MEETINGS: DYNAMICS & LEGALITY
School employees do not have the skills to be able to talk, answer questions, run a meeting, and keyboard at the same time. IEP team meetings feel de-personalized, with all eyes on the laptop or the wall projection, instead of looking at each other face to face. It is tedious to type so much information on these online IEP forms. The team focuses on the form, not on the child.
Online IEPs have introduced a shift in perspective. As skills increase, it may get better. I dislike what is happened with the team dynamics. Recently, I sat in on a 1. The team used an online IEP form. I wanted to take data on the number of eye contacts between team members vs. Dept of Education discusses draft IEPs. However, if a public agency develops a draft IEP prior to the IEP Team meeting, the agency should make it clear to the parents at the outset of the meeting that the services proposed by the agency are preliminary recommendations for review and discussion with the parents.
I do not have a problem with a draft IEP at the meeting, because we often have already hashed out many of the goals before hand. IEPs are fluid documents that can be reviewed and edited at any time. Everyone involved at the meeting lied about it.
The PPT was parent request and I ended on a circus having a total different type of unprofessional meeting. At the end of the meeting I asked how about the reasons i requested the meeting and he answers, thats not why we are here today, excuse me??? I insist we are in disagreement leaving that word since in the district computer system those changes are not being done. This IEP should have been done last September. An IEP is a working document and it can be written on. While it may not look pretty, it can be done. The signed, final copy is what matters. What is in the computer is just the framework to cover all parts that I need to write in my IEPs.
Make sure that you get a copy of the document immediately following the meeting and signing of it. This way, you can make sure that you have the most current document which team members have signed. Is there an IDEA regulation that addresses this? They always leave the room to provide a clean copy to me at the very last minute. How can I beat them at their own game? Your district is out of compliance.
Stick to your chair like glue. Tell them that in the past you have received IEPs that did not reflect parent input and you are not moving until they hand you a photocopy and you have had time to review it. Refuse to sign the 10 day waiver. I have had districts table the meeting after I started asking the questions on the PWN form, so that they had to say aloud they had no objective data…. I like the draft IEPs.
I am going to ask for such. I attended a workshop on how to understand each page of the IEP. A draft IEP would give me a chance to better understand proposed goals but to ask for baselines, if necessary, as well as more detailed information. Beyond, questions about about progress monitoring, I am able to ask, if needed, what does that goal look like? I like that draft as it gives me time to research and truly serve on the team.
Parents can always request a advocate or even an educational consultant to attend a meeting to review any part of the IEP, A Draft in this case, would only be something a consultant would review with the parent before making any recommendation to address in the meeting with the IEP team. Devolution in Northern Ireland has been plagued with difficulties, leading to suspension on three occasions up until its most recent and so far sustained relaunch in More generally, the funding arrangements for devolution under the Barnett formula, 5 which have remained in place since its launch in , have been called into question and may soon be replaced by an alternative method of revenue raising.
Perhaps the most serious constitutional imbalance has concerned the implications for Westminster and the lack of any equivalent form of government for England. In constitutional terms, it is as if each nation comprising the U. Viewed from a rather different perspective, it will also become apparent that devolution has not only involved the introduction of innovative legislative and oversight processes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have so far proved more resistant to executive domination than their counterparts at Westminster, but it has also had unanticipated consequences here, as well.
JSTOR: Access Check
One such result, which will be discussed briefly below, has concerned the continuing importance of Westminster legislation in the devolved areas of the United Kingdom. In terms of constitutional design, federalism and devolution have certain characteristics in common but at the outset there are important distinctions which also need to be made. The United States is frequently thought of as a prototypical federal system.
Certainly, it was the first modern constitution to exhibit key federal characteristics which have been widely replicated in other constitutions. Indeed, there is an institutional-mirroring effect with the national institutions of president, Congress, and Supreme Court almost precisely replicated in each state by governor, state legislature, and a state supreme court, and with identical powers and functions granted to all the states that comprise the federation.
Although the federation which comprises the United States of America has greatly expanded from the original thirteen states that declared independence, there has been a symmetrical approach to the conferment of powers and functions to the individual states. On the other hand, the asymmetry of devolution is one of its most distinctive features. In broad terms, U. More precisely, devolution may be defined as involving three elements: From this discussion, it will become clear that the devolved systems for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are each significantly different from the other, with each devolution statute functioning almost as a constitution for that part of the United Kingdom, while no devolution of any kind has been introduced for England.
Moreover, it will be apparent from this discussion that a new dynamic has been created by the lack of constitutional balance created by these extremely diverse conditions. Further, in a formal sense, federalism is often regarded as a method for sharing sovereignty among governments within a single state as part of a rigid written constitution. For example, in the United States the powers not delegated to Washington under the U.
