Think twice before hiring an advocate…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jaw dropped. IDEA clearly states that it is against the law to label a child with an educational disability unless they have a significant impairment or need. That means below grade level or SIGNIFICANTLY behind peers.

Ok I'll bite, please show us where the law says this.

I'm waaaaaating.....

Here you go:

First, the definition of specialized instruction: "Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction ... 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." Key words are "meet" the standards, not exceed or reach full potential.

Next, the definition of student with a disability: "Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education"

Therefore, if a student does not need specialized instruction as described above, they are not covered by the definition of a student with a disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The topic should be: Think twice before trusting a school to meet your child's needs.

Totally, a Sped teacher telling parents not to hire an advocate really says it all.

What really says it all to me, as a sped teacher, are parents telling other parents to hire an advocate before they even meet their child's team.

It says:
1) I don't trust the school team to understand my child's needs.
2) I don't trust the school team to give my child what he does need, if they figure it out.
3) I need to hire an outside person, who is financially benefiting from my child's school "trying to fail them". That person will actually DO their job unlike these school people who are out trying to actively hurt kids and deny what they need! (what a joke).

The adversarial relationship that is started before day one does not benefit your child. But by all means, continue hiring advocates, continue fighting over the wording of that goal, continue acting like your child's teachers are enemies and hacks who know nothing.

Just don't be surprised when there is a post a few days later stating " My child can't get their services because there is no teacher to provide them" (literally a post from the top of this board this week).

Looking back I wish I hired an advocate. I am the poster who dropped the iep as the team was so ineffective, nasty and had no interest in helping my child. We spent a fortunate to get our child's needs met and it was a huge struggle for many years. My child got a recycled IEP from another child, whose name was left on it and they didn't even follow the iep (which wasn't correct for my child anyway). I absolutely should have hired an advocate but it would have taken months to years to get a good idea and many thousands and we decided the money was better put toward services outside school given time was not on our side. OP and other staff bully parents and neglect kids and have no business working with kids, especially SN kids. Sometimes a bad teacher can do far more harm than good and sometimes no teacher or services is better than a really bad one, sad enough to say or at least that was our experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jaw dropped. IDEA clearly states that it is against the law to label a child with an educational disability unless they have a significant impairment or need. That means below grade level or SIGNIFICANTLY behind peers.

Ok I'll bite, please show us where the law says this.

I'm waaaaaating.....

Here you go:

First, the definition of specialized instruction: "Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction ... 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." Key words are "meet" the standards, not exceed or reach full potential.

Next, the definition of student with a disability: "Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education"

Therefore, if a student does not need specialized instruction as described above, they are not covered by the definition of a student with a disability.

Adding on that more of the language comes from descriptions of specific disabilities:

e.g., autism: "Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jaw dropped. IDEA clearly states that it is against the law to label a child with an educational disability unless they have a significant impairment or need. That means below grade level or SIGNIFICANTLY behind peers.

Ok I'll bite, please show us where the law says this.

I'm waaaaaating.....

Here you go:

First, the definition of specialized instruction: "Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction ... 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." Key words are "meet" the standards, not exceed or reach full potential.

Next, the definition of student with a disability: "Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education"

Therefore, if a student does not need specialized instruction as described above, they are not covered by the definition of a student with a disability.

Adding on that more of the language comes from descriptions of specific disabilities:

e.g., autism: "Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance."

I hate the wording of this so much. What is "adversely affects a child's educational performance"? If my child isn't achieving to their potential because they have autism, they are affected adversely- even if they aren't below grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jaw dropped. IDEA clearly states that it is against the law to label a child with an educational disability unless they have a significant impairment or need. That means below grade level or SIGNIFICANTLY behind peers.

Ok I'll bite, please show us where the law says this.

I'm waaaaaating.....

Here you go:

First, the definition of specialized instruction: "Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction ... 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." Key words are "meet" the standards, not exceed or reach full potential.

Next, the definition of student with a disability: "Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education"

Therefore, if a student does not need specialized instruction as described above, they are not covered by the definition of a student with a disability.

There is this which helps parents of SN children with high cognitive abilities access accelerated programs that school systems previously denied.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20071226.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jaw dropped. IDEA clearly states that it is against the law to label a child with an educational disability unless they have a significant impairment or need. That means below grade level or SIGNIFICANTLY behind peers.

Ok I'll bite, please show us where the law says this.

