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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the most frustrating is when they refute response to intervention and only look to test scores. The 2004 IDEA permits using RTI to code a kid with SLD, and MCPS is reluctant to do so anyway. Whatever happened to looking at the whole picture?

For my child, looking at the scores would indicate he has a SLD because of the discrepancies but MCPS will only consider Response to Intervention. They say they are going to monitor and document then forgot to do so. We re-meet and the school psychologist says we have to go back to the drawing board because the school was negligent trying the interventions so there is no data to say if they work or not.

When I brought up his testing, the school psychologist told us that MCPS does not use the discrepancy model anymore and only uses RTI.

Are you still stuck in MCPS's circle jerk on this? There's a letter from the US Department of Education that says that schools can't use RTI as a delaying tactic. Post if you need help finding that reference!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the most frustrating is when they refute response to intervention and only look to test scores. The 2004 IDEA permits using RTI to code a kid with SLD, and MCPS is reluctant to do so anyway. Whatever happened to looking at the whole picture?

For my child, looking at the scores would indicate he has a SLD because of the discrepancies but MCPS will only consider Response to Intervention. They say they are going to monitor and document then forgot to do so. We re-meet and the school psychologist says we have to go back to the drawing board because the school was negligent trying the interventions so there is no data to say if they work or not.

When I brought up his testing, the school psychologist told us that MCPS does not use the discrepancy model anymore and only uses RTI.

Are you still stuck in MCPS's circle jerk on this? There's a letter from the US Department of Education that says that schools can't use RTI as a delaying tactic. Post if you need help finding that reference!

NP chiming in - I showed the US Dept. of Ed letter to our school's team in May. They didn't bat an eye and said they have to go by the standards the Central Office dictates. They said the letter went to the State level so it doesn't apply to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the most frustrating is when they refute response to intervention and only look to test scores. The 2004 IDEA permits using RTI to code a kid with SLD, and MCPS is reluctant to do so anyway. Whatever happened to looking at the whole picture?

For my child, looking at the scores would indicate he has a SLD because of the discrepancies but MCPS will only consider Response to Intervention. They say they are going to monitor and document then forgot to do so. We re-meet and the school psychologist says we have to go back to the drawing board because the school was negligent trying the interventions so there is no data to say if they work or not.

When I brought up his testing, the school psychologist told us that MCPS does not use the discrepancy model anymore and only uses RTI.

Are you still stuck in MCPS's circle jerk on this? There's a letter from the US Department of Education that says that schools can't use RTI as a delaying tactic. Post if you need help finding that reference!

NP chiming in - I showed the US Dept. of Ed letter to our school's team in May. They didn't bat an eye and said they have to go by the standards the Central Office dictates. They said the letter went to the State level so it doesn't apply to them.

Not the PP. What BS! I'm in FCPS and when I get that kind of response, I contact the State Special Education Complaint office and ask for clarification http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/resolving_disputes/complaints/index.shtml . I send it by email with a copy to the school's special ed chair. I'm so sick of this kind of BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the most frustrating is when they refute response to intervention and only look to test scores. The 2004 IDEA permits using RTI to code a kid with SLD, and MCPS is reluctant to do so anyway. Whatever happened to looking at the whole picture?

For my child, looking at the scores would indicate he has a SLD because of the discrepancies but MCPS will only consider Response to Intervention. They say they are going to monitor and document then forgot to do so. We re-meet and the school psychologist says we have to go back to the drawing board because the school was negligent trying the interventions so there is no data to say if they work or not.

When I brought up his testing, the school psychologist told us that MCPS does not use the discrepancy model anymore and only uses RTI.

Are you still stuck in MCPS's circle jerk on this? There's a letter from the US Department of Education that says that schools can't use RTI as a delaying tactic. Post if you need help finding that reference!

NP chiming in - I showed the US Dept. of Ed letter to our school's team in May. They didn't bat an eye and said they have to go by the standards the Central Office dictates. They said the letter went to the State level so it doesn't apply to them.

OMG, it's incredible what BS the school system will pull..... Federal law pre-empts state law. State law applies to all counties within the state. A US DoE letter "interprets" federal law, IDEA. When US DoE sends a letter to the states telling them how IDEA should be interpreted or what process will be consistent with IDEA, then the federal interpretation takes precedence over any state interpretation, i.e. what the feds say goes (and this applies to counties too)

In the situation above, you should really end the meeting by saying, "i'm sorry to hear that you believe that the county school system doesn't have to follow a letter sent to the state by the federal government. I will be contacting the head of the school system's special ed about your interpretation." Then, write a letter to the head of special ed describing the ridiculous interpretation of the law and put them on notice that you will file a state complaint in X days (like less than 7) if the matter is not resolved. Or you could file the state complaint and copy it to the head of special ed. It doesn't require a lawyer.