Constitution are reserved to the states. By way of contrast, a crucial feature of devolution is that, despite the conferral of considerable powers, including in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland the introduction of a subnational body with lawmaking power, legal sovereignty is retained by the Westminster Parliament.
The devolution legislation not only has elaborate provisions to prevent sovereignty from becoming undermined, for example, in the form of prelegislative and postlegislative scrutiny, 12 but further, once an act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly has been passed, the Scottish High Court of Justiciary and ultimately the U. Supreme Court will be responsible for deciding the limits of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly.
In practice, the extent to which this distinction is important might be contested. Both federalism and devolution have been adopted as constitutional strategies to address problems that are essentially political. In fact, as we will observe below, the form of devolution introduced under the Northern Ireland Act results directly from the Belfast Good Friday Agreement of In many federal systems, the Supreme Court or a constitutional court is responsible for policing the boundaries between the component parts of the system via judicial review of legislation.
Supreme Court for judicial resolution; however, despite the range of measures to rein in the powers of the devolved institutions in the U. Concordats consist mainly of a memorandum of understanding linked to informal, mostly bilateral, agreements between the Westminster government and the devolved administrations.
In terms of administration, devolution should not be regarded as a fresh start. On the one hand, the policy initiatives in Edinburgh and Cardiff have been and continue to be implemented by a cadre of civil servants schooled in the traditions of the U. On the other hand, the ground rules for the operation of devolution have been negotiated by officials from the Westminster government mainly on their terms.
In consequence this network of concordats have been, in effect, employed as a means of setting an unofficial seal on an existing bureaucratic culture centred upon the influence of Whitehall and the Cabinet Office. At a certain level, federalism and devolution both concern the distribution of powers and functions between a national and a subnational layer of government, and so, in a practical sense, it is not surprising that there are many common issues to address.
For example, it will nearly always be the case that national government predominates over economic management and retains responsibility for defense, foreign affairs, international trade, and immigration. Further, certain laws relating to individual citizens apply throughout the nation with common agencies for law enforcement.
Changing the Dynamics of IEP Team Meetings: Online Draft IEP Forms
In both cases there will be democratically elected institutions at the national and subnational levels, often including a lawmaking process, although in other respects the precise form of federal and of devolved systems will be adjusted to suit local conditions. This means that there is no set pattern for the division of competences between national and subnational governments, which is what distinguishes a federal system from devolution. But in both cases there is scope for changing the distribution of functions and powers between the two levels of government.
For example, policing and justice powers were transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly from the Westminster government in April , following the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. To illustrate the point he notes, somewhat ironically, that robbing a neighborhood grocery store has been made a federal crime. In sum, it will be apparent that federalism and devolution, almost inevitably, have shared characteristics since they are essentially addressing the same question, namely, how to define the political organization prevailing within separate polities while maintaining the union of the overarching political system.
These are distinctive features and, in consequence, devolution should not be regarded as an intermediate step toward federalism. We should therefore expect further incremental adjustments to the existing schemes of devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to meet the political, economic, and legal challenges ahead. Devolution has resulted in the four nations that make up the United Kingdom having different systems of government, although, in each case the introduction of devolution has triggered further questions for constitutional resolution.
Scotland has the strongest form of devolved government, reflecting the high degree of support for devolution. Although devolution fell short of the objective of some nationalists, it was expected to satisfy the aspirations of most of the Scottish electorate. In fact, lately there have been more strident calls for an independent nation, a trend to some extent reflected in the political success of the Scottish National Party, which formed a minority government after emerging as the largest party in the elections.
The party is committed to holding a referendum on Scottish independence. Scottish devolution is based on a single chamber Scottish Parliament SP of elected members with full lawmaking powers over devolved functions. The first minister is empowered, in turn, to appoint ministers from members of the Scottish Parliament MSPs in order to form a Scottish executive now called the Scottish government.
The executive group of ministers is roughly equivalent to the cabinet under the Westminster system , and the ministerial appointments are made subject to royal approval. This gave Scotland improved mechanisms of accountability that involve an increased level of political participation and representation. From the outset, the arrangements in Scotland had weaknesses with a potential for undermining the stability of the new structure.
In particular, the Scottish Parliament and government were granted limited tax-raising powers. This has meant that the method of funding for Scotland and, incidentally, for Wales and Northern Ireland, has remained under the preexisting block-grant system, 38 which is determined by the Westminster government. The relatively generous financial provision from Westminster had allowed each devolved administration considerable flexibility in funding the competences falling under its remit.
This so-called Barnett formula works by establishing a ratio by which the total spending is fixed in relation to England. Thus, the levels of spending made available to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are related to the sums allocated in the same designated policy areas by the Westminster Parliament. The allocations for an increase or decrease in expenditure are made according to a ratio calculated on relative population size.
