Guest guest Posted June 14, 1999 Report Share Posted June 14, 1999 Hi Celeste and everyone else who gave me some feedback. My daughter turned three in March. We had a meeting in February and an IEP was given to me the end of March. I didn't agree with a portion and the school asked me not to reject it and they would ammend it. The speech pathologist asked me. I did. They sent out a 2nd IEP with the ammendments. I was approached by the speech pathologist if the interp could be used as the teacher and only if I agreed for the summer. I thought about it and figured she would still get her speech and all individually. I found out from another parent their child was having speech with my daughter. I was floored and asked to go back to the original. She told me I could at any time. Well that's not what is happening. I called the director. The director of special ed avoided my calls and I stopped by and told him my concerns with this and other issues. He told me he would get bck to me. Fine. I received the 3rd ammended plan the way they wanted and continued to change other things in the IEP. I rejected portions but was told by the federation of special needs this is really the 1st IEP since I never signed my name except on this one. I could in turn not be serviced for the summer. I had the meeting tape recorded but nothing in writing for the summer until this final one I rejected. Today I saw the speech pathologist and her comment was I heard you rejected the plan we won't see you this summer. I said I don't think so it's up your director I gave him some choices. I received an advocate and she is good but the director isn't listening to her either. Can I send her to another system in city next to us who allow other towns to come? Ask them to pay later or fight for them to pay later. It is a program open to the area for hard of hearing and deaf children for language. They use ASL /or voice and sign. My daughter medical also are changing even as last week but they don't even care about the documentation. I am sorry it's so long but I feel so frustrated. Lori Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 1999 Report Share Posted June 17, 1999 >>I dont think a 30 DB loss at the low frequencies >>will actually qualifiy her for an IEP-believe it has to be a 40% disability >>under IDEA? > >>From the IDEA section on definitions: >http://www.edlaw.net/public/20us1401.htm > >3) Child with a disability. > >(A) In general. The term `child with a disability' means a child -- > >(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), >speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including >blindness), serious emotional disturbance (hereinafter referred to as >`emotional disturbance'), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic >brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; >and > >(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. > >There is no mention of a percentage to qualify for IDEA. Perhaps the >percentage is a state thing? The operative phrase is " (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. " If you explore further in the regs (too tired, too sleepy to do it myself right now) you will find that it is not enough to just have a hearing loss. (Tho that would qualify you for Sec. 504 and ADA.) The loss must have an adverse educational impact, which then results in a need for sped and related services. Percentages mean nothing. Even the dB loss means nothing, in terms of eligibility. It all hinges on whether or not the loss (in the absence of sped and/or related services) results in an adverse educational impact. Celeste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 1999 Report Share Posted June 17, 1999 In a message dated 6/17/99 9:30:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, celestej@... writes: << The loss must have an adverse educational impact, which then results in a need for sped and related services. Percentages mean nothing. Even the dB loss means nothing, in terms of eligibility. It all hinges on whether or not the loss (in the absence of sped and/or related services) results in an adverse educational >> Celeste, This is what I thought. So in other words, if the child is making straight A's in an accelerated class without services, I dont have a chance in h*** of getting any. Correct? Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 1999 Report Share Posted June 18, 1999 >This is what I thought. So in other words, if the child is making straight >A's in an accelerated class without services, I dont have a chance in h*** of >getting any. Correct? Maybe. Grades mean nothing. As I am fond of saying, grades are a figment of the teachers whims. Courts assess progress against standardized tests. If the child is making progress on standardized test commensurate with his/her intellectual capabilityes, then there is no adverse educational impact. Even if the progress is *slightly* less that what would be expected, given the child's intellectual abilities, that would not do it. Remember, unless you are in a " maximum potential " state, it only has to be " appropriate " to satisfy the mandates of IDEA. The child must derive " substantial " benefit, NOT maximum benefit. That sucks, but it was established in Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson School Board, the first IDEA case to go to the Supremes. That standard is still in effect today. Celeste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 1999 Report Share Posted June 18, 1999 >Even if the progress is *slightly* less >that what would be expected, given the child's intellectual abilities, >that would not do it. In Texas the rule is 2 standard deviations below norm. Kay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 1999 Report Share Posted June 18, 1999 > > >>Even if the progress is *slightly* less >>that what would be expected, given the child's intellectual abilities, >>that would not do it. > >In Texas the rule is 2 standard deviations below norm. I don't buy it. (But then I sure they don't care.) Are you sure that is for all disbilities and not just LD? Even if that is just for LD, what if a child's IQ is 2 standard deviations above the norm? Still gotta be 2 standard deviations below? Has this been challenged? Here in MI they use, for LD only, a discrepancy formula between IQ and achievement - which varies by ISD. Still not perfect, but at least it takes into account the child's cognitive abilities. Saying 2 SD below the norm does NOT address cognitive abilities. That standard is not applied to D/deaf/hh students in MI. We don't even have any formula or any formal standard for eligibility for d/hh. Basically, if the child has more a 30-50 dB (unaided) loss and the parents want the child in sped, the child is sped, they can be in sped (unless you have a particularly cranky administrator, which is **one** thing I have not hear of here.) Any loss over 50 dB - is automatically considered eligible. It's that less than 30 dB loss that causes problems. Is this 2 sd below norm actually in your state rules, or is this something the cheapskate administrators bandy about? Celeste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 1999 Report Share Posted June 19, 1999 >>In Texas the rule is 2 standard deviations below norm. > >I don't buy it. (But then I sure they don't care.) Are you