
- Previous Topic | Next Topic
- Print this topic
- You are not subscribed
- Return to main forum list
Prior Written Notice
Author | Message |
---|---|
Posted Nov 20, 2012 at 9:28:18 AM
Subject: Prior Written Notice
I know the C.F.R. does not specifiy a time frame for PWR beyond "reasonable time;" however, I am wondering if there is a, generally, acknowledged time frame to give a LEA to produce PWR before making a parental request? Thank you very much! |
|
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, The reasonable and acceptable timeframe to provide a PWN is 10 business days from the date of refusal or proposal. DRHD |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
Thank you for the response, DRHD. I will give it 10 business days. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
Requested PWN, in writing, and received it yesterday certified mail. The notice does not contain all of the info I requested, and leaves off the reading disability the school psychologist tagged. It is my understanding I can ask for revisions/corrections. Is my understanding correct? I know what PWN is suppose to contain, but while all areas are addressed on the standard form, it is very general. Thanks! |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, Thank you for letting me know that you have received the PWN. It is not surprising to understand that something may have been overlooked in the writing of a PWN. This can be an unintentional error. During the deliberations of an IEP meeting it becomes a challenge to ensure that everyone understands what has been proposed and also refused during these discussions. It is always best practice at the end of the meeting discussion to summarize and agree upon what was refused and proposed. That way everyone leaves the discussion "on the same page" As for your question of whether you could request an additional PWN of something that was left out of the one you received, you may certaintly do so. I would suggest to contact the individual who sent you the PWN and remind them this was omitted. This is a positive proactive step on your part. Just make sure that you are not adding or requesting something additional that was not discussed during the IEP deliberation. By the way, what position title provided you the PWN? |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
Thank you for the resonse, DRHD. My PWN request was made to the school psychologist (he has been the paper generator), and I CC: the district Director of Special Services. I copied her, because I thought the school psychologist was going to be on vacation, per previous discussion. Director called me and said PWN would be sent, as well as, she would like to have another meeting in light of an admended OT eval. The OT eval qualifying my son for consultative services is not contained in meeting minutes, PWN, or my son's recently obtained school records. I sensed she knew I was was frustrated with the process and was making efforts to put the 504 meeting on a faster track. She said PWN would be sent containing my requests. I was a little surprised it came certified mail w/ the director's letter stating this was the 2nd copy. She stated PWN was originally sent on the 9th (the day of our eligibility meeting). We did not receive the 1st PWN, hence my request. The PWN did not list my son's reading disability. It made no mention of RTI/RTI data (which we were told was mandatory), no reference to the RTI interventions my son received for approx. 10 days (that "data" was 90% of our eligibility discussion), did not list the school psychlogists classroom observation & comparative work samples obtained from similar ability children. It states the reason for denial is my son is on grade-level in all subject areas. I want to ask for clarification on the aforementioned & further justification. OSER has been clear in their commentary that grades/grade level do not disqualify a child from services, but that was the sole reason given. I'm not interested in fighting the decision, but I am very interested in making sure the record is accurate & the school is forced to justify their actions in writing. We can agree to disagree on special education services, valid arguments on both sides, but I do think we have valid procedural complaints. I'm OK with disagreements, but I feel uneasy with disagreements when the trust has been broken. Sorry to ramble like I usually do. Appreciate the response and support. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, You have confused me somewhat. Both you and the LEA may be on the same page and not realize it unless something for certain was omitted by simple error. Exactly, what is your understanding of exactly what the LEA proposed or refused in your recent discussion? What did your first PWN state was proposed or refused? Were the refusals or proposals a part of an identification, evaluation, or a provision of special education issue? Often, parents will read policy interpretations from OSERS, OCR, and OSEP and will become further disamyed that something may be left to do or has not been done. Parents have to be careful to not read into these policy clarifications more than they should or take them out of context. There are rules for the PWN and the PWN is necessary only under certain circumstances. It was not intended to serve as "minutes" of a meeting where a refusal or proposal took place. So, if you would, please list the anticipated and actual refusals and proposals that you received in your PWN. Hope this helps to focus on what you have received or think you have not received. DRHD |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
