Re: Donna's queries from the Listen-up reference page...oh my!

[Guest guest]

Donna,

Take a deep breathe ... let it out, and then read on.

This is when I started to lose my mind when I was fighting the schools over

Ian's IEPs, services and placement. Trying to read the law and understand what

it meant was overwhelming!. So often the legal definitions of words are not at

all the same as they are to the rest of us non-lawyer mere mortals.

<< 1) under FAPE, is socialization amd cultural needs addressed or should I

say inclucluded?>>

Those things could be included. I've talked with other moms whose children

have socialization issues included in their IEP, with specific goals linked to

the kids' specific needs. Socialization is definitley a part of elementary

education -- learning to wait your turn and follow instructions -- socialization

issues as related to functioning in the school setting. As to cultural ones, I

suppose they could be included as long as they are also an educational issue.

I'm not sure how cultural and socialization issues would differ.

<< 2)I'm taking it that the word consensus means an agreement?>>

Yes, but the using the word does not mean that the " consensus " reached was

correct or accurate or complete. It merely means that people agreed with each

other on an issue.

<< 3)Under the ADA part, #2. it says : in determining what type of

auxiliary aid and services is necessary, a public entity shall give primary

consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities. My question

about

this one.......What is a auxiliary aid? Do my children have the right to say

they don't want to change schools?>>

Auxiliary aide ... I don't know what the legal definition would be, but I

believe that they are referring to additional aides or service beyond what is in

a regular classroom. My son's FM system would probably be refered as an

auxiliary aide.

Your kids have the right to say they don't want things. But " wanting " is not

usually enough of a reason to make such a decision. You need to show why

changing schools is not appropriate. We require kids do things they don't want

to

do all the time, so that's not going to carry much weight. However, if you

could say, for instance, that the stress of changing schools would cause the

kids

to be unable to function (and had a doctor or official documentation backing

up that statement) then the child's " wanting " or " feelings " are given an

official reason to be considered. Just " wanting " something isn't enough.

<< 4)and under the part about Deaf students Education Services; Policy

Guidance:......What are some of the educational implications??? ......What are

some

of the barriers??? ... .The Secretary ... 2) Linguistic needs; (what's

this??) Also, Who is the Secretary????

A little further down in the same section, it says..... As in previous

policy guidance, the secretary (there's the secretary again LOL) emphasizes

that

placement decisions may not be based on category of disability, the

configuration of the delivery system, the availability of educational or related

services, availability of space or administrative convenience. My

question.......What do the underlined statements mean??>>

(Note: nothing was underlined in my emial version.)

First, the Secretary... I believe it refers to the Scretary of Education

whose office created the policy. And the note right after the blue text points

out

that this policy statement carries the weight of actual law because of how it

has been presented.

This whole passage is discussing how the current educational system is not

equiped to address the needs of D/HH kids. It is acknowledging that this lack of

knowledge is currently causing harm to D/HH kids being served by the public

education system. It is also acknowledging that SpecEd educators are

ill-equiped to address D/HH kids needs (because it is not part of their

training, they

focus on remedial techniques -- my opinion).

It is also stating that the LRE for a D/HH child is not based on any

officially established set of rules based on their disability, but should be

based on

the individual child's needs and ability to access their education. " As in

previous policy guidance, the Secretary emphasizes that placement decisions may

not be based on category of disability... " In other words, the schools cannot

just say " all D/HH kids go here becuase they are D/HH. " Placement and

accomodations must be based on, and tailored to, that child's specific needs.

<<...the availability of educational or related services, availability of

space or administrative convenience>>

This part means that just because a service or accomodation is not currently

available in the school's collection of services does not mean it can be

denied. For instance, our local school did not have a TOD, but they had to get

one

for our son. They did not have an FM system lying around, so they had to buy

one.

