Standardized Testing time counts towards IEP hours????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.


So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

I'm in Virginia and in the IEP there is a page called "Present Level of Performance" aka the PLOP page. This page is also used to document the discussions in the IEP. I, again, struggle to understand that DC and MD wouldn't have something similar. Even on the goals pages, there are several places test can be added to clarify, explain, note, etc. things pertinent to that goal. As a PP said, 'the form doesn't have space' is not a good answer.

Present levels shouldn't be used as a discussion. It should be stating where the child is performing, specifically in that area and directly related to the skills targeted in the goals. However, I believe MoCo is now using MD Online, so there is a place to explain services. I do not know about DC. I have read a few DC IEP's, but I am not sure what their online system looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

You're trying to shift the basis of the argument, and by questioning whether the OP's child needs services at all. That's nasty.

No, I'm not questioning whether the OP's child needs services. I'm questioning whether the "only has preferential seating" thing, which didn't come from the OP, as far as I can tell, is accurate. My guess is that OP's child has other accommodations, such as small groups, or extended time, and that the gen ed teacher happened to have the group of kids who have those accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.


So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

I'm in Virginia and in the IEP there is a page called "Present Level of Performance" aka the PLOP page. This page is also used to document the discussions in the IEP. I, again, struggle to understand that DC and MD wouldn't have something similar. Even on the goals pages, there are several places test can be added to clarify, explain, note, etc. things pertinent to that goal. As a PP said, 'the form doesn't have space' is not a good answer.

You write your meeting notes in the PLOP?

In both DC and MD the PLOP page is where you write the present levels of performance, which is critically important information for the next teacher to have, and for the next IEP team to look back on when they determine whether progress was adequate. I can not imagine using that space to document discussions about anything other than the present levels of performance.

IEP's are challenging enough to interpret when things are in the places designed for them. Looking at the PLOP, which documents where the child finished skill wise at the end of last year, to find information about something that happens during the course of the school year seems counterintuitive.

I am still confused as to why OP is exerting her energy about including something that everyone knows is true in the IEP, rather than on something that might conceivably benefit her child. Exerting her energy to get it written down in some random place, where it isn't going to change a child's program a whit, is even more incomprehensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.


So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

I'm in Virginia and in the IEP there is a page called "Present Level of Performance" aka the PLOP page. This page is also used to document the discussions in the IEP. I, again, struggle to understand that DC and MD wouldn't have something similar. Even on the goals pages, there are several places test can be added to clarify, explain, note, etc. things pertinent to that goal. As a PP said, 'the form doesn't have space' is not a good answer.

You write your meeting notes in the PLOP?

In both DC and MD the PLOP page is where you write the present levels of performance, which is critically important information for the next teacher to have, and for the next IEP team to look back on when they determine whether progress was adequate. I can not imagine using that space to document discussions about anything other than the present levels of performance.

IEP's are challenging enough to interpret when things are in the places designed for them. Looking at the PLOP, which documents where the child finished skill wise at the end of last year, to find information about something that happens during the course of the school year seems counterintuitive.

I am still confused as to why OP is exerting her energy about including something that everyone knows is true in the IEP, rather than on something that might conceivably benefit her child. Exerting her energy to get it written down in some random place, where it isn't going to change a child's program a whit, is even more incomprehensible.

I don't know what your agenda is -- it's not "incomprehensible" to want to make sure that service hours are clearly laid out and accounted for. Otherwise how can you tell if the hours need to be increased or decreased?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

You're trying to shift the basis of the argument, and by questioning whether the OP's child needs services at all. That's nasty.

No, I'm not questioning whether the OP's child needs services. I'm questioning whether the "only has preferential seating" thing, which didn't come from the OP, as far as I can tell, is accurate. My guess is that OP's child has other accommodations, such as small groups, or extended time, and that the gen ed teacher happened to have the group of kids who have those accommodations.

Then OP's child would have those accomodations for *all* tests, not just PARCC. But PARCC is the only time they are counted as service hours. Makes no sense. Again, clearly this is an accounting method to make it seem like they are getting services when the staffing actually doesn't permit it. It would be better just to admit that no services are delivered during PARCC and prorate those weeks correctly, like a PP described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

You're trying to shift the basis of the argument, and by questioning whether the OP's child needs services at all. That's nasty.