In effect, then, this formula has guaranteed an amount reflecting the proportion of the spending allocated to England. One destabilizing dynamic at work in this arrangement is that Scotland's declining population since devolution has resulted in a progressively less generous allocation. There are calls to increase the amount of revenue raising at the devolved level, and to replace the current Barnett formula method of funding allocation with a needs-based system for calculating the contribution from Westminster.
This would be reduced by 10p in the pound while a new needs-based block-grant allocation from Westminster would be reduced accordingly. In addition, Scottish ministers would be given additional borrowing powers, and the Scottish Parliament would have the power to introduce new taxes applying in Scotland, though only with the consent of the Westminster Parliament.
It is important to keep in mind, before we move on, that, as a response to the intensity of nationalist sentiment, Scotland was granted the strongest form of devolved government. Moreover, in a number of fields, such as education and care for the elderly, the scope for policy divergence in comparison with England has been very apparent. The grant of more competences to Scotland not only arises as a current, contentious issue, at a political level, but it will also impact on the conduct of intergovernmental arrangements, for example, by confirming the redundancy of the Scottish Office in connection with the conduct of Scottish affairs.
This shortcoming has prompted proposals for substantial changes to the financial parameters of the system which forms part of the — legislative program at Westminster. At the time of writing in April the proposals contained in the Calman Commission report to change the rate of Scottish income tax were in the process of being enacted by the Westminster Parliament in the Scotland Bill The most limited form of devolution was devised for Wales. Moreover, it was clear when devolution was introduced that there was much less popular support for this change in Wales.
The major original difference was that the Welsh Assembly, unlike the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly, was not granted the power to pass legislation in its own right. The fact that Welsh bills had to take their place in the queue before being shepherded through the Westminster Parliament by the Welsh secretary was regarded as a serious drawback. However, in practice, the new procedure overcame the problem of securing the passage of legislation required for Wales through the Westminster Parliament. The revised arrangements for Welsh legislation might have proved problematic if there was a strong conflict of wills between the Welsh Assembly and the government in power at Westminster—for example, if different political parties had a majority in the Assembly and at Westminster.
There are some obvious parallels between Scotland and Wales with respect to the electoral system and the organization of the legislative and executive bodies. Each elector is given two votes. Assembly members for each constituency are returned by simple majority, while the four Assembly members for each region are returned by a system of proportional representation based on party lists. In common with Scotland, the Welsh Assembly is required to form policy and take decisions in its particular areas of responsibility.
Also, as in Scotland, the cabinet style of government is formed following an election. The newly elected members of the Welsh Assembly vote for a first minister. Once elected, the first minister has the power to appoint an Executive Committee of Assembly Secretaries, which forms the equivalent of a cabinet. The ministerial portfolios of this executive committee the combinations of policy areas allocated to the individual assembly secretaries determine the areas of competence of the scrutiny committees or subject committees that are subsequently formed to provide executive oversight.
The appointments to the executive committee can be from a single party or a combination of parties. As with Scotland, the Welsh executive took over, by means of transfer orders, most of the administrative functions of the secretary of state for Wales under the Government of Wales Act Although the National Assembly of Wales was formed as a single corporate body, a de facto division emerged postdevolution between the Welsh Assembly government and the Welsh Assembly as a representative body.
The Welsh Assembly government has been recognized under the Government of Wales Act as an entity separate from, but accountable to, the National Assembly. One significant difference between the approach to devolution in Scotland and Wales is that while the Scottish Parliament was granted general competence, subject to the reserved matters under the Scotland Act, in the case of Wales powers were conferred according to particular areas of policy.
From this brief discussion, it will be apparent that there are clear parallels between the general frameworks of Scottish and Welsh devolution, including for example, the method of election and the way a devolved executive is formed. This resemblance will grow a great deal closer should the proposal to give the Welsh Assembly full lawmaking powers gain the approval from the Welsh electorate in However, the Welsh Assembly has no devolved tax-raising powers unlike the proposals for Scotland , and no such powers are in immediate prospect.
The Belfast Good Friday Agreement of , which was negotiated between the British and Irish governments and the main political players in Northern Ireland, shaped almost every detail of the form of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review.
- Jade Fry and the Village Spy (Jade Fry, Private Eye Book 3);
- meetings dynamics and legality!
- Customer reviews!
- The Need to Please: Mindfulness Skills to Gain Freedom from People Pleasing and Approval Seeking?
- La politique de santé en France: « Que sais-je ? » n° 2814 (French Edition).
Feedback If you need help or have a question for Customer Service, contact us. Would you like to report poor quality or formatting in this book? Click here Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Click here Do you believe that this item violates a copyright? Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us.