What is the craziest thing you have been told at an IEP meeting?

[Anonymous]

PP's post provides a great explanation of why it is likely illegal to be told a child with an IEP can't go on a field trip without the parent.

The point is that if a school feels there's an elopement issue or other type of behavior issue they need to come up with the staff to deal with it. It should not be dad or mom's responsibility.

If a child just can't handle that type of physical exertion that's a different issue but if it's just a matter of having another body to watch the kid that's on the school.

[Anonymous]

My personal favorite was the Principal who said my son simply wasn't going to make any progress until he was on medication and there was just nothing more they could do, at the meeting where they found him ineligible for an IEP.

[Anonymous]

And then there was the MCPS principal (elementary school) who told a parent at an IEP meeting: "we're placing him at another school where he'll be someone else's problem."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So is least restrictive environment considered "adequate/acceptable" schooling or "exceptional/ideal" schooling?

I ask becuase the running away/field trip scenario. At what point does safety and welfare of the child take precedent over bringing the child to an unsafe situation like the zoo field trip where the staff feels like they cannot keep him from running off and might loose him?

Why are you so fixated on elopement?

I am the poster who you are questioning.

I had a non special ed child who was a runner through u til he started school. He was quick and stealthy, and unless he was leashed with the monkey backpack or strapped in a stroller, even as old as four, there was a good chance he could run off, even with the most attentive parenting.

I did lose him at a museum. This was with three adults keeping an eye out for him. It was very quick, like a let go of his hand to scratch my leg quick, and he was under an exhibit, through some legs and out of sight within seconds. We found him one room over, but it was the most terrifying five minutes of my life.

Having a runner myself and knowing what they are capable of if they are fixated on being somewhere else (in his case he wanted to go back to an exhibit in an earlier room), I think it is a bit unreasonable to say "Well, they just need to have someone supervising the kid." At some point, safety and risk needs to be weighed more carefully than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So is least restrictive environment considered "adequate/acceptable" schooling or "exceptional/ideal" schooling?

I ask becuase the running away/field trip scenario. At what point does safety and welfare of the child take precedent over bringing the child to an unsafe situation like the zoo field trip where the staff feels like they cannot keep him from running off and might loose him?

Why are you so fixated on elopement?

That was my very first post in this thread.

I explained above why the topic caught my eye (I have a runner).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My personal favorite was the Principal who said my son simply wasn't going to make any progress until he was on medication and there was just nothing more they could do, at the meeting where they found him ineligible for an IEP.

So what happened? Did you put him on medication (I'm assuming for attention issues) ? Did he ever get an IEP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So is least restrictive environment considered "adequate/acceptable" schooling or "exceptional/ideal" schooling?

I ask becuase the running away/field trip scenario. At what point does safety and welfare of the child take precedent over bringing the child to an unsafe situation like the zoo field trip where the staff feels like they cannot keep him from running off and might loose him?

Why are you so fixated on elopement?

I am the poster who you are questioning.

I had a non special ed child who was a runner through u til he started school. He was quick and stealthy, and unless he was leashed with the monkey backpack or strapped in a stroller, even as old as four, there was a good chance he could run off, even with the most attentive parenting.

I did lose him at a museum. This was with three adults keeping an eye out for him. It was very quick, like a let go of his hand to scratch my leg quick, and he was under an exhibit, through some legs and out of sight within seconds. We found him one room over, but it was the most terrifying five minutes of my life.

Having a runner myself and knowing what they are capable of if they are fixated on being somewhere else (in his case he wanted to go back to an exhibit in an earlier room), I think it is a bit unreasonable to say "Well, they just need to have someone supervising the kid." At some point, safety and risk needs to be weighed more carefully than anything else.

That sounds terrifying. Did you stop taking him places after that? Because otherwise, I'm not really clear why you feel that he was safe going out with you and not with a teacher. Can you clarify?

[Anonymous]

Thank God he out grew it.

Yes, it was terrifying. I would not wish that feeling on anyone else, especially someone who is tasked with taking care of another person's child.

I know and experienced (almost) worst case scenario, and I know how attentive I am and my awareness of his risk. I also saw that day how quickly you can lose a runner, even if you are paying attention and even if you believe you have safeguards in place.

No one is as attentive to a child with unique issues than a parent. No one will take them as seriously as a parent or be more conscious at preventing risk.

Before I lost my runner, I might have felt differently. But now I can say with certainty that I would not consider this accomodation for taking a runner on field trips is remotely the same as making sure that there is a staff member trained to administer an epi or diabetic medicine, or having some way for the blind child to hear the signs or provide accesibility for a child with mobility issues or a one on one aide to help an autistic child (non running) to get through the field trip. If the child truly is a runner than this is a safety issue, akin to the overheating issue someone gave as a reason to keep a child from an outdoor field trip, particularly if the child is younger and small enough to slip through unexpected spaces, or non verbal and a runner, or prone to self harm and a runner.

