For therapy services questions, you should email the provider directly. If you do not know the contact info, email the case manager for that. Just FYI, many therapy service providers do not work for the county full time. Further, some respond to emails only when they are working at the school in question. I, for instance, do not work for the county full time. I do not respond to emails on my non-duty days. To respond to most emails would require me to have access to data located in my office at the school. Further, on my non-duty days, I have another job to which my time is allocated. I know of treating therapists who work in the school system only one day per week, and they respond to emails on that day. Service providers other than teachers often have irregular schedules. Bear that in mind and the classroom teacher (or at least the RTSE) are typically aware of the work schedule.

What a bullshit answer. No parent should ever have to know the schedule of a school service provider or if that provider is at that school full time or not. Your post indicates you believe a response but answer the question and that you don't have an out of office message when you're not in. Not acceptable. A 'response' does not require the complete and full answer to a question. A 'response' can be an acknowledgement of the email and an indication of when a complete and full answer can be expected. The key is to manage expectations. Our school psychologist is only part time yet has an auto-response indicating when she will be in office and able to respond to email. When she returns, she follows up that email with either an answer or date when she expects to have the answer. My expectations are managed. If I need a more immediate answer, I forward my email to someone else I believe can assist and also acknowledge I know the psychologist is out of the office. Waiting a week with no acknowledgement of receipt is unprofessional and unacceptable.

I'm appalled at the lack of basic professionalism on this thread. What poor customer service skills you have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

CCing the principal after 24 hours is nuts, and getting a response at that point is winning the battle but losing the war. It' not a smart strategy.


IME, it is exactly the opposite. Not policing the minor infractions means that teachers and staff are more likely to push boundaries because they think you don't, can't or won't care.

Last year I had a number of, frankly, ugly interactions with staff at school. I had to write letters to get the IEP enforced, to get a teacher to stop belittling my child when DC asked for accommodations. I ended up calling a big meeting with the principal and assorted staff, and I made it clear that they were out of compliance with the IEP. Over the summer the IEP coordinator left and was replaced by a new one. As a result, I have never had an easier, more correct IEP year. Speaking up and refusing to be pushed around and using the law to support our position was key.


What you are describing is a hell of a lot differing than a 24 hour email turn around time.

Not in the context given, especially the 'terrible position' someone claims we are in for expecting a response in 24 hours. When the little things aren't attended to, bigger issues emerge.

You aren't in a terrible position for wanting a 24 hour response time, but calling the the Calvary for something that minor does you no favors. Don't let everything slide, don't let important things slide, but the 24 hour rule, especially for the matters the Op described, is not reasonable.

You don't consider "therapy services or curriculum" important things? OP has waited far longer than 24 hrs/1 business day for a response of some kind and received nothing.

For therapy services questions, you should email the provider directly. If you do not know the contact info, email the case manager for that. Just FYI, many therapy service providers do not work for the county full time. Further, some respond to emails only when they are working at the school in question. I, for instance, do not work for the county full time. I do not respond to emails on my non-duty days. To respond to most emails would require me to have access to data located in my office at the school. Further, on my non-duty days, I have another job to which my time is allocated. I know of treating therapists who work in the school system only one day per week, and they respond to emails on that day. Service providers other than teachers often have irregular schedules. Bear that in mind and the classroom teacher (or at least the RTSE) are typically aware of the work schedule.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh op. You don't get it.

This is OP and I haven't commented in several pages. Clearly there are also others who hold teachers accountable.

The teachers are not your enemies. In fact- they are the only real ally you have. Principals & admin tell parents whatever to pacify. Making enemies with the person who teaches your kid is so so dumb. So dumb.

Except, IME, there are some teachers who are supposed to be teaching my kids but aren't. That means they are not my ally. My ally is the superior above them that will force that to teacher to do his/her job.

I'm one of the Special Educators who is also a SN parent. if a teacher isn't teaching your kid, or is belittling your kid or whatever, then absolutely take that to the top. But when you cry wolf, because the teacher took 28 hours to respond to an email, it's not going to help your situation.

Anonymous wrote:Op stated that she will fwd emails after 24 hours with the off base hope that it might 'jeopardize their career and advancement opputunitues'. That's bullshit.
Moms- accept your kids. Please. And accept yourself. Then you can let go of the anger.

Peace

Nope, not me again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh op. You don't get it.

This is OP and I haven't commented in several pages. Clearly there are also others who hold teachers accountable.

The teachers are not your enemies. In fact- they are the only real ally you have. Principals & admin tell parents whatever to pacify. Making enemies with the person who teaches your kid is so so dumb. So dumb.

Except, IME, there are some teachers who are supposed to be teaching my kids but aren't. That means they are not my ally. My ally is the superior above them that will force that to teacher to do his/her job.

