Weinfeld Education Group?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Thanks all, OP here. Really appreciate the insight, especially the parent who posted above with all of the helpful questions. We received the PWN document today that summarized the meeting. I am just so distraught that they found my DS (3rd grade) ineligible. The principal wasn’t part of the meeting, but the AP was. We provided a 23-page report from the psychologist outlining his dyslexia and ADHD and she described how these challenges are making all aspects of learning so difficult for him. FYI we’re in MCPS.
They said that they would not move forward with an IEP because “his educational data showed that he can access the curriculum” and they do not see that his disability is impacting him in the classroom. He hasn’t even BEEN in the classroom due to distance learning last year. His grades have been fine (which doesn’t say much in K and 1st…) and he is “average” on his MAP tests. But the psychologist conducted a battery of 24 tests that showed he is scoring below his grade level and he has dyslexia and dysgraphia. They also based it on his teacher report from the first 9 days of school (?!?) We’re at a loss. Not sure if we should appeal, hire a lawyer, work with an advocate… I don’t want to burn bridges because we really like our school but I feel so disheartened. My son is one of those kids who will just fly invisibly under the radar because he is just getting by. We are not in a position to send him to a private school for dyslexia. |
Anonymous
OP again. Forgot to mention that they are going to do a 504 for his ADHD, they threw us that bone… 
|
Anonymous
|
NP here. I urge OP to consult with a professional ASAP about contesting the school team's rejection of specialized instruction for the dyslexia. What position did the school psychologist take -- in other words, did the school psychologist try to rebut your private psychologist's finding of dyslexia and below grade level performance on the tests he/she administered? Good luck
|
Anonymous
|
The school psychologist reviewed the “Team consideration of external report” form and summarized the findings from our assessment report. She did not take any position at all or rebut the findings. She merely shared the findings and diagnoses. It was the special education lead at the school who did almost of the talking regarding the decision. They just said they didn’t have the evidence from his test scores or educational history, which is appalling. They don’t even get “grades” in K and 1 and 2nd grade was a wash with DL.
I’m so upset. What kind of professional? Lawyer? Advocate? Is it even worth it since the school will just say “they don’t see that his LDs are affecting him in the classroom” and “he is not performing below his peers”. But my answers to the questionnaire and the 23-page report clearly state how it is affecting him! |
Anonymous
|
You could try Lisa Taylor-Cunningham at Imagine Possibility (contact info is on their website). We found her helpful, rate was probably lower than Weinfeld. She knows a lot of people in MCPS, and sadly, that helped a lot.
Make sure you meet the timeline for appealing the decision. Even after you get an IEP with services for dyslexia, you'll probably need private tutoring as well. It's expensive, but not as bad as private school. |
Anonymous
Hi, I'm the parent that posted with the questions. I'm glad you found them helpful. I would like to ask a couple more questions. Did you tape the meeting? Did you get a copy of each teacher report prior to the meeting with the 5 day materials? If not with the 5 day materials, did you get copies at the meeting? Also was a teacher report filled out from each teacher (reading, math, arts, music, pe, etc.) What was his MAP score? The team said it was "average". How does this look in the context of previous MAP scores? Is he making progress from year to year? You can find MAP reports in the documents section of ParentVue. What other "educational data" did they rely on besides the MAP? Did the teacher assess him for his "reading level"? (MCPS used to use Fountas-Pinell benchmarking to assess reading. The classroom teacher has a text to give the child and marks certain "errors" to compute reading level. The problem is that this is really subjective and is just based on accuracy and comprehension and doesn't include the other components of reading - rate and fluency. If your psychologist did Woodcock Johnson or WIAT reading achievement testing, that is more meaningful.) You say, "his grades have been fine" -- are you saying this because the team said it? When you or the team say it, are you looking at his overall quarterly grades or have you accessed StudentVue through ParentVue or directly with his ID? Does his individual grade book show any ups and downs in grades, despite a "good" overall grade? Did the psychologist actually use grade level equivalencies on the testing? If so, that's good; not all psychologists do this. Do you mind if I ask what MCPS HS cluster you're in? (If you don't feel comfortable answering this because it feels too private, I understand.) |
Anonymous
|
Oops. I should have asked one more question -- at what stage were you turned down for the IEP -- was this your first IEP meeting, and therefore an "screening" meeting? Or was this your second IEP meeting, and therefore your "eligibility determination" meeting?