I would feel differently though if a parent agreed that part of the accomodation of bringing the child on the field trip would include a wrist to wrist "leash" (don't know th proper word) to be worn by the aide and the child at all times.

In my opinion this example falls out of a reasonable accomodation because it compromises the safety of the child, even if basic precautions (barring something like a wrist leash) are put in place.

Back to the other part of your question, no, after that incident we did not allow anyone, even immediate family members, to take him out unless we were there as well. The risk of someone losing track of him was just not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal favorite was the Principal who said my son simply wasn't going to make any progress until he was on medication and there was just nothing more they could do, at the meeting where they found him ineligible for an IEP.

So what happened? Did you put him on medication (I'm assuming for attention issues) ? Did he ever get an IEP?

Briefly, but we felt the side effects were too much and yes with a classification of specific learning disability (he has adhd and dysgraphia). At the time the comment was made he was reading a year+ above grade level, but could barely write a sentence. The IEP came a few months and phone call to equity assurance later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank God he out grew it.

Yes, it was terrifying. I would not wish that feeling on anyone else, especially someone who is tasked with taking care of another person's child.

I know and experienced (almost) worst case scenario, and I know how attentive I am and my awareness of his risk. I also saw that day how quickly you can lose a runner, even if you are paying attention and even if you believe you have safeguards in place.

No one is as attentive to a child with unique issues than a parent. No one will take them as seriously as a parent or be more conscious at preventing risk.

Before I lost my runner, I might have felt differently. But now I can say with certainty that I would not consider this accomodation for taking a runner on field trips is remotely the same as making sure that there is a staff member trained to administer an epi or diabetic medicine, or having some way for the blind child to hear the signs or provide accesibility for a child with mobility issues or a one on one aide to help an autistic child (non running) to get through the field trip. If the child truly is a runner than this is a safety issue, akin to the overheating issue someone gave as a reason to keep a child from an outdoor field trip, particularly if the child is younger and small enough to slip through unexpected spaces, or non verbal and a runner, or prone to self harm and a runner.

I would feel differently though if a parent agreed that part of the accomodation of bringing the child on the field trip would include a wrist to wrist "leash" (don't know th proper word) to be worn by the aide and the child at all times.

In my opinion this example falls out of a reasonable accomodation because it compromises the safety of the child, even if basic precautions (barring something like a wrist leash) are put in place.

Back to the other part of your question, no, after that incident we did not allow anyone, even immediate family members, to take him out unless we were there as well. The risk of someone losing track of him was just not worth it.

I'm the PP who originally mentioned parental supervision on a field trip. I'm not sure why you assumed that it was because of elopement and thus became fixated, but this was NOT because he was a risk of running away. It was because he needed behavior supports so that he didn't touch people, cut in line, or become upset.
I'm sure elopement is a bad thing, but since your child outgrew it I fail to see how this is congruent to this thread.

[Anonymous]

I am not fixated on "elopment"

I asked one question about it, responded one time to a question about it, and responded to tue question my post received.

I think there might have been several people posting about kids running off. I am not the only one.

I was just having a dialogue about one specific question I asked.

There are others who posted as well, including a teacher and what sounds like a couple of parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not fixated on "elopment"

I asked one question about it, responded one time to a question about it, and responded to tue question my post received.

I think there might have been several people posting about kids running off. I am not the only one.

I was just having a dialogue about one specific question I asked.

There are others who posted as well, including a teacher and what sounds like a couple of parents.

Page 6, post 19:39 and the discussion a little before and a little after was the post that piqued my interest and eventually led to my posing a question.

I did not post until a page or two later, when I asked about "least restrictive environment" being considered "ideal: or just "adequate". There was a lot of discussion about running in between and after that was not from me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:vision specialist told me that parents like to think that vision therapy works because "Parents often spend time and money on things just to feel like they're doing something."

teacher here (so not expertise in vision training) but seriously i think it's phooey. training your eyes impacts behavior? not buying it

I can speak to vision therapy for Convergency/Tracking issues. Our daughter was diagnosed this past fall after years of reading struggles (3-4 levels below grade level). My husband was at the evaluation and saw for himself on the screen what we hadn't noticed, that her eyes were focusing on 2 different points and were not tracking together at all from 18 inches in. Her eyes jumped all over the page and it was an enormous effort to read a string of words together in a sentence. It made reading and decoding words a huge struggle for her despite a great deal of tutoring and in-school intervention that had very slow effect. It also affected her class behavior...because she had such a hard time trying to read, she'd give up and want to talk to her neighbor.

She started vision therapy this past fall and has seen a huge improvement in just 6 months with the weekly sessions to retrain her eyes to focus on one point from 18 inches in. She has jumped up 4 reading levels and was at grade level in her last DRA evaluation 2 weeks ago. She failed last year's Reading SOL and just made 465 on this year's Reading SOL. She is almost never is distracted in class anymore. So yes, vision therapy for that issue does work.

[Anonymous]

FFS, would the people wanting to know more about elopement please start their own thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FFS, would the people wanting to know more about elopement please start their own thread!

+100000