Weinfeld Education Group?

[Anonymous]

PP here, endorsing the advice and suggestions provided by 22:38 poster. My DS didn't enter MCPS until 3rd grade but we brought our private neuropsychological to MCPS when he was in private 2d grade. MCPS gave him a Service Plan in Reading Phonics and Reading Comprehension while he was in private school, and then an IEP starting in 3rd grade. While we didn't face the eligibility barrier that you are (IMHO, erroneously) facing, we have had lots of bumps along the road (3 years so far). After the first few bumps, we reached out to the Cluster Supervisor for Special Education. He (and after he retired, his replacement) started attending all of our IEP meetings. It made a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here, endorsing the advice and suggestions provided by 22:38 poster. My DS didn't enter MCPS until 3rd grade but we brought our private neuropsychological to MCPS when he was in private 2d grade. MCPS gave him a Service Plan in Reading Phonics and Reading Comprehension while he was in private school, and then an IEP starting in 3rd grade. While we didn't face the eligibility barrier that you are (IMHO, erroneously) facing, we have had lots of bumps along the road (3 years so far). After the first few bumps, we reached out to the Cluster Supervisor for Special Education. He (and after he retired, his replacement) started attending all of our IEP meetings. It made a difference.

Thank you. How do I figure out who the cluster supervisor for special ed is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, endorsing the advice and suggestions provided by 22:38 poster. My DS didn't enter MCPS until 3rd grade but we brought our private neuropsychological to MCPS when he was in private 2d grade. MCPS gave him a Service Plan in Reading Phonics and Reading Comprehension while he was in private school, and then an IEP starting in 3rd grade. While we didn't face the eligibility barrier that you are (IMHO, erroneously) facing, we have had lots of bumps along the road (3 years so far). After the first few bumps, we reached out to the Cluster Supervisor for Special Education. He (and after he retired, his replacement) started attending all of our IEP meetings. It made a difference.

Thank you. How do I figure out who the cluster supervisor for special ed is?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/clusters.aspx
There is a supervisor and an itinerant resource teacher for each high school cluster.

here is a different list of who to contact with questions:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/

I don't know exactly how to find their emails but somewhere on website they have the emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, endorsing the advice and suggestions provided by 22:38 poster. My DS didn't enter MCPS until 3rd grade but we brought our private neuropsychological to MCPS when he was in private 2d grade. MCPS gave him a Service Plan in Reading Phonics and Reading Comprehension while he was in private school, and then an IEP starting in 3rd grade. While we didn't face the eligibility barrier that you are (IMHO, erroneously) facing, we have had lots of bumps along the road (3 years so far). After the first few bumps, we reached out to the Cluster Supervisor for Special Education. He (and after he retired, his replacement) started attending all of our IEP meetings. It made a difference.

Thank you. How do I figure out who the cluster supervisor for special ed is?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/clusters.aspx
There is a supervisor and an itinerant resource teacher for each high school cluster.

here is a different list of who to contact with questions:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/

I don't know exactly how to find their emails but somewhere on website they have the emails.

Thanks- how do I know whether I should involve them or an outside advocate? Or lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, endorsing the advice and suggestions provided by 22:38 poster. My DS didn't enter MCPS until 3rd grade but we brought our private neuropsychological to MCPS when he was in private 2d grade. MCPS gave him a Service Plan in Reading Phonics and Reading Comprehension while he was in private school, and then an IEP starting in 3rd grade. While we didn't face the eligibility barrier that you are (IMHO, erroneously) facing, we have had lots of bumps along the road (3 years so far). After the first few bumps, we reached out to the Cluster Supervisor for Special Education. He (and after he retired, his replacement) started attending all of our IEP meetings. It made a difference.

Thank you. How do I figure out who the cluster supervisor for special ed is?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/clusters.aspx
There is a supervisor and an itinerant resource teacher for each high school cluster.

here is a different list of who to contact with questions:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/

I don't know exactly how to find their emails but somewhere on website they have the emails.

