13:17 here:
The new form (in addition to the previous language) now has a second paragraph:
"Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin and distinguished from other leanring disabilities due to the weakness occurring at the phonological level. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in phonological component of langage that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and backround knowledge."
Eligibility is no longer based on the discrepency model. Instead it's about a pattern of student not achieving adequately in spite of interventions. Staff were trained to note the warning signs in young children as well as school-age children, so the hope is that children will be identified and serviced at an early age.
Phonological processing is now listed as one of the processing disorders. Students who show difficulties with auditory memory and rapid naming and phonological awareness are seen as demonstrating a phonological processing disorder.
As for hiring dyslexia specialists, that is not something I know about.

I'm sorry you've been so frustrated. I posted that the change was made because it WAS MADE. Literally the new Basis for Committee decision is going live this week. I was just trained on Friday by our school psychologist and procedural support liaison. We went over the characteristics of dyslexia and learned what it is and isn't. The bureaucracy is changing. Again, I'm sorry that this has been a struggle. Hopefully this won't happen for future students.

I am glad you have posted this. I'm afraid your original post gave a lot of us an opportunity to vent pent-up frustration and we lost sight of the issue.

So what is FCPS saying dyslexia is? Is it still basing eligibility on a discrepancy model (achievement falling below expected IQ + processing deficit) or is FCPS placing more weight on processing deficits? Are children being identified at an earlier age before they begin to fail? Is it changing the testing it is using to determine eligibility? Has the County hired Dyslexia Specialists to help advise and train teachers and restructure remediation programs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please know that there is a big difference between what FCPS can do for a child with a learning disability and what they can do for a child with dyslexia. There are programs and speical ed teachers who can work in school with a child who is struggling with reading due to an identified learning issue. Dyslexia is classified as a neurological issue, and all FCPS will do is refer you to outside sources that may be able to help you.

Incorrect. It is now included in the Basis for Committee Decision for Learning Disability. Dyslexia is printed right there on the page. It cannot be referred out.

Like another poster who has written several things here, I know that what you are saying is correct on paper but my experience has been that the Local Screening Committee at my school shrugs and says "Sorry, can't help." My kids was struggling, reading well below grade level and average in everything else, and they found him ineligible for an IEP. They offered a 504 that did not address his inability to read, and we wound up having to pupil place at another school that would help us.

It was incredibly frustrating, and only possible because I work in the school system, knew what I was talking about, and had connections. I have no idea what average families do when confronted with the stone wall of school bureaucracy.

I'm sorry you've been so frustrated. I posted that the change was made because it WAS MADE. Literally the new Basis for Committee decision is going live this week. I was just trained on Friday by our school psychologist and procedural support liaison. We went over the characteristics of dyslexia and learned what it is and isn't. The bureaucracy is changing. Again, I'm sorry that this has been a struggle. Hopefully this won't happen for future students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please know that there is a big difference between what FCPS can do for a child with a learning disability and what they can do for a child with dyslexia. There are programs and speical ed teachers who can work in school with a child who is struggling with reading due to an identified learning issue. Dyslexia is classified as a neurological issue, and all FCPS will do is refer you to outside sources that may be able to help you.

Incorrect. It is now included in the Basis for Committee Decision for Learning Disability. Dyslexia is printed right there on the page. It cannot be referred out.

Like another poster who has written several things here, I know that what you are saying is correct on paper but my experience has been that the Local Screening Committee at my school shrugs and says "Sorry, can't help." My kids was struggling, reading well below grade level and average in everything else, and they found him ineligible for an IEP. They offered a 504 that did not address his inability to read, and we wound up having to pupil place at another school that would help us.

It was incredibly frustrating, and only possible because I work in the school system, knew what I was talking about, and had connections. I have no idea what average families do when confronted with the stone wall of school bureaucracy.

