1 of 12

Initial Orientation to Special Education: Building Trust

Mary Ellen Sowyrda

Cathy Lawson

Felicia Vasudevan

October 28, 2024

2 of 12

Initial Evaluations

If the student is going through RTI, clarify for parents how the process works, engage them in data-collection and progress-monitoring practices, and ward off blame by discussing your shared vision for their child

School district and team needs to follow process (i.e. timelines, respectful and open-minded team process).

Send out consent to evaluate within five school days of referral
Conduct evaluations within 30 school days
Team meeting within 45 school days

Focus on the needs of the student first and foremost, when making decisions around the student’s special education eligibility, services and placement

Listening is the important piece to building trust when a child first enters the District

3 of 12

Cases

Student v. Swansea Public Schools - BSEA # 2205000 - People Incorporated, Student’s Early Intervention provider, sent its referral to Swansea on February 2, 2021, well in advance of Student’s third birthday (July 25, 2021). Upon receipt of the referral, Dr. Garell sent Parents residency forms for them to complete. Parents returned the residency forms some time in April. Parents then requested an evaluation in July 2021. Swansea did not send the consent to evaluate form to Parents until after school started on August 31, 2021. The Hearing Officer concluded that Swansea failed to send a timely evaluation when it did not send it in February 2021. The Hearing Officer concluded additionally that the Team erred in finding the student not eligible for special education. All of the Team members with expertise in providing services to students who are hard of hearing believed that Student was eligible for special education and made similar recommendations for the kinds of services he required. The Hearing Officer explained that: “Perhaps the most striking findings from the reports submitted for the Team’s consideration was Ms. Rankin’s determination that even when Student was provided with auditory breaks, visual support and was alerted to listen by his name being called, Student’s performance was not above 60%. Ms. Vale explained that he is missing 40% of the available auditory information at any given time in a sentence or a phrase or a story. It is difficult to imagine how the Team could have reasonably concluded that he was making effective progress or was able to access the general curriculum when Ms. Rankin’s unrebutted functional listening evaluation results demonstrated that Student missed such a significant amount of information even when using his hearing aids and with accommodations provided.” Finally, the Hearing Officer concluded that the district did not have to provide equipment to the student when she is at the private school because students who are unilaterally placed by parents in a private school do not have an individual right to special education and related services under the IDEA.

4 of 12

Productive Meetings

Come to Team meetings with data to support conclusions

Do not rely solely on professional judgment

Do not tailor team decisions based on unsupported recommendations from outside evaluators, or disgruntled parents or their advocates, when their opinions do not align with the data, and with student’s demonstrated educational needs and entitlement to least restrictive environment.

By sharing documents electronically ahead of the IEP team meeting, districts can ensure that families have an opportunity to review them, understand them, and prepare questions, if necessary.

5 of 12

Independent Evaluations

Acknowledge receipt of the evaluation and thank the parent for providing it. Schedule a meeting within ten school days.
If there are discrepancies between the IEE test results and what is happening in school, explaining what the test asks the student to do and how much time the student is given to accomplish the task may help demonstrate why the discrepancies exist.
Ask teachers to give an update on the student’s performance and express their opinion on whether the IEE results are consistent with what they are seeing in the classroom.
Review the IEE recommendations and discuss whether they make sense in light of what is being observed in the classroom.

6 of 12

Cases

G.D. v. Swampscott Public Schools– The district completed an evaluation of the first grade student. At the initial team meeting, before Swampscott had the opportunity to deliver services to the student, the parent opined that they did not think that Swampscott was capable of providing their child with an appropriate education. Nonetheless, the parents had the student remain in Swampscott for one school year, during which they applied to Landmark. They subsequently enrolled their daughter in Landmark and filed this request for hearing challenging the IEP. The court determined along with the hearing officer below, that the student had made progress in all areas, increasing her ability to name and identify consonant sounds, digraphs/trigraphs, vowel sounds, real words read, total nonsense words, spell real words, read sight words and spell sight words. She had also improved her oral reading fluency and was making progress in writing. She improved from reading at a mid-kindergarten level when she entered Swampscott, to reading a first grade level. As a result, the court upheld the hearing officer’s determination that the IEP offered the student FAPE. While the Parents claimed the student had made “slow gains” and “slow gains” are inadequate under the IDEA, the court disagreed, and determined as the hearing officer did, that the student had made good progress consistent with her abilities, and the IEP offered FAPE.

