SD won't acknowledge apraxia dx in ASD son

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I've been somewhat of a lurker on here for the past few months after

learning of my son's diagnosis of apraxia. He just turned four and

has had a diagnosis of autism since about 2 1/2. Just hoping for a

little advice/insight from more experienced parents.

We recently came away from an IEP somewhat baffled at the comments

made by our district's speech therapist. She said she `didn't agree

or disagree' with out private SLP's assessment of our 4 year old as

having apraxia. She said that diagnosing apraxia in young children

with autism was `controversial'. We were really taken by surprise by

this comment!! We trust our speech therapist (who has spent 12 months

with our son once or twice a week).

Of course, I suspect she made the comment in an attempt not to

provide our son with appropriate services. Sort of a `if we don't

acknowledge it, it doesn't exist'. They are only offering once weekly

1:1 speech with a `speech language therapist ASSISTANT'.

I am curious if other parents have come across this ridiculous SD

strategy and how they've dealt with it.

I fear our lawyer has dropped the ball on this a little (we are in

the middle of `legal wrangling' over other issues) so it's something

I think I'm going to follow up on myself.

Many thanks,

[Guest guest]

My son has an ASD and apraxia. Our speech therapist also diagnosed our son.

Like you said, they spend more time with the child, a good speech therapist

is qualified to make this diagnosis. I am sure you are right they just don't

want to give the services, would they question a diagnosis from a DR? We had

to fight for extra speech for our son too, they acted like spending 15

minutes more a day would be so hard? Don't give up. Jen

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.

http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

[Guest guest]

Yes, it is a tactic to reduce services. The SLP at my school

district tried to tell me that apraxia cannot be diagnosed until they

are 6 or 7 years old. I brought out the ASHA technical paper about

apraxia and said, well why do they discuss the diagnosis in

preschoolers right here in ASHA's document? They didn't know what to

say and the SLP was not there to defent their position.

I recommend reading Pete 's explanation of a " letter to a

stranger " (see www.wrightslaw.com) Document the conversation and add

that the school district's position that apraxia is controversial

seems to contradict ASHA's position on apraxia. Write that if they

continue to dispute the diagnosis, you will have to request an

independent evaluation at the school's expense.

See what kind of response you get. Assuming they finally accept the

apraxia diagnosis, then go to the IEP meeting armed with articles

about the need for frequent therapy.

Hope that helps.

>

> Hello,

>

> I've been somewhat of a lurker on here for the past few months

after

> learning of my son's diagnosis of apraxia. He just turned four and

> has had a diagnosis of autism since about 2 1/2. Just hoping for a

> little advice/insight from more experienced parents.

>

> We recently came away from an IEP somewhat baffled at the comments

> made by our district's speech therapist. She said she `didn't agree

> or disagree' with out private SLP's assessment of our 4 year old as

> having apraxia. She said that diagnosing apraxia in young children

> with autism was `controversial'. We were really taken by surprise

by

> this comment!! We trust our speech therapist (who has spent 12

months

> with our son once or twice a week).

>

> Of course, I suspect she made the comment in an attempt not to

> provide our son with appropriate services. Sort of a `if we don't

> acknowledge it, it doesn't exist'. They are only offering once

weekly

> 1:1 speech with a `speech language therapist ASSISTANT'.

>

> I am curious if other parents have come across this ridiculous SD

> strategy and how they've dealt with it.

>

> I fear our lawyer has dropped the ball on this a little (we are in

> the middle of `legal wrangling' over other issues) so it's

something

> I think I'm going to follow up on myself.

>

> Many thanks,

>

>

>