I'm waaaaaating.....

Here you go:

First, the definition of specialized instruction: "Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction ... 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." Key words are "meet" the standards, not exceed or reach full potential.

Next, the definition of student with a disability: "Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education"

Therefore, if a student does not need specialized instruction as described above, they are not covered by the definition of a student with a disability.

Adding on that more of the language comes from descriptions of specific disabilities:

e.g., autism: "Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance."

I hate the wording of this so much. What is "adversely affects a child's educational performance"? If my child isn't achieving to their potential because they have autism, they are affected adversely- even if they aren't below grade level.

The wording is unclear, so case law further defines it. Here is a review of caselaw on what it means to be adversely affected: https://serr.disabilityrightsca.org/serr-manual/chapter-3-information-on-eligibility-criteria/3-28-several-special-education-eligibility-categories-require-that-a-students-condition-or-disability-adversely-affect-educational-performance-what-does-that-phrase-mean/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jaw dropped. IDEA clearly states that it is against the law to label a child with an educational disability unless they have a significant impairment or need. That means below grade level or SIGNIFICANTLY behind peers.

Ok I'll bite, please show us where the law says this.

I'm waaaaaating.....

Here you go:

First, the definition of specialized instruction: "Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction ... 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." Key words are "meet" the standards, not exceed or reach full potential.

Next, the definition of student with a disability: "Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education"

Therefore, if a student does not need specialized instruction as described above, they are not covered by the definition of a student with a disability.

Adding on that more of the language comes from descriptions of specific disabilities:

e.g., autism: "Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance."

I hate the wording of this so much. What is "adversely affects a child's educational performance"? If my child isn't achieving to their potential because they have autism, they are affected adversely- even if they aren't below grade level.

You are absolutely correct, the prior poster does NOT have a full understanding of the law and how children can qualify for an IEP. I sure hope they are not on eligibility teams denying children IEPs by the wrong standard (but they probably are).

Here is the language in the federal regulation:

Each State must ensure that FAPE is available to any individual child with a disability who needs special education and related services, even though the child has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade.

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.101/c/1

[Anonymous]

The gap between a student's achievement and ability level can also be particularly relevant in the identification of a specific learning disability. I don't have the bandwidth to explain that here, but this website does a pretty good job:

https://ldaamerica.org/info/eligibility-determining-whether-a-child-is-eligible-for-special-education-services/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More references supporting IDEA. A child cannot be labeled as having an educational disability without having a SIGNIFIANT impairment. A child cannot be removed from the general education setting unless the nature and severity of the disability REQUIRE this.

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-ii/1412

"To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily."

Virginia Department of Education- several documents about eligibility and special education services
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/programs-services/special-education/evaluation-and-eligibility

In my experience, special education teachers are following the law. Families do not like the LAW and want MORE for their child than the law REQUIRES. If you want MORE, you should use your OWN money and time OUTSIDE of school hours to do MORE for your child. Do not attach school professionals for following the LAW. Do not think that your child is more important than all the others. And the FCPS families nickeling and diming FCPS for OCR- SHAME ON YOU! Schools all over the country did the same or worse and they aren't paying! You take your hostility and entitlement and make all the other children and staff suffer and it is despicable. This is why staff do not want to work for FCPS! Because of the families who have rediculuos impossible expectations and think they are entitled to the sun, moon, and stars.

There is a huge difference between "room for growth" and "educational disability."

There is a huge difference between "services that are REQUIRED" and services that would be "beneficial" or "what families want."

We live in an area where families expect to get whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want.

I am NOT referring to students of disabilities who actually REQUIRE services. And I am sure there are families who have had "bad apples." However, 99.5% of special education teachers, school administrators, and teachers are wonderful, following the law, and doing the right thing. You just want to fight and hae zero respect. 99% of families with advocates just simply do not accept federal LAW and expect "More" for their child.

sorry, who was asking for removal from gen ed in this thread? you seem confused.

Where do you think special education services take place? Usually not in general education settings. Yes, there are push-in options, but pull-outs are still more common. Pulling out of gen ed to provide special education is more restrictive than not doing so.

No you are wrong. It sounds like you have a 1980s view of special education. The majority of students with IEPs are in gen ed settings the majority of the time.

+1

I can't think of a single kid at my kid's school that isn't gen ed most of the time. My kid is full-time gen ed with a co-teacher in certain classes.