Op stated that she will fwd emails after 24 hours with the off base hope that it might 'jeopardize their career and advancement opputunitues'. That's bullshit.
Moms- accept your kids. Please. And accept yourself. Then you can let go of the anger.

Peace

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh op. You don't get it.

This is OP and I haven't commented in several pages. Clearly there are also others who hold teachers accountable.

The teachers are not your enemies. In fact- they are the only real ally you have. Principals & admin tell parents whatever to pacify. Making enemies with the person who teaches your kid is so so dumb. So dumb.

Not OP. Please see one of the PPs regarding 'professionalism'. There is a a 'yuge' difference between holding someone accountable and making enemies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh op. You don't get it.

This is OP and I haven't commented in several pages. Clearly there are also others who hold teachers accountable.

The teachers are not your enemies. In fact- they are the only real ally you have. Principals & admin tell parents whatever to pacify. Making enemies with the person who teaches your kid is so so dumb. So dumb.

Anonymous wrote:Oh op. You don't get it.

This is OP and I haven't commented in several pages. Clearly there are also others who hold teachers accountable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's surprising that you use a word associated with disability as a slur on this board. Do you also use the "R" word?

Really? Are you also offended by "lame duck"? What about when a horse pulls up "lame?" How do you feel about lame excuses? Have you ever been 'crippled' by anxiety, had crippling depression?

I am offended when someone uses a term that refers to a disability as a slur, not when they use it to accurately describe something.

So, describing an animal whose foot or leg doesn't work as "lame" isn't a problem. It's accurate because that's what lame means.

But when you use the word lame to mean "bad" or "subpar" your implying that people who are literally lame are also bad and subpar. That's not cool.

Teachers generally do not return email with their feet, so I have to assume that the PP was using the word "lame" in the latter, pejorative way, and not in the literal sense of the word.

I've got a kid who will always need to wear bilateral DAFOs. I have no problem with how 'lame' is used to describe some subpar/falling well below expectations. I can assure you my DS uses it liberally and would be shocked to think that it's a slur referring to his disability. I can't tell you the number of times he's said 'That's so lame.'

Oh op. You don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:

CCing the principal after 24 hours is nuts, and getting a response at that point is winning the battle but losing the war. It' not a smart strategy.


IME, it is exactly the opposite. Not policing the minor infractions means that teachers and staff are more likely to push boundaries because they think you don't, can't or won't care.

Last year I had a number of, frankly, ugly interactions with staff at school. I had to write letters to get the IEP enforced, to get a teacher to stop belittling my child when DC asked for accommodations. I ended up calling a big meeting with the principal and assorted staff, and I made it clear that they were out of compliance with the IEP. Over the summer the IEP coordinator left and was replaced by a new one. As a result, I have never had an easier, more correct IEP year. Speaking up and refusing to be pushed around and using the law to support our position was key.


What you are describing is a hell of a lot differing than a 24 hour email turn around time.

Not in the context given, especially the 'terrible position' someone claims we are in for expecting a response in 24 hours. When the little things aren't attended to, bigger issues emerge.

Yes. All these things mentioned above started as things I emailed about and could have been responded to within 24 hours with either an explanation or steps that would be taken to come into compliance. I don't necessarily expect a full response, but within 24 hours I do expexct you to acknowledge receipt of my email and either respond or tell me what other steps you need to take on your side in order to address the issue and how long it will take.

It is a red herring to say that emails sent to the wrong staffer do not need to be answered or that emails about complex issues can go unanswered for lengthy periods. The professional thing to do always is acknowledge the email and explain what is causing any delay.

Teachers make so many excuses for themselves.

I also think we need to check our definition of professionalism. A teacher/parent can have opinions about a client, and those can be negative. That does not mean the person is 'unprofessional'. Professionalism is doing your best job in spite of feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How frequently do you email the teacher?

OP here. I do not email excessively. I find it odd that when I contact her about a logistical matter with DC's schedule I often receive a message back quickly with a comment or two. When I have emailed about therapy services or curriculum I am getting no reply.

That kind of email takes a lot more time to reply to and she may need to consult with someone who takes time to get back to her. Chill, OP. You sound intense.

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's surprising that you use a word associated with disability as a slur on this board. Do you also use the "R" word?

Really? Are you also offended by "lame duck"? What about when a horse pulls up "lame?" How do you feel about lame excuses? Have you ever been 'crippled' by anxiety, had crippling depression?

I am offended when someone uses a term that refers to a disability as a slur, not when they use it to accurately describe something.

So, describing an animal whose foot or leg doesn't work as "lame" isn't a problem. It's accurate because that's what lame means.

But when you use the word lame to mean "bad" or "subpar" your implying that people who are literally lame are also bad and subpar. That's not cool.

Teachers generally do not return email with their feet, so I have to assume that the PP was using the word "lame" in the latter, pejorative way, and not in the literal sense of the word.