FAPE? What’s the big IDEA?

That’s a funny title. I know. Its a pun on some legal acronyms that have to do with public education. The IDEA is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Its several legislative generations in by now. Most people at least have a basic understanding of what protections that a child has in public schools under the IDEA. But it is deep. It is complicated. And parents who have children with disabilities, be they physical and debilitating or something as minor as attention deficit disorder, need to understand how to use this law to get the most out of public education.

FAPE is an acronym for ‘free and adequate public education.’ It is a phrase defined in the IDEA. The phrase seems simple enough. In its most basic form, the IDEA requires school districts to provide a FAPE to each and every child within its district. That means that the school district must partake in “child find,” or they must seek out children, even those not enrolled in their schools. (this is subject to some key exceptions as all laws are)

How does a school provide a FAPE to a child with disabilities you ask. Well, the IEP, of course. IEP is another acronym (Legislators and educators love acronyms) which stands for Individual Education Program. The IEP is the key to your child getting a proper education and having their particular needs addressed. The IEP can address the physical setting a child is in if they struggle with large class sizes, or it can simply outline a specific curriculum for a child with a learning disability. Regardless of the disability, the IEP can be suited to meet your child’s needs.

I got a chance to represent a young woman recently regarding the IDEA and FAPE. Why? Well this is simple. In our opinion, the school failed to provide a FAPE to my client by not addressing her specific needs in the IEP. The case got deeper and included bullying and the school failing to act. Yet, at its core, this case was about a young woman being denied an opportunity to learn. Her parents had attempted, without success, to work with the school to ensure their child had a safe environment in which to learn. The saddest part is, the parents did not know how to advocate for their daughter under the IDEA. Most parents don’t. I’m now going to show what it takes to successfully advocate for your child with disabilities.

You must fight! Not the kicking and screaming kind of fight, but more the pesky and busy bee type of fighting. You cannot let the school be complacent with your child’s education. If your child is struggling or not progressing, the IEP team needs to reconvene and reassess the situation. How do you make this happen? Request a meeting in person, by phone, by email and send a letter. You must have a paper trail. That’s worth repeating. You must have a paper trail showing that you have tried. The reason behind this is sad. The school will not admit that they are not doing their job. They will in fact fight tooth and nail to show that you are crazy for even suggesting that they may have fallen short. The people on the IEP team are not your friends when you start suggesting they did wrong. So keep records.

Request evaluations and re-evaluations if necessary. (Do it in writing) If you feel the school’s initial evaluations are wrong, request another or ask to have a second opinion. The schools will often not make this happen without you pushing for it. But a proper evaluation, be it a psycho-educational evaluation or psychiatric evaluation, can make all the difference. Your child’s IEP will be dependent upon these evaluations.

Insist that your child’s teachers are part of the IEP team. If they cannot attend, then ensure that they get copies of the IEP summary and that they are made aware of the action steps within it. Too many times the IEP is developed and it is a good plan, but it is not shared with those who are to implement it. This is key.

Finally, if you have done all you can, and the school is not doing their part, then you have rights. You need to understand that if you and the school disagree about something with regard to the IEP and/or its implementation, you can file for a Due Process Hearing. This is what I had to do with the family I was representing. However, one good thing about this administrative process is that the IDEA requires a Resolution Session within 30 days of a Due Process Request. It was at this Resolution Session that my client and her parents were given the support and respect that they deserved. We were able to reach a settlement in the matter. We were able to ensure that this child’s needs were going to be adequately assessed and addressed in the school. That’s a victory!

If you have a child that has an IEP and is still struggling in school, or you have a child who you suspect has a learning or attention disorder that has not been diagnosed, you have options and your child has rights. The IDEA is complicated and the process of getting the school to follow it is just as complicated. You may need the help of an attorney to get things rolling in the right direction. Sometimes all it takes is to make a little noise. Whether you need advice regarding an IEP or you have serious concerns with your child’s education, please give me a call. Consultations are free.

DISCLAIMER:
The above strategy works even if you have a great school with great teachers and administrators. You just might not need the paper trail. Also, I’m fairly certain most schools and their staff want to help your child. Sometimes they don’t know the law either.

 

Brandon J. Cox

Attorney At Law

201 West Main Street

Smithville, Tennessee 37166

(615) 597-5297

The Two-Faced Lawyer

“He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides” — Charles Lamb

As the days pass, I find that I have less and less time to fill this blog with anything meaningful. That’s a good thing. And in all hustle and bustle, I have found a new paradox in the prodigious field of ‘lawyerin.’  What I have learned is summed up best by the following idiom: 

“Talking out of both sides of your mouth.” 

I stand in court on one day and argue for a point, only to show up the next day to argue against that point. It happens often. As an advocate for my client, I must argue for their interests. I have more than one client, and their interests are often not aligned. Thus, it is necessary to be consistently inconsistent in my legal arguments. I’ll give a basic example to illustrate.

When I am representing a mother in a child custody case, I may argue that a young child’s best interest is served by spending the majority of time with that mother. It’s the “tender years” argument. It works, although, it has its flaws. But if I were representing the father in that same case, I would argue the counter to that point. For instance, that the “tender years doctrine” is no longer viable in Tennessee. In addition, I would argue that the age of the child is but one factor. It obviously gets deeper than this in actual litigation but I think that makes the point clear. 

I have wrapped my head around this and I am pretty comfortable about the two-faced nature of this business. There are unintended consequences, though. The one that I have noticed most is my incessant desire to argue. Now, my wife would say that this it not new. However, I have in the past been much more selective about my desire to quibble. But, more recently, I feel a yearning to bicker, quarrel, feud, hash, re-hash, and simply cross swords. 

This may be a good thing in my chosen profession. What I have to continue to strive for is what I like to call “civil disobedience.” Civil disobedience is that ability to fuss and fight in the heat of battle but then remain civil outside the courtroom. I think that’s key for remaining sane in the practice of law. And at the end of the day, sanity is all we can really ask for out of this crazy world.