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

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics