Anonymous wrote:If all you need is speech therapy, that is incredibly easy to obtain privately and often covered by insurance. And frankly if you go to appointments with him and receive instruction on home practice he will make far more progress.

I understand being upset but you really need to focus on your child. If you absolutely can’t afford private services even with insurance then I guess you can keep fighting but I don’t understand hiring a lawyer for that because it’s so expensive?

Look I have a kid with significant articulation issues and we are hoping he will be on level by the time he gets to elementary school. If not, I will make sure he gets caught up fully, not just to whatever line is not impacting his education. That’s my job as a mom. My other child has an IEP because she needs specialized instruction that can only occur in the school building. She also receives private services and while it would be great to have them delivered during the school day at no cost to us it’s absolutely not going to happen.

I really don’t think you are helping out lower income families by picking this fight. The IEP process is trying to get kids up to a somewhat low bar and they need to focus on kids who need help during the school day.

Thank you for having the guts to say this. Picking fights like this actually does not "benefit everyone's rights" or help poorer families or whatever. It takes resources away from them and gives it to the squeaky wheel, because the resources are a finite pool that is shrinking. What will actually happen is that the SLP, with their already bloated caseload (several of which are probably also similar cases that could be dismissed based on sound clinical judgment but the SLP doesn't have the energy for the fight), will shove other people's kids into a group of 6 to make space in the schedule for this, so they get even worse services and less attention. Or the severely impacted child who was finally going to get an individual session, now won't. And probably 15 other kids will miss their speech therapy session while the SLP sits in the second or third 3-hour IEP meeting about this mild artic case, none of which will be made up because there aren't enough hours in the day.

Private therapy would be much more effective for the child and cost-efficient for the family than hiring an attorney, and nobody else is going to benefit from this. It doesn't work like that.

Please consider putting the thousands you'll be spending on an attorney towards private therapy.

If all you need is speech therapy, that is incredibly easy to obtain privately and often covered by insurance. And frankly if you go to appointments with him and receive instruction on home practice he will make far more progress.

I understand being upset but you really need to focus on your child. If you absolutely can’t afford private services even with insurance then I guess you can keep fighting but I don’t understand hiring a lawyer for that because it’s so expensive?

Look I have a kid with significant articulation issues and we are hoping he will be on level by the time he gets to elementary school. If not, I will make sure he gets caught up fully, not just to whatever line is not impacting his education. That’s my job as a mom. My other child has an IEP because she needs specialized instruction that can only occur in the school building. She also receives private services and while it would be great to have them delivered during the school day at no cost to us it’s absolutely not going to happen.

I really don’t think you are helping out lower income families by picking this fight. The IEP process is trying to get kids up to a somewhat low bar and they need to focus on kids who need help during the school day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here-- the school evaluation found my child ineligible for speech therapy since in their view my child has met all the IEP goals, which is complete BS. There is plenty of evidence that my child still presents with articulation errors and they impact the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom. The school IEP claims that my child has made a tremendous progress in 4 months' time (at that time there was yet another push to reduce services but I successfully fought back) and no longer needs support in the classroom to self-correct, so from 120 min/month to 0. I asked for 60 min/month in-class observation/debrief by the SLP to help with the transition but they terminated because parents' input is not considered in the evaluation as they are not part of the team in DC. The school was very selective in their data and testimonials. Kangaroo court at its best.

Presenting with articulation errors in the classroom is not enough to need or qualify for school speech therapy. There also has to be a need for specialized instruction, i.e. an SLP. "Support in the classroom to self-correct" is not speech therapy. That is not specialized instruction. Anybody can remind them to pay attention to their sound production and monitor themselves--it's not inability to produce the sounds, it's inattention to them at this point (which is totally normal). They have been taught how to make the sounds and know how to do so, they just aren't consistently monitoring themselves for 100% conversational accuracy yet. Continued specialized instruction and observation from an SLP is not needed for that.

Honestly, it sounds like the school said stupid things in the meeting but that their ultimate conclusion was probably correct. Artic is a squishy area and students often stop qualifying before parents think they should because it's not "perfect." Perfect is not the goal or the requirement. Perfect=private speech.

All of what you write may be true but the DCPS team still messed up in multiple ways. OP should stand up for her procedural rights - that helps us all, regardless of what her kid’s needs are.

OP here--Yes, it will definitely benefit all kids if procedures are observed and IDEA rights are respected. We lotteried in a DCPS school full of well-to-do parents, and we are totally gaslighted by the LEA. I can only imagine what happens to parents/caregivers with less time and resources to fight.