As an aside, I have to say, are adults now so ignorant of basic civics that they fall for crap like this? You hand a person a copy of a federal law or federal interpretation and they say "we don't have to follow that because we are a county."?! WTF?? I can't believe that teachers or county staff are so ignorant to say it, but I have run into this kind of deflection so many times (well, that is the law, but we don't have to follow it....) that I know that they ARE that ignorant about basic educational rights and the operation of the legal system. But, parents too?

[Anonymous]

PPs please let the district know. It sounds like they haven't updated their guidance to school staff, maybe on purpose.

[Anonymous]

OMG, it's incredible what BS the school system will pull..... Federal law pre-empts state law. State law applies to all counties within the state. A US DoE letter "interprets" federal law, IDEA. When US DoE sends a letter to the states telling them how IDEA should be interpreted or what process will be consistent with IDEA, then the federal interpretation takes precedence over any state interpretation, i.e. what the feds say goes (and this applies to counties too)

In the situation above, you should really end the meeting by saying, "i'm sorry to hear that you believe that the county school system doesn't have to follow a letter sent to the state by the federal government. I will be contacting the head of the school system's special ed about your interpretation." Then, write a letter to the head of special ed describing the ridiculous interpretation of the law and put them on notice that you will file a state complaint in X days (like less than 7) if the matter is not resolved. Or you could file the state complaint and copy it to the head of special ed. It doesn't require a lawyer.

As an aside, I have to say, are adults now so ignorant of basic civics that they fall for crap like this? You hand a person a copy of a federal law or federal interpretation and they say "we don't have to follow that because we are a county."?! WTF?? I can't believe that teachers or county staff are so ignorant to say it, but I have run into this kind of deflection so many times (well, that is the law, but we don't have to follow it....) that I know that they ARE that ignorant about basic educational rights and the operation of the legal system. But, parents too?

12:42 again - make sure you get their statement written into the comments section of the IEP (in FCPS, the call it the PLOP page). Otherwise, they'll deny they ever said it or say that you've misinterpreted them. (Yeah, I learned that after getting burned). If it's not documented, it didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

For the past few months, I've been recommending that parents write state complaints about this type of thing. We all see how poorly the school systems treat us and our children, but unless we all speak up, nothing changes.

I'm in Anne Arundel county. We suck as much as other counties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the most frustrating is when they refute response to intervention and only look to test scores. The 2004 IDEA permits using RTI to code a kid with SLD, and MCPS is reluctant to do so anyway. Whatever happened to looking at the whole picture?

For my child, looking at the scores would indicate he has a SLD because of the discrepancies but MCPS will only consider Response to Intervention. They say they are going to monitor and document then forgot to do so. We re-meet and the school psychologist says we have to go back to the drawing board because the school was negligent trying the interventions so there is no data to say if they work or not.

When I brought up his testing, the school psychologist told us that MCPS does not use the discrepancy model anymore and only uses RTI.

Are you still stuck in MCPS's circle jerk on this? There's a letter from the US Department of Education that says that schools can't use RTI as a delaying tactic. Post if you need help finding that reference!

NP chiming in - I showed the US Dept. of Ed letter to our school's team in May. They didn't bat an eye and said they have to go by the standards the Central Office dictates. They said the letter went to the State level so it doesn't apply to them.

MCPS can use either RTI or significant discrepancy to qualify a child for an SLD. I know because my DC qualified in MCPS for an SLD on the basis of significant discrepancy only a couple of years ago. Federal law prohibits requiring a significant discrepancy to qualify for SLD. This is not the same as saying federal law prohibits using significant discrepancy to qualify and SLD. Federal law leaves the use of significant discrepancies to the state's discretion.

Please see Problem Solving for Student Success, MCPS' manual for the special ed process. On p. III-18 the manual clearly outlines that a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (i.e. significant discrepancy) can be considered as part of identifying an SLD. "The IEP team 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—
• does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state- approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified above, when using a process based on the stu- dent’s response to scientific research-based intervention; or
• exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved, grade-level standards, or intellectual development."


http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/specialed/resources/ProbSolv.pdf

One thing to note, this manual states on p. 111-19, "Pursuant to the MCPS Collaborative Problem Solving and EMT Guidelines, MCPS requires that a student participate in a process to assess the student’s response to systematic intervention prior to referral to an IEP team for consider- ation of eligibility for special education services." This can mean only that it is the school system's policy that referral to the IEP process by an MCPS staff member cannot happen until RTI is tried first. This DOES NOT mean that a child referred by the parent to the IEP process must go thru RTI first, since, as other PP's have stated, RTI cannot be used to delay or deny the IEP evaluation. see https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf for the OSEP Memo on this subject.

[Anonymous]

I think I love you 18:24....