Usd 266 Negotiated Agreement

Posted on 19. Dec, 2020 by in Uncategorized

Clasen also asserts rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. For most of Clasen`s assertions under these statutes, it refers to most of the above facts. Clasen also argues that the defendants retaliated against him by announcing IEP meetings at times when he was unable to attend. The minutes show that the accused worked with Clasen to try to find a consensual time frame for organizing IEP team meetings. The teachers of the defendant district have a negotiated contract that prevents defendants from attending meetings after 4 p.m.m. As a result, IEP meetings generally do not begin after 4 p.m.m. As a result, there were challenges in planning IEP meetings with M.S. Clasen`s parents who wanted to meet in the evenings and on weekends, which the accused`s staff could not always do. The parties struggled to find agree dates for the IEP meetings in the spring of 2016.

M.S.`s parents objected to the May 16, 2016 IEP meeting because Clasen could not arrive in time. The accused informed the parents that the meeting could not be moved, but that the parents could arrive too late to participate. Clasen also alleges that the accused took retaliatory measures by moving the IEP team meetings at times that were uncomfortable to them. However, the Tribunal agrees with the Auditor-Counsellor that this allegation, along with other charges of retaliation, is contrary to testimony and other evidence. Clasen did not place his burden on this assertion, to shift the assumption that the auditor`s conclusions were correct. At the request of M.S.`s parents, $266 agreed to keep M.S. in kindergarten for a second year at LaMunyon. This decision was based in part on the fact that M.S. was going to have heart surgery during the summer, which meant that he would miss several weeks of classes at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year. In addition, M.S.`s parents wanted to see how M.S.

would perform in another year in a normal classroom. The IEP team accepted these changes and included additional tools and services to address M.S. behaviour with positive behavioural aids. M.S. made progress in this IEP in the second year of kindergarten and moved into the first year during the 2015-2016 school year. On the other hand, Clasen interprets the status to mean that individual changes, although separated below the 25% threshold, cannot change more than 25 percent. The parties do not use convincing supervisory or authority authorities to use this legal provision. The court agrees with Clasen that if the defendant`s arguments were brought to its logical conclusion, a school district could change a student`s IEP without the consent of his or her parents for one week of school, as long as it allocates the changes equally to less than 25% per day. The Kansas legislature certainly passed this legislation to avoid inappropriate results. However, Clasen`s logical analysis loses most of his bite in this case, since the defendants changed the placement of m.S.s first in April 2015 and again in February 2016.

Comments are closed.