Educational Crimes against Students with Disabilities

My stomach is in knots today. It is devastating to know our Children with unique learning challenges (disabilities) are systematically targeted mainly for the $MONEY$ they bring into a School District. Children with Special Needs not being provided a World Class Education as districts advertise on their websites and often times the districts phone message while waiting on HOLD so often is a LIE for many Students today! 

Those that draw a salary within the EDUCATIONAL BUSINESS today on all levels starting with our ESE Department District Administrators, Supervisors, Principals, School Psychologist and team leaders, school office staff and let's not forget the many Program Specialist on down to the School District Corporate Chain of commands from School Board Members the Public Voted them into their position to our Children's Teachers. These Educational Employees are the New CROOKS, THIEVES and LIARS known as the FAKE PEOPLE or the School District ROBOTS doing what they are instructed and told to do by someone in a higher position than them! It's a Dictatorship absolutely!! School District employees on all levels give you that oh so FAKE smile and canned conversation to make you believe they care. They may even say a friendly hello (like a cold dead fish!) and only give you the most minimal of small talk that avoids addressing any of the real issues of the day.  

District Level Administrators and the school Principals are only interested in your Child's $ MATRIX $ MONEY $ FUNDING $ and how to USE IT for things other than Educating our Children.

EDUCATIONAL CRIMES on the backs of ESE Children that generate the $FUNDS$ into a school district. It's not about education anymore, it's about babysitting and stealing our Children's education, future goals and dreams. They all should be ashamed, it is so disgusting all the LIES & COVER-UP that goes on everyday in our Schools and the District!

Our Children are being raped of an Education! 

How do so many School District Employees SLEEP-AT-NIGHT, when they do what they do on a daily basis as part of their JOB DUTIES? It has to create some sort of Criminal Mentality & Callousness towards people. How can so many school district staff employees systematically partake in daily EDUCATIONAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN as part of their daily job duties? It has to create A Stone Cold Heart in those people. How can so many Educational Employees do what they do to STUDENT after STUDENT, CHILD after CHILD, PARENT after PARENT and FAMILY after FAMILY? 

I think it's important to inform the Public how the Broward School District Legal Department Lawyers & Due Process employees TAKE OVER & CONTROL Special Education for the Districts Ultimate AGENDA. What that AGENDA is exactly I'm not sure, but there most certainly is an AGENDA. The Legal 'team' stop good parents from helping their Child or Children from receiving a 'world class education' from this school district. The Legal Department feel they have the power to illegally REWRITE and REDO a student's IEP, especially when a Parent exercises their Procedural Safeguard and ends up FILING for a DUE PROCESS. This has happened to me personally. 

This District is doing all they can to dumb down Student IEP goals and provide some students with a canned set of goals on IEP's, all with the very low grade level expectations. Sometimes the IEP goals are what the Student is already capable of doing, yet they push to get IEP goals written to be something that allows teachers and staff to bring down and dumb down ESE Students all around, starting with lower grade level IEP goals. It is disgusting what IEP teams are pushing & promoting at IEP meetings, daring parents to go ahead and FILE for a Due Process.

Stealing our Children's Education & Dreams for their Future is an EDUCATIONAL WHITE COLLAR CRIME! Educational Criminals should carry a FELONY CHARGE!

I have witnessed first hand the amount of LYING & HALF-TRUTHS turned into a complete lie, just to move on a School District's AGENDA and school Principal's AGENDA. I have experienced first hand blatant disregard, first of all for FEDERAL IDEA LAWS and more importantly disregarding Civil Rights of our Children.

It is time for parents of students that are daily being victimized by our Public School Districts Agenda's to NOT PROVIDE "A World Class Education" to our Students with Disabilities. Students and Families that have instead experienced many forms of EDUCATIONAL CRIMES that are systematically being done daily to our Children in Special Education need to band together. This goes for our General Education Students and Families as well, as they too NEED Special Education Services but are being delayed and denied evaluations or interventions that would help them be successful...in the CURRENT school year!

I have experienced first hand in Broward County Florida, just how much our Public School District on all levels, absolutely does not care about our (my) Children's Education. 

