Guest guest Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 OK all you warriors who have gone through fighting with the school system..... We have had 3 iep meetings in 6 weeks time. They have all lasted between 2 and 3 hours each. We brought a lawyer and a tape recorder to the third meeting. We are stuck on the wording of " personal, wireless fm system " on theACCOMMODATIONS page of the IEP. The district wants to write " assistive listening device " and put it on a page that says " RELATED INFORMATION. " No one in the room disagrees that the microlink is giving Maggie access to the curriculum and FAPE. The audiologist tried to suggest that a sound field system might also be appropriate, but we wouldn't swallow that because our personal audiologist has recommended the microlink. The district does not want to limit their options of what to put on Maggie (even though they are the ones who changed her to the microlink from a wired system before iep time.....) WHY WON'T THEY BE SPECIFIC? The crackling/interference that Maggie gets with the wired system gives her headaches. We can document several times per week that she was going to the nurse for Advil....now that she has the microlink, she has gone 2-3x in 3 mos.....so we do not want the wired system on her. They tell us it is county policy not to limit the options. We asked to see the policy.....it is verbal policy and no one from the Office of Compliance and Monitoring is coming to our IEP even though we asked..... We have asked for PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE....and I just got an e-mail saying that they don't have to give it to us until the IEP is complete! That does not sound right from what I read in the law....the lawyer also said it is not true.... What should we do??????????? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 They won't be spacific because they don't want to be cornered. Don't let them put assistive listening device because they could absolutely switch to soundfield which do not give nearly as much bennefit as the FM. Right now we are actually going for the soundfield simply because 's loss is mild and he fights so hard about the headphones being on, that we decided we would give the soundfield a try while training him to wear the headphones. Anyway find as much info on soundfield vs. FM and bring it to your next meeting. Have your audiologist write a letter stating why the microlink is important as opposed to other types of FM system and why a FM is absolutely needed as opposed to soundfield. Soundfield helps but not nearly as much as an FM and the child still misses out on info. Try talking to your audi and see if she can attend your next meeting and the school audi and her can go at it together. Tell them that the school audi needs to talk to your audi if in fact your audi can't make it. Tell them that you are not going to sign anything until they have a conversation and come to a conclusion because your audi told you he spacifically needs a microlink and because they won't write that in the IEP you refuse to sign it until the school audi talks to your audi and they come to some sort of agreement. the run around..... OK all you warriors who have gone through fighting with the school system..... We have had 3 iep meetings in 6 weeks time. They have all lasted between 2 and 3 hours each. We brought a lawyer and a tape recorder to the third meeting. We are stuck on the wording of " personal, wireless fm system " on theACCOMMODATIONS page of the IEP. The district wants to write " assistive listening device " and put it on a page that says " RELATED INFORMATION. " No one in the room disagrees that the microlink is giving Maggie access to the curriculum and FAPE. The audiologist tried to suggest that a sound field system might also be appropriate, but we wouldn't swallow that because our personal audiologist has recommended the microlink. The district does not want to limit their options of what to put on Maggie (even though they are the ones who changed her to the microlink from a wired system before iep time.....) WHY WON'T THEY BE SPECIFIC? The crackling/interference that Maggie gets with the wired system gives her headaches. We can document several times per week that she was going to the nurse for Advil....now that she has the microlink, she has gone 2-3x in 3 mos.....so we do not want the wired system on her. They tell us it is county policy not to limit the options. We asked to see the policy.....it is verbal policy and no one from the Office of Compliance and Monitoring is coming to our IEP even though we asked..... We have asked for PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE....and I just got an e-mail saying that they don't have to give it to us until the IEP is complete! That does not sound right from what I read in the law....the lawyer also said it is not true.... What should we do??????????? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 > The district does not want to limit their options of what to put on Maggie (even though they are the ones who changed her to the microlink from a wired system before iep time.....) < Because FM systems often contain amplification of their own, or when coupled with a hearing aid can affect the sound delivered by the hearing aid, the only person who should say what system goes on a child (or adult) with a hearing aid should be an audiologist - as per ASHA recommendations. From Guidelines for Fitting and Monitoring FM Systems http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/9C8083C1-8D35-4B4A-84A6-A3B04B709E32/0/18866_1.