Also Secretary is saying that they do know know what the " educational

implications " of their lack of knowledge might be. They don't know the scope of

the

damage being caused by this lack of knowledge and training, only that is exists

and it is creating barriers -- literally blocking D/HH kids from getting an

education. The list there is setting up a collection of issues that need to be

considered and addressed when developing a plan for a D/HH kid. In the last

bulleted item the Secretary is warning that mis-placing a child can be harmful

to that child, and that potential for harm must be considered in determining

the child's LRE plan. I think it also implies that a school can be held

responsible for causing damage to children by placing them in inapproriate

settings,

thus opening themselves up to a civil law suit.

Linguistic? This may refer specifically to speech issues, or it may refer to

language as a whole. I'm not sure the legal definition of that one.

Okay ... now my head is spinning too. LOL There was nothing underlined in the

email I received so I don't know what other words or phrases were confusing.

I'll gladly try to translate anything I can, but at this point I'm not sure my

words are any clearer ... hehehehehe

Best -- Jill

[Guest guest]

Donna,

Take a deep breathe ... let it out, and then read on.

This is when I started to lose my mind when I was fighting the schools over

Ian's IEPs, services and placement. Trying to read the law and understand what

it meant was overwhelming!. So often the legal definitions of words are not at

all the same as they are to the rest of us non-lawyer mere mortals.

<< 1) under FAPE, is socialization amd cultural needs addressed or should I

say inclucluded?>>

Those things could be included. I've talked with other moms whose children

have socialization issues included in their IEP, with specific goals linked to

the kids' specific needs. Socialization is definitley a part of elementary

education -- learning to wait your turn and follow instructions -- socialization

issues as related to functioning in the school setting. As to cultural ones, I

suppose they could be included as long as they are also an educational issue.

I'm not sure how cultural and socialization issues would differ.

<< 2)I'm taking it that the word consensus means an agreement?>>

Yes, but the using the word does not mean that the " consensus " reached was

correct or accurate or complete. It merely means that people agreed with each

other on an issue.

<< 3)Under the ADA part, #2. it says : in determining what type of

auxiliary aid and services is necessary, a public entity shall give primary

consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities. My question

about

this one.......What is a auxiliary aid? Do my children have the right to say

they don't want to change schools?>>

Auxiliary aide ... I don't know what the legal definition would be, but I

believe that they are referring to additional aides or service beyond what is in

a regular classroom. My son's FM system would probably be refered as an

auxiliary aide.

Your kids have the right to say they don't want things. But " wanting " is not

usually enough of a reason to make such a decision. You need to show why

changing schools is not appropriate. We require kids do things they don't want

to

do all the time, so that's not going to carry much weight. However, if you

could say, for instance, that the stress of changing schools would cause the

kids

to be unable to function (and had a doctor or official documentation backing

up that statement) then the child's " wanting " or " feelings " are given an

official reason to be considered. Just " wanting " something isn't enough.

<< 4)and under the part about Deaf students Education Services; Policy

Guidance:......What are some of the educational implications??? ......What are

some

of the barriers??? ... .The Secretary ... 2) Linguistic needs; (what's

this??) Also, Who is the Secretary????

A little further down in the same section, it says..... As in previous

policy guidance, the secretary (there's the secretary again LOL) emphasizes

that

placement decisions may not be based on category of disability, the

configuration of the delivery system, the availability of educational or related

services, availability of space or administrative convenience. My

question.......What do the underlined statements mean??>>

(Note: nothing was underlined in my emial version.)

First, the Secretary... I believe it refers to the Scretary of Education

whose office created the policy. And the note right after the blue text points

out

that this policy statement carries the weight of actual law because of how it

has been presented.

This whole passage is discussing how the current educational system is not

equiped to address the needs of D/HH kids. It is acknowledging that this lack of

knowledge is currently causing harm to D/HH kids being served by the public

education system. It is also acknowledging that SpecEd educators are

ill-equiped to address D/HH kids needs (because it is not part of their

training, they

focus on remedial techniques -- my opinion).