Our school district is in the business of using our Children's Special Education $FUNDS$ to do any number of things on the School Boards AGENDA, and certainly not the AGENDA of Providing a World Class Education to ALL Students, as part of their Advertising campaign.

From the TOP DOWN, it is my personal experience that they are all EDUCATIONAL CRIMINALS (...and liars...) that should be slapped with FELONY CHARGES for GRAND THEFT many times over!!

What is allowed to continue to go on with our Children's Educational Funding Dollars also known as the ESE Students MATRIX FUNDING is DISGUSTING!

Parents of ESE Students in Broward County, it is time for ESE REFORM! A group of Parents in Broward County, Florida has recently formed a Grassroots group called; 
ESE REFORM TASKFORCE S.FLORIDA. 
Visit us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/EseReformSFlorida

We are about ALL Students being provided a World Class Education.

Steve Moyer: Broward County School Board's top priority must be the kids

Steve Moyer: Broward County School Board's top priority must be the kids

"...the dysfunction that exists in the Exceptional Student Education Department, and the legal department that supports them. While the district has an anti-bully policy regarding students, the ESE and legal department has free rein to bully the families of ESE students at will. The department uses the district's well-oiled and taxpayer-funded inhouse legal firm to support the denial of mandated services, trample civil rights and take the path of least resistance in what, for some students, is little better than babysitting."

"The School Board refuses to see this failure and supports the status quo as the path of least resistance. They may address problems individually, but refuse to act systemically citing "school-based management" as an excuse for their inability to take action."

"The ESE Department continues their habit of quoting non-existent policy or factual inaccuracies in the hope that repetition will make them correct, all the while forgetting that they exist only to serve the students."


READ FULL ARTICLE by clicking on this link: 
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-readers-view-school-board-20130221,0,1615516.story#tugs_story_display


BROWARD SCHOOL BOARD LEGAL DEPARTMENT ARE THE BULLIES AND DON'T CARE ABOUT EDUCATION OF STUDENTS! 

The legal department takes advantage of GOOD PARENTS trying to make sure their child is being EDUCATED. Then the school doesn't talk to you, because your Child's IEP Document is now in a "STAY-PUT." Teachers give minimal collaboration in the first place, but certainly ONCE A PARENT FILES for a DUE PROCESS or FILES A COMPLAINT.....any collaboration that was barely there in the first place stops! 

Broward schools is only interested in taking our Children's ESE MATRIX FUNDS! EVERY PARENT NEEDS TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THEIR CHILD "BRINGS INTO THE DISTRICT"....so they know how much our Children are being taken advantage of not only by NOT EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN, but by STEALING THE FUNDS THAT ARE MEANT TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN!

Go on VIRTUAL COUNSELOR and be sure to know what your Child's MATRIX NUMBER IS, that number correlates to a DOLLAR AMOUNT....a good amount  chunk of change $$dollar$$ amount! 

Parents should know and find out what the MATIX FUND dollar $$ amount is WORTH for your Child! Those MATRIX FUNDS, the District USES and then DENIES ESE SERVICES & SUPPORT to our Children that need it.

It is Disgusting to me the amount of LIES so many PROFESSIONALS will do, just to keep their JOBS! It's not about education anymore, it's absolutely about STEALING THE MATRIX FUNDING OUR ESE STUDENTS BRING INTO A DISTRICT! 

BROWARD HAS GOT TO BE THE LEADER IN WASTEFUL ESE MATRIX FUND SPENDING!

The ESE Department does NOT CARE ABOUT THE ESE STUDENTS EDUCATION and absolutely does not care about the ESE parents 'voice!' The ESE Department is glad, in fact ENCOURAGE PARENTS TO FILE, they "dare you to file!!"...and then when parents "FILE", then their "partners" aka the LEGAL DEPARTMENT takes over the ESE Parent BULLYING!! 

The ESE Department and the Legal Department in Broward Schools need a complete transformation of employees! They all cover each others backs, they all want to keep their jobs....on the backs of many many deserving students needing Exceptional Student Education SERVICES & SUPORTS!

My recommendation to ESE PARENTS ~ FILE FILE FILE help make it be known that your child is not getting ESE Services & Supports that you as a parent know your child needs and should be getting at the Public School your child attends.

ESE PARENTS

Just Do It!

FILE A COMPLAINT!

FILE FOR A DUE PROCESS!

READ FULL ARTICLE by clicking on this link: 
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-readers-view-school-board-20130221,0,1615516.story#tugs_story_display

Little Children & Due Process

Today it's Aniah's day in COURT! Broward School District filed for a Due Process Hearing. Aniah's mother DID NOT AGREE WITH the content of the Psycho-Educational EVALUATION that the school Psychologist wrote up about her. Mom was in disagreement on several things, one mainly being that she was evaluated from the schools perspective as if she were a child with Autism and not a child with Down syndrome.

Mom disagreed with several inconsistencies pertaining to her daughters true academic abilities that the school psychologist had written into the report. So she disagreed with the PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL REPORT and the school district believes it was accurate. Therefore the School District takes the Parent to Due Process!

*Parent requested a second opinion or an IEE=Independent Educational Evaluation at PUBLIC EXPENSE. Parent Request was DENIED!

It has been a Roller-Coaster Ride of emotions and stress to say the least on the entire family. Not only that but a financial burden as well.

Today at the Due Process Hearing, mom took her daughter, Aniah with her to meet the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. Aniah was a perfect Angel during the entire proceedings that lasted a few hours. She finally was able to go ask him what his name was and snap a few photos when the Due Process Hearing was over.

Having a school district TAKE YOU TO DUE PROCESS is no fun, absolutely but the "process" is an amazing opportunity for parents & the entire family to learn just how "nasty" the schools legal department can make things on an involved parent, that is advocating for their Child's Education!

Outcome of this Particular Due Process Hearing: Our Children's Individual Educational Planning is NOT UP TO THE DISTRICTS LEGAL & DUE PROCESS DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES!! 

....for the record....we have THAT in writing via the COURT REPORTER on the TRANSCRIPTS from Aniah's Due Process Hearing!

Glad this chapter is over!

Broward parents demand more rigor for special-needs students - Schools - MiamiHerald.com

Broward parents demand more rigor for special-needs students - Schools - MiamiHerald.com

Some Broward parents with special-needs children complain the school district pushes their students off the path for a real high school diploma.

BY MICHAEL VASQUEZ
MRVASQUEZ@MIAMIHERALD.COM
In testimony that was at once angry and tearful, a group of Broward mothers told School Board members Tuesday that their special-needs children are being forced into less rigorous classes that don’t result in a standard high school diploma.

The parents insisted their students are capable of earning a regular diploma, but the children are instead placed on the path to a “special diploma” that has little practical use.

Parent Nancy Linley-Harris told board members that the district’s methods of evaluating special-needs students are “toxic” and for parents the process amounts to “being in a war zone for our children.”

Nearly 33,000 special-needs students — with disabilities ranging from minor to severe — attend Broward district schools. In interviews after the parents’ harshly critical public appearance, district leaders stressed that it was only a small group of parents (joined by a few children and other supporters) who were complaining.

School Board Chairwoman Laurie Rich Levinson said thousands of parents with special-needs children “are thrilled with the education they’re receiving.”

“You have, just as you do with anything, some parents who are dissatisfied,” she said.

Some of the upset parents told The Miami Herald they’d been forced to pursue legal action to fight the district.

Linley-Harris said her 14-year-old daughter, Mariah, who has Down syndrome, was placed on the special diploma track last year. Mariah wants to one day become a veterinary technician, and attends Parkway Middle School’s STEM magnet program.

Mariah’s new classes, her mom said, are “a very expensive babysitting service for our kids. They water down the goals.”

Linley-Harris has a pending legal case against the district, alleging her child’s “due process” rights were violated.

Those lawsuits are the last resort for parents unhappy with how their special-needs child is being served by the school system. But Kathrine Francis, executive director of Broward’s Exceptional Student Education department, said there are other ways for parents to resolve disputes with the district.

A simple talk with the child’s school might be enough to solve any problems, Francis said, and when that doesn’t work, the district offers its own in-house conflict-resolution service. Francis said parents filing due process lawsuits represent less than 1 percent of special-needs students served by the district.

Still, Francis said the district is always looking to improve and is conducting a satisfaction survey with special-needs families in the coming months.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/05/3219059/broward-parents-demand-more-rigor.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy


* I tried that "having a simple talk with my Child's school"....6 IEP's later and 1 "in-house conflict-resolution service." (...service?)

This is not what I had in mind this school year to be an INVOLVED PARENT WITH MY DAUGHTER'S NEW SCHOOL & EDUCATION! This level of Advocating for my daughter has taken me away from Volunteering at my daughter's Middle School, like I had plans to do. My school district has not been 'reasonable nor workable'.....throughout all the "simple IEP meetings" that I had a Lawyer with me at everyone! Thank you Disability Rights Florida for helping me get my "sea legs" back and encouraging me to REPRESENT MYSELF in my Due Process. www.disabilityrightsflorida.org

No one can REPRESENT THEIR CHILD BEST THAN THE MOTHER!!! (...or FATHER!!!) I know every detail of the 'chain-of-events' that this districts ESE Department Administrators, Program Specialist, ESE Specialist and my Elementary School Principal has taken me on!! I know my daughter, Mariah is entitled to a WORLD CLASS EDUCATION ...ha!! The SPECIAL DIPLOMA IS NOT SO SPECIAL when it amounts to NOTHING in the real world for my daughter, or anyone's daughter or son for that matter...Who the heck created this SPECIAL DIPLOMA 'track' in Florida? 

I don't believe I am part of the "less than 1%" and I certainly am not, the parent that doesn't care...I DO CARE!! I care so much, last year that I sat on 6 different Advisories, as an ESE "Parent Voice." I am a Special Needs Advocate. I absolutely know what families experience during IEP meetings in Broward and other Florida Districts! What is and has been happening here for so long is going on in the entire State of Florida and beyond! It's a mess everywhere!

I would encourage parents to learn all you can about your CIVIL RIGHTS and the Special Ed Federal Laws, IDEA and become familiar with your State Department of Education Special Education Laws. Attend National Conferences specific to your Child's Disability. Get connected with a group of parents you can relate to and learn from one another. Attend each other's IEP meetings. Wrightslaw is any parents best friend when learning about your Special Ed Rights & IDEA Federal Law. www.wrightslaw.com 

I AM TAKING THE STEPS 4 CHANGE!

Differences between an online public school and homeschool ~ K12.com

Differences between an online public school and homeschool

Many people assume that because online learning is done at home, it is homeschooling. But it’s not.  Online public schools are provided by school districts, charter schools, and state education agencies that are part of our public education system. They give every child in a state access to a high quality public school in a home based learning environment.

Here are six important differences between an Online Public School and Homeschooling. Click here for complete BLOG POST by K12.com

www.K12.com

Mommie Prayer

Oh Dear Lord please forgive us involved & concerned Mommies for our having the thoughts we have towards those that PreJudge our Children's ABILITIES ....especially towards those in high positions! Forgive me Lord for I have sinned in thought. I pray a hedge of protection & grace around my Mommie friends raising & helping our beautiful children be successful and all they are meant to be. 
AMEN

by Nancy Linley-Harris
Special Ed Parent & Child Advocate
August 23, 2012

IEP Meetings and Changes to the IEP

Individualized Education Program (IEP), 
Team Meetings and Changes to the IEP


U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education 
IDEA Regulations
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) TEAM MEETINGS AND CHANGES TO THE IEP
(See also Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Secondary Transition)


The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law on Dec. 3, 2004, by President George W. Bush. The provisions of the act became effective on July 1, 2005, with the exception of some of the elements pertaining to the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” that took effect upon the signing of the act. The final regulations were published on Aug. 14, 2006. This is one in a series of documents, prepared by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education that covers a variety of high-interest topics and brings together the regulatory requirements related to those topics to support constituents in preparing to implement the new regulations.1 This document addresses significant changes in final regulatory requirements from preexisting regulations regarding IEP Team meetings and changes to the IEP. 


IDEA Regulations


1. Identify the members of the IEP Team.


The public agency must ensure that the IEP Team for each child with a disability includes:
• The parents of the child;
• Not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);
• Not less than one special education teacher of the child, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the child;
• A representative of the public agency (who has certain specific knowledge and qualifications);
• An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results and who may also be one of the other listed members;
• At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and
• Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.


In accordance with 34 CFR 300.321(a)(7), the public agency must invite a child with a disability to attend the child’s IEP Team meeting if a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the postsecondary goals for the child and the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching those goals under 34 CFR 300.320(b).
[34 CFR 300.321(a) and (b)(1)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B)]


2. Identify instances when an IEP Team member may not need to attend. 


A member of the IEP Team described in 34 CFR 300.321(a)(2) through (a)(5) is not required to attend an IEP Team meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent of a child with a disability and the public agency agree, in writing, that the attendance of the member is not necessary because the member's area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting.


A member of the IEP Team described in 34 CFR 300.321(a)(2) through (a)(5) may be excused from attending an IEP Team meeting, in whole or in part, when the meeting involves a modification to or discussion of the member's area of the curriculum or related services, if:
• The parent, in writing, and the public agency consent to the excusal; and
• The member submits, in writing to the parent and the IEP Team, input into the development of the IEP prior to the meeting.
[34 CFR 300.321(e)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(C)]


3. Provide for inviting representatives from the Part C system.


In the case of a child who was previously served under Part C of the IDEA, an invitation to the initial IEP Team meeting must, at the request of the parent, be sent to the Part C service coordinator or other representatives of the Part C system to assist with the smooth transition of services.
[34 CFR 300.321(f)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(D)]


4. Require that the notice inform parents of other IEP Team participants.


The notice required under 34 CFR 300.322(a)(1) (regarding an IEP meeting), among other things, must inform the parents of the provisions in 34 CFR 300.321(a)(6) and (c) (relating to the participation of other individuals on the IEP Team who have knowledge or special expertise about the child), and 34 CFR 300.321(f) (relating to the participation of the Part C service coordinator or other representatives of the Part C system at the initial IEP Team meeting for a child previously served under Part C of the IDEA).
[34 CFR 300.322(b)(1)] 


5. Revise requirements for when transition content must be included in an IEP meeting notice.


For a child with a disability beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, the notice required under 34 CFR 300.322(a)(1) (regarding an IEP meeting), among other things, must:
• Indicate that a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the postsecondary goals and transition services for the child, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.320(b) and that the agency will invite the student; and
• Identify any other agency that will be invited to send a representative.
[34 CFR 300.322(b)(2)] 


6. Set forth provisions regarding consideration of Individualized Family Services Plans (IFSPs) for children aged three through five.


In the case of a child with a disability aged three through five (or, at the discretion of the State educational agency (SEA), a two-year-old child with a disability who will turn age three during the school year), the IEP Team must consider an IFSP that contains the IFSP content (including the natural environments statement) described in section 636(d) of the IDEA and its implementing regulations (including an educational component that promotes school readiness and incorporates pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills for children with IFSPs under 34 CFR 300.323 who are at least three years of age), and that is developed in accordance with the IEP procedures under Part B. 


The IFSP may serve as the IEP of the child, if using the IFSP as the IEP is consistent with State policy and agreed to by the agency and the child’s parents.


In implementing these IFSP provisions, the public agency must provide to the child’s parents, a detailed explanation of the differences between an IFSP and an IEP. If the parents choose an IFSP, the public agency must obtain written informed consent from the parents.
[34 CFR 300.323(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(2)(B)]


7. Require that the IEP be accessible to teachers and others responsible for its implementation. 


Each public agency must ensure that:
• The child’s IEP is accessible to each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation; and
• Each teacher and provider described in this provision, is informed of his or her specific responsibilities related to implementing the child’s IEP and the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports that must be provided for the child in accordance with the IEP.
[34 CFR 300.323(d)] 


8. Address the IEP for a student who transfers to a different school district in the state. 


If a child with a disability (who had an IEP that was in effect in a previous public agency in the same State) transfers to a new public agency in the same State, and enrolls in a new school within the same school year, the new public agency (in consultation with the parents) must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child (including services comparable to those described in the child’s IEP from the previous public agency), until the new public agency either adopts the child’s IEP from the previous public agency, or develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP that meets the applicable requirements in 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324.
[34 CFR 300.323(e)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I)]