Sorry for the confusion. LEA refused special education services in our last mtg on Nov. 9th. We had 2 mtgs prior to the 9th & one in spring of last school yr. At no time time did the school recommend, directly state, or imply RTI was mandatory. Eligibility was to be decided on 10/18/12. Consent had been signed on 9/12, and team agreed prong 1 was met on 9/12, with a severe discrepancy in writing & basic reading. School psychologist included basic reading while independent eval specified Dx of written expression only. In 10/18 mtg., school psychologist (SP) seemed floored, after sitting in mtg for 1.5 hrs, that my son had not been in RTI at any point. SP said RTI data was needed to determine eligibility, asst. principle piped in (also oversees RTI) & said RTI is mandatory. Tier 3 interventions w/ eligibility mtg on 12/9/12 according to team members (we expressed our disagreement). A 12/9/12 mtg would violate the 60 day clock. I contacted the director of special services regarding my concern about the process, and she agreed, RTI could not/would not supersede the 60 day clock. Mtg rescheduled for 11/9/12 to meet the 11/15 deadline. In the interim, my son had approx. 8-10 days of the "mandatory" RTI. The 10 days of data was, virtually, the only data/evidence discussed when eligibility was denied. Prior to 10/18, the school was calling asking for input regarding a draft IEP. Big shift. We did not receive PWN, sent or not, regarding the school's refusal to provide services. It is my understanding that PWN is warranted w/ an initial eval & services are refused. The PWN I received was said to be the 2nd copy the school sent. What I want clarified is the use of RTI data under the section referring to what assessments etc. were used to make decisions. RTI is glaringly absent despite delaying an eligibility decision & forming the basis of 90% of what was discussed during our eligibility meeting. No mention of classroom observations or comparative student work samples. I'm not asking for meeting minutes, but I would like the record to reflect a complete list of data/info used to form a decision. Other than the independent eval, everything else was dictated to us by the school, but they don't include all the "stuff" the team said was required. Why do they leave off what THEY insisted on having? The school lists the reason for refusing our IEP request as "on grade level in all areas." I'm not an attorney, and am new to this confusing IDEA stuff, but I am confident the spirit of IDEA is not commensurate with rejection soley based on being at (or above w/ 2x exceptionals) grade/age level ; furthermore, the RTI data used in the eligibility mtg lists intervention(s) as being: small group setting. Huh? Small group setting is not an intervention. The team said RTI data is mandated by law, but they were willing to overlook the 60 day clock law until I called them on it. I reminded my son's teacher the OT eval had not been completed 1 wk before our eligibility mtg. It was done 2 days before our mtg. My son did well with the exception of grip & another manipulative type activity. Not qualified; however, after the mtg, I spoke with the OT for a few minutes, and she said she was going to admend her report for consultative services. She said had she seen some of my son's work samples prior to the mtg, she would have had a different (ie: qualifying) report to present to the team. Maybe I'm just wrong in my understanding that PWN should reflect the basics. I feel like ours does not, especially when it does not even list the 2 SLD contained all over mtg minutes and data the school itself lists as being used to consider eligibility. Ugh! My brain smolders. Sorry for not being able to be brief/concise. Really appreciate the feedback! Apology for typos/grammar. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, please tell me the state in which you reside. I wish to check your state regulations for several matters before I respond to your latest posting. However, please understand that PWN is not only just for "initial evaluations". The use of RTI data is very appropriate to be used as part of the evaluation process and should have been included in the PWN as a basis of a refusal to evaluate or identify. Finally, please attempt to provide a "chronology of dates" as to when your process of exposure to the special education process began with your school system. This will be the last piece of information I will request. I promise. DRHD |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
