Prior Written Notice

In describing the proposed or refused action, be clear and specific. For an initial IEP, generally describe the contents of the IEP and reference the initial IEP meeting. For an annual IEP, the action must describe specific goals, services, or changes from the previous IEP.

Guiding Questions for IEP Teams:

1. What are we:

   • planning to do for the student?

   • proposing to change about the student's program?

   • seeking consent from parents for?

2. Despite the parents request or other options considered by the team, what are we:

   • refusing to do regarding the student?

   • refusing to change about the student's program?

Noncompliant Example:

"The district is proposing to implement the attached IEP."

Compliant Examples:

"The district is proposing to provide continued direct instruction in reading to address Johnny’s Specific Learning Disability. He will continue to receive services in the resource room as well as accommodations and modifications in the classroom including shortened assignments and the option of having tests read to him in a quiet setting."

"The district is proposing to discontinue April’s direct instruction in reading related to her Other Health Disability. She has met her goals and objectives and the team agrees she no longer has a need for direct services in reading. The team agrees this need can be met through the accommodations providing her with extended time and use of audio books or text to speech technology. She will continue to receive services in the areas of emotional regulation, social skills and math."

"The district is refusing to provide George with a 1:1 paraprofessional during his school day. He will continue to receive shared paraprofessional support throughout his special education services. The team will continue to monitor behavior and will come back together if a change is needed based on behavioral data collected."

Whenever you are describing the reason for the school's proposal or refusal, it is helpful to think about our obligation under IDEA to provide FAPE. The school is obligated to provide the student with an opportunity to receive a meaningful educational benefit in the least restrictive environment.

In a nutshell, the programming the school proposes must be calculated to:

1. allow the student to make meaningful progress toward his/her goals (i.e., "close the gap" with typically developing peers),

2. make the general curriculum and environment accessible to the student to the maximum extent appropriate, and

3. accomplish #1 and #2 by providing special education services, related services, and supplementary aids and services that a randomly selected, objective group of our peers (or a due process hearing) would consider "reasonable."

Our rationale for proposing changes to a student's programming should reflect and reference these obligations. Conversely, we must avoid rationales that indicate we are making changes purely for the convenience of school staff.

Guiding Questions for IEP Teams:

1. How did we determine the proposed action or refusal was necessary?

2. What is the rationale behind our decisions?

3. What information or details support our decisions?

4. Is there more than one reason why we proposed or refused an action?

Example - A student transitioning to a new school:

It would be inappropriate to state that "Jeremy will no longer have access to a breakout room/stop and think space within his classroom and will instead have access to a behavior resource room outside of the classroom because the high school does not offer stop and think spaces in the classroom." Again, an impartial reader would assume that the IEP team is making proposals because it is convenient for staff and "the way we do things" rather than out of consideration of how the student's needs can be met in a new setting.

A better rationale would be: "The IEP team has determined that providing a behavior resource room outside of the classroom will provide Jeremy with access to the least restrictive environment. Given Jeremy's developmental level and present levels of performance in the areas of stress management and impulse control, his needs will be appropriately met if he is prompted to use non-disruptive self-control strategies at his desk and only removes himself from instructional activities if he is experiencing intense distress. In his current classroom, Jeremy has increased proficiency in the use of these strategies and is currently accessing the breakout stop and think space, on average, once per week."

Each item listed in this section establishes the basis for the proposal or refusal. In other words, each item listed is a source of information that allowed the district to determine the proposal or refusal and the rationale for doing so.

Guiding Questions for IEP Teams:

1. What relevant sources of information support the team's decisions? Is it the most current data?

2. Do the sources of information used represent input from all stakeholders/team members, including parents?

3. Who did we talk to? Where did we look? What did we use?

Noncompliant Example:

Leaving the section blank or indicating that input was considered when it was not (e.g., indicating that a "classroom observation" was considered when an observation was not completed).

Compliant Examples:

"The team considered parent input, teacher input, review of group achievement scores, review of Sally's annual IEP goal progress monitoring data, input from service providers, review of the student record (grades, attendance, etc.), and review of prior evaluation data to determine the proposed goals and programming."

