5 IDEA Requirements for Independent Evaluations at Public Expense

Are you the parent of a child with autism or a learning disability that needs an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE), to determine their educational needs or services? Have you heard that parents can ask special education personnel in their school district to pay for an IEE at public expense? This article will discuss the 5 IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) requirements for an IEE at public expense.

1. IDEA 300.502 under (b) (1) states that parents “Have the right under this part to obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with the evaluation obtained by the public agency.”

2. Special education personnel may ask why you disagree with their evaluation, but they cannot require you to give an explanation of what you disagree with. In fact I recommend not telling them what you disagree with, because they may try and limit the IEE.

3. IDEA 300.502 (b) (2) states “that if a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the public agency must without unnecessary delay either; 1. File for a due process hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate, or 2. Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense. . .”

4. IDEA 300.502 (5) (e) states “If an IEE is at public expense, the criteria under which the evaluation is obtained, including the location of the evaluation and the qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the public agency uses when it initiates an evaluation, to the extent those criteria are consistent with the parent’s right to an IEE.” Many school districts try and put a lot of criteria on parents for IEE’s at public expense. For Example: geographic, cost, name of evaluator must be on a list etc.

5. Except for the criteria in 4 above, school districts may not impose other conditions or timelines on the IEE at public expense.

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has stated, that school districts may develop criteria for IEE’s at public expense; with these two exceptions.

a. The school district cannot make criteria, that prevent the parent from getting an IEE at public expense. For Example: If you live in a small town, with no available evaluators, and your district states that the evaluation must be done within 30 miles; it would be impossible for you to find an evaluator. Or the special education personnel make the cost so low that you cannot find anyone to evaluate your child. This may prevent you from getting the IEE at public expense, so stand up to special education personnel.

b. School districts must allow parents, to prove that their child’s circumstances are unique, and require a waiver of the criteria. For Example: If you feel that your child needs to be seen by a Clinical Psychologist, the cost is probably going to be more than a psychologist would charge. If you can prove unique circumstances, why your child needs to be evaluated by a Clinical Psychologist, then the school district is supposed to pay for the Clinical Psychologist. Whether a school district is willing to do that, without a due process hearing, depends on your school district.

Remember any criteria that a school district makes for an IEE at public expense must not prevent the parent from getting the IEE; and they must allow for waiver of criteria if the child’s circumstances require it. A good independent evaluation can benefit your child by determining their disabilities or educational and related service needs.

Importance of Professional Translation Services in Public Sector

Do we need translation services in the public sector? When you look at the public sector in different countries, what can prompt them to agitate for translation services?

As we talk about translation services, we mean translating documents from one language to another, might be from English to German or German to English, but not limited to these two languages.

Public places are always bombarded by people who speak different languages seeking for help, so how do they understand each other? Basically, translation and interpretation are the best choices in this place.

What is public sector?

This is part of the economy controlled by the government in any country and plays a role in delivering social services to the communities. We can talk of places like government hospitals, public schools, police, army, local government and etc.

Currently, the United States public sector increased the procurement of translation services to help people who are non-English speakers, these people need government services like health care, education, legal aid, and public protection. To ease communication, translation is proved to work better.

The governments in different countries can procure translation and interpretation services from professional translation agencies with professional translators and interpreters working in their own native languages.

How translation services helpful to the public sector?

Not only the public sector that requires translation services, different business entities, private organizations and individual business dealings all over the world today need translations so as to run their activities smoothly.

Government hospitals as part of the public sector require translation services, why? With medical related issues, it’s all about dealing with the lives and the health of people. This requires clear communication between the doctor and the patient. A medical interpreter will help the patient to explain the problem fully to the doctor as well as making sure that the doctor understands the patient’s problem. As I said earlier that in public places like medical centers, health care units, people of different tribes, different language speakers visit these them looking for medical care, translation services will, therefore, be helpful.

On the side of security providers like police and army, translation services will make police play their role smoothly in maintaining the law and order, translation agencies have translators and interpreters in all different fields, police will be provided with police translators and interpreters if required and will expertly do their work by conveying the message to the public in different languages. For those who cannot read police and army published documents in the source language provided, their respective translators and interpreters are available to provide translations interpreting services.

In Marc Jones article in 7th/01/2016, says in 2012 and 2013, the Lincolnshire police spent £373,958 for translation services for more than 30 languages. This comes to my observation that translation is a vital activity everywhere in the world, it, therefore, helps the police to have a clear communication with people.

