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

[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]

Thank you Jill and everyone for your replies. I am almost ready to give up. I

can just sit at my computer look at the screen and cry!! My son is mainstreamed

with an interpreter. Our school system said they can do that here. He goes to

speech and social work with the D/HH class. They say he is not in with the D/HH

class enough to send him to that school. Also, they said, " the D/HH program

will move out of the school it's in so, what's the difference if he changes

school? " " He'll be changing anyways " . I was at the meeting for my daughters

IEP but I was too upset to stay for my son's. I couldn't give them the

satisfaction of seeing me bawling my eyes out. I didn't even get to give input

for my son's IEP. They invited people that were not on our list that they gave

us. 3 extra people for each IEP. This was very overwhelming. So, I didn't get

to stay for my son's IEP, my husband and I were going to suggest he joins the

D/HH class more because his signing vocabulary is very low. He ask's his 5 yr.

old sister how to sign things. I wonder how much he is understanding because he

surely will not ask what a sign means. It's not the school my children are

attending that we are having problems with, it's our home district. The school

my children attend is only 20 min. from our house. I know kids that live in our

town and go to the school in our town that are on the bus longer than them. They

are moving the D/HH program to another school in the same town. So, it's still

close.

Thank you,

Donna Fisher

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

[Guest guest]

Thank you Jill and everyone for your replies. I am almost ready to give up. I

can just sit at my computer look at the screen and cry!! My son is mainstreamed

with an interpreter. Our school system said they can do that here. He goes to

speech and social work with the D/HH class. They say he is not in with the D/HH

class enough to send him to that school. Also, they said, " the D/HH program

will move out of the school it's in so, what's the difference if he changes

school? " " He'll be changing anyways " . I was at the meeting for my daughters

IEP but I was too upset to stay for my son's. I couldn't give them the

satisfaction of seeing me bawling my eyes out. I didn't even get to give input

for my son's IEP. They invited people that were not on our list that they gave

us. 3 extra people for each IEP. This was very overwhelming. So, I didn't get

to stay for my son's IEP, my husband and I were going to suggest he joins the

D/HH class more because his signing vocabulary is very low. He ask's his 5 yr.

old sister how to sign things. I wonder how much he is understanding because he

surely will not ask what a sign means. It's not the school my children are

attending that we are having problems with, it's our home district. The school

my children attend is only 20 min. from our house. I know kids that live in our

town and go to the school in our town that are on the bus longer than them. They

are moving the D/HH program to another school in the same town. So, it's still

close.

Thank you,

Donna Fisher

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

[Guest guest]

Thank you Jill and everyone for your replies. I am almost ready to give up. I

can just sit at my computer look at the screen and cry!! My son is mainstreamed

with an interpreter. Our school system said they can do that here. He goes to

speech and social work with the D/HH class. They say he is not in with the D/HH

class enough to send him to that school. Also, they said, " the D/HH program

will move out of the school it's in so, what's the difference if he changes

school? " " He'll be changing anyways " . I was at the meeting for my daughters

IEP but I was too upset to stay for my son's. I couldn't give them the

satisfaction of seeing me bawling my eyes out. I didn't even get to give input

for my son's IEP. They invited people that were not on our list that they gave

us. 3 extra people for each IEP. This was very overwhelming. So, I didn't get

to stay for my son's IEP, my husband and I were going to suggest he joins the

D/HH class more because his signing vocabulary is very low. He ask's his 5 yr.

old sister how to sign things. I wonder how much he is understanding because he

surely will not ask what a sign means. It's not the school my children are

attending that we are having problems with, it's our home district. The school

my children attend is only 20 min. from our house. I know kids that live in our

town and go to the school in our town that are on the bus longer than them. They

are moving the D/HH program to another school in the same town. So, it's still

close.

Thank you,

Donna Fisher

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