First and foremost: this is unconscionably wrong. But not only is this wrong, it's not even the best way for schools to guard against potential liability for IDEA violations. The best way? Trying in good faith to serve SWD as best they can. 1/7 https://twitter.com/Eduflack/status/1254179322694381569

The schools who've held off on serving SWD due to liability fears have it exactly backwards. In the inevitable due process cases to come, there will be reams of cases where schools technically fell short of IDEA mandates. The schools who'll look better to hearing officers... 2/7

Will be the ones who reached out to parents right away. Who threw stuff out there in week 1 or 2, even if it wasn't great. Who asked families what they needed most, and adjusted in response. Who tried to do more and get better over time. Who were iterative. 3/7

That's what it means to act in good faith under impossible circumstances. The schools where SWD went weeks before being offered any support, or getting word re: what support they could expect and when. Where SWD were told they couldn't be served virtually, individually... 4/7

Or at all due to "equity" concerns... Those are the schools who'll look bad in comparison. The schools that decided unilaterally how distance learning would look for SWD, w/o seeking input re: families' most urgent needs? They'll get hit with parent participation claims. 5/7

Finally, the schools who were prompt in at least *trying* to serve SWD well and to collaborate w parents, however imperfectly, are the ones who'll have engendered the kind of trust that actually leads to less litigation. 6/7

Parents are smart. They can tell the difference bw schools that genuinely tried hard to comply w IDEA but came up short, and those who came up short bc they they didn't try as hard as they could. Hearing officers can tell too. 7/7