We live in SC. I know that PWN is used in a variety of circumstances. In an ideal world/setting, RTI can serve as a terrific model for serving all students, but, IMO, it also comes with a lot of problems. That is another discussion, but in our case, it is the process. Last year, my son had a teacher with a lot of experience, and began working with us from the beginning. She was very open & willing to make accomodations and to provide extra help in & out of the classroom. By February, we knew we were going to seek outside testing. My son's teacher agreed that being on grade level/not failing = no intensive RTI interventions or testing. In the spring of last yr (son was in 1st grade), I turned over the independent eval & informed the school we would seek services. Met with the asst. principle 2x, and had a conference call w/ the school psychologist. At no time did anyone suggest we participate in RTI for the remainder of the school year or beginning this fall. Met with my son's 2nd grade teacher at the very beginning of the year. The asst. principle sat in on the conference. Had another meeting with the asst. principle (September) prior to our 1st team mtg. on 9/12/12. Had 9/12/12 mtg. Prong 1 was met, and we discussed what remains to complete the eval before eligibility. Eligibility mtg set for 10/18/12 & consent signed. Since spring '12 up to 10/18, there were meetings, phone calls, and written correspondence, and at no time did anyone ever mention, suggest, mandate, or ask about RTI. All of the sudden on the 10-18, it's mandatory, and the team is willing to violate the 60 day clock to get the 6 wks of data. When they were corrected on the time clock, they then proceeded to use 8-10 days of "data" to form the basis of an eligibility decision that had to be moved up by 3.5 wks. Most research I have read suggests 6-8 wks in a tier. I could be worng, but I do not understand or will ever agree that 2 wks of data (based on interventions described as small group) is good practice, ethical, or acceptable in the name of good RTI programs. Perhaps 6wks of data would have given my son the same results, but I am expressing frustration over the process. I perceive some team members, albeit very nice, as borderline incompetent. I have had to correct meeting minutes, call the state dept. of Ed or district to clarify/ensure the law is followed, and provide the remediation ourselves. I know my posts come across as angry and defensive. I am frustrated and let it out here rather than at school meetings. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, Thank you for the additional information. I also wish to express that I sense you are frustrated by this process and from what you have described, much of your frustration is justified. Several things I wish to share with you: 1) Please address your concerns to the Director of Special Education from this point forward until such time there is closure to the immediate issues. This Director apparently has a handle on things much better than the school personnel at this time. This will alleviate having too many persons in the equation and expressing opinions. 2) Am I to understand that your child was 504 eligible and then you requested your child to be evaluated under IDEA? You mentioned 504 in your posting and this also confused me. So is this an issue of evaluation and identification under the IDEA process or a provision of services requested under your child's 504 plan? 3) For a child to be identified with an IDEA disability the child's educational performance must be adversely affected to the extent that special education and related services are necessary. Now, you know the discussions you have had and what was presented in these meetings, does your child meet this statutory eligibility criteria? Please note that progressing from grade to grade does not preclude an identification. It is whether the child's performance is adversley affected. So what is your conclusion? 4) I am of the opinion that this school division has compromised your procedural safeguards significantly by not meeting timelines of the evaluation process and delaying the referral for evaluation at your request by deferring to a mandatory RTI process. On the other hand, I don't think the procedural errors have denied a benefit of intervention to your child as much as it simply delayed the process. If this should proceed to a hearing, the Hearing Officer would weigh in the balance the procedural and substantive errors in view of their effect on the child. The position of the school division is very weak due to these issues. 5) Finally, please correct me if my conclusions to this matter are correct: a) Your child is currently a 504 eligible child and has a 504 implementation plan b) You requested an IDEA evaluation for a learning disability but the child was found ineligible c) In the process of the request for an IDEA evaluation, the school division delayed this request by stating your child first is required to receive intervention services through RTI first. d) As a result of the delays, the timeline compliance for the IDEA evaluation was compromised. e) You received the PWN but this notice did not provide a clear basis of why your child and on what basis your child was not identified with an IDEA disability. It further did not include the RTI interventions that would serve as the basis of the decision not to identify Kellygh, do I have all this correct? [Modified by: DRHD on December 08, 2012 11:37 AM] |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
