The standard legal advice is to get it writing and specifically written into the IEP. Well in some district's as a matter of policy or practice that is not so easy since the school personnel hold the IEP for final administrative review (revision and editing). Here is a fellow blogger that discusses at length how districts refuse to produce the IEP at the end of the meeting for weeks and even months. This blog refers to this practice, as a legal loophole, because the law does not state when the document must be provided to parents. While the law does not state a definite time frame to provide the IEP, it is safe to say that a reasonable time is implied. I believe that most schools would be hard pressed to explain to a hearing officer or a SEA why the document was not produced the following day or at the most 2 says later.
I have seen a variation on the theme addressed in this blog which is just as pernicious and harder to nail down as a violation of law. At the end of the meeting, the school district attorney openly sits in front of the computer, that contains the notes from the meeting, and liberally and extensively spins, revises and edits the notes. I have been able to object to this practice with widely variable degrees of success. The usual response is something like: "if you disagree with the notes write a dissenting letter!"
Well that "suggestion" seems plain enough, except when you get to hearing and the same attorney uses the number of dissenting letters against the parents. At hearing she argues that the parents are prima facie unreasonable because they have filed so many objections; the parents'/parents attorney's account is biased because they wrote it (ignoring the obvious irony of that statement); the parents objection is based upon their ignorance of the process and the intent of the school personnel; the more subtle argument is that school personnel are just more objective, knowledgeable and reliable than parents or their attorney; or, this is the official record discounting the efficacy of the dissenting letter on its face. It can be tough to do the most basic thing– getting the record straight.
Parents often ask me should I tape the meeting to set the record straight and my answer is normally no because of legal barriers about taping in some states, it is hard to make an accurate transcription, transcripts can be long, tedious and expensive to produce and most hearing officers are reluctant to wade through such documents. The better approach is to bring third party witnesses with you to corroborate your version of the meeting, take good notes, file dissents for the most important details only, and then sparingly to avoid the damning epithet of being a micromanager. My most effective strategy, when I am in a district that commonly massages/spins the notes, is to insist that the key discussions to be recited from the notes right after the discussion has occurred.
I would rather have the big argument in the moment than later. Also, while it is being read, I write down the version of the record word for word in my notes, which can sometimes intimidate the other attorney because my notes are more robust and accurate giving some leverage if an argument occurs at the meeting or later. Tricky districts will always look for and find the sneaky way out. Parents and their attorneys and advocates need to know who they are doing business with and act accordingly.