Running Head: APPLIED SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 1

Applied Special Education Law Project: Procedural Safeguards

SPED602: Special Education Law and Compliance

Kelsey Ramirez

University of Hawaii Manoa

Running Head: APPLIED SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 2

Introduction

Procedural safeguards are parental rights and protections given to families with students

with special needs under the federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA). It reserves their right to access to educational records, an independent

educational evaluation, parent participation, prior written notice, procedural safeguards notice,

understandable language, confidentiality of information, informed consent, stay put rights, due

process, civil action, mediation, reimbursement of attorney fees, state-level appeal, and state

complaint.

After a long journey of fighting for student and parental rights, procedural safeguards

were created and implemented in schools in the United States. It is vital for staff members,

especially special education teachers, to understand why we provide procedural safeguards, the

battles that were fought, and battles that continue today. Information on these procedural

safeguards would answer the question why is it so important to present that little pink book at

every meeting? In this presentation we reviewed the history and examined each safeguard.

Next we analyzed Hawaii court case, Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education, where

procedural safeguards were questioned and the courts conclusion seemed unpredictable. We

ended this presentation by discussing our experiences with procedural safeguards, Ahas, and

ways we can improve our schools practices. Sometimes the legality of special education is

looked passed in our daily work tasks. We tend to forget the significance and underlying rights

and protections we are offering families. This presentation on procedural safeguards reviewed

content, as well as allowed my audience to reflect on their own practices and challenged them to

improve professionally.
Running Head: APPLIED SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 3

Target Audience

The target audience for this project is the special education learning team at Hickam

Elementary school, which consists of four other special education teachers, the curriculum

coach, and the principal. This presentation on procedural safeguards is appropriate for this

audience because this past summer our department created Standard Operating Procedures

(SOPs) for our school. This SOPs document includes procedures for the different parts of the

eligibility and IEP processes, but does not include a process for presenting the Procedural

Safeguards Notice (PSN). Typically it is the task of the principal or vice principal to present the

PSN. But because we do not have a vice principal, there are times when special education

teachers are asked to attend meetings as administration designees. It is important for the target

audience to review procedural safeguards, as well as discuss as a team how we can create legally

correct SOPs for procedural safeguards. Perfecting our SOPs will allow our school to be

consistent in compliance with IDEA, as well as provide our students and families with a positive

school environment.

Products

To inform and engage my audience I used a PowerPoint presentation and provided a copy

of these slides to the audience. On the last slide I provided links to other helpful resources. I

made sure to specifically review the Parent Guide document located on the Special Parent

Information Network: Hawaii website. I explained that although this resource is geared towards

parents, I found its easy to understand layout and language to be extremely helpful. I also used

evaluation forms to assess different aspects of my presentation and receive feedback from my

audience. With the feedback I can continue to learn and grow through this project.
Running Head: APPLIED SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 4

Presentation

I utilized a PowerPoint presentation for this project. First I reviewed content on

procedural safeguards by going through the slides and stopping to discuss different questions.

Then I conducted an activity where I read facts from the Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Department

of Education court case. In this case procedural safeguards were questioned and the outcome

was difficult to determine. I then asked the audience who they thought the court ruled in favor of

before revealing the actual outcome. After we did a Think-Pair-Share where everyone share

personal experiences with procedural safeguards being questioned or when they were difficult to

uphold. Next we had an open discussion as a team to talk about Ahas and what we can do as

a school to improve our practices. Lastly, I allowed time for questions and completion of

evaluation forms.

I tailored this presentation to the needs of the target audience by reviewing and presenting

on the specific critical aspects of each safeguard. For example, while sharing about the right to

examine relevant records, I summarized the main points and stated that the sharing of records

should not be delayed past 45 days. I also chose to examine the Doug C. v. State of Hawaii

Department of Education court case because the issue involved scheduling meetings with parents

while maintain timeline. This is a common problem for all special education teachers so its

outcome should influence the way we create out SOPs. The Think-Pair-Share and discussion

questions were another way I made this presentation relevant and thought provoking to my

audience. As a team we asked and answered questions, shared experiences, and brainstormed

how we can use this information to improve our schools practices.

Running Head: APPLIED SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 5

Participant Evaluation and Feedback

Overall audience participants appreciated this presentations review of procedural

safeguards, as well as the discussion we had as a team. They all were surprised that in the Doug

v. Hawaii DOE case, parent participation was deemed more important than exceeding the

timeline. Audience members found the presentation and handouts informative, easy to follow,

and relatable to real life situations.

Reflection

Based on my observations and the evaluation feedback forms, I felt that the presentation

had many strengths and benefited my colleagues. One strength of the presentation was that

information was thought provoking and relatable to real life situations, not just a review of facts

they knew previously. Audience members had an Aha moment when we discussed the Doug

C. v. Hawaii DOE court case. The special education teachers have all experienced issues with

timelines and coordinating meetings with all team members, including parents. From this case,

we all took away the understanding that parent involvement comes before meeting timelines.

Another strength was the organization of the presentation. Feedback indicated that the

PowerPoint slides were informative and easy to follow. The audience also found the PowerPoint

slides helpful and useful for taking notes. A third strength is that the activities and discussions

were productive and helpful for all audience members. After reviewing procedural safeguards

and accessing background knowledge, we collaborated on our next steps to improve as a school.

One audience member stated that she enjoyed the Think-Pair-Share activity. We dont always

take the time to share our experiences and learn from one another, so the activities helped us

further our understanding of procedural safeguards as one team.

Running Head: APPLIED SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW PROJECT 6

Although there were many positive things about the presentation, there are things I would

do differently if I were to conduct this presentation again. One audience member identified

pacing for adult learning, reflection, and discovery as an area of improvement. If I were to redo

this presentation I would have an actual timer for the activity and discussions, so that we do not

spend too much time on a single topic. As I continue to gain more experience presenting to

colleagues and guiding adult learning, I plan to work on structuring the pacing of my

presentation using tools like an electronic timer. Another improvement I would make would be

the addition of a Cheat Sheet of main points and timelines of procedural safeguards. Despite

positive comments about the PowerPoint slides handout, I think a one page Cheat Sheet would

be more practical in day-to-day usage. This could be a resource that hangs on the wall or held in

a resource binder. If I were to present on procedural safeguards again I would keep my

PowerPoint and activities, but intentionally structure the time for discussions and create a one

page resource for the audience to use in future situations.