Grade: kindergarten. This family is refusing to take their child to school until an IEP is in place. The child has about another month before they are required by age to be in school, but the worry is by then the kid will have missed a lot of introduction to school. School is honestly trying to get all the testing and evaluation done as fast as they can, but parents' schedule are impacting the ability to get to evaluations. For how long can an IEP be used as a reason not to attend school?

I don't think not having an IEP in place when the school is doing all it can is ever a reason to not attend school.  Of course, I don't know all the facts.  What is it the parents want in place before their child goes to school?  Is there a fear of elopement or some other safety issue?  If so, that would be a valid reason, but have they asked the school to put something in place informally until the IEP can be put in place?  Would a 504 (that process is usually faster) work until the IEP could be put in place?  If there is a valid reason, have the parents asked for ways to instruct the child at home until they feel comfortable enough to send him/her?

The way things work in my state (PA), you need to be 6 by 9/1 to be of an age mandated to attend school.  In other words, you turn 6 on 9/2 (or any other date in the coming year) and you are mandated to go to school next fall.  What state is this that once a child is XX age, they must be enrolled in school?  Sounds like a bassackward way to designate  the mandated age for attending school.  No school wants to be forced to enroll students in K on a rolling basis.  I'm surprised/shocked to see this.  (Might make sense if the state has a transitional K in every district.)

This child might qualify for a preschool IEP where they can do Nov - June for preschool with an IEP & start K in the fall.

On 10/12/2024 at 9:01 AM, Carolyn Rowlett said:

What is it the parents want in place before their child goes to school?  Is there a fear of elopement or some other safety issue?

No extreme safety issue, more of educational concerns. Parents want a guaranteed 1:1 first. 

2 hours ago, JSD24 said:

The way things work in my state (PA), you need to be 6 by 9/1 to be of an age mandated to attend school.  In other words, you turn 6 on 9/2 (or any other date in the coming year) and you are mandated to go to school next fall.  What state is this that once a child is XX age, they must be enrolled in school?  Sounds like a bassackward way to designate  the mandated age for attending school.  No school wants to be forced to enroll students in K on a rolling basis.  I'm surprised/shocked to see this.  (Might make sense if the state has a transitional K in every district.)

This child might qualify for a preschool IEP where they can do Nov - June for preschool with an IEP & start K in the fall.

The state is Idaho. Compulsory age for school is 7, though districts can start kindergarten as early as 5. 

I've never actually seen a state that didn't have a compulsory age that's different from kindergarten minimum. That's interesting. 

So the parents want a guaranteed 1:1 - for what?  An aid to assist in the classroom?  1:1 instruction in a certain subject?  Was anything in place in pre-K?

It sounds a little unreasonable to me for the parents to keep their child from attending school without a "guaranteed 1:1."  Nothing can be guaranteed until data is gathered, and the school has a right to gather such data.  And I would think if they're asking for a 1:1 aide, that classroom observations would be necessary, which cannot occur unless the child is in class.  1:1 is even hard to get WITH data.  School districts usually want to start out with something less restrictive (1:3) to see if that will work before agreeing to a 1:1 aide.  As I said, I don't know all the facts, but I don't see the parents on the winning side of this issue.

This is a copy & paste of the law from this website:  https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title33/t33ch2/sect33-202/

TITLE 33

EDUCATION

CHAPTER 2

ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOLS

33-202.  School attendance compulsory. The parent or guardian of any child resident in this state who has attained the age of seven (7) years at the time of the commencement of school in his district, but not the age of sixteen (16) years, shall cause the child to be instructed in subjects commonly and usually taught in the public schools of the state of Idaho. To accomplish this, a parent or guardian shall either cause the child to be privately instructed by, or at the direction of, his parent or guardian; or enrolled in a public school or public charter school, including an on-line or virtual charter school or private or parochial school during a period in each year equal to that in which the public schools are in session; there to conform to the attendance policies and regulations established by the board of trustees, or other governing body, operating the school attended.

History:

[33-202, added 1963, ch. 13, sec. 25, p. 27; am. 1992, ch. 243, sec. 1, p. 721; am. 2009, ch. 103, sec. 2, p. 318.]

 

I am not a lawyer but the way I'm interpreting this is if you are 7 on the day school starts, you must be enrolled in school.  If he's turning 7 in a month, school has already 'commenced', so he'll need to start in the fall.  I don't see this as a truancy issue.

 

Part of school evaluations often include a classroom observation.  I think this will be needed before the school says a 1:1 is needed.  Parent will not see this on an IEP or 504 until the child is in school & the school sees a need.  Has the family considered a virtual charter school where they can provide 1:1 support?  This might be a way to show the local school district that a 1:1 aide is needed.

On 10/15/2024 at 12:14 PM, JSD24 said:

Has the family considered a virtual charter school where they can provide 1:1 support?  This might be a way to show the local school district that a 1:1 aide is needed.

Eh... I don't know if that'll prove anything. Virtual schools have as default parents providing 1:1 support.