Fallon Parker

EDL 277
Legal Case Review

Stacey M. v. The Tripoli Community School District and Area Education Agency 267

A student has a disability that affects her reading comprehension and needs specialized

instruction. The students mother suspected a disability and requested testing for a disability by

the AEA in October. The Tripoli community school district and AEA also had reason to suspect a

disability and in December the students mother presented the school district with an evaluation

from a doctor, detailing the students disability. The school district did not prepare an evaluation

or consent to evaluate of the student until January. The school district failed to provide written

notice to the family of their refusal to conduct a full evaluation of the student. The school district

stated they were unaware of the screening conducted by the AEA and therefore did not plan to

screen the student within the required sixty calendar days to conduct their own evaluation.

In December the school district decided that they were going to complete their own

additional testing on the child in January. They failed to provide consent for the evaluation as

well as written notice to the family. Sixteen months after the family requested an evaluation for

their student from the AEA, the school district and the AEA gave a prior written notices refusing

eligibility. The family then filed a Request for Preappeal Conference in March. In May they

decided that an additional evaluation would be made from a neighboring AEA. In July the

evaluation was done and a prior written notice was sent to the family denying eligibility. The

same day the IEP meeting was held and a new educational evaluation report was sent to the

family two days later. This educational evaluation report was not presented to the family at the

IEP meeting. In the report certain considerations were not used for the purpose of assessments.
The school district stated that reading interventions were being done at the general education

level.

The conclusions of the law stated that the school districts delay in initiating an

evaluation after they has a suspicion of a disability was against the IDEA act, including their

child find obligation. The school district failed to provide the family with prior written notice to

the family with their denial to conduct a full evaluation of the student. The school district failed

to consider outside learning supports from the general curriculum. The school district failed to

present and Educational Evaluation Report that the parent was involved in as well as noting if the

student ad a specific learning disability. The school district did not consider independent

evaluations presented by the parent as a resource for making an information about conducting

their own evaluation. The interventions that the school district was providing to the student were

not implemented with fidelity and the data that was being collected was not consistently

measured. Lastly the school district did not have consent for the assessments that were

administered to the student.

The order for relief stated that the family will be reimbursed for any costs for hiring a

tutor in reading instruction for the child. The IEP team will also meet and develop an appropriate

IEP plan for the student. The team will focus on reading comprehension. The family is also

entitled to any attorney fees that were acquired over the course of the case.

IDEA State Complaint Concerning T.K., Solon Community School District and Grant

Wood AEA

T.Ks family believes T.K. is eligible for special education and the Grant wood Area Education

Agency failed to evaluate T.K for special education. The parents are asking for reimbursement
for supplemental educational assistance that they privately obtained for their student. The record

states that T.K. has had difficulties with his academics as well as anxiety. The district provided

the student with interventions in first, second, third, and fourth grade. The district provided a

computer based program which T.K. scored proficient at the beginning of his fourth grade year.

During T.K.s third grade year he was making progress towards meeting the standards. T.K. also

received interventions from the counselors in third and fourth grade.

In September the T.K. was evaluated by the University of Iowa with a diagnoses of

anxiety disorder, dysnomia, dyslexia, and probable disorder of written expression. The doctor

recommended that the parents set up a time to share this evaluation and set up and IEP or a 504

plan with the school district. The district met with the parents, explained the difference between a

504 plan and an IEP, and decided to proceed with a 504 plan. A 504 plan was drafted in October.

There were revisions made to the 504 plan in T.K.s fourth grade year. At the end of the month

the parents requested that T.K. would receive a full evaluation for special education from the

district. The team met and concluded that they did not suspect T.K. to have a disability and gave

prior written notice to the families denying the evaluation. In November the family asked that the

team reconsider and a disability suspect meeting was set for December. At the conclusion of the

evaluation an educational evaluation report was prepared. The team met in February and

concluded that T.K. was not eligible for special education. His discrepancy was not significant

enough and beyond the general education curriculum. The parents were given prior written

notice of the districts decision.

The family of T.K. requested an evaluation from an independent evaluator which was

granted by the AEA in February. This evaluation was done at the University of Iowa in April.

T.K. saw two doctors. In May the first doctor stated that T.K. did not have a specific learning
disability although noted the student did have difficulties in certain areas. The doctor also stated

T.K. has symptoms under the category of Anxiety Disorder. In July the second doctor stated that

T.K. has difficulty with in academics but that appeared secondary to anxiety symptoms. The

doctor concluded that T.K. has a diagnosis of anxiety disorder and provided recommendations

for the parents.

The IDEA requires three things to be eligible 1. A physical or mental condition that 2

causes 3 a need for special education. It was determined that T.K. has a physical or mental

condition that is causing T.K. to have difficulty in the educational setting. Both the parents and

the district believe that T.K. has anxiety but both parties are disputing the fact that T.K. has a

learning disorder. With the review of the case the judge concluded that T.K.s anxiety is causing

educational difficulties which is supported by the EER. The ultimate decision based on the

rewire of all the interventions, data, and evaluations it was decided that T.K. did not qualify for

special education. In the case of the 504 plan it was found that the district provided a 504 plan to

a student who was eligible under Section 504. However it was decided that the school district

violated the IDEA and Iowa State Law when they went through the process of suspect of a

disability. There was data that would suggest that there could be a suspect of a disability. The

court decision on this matter was that there would be staff training in the standard for suspicion

of a disability. The AEA staff that serves the district has 30 days to provide adequate training to

these individuals. There must also be a detailed plan in which the training for individuals is

outlined and must be submitted within 90 days of ruling.

Common issues

Within the two cases both parents were unhappy with the decisions being made by the

districts. Both families were advocating for their child which is important for districts to
understand. In both cases families were unhappy with the services that their students were

receiving at the schools and went to private institutions for help with their childs education. In

addition in the cases the parents took their child to a doctor with concerns about a disability. The

parents requested a special education evaluation from the district based on the findings from the

doctor. Both districts decided that they would not initially evaluate for special education. In the

cases the use of the Disability Suspect Form was not correctly utilized in the decisions for

evaluation.

The first problem with both the Tripoli case and Solon case was that the district failed to

use the Disability Suspect Form correctly. In the Tripoli case it took several months to even have

the student evaluated for special education even after there was a suspicion of a disability. In the

case of Solon District the team did not suspect a disability and initially the decision was not to

evaluate the student. The parents asked to reconsider the decision and the team went forth with

an evaluation and prepared an ERR. As an administrator this is the first steps to evaluation and in

both cases the districts failed to use the Disability Suspect Form correctly. Therefor there should

have been explicit training for the individuals using this form and making these decisions. The

other part to this is making sure the evaluation that is being done meets the necessary time

restraints. It is easy to put things off in schools as there is several things going on at once in a

school. It is imperative to meet these deadlines for evaluations as well as informing parents. In

the Tripoli case the district did not notify the families of their decisions in a timely manner. The

family was essentially left out of the decisions and were not notified prior to eligibility meetings.

The parents are one of the most important pieces in the decisions that are being made for a

student. The administrator needs to be aware of how the team is notifying families and they have

to be held accountable for notifying parents with in the time constraints of the laws surrounding
eligibility, notifying parents, and IEP meetings. Lastly in both cases interventions were being

done at the general education level for both students. In the Tripoli case it was founded that the

interventions that were being implemented were not being implemented with fidelity and with

sound scientific principles. This is a reflection of the districts ability to provide interventions to

students. There should be something in place that keeps teachers accountable for the

interventions that students receive. The team that is put into place to review data should be

making sure that the interventions that are being implemented are one designed to specifically

target the areas of concern and are completed with fidelity. Without the proper data the team

could not make an informed decision on the student.

After reviewing both cases and the findings both districts had made flaws in certain areas

which could of easily been addressed prior to the dispute. As a future administrator these cases

provide a valuable learning opportunity. The first thing that I would do is make sure that the team

responsible for evaluations, IEPs, and 504 Plans are aware of the criteria as well as have proper

training in all aspects. I will make sure there is a detailed Special Education Service Plan and that

the team is aware of the protocol for each requirement. When onboarding staff there needs to be

specific training on these requirements. Having a mentoring program that matches new teachers

with veteran teachers and coaches to help with understanding the requirements for teachers will

be vital to the success of these teachers. Two of the areas that can easily be remedied is notifying

parents and providing interventions that are scientifically based. As an administrator my job will

be to make sure that teachers have the proper training and understanding of the requirements,

how to notify parents, and protocol for interventions and evaluations. I will have a plan for

monitoring these areas as it is my job to be accountable for the decisions that are being made in

the school. I will take an active role in the monitoring of the decisions made by IEP teams,
evaluations teams, and the leadership team responsible for monitoring teachers. I will have to set

up a schedule to meet with each team to see if requirements are being met. I will also have to

make sure that I understand the requirements as well. Attending district meetings with other

administrators will be key to my understanding of the requirements as well. Lastly I will work on

my communication to make sure that expectations are clear to all staff and that these

expectations are being met. That I am communicating not only with staff but with parents as

well. I feel a lot of issues can be avoided with constant communication with families. I will make

it clear to families as well as staff that communication is key to the success of all students.