Introduction

An Individual Education Plan, commonly abbreviated as IEP, is the lifeblood of any student with special needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) maintains that public schools should develop an IEP for all students who require special education services (Lucas, 2013). Starting from three years up to their high school graduation, students can qualify for an IEP (Lucas, 2013). The purpose of an IEP is to augment the ability of schools to meet each child’s special requirements and help them accomplish their academic goals. An IEP is a legally binding agreement that schools should comply with. It brings different stakeholders together to evaluate how to address the challenges of individual children based on their current competencies, and then present their blueprint for the student’s upcoming academic year (Collett, 2017). Participants usually include teachers, parents, nonteaching staff, and other influencers who impact children’s educational progress in one way or another. An IEP facilitates every child to achieve their objectives beyond their existing skills; as such, it is essential that the drafters comprehend what the child is capable and incapable of doing (Lucas, 2013). Every IEP is specific to the child for whom it was developed and is usually approved and signed on the child’s behalf by its designers.

1. IEP Contents and Student Needs

Blamires, Castle, and Tod (2013) state that legally, the IEP should constitute specific details regarding the beneficiary – child – as well as the educational framework developed to satisfy their particular needs.  To guarantee legal compliance, the contents of the IEP should comprise the following: the child’s current performance, annual goals, services related to special education, interaction with non-disabled children, involvement in assessments administered at state and district levels, transition service requirements, required transition services, dates and places, age of majority, and evaluating progress (Blamires et al., 2013). Current performance must reflect how the child is presently progressing in school, while annual goals are milestones that the child can realistically achieve in one academic year. These goals are classified into short-term benchmarks. The IEP should exhibit all services on special education, whether primary or secondary, which are dispensed to the child. Frank (2014) argues that the IEP should also rationalize the degree to which the child cannot engage in regular classroom and educational activities with their non-disabled counterparts, explain what changes in the administration of assessments the child will require in case existing tests are inappropriate, and state how the new tests will be conducted.

According to Lucas (2013), the IEP must identify the start date, frequency, location, and duration of special education services.  Starting when the child attains the age of 14 or less if suitable, the IEP should provide the courses they must take to realize their post-school objectives; future IEPs must report all transition services. On the other hand, starting when the child reaches the age of 16, or less if suitable, the IEP should express the transition services that are required to assist the child get ready for exiting school(Lucas, 2013). Foreman (2014) contends that not less than one year before the child attaining the age of majority, it is legally mandatory that the IEP incorporate a report that the child has been informed of any freedoms, rights, or privileges that they will enjoy once they reach the age of majority. According to Foreman (2014), this report is only necessary for states which accord rights during the age of majority. Lastly, the IEP should explain the measurement methods and tools that will be used to determine the child’s development, and how the information will be conveyed to the child’s parents.

1. If The School District Has Limited Funding And Opposes theIEP

The vital concern is whether the plan adheres to the spirit and letter of IDEA or not; once its compliance has been established, then the district has no option but to conform to FAPE (Ashman, 2014). The free aspect of FAPE denotes that the federal government, through the district, must fund the IEP. Part B of IDEA permits, even implores, public schools to settle some of the expenses of delivering special education and associated services using public claims or insurance – such as Medicaid; the only condition is that they obtain parents’ consent (Frank, 2014). However, parents are not compelled to provide consent or register for public claims or insurance. On the other hand, the appropriateness of the plan is determined by members of the IEP committee.

According to Collett (2017), while the plan may not be the most comprehensive, the IEP team typically ensures that it is suitable enough to support the child’s advancement at social, behavioral, and academic levels. In essence, the IEP team’s recommendations prioritize the child’s welfare, not the wishes of the district; provided the plan promotes the best interests of the child the district is obligated to do all it can, including sourcing funds, to make sure that the child receives proper education according to their needs(Collett, 2017).  Assuming the district is completely incapable – not unwilling to – of meeting the educational requirements of the plan, the IEP team is free to recommend placement in private or external programs (Blamires et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the school district will still fund the team’s preferred provider – private or other non-public services – as this is a provision of FAPE.

1. Advocating for the Rights of the Student

As a member of the team, the first order of business I would pursue involves ensuring that the IEP is in conformity with free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and least restrictive environment (LRE) rights of IDEA. According to Lucas (2013), both of these rights are protected by IDEA. FAPE manifests as goals, fashioned according to the child’s current academic and functional competence. I would also advocate for the elucidation of services required, including the respective times and places, and the inclusion of provisions that guarantee the necessary adjustments and accommodations and modifications. Concerning LRE, I would encourage team members to make regulations that allow students with special needs to be educated in settings that are as comparable to the regular education context as possible.

I would also propose clauses that mandate the district to integrate the child in the normal learning environment as much as possible; in case the district wishes to provide services in a personalized setting, including a special education block, it should prove that the child cannot adapt in a less particular context. Secondly, I would actively champion the design of the IEP per the legal requirements governing child evaluation and assessment for qualification for individualized education programs. Mainly, I would structure the IEP to guarantee that special education services are provided to students continuously and that students are appraised equally and impartially. At the same time, parents must be updated throughout the assessment process (Frank, 2014). I would include the following three questions that parents must answer as part of the evaluation and that increase the likelihood that their children will benefit from special education programs:

• Is your child handicapped or disabled?
• Is your child’s disability adversely affecting his or her ability to receive an education?
• Does your child require special education?