\ pdf (if my mail program splits this link, you'll need to cut and paste the 2 parts together to get a working link) " The audiologist is the professional who is uniquely qualified to select, evaluate, fit, and dispense FM systems. Section IIA of the ASHA Code of Ethics (ASHA, 1992) states that " Individuals shall engage in the provision of clinical services only when they hold the appropriate Certificate of Clinical Competence or when they are in the certification process and are supervised by an individual who holds the appropriate Certificate of Clinical Competence. " For purposes of the present document, the ASHA Certificate of Clinical Competence in Audiology is considered to be the appropriate certification. IIB of the Code of Ethics further states that " Individuals shall engage in only those aspects of the profession that are within the scope of their competence, considering their level of education, training, and experience. " Daily monitoring checks by other personnel (including speechlanguage pathologists, teachers, etc.) are appropriate, however, after such personnel have received instruction in monitoring techniques from an ASHA-certified audiologist. " The document also gives specific reasons why this is so, and I'm sure you can use them to your advantage. -Kay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2004 Report Share Posted May 17, 2004 Kay - Thank you! I just sent a letter off for my audiologist's signature. Hopefully, the school audie will not oppose the recommendation - or have a less than appropriate recommendation as well. Re: the run around..... > > The district does not want to limit their options of what to put on > Maggie (even though they are the ones who changed her to the microlink from > a wired system before iep time.....) < > > Because FM systems often contain amplification of their own, or when coupled > with a hearing aid can affect the sound delivered by the hearing aid, the > only person who should say what system goes on a child (or adult) with a > hearing aid should be an audiologist - as per ASHA recommendations. From > Guidelines for Fitting and Monitoring FM Systems > > http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/9C8083C1-8D35-4B4A-84A6-A3B04B709E32/0/18866_1.\ pdf > (if my mail program splits this link, you'll need to cut and paste the 2 > parts together to get a working link) > > " The audiologist is the professional who is uniquely qualified to select, > evaluate, fit, and dispense FM systems. Section IIA of the ASHA Code of > Ethics (ASHA, 1992) states that " Individuals shall engage in the provision > of clinical services only when they hold the appropriate Certificate of > Clinical Competence or when they are in the certification process and are > supervised by an individual who holds the appropriate Certificate of > Clinical Competence. " For purposes of the present document, the ASHA > Certificate of Clinical Competence in Audiology is considered to be the > appropriate certification. IIB of the Code of Ethics further states that > " Individuals shall engage in only those aspects of the profession that are > within the scope of their competence, considering their level of education, > training, and experience. " Daily monitoring checks by other personnel > (including speechlanguage pathologists, teachers, etc.) are appropriate, > however, after such personnel have received instruction in monitoring > techniques from an ASHA-certified audiologist. " > > > > The document also gives specific reasons why this is so, and I'm sure you > can use them to your advantage. > > -Kay > > > > > > > > > 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 May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 If there is a question as to which FM system is more appropriate for your child, go with the numbers. Have a speech recognition test done with each fm system and see which one has better numbers. I did exactly this when we replaced JD's fm system quite a few years ago. Of course, JD's idea of what sounded better lined up with what the numbers were telling us. ;-) -Kay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 If there is a question as to which FM system is more appropriate for your child, go with the numbers. Have a speech recognition test done with each fm system and see which one has better numbers. I did exactly this when we replaced JD's fm system quite a few years ago. Of course, JD's idea of what sounded better lined up with what the numbers were telling us. ;-) -Kay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 In a message dated 5/19/2004 5:17:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kay@... writes: I suggested that if he had a test score of 40%, it be considered a 100% since that's all he heard, unless they provided a system for him. They didn't think this was fair, but I made my point with them. Hugs, Kay Kay, Reading this made me laugh. Our son Ian has a processing speed issue that creates a need for extended time. He can handle the work at (or above) grade level, but needs extra time to complete it. At one point it was argued that he could not be allowed extra time in high school, so he should not get it at all (This is not true) I just love their illogical logic. However, they said they could compensate by adjusting the curriculum -- which could NOT be done in HS in a regular academic track. Anyway, I used your very reasoning to assert that a 65 would therefore be equal a 100% since 2/3 was about as much of a math test as Ian could complete without extra time. So, for him they should use a curve setting 65 as the equivalent of 100 and base all his tests grades on that curve. My nonsense logic out stripped their nonsense logic, so he got the extended time. Isn't it all just too ridiculous?! Jill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Jill, That's just rediculous that they insist when he is in high school they couldn't give hiim the extra accomidations. That is just not true at all. If he needs it due to his disability they have to give it to him, high school doesn't change anything. Re: Re: the run around..... In a message dated 5/19/2004 5:17:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kay@... writes: I suggested that if he had a test score of 40%, it be considered a 100% since that's all he heard, unless they provided a system for him. They didn't think this was fair, but I made my point with them. Hugs, Kay Kay, Reading this made me laugh. Our son Ian has a processing speed issue that creates a need for extended time. He can handle the work at (or above) grade level, but needs extra time to complete it. At one point it was argued that he could not be allowed extra time in high school, so he should not get it at all (This is not true) I just love their illogical logic. However, they said they could compensate by adjusting the curriculum -- which could NOT be done in HS in a regular academic track. Anyway, I used your very reasoning to assert that a 65 would therefore be equal a 100% since 2/3 was about as much of a math test as Ian could complete without extra time. So, for him they should use a curve setting 65 as the equivalent of 100 and base all his tests grades on that curve. My nonsense logic out stripped their nonsense logic, so he got the extended time. Isn't it all just too ridiculous?! Jill 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.