After the IEP Meeting: Changes to an IEP without Consent

Many families believe that once an IEP is written, discussed, and agreed upon, it will remain stable unless they are consulted again. That belief is understandable, but it is false.

IEPs are meant to be collaborative, living documents. Changes should occur through consultation, discussion, and shared understanding. When changes happen without transparency, trust is eroded and the purpose of the IEP is undermined. Parents often only discover changes much later, sometimes when supports stop showing up in practice, sometimes when they finally receive an updated copy of the IEP, and sometimes not at all.

This raises an important question about who actually has the power to change an IEP.

An IEP exists to document agreed-upon supports, accommodations, and services. When language shifts quietly, when commitments are softened, or when services disappear from the plan, it is rarely a neutral administrative update. In many cases, this occurs when the system realizes it cannot deliver what was originally included in the IEP. Rather than addressing the gap through consultation and problem-solving, supports are quietly removed or rewritten.

This creates pressure at multiple levels. Teachers are acutely aware that they can be held responsible for not following an IEP, even when the supports written into it are not realistically resourced or supported. When an IEP no longer reflects what can actually be implemented, the document itself becomes a liability rather than a tool for support.

When these gaps exist, the IEP begins to function less as a plan for access and more as a risk management document.

The IEP is an accountability tool. What is written creates an obligation. What is not written creates deniability. When systems are unable to deliver what is outlined, the appropriate response is not to quietly revise the plan. It is to acknowledge the gap, consult with families, and problem-solve transparently. Changing language after the fact, narrowing commitments, or removing services without consultation shifts responsibility away from the system and onto families. It also obscures whether a student’s needs are actually being met.

This approach protects systems, not students.

BC policy recognizes parents as essential partners in the IEP process. Meaningful consultation does not end once a meeting concludes, and it does not permit unilateral changes made without parental knowledge. When parents are excluded from changes, the IEP stops functioning as a shared plan and becomes an internal document that no longer reflects collaboration or accountability.

This also raises concerns under the duty to accommodate. When supports are reduced or removed without consultation, a student’s access to education can be compromised, even if the paperwork appears compliant.

Parents should be provided with a copy of their child’s IEP each year. When you receive the current year’s IEP, it is important to compare it to the version you were given the previous year. Look for changes in language, removed services, or softened commitments. IEPs should always include a date indicating when the document was created, printed, or accessed. That date matters. It helps establish when changes occurred and whether they align with consultation.

This is not about isolated incidents. It reflects how systems can respond when there is a gap between what is promised and what is possible. When staffing shortages persist, when specialist services are unavailable, or when accommodations are difficult to implement in overcrowded classrooms, institutions face pressure. Too often, that pressure is managed through documentation rather than collaboration, and families may never be told what changed or why.

If you are unsure whether your child’s IEP still reflects what was discussed, you are entitled to ask for clarity. You can request the most current version of the IEP in writing. You can ask when changes were made and how consultation occurred. You can compare versions carefully and ask how the school is ensuring your child continues to receive the supports needed to access learning. These are not unreasonable questions. They are part of accountability.

IEPs exist to protect students’ access to education. When they are revised to protect systems from liability rather than students from exclusion, something fundamental has shifted. The real question is not just who can change an IEP, but whether those changes are being made openly, with families, and in service of student needs.

Inclusive education cannot function without transparency, trust, and shared accountability. When those are missing, paperwork alone will not protect students.