back to back IEP meetings...
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 05-12-2006 - 12:20pm |
these are always fun...
The good news is Siobhan:
I was afraid they were going to try and declassify her, but she will keep her IEP for next year. She will be promoted to 1st and mainstreamed like now. They are going to keep her shared aide, with an eye to maybe reducing the time she spends with Siobhan as the year progresses. They are reducing her consult teacher time from 5x45 to 3x 45, which I am OK with. She is retaining pull out ST 2x30 per week. It was a very positive and plesant meeting.
The Peter meeting was less smooth.
They want to add a huge amount of test accomodations, including a scribe.
They also want to "un-mainstream" him for Math, which I think is a huge error. Why mainstream him for only one year? "Third grade math is so much more difficult and abstract". ("And you didn't *know* that last year?") I thought that last part -didn't say it out loud.
The psych had to leave, so nobody could really answer my concerns regarding the gaps in his testing. There was a lot of talk about "we are not here to diagnose, but to treat what we see" countered by "how can you treat what up see if you don't know the underlying cause for what you are seeing?" (with examples).
I also feel that a huge piece of ther puzzle is missing: Peter's "strengths" are now verbal and computation skills. "Verbal skills don't become a strength for a kid who had no functional language until her was 4¼, unless they are developed to compensate for something else, KWIM? And it was acknowledged that he has enormous issues with abstract concepts and verbailzing/ writing abstractions -such as how he solved a math problem.
But you never know where your allies are going to spring out from, somtimes: The Physical Therapist was on our side (bless her). My arguements are that a lot of Peter's 'attention and distractability issue's stem from sensory processing issues, and need to be treated as such, and not just as distractability, and she was nodding violently in agreement.
So the PT saw me afterwards, and is going to try Peter with some classroom accomodations, like a wiggly sit-on thing (that's a technical term) etc. Mr H. (teacher) was pissed at me. I could see it in his face afterwards.
DH and I agreed that we are going to take Peter to a pediatric opthamlologist be assessed for visual/VP problems.
We will also explore private OT for him with Siobhan's old therapist, who I love. I just don't know where we will get the hours in the day to fit this all in.
We left the meeting with several issues unresolved. I agreed to contact the school psych. about the missing testing. This is going to be escalated, with a request for an IEE.
The thing is I don't disagree with the placement or service recommendations. My issue is with the focus on him as a behavioural /ADHD type kid, rather than a HFA kid, and the additional attitude they have that we should be grateful for ANY progress, and once progress is made -then that's OK. *Optimal* progress is just not discussed.
Grrrr.
-Paula

Well, Yeah on Siobhan. That is great that it went well.
Bummer about Peter. What a pain in the tail, but they really need to know what his needs are and what hinders him from learning to be able to help him meet his max potential. I hate attitudes like they are special needs and we just need to learn to deal with and accept that. THat kind of sounds like where they are coming from. I read a fabulous quote in Chantal Kira's newer book about that. After an IEP the district autism specialist said to her "you never give up do you?". And she said "I am his mother. Why would I give up" or something to that effect. Sure we accept that are kids have needs and are not typical but that doesn't mean we don't expect the best they can possible accomplish out of them regardless of thier level of need.
John was talking to me yesterday about a teacher in a SDC classroom in his district. It was one with kids who are mild/moderate mentally handicapped. He asked the teacher to do a reading inventory for one child and she was flabergasted. What teachers in similar classrooms do those. He said the ones who set the bar high for thier kids who also had the kids who made the most progress. Just because a child is special needs doesn't mean we don't set the bar high for them to reach thier maximum potential.
On the VT thing. Check into that but the schools may be required to provide it if it is deemed neccessary. I know they are in California. It is considered a DIS service like speech or OT. It isn't common for kids to get it but it is there. one of those things you have to know about.
Renee
Yes and No.
IEPs are covered by IDEA, which is a federal mandate. All states must follow the federal guidelines at a minimum, but can add additional guidelines, provided these are stricter than the Federal ones and not more lax, (e.g. Say the Federal guideline for turnaround on test results is 90 days. The state can change it to 60, but not to 100). I think some of the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous however, which doesn't help.
We have an IEP/504 Special Ed board here on ivillage, which is very good. You can check that out for more information. http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/listsf.asp?webtag=iv-ppiep&nav=start
-Paula
visit my blog at www.onesickmother.com
Yeah they just want to give up on the dude. It ticks me off that they see him everyday, but they just don't see him at all.
And the reason for the descrepancy between his tested IQ vs academic performance? "The Woodcock-Johnson is skewed high" Over 40 percentage points high?
I should have 'splained to them that his ambition is to be a rocket scientist and design a car you can drive into space, and it is their job to make that happen, or affordable space travel will just never happen in this century.
I could just see the Principal's face!
-paula
visit my blog at www.onesickmother.com
They always come up with some sort of excuse for the WJ test. When Cait scored low it was because it was a bad test day, the test isn't accurate. When a kid scores higher showing improvement it is because of the right placement or awesome job they did. When it is higher than what they think a child can do and they just want to give up on him, then it is skewed high.
So if it is so darn innaccurate why on earth do they use it?
Cait's frequencies were all horribly low in comparison to previous tests and compared to the rest of her areas. Other areas were way high for her and innaccurate. I was told all kinds of excuses why.
Renee
I've only had one IEP meeting so far for Jake but it lasted 3hours and although one of his therapists walked me through it before hand it was still very stressful so I can only imagine doing 2 back to back.I hoipe you are on the mend and feeling better.
Teresa
Teresa,
Thanks, I am feeling a lot better now. I was very angry yesterday, but spent this afternoon driving around Long Island looking for a "laptop" Siobhan wanted to buy with her birthday money, so that refocused me (lol).
IEPs do get better with practice. Our first back-back meetings were in April 2003, and it was really tough. Siobhan was finally classified at 3yo, and given services. Peter was transitioned from preschool to K, and placed in a special elementary school. Peter's preschool psychologist had a go at me in the meeting -lied and everything. It was really bad. I left the building feeling like a complete failure. It was horrible.
Compared to that, Friday was a piece of cake. ;)
-Paula
visit my blog at www.onesickmother.com