Transcript Parental Revocation of Consent for Continued Provision of

Q and A Regarding 34 CFR § 300.300(b)(4)
On December 1, 2008, USDOE issued a series
of new regulations for IDEA. These newly
amended regulations took effect on
December 31, 2008. While the new
amendments implicate 11 different
regulations, the most significant change
involves 34 CFR § 300.300(b)(4), which now
allows parental revocation of consent for
special education and related services
subsequent to the initial provision of those
services.

A: (4) If, at any time subsequent to the initial
provision of special education and related
services, the parent of a child revokes consent in
writing for the continued provision of special
education and related services, the public
agency—
(i)May not continue to provide special education
and related services to the child, but must
provide prior written notice in accordance with
§ 300.503 before ceasing the provision of special
education and related services;
(ii)May not use the procedures in subpart E of
this part (including the mediation procedures
under § 300.506 or the due process procedures
under §§ 300.507 through 300.516) in order to
obtain agreement or a ruling that the services
may be provided to the child;
(iii)Will not be considered to be in violation of the
requirement to make FAPE available to the child
because of the failure to provide the child with
further special education and related services;
and
(iv)Is not required to convene an IEP Team
meeting or develop an IEP under §§ 300.320 and
300.324 for the child for further provision of
special education and related services.


A: Prior the current amendment, parents did
not have the right to unilaterally remove their
children from special education and related
services after the initial provision of services.
The previous interpretation of IDEA: LEAs
have a continuing obligation to provide FAPE
to students after consent was given for the
initial provision of special education, and the
parent did not have the right to revoke this
consent.

A. The parent must revoke consent in writing
for the continued provision of special
education and related services.

A: The amended regulation requires that a
district take two steps upon receipt of a
parent's written revocation of consent:
1. The district must promptly provide prior
written notice of the change in educational
placement and services that will result from
the revocation of consent.
2. Within a reasonable period of time after
prior written notice is provided to the parent,
the district must discontinue all special
education and related services.



USDOE stated that additional procedures may be
used by mutual agreement of the parent and
district. For example, the district may consider
holding an IEP team meeting to discuss the
cessation of services.
These non-required procedures may not be used
to delay the termination of services and should
be strictly voluntary on the part of the parent.
The public agency does not have any obligation
to ‘convince’ parents to accept the special
education and related services.

A: Yes. Because rights previously held by
parents transfer to students who reach the
age of majority. However, the prior written
notice that is required to be provided prior to
cessation of services must be provided to
both the student and the student’s parents.
1. A description of the action proposed or
refused by the agency;


The date upon which all “educational services
and supports”, set forth in the student’s
current IEP, will cease.
Procedural safeguards are also terminated by
the cessation, including disciplinary
procedural safeguards.
2. An explanation of why the agency proposes
or refuses to take the action
The reason for the proposed cessation is that
the action is mandated by receipt of the
parent's written revocation of consent.
3. A description of each evaluation procedure,
assessment, record, or report the agency
used as a basis for the proposed or refused
action
A copy of the current IEP could be attached
to district’s PWN form.
4. A statement that the parents of a child with
a disability have protection under the
procedural safeguards of this part
The district should include a copy of the
procedural safeguards. These must be
amended to incorporate the revised rule.
5. Sources for parents to contact to obtain
assistance in understanding the provisions of
this part
A copy of Parent Handbook may contain this
information. If not, it must be provided in
addition to the Parent Handbook.
6. A description of other options that the IEP
team considered and the reasons why those
options were rejected


Consideration of the WROC is not mandated.
The district may only convene an IEP team
meeting if the parent is willing to do so.
Otherwise, the regulation precludes
consideration of all other options. Cessation
of IEP services is mandatory.
7. A description of other factors that are
relevant to the agency’s proposal or refusal.
(NOTE: Since the cessation itself is mandated
by regulation, the only component of the
notice that is within the district's discretion is
the timing of the cessation.)
The PWN should also inform the parent that
subsequent to the cessation of services, the
student will be a general education student
and will not be entitled to IDEA’s procedural
safeguards, including IDEA procedural
safeguards in disciplinary situations.

