Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent says child-study team dismissed parental input in special-education evaluation
Summary
A parent told the board his son’s child-study evaluation proceeded on incomplete documentation, that parental records and third-party specialist input were not considered, and that a third-party OT found a need for services the district may deny.
At the April 29 Bayonne Board of Education meeting, parent Clayton Bilodeau told trustees he believes his son’s evaluation by the district’s Child Study Team was incomplete and that parental documentation was not considered.
Bilodeau said the team proceeded with an eligibility (ID) meeting using a second "core report" that he described as half complete and containing zeros in the data fields. "When we asked them why the data was empty, they couldn't explain why," he said. He told the board he and his wife provided documentation from private specialists and that a third-party occupational-therapy provider concluded the child needs OT, but the district facilitator indicated services would be denied.
Bilodeau cited a regulatory reference in the meeting transcript—"NJIC 6 A14, 3 4"—and said parental input must be included in the evaluation process. He added that the written evaluations the family received did not reflect parent concerns; a questionnaire that would have captured those concerns was reportedly provided to the family only after the evaluations were completed.
The parent asked the board to ensure parental documentation and third-party assessments are considered in future child-study evaluations and that procedures follow applicable rules for parental participation.
Board trustees did not announce a remedial action in the meeting transcript; the business office noted public comments would be taken and addressed "in the appropriate manner." The family’s account and the district’s next steps were not resolved on the record at the meeting.
What’s next: the district indicated it would review public input; Bilodeau’s claims and the district’s handling of the evaluation should be followed up with the special-education office and any formal complaint or appeal procedures available to the family.