No, I'm not questioning whether the OP's child needs services. I'm questioning whether the "only has preferential seating" thing, which didn't come from the OP, as far as I can tell, is accurate. My guess is that OP's child has other accommodations, such as small groups, or extended time, and that the gen ed teacher happened to have the group of kids who have those accommodations.

Then OP's child would have those accomodations for *all* tests, not just PARCC. But PARCC is the only time they are counted as service hours. Makes no sense. Again, clearly this is an accounting method to make it seem like they are getting services when the staffing actually doesn't permit it. It would be better just to admit that no services are delivered during PARCC and prorate those weeks correctly, like a PP described.

When kids take tests with special education support, either pull out or push in, it's absolutely counted in their service hours. Administering testing is one of the services that's included in service hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

You're trying to shift the basis of the argument, and by questioning whether the OP's child needs services at all. That's nasty.

No, I'm not questioning whether the OP's child needs services. I'm questioning whether the "only has preferential seating" thing, which didn't come from the OP, as far as I can tell, is accurate. My guess is that OP's child has other accommodations, such as small groups, or extended time, and that the gen ed teacher happened to have the group of kids who have those accommodations.

Then OP's child would have those accomodations for *all* tests, not just PARCC. But PARCC is the only time they are counted as service hours. Makes no sense. Again, clearly this is an accounting method to make it seem like they are getting services when the staffing actually doesn't permit it. It would be better just to admit that no services are delivered during PARCC and prorate those weeks correctly, like a PP described.

When kids take tests with special education support, either pull out or push in, it's absolutely counted in their service hours. Administering testing is one of the services that's included in service hours.

Well OP says that the regular teacher is delivering the services specifically for PARCC, so that's not the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

You're trying to shift the basis of the argument, and by questioning whether the OP's child needs services at all. That's nasty.

No, I'm not questioning whether the OP's child needs services. I'm questioning whether the "only has preferential seating" thing, which didn't come from the OP, as far as I can tell, is accurate. My guess is that OP's child has other accommodations, such as small groups, or extended time, and that the gen ed teacher happened to have the group of kids who have those accommodations.

Then OP's child would have those accomodations for *all* tests, not just PARCC. But PARCC is the only time they are counted as service hours. Makes no sense. Again, clearly this is an accounting method to make it seem like they are getting services when the staffing actually doesn't permit it. It would be better just to admit that no services are delivered during PARCC and prorate those weeks correctly, like a PP described.

When kids take tests with special education support, either pull out or push in, it's absolutely counted in their service hours. Administering testing is one of the services that's included in service hours.

Well OP says that the regular teacher is delivering the services specifically for PARCC, so that's not the situation.

The fact that the gen ed teacher is administering a service doesn't change whether or not it's a special ed service. When testing groups are made up, it's not uncommon for a gen ed teacher to have a group that's all kids with accommodations in common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am desperately trying to figure out what disability this kid has that requires him to need specialized instruction, but doesn't make him distractible (and so doesn't get small group testing), doesn't cause difficulty with reading, writing or processing speed (thus no extended time), doesn't cause difficulties with computation (thus no calculator), doesn't interfere with his receptive language (thus no clarified directions), or impact his vision (no enlarged print), or his hearing (no interpreter), or his handwriting (no scribe) and doesn't make him anxious about the test (thus no breaks, or scheduling accommodations).

OP, can you give us a hint? I've read 100s of IEP's and I've never seen one with just preferential seating, which is quite possibly the least useful accommodation on the list.

You're trying to shift the basis of the argument, and by questioning whether the OP's child needs services at all. That's nasty.

No, I'm not questioning whether the OP's child needs services. I'm questioning whether the "only has preferential seating" thing, which didn't come from the OP, as far as I can tell, is accurate. My guess is that OP's child has other accommodations, such as small groups, or extended time, and that the gen ed teacher happened to have the group of kids who have those accommodations.

Then OP's child would have those accomodations for *all* tests, not just PARCC. But PARCC is the only time they are counted as service hours. Makes no sense. Again, clearly this is an accounting method to make it seem like they are getting services when the staffing actually doesn't permit it. It would be better just to admit that no services are delivered during PARCC and prorate those weeks correctly, like a PP described.

When kids take tests with special education support, either pull out or push in, it's absolutely counted in their service hours. Administering testing is one of the services that's included in service hours.