At the screening meeting they are just supposed to determine if there is a "reasonable suspicion of disability". If so, they are supposed to plan whether more information is needed to make the final determination of eligibility. The IEP team has 60 days for further "evaluation". The second meeting is the "eligibility determination" meeting. The team is supposed to reconvene and review the data collected and then determine eligibility. Sometimes what happens is that the screening and eligibility determination meetings are collapsed into one meeting, but this should only be done with the parents' consent. Did you consent to this? |
Anonymous
Thanks, I’ve tried to answer the questions as best as I can: - Yes we received the teacher report in advance. He’s in 3rd grade so he only has one teacher - his specials teachers didn’t fill anything out. But the teacher report was it not from 9 days of instruction. And she noted during meeting that they haven’t really done many writing assignments yet. She did not assess reading level. - I did not tape the meeting. It was virtual, didn’t realize I could or should. - MAP score from recently was 185/300. 46th%. MAP scores have gone up very slightly over time but went down a little last year. - In K and 1st they don’t use letter grades so yes he got Ps for Proficient. But what does that even show or demonstrate at that age?!? Last year in 2nd was distance learning and he did get As and Bs but honestly he was able to “get by” through homework even though it was an everyday battle with everything reading and writing related. Plus I don’t see how that yer of learning can count as much. We were helping him along because he was so miserable. Especially now that we know he has ADHD. - They used teacher report, MAP, precious grades and the private psychologist assessment in the evaluation. - Were in Magruder cluster. - Psychologist did WIAT, Wechsler, CASL, OWLs and many, many others. 24 tests to total. Yes she used grade level equivalence and chronological age. The report was 23 pages and outlined all aspects of his dyslexia and ADHD diagnoses. Explained how every aspect of learning is difficult for him. His spelling, phonics, written comprehension. Said it was imperative he get an IEP. - PWN says he is ineligible because of his educational data. And because they’re not seeing impact of his disability in the classroom. But he hasn’t even BEEN in the classroom for awhile due to Covid. - I thought the report would be what we needed. I feel like he’s one of those kids that will just go unnoticed under the radar because he can do “ok” but he struggles so much behind the scenes. - curious if it’s even worth appealing this since the “grades” and “teacher report” from 9 days of school doesn’t show major challenges. I’m really disheartened and upset. - They are giving him a 504 to help address the ADHD. - we must have had a combined meeting because it was the first meeting we had with IEP team and it was the eligibility meeting. |
Anonymous
| Ugh so sorry for the typos above! I’m on my phone. Should say year not yer, and previous not precious! |
Anonymous
Thank you for your comments regarding my use of "special" -- I used "special instruction" as short-hand for "specially designed instruction," which is the exact language used in the statutory language of IDEA, the guiding framework of the IEP. Some people use the phrase "specialized instruction" as a similar kind of short-hand. Please see the following, which comes from 34 CFR Section 300.39 (3) Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction - (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. As for your comments, "the law actually does require educational impact". I did reference that in my #2 -- that the second prong of IEP eligibility determination is "adverse educational impact." How states consider adverse educational impact varies from state to state. But, I want to be very clear: the law does NOT require failing grades as evidence of adverse educational impact. (See Rowley where the Supreme Court said, "We do not hold today that every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade in a regular public school system is automatically receiving a "free appropriate public education." and IDEA 300.101(c) ) And, the law does not require that the adverse educational impact be demonstrated solely within the four walls of the classroom -- "educational impact" can include things like taking a really long time to finish homework. For example, if a kid with dyslexia has a slow reading rate and cannot keep up with the 3 chapters of reading assigned nightly for a book, that is "adverse educational impact" even though it is homework. Because the kid can't read fast enough to understand the material and participate knowledgeably in class discussions about the book. This might not show up as a graded activity but still counts as "adverse educational impact". Also, for an analysis of "adverse educational impact," the significant discrepancy between the demonstrated ability of the student (i.e. IQ) and achievement (can be demonstrated in classroom or by assessment testing) may be taken into account when considering educational impact - see page IV-18 of MCPS' Special Education Handbook, "may consider evaluative data and appropriate assessments if the team determines that data to be relevant to the identification of an SLD if the student .....exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved, grade-level standards, or intellectual development." OP, the MCPS Special Education Procedures Handbook (from which I just quoted) was helpful to me in understanding the process -- https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/specialed/resources/handbook.pdf |
Anonymous
|
A good practice is within a week to wire an email stating that you disagree with the decision. You do not need to spell out all the reasons it is wrong just .....
