the run around.....

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

You have a lawyer and you have the recommendation from your doctors. Stick to

your guns and have the wording refelct the appropriate assistcive technology,

not just some " fm sysytem " or " assistive listening device. " Spell it out.

You know what is needed, let the lawyer handle it. (A letter suggesting that

they are intentionally delaying implimenting services and thus causing your

child

harm comes immediately to mind.)

We went through the same thing. Our son's IEP initially listed an " FM

system. " Being the new-to-all-this-mom that I was, I did not know there was such

a

thing as a sound field system. Our audi and ENTs had specifically recommended

the " microlink FM system " in their letters and when I saw " FM system " in the IEP

I thought it was fine. After all, they had told me that they were arranging

for the FM microlinks for a 3-month test period. They were to be waiting (No, I

didn't have a tape recorder at that meeting, sigh, but I learned.)

Then 5th grade started and they had rigged up a sound field system with parts

cobbled together from the AV department. Confused, I called our audi and he

explained what that was and was dumbfounded that they'd put it up. It took me

several months and almost a lawsuit to get the proper equipment. He wrote

another letter, our ENT wrote another letter, our nerologist wrote a letter (I

don't why I asked him, but I did)

But we won and Ian's IEP spells out the right kind of system (but I don't

remember where it is listed and I don't think it lists a specific brand) and

very

specific instructions as to its care and use.

Don't back down if you feel they are using the wording to enable themselves

to pull a fast one later on. They have not been up front, so i would not give

them the benefit of the doubt!

Good luck -- Jill

[Guest guest]

You have a lawyer and you have the recommendation from your doctors. Stick to

your guns and have the wording refelct the appropriate assistcive technology,

not just some " fm sysytem " or " assistive listening device. " Spell it out.

You know what is needed, let the lawyer handle it. (A letter suggesting that

they are intentionally delaying implimenting services and thus causing your

child

harm comes immediately to mind.)

We went through the same thing. Our son's IEP initially listed an " FM

system. " Being the new-to-all-this-mom that I was, I did not know there was such

a

thing as a sound field system. Our audi and ENTs had specifically recommended

the " microlink FM system " in their letters and when I saw " FM system " in the IEP

I thought it was fine. After all, they had told me that they were arranging

for the FM microlinks for a 3-month test period. They were to be waiting (No, I

didn't have a tape recorder at that meeting, sigh, but I learned.)

Then 5th grade started and they had rigged up a sound field system with parts

cobbled together from the AV department. Confused, I called our audi and he

explained what that was and was dumbfounded that they'd put it up. It took me

several months and almost a lawsuit to get the proper equipment. He wrote

another letter, our ENT wrote another letter, our nerologist wrote a letter (I

don't why I asked him, but I did)

But we won and Ian's IEP spells out the right kind of system (but I don't

remember where it is listed and I don't think it lists a specific brand) and

very

specific instructions as to its care and use.

Don't back down if you feel they are using the wording to enable themselves

to pull a fast one later on. They have not been up front, so i would not give

them the benefit of the doubt!

Good luck -- Jill

[Guest guest]

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