Well OP says that the regular teacher is delivering the services specifically for PARCC, so that's not the situation.

The fact that the gen ed teacher is administering a service doesn't change whether or not it's a special ed service. When testing groups are made up, it's not uncommon for a gen ed teacher to have a group that's all kids with accommodations in common.

You're still suggesting that administering all accommodations is the same thing as service hours. It's just not. Otherwise, every hour a child spends seated at the front of a class, assigned to work in a small group, allowed to go to the quiet corner, etc, would be service hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.


So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

I'm in Virginia and in the IEP there is a page called "Present Level of Performance" aka the PLOP page. This page is also used to document the discussions in the IEP. I, again, struggle to understand that DC and MD wouldn't have something similar. Even on the goals pages, there are several places test can be added to clarify, explain, note, etc. things pertinent to that goal. As a PP said, 'the form doesn't have space' is not a good answer.

You write your meeting notes in the PLOP?

In both DC and MD the PLOP page is where you write the present levels of performance, which is critically important information for the next teacher to have, and for the next IEP team to look back on when they determine whether progress was adequate. I can not imagine using that space to document discussions about anything other than the present levels of performance.

IEP's are challenging enough to interpret when things are in the places designed for them. Looking at the PLOP, which documents where the child finished skill wise at the end of last year, to find information about something that happens during the course of the school year seems counterintuitive.

I am still confused as to why OP is exerting her energy about including something that everyone knows is true in the IEP, rather than on something that might conceivably benefit her child. Exerting her energy to get it written down in some random place, where it isn't going to change a child's program a whit, is even more incomprehensible.

The PLOP page is not limited to only documenting present level of performance, it is used to document all the discussions held during the IEP meeting. That information is just as critical as the 'present level of performance'. It provides insight as to how decisions were made, information that was/was not considered, requests for future meetings, a need to gather additional data, previous year's SOL socres, etc. Where else would you document that a parent has asked for a procedural support specialist attend the next meeting? Why would you NOT document discussions?

Your experience with the IEP process must be very different from mine if you don't want discussions documented. If a school was proposing to count accomodations provided during standardized testing as 'service hours', you can bet I'm documenting that in the IEP or clarifying for the next IEP team that those accomodations are NOT to be counted even though that may be the 'custom'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I struggle to understand how clarifying in the IEP that services will not be provided during PARCC testing leads to kids not receiving accommodations. It's not like 'reducing the number of service weeks' would be done with no context and while 'accommodations' fall under the rubric of special ed services, I can't recall any accommodations that are associated with specialized instruction. If a kid is getting reduced service hours because no SPED staff are available for specialized instruction/related services, he would still be able to get accommodations. Accommodations don't usually have to be provided by SPED staff.

We have noted in all our IEPs that 'consultations' with the guidance counselors, school psychologists, SLPs, OT/PTs will not be counted as part of service hours. Clarifying PARCC testing would be no different. It would be along the lines of "The IEP team agrees that during the period of PARCC testing, students receive limited instruction. As such, the number of service hours Larlo receives during the period of PARCC (typically 3 weeks in May), may be pro-rated by a factor of X. Once grade level testing is completed, regular service levels will resume."

I'm sure the statement could be crafted better but you get the idea.


So you are asking for it to be reflected in the IEP meeting notes? Both DC and MoCo (the two PARCC jurisdictions I am familiar with) use online forms that don’t have a space that would allow you to write that.

I'm in Virginia and in the IEP there is a page called "Present Level of Performance" aka the PLOP page. This page is also used to document the discussions in the IEP. I, again, struggle to understand that DC and MD wouldn't have something similar. Even on the goals pages, there are several places test can be added to clarify, explain, note, etc. things pertinent to that goal. As a PP said, 'the form doesn't have space' is not a good answer.

You write your meeting notes in the PLOP?

In both DC and MD the PLOP page is where you write the present levels of performance, which is critically important information for the next teacher to have, and for the next IEP team to look back on when they determine whether progress was adequate. I can not imagine using that space to document discussions about anything other than the present levels of performance.

IEP's are challenging enough to interpret when things are in the places designed for them. Looking at the PLOP, which documents where the child finished skill wise at the end of last year, to find information about something that happens during the course of the school year seems counterintuitive.