A: The USDOE refused to establish a specific
timeline for responding to the written
revocation of consent. It is expected that
districts “promptly respond” “within a
reasonable time” before discontinuing
services, and that discontinuation of services
will “occur in a timely manner.”

A: If it is made clear to the parent that their
attendance at the IEP team meeting is strictly
voluntary, that the meeting will not delay the
cessation of special education and related
services, and that the IEP team meeting will
not be used to coerce the parent into
accepting special education and related
services.
- May be an effective way to inform parents.

A: The district can ask but a district may not
require the parent to provide any explanation.

A: It is inappropriate for school personnel to
encourage a parent to revoke consent for
special education and related services. If a
district believes that a child is no longer a
student with a disability, the appropriate
procedure would be to initiate a reevaluation
in order to redetermine eligibility.

A: No. The discontinuation of services is not
a determination that a child is no longer a
child with a disability, but instead a cessation
of services “pursuant to the decision of the
parent.”

A: No. The regulation makes it clear that
revoking consent is an all or nothing
proposition.

A: No. The amended regulation explicitly
prohibits a district from using mediation or
the due process procedures “in order to
obtain agreement or a ruling that the services
may be provided to the child.”
The student’s teachers “are not required to
provide the previously identified IEP
accommodations in the general education
environment.”
“Nothing would prevent a general education
teacher from providing a child whose parent
has revoked consent for the continued
provision of special education and related
services with accommodations that are
available to non-disabled children under
relevant State standards. “

A: A parent can always file suit. The real
question is whether the parent has a viable
claim, and based upon both the USDOE
discussion and the amended regulation, the
answer is no.

A: Yes, as long as other general education
students are also in that classroom, the
student is placed in the classroom as a
general education student and the student
receives the same treatment as the other
general education students in that classroom.


A: The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has
previously addressed this question and the
answer is, “No”.
By rejecting the services developed under the
IDEA, the parent would essentially be
rejecting what would be offered under Section
504. The IEP is the student’s 504 Plan.


A: Just because a student’s special education
and related services are discontinued
pursuant to a WROC, a district is not absolved
of its child-find obligations.
The USDOE notes that “the Department
expects that children whose parents revoke
consent will be identified, located and offered
an evaluation in the same manner as any
other child if the child is suspected of having
a disability and being in need of special
education and related services.”



Because discontinuation of services is not a
determination that the student does not have a
disability, a district may continue to suspect a
disability throughout the student’s educational
career.
This may require periodic offers to evaluate, and
documentation of those offers, in order to satisfy a
district’s child-find obligations.
Hopefully some parents who revoked consent for
special education and related services will reconsider
their decisions when subsequent child-find contacts
are made.

A: Yes. Commentors to the proposed
regulation expressed concerns about a
“revolving door” and requested the USDOE
limit the number of times a parent could
revoke their consent for special education
and related services. While acknowledging
the “special education revolving door”
concern, the USDOE rejected the suggestions
and merely stated that a parent “always
maintains the right to subsequently request
an initial evaluation.”
The USDOE also states that although any
evaluation to determine eligibility for special
education and related services subsequent to
a discontinuation of services is an initial
evaluation.


A district “may not always have to expend
resources on a ‘new’ initial evaluation.”
During an evaluation review a district “reviews
existing evaluation data on the child . . . and
on the basis of that review, and input from
the child’s parents, identify what additional
data, if any, are needed.”



A: No. Consent for the provision of special
education and related services can be thought of
as specific to the parent providing that consent.
Thus if mom provides consent for special
education and related services, only mom can
revoke that consent. No one else may revoke
her consent for her.
Accordingly, as long as a district has one
parent’s consent to implement an IEP, that IEP
may be implemented despite another parent’s
written revocation of consent.
In the situation of dueling parents a district may
be wise to convene an IEP team meeting to
discuss the revoking parent’s rationale for
revoking and further to inform them that only
one parent’s consent is required to continue
services.

Prior written notice should also be provided to
the revoking parent informing him/her that the
district is unable to discontinue special education
and related services due to the other parent’s
consent.

A: No. Districts may not condition
attendance at, or admission into, an
alternative school on relinquishing a
student’s right to receive FAPE.