It's always been explained to me, at least in California, that a student qualifies for an IEP when there is a "discrepancy" between achievement and ability. This is unrelated to whether or not the achievement or ability is below grade level. So if a child has an ability to perform much faster but is not achieving a that level, technically they should have an IEP. If achievement and ability are similar, there is no need for an IEP. It sounds like your DS should qualify because his ability is above his achievement. But also in California, the way I understand it is that if a parent requests an IEP evaluation, the school must comply in 60 school days- they cannot say "no we don't think so" without doing the testing and evaluations.
As a middle school teacher and high school VP, I've had several kids accommodated with a computer in the classroom. The way this plays out varies depending on the disability and the course subject. For my high school students, we always required that the laptop stay at school and that it be the property of our tech department. The laptop has no wireless or internet capabilities and is only used as a typing machine. The student must turn in work on a USB drive that the teacher gives the student. That has virtually eliminated any cheating.
My first year as VP, we had a student with a Palm phone and foldout keyboard. It was a disaster for everyone- including the student who was suspended for plagiarism. Cutting and pasting from the internet was the biggest problem.
I think it's time to remind the principal that an IEP/504 accommodations are not about making things "fair" for the other students. They're about making things fair for yours! Sure, it's not fair that yours gets to type- perhaps the teachers should look at changing lesson tactics to a more fair solution for everyone.It's not fair that other students are being taught at their level and yours isn't. If we're working on fair, lets do it across the board.