1)The Director of Special Services is much more on top of things and responsive even if we ultimately disagree. She will be at our nxt IEP mtg (I explain how we/why another IEP/eligibility team mtg below). |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, Thank you for answering my question and conclusions. You are to be commended for taking such a proactive position on behalf of your son. You are an excellent advocate for your son and he and other parents should be very proud of how you have addressed these issues. It will be my intent to reflect upon your responses in this last message and offer you some suggestions as you go forward into this "never ending process". I will respond on this tomorrow as I am in a social gathering this evening. I do want you to know that I received your purposeful response and I wish to convey I am very proud of how you have handled all this. Please understand that your son will be successful in spite of any of our efforts at this juncture. It probably seems odd that I say this but this is true and will come to pass. If at any time you feel so compelled to contact me beyond this forum, please use my email address @ doc7dew@yahoo.com. This will be an option to you if you so desire. My immediate reaction to what you have provided is that the local school district is about to bring closure to your requests. Please let this play out and I would suggest that you request and notify the Director of Special Education that you wish to "tape record" the next meeting but provide timely notice of this. This will enable you to have a verbatim transcript of this meeting. I think this will be prudent. Kellygh, you are to be commended. DRHD |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, Just checking with you to understand the progress you have been making with your son and with the school and/orschool division. DRHD |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
Thank you, DRHD, for checking in with me. Also, I really appreciate the kind words & support. I often feel like I'm falling short as a parent, with at least one of my kids, so I'm grateful for the encouragement. I will take you up on your offer to email. I don't have time right now, but I will email you the latest letter I sent to district re: PWN. I met with the guidance counselor (in charge of 504) yesterday. Sigh...Talking with her, you'd almost think I have a better chance of being a Rhoades Scholar at 41 than getting a 504 for my son. I am confident he is eligible. Thanks so much! |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, Thank you for your message. I am pleased you had your meeting and feel more confident that something substantive will be taking place soon. Theoretically, and statutorily, the threshold to identify a child under Section 504 as compared to an IDEA criteria are quite different. School divisions will most always apply an inconsistent standard when a 504 identification is at issue. Nontheless, if you feel comfortable at this juncture then that is what is important. The criteria for a 504 identification does not consider the adverse effects of a child's performance. The threshold to identify a child with a 504 disability is whether there is a "substantial limitation to a major life activity, this case learning". The term "substantial" is not to be interpreted as just "adverse" but substantial moves the threshold to a greater level of severity. This is where parents and school districts, more often than within acceptable limits, view the identification of 504 to be "relatively easier" than to identify under IDEA. This thinking or conclusion by school personnel is simply faulty at best. The 504 statute and the ADA statute do not define the term "substantial" and therefore it is left to the opinions of those who are deliberating the eligibility decision to decide. One myth I have concluded associated with IDEA eligibility is that if a child does not meet the threshold criteria of "adverse effects on performance" under IDEA, how then can one conclude that the child should and likely can be identified under 504 where the threshold is "a substantial limitation"? So again, as I have stated earlier, you know the data and have been a part of the discussions: are there adverse effects upon performance or are there substantial limitations to a major life activity such as learning.? I share this with you as I feel that you need to understand these differences as you proceed into this process. All things said, I do hope you are successful and the outcome will serve to benefit your son. DRHD [Modified by: DRHD on December 11, 2012 12:41 PM] |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