It is also stating that the LRE for a D/HH child is not based on any

officially established set of rules based on their disability, but should be

based on

the individual child's needs and ability to access their education. " As in

previous policy guidance, the Secretary emphasizes that placement decisions may

not be based on category of disability... " In other words, the schools cannot

just say " all D/HH kids go here becuase they are D/HH. " Placement and

accomodations must be based on, and tailored to, that child's specific needs.

<<...the availability of educational or related services, availability of

space or administrative convenience>>

This part means that just because a service or accomodation is not currently

available in the school's collection of services does not mean it can be

denied. For instance, our local school did not have a TOD, but they had to get

one

for our son. They did not have an FM system lying around, so they had to buy

one.

Also Secretary is saying that they do know know what the " educational

implications " of their lack of knowledge might be. They don't know the scope of

the

damage being caused by this lack of knowledge and training, only that is exists

and it is creating barriers -- literally blocking D/HH kids from getting an

education. The list there is setting up a collection of issues that need to be

considered and addressed when developing a plan for a D/HH kid. In the last

bulleted item the Secretary is warning that mis-placing a child can be harmful

to that child, and that potential for harm must be considered in determining

the child's LRE plan. I think it also implies that a school can be held

responsible for causing damage to children by placing them in inapproriate

settings,

thus opening themselves up to a civil law suit.

Linguistic? This may refer specifically to speech issues, or it may refer to

language as a whole. I'm not sure the legal definition of that one.

Okay ... now my head is spinning too. LOL There was nothing underlined in the

email I received so I don't know what other words or phrases were confusing.

I'll gladly try to translate anything I can, but at this point I'm not sure my

words are any clearer ... hehehehehe

Best -- Jill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 3:04:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

JillcWood@... writes:

Also Secretary is saying that they do know know what the " educational

implications " of their lack of knowledge might be.

Again, my apologies .. I left out a very important word here. NOT ... It

should be:

Also, Secretary is saying that they do NOT know know what the " educational

implications " of their lack of knowledge might be.

I need to read my posts more carefully before hitting the " send " button

Sorry-- Jill

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 3:41:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dfisher57@... writes:

I am almost ready to give up. I can just sit at my computer look at the

screen and cry!!

Donna,

You've just had the IEP meeting from hell and I could cry right along with

you. You deserve time to sit at the computer and cry, so go ahead. Call a friend

and cry to her and let her reassure you that they are all idiots -- my best

friends really does say that and it always makes me laugh. And I know that once

I'm done with the crying, I get mad and am ready to argue with them.

They had no legal right to include three extra people at your meeting without

prior notification. You could have immediately requested they reschedule the

meeting and walked out just based on that. " They're moving the program anyway "

is not an acceptable reason to pull your children out of that program and

move them into the local district.

's post is wonderful, and I don't think there's much I can add to it. So

save it or print it out so you can have it when you're ready to use it.

You'll need to send a letter challenging today's meeting and/or rescinding your

signature very quickly. If it'll help, I'll gladly help you put it together

off-list.

Best -- Jill

[Guest guest]

You need to get his socialization needs in his IEP...the need to have

socialization with other deaf/hoh kids. Get a psychiatrist to put that in

writing if you have to and use that to force the placement in the deaf/hoh

program under the basis that his mental health would suffer. Tell them that

he still has two classes with the deaf/hoh classes and that means he needs

to stay.

Now, to learn a lesson from this. They intentionally overpowered you with

extra people...that's taught in " How to Overwhelm the parents and get your

way 101 " that special educators learn right up front. There are all sorts

of strategies like this... There's the " You're the only Parent having this

problem 102 " that's used across the board by educators to stifle a problem

situation. There's the, " We're the experts and you're only parents 201. "

