Did eval with DCPS - reports for eligibility meeting all read like he is fine - now what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you disagree with the school's evaluation, you can ask for an IEE. The district will pay (up to a certain amount) for a provider of your choice (as long as the provider has the required credentials).

Please don't describe this as if all OP has to do is fill out a Google Form or something. She can ask for an IEE. DCPS can then defend why theirs is appropriate and refuse to pay. And "appropriate" is not defined as "got the results the parent wanted." It means it was done by qualified evaluators in the areas of suspected disability. They're not that easy to get.

OP it sounds like your son is not even 3 yet. At that age, there can still be a wide range of average, and absent a diagnosis like autism or something, the "developmental delay" code to qualify for an IEP requires a 25% delay or atypical development in some area. It is very possible and common to have a delay that's there, but not at the 25% threshold to qualify. OT and PT also cannot be standalone services; they are related services only under IDEA, meaning you have to qualify in something else first. So your private OT and PT's opinions unfortunately have no relevance here.

Thank you for this. When you say: OT and PT "are related services only under IDEA" and there is a need to "qualify in something else first," can you provide an example of what you mean? You lost me with that last part.

DP, but in MCPS, you can't receive PT services or OT services as stand-alone services. You have to first receive an IEP for whatever disability, then OT/PT can be added if appropriate.

This is correct in DCPS as well. The IDEA requires a disability that has an adverse educational impact and that "by reason of" the student requires special education and related services. If you only need related services, you're not eligible. There's an option for states to consider speech as a special education, but not OT/PT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what "reports" did you actually get? IME, with MCPS, at that early age, the "evaluation" consisted of really inappropriate "assessments" that were not normed, not standardized, did not contain the full range of assessments necessary to consider all diagnoses. For example, at my DS' first IEP meeting, the SLP presented a "natural language sample" and "classroom observation" and attempted to pass off those as a full evaluation. It was not, I challenged it at the meeting, and the team had to schedule correct assessments. They were freaking out and trying to get me to waive timeline because their failure to properly evaluate as required by law made them "out of compliance".

If they have done a proper evaluation on all measures with standardized norms, are they trying to pass off "composite" scores as normal even when their are deep discrepancies in subscores? OR, are they trying to pass off "low average" scores as nothing to be concerned about because it's "average" and that the real problem is that you are an over-concerned snowflake parent who can't handle that her child isn't "above average"?

Also, you mention that OT, PT and friends who are teachers have said he will be referred for SPED at preK 3. Did you submit letters, in writing, from each of these people detailing their observations and concerns? If not, an important part of the record is missing. Can you get any of them to attend the IEP eligibility determination meeting with you? You are entitled by law to invite whomever you wish as long as they have knowledge of the child. So, invite several people that will reflect what you are saying.

If you can post what tests have been given and what you think the issues are, people can make suggestions about specific tests to ask for.

Also, if it comes down to a disagreement at the meeting table, I have found it useful to ask to go around the table individually and have each team member clearly state their position and reasoning, i.e. everyone has to say clearly the student is either eligible or ineligible and why. Then at the end, you state your own position (eligible, and here is the reasoning - 1) disorder, 2) adverse educational impact, and 3) need for special education) and close by saying that you do not agree with the meeting outcome, and you will be pursuing your "due process options". If you sign any paperwork at the end of the meeting, make sure, in writing, that your signature indicates attendance only and that you do not agree with meeting outcome.

Often these teams say "no" and know that most parents aren't aware of their rights and/or don't have resources to pursue them. I myself, as well as other parents I have advised, have found that indicating you will pursue due process forces the team to consult someone internally that tells them "yes, the parent is right, you f'd up, go back and fix it".

I would not threaten to pursue due process unless you actually plan to do it. Empty threats are not very effective.