Thanks- how do I know whether I should involve them or an outside advocate? Or lawyer

Call an advocate for a free consult. They can help you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here, endorsing the advice and suggestions provided by 22:38 poster. My DS didn't enter MCPS until 3rd grade but we brought our private neuropsychological to MCPS when he was in private 2d grade. MCPS gave him a Service Plan in Reading Phonics and Reading Comprehension while he was in private school, and then an IEP starting in 3rd grade. While we didn't face the eligibility barrier that you are (IMHO, erroneously) facing, we have had lots of bumps along the road (3 years so far). After the first few bumps, we reached out to the Cluster Supervisor for Special Education. He (and after he retired, his replacement) started attending all of our IEP meetings. It made a difference.

Thank you. How do I figure out who the cluster supervisor for special ed is?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/clusters.aspx
There is a supervisor and an itinerant resource teacher for each high school cluster.

here is a different list of who to contact with questions:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/contact-us/

I don't know exactly how to find their emails but somewhere on website they have the emails.

Thanks- how do I know whether I should involve them or an outside advocate? Or lawyer

I would recommend no matter what, you get an advocate who you feel comfortable working with. It is a long journey. You will need to bring them to your next meeting.

Start with the email -
who ever framed that out for you with the specific language you need to include is wonderful!

Give the school the opportunity to reflect on the situation at hand and change.

For lawyers, I have heard very positive things about Kimberly Glassman https://bkgpc.com/kimberly-glassman/

[Anonymous]

This has been such an amazing thread- especially that email from 22:38! Wish I had that when we were going through the 504/IEP process.

We were in FCPS, went through that roller coaster of a ride between 6th and 11th grade. We eventually ended up moving DC to private school, which was really needed at that time.
We tried to make it work with FCPS.

Here's our journey:

-Got denied for 504 in 6th grade.
-Got outside testing, appealed. Granted 504, but after a year, saw that it wasn't enough.
-Applied for IEP in 7th grade. Denied.
-Inquired with due process, which got the attention of the middle school principal, who sat in on the eligibility meeting. During that time, we got an advocate who came to the school to do observations and also sat with us in meetings. The advocate's presence was helpful to keep the school "in check" but I think it was the principal's pushing that really helped us get the IEP.
- Used the IEP in 7th and 8th grade with very mixed results-- it totally depended in each teacher to find ways that worked with our DC. Some teachers made things a lot more complicated- like proposing a separate paper checklist for my ADHD kid who kept losing their paper homework.
- Tried to get new, more appropriate accommodations/specialized instructions in 9th grade and was met with much resistance from most of the teachers, until ONE teacher said, yes- I'll do that- and then the entire team turned around.
- 11th grade was really tough... We looked at all other options for Special Ed in FCPS and none of them was going to work- really, we suspected that the other options were going to make our kid worse. Our attorney sat with us in meetings. The attorney was very helpful in helping us know what our options are and could also keep the school "in check." There was one meeting that was attended by a Procedural Support Liason (PSL) who was on her way out of her role but attended because her new person couldn't make it. This PSL was brilliant. Goes to show that ideas and decisions made in that room completely depended on who shows up so you really need ONE person who can influence the rest of the groupthink. I often wondered what the "IEP Team" was when it was only attended by folks who happened to be available at that time slot.
- We knew what our kid needed but the school wanted to do all sorts of processes that would make us "wait and see what happens." This is not what you want to hear when your kid is suicidal, already in 11th grade and the school was pushing to just have the kid graduate, even offering to "waive" some graduation requirements. So we had to really think about what our priorities were-- are we rushing to get a diploma (with waived requirements) as the finish line or do we want our kid healthy in school while learning? The attorney didn't agree with what the school was doing and advised us that we'd be better off paying for private school than wait for FCPS to do the placement. Also, lawsuits against the public school systems hardly ever favor the parents.
- We ended the journey by telling our IEP team that we were withdrawing DC
- Private school was so expensive but if we didn't spend that money then, college would not have been possible at all. DC is now at 2nd year in college.

