Reply to Weinfeld Education Group?

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

Reply to "Weinfeld Education Group? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Curious where the helpful parent is who asked me the questions- hope you come back![/quote]

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 &lt;insert type of examiner here&gt;, 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. [/quote]

Not OP but   thank you so so  much! [/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