7 of 12

Cases

Student v. West Bridgewater BSEA #24-03805 -In July 2023, after receiving the Castro report, Parents rejected the full-inclusion placement proposed in the April 2023-April 2024 IEP, but accepted the remainder of the IEP, including all goals, services, and accommodations. After a Team meeting in September 2023 to discuss Dr. Castro’s report and the rejected placement proposal, West Bridgewater issued a revised IEP that incorporated some of Dr. Castro’s recommendations and, importantly, shifted the focus of the IEP to Student’s significant weakness in reading comprehension, and proposed providing Student with an evidence-based program (V/V) to address this area of need. The subsequent proposed IEP, covering April 2024-April 2025, further refined its predecessor to reflect the recommendations of Dr. Plummer for increased instruction and support for Student’s social skills as well as to clarify and intensify services to address reading comprehension. Further, pursuant to this IEP, for seventh grade, the District would place Student in a separate, language-based classroom for ELA and specialized instruction in reading comprehension with V/V. This classroom would be supported by consultation from the Landmark School. The IEPs covering February 2021 to February 2022 and March 2022 to March 2023 were fully accepted by Parents and have expired. As such, they may not be revisited, and may not give rise to a claim for compensatory services unless Parents can prove that these IEPs were not implemented and that Student suffered educational harm as a result. The evidence in the record does not support Parents’ claim. Dr. Castro’s recommendation for such change in placement lacks sufficient foundation to be persuasive. Neither Dr. Castro nor Dr. Kola observed Student in his educational setting and neither testified at the hearing. There is no evidence that they had any first-hand familiarity with the specifics of Student’s placement. Parents’ statement that Student had no friends was adopted without further probing. Similarly, Dr. Stephens’ recommendation for a change in placement lacks sufficient foundation. Dr. Stephens observed an inclusion math class during which she found Student to be engaged, and the teacher to be using language-based strategies. She also observed an inclusion science class, where she believed that such strategies were not applied in a consistent manner. Her recommendation for an outside placement was based on the opinion that Student needed a more cohesive program to address his comprehension needs throughout the day, and a cohort of like peers so that he would not feel singled out or stigmatized. She did not dispute that Student was accessing the curriculum, or that he had made progress within the School’s program.

8 of 12

Building Trust

Increase communication

Could you invite parents to attend a 15-minute meeting or two during the school year to build trust and check in on how everyone is doing. The meeting would not be an IEP meeting. It could be a quick in-person, video, or phone conference to let parents know how things are going without having to have a formal IEP meeting.

Let parents know from the beginning that the individual who will be working with their student has an alternative credential, variance, or specialized training to teach

9 of 12

Building Trust

There are a significant number of parents who either have very little experience with the U.S. educational system or have had negative experiences

Focus on solutions. Talk about your shared goals and responsibility for the child's performance. Keep all discussions positive, agree to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and offer concrete examples of your concerns.

10 of 12

Dispute Resolution

If you are going to the BSEA, clearly trust is breaking down.

You should do everything you can possibly do before that to make a good faith effort to resolve the concern.
What are the concerns on both sides? How can they be addressed?

Is mediation an option?

11 of 12

Questions?

12 of 12

Quincy Boston Springfield

Crown Colony Plaza 75-101 Federal Street One Monarch Place

300 Crown Colony Drive Suite 410 1414 Main Street 1310R

Quincy, MA 02169 Boston, MA 02210 Suite 1310R Springfield, MA 01144

Tel: (617) 479-5000 Tel: (617) 479-5000 Tel: (888) 841-4850

Fax: (617) 479-6469 Fax: (617) 338-1324 Fax: (617) 479-6469