[Anonymous]

We worked with Diana Savit (atty in Bethesda). It's been a few years. We did a full eval (private) that showed our kid's IQ was high but kid was performing average work. We used that discrepancy to show impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious where the helpful parent is who asked me the questions- hope you come back!

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.

Not OP but thank you so so much!

[Anonymous]

Resources for any parent - I'm a former MCPS parent - wrightsaw.com and Parents Place of MD. I'm not affiliated with either.
Someone referenced a report where a psychologist or examiner said the child needed an IEP. Examiners should only say that the information on the report should be considered by an IEP team. One examiner alone does not dictate eligibility. An IEP team is the legally designated entity to determine eligibility.
While writing a letter and including "due process" may sound like putting in legal buzz words that may get attention, that doesn't necessarily equate to proceeding to due process and prevailing. I've been in due process in more than one situation. It's routine for their attorneys and they deal with very extreme cases of egregious special education violations such as no services for a student found eligible, etc. I recommend speaking to Parents Place because it can be resolved at the school level it's cheaper and less time consuming. If they return right now to the table for a new IEP meeting they won't have much new data. Adverse educational impact is required and it's early in the year to see that. Good luck to anyone in this process.

[Anonymous]

Wrightslaw.com is the corrected web site sorry

[Anonymous]

^This. OP I really would recommend ADHD literate tutoring at this rate if he's able to get passing grades. You'll save thousands of dollars and lots of stress. Maryland is notorious for ruling against parents in all but the most horrific cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious where the helpful parent is who asked me the questions- hope you come back!

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.

OP here, THANK YOU! Wow, this is so helpful. I really appreciate your insight. Honestly, the only thing keeping me from sending this is that the school will just say they don’t have enough evidence of adverse educational impact. My son scored at 46% on his recent MAP test (below average but they didn’t think it was that bad) and he got Ps in K+1st and As and Bs last year- but what does that show especially during the pandemic last year. My son has developed coping strategies to “get by” but the private assessment clearly shows how much he struggles with the dyslexia.

Not sure if we should just take the 504 for now. I HATE that the schools/MCPS attitude is to wait for my son to fail. This is so upsetting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Resources for any parent - I'm a former MCPS parent - wrightsaw.com and Parents Place of MD. I'm not affiliated with either.
Someone referenced a report where a psychologist or examiner said the child needed an IEP. Examiners should only say that the information on the report should be considered by an IEP team. One examiner alone does not dictate eligibility. An IEP team is the legally designated entity to determine eligibility.
While writing a letter and including "due process" may sound like putting in legal buzz words that may get attention, that doesn't necessarily equate to proceeding to due process and prevailing. I've been in due process in more than one situation. It's routine for their attorneys and they deal with very extreme cases of egregious special education violations such as no services for a student found eligible, etc. I recommend speaking to Parents Place because it can be resolved at the school level it's cheaper and less time consuming. If they return right now to the table for a new IEP meeting they won't have much new data. [b]Adverse educational impact is required and it's early in the year to see that[b]. Good luck to anyone in this process.

I am the poster who drafted the suggested email. I get really frustrated when I see statements like the bold. “Adverse educational impact” is not shown just by what happens in the classroom. By definition, if you have a kid who has been tested by a tester on nationally normed, standardized testing and that testing shows that the student is reading below grade level - that is demonstrated adverse educational impact (absent some other explanation like below average IQ). And when you have a kid diagnosed with dyslexia who is scoring below grade level even though they have been exposed to the same general reading education as everyone else most of whom are scoring at grade level (because that’s the object of a grade level benchmark - it’s set at a place where almost all children will achieve it at the end of the year), then below grade level IS adverse educational impact.