Thank you for your time. We disagree with the decision made by __________ on ______. We are reviewing the materials and decision from the meeting and will be following up. |
Anonymous
| Curious where the helpful parent is who asked me the questions- hope you come back! |
Anonymous
| If anyone ever needs to know the exact purpose of an IEP meeting, the meeting invitation letter states it. |
Anonymous
You assume all schools send this out. Our school is notorious for "administrative processes optional". In 5 years of IEP meetings, we received 2 PWNs. We frequently disagreed with the IEPs and asked for other items and no PWNs from the school. Even when there was a box checked and signed by the LEA rep that PWN was created and distributed - no PWN. |
Anonymous
I'm back. TL;DR of what I'm about to say is that I believe your team made a number of mistakes in your meeting. You absolutely could get an advocate or a lawyer and have them rectify this for you. But, IME (and I have a kid with ADHD and dysgraphia and a reading disorder in comprehension), the big picture problem is that MCPS doesn't really know how to educate kids with dyslexia, so you will want to save what money you can for some private tutoring. But, you still really need the structure, accommodations and accountability that an IEP provides, so you should pursue getting it even if the services might not be great or enough. If I were you, I would try to get him the IEP on my own (i.e. without spending money on a lawyer or advocate just yet). IME, I have saved a number of situations like this by writing to someone outside the school team (i.e. either the head of the Resolution and Compliance Unit or the Associate Superintendent for Special Education). In the email, I explain that I think that the IEP team has made a mistake and I am asking that the addressee in their supervisory capacity, either direct the school to come into "compliance" by doing X, Y, and Z. My email is factual not emotional. I close by saying, "I look forward to resolving this collaboratively, so that we do not have to pursue due process options." Use the specific words I have quoted -- these are buzz words that tell either the ASSE or the Resolution and Compliance person that you are willing to sue and sends the signal that they have to resolve. I copy the Assistant Principal and the IEP team chair (usually the resource teacher for special education, but YMMV) Specifically, in your case, I would write something like this (it's rough, obviously please tailor to your own specific facts and fill in the blanks I have left). Dear XXX - I am the Parent of Larlo X, a student for whom I recently requested an IEP on the basis of X,Y and Z diagnosed disorders in the attached assessment report by Dr. X. Our school-based team recently held a IEP screening meeting at which time they determined that Larlo did not qualify for an IEP because they saw "no educational impact in the classroom". We believe that the team's decision is out of compliance with IDEA law for the following reasons: 1) The team failed to consider our request under a screening for eligibility standard of "reasonable suspicion" and rather "determined" Larlo to be ineligible. We provided an assessment by a qualified <insert type of examiner here>, who determined that Larlo had X, Y and Z diagnoses and who explained the adverse impact of these disorders on his education. Furthermore, Dr. X's assessment clearly showed that Larlo is behind grade level in X, Y and Z areas. As parents, we provided very clear description the adverse educational impact by describing the difficulties Larlo had at home in the virtual classroom last year and in doing homework. 2) The team only considered adverse educational impact "in the classroom" -- Dr. X's assessment report objectively shows that Larlo is behind grade or age level in the following areas. The failure of the school to conduct assessment in the classroom in these areas does not preclude eligibility. The fact that Larlo had these difficulties at home due to pandemic-driven school closures and not "in the classroom" does not preclude him from IEP eligibility. The data provided via 1 teacher's report in the current year classroom came after she had known him only XXX days and did not include any information about XYZ areas which are impacted by his ABC diagnoses. Given the pandemic school closures, it would be virtually impossible for any student to demonstrate "educational impact in the classroom" inside a month, but pandemic virtual schooling should not preclude eligibility. 