I am still confused as to why OP is exerting her energy about including something that everyone knows is true in the IEP, rather than on something that might conceivably benefit her child. Exerting her energy to get it written down in some random place, where it isn't going to change a child's program a whit, is even more incomprehensible.

The PLOP page is not limited to only documenting present level of performance, it is used to document all the discussions held during the IEP meeting. That information is just as critical as the 'present level of performance'. It provides insight as to how decisions were made, information that was/was not considered, requests for future meetings, a need to gather additional data, previous year's SOL socres, etc. Where else would you document that a parent has asked for a procedural support specialist attend the next meeting? Why would you NOT document discussions?

Your experience with the IEP process must be very different from mine if you don't want discussions documented. If a school was proposing to count accomodations provided during standardized testing as 'service hours', you can bet I'm documenting that in the IEP or clarifying for the next IEP team that those accomodations are NOT to be counted even though that may be the 'custom'.

NP. Certainly not in the PLOP! I would put it in the addendum, or Prior Written Notice, or "discussion of service delivery."

[Anonymous]

NP. Certainly not in the PLOP! I would put it in the addendum, or Prior Written Notice, or "discussion of service delivery."

In FCPS, any addendums are noted on the PLOP page. "Prior Written Notice" is done prior to the meeting or sent after the IEP meeting when there would be no opportunity for all participants to refer the notes - and I'm not letting FCPS enter anything in to the record regarding our discussions unless I've had an opportunity to review and note any objections I have to it. I have no idea what a 'discussion of service delivery' is as there is nothing in the official documentation/form called that and our discussions often range far beyond 'service delivery'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Certainly not in the PLOP! I would put it in the addendum, or Prior Written Notice, or "discussion of service delivery."

In FCPS, any addendums are noted on the PLOP page. "Prior Written Notice" is done prior to the meeting or sent after the IEP meeting when there would be no opportunity for all participants to refer the notes - and I'm not letting FCPS enter anything in to the record regarding our discussions unless I've had an opportunity to review and note any objections I have to it. I have no idea what a 'discussion of service delivery' is as there is nothing in the official documentation/form called that and our discussions often range far beyond 'service delivery'.

Oh. Well, this is MOIEP. It sounds like the layouts are totally different.

[Anonymous]

I’m a special education teacher and this is a question I’ve honestly never been asked. I’m in Virginia. But on SOL testing days, which really are not that many days per grade level (2 days reading and 2 days math), no students are typically getting academic instruction, gen ed or special ed. The testing just takes a long part of the day (and SOLs are not timed, and most sped sztudenrs have extended time anyhow). I’ve literally had students test during all instructional parts of an entire school day and only leave for recess, lunch, specials, and we took lots of movement breaks per student needs/accommodations. You then expect a student to be receptive to instruction? Testing requires a lot of focus and stamina. It’s not realistic to expect your student to receive push-in services because there is not instruction occurring in gen ed and in special ed pull out may. It happen because of your child’s testing schedule that day. I think you are setting yourself up for an adversarial relationship with your child’s school here. No one likes the testing but it has to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a special education teacher and this is a question I’ve honestly never been asked. I’m in Virginia. But on SOL testing days, which really are not that many days per grade level (2 days reading and 2 days math), no students are typically getting academic instruction, gen ed or special ed. The testing just takes a long part of the day (and SOLs are not timed, and most sped sztudenrs have extended time anyhow). I’ve literally had students test during all instructional parts of an entire school day and only leave for recess, lunch, specials, and we took lots of movement breaks per student needs/accommodations. You then expect a student to be receptive to instruction? Testing requires a lot of focus and stamina. It’s not realistic to expect your student to receive push-in services because there is not instruction occurring in gen ed and in special ed pull out may. It happen because of your child’s testing schedule that day. I think you are setting yourself up for an adversarial relationship with your child’s school here. No one likes the testing but it has to be done.

Not only does she seem to want her kid pulled from recess and breaks to get in instruction on a testing day, she seems to want it to happen with a kid whose first IEP is brand new, and who hasn't had time to build a prior relationship with the child.

The things we do with a kid in the early days of their first IEP set the tone for the long term. They establish the relationship between special ed teacher and child, and frame how the child sees their specialized instruction. Jeopardizing that relationship by starting with an exhausted kid, who resents being pulled from recess is so short sighted.