I would inform all parents that they have the right to ask for an assessment of their children and that the district should fulfill this request either by evaluating the child or drafting a legal notice of the action in which it rejects the offer. I would also make parents aware that school districts should conduct triennial assessments of their children to prove or disprove their eligibility for special education services.Third, I would draft or support the drafting of requirements relating to informed consent. For example, Ashman (2014) argues that the district cannot assess a child to determine their disability, prolong, or terminate the provision of specialized services, before sharing its assessment criteria with their parents and obtaining formal consent.

Four, I would formulate or support the formulation of a provision that compels the district to assess children in their native language unless the child is proficient in English. At the same time, the district should share assessment plans as well as the IEP with parents in their native language before obtaining informed consent; according to Collett (2017), these actions are supported by ruling in Diana versus State Board of Education (1970).In case of disputes involving children, parents would be allowed to choose one of three conflict resolution methods: formal complaint, mediation, and a due process hearing (Collett, 2017). As disputes concerning FAPE or the IEP are being addressed, parents will also be free to ask that their children remain in their present educational environment with the same conditions, rights, accommodations, and privileges as mandated by the “Stay Put” law (Ashman, 2014). The same rule would be invoked by parents when the district wants to expel their children or alter their placement owing to behavioral challenges.

1. Legal Options for Parents in Case IEP is not Being Followed or is Inadequate

Lucas (2013) reckons that as long as parents have approved the IEP, the school district and all schools within the district must dispense all the services stipulated in the plan with immediate effect unless the program allows the district to begin providing some services later. If the district fails to do this, then parents have some channels through which they can seek legal redress.

Mediation

Mediation precedes a state complaint and requires the state to nominate an impartial and professional mediator to handle the matter. According to Foreman (2014), some problems that can be addressed through mediation comprise placement, assessments, procedural complexities, service and IEP location, and associated services. As is typical in negotiations, the mediator does not decide anything; instead, they merely make suggestions that could suit all parties. It is up to the warring concerned parties to forge a real agreement (Lucas, 2013). The district can propose mediation if it is one of the options on the table. While it is free, mediation is time-consuming concerning preparation.

State Complaint

Blamires et al. (2013) opine that state complaints aim to determine whether the district is adhering to legal requirements and if IEP stipulations are being complied with. Parents can complain if specific provisions of IDEA have been contravened; these include failure to comply with mechanisms or poor implementation of the IEP, such as insufficient time allowance for direct therapy. Parents can engage lawyers to draft the complaint, framing it in the most detailed and factual manner and then presenting it to the state, through the state education agency (SEA). According to Ashman (2014), lawyers or parents can also petition the SEA directly and highlight what aspect of IDEA they think has been disregarded by the district. When this has been done, the state evaluates the complaint and determines if it should investigate it. Assuming an inquiry is launched, the state will ask for additional information from the district and the parents before it decides the case. Ashman (2014) adds that the SEA should address the matter in less than 60 calendar days; this timeline cannot be extended unless extraordinary developments arise concerning the complaint.

Due Process

Frank (2014) is of the opinion that of all the available alternatives, due process is the most expensive, demanding, and tiring regarding resolving problems, especially as testimonies, much documentation, and lawyers are involved. Apart from this, it is highly contentious. Due process is the last course of action to take when a district blatantly and repeatedly violates a child’s entitlement to FAPE. According to Lucas (2013), hearings assess the recommended contents of the IEP as well as the district’s compliance with those elements. Parents and district or school officials articulate their perspectives to a fair hearing officer, who decides what the most appropriate solution is considering the facts at hand.

Conclusion

In short, the most effective IEPs are those that allow parents to play an equal and active role in their conception, development, and implementation. This level of inclusion produces the most significant benefits for students regarding learning and is also justified by the fact that parents are best-placed to know and communicate their children’s challenges as they plan their daily routines and spend the most time with them. Overall, however, each member of the IEP team holds a vital position as they determine the general outcome of the IEP development process; for this reason, members should be treated with respect and given the space to voice their concerns and opinions. It is clear, from this paper, that the IEP is the foundation for every disabled student’s academic development. All parties need to invest more efforts into making students with special needs feel accepted and supported enough to travel as far as possible in their educational journeys; this way they will be capable of making helpful contributions to society in spite of their disabilities. Finally, all teachers should appreciate the advantages of IEPs and show greater enthusiasm for influencing their design and adoption to provide quality education to all special needs students.

References

Ashman, A. (2014). Education for inclusion and diversity. New York, NY: Pearson USA.

Blamires, M., Castle, F., & Tod, J. (2013). Individual education plans: Implementing effectivepractice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Collett, C. (2017). Disability and inclusion in early years education. Upper Saddle River:Routledge.

Foreman, P. (2014). Inclusion in action. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Frank, Y. (2014). Specific learning disabilities. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.

Lucas, R. (2013). The good schools guide. Indianapolis: Lucas Publications.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?