In our experience at Janney - if you had a advocate you got more services. But if you did not they would do things like you described. It was totally a "pay to play" situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here-- the school evaluation found my child ineligible for speech therapy since in their view my child has met all the IEP goals, which is complete BS. There is plenty of evidence that my child still presents with articulation errors and they impact the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom. The school IEP claims that my child has made a tremendous progress in 4 months' time (at that time there was yet another push to reduce services but I successfully fought back) and no longer needs support in the classroom to self-correct, so from 120 min/month to 0. I asked for 60 min/month in-class observation/debrief by the SLP to help with the transition but they terminated because parents' input is not considered in the evaluation as they are not part of the team in DC. The school was very selective in their data and testimonials. Kangaroo court at its best.

Presenting with articulation errors in the classroom is not enough to need or qualify for school speech therapy. There also has to be a need for specialized instruction, i.e. an SLP. "Support in the classroom to self-correct" is not speech therapy. That is not specialized instruction. Anybody can remind them to pay attention to their sound production and monitor themselves--it's not inability to produce the sounds, it's inattention to them at this point (which is totally normal). They have been taught how to make the sounds and know how to do so, they just aren't consistently monitoring themselves for 100% conversational accuracy yet. Continued specialized instruction and observation from an SLP is not needed for that.

Honestly, it sounds like the school said stupid things in the meeting but that their ultimate conclusion was probably correct. Artic is a squishy area and students often stop qualifying before parents think they should because it's not "perfect." Perfect is not the goal or the requirement. Perfect=private speech.

All of what you write may be true but the DCPS team still messed up in multiple ways. OP should stand up for her procedural rights - that helps us all, regardless of what her kid’s needs are.

OP here--Yes, it will definitely benefit all kids if procedures are observed and IDEA rights are respected. We lotteried in a DCPS school full of well-to-do parents, and we are totally gaslighted by the LEA. I can only imagine what happens to parents/caregivers with less time and resources to fight.

It sounds like you’re right and the school is wrong, OP. But I urge you to take a step back and seriously consider the value of the services you’ll get even if you untimely win everything you’re asking for and compare that to the cost of getting a lawyer, which will be expensive. In school speech services are not as good as private speech services, so if you have the option to pay $4000 for a lawyer to get services through school or pay $4000 to get private speech services, take your money to a private SLP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here-- the school evaluation found my child ineligible for speech therapy since in their view my child has met all the IEP goals, which is complete BS. There is plenty of evidence that my child still presents with articulation errors and they impact the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom. The school IEP claims that my child has made a tremendous progress in 4 months' time (at that time there was yet another push to reduce services but I successfully fought back) and no longer needs support in the classroom to self-correct, so from 120 min/month to 0. I asked for 60 min/month in-class observation/debrief by the SLP to help with the transition but they terminated because parents' input is not considered in the evaluation as they are not part of the team in DC. The school was very selective in their data and testimonials. Kangaroo court at its best.

Presenting with articulation errors in the classroom is not enough to need or qualify for school speech therapy. There also has to be a need for specialized instruction, i.e. an SLP. "Support in the classroom to self-correct" is not speech therapy. That is not specialized instruction. Anybody can remind them to pay attention to their sound production and monitor themselves--it's not inability to produce the sounds, it's inattention to them at this point (which is totally normal). They have been taught how to make the sounds and know how to do so, they just aren't consistently monitoring themselves for 100% conversational accuracy yet. Continued specialized instruction and observation from an SLP is not needed for that.

Honestly, it sounds like the school said stupid things in the meeting but that their ultimate conclusion was probably correct. Artic is a squishy area and students often stop qualifying before parents think they should because it's not "perfect." Perfect is not the goal or the requirement. Perfect=private speech.

All of what you write may be true but the DCPS team still messed up in multiple ways. OP should stand up for her procedural rights - that helps us all, regardless of what her kid’s needs are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just had an IEP meeting to discuss triennial evaluation, and DCPS unilaterally terminated services effective immediately. The evaluation was done by the school SLP who gave themselves an A+ and recommended that my child go from 120 min/month to 0 starting Monday. Our arguments about the validity of the evaluation were dismissed as well as plenty of evidence as to why speech should continue, and we were told to go ahead and pay for our own evaluation. No option for IEE at public cost. We invoked our right to stay put until the dispute is resolved but were told we have no such right. We were also told parents are not equal members of the team.

Aside from hire an attorney (recommendations are welcome), any advice on how to proceed with the school on Monday? Do we ask for PWN first thing Monday morning? Do we even try mediation or go straight to due process hearing?