3) The team failed to provide data about educational impact in all areas of suspected disability (ADHD, dyslexia... name specifically the components of reading like comprehension, decoding, rate, fluency, spelling, etc. that were below age and/or grade level) The team collected only 1 teacher report. As the teacher herself acknowledged during the meeting, she only assessed writing and had not assessed Larlo's reading. The team provide Larlo's MAP score as the only measure of reading and did not provide any discrete measures of reading such as rate, fluency, accuracy, etc. 4) The team focused on grades to determine that there was no educational impact -- The team determined that since Larlo had been graded "proficient" last year and received As and Bs that there was no educational impact. Grades are not the only measure of educational impact, particularly when an objective assessment report describes below grade and/or age level performance. 5) The team failed to consider Larlo in the un-mitigated state -- The team relied on evidence from last year that Larlo was graded "proficient" and had "As and Bs" on assignments, even though the team is obligated to consider Larlo in an unmitigated state. As we explained in detail to the team, it was only with extensive parental support to mitigate the adverse impact of his disorders, that Larlo was able to complete assignments satisfactorily. In any case, even students with good marks who are passing from grade to grade may qualify for an IEP. As explained above, we believe that the IEP team failed to comply with IDEA law and improperly determined Larlo ineligible for an IEP. We are asking you to direct the team to come back to the IEP table and reconsider its screening eligibility decision under the appropriate standard. Frankly, we believe that Dr. X's assessment report provides enough evidence to "determine" that Larlo is eligible for an IEP, and we would be willing to collapse the screening and determination meetings into one meeting if, in reconsidering this, the team agrees Larlo is eligible as well. However, if the team is not ready to come to conclude Larlo eligible for an IEP, we believe that the assessment and information provides at a minimum for a "reasonable suspicion" of disability and the team should plan to collect further data during the evaluation period prior to a subsequent IEP determination meeting. Looking forward to solving this collaboratively, so that we do not have to proceed to due process options." signed, OP, this is just a rough suggestion. I think from what you described that you probably provided enough evidence to be determined eligible. But, at a minimum, the team should have said that there was a suspicion of eligibility and collected more data over the next 60 days prior to a "determination" meeting. You also can collect data -- you have a right to get a copy of or see every homework assignment, every test, everything put in the grade book, document every homework (how long, what assistance was provided, etc.). Your documentation is no less valuable than the school's; by law you are an equal team member. It's a pain to have to wait, but it might be easier and less expensive than hiring a lawyer or advocate at this stage. Often, when a superior gets a letter like this it becomes obvious that the team made errors (or arguably made errors) and that it is going to take a lot of work (further data collection, more meetings, potential involvement of lawyers, etc.) to continue to deny the IEP, particularly in the face of a qualified private assessment report that says otherwise. I hope this helps somewhat. I am out all day Sunday, but if you have more questions, I can try to answer early next week. If you do get another meeting, you should figure out who the dyslexia education experts in MCPS are -- Decoding Dyslexia MoCo is really tracking this and it might be to your benefit to get in touch with them or look at their website to figure out if there are MCPS people more knowledgeable about dyslexia to help you in this meeting. MCPS has traditionally sucked at dyslexia appropriate supports, but appears to be trying to get better. Also, remember you are not "burning bridges" by sending this. This is a professional and legal matter and if the team made the wrong decision or used the wrong standards or wrongly included or excluded data, that is not a personal statement against them. If they take it personally, then that is their problem. You can continue to be polite while pointing out errors. |