Most ES don't have separate special ed classes. It would be nice if schools did. Ours had a mixed class where they dumped all the IEP kids regardless of need into one classroom and you could not get into a regular class with an IEP so the only way out was to drop the IEP.

Ours has clusters of SN and clusters of gifted kids spread across the classes. There was no single class that had either SN or gifted.

Where do they put the students who are SN and gifted?

As far as I can tell, most 2e kids at our school (my kid included) with documented disabilities aren't also flagged at school as gifted. My kid was part of one gifted pull-out group (for a specific project) based on high performance but he isn't flagged as gifted in general. He's clustered with other SN kids they make up ~1/3 to 1/2 of the class, depending on the subject. At least that was the case last year. Haven't had as much time with the current classes.

As he gets older and has we may lean into the gifted side more but for now we're working on having him build skills to be more successful independently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More references supporting IDEA. A child cannot be labeled as having an educational disability without having a SIGNIFIANT impairment. A child cannot be removed from the general education setting unless the nature and severity of the disability REQUIRE this.

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-ii/1412

"To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily."

Virginia Department of Education- several documents about eligibility and special education services
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/programs-services/special-education/evaluation-and-eligibility

In my experience, special education teachers are following the law. Families do not like the LAW and want MORE for their child than the law REQUIRES. If you want MORE, you should use your OWN money and time OUTSIDE of school hours to do MORE for your child. Do not attach school professionals for following the LAW. Do not think that your child is more important than all the others. And the FCPS families nickeling and diming FCPS for OCR- SHAME ON YOU! Schools all over the country did the same or worse and they aren't paying! You take your hostility and entitlement and make all the other children and staff suffer and it is despicable. This is why staff do not want to work for FCPS! Because of the families who have rediculuos impossible expectations and think they are entitled to the sun, moon, and stars.

There is a huge difference between "room for growth" and "educational disability."

There is a huge difference between "services that are REQUIRED" and services that would be "beneficial" or "what families want."

We live in an area where families expect to get whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want.

I am NOT referring to students of disabilities who actually REQUIRE services. And I am sure there are families who have had "bad apples." However, 99.5% of special education teachers, school administrators, and teachers are wonderful, following the law, and doing the right thing. You just want to fight and hae zero respect. 99% of families with advocates just simply do not accept federal LAW and expect "More" for their child.

sorry, who was asking for removal from gen ed in this thread? you seem confused.

Where do you think special education services take place? Usually not in general education settings. Yes, there are push-in options, but pull-outs are still more common. Pulling out of gen ed to provide special education is more restrictive than not doing so.

No you are wrong. It sounds like you have a 1980s view of special education. The majority of students with IEPs are in gen ed settings the majority of the time.

+1

I can't think of a single kid at my kid's school that isn't gen ed most of the time. My kid is full-time gen ed with a co-teacher in certain classes.

Good for you? All districts (MCPS, DCPS, Virgina districts) have self-contained classrooms for all grade levels. Nationwide, approximately 60% of students with IEPs spend the majority of the time in general education, leaving nearly half who do not. Not sure why you are bragging about not being able to think of a student with a more profound disability who needs one of these programs. It could also be that your specific school doesn't have a self-contained program, so those students are bussed to a different school.

I wasn't bragging, just sharing my experience.

Some kids may be bussed elsewhere but the kids with more profoundly disabilities at the school have a 1:1 person all day and they spend most of the day in gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The topic should be: Think twice before trusting a school to meet your child's needs.

Totally, a Sped teacher telling parents not to hire an advocate really says it all.

What really says it all to me, as a sped teacher, are parents telling other parents to hire an advocate before they even meet their child's team.

It says:
1) I don't trust the school team to understand my child's needs.
2) I don't trust the school team to give my child what he does need, if they figure it out.
3) I need to hire an outside person, who is financially benefiting from my child's school "trying to fail them". That person will actually DO their job unlike these school people who are out trying to actively hurt kids and deny what they need! (what a joke).

The adversarial relationship that is started before day one does not benefit your child. But by all means, continue hiring advocates, continue fighting over the wording of that goal, continue acting like your child's teachers are enemies and hacks who know nothing.

Just don't be surprised when there is a post a few days later stating " My child can't get their services because there is no teacher to provide them" (literally a post from the top of this board this week).

