My first Child Complaint

January16, 2009




Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SEAP)

Division of Special Education Compliance

C/O Child Complaint Coordinator – Ms. Jackie Bruner

P.O. Box 480

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480



Dear Ms. Bruner,



This child complaint is written regarding my son, Jacob Edward Tucker. I am unable to resolve issues with our school district, Lee’s Summit R-7. I have written to the IEP team and the district’s superintendent and have not been able to get a response from them about my concerns.



My concerns revolve around parent participation. During meetings, my comments are either ignored and no changes are made or they listen to my concerns and state that they don’t agree and no changes are made. Any suggestions that I have made regarding Present Level are ignored. I state that I don’t agree with their description of the Present Level and they tell me that I may include that in the Parent Concerns. I submit my concerns to be included in the Parent Concerns and they edit this document. I asked for tests score to be placed in the Present Level to guide services proposed and I am refused. I was allowed no input in relation to the goals and/or services. My son has an eligibility category of Educational Autism. He is in regular education classes with no supports besides 40 minutes of speech per week. I feel that decisions have been made prior to the meeting regarding my child’s IEP. The district has removed items from the Modifications/Accommodations page without my approval. It was discussed in the meeting and the decision was made to change the frequency from As Needed to Daily; not to delete it entirely. The meeting notes taken by the District were incomplete and rarely reported the discussions held in the meeting. I specifically wrote the Superintendent asking to record the meeting due to the fact that the recorder could not accurately describe the events as tape recording is against District policy, although legal in Missouri. I have not received an answer to this request to date. I requested a notice of action refused for the District’s refusal to include my changes in the Present Level and for editing my Parent Concerns without my approval. The district responded to this request on January 6 in an e-mail but I have received no such document.



Applicable sections of IDEA law are described below:



Integral to the design of IDEA is the substantive involvement of parents in assessing student needs and planning how to address those needs. In its Finding section, IDEA 2004 states that:



(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by...

(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home... (20 U.S.C. $ 1400 (c) (5) (B).)



State education agencies and local school districts must have in place policies and procedures that ensure the opportunity for parents to participate in meetings related to the identification, evaluation, program and placement of their children (20 U.S.C. $ 1415 (b) (1)). Participate is the operative term. The school must enable meaningful participation in discussion and decision-making. Mere attendance at meetings satisfies neither the spirit nor the letter of the law. The requirement applies to all meetings in which decisions will be made except for routine meetings among staff to discuss day-to-day instructional planning necessary to implement an existing IEP.



Recent decisions affirm the essential role of parents in designing their children's special education. Precluding parent participation through staff predetermination of services or placement egregiously violates IDEA. School districts should be aware that courts have become more alert to this problem and less likely to excuse it (Deal v. Hamilton Co. Bd. of Ed.; Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist.).



Also see attached documentation in support of my claims listed above. I request a copy of all responses that the District provides and the opportunity to submit a rebuttal. I feel that the described events are a clear violation of my rights to participation in my son’s education. I ask that DESE intervene in this situation and mandate the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to comply with the law. I believe that compensatory services are warranted as the district prohibited my participation thus meaningfully impeding my son’s education.



Respectfully,







Curtis and Sherri Tucker

1200 SE London Way

Lee’s Summit, MO 64081

816.554.3017 Home

E-mail: autism@kc.rr.com



Enclosures



Attachment 1 – Child Complaint – Model Form

Attachment 2 – Letter to District re: Parent Participation, dated December 22, 2008

Attachment 3 – Letter to District re: My Parent Concerns, dated December 23, 2008

Attachment 4 – Letter from Joy Rose re: Notice of Action, dated January 6, 2009

Attachment 5 – Letter to District re: Modification Changed, dated January 7, 2009

Attachment 6 – Copy of District Notes, dated August 27, 2008

Attachment 7 – Request to Tape Record, dated January 7, 2009

Attachment 8 – Parent’s Meeting Notes, dated August 27, 2008

Attachment 9 – District Refusal to Include Parent’s Notes, dated October 13, 2008

Attachment 10-Request for Notice of Action, dated December 30, 2008

Attachment 11-Request for Changes in Present Level, dated December 30, 2008