Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi, I really feel for you in this situation. It's tough for everyone involved. Everyone here has some great points and advice. As a former teacher, I can tell you that teachers are completely overwhelmed, swamped, and as frustrated as you are if not moreso because they see so many needs on such a large scale and there are more and more mandates and burdens that prevent helping students one-on-one. Small class sizes would go a long way toward easing the burden, but until then there are other things parents can do. Is there a way that you could volunteer to start an after school social skills group? I bet you'd find a host of students and parents who'd be interested in joining/supporting a group like that.

I would have zero interest in joining an after school social skills group run by a random parent with no training. If these skills were easy for our kids to learn, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since they're not, we need a trained professional to teach them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really understand your frustration. The school personnel may feel frustrated as well. The SLP is given guidelines to follow by the county to identify students who should receive service at taxpayer expense. Students who have a disability (rather than disorder) that has an educational impact and that requires the specialized skill of the SLP (and no one else can reasonable do it) qualify. There has to be a cut off somewhere. I am an SLP and my own daughter did not qualify for speech services in the county despite falling at the first percentile on a standardized articulation measure. I see both sides. Also, in terms of social skills, that typically gets shifted to counseling because the SLP is limited to dealing with pragmatic language, but not social skills. I hear you, but I also understand the other side (why do there have to be sides?). I am very sorry to hear that you feel you were spoken to with disrespect. That is a shame.

I've heard this quoted at IEP meetings for my child. He was diagnosed privately with a Specific Learning Disability in Reading but because the Reading Specialist couldn't get services for her child, my child by all means didn't qualify for services. Not exactly a legal argument but MCPS employees are great for discriminating against kids because of their own biases.

I'm not using this anecdote as a means of making a legal argument. I was simply commiserating withthe OP. Your leap to this suggesting that MCPS employees discriminate against kids because of their own biases is ridiculous. In fact, I'd love to go against the guidelines and pad my caseload so I can just work in one school instead of traveling between multiple schools and lugging my supplies around town all day.

Numbers of children at any particular school do not affect the number of schools assigned to SLPs after schools are assigned. Some SLPs most definitely try to keep their caseload light by ignoring the academic impact that may be present or saying kids have met their goals so services should be discontinued without looking at the need for new goals and objectives. You would still have to shlep your supplies around town but would be writing less reports and have less kids to service.

The number of students on my caseload is exactly what determines how many days I am at a school. If my caseload goes up at a particular school, so does the SLP time allocation at that school. I would then spend more time at a single school. Being at one school is considered the ideal by most and you can pick up students who dont' technically qualify and not dismiss students who no longer need service in order to increase your caseload and your time allocation for the following year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really understand your frustration. The school personnel may feel frustrated as well. The SLP is given guidelines to follow by the county to identify students who should receive service at taxpayer expense. Students who have a disability (rather than disorder) that has an educational impact and that requires the specialized skill of the SLP (and no one else can reasonable do it) qualify. There has to be a cut off somewhere. I am an SLP and my own daughter did not qualify for speech services in the county despite falling at the first percentile on a standardized articulation measure. I see both sides. Also, in terms of social skills, that typically gets shifted to counseling because the SLP is limited to dealing with pragmatic language, but not social skills. I hear you, but I also understand the other side (why do there have to be sides?). I am very sorry to hear that you feel you were spoken to with disrespect. That is a shame.

I've heard this quoted at IEP meetings for my child. He was diagnosed privately with a Specific Learning Disability in Reading but because the Reading Specialist couldn't get services for her child, my child by all means didn't qualify for services. Not exactly a legal argument but MCPS employees are great for discriminating against kids because of their own biases.

I'm not using this anecdote as a means of making a legal argument. I was simply commiserating withthe OP. Your leap to this suggesting that MCPS employees discriminate against kids because of their own biases is ridiculous. In fact, I'd love to go against the guidelines and pad my caseload so I can just work in one school instead of traveling between multiple schools and lugging my supplies around town all day.

