The New York State Education Department recently announced public hearings seeking comments on proposed state-mandated forms for individualized education programs (IEPs), meeting notices, and prior written notices. These hearings are in response to the concerns expressed by NYSUT, UFT and other advocates to the State Education Department (SED) about the limited process to engage public input on these proposed forms. We encourage you to participate in this process that begins the week of Nov. 3.  If you're not able to attend a public hearing in Syracuse (Nov. 3), New York City (Nov. 6), or Albany (Nov. 7), we strongly suggest you submit written comments by Nov. 24.

We have posted a set of talking points below. You should feel free to personalize the talking points to reflect your local perspective on this issue.

State-Mandated Forms for Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Meeting Notices, and Prior Written Notices

Please note that all of the documents referenced below can be online found at:

• http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/policy/formsnotices/cover1008.htm

Proposed IEP Forms

GENERAL COMMENTS

• A resolution passed by NYSUT's Representative Assembly calls for the State Education Department to develop a statewide uniform IEP document.

• The IEP forms are too rigidly structured in the sequence of items. We recognize SED's intent of creating a consistent path for CSE/CPSE decision-making that is based upon the sequential steps found in regulation, however the grouping of information often is not in a usable format for service providers. For example, information on a student's transition service plan is not grouped together in the IEP document form but is spread across various sections. An individual needs to page through the IEP to find all transition information instead of finding all information in a central location.

• The forms does not allow school districts to include additional considerations that may be important for a student's individualized free appropriate public education, but not necessarily found in regulation.

• The forms do not allow for the inclusion of items that may be practical or helpful such as a student's projected exit credential or "group size" information for resource room programs or related services.

• Helpful programmatic information that may have been located easily in a district's IEP needs to be pulled out of narrative sections in the state-mandated document. Critical information to support programming and instruction needs to be readily available.

• The forms do not specifically recognize language considerations such as the language needs of the parent/guardian or the student who needs bilingual services.

• While this document is designed to ensure compliance with federal and state law and regulations, it is not a parent-friendly document. An ongoing concern in special education is to support parents in becoming well-informed decision-makers in the development of an education program for their child with a disability. The format may be technically correct, however it is bureaucratically presented and does not foster a meaningful and focused open discussion of the child's program by the IEP team.

Proposed Meeting Notice Forms

GENERAL COMMENTS

• The guidelines are not parent-friendly. The language reflects the technical requirements of law and regulation, however it should be balanced with more practical information that is easily understandable to parents.

• The notice forms indicate that members of the CSE/CPSE can be excused from meetings. However, if a district has a local policy limiting this provision, the guidelines do not allow for alteration of the state-mandated form.

Proposed Prior Written Notice

GENERAL COMMENTS

• The guidelines are not parent-friendly. The language reflects the technical requirements of law and regulation, however it should be balanced with more practical information that is easily understandable to parents.

• If the intent is to share the guidelines with parents, it may be helpful to precede the examples found in the document with a statement detailing the intent of the requirement. For example, an explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take a specific action could be enhanced by indicating to parents that "You should expect information in this section that will provide a substantive reason based upon specific information that is unique to your child."

• The notice forms reference sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the special education process. It would be appropriate to revise the cited "Parent's Guide to Special Education" publication that was last printed in May 2002 to ensure consistency between these forms and this Guide which school districts must provide to parents.

• The forms would be more helpful if parents were not only directed to the procedural safeguards notice available to them but also their next consideration if choosing to exercise the right to appeal. For example, if you disagree with the action reflected in this notice, you may request mediation or, if you choose, an impartial hearing.

INITIAL REFERRAL

• The form has a box to check if an evaluation will not be conducted. In what situations would that occur? Don't all referrals, once initiated, require an evaluation and that the evaluation process would continue unless the district and parent agree to withdraw the referral? This section needs further explanation to ensure consistency with New York State Education Law regarding withdrawl of referral procedures.

• The form should be revised so that a date can be included in the first sentence to indicate when the CSE/CPSE received the referral. This documentation will establish whether the district provided a timely notice upon receipt of a referral.

REEVALUATION

• The form requires consent for reevaluation. Additionally, the form should indicate that the parent has the right to withdraw consent at any time during the reevaluation process.

• The form indicates that a parent can "request a meeting" to discuss the reevaluation recommendation. The text should be revised to allow for a CSE/CPSE meeting upon request.

NOTICE OF CHANGES

• The form indicates that the parent has an "opportunity to address the CSE/CPSE." The text should clarify that parent can schedule a formal meeting with the CSE/CPSE.

• We recommend that this form be amended so that it indicates whether the change in a student's program occurred in a CSE/CPSE meeting or as a result of an agreement between the parent and school district after the student's annual review meeting.

• If the program change is a result of an agreement between the parent and school district after the student's annual review meeting, the parent should be informed about the parent's right to consult with the student's special education provider related to the program or service to be changed.

• If a written proposal to change an IEP between the district and parent is a different document from this "Notice of Changes" form, it should also be the subject of this public review of mandated forms.

IEP DIPLOMA/HS DIPLOMA

• The notice intent is to either inform the individual of educational eligibility until age 21 or educational ineligibility. Some of the required notice components such as "Description of any other options considered and the reasons why those options were rejected" are not relevant to this notice and should be deleted.

• A parent needs to receive such notice prior to graduation, but it is unclear if that can occur as late as June or earlier in a school year.