You keep me on my toes, DRHD, which is helpful. I am not comfortable with anything at this point but feel like my son meet criteria for 504. I am attaching a link I was provided, by OCR, in response to my seeking clarification. It is more specific in defining "substantially limits" under Q4. Q9 addresses academic performance. I will be interested to know what you &/or others think, DRHD. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, I am familiar with the OCR Q&A as I have used this in the class I teach, Legal Aspects of Special Education to doctoral students. This particular Q&A does answer questions about the issue of the definition "substantially limits" but in he final analysis is not prescriptive. Usually a 504 discussion at the school and division level will address the transient nature of a child's issue and the ameliorative effects of interventions and still not consider the significance of the impact of the substantial elements of a disability upon academic performance to require 504 interventions. This is where the true issue resides. What has to be demonstrated in my opinion, is the relationship to your son's inability to achieve to his level of potential in learning as a result of a substantial limitation that impacts upon this. The uphill issue that exists here is the fact that as I understand from all that has been described is that your son is achieving academic success and is able to access his academic pursuits with a minimal but not necessarily a substantial level of limitation. Please note I'm playing a "devil's advocate" here and only trying to prepare you for the discussion. So how will you "counter" the otherwise obvious arguments that "access" and "equal participation" are not the issues that should cause him to meet the threshold of eligibility for 504 services? Again, pleas undestand I'm supporting your efforts. DRHD |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
Thank you for your insight & expertise, DRHD. I guess I'm out of counter arguments and give up. If academic success is defined by good grades, I don't understand why documents are produced stating a child can be with disability despite having good grades or the school should consider the amount of help a child gets to obtain the good grades. The amount of time, money, love, and effort that goes into supporting our son does not seem minimal to us, but it sounds like as long as a child is not failing or acting out at school, there is no help or protections for us. RTI gives the school an out whether or not the "interventions" are a good fit. They are providing help as far as they are concerned. They can hold meetings without parents, make changes without consent in the context of general ed. It's beautiful. In our area, we are trading one form of discrepancy for another. "Wait to fail" would be "watch and fail" for our son without outside support. I have a ton of respect for parents/guardians who have been doing this for a long time. My goose is about cooked after a couple of months. Lol. Again, thank you for keeping on my toes & providing a lot of food for thought. Devils advocate is a good thing but I'm (son) facing a loss I guess. |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
DRHD
Joined Apr 29, 2008 Posts: 135 Other Topics |
Kellygh, You've come a long way from what you thought you understood in the beginning of this process. You have done well and I envision success on the horizon. Schools and school districts 'struggle" with 504 issues and I can understand why this is the case. 504 issues are like nailing jello to a tree at times. All I have done or attempted to do is to enable you to be somewhat more prepared for the discussion. I will encourage you once again to notify the Director that you desire to tape record the discussion to have a verbatim record. Just make certain it is timely. DRHD |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
kellygh
Joined Oct 14, 2012 Posts: 27 Other Topics |
Alrighty, DRHD...Thank you for putting me in my place. It's necessary & a good exercise. Like all of the other disappointing meetings we have had, I had to tantrum & be "debbie downer" for a bit w/ bad news; however, I am not quitting. I'm done sulking, despite the probability of us losing. My counter argument is based on school/district/state assessments not necessarily testing our areas of concern. For example, the school loves to point out solid MAP ; however, MAP scores do not test writing in any form or challenge orthographic memory. I'm not a big fan of MAP. My oldest daughter has been in Gifted & Talented since 3rd grade (when it starts in SC), and her MAP scores can fluctuate 7-15 percentage points between spring & fall testing (spring almost always lower). Off topic. I don't currently have time to present what will probably be perceived as lame arguments by the school, but I just wanted to say, my/our goose is not yet fully cooked. If y'all feel the earth the shake on Friday at about 3pm, it may be another tantrum, but I will at least sleep knowing I didn't quit. I'm sure every parent feels like their child deserves &/or qualifies for services, and I am no different. Thank you, DRHD, for challenging me. Grateful! [Modified by: kellygh on December 12, 2012 10:12 PM] [Modified by: kellygh on December 13, 2012 08:06 AM] |
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |