Case Brief 10.

1: Dan (Parent Participation) In this case, Dan Peterson is a 3rd-grade student who was recently labeled as having a learning disability. This disability inhibits his ability to read, which has resulted in him failing that portion of the class. Valorie, Dans mother, watched as Dan came home with an impossible amount of homework and always seemed frustrated. Dans teacher, Lee Craft, suggested that Dan be evaluated for special education services. Valorie then agreed to an evaluation, not out of being informed, though. She agreed merely because she didnt know what else to do. She then received formal notice in the mail that the results were complete and to come into the school for an IEP meeting to look at the results. The meeting included the mother, the teacher, the special education teacher, and the school psychologist. The principal was rushed, so she simply signed her name on the IEP but was not present during the meeting. This is the first issue that we see in the case, seeing that though lawfully it appears that she was present, she was not. In an IEP meeting, participants must include the following: a) childs parent(s), regular education teacher, special education teacher, school district representative, person who can evaluate the instruction implications of the results, and others at the discretion of the parent. Technically, the IEP included all of these people. The principal served as a member of the school district, and the special education teacher could interpret the results. Clearly, though, the principal was not an active participant in the meeting. A huge issue that I see in this case is parent participation. The parent was called in the review the results of testing, but rather she was bombarded with a plan without much choice. The parent was not able to give any advice or ask questions. Her input was not integrated into the IEP. She, as well as I noticed, that the other participants in the meeting were completely informed, while the mother was not. She was emotional and unable to digest all of the technical information, and was not able to give any thoughts on her own child. It would have been more appropriate if they discussed in-depth the present levels of achievement, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses, and then received feedback from the parent. By making it a conversation, rather than a presentation, the team could have possibly made a more helpful plan of attack. The school district would have been affected more positively if they clearly laid out goals, also, because the parent could be a huge help in implementing goals. Using confusing language and not allowing time for clarification questions or suggestions leave the parent left in the dark and unable to contribute anything to helping the child. It also appeared that the language of the IEP and the way that they went about the meeting was not ideal. No strengths were mentioned and words like fixed were used. Ms. Craft is blunt, saying that Dan will fail her class. She should instead have used asset based thinking, and contribute ideas on how to manage the learning disability. The team also did not consider the LRE, or RTI. No means of intervention were mentioned, and perhaps considering this would have given the mother more peace about the meeting. Legally, there could definitely be issues concerning parent participation. The parent was informed initially of the evaluation, but the team did not consider any concerns of the parent for enhancing the education of the child or allow the parents to be participants in any group decision. The latter was clear when it appeared that the team had met previously (or at least was able to create goals, etc.). It would have been very appropriate to send additional literature to the parent prior to the IEP team. Clearly, other team members had access to this information, and as a parent who did not have much exposure to this type of situation; more time would have been really beneficial and stress relieving.