NP: Dyslexia is a very complicated issue and even if FCPS is acknowledging it as an area of disability, it does not mean that the system is adequately identifying or treating it. The issue of 2e learners in the county is huge and it takes a very committed and knowledgeable parent to navigate the process. Most FCPS personnel, even SPED or reading teachers, do not have the dyslexia training to understand and remediate, although some can accommodate quite well and most teachers truly want to help. FCPS will offer accommodations to access the curriculum, but accommodations are not the same as remediation. FCPS still graduates students reading at an elementary level, yet these students are able to pass the SOL because of accommodations. It IS possible to bring most dyslexic students up to grade level reading, although their pace may always be slower. If you are in FCPS and have a child with dyslexia, you should be asking how FCPS is bringing your child up to grade-level reading and do not accept passing an SOL or grades as a measure of progress. Parents should educate themselves via Wrightslaw (as other posters have recommended), the International Dyslexia Association (interdys.org), or more locally through the Atlantic Seaboard Dyslexia Education Center (asdec.org).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the law and what is supposed to happen. I also know reality. Your posts reflect an absence of reality.

Then why do you keep saying a student has to be failing or in danger of failing to get an IEP? That may be what they tell you but that doesn't make it 'reality' - even if that's what your limited experience is.

How do you write an IEP goal that is above grade level when the new IEP goals for math, writing and reading are supposed to be based on the SOL standards?

I find it very difficult to believe that you have the experience and knowledge you say you do. Not only does WrightsLaw discusses this frequently and thoroughly, many other sites do as well.

You start first with identifying disability and how it impacts education. If you have a child that is capable of advanced work but because of a disability cannot perform at an advanced level then the child should receive service/support. To do otherwise would be denying that child a FAPE. There's no way a goal could be written with the sparse information you have provided. You don't indicate the nature of the disability, how it impacts the students, current level of performance, areas of weakness or where the child could be academically in one year if services/supports were provided. I don't know why you're so resistant to the idea that 'grade level' is not the limit.

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/2e.index.htm
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2010-1/redacteda011310eval1q2010.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know the law and what is supposed to happen. I also know reality. Your posts reflect an absence of reality.

Then why do you keep saying a student has to be failing or in danger of failing to get an IEP? That may be what they tell you but that doesn't make it 'reality' - even if that's what your limited experience is.

How do you write an IEP goal that is above grade level when the new IEP goals for math, writing and reading are supposed to be based on the SOL standards?

Anonymous wrote:I know the law and what is supposed to happen. I also know reality. Your posts reflect an absence of reality.

Then why do you keep saying a student has to be failing or in danger of failing to get an IEP? That may be what they tell you but that doesn't make it 'reality' - even if that's what your limited experience is.

Anonymous wrote:Please know that there is a big difference between what FCPS can do for a child with a learning disability and what they can do for a child with dyslexia. There are programs and speical ed teachers who can work in school with a child who is struggling with reading due to an identified learning issue. Dyslexia is classified as a neurological issue, and all FCPS will do is refer you to outside sources that may be able to help you.

Incorrect. It is now included in the Basis for Committee Decision for Learning Disability. Dyslexia is printed right there on the page. It cannot be referred out.

I know the law and what is supposed to happen. I also know reality. Your posts reflect an absence of reality.

Anonymous wrote:You didn't read my post. I said that my child qualifed to receive services (and still does). I said I knew others who were denied. I know what they said was incorrect, BUT THEY STILL DO IT; it is their SOP. It is the way that they control their costs. What SHOULD happen by law and what actually happens are too very different things. I have used wrightslaw, I have gone to their seminars and done some of their webinars. I have met Pete Wright. I was housemates with his cousin's son. I DO KNOW MY CHILD"S RIGHTS. BUT we have had to FIGHT tooth and nail to get them. NOTHING was EVER proposed from the school side. My child will be the first in his Middle School to get a certain accommodation for his 8th grade SOL. How do I know this? Because in his last IEP meeting (which was actually 4 separate 2-3 hour meetings) we had one person from the Cluster and one from Gatehouse telling our school they could offer it and they asked about the process as they had never done it before.

Lady, you need to go back and read your prior posts. In all of them, you're basically screaming that a kid can't get an IEP if they're working at grade level. Even in the last post that you say your kid has an IEP and that's because without support he would fail. You need to work on your communication skills because it's still not clear whether you really understand that a kid doesn't have to be failing or in danger of failing (or below grade level) to get an IEP.

A diagnosis of dyslexia does not automatically qualify a child for an IEP. They also have to be performing below grade level. 25th percentile on some things is the lower end of "average" and the 16th percentile is the lower end of "average" on others.

Not in my experience. The bolded part is my experience. We were told point blank that DS HAD to be performing BELOW grade level to initially qualify and receive services. In their opinion, if a child is performing at grade level without services/accommodation, then he/she does not have a problem accessing the curricula regardless of if he/she is performing at his/her intellectual potential. A child that is performing at or above grade level with additional services/ accommodations should already have an IEP or 504.

How can MY actual experience be wrong. My child is 2E or 3E or whatever they have come up with now (smart, several profound LDs and ADHD). Yet, when he was first tested in the FCPS system we were told that in order to qualify he had to be failing without supports. If he was not failing, then he was accessing the curriculum for his grade. We were "Lucky" in that he did need supports to not fail.

You didn't read my post. I said that my child qualifed to receive services (and still does). I said I knew others who were denied. I know what they said was incorrect, BUT THEY STILL DO IT; it is their SOP. It is the way that they control their costs. What SHOULD happen by law and what actually happens are too very different things. I have used wrightslaw, I have gone to their seminars and done some of their webinars. I have met Pete Wright. I was housemates with his cousin's son. I DO KNOW MY CHILD"S RIGHTS. BUT we have had to FIGHT tooth and nail to get them. NOTHING was EVER proposed from the school side. My child will be the first in his Middle School to get a certain accommodation for his 8th grade SOL. How do I know this? Because in his last IEP meeting (which was actually 4 separate 2-3 hour meetings) we had one person from the Cluster and one from Gatehouse telling our school they could offer it and they asked about the process as they had never done it before.

No one is disputing what you experienced. I'm sure you were told that because your DC was working at grade level he was ineligible for an IEP. You wouldn't be the first or even the 1,000th to have been told that. What I, and others, are telling you is that information is incorrect. Woefully incorrect. I gently suggest you look at some of the links provided and do some additional research that will help you better understand your child's rights. WrightsLaw.com, in particular is a helpful site. The Wrights are Special Education attorneys teaching and practicing at William & Mary.

How can MY actual experience be wrong. My child is 2E or 3E or whatever they have come up with now (smart, several profound LDs and ADHD). Yet, when he was first tested in the FCPS system we were told that in order to qualify he had to be failing without supports. If he was not failing, then he was accessing the curriculum for his grade. We were "Lucky" in that he did need supports to not fail. (He tests in the 98-99th percentile for intelligence and in the 2nd to 4th percentile for reading, similar for his printing abilities) I know several families who had smart children (95-99th percentile on intelligence) but were reading between the 25th and 50th percentile that were not given access to supports or special education services. They are now in some of the private schools in the area that cater to these types of children.

I agree that they should receive services, but IME, they may not. There are many things that should happen, but they don't.

In [/b]MY[b] experience with FCPS, they will limit the services as much as possible to contain costs. They have NEVER volunteered any services, we have had to do the research ourselves to figure out what services our son should be getting under ADA, NCLB and IDEA and ask for them. If we don't ask, he doesn't get. We have had to pay for private testing because the school's was woefully inadequate and only scratched the surface of his issues.

I agree with 17:36 that just because a child is working at grade level that they can't get an IEP or a 504. In order to qualify, a child must have a disability that impacts her ability to access the curriculum. There are a good number of kids who are called "twice exceptional". They have a disability and they are gifted. The schools are required to provide specialized instruction even though they may be far above grade level. Kids do NOT have to be failing or below grade level before they can get an IEP. That's just flat out wrong.