not

required to accept the findings and recommendations in private

evaluations. Private evaluations can lead

to problems if they are improperly done or if the individual who

conducts the evaluation does not meet

state requirements. (Section 1414((3))

Before scheduling an evaluation by an expert in the private sector

(i.e. a child psychologist, school

psychologist, neuropsychologist, or educational diagnostician), the

parent should carefully review the

individual's credentials. Here are some questions you need to answer:

?? Does the evaluator meet state requirements to conduct the

evaluation (for example, in most

states a psychologist must be licensed to conduct psychological

evaluations)?

?? Does the school district generally accept evaluations from this

evaluator?

?? Is the evaluator willing to attend the eligibility or IEP meeting

to explain his findings, educate the

IEP team about the reasons for the recommendations and what is likely

to happen if the

recommendations are ignored?

If the parent refuses to consent to an initial evaluation by the

school, the school may use mediation,

resolution, or a due process hearing to obtain the evaluation.

(Section 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii))

6

Parental Consent for Special Education & Related Services

The parent is also required to give consent for special education and

related services. If the parent refuses

to provide consent for services, the public school " shall not provide

special education and related services

to the child… " (Section 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II)) This language

represents is a significant change from

IDEA 1997 which required schools to seek mediation or due process to

obtain parental consent for

services.

This new language may create problems for parents who want their

child to receive special education and

related services, but disagree with part of the IEP and/or how the

school plans to provide services in the

IEP. The law does not prevent parents from consenting to parts of the

IEP that are acceptable, while

refusing consent for those parts of the IEP with which they disagree.

There is some support for this

approach in the IDEA 2004 statute.

IDEA 2004 maintains the " stay put " provisions of IDEA 1997. (Section

1415(j)) Under the " stay put "

provision, the child can remain in the then-current educational

placement and continue to receive the

same services during proceedings to challenge the IEP, unless the

parents and school agree otherwise.

Although there is no " then-current educational placement " when there

is a dispute between parent and

school over the initial IEP, the fact that the parent and school

agree on some part of the IEP creates an

obligation for the school to implement those parts of the IEP to

which the parent provided consent.

If you want to consent to part of the IEP, here are some suggestions:

?? Initial each part of the IEP to which you agree.

?? Next to the signature line, write that you do not consent to any

part of the IEP that you did not

initial.

Think about how you want to resolve your dispute or disagreement with

the school. IDEA 2004 includes

additional procedures to resolve disputes. (See Tip #10) As a parent,

you need to understand that the

school is under no obligation to seek resolution of the dispute and

is actually prohibited from doing so

under IDEA 2004. (Section 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II))

7. Insist that the Child's Regular Education Teacher(s) Participate

in IEP

Meetings.

IDEA 2004 lists the individuals who are required members of the IEP

team:

?? The parents

?? Not less than one regular education teacher

?? Not less than one special education teacher

?? An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of

evaluations

?? A representative of the school district who has supervisory

responsibilities and is knowledgeable

about the general education curriculum and agency resources. Section

1414(d)(1)()

Congress changed IDEA 2004 to allow members of the IEP team to be

excused from attending IEP

meetings, even when their area of the curriculum or related service

will be discussed. As a parent, you do

not have to consent to this. Before a team member can be excused, the

individual must submit a written

report to the IEP team and the parent must consent in writing.

(Section 1414(d)(1)©)

The demands placed on a teacher's time are great. In the end, the

time spent developing a comprehensive

IEP that addresses the child's unique needs will save time. More

important, input from all the child's

7

teachers will benefit the child. Regardless of whether the parent

consents to a regular education teacher

being excused from an IEP meeting, the law still requires that at

least one regular education teacher

attend the meeting.

If the child receives any educational services in a regular education

class or may receive educational

services in a regular education class, the regular education teacher

(s) should attend the IEP meeting.

Although the law only requires one teacher to attend, all regular

education teachers with whom the child

has or will have contact should attend the IEP meetings. If the

child's teachers do not attend an IEP

meeting, it is likely that important information will be missed or

overlooked. Without input from the

child's teachers, other members of the IEP team, including the

receiving teachers, will not understand the

child's unique needs and how to address these needs.

The parent should not consent to team members being excused from IEP

meetings unless the

circumstances are exceptional. If a team member's area will be

discussed, the teacher or related services

provider needs to attend the meeting to provide information and

answer any questions that arise. If you

encounter a problem getting the required members of your child's team

to attend the IEP meeting, write

a letter to request that all of your child's regular education

teachers and related service providers attend

the IEP meeting. (To learn how to write effective letters to the

school, read the chapters on letter writing

in slaw: From Emotions to Advocacy published by Harbor House

Law Press.)