Legal aid access needs translation services. There are people who may not afford and need legal representation in courts of law, basing on the fact that someone is a non-English speaker a language which is commonly used in various offices, legal aid translation and interpretation is necessary.

Under public education sector, we find that translation services play a vital role in fostering communication between students who are non-English speakers and teachers. Public education will need translators and interpreters to help learners to access education services in a language they understand. It will be discriminating if education services are offered in one language which some people can’t understand and it will show that the government ignores foreign native speakers to attend classes in her country.

The Aspiration To Publish All Public Service Data Must Be Balanced

The publication of open data is not resource free, the aspiration to publish all public service data must be balanced by the resources needed to publish/sustain such data and a genuine benefit to the public. There needs to be a clear recognition that it will take some time and cost to deliver.

It is important to recognize that the publication of open data is not the only tool to deliver greater transparency and accountability in public services. A valuable addition though it may be, it should not become a substitute for existing democratic scrutiny and governance arrangements. Our experience of open data publication to date has been that any associated scrutiny has, at best, been superficial and at worst, unnecessarily confrontational and destructive. Reliance on open data publication alone, without proper contextual information and in-depth analysis has the potential danger of undermining the democratic process, unless proper controls are in place.

The notion that the greater publication of open data may be in the business and strategic interest of public service organizations has been underplayed; substituted by a presumption that some form of regulatory compulsion is necessary to ensure that this happens at all. The examples of local authorities demonstrate that progressive public service organizations are willing to progress towards greater transparency of their own volition.

There are data sets where a charge has been made for data in order to cover the costs of collecting and providing that data. There is a danger that the effect of removing the ability to charge in these cases either results in genuine hardship (particularly for smaller public service organizations) or the ceasing of the collection of that data as it is no longer viable. This loss of revenue could have a significant impact on organizations during a time when other funding sources are being cut. There appears to be a misconception that a significant number of Freedom of Information requests are for data sets. Although data sets are requested by some areas of the media and lobby groups, the vast number of FOI requests are for answers to specific questions. There is a clear distinction between the wishes of special interest groups and the media for sets of data and the general public who are asking for useful, meaningful information.

We welcome however the emphasis on the publication of new data. We welcome the commitment to provide greater guidance on assessing the balance between costs and benefits of publishing particular data sets, however we would suggest that it is linked to the existing public interest tests required within the FOI Act regarding the use of exemptions, in order to ensure that any guidance and the requirements of the Act are in harmony. There should also be a recognition that public service organizations should take into consideration the need for future open data publication when making future IT investments to ensure that systems and infrastructure are geared towards efficient publication.

There are genuine concerns that although personal data may have been removed from particular data sets, that through the aggregation of a number of datasets personal data may be revealed. Although the guidance issued on redacting personal information in FOI requests is helpful in this area, it would welcome more detailed work and clearer guidance on this issue to protect the public. Any proposed requirement, should take into consideration the resources available to undertake publication and the reasonable time that organizations may have to take to achieve this, to ensure that local priorities for front line services are not compromised.

The current time limits within the FOI Act provide a sufficient balance between the benefit to the public of receiving the requested information and the cost to the public purse of collating and providing that information. We do not believe that a higher cost limit for datasets is practical or proportionate. Our experience to date has been that in the few instances where datasets are requested as part of FOI requests, either we do not collect that particular set of information at all, or it does not hold it to the level of granularity requested. There should not be a mechanism that forces local authorities to create data sets by default as a result of individual questions. We do not believe that any additional cost burdens on public authorities are appropriate at this time.

It is essential that consideration of the cost burden of publishing a particular dataset is a fundamental part of the decision whether to publish, and that this decision should ultimately remain in the hands of locally elected officials. It does not believe that the proactive publication of datasets be made mandatory. It believes the decision of what to publish and when is best made locally, to meet the needs of the local electorate.

Additional costs of producing datasets being made by the requestor should not be allowed to distract a public service organization from publishing other, more useful data. Therefore there would need to be consideration of the best use of the resources available, and that decision should rest ultimately with the public service organization concerned. It is clear that the confrontational and sensationalist style of some of the media is in itself a barrier to the greater acceptance of open data publication. There needs to be a greater awareness of the real benefits, this means greater persuasion, greater awareness raising rather than the introduction of additional regulatory burdens and an imposition of a “blame culture”. Current systems used for collection and storage of data were not designed or implemented with publication of data in mind, and therefore considerable work may need to be commissioned not only to improve the reporting capabilities of the system but also changes to business practices to ensure that the right information is collected. Proper safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the appropriate balance is in place regarding the cost of collecting/publishing the data and the actual benefit to the public at large.