There's the " Have the real meeting before the parents get there and decide

how to manage them to get what we want and keep them waiting to stress them

out 202. " It goes on and on. I have actually calculated the ratios and for

every team meeting we have had, there's at least a 2.5 to one ratio of them

to us. We actually had 22 or 23 people at a few of our teams, the majority

of which were to just support the school system's opinions. I just sit

there with my laws and regs and cite them to all and when someone says

something particularly stupid or illegal, I slowly, with a smile, push the

tape recorder across to them and ask them to repeat what they said

The first thing that you need to do is buy yourself two tape recorders and a

bunch of blank tapes. Then call another team immediately! At the beginning

of the meeting, make an excuse that you don't hear well, you get stressed,

etc and that therefore you need to record the meeting. They usually will

stop the meeting and run off to find their own recorder and tapes. At that

time, you oh so nicely, offer to make a copy of YOUR tapes for them.

They'll of course refuse as they don't trust you to be honest... That'll

throw their prearranged plan for the meeting off. Have the person who

doesn't talk the most...in our case, it is my husband...be the manager of

the tapes. Let them be responsible for turning the tape over and making

sure that they're both on and pointing the right direction. Load them up in

advance and have them marked with what they are. Then, make an outline of

key points that you want the meeting to address...a talking paper, without

too much detail. Send that to the school with the request for team. Then

don't finish the meeting until all points are addressed. When requesting

the meeting, give an estimate of time that you will require to discuss it

all. We've had 6 hour meetings when necessary. The school system may say,

we only allow one hour for the meetings, in which case you site hardship as

to potential loss of job from leaving so many times, etc and insist that

they arrange a longer meeting, or you will have to file a state complaint.

The bottom line that you have to realize is that they don't care what your

son needs. They don't care whether you're right or not. They care about

whatever agenda they have and what is convenient for them. All they will

EVER care about is what you can require them by law to do. So, consider

them the enemy who stand in the way of you and your child's life and it'll

make you very hard and cold and businesslike which is just the way you need

to be. It's all a chess-match. Don't EVER go alone. Even a spouse is

usually not enough. Take extra family members/friends/ministers, etc if you

have to just to have a table full of people on your side to counteract the

overwhelming feeling of being outgunned.

You have the right to call another team meeting to discuss what you couldn't

discuss before. Did you sign the IEP yet? If not, it's not active. If so,

then tell them that you rescind your signature and are requesting one in

which you have input. It seems that you need many more assessments prior to

being able to make recommendations for your son. Actually, as I've said

before, it doesn't matter what you and your husband " want " your son to have.

What matters is where he is academically, sign knowledge, language

knowledge, etc. This is all based on assessments. Assessments are

necessary to develop an appropriate IEP. The IEP and his social/emotionial

needs then drive the placement. IF they've decided placement without

appropriate assessments and an appropriate IEP, then they have violated the

law. You can file a state complaint stating this and forcing them to do

appropriate assessments.

Re: Donna's queries from the Listen-up reference

page...oh my!

>

>

> Donna,

>

> Take a deep breathe ... let it out, and then read on.

>

> This is when I started to lose my mind when I was fighting the schools

over

> Ian's IEPs, services and placement. Trying to read the law and

understand what

> it meant was overwhelming!. So often the legal definitions of words are

not at

> all the same as they are to the rest of us non-lawyer mere mortals.

> << 1) under FAPE, is socialization amd cultural needs addressed or

should I

> say inclucluded?>>

> Those things could be included. I've talked with other moms whose

children

> have socialization issues included in their IEP, with specific goals

linked to

> the kids' specific needs. Socialization is definitley a part of

elementary

> education -- learning to wait your turn and follow instructions --

socialization

> issues as related to functioning in the school setting. As to cultural

ones, I

> suppose they could be included as long as they are also an educational

issue.

> I'm not sure how cultural and socialization issues would differ.

>

> << 2)I'm taking it that the word consensus means an agreement?>>

>

> Yes, but the using the word does not mean that the " consensus " reached

was

> correct or accurate or complete. It merely means that people agreed with

each

> other on an issue.

