Let me see if I am understanding you correctly.
This is a
regular classroom teacher, yes? This teacher is
challenging the validity of your child's diagnosis. That is the basis for 're-evaluation' under section 504, if I'm understanding you correctly.
Mich is spot-on. ANY changes to the 504 plan need to involve
multiple sources of data, and that data needs to be interpreted by
persons who are knowlegable about the meaning of the data AND that placement options/accommodations available.The teacher's opinion here won't hold much weight, I suspect. But you might be mentally prepared to challenge her qualifications to be offering that opinion if she is too stubborn or vocal about it.
If the
diagnosis hasn't changed... then it sounds like your teacher is potentially operating outside of her scope of practice here.
(Unless, of course, DT
is actually an expert in your child's particular disabling conditions? No? I thought so.)
Now, with that said, the teacher may well be the expert on classroom accommodations. I'd definitely offer that as an olive branch in the review meeting, and ask for the teacher's observations
in the context of accommodations. (ie-- NOT 'diagnosis')
She may be trying to help your child to develop compensatory strategies, and seeing that prolonged and excessive accommodations might get in the way of developing them if the child depends too heavily on them for too long. But also worth considering is what the load will look like in two or three years-- or even just "next year" for that matter. If you can invite next year's teacher along to the meeting, that would be ideal. Accommodations that work well in one classroom may need tweaking in another, after all.
Setting goals and evaluating how well the plan is doing in terms of making progress toward those goals is different than finding the child ineligible under the law. The teacher seems...
confused... about that.
