David: We signed a wavier for our son’s 3 year reevaluation in April before his IEP for the following school year was finalized. After signing the wavier, we requested that his IEP include more benchmarks and objective measurable goals. The district wants to now re-evaluate him for eligibility. We realize there is a procedure for disputing the finding of a re-eval via an independent eval and so forth. However, we want to avoid this process or a due process hearing.
Questions – Can assessments (such as the WJ-III ACH or similar tests) be administered for the sole purpose of providing benchmarks and measurable goals in an IEP? Once administrated, are they automatically considered part of a re-eval?
David, If I understand the facts, your child was due for a 3 year triennial reevaluation in April 2016. You waived the right to this reevaluation but requested that the next IEP include more benchmarks and objective measurable goals. The school’s response was to request that he be reevaluated to determine if he is still eligible for special ed. I imagine their action had a chilling effect – I’m sure this was their intent.
Yes, the school can assess your child’s academic skills to help the team develop measurable IEP goals. Nothing in the law prevents academic assessments from being part or all the reevaluation, although this may not be “automatic.”
BTW: parents can request new evaluations once a year. (See Wlaw, page 240)
Yes, you have the facts correct – but maybe not our intent.Our goal is to strengthen our son’s IEP with objective data derived from assessment tools not currently being used without putting his eligibility into question due to a reevaluation. .
The school is saying that any new assessments MUST be used as part of a reevaluation for eligibility.
We believe that assessments should be added to our son’s IEP as a way to obtain objective measurable benchmarks within the updated IEP without being part of/considered a reevaluation for eligibility.
Who is right? Can you expand upon “may not be automatic”
Does your answer differ if his initial evaluation identified these areas of need vs. those areas of need added during subsequent IEP meetings due to input from teachers?
Thanks