>

> << 3)Under the ADA part, #2. it says : in determining what type of

> auxiliary aid and services is necessary, a public entity shall give

primary

> consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities. My

question about

> this one.......What is a auxiliary aid? Do my children have the right

to say

> they don't want to change schools?>>

>

> Auxiliary aide ... I don't know what the legal definition would be, but

I

> believe that they are referring to additional aides or service beyond

what is in

> a regular classroom. My son's FM system would probably be refered as an

> auxiliary aide.

>

> Your kids have the right to say they don't want things. But " wanting " is

not

> usually enough of a reason to make such a decision. You need to show why

> changing schools is not appropriate. We require kids do things they

don't want to

> do all the time, so that's not going to carry much weight. However, if

you

> could say, for instance, that the stress of changing schools would cause

the kids

> to be unable to function (and had a doctor or official documentation

backing

> up that statement) then the child's " wanting " or " feelings " are given an

> official reason to be considered. Just " wanting " something isn't enough.

>

> << 4)and under the part about Deaf students Education Services; Policy

> Guidance:......What are some of the educational implications???

.......What are some

> of the barriers??? ... .The Secretary ... 2) Linguistic needs; (what's

> this??) Also, Who is the Secretary????

> A little further down in the same section, it says..... As in previous

> policy guidance, the secretary (there's the secretary again LOL)

emphasizes that

> placement decisions may not be based on category of disability, the

> configuration of the delivery system, the availability of educational or

related

> services, availability of space or administrative convenience. My

> question.......What do the underlined statements mean??>>

> (Note: nothing was underlined in my emial version.)

>

>

> First, the Secretary... I believe it refers to the Scretary of Education

> whose office created the policy. And the note right after the blue text

points out

> that this policy statement carries the weight of actual law because of

how it

> has been presented.

>

> This whole passage is discussing how the current educational system is

not

> equiped to address the needs of D/HH kids. It is acknowledging that this

lack of

> knowledge is currently causing harm to D/HH kids being served by the

public

> education system. It is also acknowledging that SpecEd educators are

> ill-equiped to address D/HH kids needs (because it is not part of their

training, they

> focus on remedial techniques -- my opinion).

>

> It is also stating that the LRE for a D/HH child is not based on any

> officially established set of rules based on their disability, but

should be based on

> the individual child's needs and ability to access their education. " As

in

> previous policy guidance, the Secretary emphasizes that placement

decisions may

> not be based on category of disability... " In other words, the schools

cannot

> just say " all D/HH kids go here becuase they are D/HH. " Placement and

> accomodations must be based on, and tailored to, that child's specific

needs.

>

> <<...the availability of educational or related services, availability

of

> space or administrative convenience>>

>

> This part means that just because a service or accomodation is not

currently

> available in the school's collection of services does not mean it can be

> denied. For instance, our local school did not have a TOD, but they had

to get one

> for our son. They did not have an FM system lying around, so they had to

buy

> one.

>

> Also Secretary is saying that they do know know what the " educational

> implications " of their lack of knowledge might be. They don't know the

scope of the

> damage being caused by this lack of knowledge and training, only that is

exists

> and it is creating barriers -- literally blocking D/HH kids from getting

an

> education. The list there is setting up a collection of issues that need

to be

> considered and addressed when developing a plan for a D/HH kid. In the

last

> bulleted item the Secretary is warning that mis-placing a child can be

harmful

> to that child, and that potential for harm must be considered in

determining

> the child's LRE plan. I think it also implies that a school can be held

> responsible for causing damage to children by placing them in

inapproriate settings,

> thus opening themselves up to a civil law suit.

>

> Linguistic? This may refer specifically to speech issues, or it may

refer to

> language as a whole. I'm not sure the legal definition of that one.

>

> Okay ... now my head is spinning too. LOL There was nothing underlined

in the

> email I received so I don't know what other words or phrases were

confusing.

> I'll gladly try to translate anything I can, but at this point I'm not

sure my

> words are any clearer ... hehehehehe

>

> Best -- Jill

>

>

>