The number of students on my caseload is exactly what determines how many days I am at a school. If my caseload goes up at a particular school, so does the SLP time allocation at that school. I would then spend more time at a single school. Being at one school is considered the ideal by most and you can pick up students who dont' technically qualify and not dismiss students who no longer need service in order to increase your caseload and your time allocation for the following year.

Numbers of children at any particular school do not affect the number of schools assigned to SLPs after schools are assigned. Some SLPs most definitely try to keep their caseload light by ignoring the academic impact that may be present or saying kids have met their goals so services should be discontinued without looking at the need for new goals and objectives. You would still have to shlep your supplies around town but would be writing less reports and have less kids to service.

Anonymous wrote:Hi, I really feel for you in this situation. It's tough for everyone involved. Everyone here has some great points and advice. As a former teacher, I can tell you that teachers are completely overwhelmed, swamped, and as frustrated as you are if not moreso because they see so many needs on such a large scale and there are more and more mandates and burdens that prevent helping students one-on-one. Small class sizes would go a long way toward easing the burden, but until then there are other things parents can do. Is there a way that you could volunteer to start an after school social skills group? I bet you'd find a host of students and parents who'd be interested in joining/supporting a group like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really understand your frustration. The school personnel may feel frustrated as well. The SLP is given guidelines to follow by the county to identify students who should receive service at taxpayer expense. Students who have a disability (rather than disorder) that has an educational impact and that requires the specialized skill of the SLP (and no one else can reasonable do it) qualify. There has to be a cut off somewhere. I am an SLP and my own daughter did not qualify for speech services in the county despite falling at the first percentile on a standardized articulation measure. I see both sides. Also, in terms of social skills, that typically gets shifted to counseling because the SLP is limited to dealing with pragmatic language, but not social skills. I hear you, but I also understand the other side (why do there have to be sides?). I am very sorry to hear that you feel you were spoken to with disrespect. That is a shame.

I've heard this quoted at IEP meetings for my child. He was diagnosed privately with a Specific Learning Disability in Reading but because the Reading Specialist couldn't get services for her child, my child by all means didn't qualify for services. Not exactly a legal argument but MCPS employees are great for discriminating against kids because of their own biases.

I'm not using this anecdote as a means of making a legal argument. I was simply commiserating withthe OP. Your leap to this suggesting that MCPS employees discriminate against kids because of their own biases is ridiculous. In fact, I'd love to go against the guidelines and pad my caseload so I can just work in one school instead of traveling between multiple schools and lugging my supplies around town all day.

Anonymous wrote:They just might not have the resources and they're pushing back and being incredibly difficult. Been there (another Bethesda ES). Private school might be a better option. In my experience, an advocate moves things forward in ways a parent can't and helps navigate this incredibly awful time, especially when you see the school isn't acting as an ally. You'll get DC what they need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between an NT child who may have some social awkwardness and an ASD child who can't function with the social aspects of the school day including small group work, negotiating hallways, cafeterias, greeting teachers and classmates, playing in groups with other children at recess.

It is up to the IEP team to determine the extent of the challenge and to work toward mitigating the impact in a school setting. This is absolutely the school's job under IDEA. Please don't put this all on the parent. It sounds like OP is doing all s/he can.

But that's the thing. It's not the school's job to mitigate all of the impact and catch the child up to the level of a neurotypical peer. The government has decided that taxpayer-funded school services are for children who are generally in the area of the lowest ~7th percentile. If a child is above this level but not where the parent wishes them to be, it's on them to supplement with private services. There just isn't money for everyone, so the government sets the limits that the school has to then enforce. It's not personal. Nothing in government ever is.

The people who it is personal for, the family, have to do what they think their child needs. That's how it's always been. They just can't rely on government-funded services if they don't meet the requirements.

Where did you get that social skills services are only for the lowest functioning kids and specifically for kids below the 7th percentile? That has not been our experience at a DCPS, where child with ASD who is totally mainstreamed and not below 7th percentile gets social skills pull outs from counselor and pragmatics from SLP.