Teams must always be able to identify other options that were considered and rejected. Specific options discussed during the meeting must be documented on the PWN as well as why they were rejected. Examples of other options the IEP team may consider include:

• Adding a service or increasing service time

• Discontinuing a service or decreasing service time

• Changing the location of service provision

• Changing, adding, or removing a supplementary aid or service (accommodations, modifications, assistive technology, and paraprofessional services)

Guiding Questions for IEP Teams:

1. What alternatives were brought up by various team members but ultimately rejected?

2. What requests were made by the parents that the team did not agree to?

3. In planning the evaluation or IEP, what aspects or details were considered by the team but not included in the proposed plan?

4. Why were the other options considered but not included in the proposal or refusal?

Noncompliant Example:

"The team considered increasing or decreasing service time, but determined the services proposed in the IEP are best to meet the needs of the student."

Compliant Examples:

"The team considered reducing Kayla’s service time for speech from 20 minutes, 3 times per week to 20 minutes, once a week for check-in and developing strategies for carryover in the classroom. This option was rejected because the team determined that she will need time to work on maintaining the sounds at the conversational level in the speech room. (A reduction to 2 times per week was decided to be appropriate)."

"The team considered placing Conner back at the setting 3 program at Eagle Creek Elementary, as progress reports show increased success at maintaining appropriate behavior, but decided against that option because of the recent incidents of physical aggression toward staff. (He will remain in the setting 4 placement at South West Metro Intermediate district until he reaches behavior objectives listed in his Individualized Education Program)."

The PWN must include a description of other factors that are relevant to the agency's proposal or refusal. However, there may not be any other factors relevant to the district's proposal or refusal other than what is already listed in other sections of the PWN. If this is the case, it should be noted that there are no other factors relevant to the proposal or refusal.

Guiding Questions for IEP Teams:

1. Does the student exhibit any special factors (not already described in the PWN) that affect the proposal/refusal?

2. Did the parents share information or concerns from the student's home life or an outside agency (not already addressed in the PWN) that impacts the proposal or refusal?

3. Is there any other issue unique to the student that influences the proposal or refusal?

Noncompliant Example:

If this section is left blank, it is not in compliance. It must be addressed, even by simply writing “No other concerns were identified by the team."

Compliant Examples:

“No other concerns were identified by the team."

"Latisha does not communicate verbally and therefore uses an electronic communication device as her primary means of communication. These factors were considered when developing all aspects of her Individualized Education Program (IEP)."

"The Parent and District voluntarily agree to amend the current IEP outside of an IEP meeting and without convening a full IEP team. In agreeing to amend the IEP in this manner, it is understood that amending the IEP does not change the required annual review date and the entire IEP team will be informed of the changes made to the IEP."

Before finalizing your PWN and sending it home to parents, please ask yourself the following questions:

1. What changed on this IEP and is that change described in the "Actions Proposed or Refused" section?

   • Changes to services?

   • Changes to goals?

   • Adding Assistive Technology (AT)?

   • Determining a student is eligible for ESY?

   • Etc.

2. Did the parents make any requests that the district is refusing and are those refusals documented in the "Actions Proposed or Refused" section?

3. Is the rationale for any proposed actions or refusals documented in the "Explanation" section?

4. What was considered by the team, but ultimately refused? The "Other Options Considered" section is a great place to document annual considerations that are ultimately determined to be necessary.

   • Does the student not require AT?

   • Was it determined the student does not meet eligibility for ESY?

5. What additional factors affect the proposal?

   • There may be none, but this is a great spot to document any other nuances that are unique to the student's case and relevant to the proposal.

Upon receipt of any Parental Consent/Objection notification form, immediately review the document to determine if the parent agreed with the proposal or did not agree with the proposal.

If the parent checks the box, “I do not agree with the entire proposal, and I do not give permission for the school to proceed," notify the Special Services Director and within the same day of receiving notification. The Special Services Director will contact the parent to discuss the objection to the proposal and schedule a conciliation conference within the required ten calendar day timeline.