What? Of course you don’t. Who told you the law allows you to hole people hostage in a room until you get your way?

is that what you think “stay put” means? maybe don’t come here if you’re not informed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here-- the school evaluation found my child ineligible for speech therapy since in their view my child has met all the IEP goals, which is complete BS. There is plenty of evidence that my child still presents with articulation errors and they impact the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom. The school IEP claims that my child has made a tremendous progress in 4 months' time (at that time there was yet another push to reduce services but I successfully fought back) and no longer needs support in the classroom to self-correct, so from 120 min/month to 0. I asked for 60 min/month in-class observation/debrief by the SLP to help with the transition but they terminated because parents' input is not considered in the evaluation as they are not part of the team in DC. The school was very selective in their data and testimonials. Kangaroo court at its best.

Presenting with articulation errors in the classroom is not enough to need or qualify for school speech therapy. There also has to be a need for specialized instruction, i.e. an SLP. "Support in the classroom to self-correct" is not speech therapy. That is not specialized instruction. Anybody can remind them to pay attention to their sound production and monitor themselves--it's not inability to produce the sounds, it's inattention to them at this point (which is totally normal). They have been taught how to make the sounds and know how to do so, they just aren't consistently monitoring themselves for 100% conversational accuracy yet. Continued specialized instruction and observation from an SLP is not needed for that.

Honestly, it sounds like the school said stupid things in the meeting but that their ultimate conclusion was probably correct. Artic is a squishy area and students often stop qualifying before parents think they should because it's not "perfect." Perfect is not the goal or the requirement. Perfect=private speech.

+1 and agree with PP about private therapy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just had an IEP meeting to discuss triennial evaluation, and DCPS unilaterally terminated services effective immediately. The evaluation was done by the school SLP who gave themselves an A+ and recommended that my child go from 120 min/month to 0 starting Monday. Our arguments about the validity of the evaluation were dismissed as well as plenty of evidence as to why speech should continue, and we were told to go ahead and pay for our own evaluation. No option for IEE at public cost. We invoked our right to stay put until the dispute is resolved but were told we have no such right. We were also told parents are not equal members of the team.

Aside from hire an attorney (recommendations are welcome), any advice on how to proceed with the school on Monday? Do we ask for PWN first thing Monday morning? Do we even try mediation or go straight to due process hearing?

What? Of course you don’t. Who told you the law allows you to hole people hostage in a room until you get your way?

*hold, obviously

Anonymous wrote:We just had an IEP meeting to discuss triennial evaluation, and DCPS unilaterally terminated services effective immediately. The evaluation was done by the school SLP who gave themselves an A+ and recommended that my child go from 120 min/month to 0 starting Monday. Our arguments about the validity of the evaluation were dismissed as well as plenty of evidence as to why speech should continue, and we were told to go ahead and pay for our own evaluation. No option for IEE at public cost. We invoked our right to stay put until the dispute is resolved but were told we have no such right. We were also told parents are not equal members of the team.

Aside from hire an attorney (recommendations are welcome), any advice on how to proceed with the school on Monday? Do we ask for PWN first thing Monday morning? Do we even try mediation or go straight to due process hearing?

What? Of course you don’t. Who told you the law allows you to hole people hostage in a room until you get your way?

Ask for a PWN and request mediation; that’s enough to trigger stay put. Gather your data and see what you can put together yourself. I don’t think you need an attorney at this stage. See what happens at mediation.

How old is your child? I ask because my son got speech for articulation through ES. But at that point the issue was that he had the ability but didn’t consistently demonstrate the skill. So speech didn’t have anything to teach him. After that we got the designation changed to ED and got services based on anxiety.

Is their articulation affecting their spelling? That is another possible area of impact. And not being intelligible to unfamiliar adults is absolutely data that needs to be considered.

Anonymous wrote:I was in a similar situation.

Send an email with your meeting notes and a recording of the meeting that you are disagreeing to the decision to eliminate services that occurred as a part of the AED meeting.

You believe at this point in time that as a part of the triennial, your child needs to be evaluated in all areas of suspected disability and that a speech is an evaluation that needs to be done as a part of the triennial.

Did they tell you it was triennial AED?
If yes, send an email to the Principal stating that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss what testing needed to be done - you did not receive a draft IEP ahead of time and as such you are disagreeing with the changes to the IEP.
(This is procedural but you can at least drag it out until you get a lawyer).

Read procedural safeguards and quote them in your email.
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/Part%20B%20Procedural%20Safeguards%20Update_%20August%202018-ENG.pdf

I have used this line in my emails:
We do not believe that this is what OSSE envisioned when they stated that “… as a parent, you are an equal member of this team”.
https://osse.dc.gov/page/special-education-resource-hub-what-families-students-need-know-3

Thanks for sharing. Did you go to due process hearing or the school relented once an attorney got involved?