A week or two ago I posted in the Identification forum about my DS8's school assessment scores, which disqualified him from services with the district. I'm fine with the fact that he is not the kind of student that they mean to serve. However, I find myself somewhat fretting about the students who would benefit more from identification, kids who don't present as classic high-achievers but who might really thrive with challenge.
So, I'm writing an email to the district superintendent (who is also the special services director this year, I guess.) I am asking him for my son's full scores and inquiring about whether the psychologist who oversaw the testing and made the final determination about services can address my son's ability/achievement gap in verbal ability/language arts. (I find myself coming back to worrying about stealth dyslexia a lot recently.) And then, I feel like I need to include a gentle challenge to the district over the narrow criteria they're using. How does this sound?
"Although we have been happy with the way (DS)'s teachers have really worked with him to differentiate in the classroom with worksheets and self-teaching materials, we were hoping for the added benefits of ability grouping and direct, differentiated instruction with this new program. It's clear though that this wasn't the intent at all, if 1-2% of the district -- which apparently equates to one student out of 930? -- is expected to be identified. May I ask what *is* the intent for improving the educational experience of any elementary student who might be identified in the future, and whether you are confident that the nomination process was sufficiently broad to capture students from diverse backgrounds who might not present as high-achieving in the classroom, and whether funding is the main concern holding the district back from a more broad-ranging effort targeted at a bigger portion of the student body?"