9. Address the IEP for a student who transfers from another state.


If a child with a disability (who had an IEP that was in effect in a previous public agency in another State) transfers to a public agency in a new State, and enrolls in a new school within the same school year, the new public agency (in consultation with the parents) must provide the child with FAPE (including services comparable to those described in the child’s IEP from the previous public agency), until the new public agency conducts an evaluation pursuant to 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.306 (if determined to be necessary by the new public agency) and develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP, if appropriate, that meets the applicable requirements in 34 CFR 300.320 through 300.324.
[34 CFR 300.323(f)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(II)]


10. Address transmittal of records for students who transfer.


To facilitate the transition for a child described in 34 CFR 300.323(e) and (f) (who transfers within the State or from another State), the new public agency in which the child enrolls must take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the child’s records, including the IEP and supporting documents and any other records relating to the provision of special education or related services to the child, from the previous public agency in which the child was enrolled, pursuant to 34 CFR 99.31(a)(2) (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)) and the previous public agency in which the child was enrolled must take reasonable steps to promptly respond to the request from the new public agency.
[34 CFR 300.323(g)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(2)(C)(ii)]


11. Add a new provision for AMENDING the IEP without another meeting. 


In making changes to a child’s IEP after the annual IEP Team meeting for a school year, the parent of a child with a disability and the public agency may agree not to convene an IEP Team meeting for the purposes of making those changes, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the child’s current IEP. 


If changes are made to the child’s IEP in accordance with 34 CFR 300.324(a)(4)(i), the public agency must ensure that the child’s IEP Team is informed of those changes.
[34 CFR 300.324(a)(4)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(3)(D)]


Changes to the IEP may be made either by the entire IEP Team at an IEP Team meeting, or as provided in 34 CFR 300.324(a)(4), by amending the IEP rather than by redrafting the entire IEP. Upon request, a parent must be provided with a revised copy of the IEP with the amendments incorporated.
[34 CFR 300.324(a)(6)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(3)(F)]


12. Encourage consolidation of IEP meetings. 


To the extent possible, the public agency must encourage the consolidation of reevaluation meetings for the child and other IEP Team meetings for the child.
[34 CFR 300.324(a)(5)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(3)(E)]


13. Provide for the review and, as appropriate, revision of the IEP.


Each public agency must ensure that, the IEP Team reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved and revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address:
• Any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum, if appropriate;
• The results of any reevaluation;
• Information about the child provided to, or by, the parents, as described under 34 CFR 300.305(a)(2) (related to evaluations and reevaluations);
• The child’s anticipated needs; or
• Other matters.


In conducting a review of the child’s IEP, the IEP Team must consider the special factors described in 34 CFR 300.324(a)(2) (development of the IEP).


A regular education teacher of the child, as a member of the IEP Team, must, consistent with 34 CFR 300.324(a)(3) (participation of regular teacher in development of the IEP), participate in the review and revision of the IEP of the child.
[34 CFR 300.324(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(4)]


14. Authorize alternative means of meeting participation.


When conducting IEP Team meetings and placement meetings pursuant to subparts D and E of Part 300, and carrying out administrative matters under section 615 of the IDEA (such as scheduling, exchange of witness lists, and status conferences), the parent of a child with a disability and a public agency may agree to use alternative means of meeting participation, such as video conferences and conference calls.
[34 CFR 300.328] [20 U.S.C. 1414(f)]


1 Topics in this series include: Alignment With the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act; Changes in Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation; Children Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools; Discipline; Disproportionality and Overidentification; Early Intervening Services; Highly Qualified Teachers; Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities; Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team Meetings and Changes to the IEP; Individualized Education Program (IEP); Local Funding; Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement; National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS); Part C Amendments in IDEA 2004; Part C Option: Age 3 to Kindergarten Age; Procedural Safeguards: Surrogates, Notice and Consent; Procedural Safeguards: Mediation; Procedural Safeguards: Resolution Meetings and Due Process Hearings; Secondary Transition; State Complaint Procedures; State Funding; and Statewide and Districtwide Assessments. Documents are available on the IDEA Web site at: http://IDEA.ed.gov.


http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C9%2C