Re: *Celeste* - Round II

[Guest guest]

Well, now that I have had some sleep, and read 's reply, I went

back and re-read what the mom wrote to you, Ruth, and either I'm really

confused, or someone is trying to bamboozle this mom. (I suspect the

latter, since I'm a whole lot perkier now than I was yesterday when I

answered.)

First the mom writes:

>We believe that because her loss is progressing VERY rapidly

> that she is best services by School for the Deaf Preschool. (all the services

> she uses there are:OT,Speech,Audio,etc) . . . .I

>have fought tooth and nail so she has gone and will go again in the fall,

>in the " new oral

> class " (NOT my choice!)

And then she writes:

> Because she is not delayed I am being told she

> is not under the IDEA but just Section 504.

Now there is something VERY wrong with this picture. Not only is there

this business of " new oral class, " the meaning of which is confounding,

but what I previously overlooked is that this child seems to be

receiving OT, Speech and Audie Services. These are all Sped services

and do NOT fall under a 504 plan. Well, it may be argued that audie

services may fall under a 504, but I think that's real iffy. However I

can see there would be room for debate there. But OT and SLP are

definitely sped services. If she is getting these, then somewhere,

somehow, there is an adverse educational impact. Adverse educational

impact does NOT necessarily mean the child is failing or performing

poorly on standardized tests.

Does this child have an IEP now? If so, what is the eligibility

determination?

If not, mom best call an advocate or go to an advocacy agency, about

filing a complaint that her daughter is receiving sped services without

the benefit of an IEP. This is VERY serious and I suggest that an OCR

complaint rather than IDEA complaint be filed forthwith. The reason I

say this is that OCR has more clout and is more willing (believe me, it

ain't much) to go after a school system than is any state dept. of ed.

If you haven't figured this out by now, enforcement is pretty much a

joke. However, I am aware that OCR **is** going after the school

district of one of my clients for having not convened an IEPT meeting

in almost 2 years, even tho the mom has been begging for one (in

writing and otherwise) - using every warped excuse in the book not to

do so.

Mom also asked:

>She is covered by ADA

> though and I am curious if I can pursue an ADA violation against the School

>for the Deaf

> and public schools (lovely joint powers-Yuck)! For not allowing her to be in

>an ASL

> class? With ADA, language has to be as accessible as spoken English.

> For my daughter, SimCom, TC, signed English are not as accessible as spoken

> English is to the hearing population. I thought this might work for my son

>too. He will be at his neighborhood school because the HI program

> is AWFUL and there is nothing in the public schools for ASL using deaf

>students. <snip>

I really sympathize. It is my experience, which is fairly

considerable, that this would be an exercise in futility. The US Dept

of Ed's OCR has jurisdiction over all ADA and 504 complaints against

school systems, and ***some*** IDEA complaints. The USDOE's OCR is

another example, IMHO, of the fox guarding the hen house. They tend to

file-13 stuff like this. Should she file this complaint, I predict

that they would tell her that this is not within their jurisdiction,

but they have forwarded it on the the appropriate agency - which is the

trash can. She will never hear another word. Even if she screams and

hollers and carries on, she might get an investigation, (very slim

chance) but she will lose it in the end.

It is also important to realize that if one files a complaint with both

your state (or Intermediate Unit) and OCR relative to the same

allegation, OCR will place it in abeyance until the state finishes its

investigation. Generally, the state will come up with a bunch of

pretexts for finding no violation. It's much better to file only with

OCR. Then, when that investigation is finished, one may file it with

the state, using OCR's findings as a basis. The state can't ignore

that. Even so, OCR tends to deep-6 or find no violation in most

instances. However, not revising IEPs annually, refusal to convene an

IEP upon parental request, or providing sped services in the absence of

an authorizing IEP **are** issues to which OCR will pay attention -

even if they are very dilatory about it.

As far as the local TC program being the pits for the son - I

sympathize there, too. But unless a large number of parents unite to

correct the program, - which is a looooong and very stressful row to

hoe - one is SOL. Then one is faced with mainstreaming one's child

with a terp - in a home district in which the child may be the ONLY

Deaf child - which is a lousy situation socially. That's the reason we

moved in 1989 - to the district that houses the county TC program - so

JJ could be mainstreamed but still have access to other Deaf students.

Sorry, I don't have too many comforting words. Oh, and if you want to

be grossed out, you can check out:

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/AnnRpt98/rightsized.html

where you will learn that in 1998, Congress appropriated $61.5 million

to the USDOE's OCR (along with all the appropriations froom 1990-1998)

and what OCR did with it. Personally, I think Congress ought to shut

the joint down, and put the $61.5 mil (or whatever it is now) into a

fund for parents to use to sue the schools under all the things in

OCR's jurisdiction. Yeah, I know, IN MY DREAMS!

Back to the grindstone.

Celeste