[phone]
This one million times.
What do families expect? They mistrust and hate the system, attack and hate ALL staff, then want the system to provide for them. then they wonder why staff don’t want to work with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jaw dropped. IDEA clearly states that it is against the law to label a child with an educational disability unless they have a significant impairment or need. That means below grade level or SIGNIFICANTLY behind peers.

Ok I'll bite, please show us where the law says this.

I'm waaaaaating.....

Here you go:

First, the definition of specialized instruction: "Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction ... 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." Key words are "meet" the standards, not exceed or reach full potential.

Next, the definition of student with a disability: "Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education"

Therefore, if a student does not need specialized instruction as described above, they are not covered by the definition of a student with a disability.

THANK YOU! Let's keep educating parents about EDUCATIONAL DISABILITY and SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTION.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our kids need help. If you don't want to help or understand why a parent would advocate for their child, then you are in the wrong profession. If people like you did right by our kids, we wouldn't need to hire advocates and attorneys to get their needs met.

Being honest, as a SpEd teacher AND a parent of a student with an IEP: The schools don't have the capacity. They just don't. They don't have the time in the day or the man power. Think about how often many students would need to be "pulled out" to get adequate reading instruction-while that is happening they are missing grade level instruction in core content.

IMO, the only way to give a child that is *almost on grade level, mild ADHD, slightly dyslexic, etc what they need is to do tutoring after school, reinforce at home, and to participate in robust programs during the summer (mathnasium, reading camps, all of the summer library programming, IXL, readtheory, prodigy, etc) to stay sharp.

All of the lawsuits, advocates, attorneys will not really make a difference. What you see on paper is likely not happening the way you would like it to. Again, not because teachers don't want it to, there just isn't the time or manpower to get it done.

So, maybe start advocating to your lawmakers for lower classroom ratios, more special education teachers, higher pay for teachers so they won't quit, more teacher assistants (and higher pay for them as well), and for the state to pay for PROVEN interventions and the materials that accompany them. SpEd teachers are often left piecing together interventions and curriculum bc we don't actually have everything we need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. A student with dyslexia who is performing "almost average" does not have a disability that prevents them from accessing the gen ed curriculum. Full stop. This doesn't mean parents shouldn't supplement with tutors etc., but they do not need special ed. I've said this earlier in the thread and I'll say it again: special ed is not there to help students with disabilities who are doing okay to reach their fullest potential. It's there to help students with significant impairments access the gen ed curriculum and/or achieve alternate curriculum goals. Do I agree that this is right? Doesn't matter - it's the law. If you don't like this then advocate to change IDEA (it's time for a revision, anyway). But don't attach the schools and teachers who are following current law.

It's fortunate for us that your warped opinion isn't supported by the courts. You're also the only one who thinks parents seek "full potential" for their kids. We are looking for a leveled playing field. If, but for their disability, my DC could achieve at the same level as other students, the school must provide specialized instruction. That, in no way, is the same as realizing 'full potential".

What part of IDEA says special education is for students who do not have an educational disability?
What part of IDEA says its for "level playing field?

To the other poster about court- just because you "win" with an advocate or complaint up the chain, does not mean you are "right." It typically means it is easier to give in than to continue a battle. Get over yourself! Your child is not more important than all the other children in FCPS who deserve FAPE.

I have no idea what you’re saying. I do know that students would be better served if you changed professions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The topic should be: Think twice before trusting a school to meet your child's needs.

Totally, a Sped teacher telling parents not to hire an advocate really says it all.

What really says it all to me, as a sped teacher, are parents telling other parents to hire an advocate before they even meet their child's team.

It says:
1) I don't trust the school team to understand my child's needs.
2) I don't trust the school team to give my child what he does need, if they figure it out.
3) I need to hire an outside person, who is financially benefiting from my child's school "trying to fail them". That person will actually DO their job unlike these school people who are out trying to actively hurt kids and deny what they need! (what a joke).

The adversarial relationship that is started before day one does not benefit your child. But by all means, continue hiring advocates, continue fighting over the wording of that goal, continue acting like your child's teachers are enemies and hacks who know nothing.

Just don't be surprised when there is a post a few days later stating " My child can't get their services because there is no teacher to provide them" (literally a post from the top of this board this week).

No, what it says is that the parent is out of their depth when it comes to academic expectations. It says they recognize the conflict teachers have when pressed by their supervisors to hoard scarce resources and what their child needs. It's no different than having a dollar.

Your inability to regulate your emotions compromises your judgment.