.
Possibly what's going on with dismissing the mild disorder is they don't think you child meets the criteria for an IEP. Or don't want to because they think other kids need the services more. I was told was in order for the school to write an IEP they needed to document my daughter was below 7% in at least one area. Although I've been told since that isn't absolute particularly when talking about a GT kid. But in H.S. since my daughter was functioning well (never getting below a C in a class) that she didn't NEED her IEP anymore.
I'd add here - if this is coming up when advocating for an IEP, we ran into the same roadblocks bluemagic did. It was helpful to first, know whether it's an IEP or a 504 plan that's needed. IEPs are necessary when a student needs individualized instruction, 504 plans are needed to guarantee that students with disabilities have equal access to their education. It's important (jmo) not to focus on IEP eligibility if that's not what your student needs - and needs change. My ds, for example, needed an IEP in elementary school, but now that he is in high school he's on a 504 plan. He needed remediation and individualized instruction in elementary school, but there was an endpoint to what he needed for remediation (both in terms of what was achievable and what was ok to let go), so we let go of the IEP. He'll always need accommodations in school, hence the 504. An example of what was worth remediating (and accomplishable) vs what we "let go" for my ds: he received significant remediation for getting his thoughts out of his head (expressive language disorder) - and the remediation was very successful. We did not spend more than one year of effort on remediating handwriting, because we knew the chances of this "curing" his dysgraphia were nonexistent. Instead, we "let it go" re the handwriting and moved him to keyboard and other accommodations, which are a part of his annual 504 plan.
Second thing when advocating for IEP eligibility - we heard the same thing as bluemagic re bars which students must fall below to be eligible - "7th percentile" or "failing grades" etc. None of this is true - those are guidelines, but the whole point of an IEP is that it's *individual*. We were able to successfully advocate around those arguments by constantly refocusing the conversation in school meetings to keep what our ds' challenge was and how it impacts his academics. The law is on the side of providing access for students with disabilities, so as long as we kept it simple and focused, didn't get emotional, and purposely deflected comments such as "it's only mild", the school staff couldn't argue with the data we had. Hope that makes sense!
Best wishes,
polarbear