8. Avoid Three-Year IEPs Like the Plague.

The three-year IEP was the dumbest idea Congress came up with when

they reauthorized IDEA 2004.

Determining a child's unique academic, developmental and functional

needs, developing measurable

annual goals, determining how these goals will be met, how the

child's progress will be measured, and

how the parents will be advised of their child's progress at regular

intervals is difficult enough when only

done once a year.

Anyone who thinks that parents and school personnel can develop an

IEP that will meet a disabled

child's needs for three years is ignorant about child development and

education. Fortunately, three year

IEPs are a pilot program that will be available in no more than 15

states. (Section 1414(d)(5)) If your

state submits a proposal and is approved for the three year IEP pilot

program, the IEP team must obtain

your consent before they develop a three-year IEP. Do not grant

consent.

Find out if your state was approved for the IEP pilot program. If

your state was approved for the pilot

program, you need to double-check the beginning and ending dates on

any IEP for your child. Before

you sign consent to implement your child's IEP, make sure the IEP has

an ending date that is no longer

than twelve months after the IEP was developed.

You are not limited to one IEP meeting a year. Parents and teachers

can request an IEP meeting to review

and revise the child's IEP more often than once a year. IDEA 2004

provides that the IEP team shall revise

the IEP to address:

?? Any lack of expected progress toward the IEP goals or in the

general education curriculum,

?? The results of any reevaluation,

?? Information provided to or by the parents,

?? The child's anticipated needs, and

?? Other matters. (Section 1414(d)(4))

8

9. Challenge Suspension or Expulsion if Child's Behavior was a

Manifestation of the Disability, or if the Alternate Placement Does

Not

Provide FAPE.

IDEA 2004 permits the school to suspend a disabled child from the

current program or place the child

into an interim program for up to 10 days if the child violates

a " code of student conduct. " (Section

1415(k)(1)(A))

If the school wants to suspend the child for longer than 10 days,

they must convene an IEP meeting to

determine whether the child's behavior is a manifestation of the

child's disability. If the school concludes

that the child's behavior was not a manifestation of the disability,

the school can discipline the child in the

same way and to the same extent that a non-disabled student can be

Congress also made it easier for the school to determine that the

child's behavior is not a manifestation

by eliminating key elements of the manifestation determination

process in IDEA 1997. IDEA 2004 does

not require the IEP team to determine whether the child's IEP and

placement are appropriate. IDEA

2004 only requires the IEP team to determine whether the child's

behavior " was caused by or had a direct

and substantial relationship to the child's disability " or " whether

the behavior was the " direct result of

the local education agency's failure to implement the IEP. " (Section

1415(k)(1)(E))

This means the school could provide a child with an inappropriate

special education program and

placement, and could expel the child from school. There are several

strategies you can use to ensure that

the school does not use behavior problems as a way to deprive your

child of an appropriate education.

IDEA 2004 still requires school districts to provide a free

appropriate public education to all children

with disabilities, including children who have been suspended or

expelled from school. (Section

1414(k)(1)(D) and Section 1412(a)(1))

If the school places your child into an alternate setting, you must

diligently investigate whether or not the

child's IEP is being fully implemented. If the IEP is not being

implemented, you may force its

implementation through the dispute resolution procedures in the law.

One strategy is to challenge the

IEP team's determination that the behavior was not a manifestation of

the child's disability. Parents must

only request a due process hearing if they are prepared and have a

valid claim. (See Tip # 10).

If you attempt to argue that the IEP and/or placement were not

appropriate as the reason for the

behavior being a manifestation, you may be met by a claim from the

school district that your action was

frivolous. Parents can certainly argue that the IEP and/or placement

are not appropriate. You should also

include claims that the behavior for which the child is being

disciplined was caused by or had a direct and

substantial relationship to the child's disability, and/or that the

child's misbehavior was the direct result

of the school's failure to implement the IEP, if these claims are

valid and you have support for them.

Under IDEA 2004, " stay put " does not apply to appeals of disciplinary

decisions, so the child must

remain in the alternate program until the removal period expires or

until a hearing officer orders the

student's return to school.

10. Avoid Due Process Hearings if Possible.

Due process hearings should be your last resort, after you have

attempted all other methods to resolve the

dispute. Due process hearings are often an expensive and lengthy

process. There are few absolutes in the

law, and perhaps even fewer absolutes in the context of special

education disputes. The adversarial nature

of due process hearings often creates a wound in the relationship

between parents and school personnel

that never heals.