Also, timeline matters in this situation. If the parents accept the “determination” and wait for time to pass and then make a new request in November, the timeline starts all over again - the school has 30 days to set the first meeting, and another 60 days to collect data and then another 30 days to write the IEP. By contrast, if the parents write a letter that says at the first meeting you, the school system, made a mistake and terminated the process in error, and we, the parents are asking you to either make the determination and move straight into IEP writing OR come back to the table and begin the 60 day evaluation period, the timeline clock has been ticking the whole time, keeping the pressure on the school and pushing the process to be finished more quickly.

I also get frustrated by the notion that it’s too early in the year to see impact. If that were the legally correct way to assess educational impact, no one could get an IEP between September and November. That’s not the intent of the law. Adverse educational impact can and should look back at the last year. Even if there aren’t teacher reports from last year, there are grades, assignments, incidents, email concerns, testing, etc. to look at plus the private standardized testing which objectively assesses below grade level skills.

As to your comments on “due process” as a buzz word - the entire point of referring to due process at this stage is precisely to signal that it’s better for the school to solve this problem or it has the potential to enter into due process, and to frame the issue as a series of vulnerabilities on the school side in due process. Honestly, nobody wants to get to due process - it’s expensive and time-consuming for both sides. But the school is betting that 99% of the people whom it turns away don’t have the knowledge to know they’re getting screwed nor the time, knowledge or money to fix it. And the school system is also betting you will be too afraid that asking for your rights will anger the people upon whom you depend for help. But, that balance shifts somewhat when they know that you are not going to give up and slink away and that you will make specific complaints grounded in the law by name to superiors who are supposed to know and enforce legal obligations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OP here, THANK YOU! Wow, this is so helpful. I really appreciate your insight. Honestly, the only thing keeping me from sending this is that the school will just say they don’t have enough evidence of adverse educational impact. My son scored at 46% on his recent MAP test (below average but they didn’t think it was that bad) and he got Ps in K+1st and As and Bs last year- but what does that show especially during the pandemic last year. My son has developed coping strategies to “get by” but the private assessment clearly shows how much he struggles with the dyslexia.

Not sure if we should just take the 504 for now. I HATE that the schools/MCPS attitude is to wait for my son to fail. This is so upsetting.

Re adverse impact - you do NOT have to prove adverse impact at this screening stage - merely make a showing that there is/could be. You have done that through below grade level testing, through your feedback on how difficult last year was and how much support you had to provide, etc. At a minimum, the school should have passed you on the screening and moved to a 60 day period where they would collect further data, which includes classroom data.

Also re: adverse imapct. The school is saying that 46%île is average and thus does not show any adverse impact. That is only true if your DC’s IQ (or highest component of the IQ) is also around 46%. BUT, for a kid with an IQ at the 80th percentile, a 46th percentile reading score is actually bad. The school will always try to convince you that a kid has to be scoring “below average” or “borderline” to qualify. That just is not true. “Significant discrepancy” can qualify a kid for an IEP - significant discrepancy between IQ and achievement. My kid has an IQ in the 99th percentile and math reasoning scores in the 90th percentile but math fluency scores in the 40-50th percentile. That is such a significant discrepancy that he qualifies for a math calculator accommodation. He also has dysgraphia with writing scores from the 25-50 percentiles - again he qualifies for an IEP for SLD in writing even though he has never gotten below an A or B in an English class in his life. He has, however repeatedly done poorly on classroom writing assignments, although never below a C because he tries at least. He’s had an IEP since third grade. Only when he got to middle school and had to start taking the PARCC did he start failing the writing portion only of the PARCC.

Don’t second guess yourself about what the school will say - so send it and let them say no a second time. You will be no worse off than you are now. You can still collect more data, or hire an advocate or get a lawyer.

If you accept the 504 plan, make sure to document in writing that you disagree with the IEP decision and that your acceptance of the 504 plan does not constitute agreement to the IEP decision and does not waive your due process rights.