Let's just say that it was not good. I sent the following request:
Under Assistive Technology you state that Jake has been resistive to carrying the Quick Pad to classes. He did not believe that it worked. It was kept in his 7th hour class and that teacher had to figure out how to use it each time that it was taken out of the closet that it was kept in. Therefore, Jake believed that it did not work. I stated this at the IEP meeting and wish to have that in the present level instead of saying that Jake was resistive to using it. Finally, that same teacher let Jake use a class computer, which I had suggested in middle school, and told Jake that "I have figured out a loophole around your mom's rules." That is unacceptable to me. This same teacher admitted in the IEP meeting that she had said this. Jake came home and told me that I was making things harder for him because that is the impression that he received from this teacher. My advocacy for Jake should never be discussed with Jake without my permission and should never be used as an excuse to find loopholes.
They refuse to remove it. They did change it a little to state that "Mom believes that student believes that it didn't work." But, they would not take out that he was resistive to carrying it.
I told them that I know what he thought and I know what happened. I told them that it was not acceptable to me. They told me that I am the expert on Jake at home and they are the experts on Jake at school. Those same experts didn't know which class to put him in and put him in a class that was inappropriate.
They did change the following:
Under strengths it states that Mrs. Tucker shared that she does not feel that Jacob has any strengths. That is taken totally out of context and is completely inaccurate. I was asked what strengths I felt Jake had for his future. I said that he didn't have any strengths that would lead to him living an independent "normal" life. I did state that Jake is great at math and reading. But, he was not given the tools to live within society because the district did not address his social issues when he started in the district at the age of 5. I want that statement removed.
We spent a long time discussing the following:
On the Modifications and Accommodations page I specifically stated that I was not in agreement to As Needed being used. That is defined as to be determined by the special education and/or regular education staff and that is leaving an important party out of the decisions. I do not believe that it is appropriate to use that term on this IEP.
This was not discussed at all.
Finally, we discussed a social skills class and my psychiatrist and I believe that it is totally inappropriate for Jake. He requires one-on-one instruction from a person that is HIGHLY trained in his disability. It is necessary for the person that is giving Jake services to COMPLETELY understand his disability so that they can understand the difference between one sided conversations and real conversations. Jake has made no progress in this area and has very little time left to make some progress.
We also had a discussion on Jake taking tests in a small group setting. In elementary school it was preferable. He did much better in that environment. In middle school they refused to do 90% of the time. Even though it stated in his IEP that they were supposed to. Today they said that historically Jake had been resistive to taking tests in a small group setting and would shutdown when forced to do so. I said that historically Jake had never shutdown when taking tests in small groups and that if he did now it was because the district had failed to do their job in middle school and this was the consequences. Then I got another speech about how I don't know him at school and they are the experts.
We discussed evaluations. I sent them a list of evaluations that an expert sent to me. They said that they were not obligated to use my list and that they would not purchase a test that they didn't have. I said that I understood that, but Jake is 15 years old and has a major written language issue that the district has never diagnosed or addressed. They felt that it was addressed in the PLOP. I don't believe that it is.
This is how they feel that it is addressed:
Class participation, staying on task, understanding and following instructions, completing and turning in work on time, organization, self-advocating for make-up work, taking notes, expressing himself through lengthy forms of written expression, test-taking skills, understanding the emotions of peers and teachers, and general social skills.
Jacob continues to need improvement with the following skills: following written directions, self-advocacy, writing/ editing and writing complexity, organization, study skills, pragmatic language and social skills.
Woodcock Johnson III (Given by Psychologist)
Reading fluency tested out in the high average range (Which must be 110 or higher) and in the 86th percentile when compared to his age peers.
Writing fluency tested out much lower and only in the 10th percentile with a standard score equivalent of 80.
There is over a 30 point difference between these scores. Written language continues to be an issue for Jake and he would benefit from having that addressed in his IEP as well.
These are the tests that the expert said to ask for:
I would request a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation in all areas of functioning (there are 7). I would also request that the district autism person be present to help plan the evaluation.
Vision-
Hearing-
health/motor- request a Sensory Processing Profile
cognitive- request a Leiter-R non-verbal test of intelligence- they would only do Adaptive Behavior is IQ is 70 or below- have them do the Leiter-R first- then determine if Adaptive Behavior is needed
achievement- request comprehensive achievement testing in all areas of academics- such as the Woodcock-Johnson Revised
speech/language- you need them to do at least 3 good tests- how did he score on the CASL?- it is a good test- could also do the CELF-IV(Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals), TOWL-2 (Test of Written Language), and TOPL-2 (Test of Pragmatic Language- only the newest versioh is good- ADOS would be good here also)
social/emotional- request the ADOS (Autism Diagnostic Scale) and a Social Skills Rating Scale- not a BASC.
I would also request a comprehensive Assistive Technology evaluation for reading and written language.
No comments:
Post a Comment