The meeting sounded one way. The paper says another.

You left the meeting thinking you'd agreed on something. The IEP that arrived is thinner. Or you asked for something — an evaluation, more minutes, a support — and the answer was no, delivered out loud, and then… nothing in writing. If you are in the two weeks before or after that meeting, this page is the map: what the rules say should exist on paper, and the routes Ohio families actually have when they disagree.

The notice that should have followed the "no"

Federal rules require a Prior Written Notice whenever a district proposes — or refuses — to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, placement, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to a child (34 CFR 300.503(a)). In Ohio, that notice is form PR-01, and the same content list appears in Ohio law (ORC §3323.05(C)(2)). The notice must contain seven things (34 CFR 300.503(b)):

• a description of the action the district proposes or refuses;
• an explanation of why;
• a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the district used as a basis;
• a statement that parents are protected by the procedural safeguards, and how to get a copy;
• sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance;
• a description of other options the team considered, and why those options were rejected;
• a description of other factors relevant to the proposal or refusal.

So if the team declined your request and no PR-01 followed, the first step is simple and belongs on paper: ask for the Prior Written Notice, in writing. An email that says "Please send the PR-01 for the decision made at Tuesday's meeting" creates a dated record — and what arrives (or doesn't) is itself part of your record.

Your notes are part of the record too

The said-vs-written gap cuts both ways, and it's measurable. Write your meeting summary the same day: who was there, what you asked for, what was said, what was decided. If the district's summary or the IEP differs from your notes, that difference — your notes beside their documents, dated — is exactly the kind of finding a record is built from. You don't have to resolve it tonight. You do have to write it down tonight, while it's true.

If you disagree: Ohio's routes, in plain language

These are the general routes, stated informationally — which one fits a given situation is a judgment for you, an advocate, or an attorney, not for this page.

• The superintendent step — an Ohio lever many families never hear of. Before or alongside the state routes, a parent may present a complaint to the district superintendent (or designee), who must review the case and notify all parties in writing within 20 school days of receiving it (ORC §3323.05(D)). It's a local, written, on-the-record step that exists in Ohio law specifically.
• Mediation and IEP facilitation. Ohio offers mediation and facilitated IEP meetings through the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (ODEW) as alternative dispute resolution — a structured conversation with a neutral, instead of a filing. Pursuing ADR can also extend the state-complaint clock by agreement.
• State complaint to ODEW. Any individual or organization may file, by ODEW's form or by a signed letter with the required elements. Two clocks matter: the complaint covers violations that occurred no more than one year before filing (34 CFR 300.153(c)), and ODEW's letter of findings is due no later than 60 days after it receives the complaint (OAC 3301-51-05).
• Due process. The formal hearing route. The complaint must allege a violation that occurred not more than two years before you knew or should have known of it (OAC 3301-51-05, tracking 34 CFR 300.507(a)(2)). This is the route where families most often need an attorney.

One caution, stated on every page of this site because it matters most here: if you are inside 30 days of a deadline that only a filing can preserve, stop and call a special education attorney first. The one-year state-complaint line, in particular, does not move.

See what a built record looks like

RoomRecord is the software that builds the family's record from your own uploads: what was said vs. what was written, whether the required notices are present and complete against the elements above, your removal-day count, and services promised vs. delivered — with the general rules cited beside your facts, in informational terms, never verdicts. Before opening, it was quality-tested on a complete fictional case, audited end to end: read the sample findings memo — the same format your family's findings would use. Families in the founding cohort build their record free.

What this is not — please read before applying

Andrew Peal is not an attorney, RoomRecord is not a law firm, and nothing here is legal advice or representation: it does not speak for you, file anything for you, or communicate with your district. Records you keep are not protected by attorney–client privilege. No outcome is promised or predicted.