7 IDEA Principle – Parental Rights

Parents are viewed as an integral part of planning the education for their child with disabilities. The law describes three major categories of rights, which includes access to records, participation in meetings, and participation in placement decisions (see below for legislation). Parents have the right to access records involved in the identification and evaluation of their child, as well as any information regarding placement. In addition, the law states that parents are required to participate in meetings and that schools need to provide notice of these meetings in advance. Specifically parental participation is needed for any placement decisions and phone or video participation is one avenue for this. If a parent is not present for a placement decision, the school needs to document attempts to contact the parent. Several court cases have been brought addressing parental consent for evaluation (Quackenbush v. Johnson City School District) and the rights of parents to access reports and participate in the special education process (Amanda J. v. Clark County School District). A variety of VDOE resources are also included that provide information about different aspects of the special education process.

federal law

IDEA Regulations §300.501

(a) Opportunity to examine records. The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded, in accordance with the procedures of §§300.613 through 300.621, an opportunity to inspect and review all education records with respect to—

(1) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and

(2) The provision of FAPE to the child.

(b) Parent participation in meetings.

(1) The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to—

(i) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and

(ii) The provision of FAPE to the child.

(2) Each public agency must provide notice consistent with §300.322(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that parents of children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in meetings described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) A meeting does not include informal or unscheduled conversations involving public agency personnel and conversations on issues such as teaching methodology, lesson plans, or coordination of service provision. A meeting also does not include preparatory activities that public agency personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting.

(c) Parent involvement in placement decisions.

(1) Each public agency must ensure that a parent of each child with a disability is a member of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of the parent’s child.

(2) In implementing the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the public agency must use procedures consistent with the procedures described in §300.322(a) through (b)(1).

(3) If neither parent can participate in a meeting in which a decision is to be made relating to the educational placement of their child, the public agency must use other methods to ensure their participation, including individual or conference telephone calls, or video conferencing.

(4) A placement decision may be made by a group without the involvement of a parent, if the public agency is unable to obtain the parent’s participation in the decision. In this case, the public agency must have a record of its attempt to ensure their involvement.

lITIGATION

• Quackenbush v. Johnson City School District (1983) – This case was brought by a mother on behalf of her son (Jason Gambee) against the school district and specifically against Caspar Rowlind (an administrator in the district). The mother claimed that the school division did not provide services to her son in kindergarten and then had him repeat kindergarten after telling her to wait for testing. Further, after she requested an evaluation, she alleged that Rowlind asked her to sign paperwork for testing, but asked her not to check the box requesting an evaluation, which he then checked ‘no’ on her behalf. This case examined the individual’s right to a free and appropriate public education, as well as the issue of parental consent for evaluation. The court found that Section 1983 can be used as a general statute to consider the deprivation of rights and the denial of a free and appropriate public education, even when specific procedural safeguards are not violated per education law. In this case, the individual did not go through a special education evaluation and the parent moved to a new school district and thus did not exhaust all due process options within the district. However, the court found that Section 1983 could be used because the defendant deliberately interfered with Jason’s right to a free and appropriate public education.

• Amanda J. v. Clark County School District (2001) – In this case, Amanda’s mother challenged the school district in regards to them not providing her with results of different eligibility evaluations. Amanda was a young individual suspected of having autism and was assessed by a psychologist and speech pathologist employed by the district. Both found evidence of delays associated with autism per their reports, but Amanda’s mother alleged that they did not provide her these reports and did not discuss the results of the evaluations with her. A school nurse also performed an audiological exam without consent from the mother. The school found Amanda eligible and scheduled an IEP meeting without parental notice, only sending a brief summary of findings after the initial IEP meeting. Amanda received some services in Nevada before moving to California and continuing to receive IEP services. After receiving additional evaluations in California, Amanda’s new school division requested records from Clark County. At this point, Amanda’s parents learned that the school had detected autism almost a year earlier. During a due process hearing, the hearing officer (HO) found that Amanda had been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) due to a misidentification of developmental delay. However, the State Review Officer overturned this decision, due to the fact that her parents were unaware of a possible autism diagnosis. This court decision held the finding of the HO and stated that Amanda was denied FAPE because her parents were not fully informed and therefore not fully able to participate in the IEP process.

RESOURCES

• VDOE Parents’ guide to special education (2010) – This PDF provides information on all aspects of the special education process, as well as details about parental rights and procedural safeguards.
• Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Special Education Home Page – This is the home page for Special Education for the VDOE and includes links to all of the following resources.
• VDOE Video Guide to the Special Education Evaluation Process for Families [YouTube Video Link] – This page has a series of videos to help parents understand different aspects of the special education process. The videos include the following topics: Introduction, Identification, Evaluation, Eligibility, IEP, Reevaluation, Early Intervention, and What’s Next.
• VDOE – Understanding Your Rights – This one page document lists parental rights and also explains Prior Written Notice.
• VDOE Evaluation and Eligibility – This is the home page for all resources and links involving evaluation and eligibility decisions.
• VDOE Evaluation and Eligibility For Special Education and Related Services: Guidance Document (Word) – This word document includes information on the evaluation process, referral for an evaluation, eligibility, and related services.
• VDOE Resolving Disputes Information – This provides information on a variety of ways to address issues and concerns, including the Ombudsman for Special Education, Special Education Mediation, Facilitated IEPs, Complaints, and Due Process.
• VDOE Parents’ Guide to Special Education Dispute Resolution – This PDF provides information on resolving disputes using Mediation, Complaints, or a Due Process hearing.
• VDOE Parent Ombudsman for Special Education – This page describes the role, functions, and duties of an Ombudsman and provides contact information.
• VDOE Supplemental Guidance for Evaluation and Eligibility in Special Education – This PDF provides extensive information about determining eligibility, including guidance for each of the IDEA disability categories.
• VDOE Critical Decision Points for Families of Children with Disabilities – This page provides resources to help parents as they make important decisions regarding their children, including documents to help them understand the difference between a 504 Plan and an IEP, what to do if they disagree with an eligibility decision, and transferring rights to their child once they come of age.

Discussion Questions:

• What do you think is the most important right afforded to parents in this section and why?

• How did each of the court cases in this section address the issue of parental rights?
• How did the outcomes clarify or enhance your understanding of parental rights?