sure that >is for all disbilities and not just LD? I heard the " 2 standard deviations " line in both Wichita Falls (Northern Texas) and San (Southern). Believe it or not, in the public school system here in San , my profoundly deaf son would not qualify for Speech-Language services because his testing scores were not 2 standard deviations below norm. >Even if that is just for LD, >what if a child's IQ is 2 standard deviations above the norm? Still >gotta be 2 standard deviations below? Has this been challenged? I have no idea. When we first moved here, we had an IEP with the public school system even though we had not intention of our son attending their schools. The IEP was written, and after the SLP offered to do a couple of evals on our son since I had said in the IEP that I didn't feel the tests done the year before in Wichita Falls were comprehensive. I agreed and she did the tests (still not comprehensive, but they did give me an idea of where my son's skills and weaknesses were) and afterwards she told me that his scores on the tests were not 2 standard deviations below norm and that technically our son no longer qualified for SLP services, but since our son's IEP had already been written, we wouldn't need to worry about it till the next time the school wanted to do testing on our son. And I just finished reading this entire message and see who it's from, so I think you already know more details about the situation than are here. We signed the IEP in disagreement, provided a letter why we disagreed with the IEP (per their request), but didn't push due process since our son wouldn't be attending their schools anyway (and as you know we had a lot of other issues to deal with at the time). >Here >in MI they use, for LD only, a discrepancy formula between IQ and >achievement - which varies by ISD. Still not perfect, but at least it >takes into account the child's cognitive abilities. Saying 2 SD below >the norm does NOT address cognitive abilities. For LD only, the system uses a similar formula. I'm not sure how much lower performance has to be to qualify for LD issues. Sorry for the misunderstanding. >Any loss over 50 dB - is automatically >considered eligible. It's that less than 30 dB loss that causes >problems. Here, we had to have a form filled out by both our private Audie and ENT to have him qualified for d/hh services. (We both know how wrong that is.) Even though everyone in his IEPs knew our son was deaf/hoh and nobody questioned it, it took till he was almost out of the 4th grade before anyone would tell me why he wasn't able to get d/hoh services, or even an FM system. >Is this 2 sd below norm actually in your state rules, or is this >something the cheapskate administrators bandy about? I don't think they put that one in writing. If I remember, when I get a chance I'll check. Hugs, Kay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 1999 Report Share Posted August 21, 1999 Catch-up starts farther back than I thought. I looked at my " Must Answer " Folder - and saw 443 messages dating back to January, 1999. In one fell swoop, I deleted everything prior to June 1, 1999. I just felt overwhelmed. So, if I deleted something any one on this list has been burning for an answer for all these months, bug me again. Can't promise I will answer it immediately - I'm catching up as much as I can tonite, and am taking things pretty much in order. As to Terry's question, below, parents do not have unilateral rights relative to ANYTHING that goes into a child's IEP. It is a TEAM process - which is why those meetings are not called IEPT meetings (T for Team) changed from the former IEPC (C for Committee) meetings. And while IDEA-97 waxes effusive about parents being **equal** partners, we all know that is just theory, and what happens in reality. Parents certainly have **presumption** if they are asking for a LRE placement - meaning a mainstream class and/or home school district, but that does not mean that the district cannot overcome that presumption. About the only things parents have unilateral decision-making power over is, when going to a due process hearing, the parents alone decide whether the hearing will be open or closed, or if the child will be present or not. Other than that -- and in particular with things that go in the IEP -- NO one has unilateral power, in theory. In fact, some administrators come doggone close. Celeste >From: Theathdi@... > >In a message dated 6/11/99 9:04:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >celestej@... writes: > ><< he parents believed that should be placed in a > regular classroom near his home, with the service of a cued speech > interpreter. The school district, however, proposed that between half > to all of 's day should be spent in a self-contained class for > hearing impaired children (Eschbach in > Underwood 1995, 105) >> >the parents lost this one? I have always been under the assumption that we >as parents have the right to have our children in the home school and to >determine self-contained or not. Damn, I was planning to use that argument >on Tues when I go to my son's IEP meeting and will argue against the center >based school and for the home school as (only one deaf child in the center >based) the home school is a much better school. Can you clarify this so I >know what not to bother using? >Terry > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >ONElist: where real people with real interests get connected. >http://www.onelist.com >Join a new list today! >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >All messages posted to this list are private and confidential. Each post is the intellectual property of the author and therefore subject to copyright restrictions. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 1999 Report Share Posted August 22, 1999 In a message dated 08/21/1999 8:42:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, celestej@... writes: << As to Terry's question, below, parents do not have unilateral rights relative to ANYTHING that goes into a child's IEP. It is a TEAM process - which is why those meetings are not called IEPT meetings (T for Team) changed from the former IEPC (C for Committee) meetings. And while IDEA-97 waxes effusive about parents being **equal** partners, we all know that is just theory, and what happens in reality. Parents certainly have **presumption** if they are asking for a LRE placement - meaning a mainstream class and/or home school district, but that does not mean that the district cannot overcome that presumption. About the only things parents have unilateral decision-making power over is, when going to a due process hearing, the parents alone decide whether the hearing will be open or closed, or if the child will be present or not. Other than that -- and in particular with things that go in the IEP -- NO one has unilateral power, in theory. In fact, some administrators come doggone close. >> Celeste, In reply to the situation I had described and you answered, you are correct. I lost that battle and was not able to gethim sent to his home school. they argued that to receive the services needed, he must go to another school. Read on and see what they are doing now at the school that supposedly has all the services. Its title " 's IEP " Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.