NP here, 7th %ile is 1.5 Standard Deviations below the mean. It's a pretty common cut score used to qualify children for speech and language services, although I've also seen schools qualify children with higher scores if there are other complicating factors, and I've also seen schools who didn't qualify a child, despite lower scores, because there wasn't education impact. To be clear that doesn't mean that every score is below the 7th %ile, just that some scores were below the 7th.

I would be surprised to find a kid who qualified for an ASD diagnosis and didn't have some scores (e.g. pragmatics, anxiety, behavior) at or below the 7th %ile. What were your child's ADOS scores like?

Pragmatics and affect recognition were very low, as were aspects of behavior. But the scores weren't reported in terms of percentiles. And theory of mind was at 11th percentile, which seems low enough to need services. And all academic fluency subtests (anything that was timed) was below 7th percentile, but overall academic scores were higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between an NT child who may have some social awkwardness and an ASD child who can't function with the social aspects of the school day including small group work, negotiating hallways, cafeterias, greeting teachers and classmates, playing in groups with other children at recess.

It is up to the IEP team to determine the extent of the challenge and to work toward mitigating the impact in a school setting. This is absolutely the school's job under IDEA. Please don't put this all on the parent. It sounds like OP is doing all s/he can.

But that's the thing. It's not the school's job to mitigate all of the impact and catch the child up to the level of a neurotypical peer. The government has decided that taxpayer-funded school services are for children who are generally in the area of the lowest ~7th percentile. If a child is above this level but not where the parent wishes them to be, it's on them to supplement with private services. There just isn't money for everyone, so the government sets the limits that the school has to then enforce. It's not personal. Nothing in government ever is.

The people who it is personal for, the family, have to do what they think their child needs. That's how it's always been. They just can't rely on government-funded services if they don't meet the requirements.

Where did you get that social skills services are only for the lowest functioning kids and specifically for kids below the 7th percentile? That has not been our experience at a DCPS, where child with ASD who is totally mainstreamed and not below 7th percentile gets social skills pull outs from counselor and pragmatics from SLP.

NP here, 7th %ile is 1.5 Standard Deviations below the mean. It's a pretty common cut score used to qualify children for speech and language services, although I've also seen schools qualify children with higher scores if there are other complicating factors, and I've also seen schools who didn't qualify a child, despite lower scores, because there wasn't education impact. To be clear that doesn't mean that every score is below the 7th %ile, just that some scores were below the 7th.

I would be surprised to find a kid who qualified for an ASD diagnosis and didn't have some scores (e.g. pragmatics, anxiety, behavior) at or below the 7th %ile. What were your child's ADOS scores like?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between an NT child who may have some social awkwardness and an ASD child who can't function with the social aspects of the school day including small group work, negotiating hallways, cafeterias, greeting teachers and classmates, playing in groups with other children at recess.

It is up to the IEP team to determine the extent of the challenge and to work toward mitigating the impact in a school setting. This is absolutely the school's job under IDEA. Please don't put this all on the parent. It sounds like OP is doing all s/he can.

But that's the thing. It's not the school's job to mitigate all of the impact and catch the child up to the level of a neurotypical peer. The government has decided that taxpayer-funded school services are for children who are generally in the area of the lowest ~7th percentile. If a child is above this level but not where the parent wishes them to be, it's on them to supplement with private services. There just isn't money for everyone, so the government sets the limits that the school has to then enforce. It's not personal. Nothing in government ever is.

The people who it is personal for, the family, have to do what they think their child needs. That's how it's always been. They just can't rely on government-funded services if they don't meet the requirements.

Where did you get that social skills services are only for the lowest functioning kids and specifically for kids below the 7th percentile? That has not been our experience at a DCPS, where child with ASD who is totally mainstreamed and not below 7th percentile gets social skills pull outs from counselor and pragmatics from SLP.