Try to resolve your dispute through IEP meetings, mediation, and/or

the Resolution Session before you

request a due process hearing.

9

Mediation

Parents and schools can attempt to resolve their dispute through

mediation. Mediation is a confidential

process that allows parties to resolve disputes without litigation.

The mediator helps the parties express

their views and positions and understand the other's view and

positions. Before entering into mediation,

you need to understand your rights and the law. When you mediate,

your goals are to resolve the

problems and protect the parent-school relationship.

If the dispute is resolved in mediation, IDEA 2004 requires the

parties to execute a legally binding

agreement that sets forth the terms of the resolution. (Section 1415

(e)(2)(F))

Resolution Session

IDEA 2004 includes a new mandatory " resolution session " that provides

the parties with an opportunity

to resolve their dispute before the due process hearing. (Section 1415

(f)(1)()

The school district must send " the relevant member or members of the

IEP team " who have knowledge

about the facts in the parents' complaint and a school district

representative who has decision-making

authority. The school board attorney may not attend the Resolution

Session unless an attorney

accompanies the parent. The parents and school district may waive the

Resolution Session or use the

mediation process. If the school district has not resolved the

complaint to the parents' satisfaction within

30 days of receiving the complaint, the due process hearing can be

held. (Section 1415(f)(1)((ii))

Due Process Hearing

If your attempts to resolve your dispute have been unsuccessful, you

may decide to request a due process

hearing. Consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable about this

area of law first. Many of the pre-trial

procedures and timelines for due process hearings are new in IDEA

2004. These pre-trial procedures are

technical and cumbersome.

IDEA 2004 includes other disincentives for parents who file for due

process. If the parents' claim is found

to be " frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, " the parents'

attorney can be held liable for the

school district's attorney's fees. (Section 1415(i)(3)() If the

parents' complaint was filed " for any

improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or

to needlessly increase the cost of

litigation, " the parents can be held liable for the school district's

attorney's fees.

Congress only envisioned shifting the school district's attorney's

fees to parents or their attorneys in

extraordinary cases. This fee shifting statutory language closely

follows Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and a case from the U. S. Supreme Court

(Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S.

412 (1978)). Cases in which a plaintiff is forced to pay a

defendant's attorneys under Rule 11 or the

Christiansburg standard are rare. (See IDEA 2004: Rule 11 and

Attorneys Fees at

www.wrightslaw.com/idea/attyfees.rule11.htm)

Parents should not be deterred from requesting a due process hearing

out of fear that they may have to

pay the school's attorney's fees, if they are filing in good faith

and have a valid claim.

You should avoid a due process hearing if possible. The best way to

avoid a due process hearing is to

prepare for a due process hearing as soon as you realize that you

have a disagreement or dispute with the

school about your child's special education program.

10

If you have a well-organized case and a clear, simple theme, you will

be in a stronger position if you need

to request a due process hearing. You must be able to document your

attempts to resolve the dispute.

You must also be able to describe your concerns about the school's

proposed program or placement and

your proposed solution. When you document your concerns, you make it

more likely that others will

understand your position and help you resolve the dispute.

The URL for 10 Tips: Using IDEA 2004 to Improve Education of Children

with

Disabilities is www.wrightslaw.com/idea/art/10.tips.steedman.htm

The pdf version of 10 Tips is at

www.wrightslaw.com/idea/art/10.tips.steedman.pdf

About the Author

Wayne Steedman is an attorney and founding partner in the law firm of

Callegary & Steedman. His

practice is devoted primarily to representing children with

disabilities. In addition to a law degree from

the University of

land, he has a

Masters Degree in Social Work.

Mr. Steedman has represented his clients in administrative due

process hearings and state and federal

courts. For several years, Mr. Steedman served as a Due Process

Hearing Officer in special education

cases. He is the author of many articles about special education

issues and an active member of the

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA).

As a member of the Wrighslaw Speaker's Bureau, Mr. Steedman provides

training in special education

legal and advocacy issues. slaw special education law &

advocacy programs are designed to meet

the needs of parents, educators, health care providers, advocates,

and attorneys who represent children

with disabilities.

Contact Info

Wayne Steedman, Esq.

Callegary & Steedman, P.A.

301 North Street, Suite

600

Baltimore, land 21201

Phone 410 576-7606 l FAX 410 576-0454

Email infocallegarysteedman

Sign In

: [IEP_guide] © Wayne Steedman 2005 www.wrightslaw.com

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity