Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional IEP Meeting Tomorrow

We have DS' IEP meeting tomorrow. Wish us luck! I got donuts and muchkins and have iRecorder installed on my phone to record the meeting. Any last minute advice? I am nervous but I anticipate it will go well!

You should tell them tht you re recording the meeting. It cn be illegal in some states without permission.

Oh yes, of course. I plan to tell them. Should I not record it at all? Maybe I shouldn't - may make people uncomfortable...

The usual practice is to take good notes and then send an email or letter summarizing the points covered and confirming the action plan with a request for correction. Recording could imply a lack of trust and make your participants worry about how they sound rather than focusing on the meeting.

I suppose if you explained it in some benign way, like you have difficulty taking notes and asking questions but you want to make notes later, that might help. Everyone will be more relaxed and natural without a recording though.

I do have trouble taking notes and our babysitter for our little one fell through so he will be there and a distraction at the meeting. Having said that, so far these people have been very cooperative, etc. so I really don't anticipate any problems. I was going to say I just have trouble taking notes and then wondering what everyone said, etc... it's just easier for me to record. One of the reasons we are doing the IEP is becasue of all the trouble DS has writing, I was gonna joke that it runs in the family and that's why I like to record meetings and such.

I guess I'll just play it by ear and see how I feel and what the feeling is once we get there.

Pete Wright says to tape it. (and im my book his word is golden!) Aside from actually having a tape, it can...inspire some people to be slightly more cooperative than they would otherwise be. Good luck!
http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/tips/palmer.meeting.tape.htm

It is perfectly fine to say "could I record the meeting? That will free me up to not take notes."

They may ask for a copy of the recording.

In our maximum-conflict days, we found that people did become noticeably more agreeable with a recorder running.

DeeDee

I should hire myself out as a "legal presence" at these meetings.

"I will attend if you give me coffee and doughnuts," I will say.

It would be a limited arrangement, where I just have to sit there and look attoreyish.

The retainer agreement would be clear that I wasn't there to take notes, or even pay any attention to what was going on.

LOL this alone is worth doing it for, even if you never listen to the recording

This is funny, but it actually works to have someone sitting there looking attorneyish. All the participants are on their best behavior. Having a recorder sitting in the middle of the table works, too.

Sighs, Mhm's, and Aahs will require an upgrade to scones and a Grande One-Pump Nonfat Cafe Mocha With Whip,

Indeed. The change in language and tone was noticeable. We felt so much better as a result.

DeeDee

Thank you ALL!

It was a great IEP meeting!

I did not record it and do sort of regret it... Only because it's just nice to have the recording because so much is happening and I had the little one, etc.

Also, though I did not record I felt I could have totally said, "Does anyone mind if I record this? I end up so engrossed in the conversation I don't take good notes then I forget what was said, ect..."


I have some questions for you all but gotta run - BBL!

So, anyway, the meeting went so well. They were all just wonderfully supportive. Principal is fabulous. No one was defensive. Everyone seemed to have a high opinion of DS and seemed completely dedicated to his success.

We did have the functional behavior analysis discussion. They said that right now it isn't even necessary to make any decision about this because he is not having any "behaviors" on which to base a FBA (my opinion as well)- and I truly believe this is because everyone started implimenting the IEP recommendations already. I talked about why I am uncomfortable with and FBA and they seemed very understanding and they said even though their behavioral specialist is very competent, they totally respect and understand my feelings on this. They said 'we can work something out with regard to this should any behavior problems arise' and, of course, I can get a private one or whatever - we can work it out if the situation arises.

The only slight sticking point was getting Vision Therapy covered. They did seem slightly (only slightly) reluctant with regard to that. But I pushed. And it turns out they have done it in the past! Okay, so, for this to happen they would need their doc "re-certified by their board" (b/c his certification has lapsed). The doc happenes to be a doc that I have read very good things about with regard to vision therapy and DS' diagnosis... I "know" of him from my research and actually wanted to go to his practice but my insurance wasn't accepted there. Anyway, apparently, he would need to be re-certified and then DS would have to get an eval by him at his office. Then said Doc would give a report and, if he recommends VT for DS, then the school would pay to have DS get VT somewhere in our state. Now, my only concern is that by the time this all happens I am thinking DS will actually be done with vision therapy. And/or by the time he gets the eval for the school, after so many months of VT, the doc could find he doesn't qualify for therapy b/c his VT has been successful. But I am thinking I should go ahead with this anyway. What if he does need more? What if it turns out he needs more next year or something... At least the doc will be "certified by their board." Maybe after so many months of VT, the school doc will find he still does need more. So what do y'all think? Should I go ahead and do this anyway (still continuing with our private VT of course)? I am thinking yes. And even if DS can't benefit maybe some other child having the same problem will be able to.

Also, they do seem to be on board with DS being gifted/twice exceptional. They will monitor him for gifted services and in the meantime said the teacher and I can work on ways to challenge DS. They did say that they would not be surprised if he ends up qualifying for their pull-out program when it starts. And also they said somehting like it's not just test scores we base it on - it's not just numbers we will have our gifted services person 'look' at him as well. (and, see, this is where a recording would come in handy b/c I can't remember what exactly was said and would love to be able to go back to this part of the convo and listen to it!) I was surprised by this -I guess I was expecting them to kind-of be a little skeptical about DS intelligence - his gifted side. But they "seem" to feel like I do that the vision, hypotonia and anxiety are supressing his already high IQ scores. They specifically said they are very impressed with his verbal skills and vocabularly... even his perfomance on the "tests" he's been given so far. That felt so good to hear.

Oh MON, sorry this happened to you and your children! Thanks for the advice and word of caution. Yes, I was a little worried that the whole "we look at more than just the test scores" could be a double-edged sword. I was thinking the problem could be something like "yes test results show GT but he needs accomodations, remediation, etc it just isn't a good idea/fit... etc etc" So, I guess we'll see. But I do not give up easily and, after all, I used to advocate for a living so I am relatively decent at it and I think they realize that so hopefully that will help. Like with the VT, they totally would have ended the meeting without a word about that - even though I had sent them all a detailed email with case law about how VT therapy can be covered as a related service. Then, when I brought it up the director of special ed did (imo) first try to brush it off. I would say she twice just tried to get me to give it up. I did not. So I am hoping this will help - they know I will research, I will push and I will if necessary start pulling out law, case law etc.

The kids are screened with OLSAT starting this year - in Feburary of 1st grade. Then, the WISC is the next step for kids that scored a certain score on the OLSAT. I don't know what that score is! I should ask. The GT program is a pull out program and officially starts in 3rd grade. Anymore advice on this is greatly appreciated!

My other slight concern is that the IEP says in part "consider alternate forms of assessment such as oral response, consider reducing the number of responses required, monitor the need for a scribe..." I mentioned my concern about the wording of this at the meeting. I am a bit uncomfortable that it is too vague. I am thinking I would want something more concrete because how does one measure "consider?" It feels like I can't "make" them allow DS to respond orally, all that they can be 'made' to do is "consider" that. YKIM? Of course, they were very nice about it and said (paraphasing) 'oh it's a balance - these are something we need to sort of make decisions about on the fly.... like we gave DS a test the other day we decided to see if could d the writing instead of orally and he did great but if he seemed fatigued we would step in and change the mode of output either scribe for him or let him answer orally.... they said something about needing to find the balance between "not enabling but supporting" (which kind-of made me cringe even though I do see ther point.) They asked me to "trust them." (They also apologized for our bad experience last year - last year's school is in the district but a different school. That school psych was at this meeting as well as the new school psych). In their defense, they have been doing this ("considering" and "finding the balance") this entire month - DS reports that when he gets tired the teacher/aid does scribe for him and allows him to give oral answers. So far, DS is super happy and all is well - what they are doing is going very well. So, they do seem to be finding the balance and doing a good job of that. However, the vague wording concerns me. What are people's thoughts and advice on this?

Oh and I haven't signed yet. I told them we weren;t ready to sign I wanted to look over the report and think on it more. Why sign before you have to! It's always a good idea to take some to think before signing anything, imo.

Yes, that vague wording would concern me. We had something similar last year as well as a "we're all in this together" attitude. Everything went well for a few months. When we would meet I would ask questions and they would explain what they were doing, how they were addressing things, why things were being done the way that they were, etc. My "spidey senses" would go off occasionally but I didn't want to rock the boat - I felt a cooperative relationship was in DD's best interest so I didn't push too hard on tightening up the language.

Then things changed. For some reason I have yet to figure out the principal decided to make things confrontational. The cooperation was gone, the belief that they were all working in DD's best interest was gone. And we had a weakly worded IEP to battle them with. We ended up hiring a consultant who went directly to the Director of Special Services. Even with the weakly worded IEP we were able to get a letter conceding that they had violated her IEP. Now that document is much more clearly worded. If there is any "consider" type of language I visit it whenever we meet - if it is not being done consistently or I believe that DD needs something in place I ask for it. It is now much more difficult for them to get me to agree to any kind of loose language.

So if you are comfortable that they are working in your DS's best interest and have a handle on his needs then go ahead and give it a try . Be prepared to be vigilant though and don't hesitate to call another meeting to change the IEP if you think "monitor" or "consider" isn't meeting his needs. Don't go in guns blazing and looking for a fight but be prepared to stand your ground if you need to. We now have so many services in place there is little need for these vague terms anymore. Once we got to the point of having the pysch and neuropsych attend an IEP meeting the district had basically backed themselves into a corner. It's no longer us chatting pleasantly and agreeing how best to proceed. They now have the experts weighing in on the details so they are forced to provide the higher level of service. Is it what I expected a year ago? No way. Has it been a pleasant experience getting here? No. But in the end I think that vigilante principal may have actually done DD a favor - she has much better level of service that she ever would have had with our prior relationship and vague IEP language.

You're doing a great job.

Thanks Pemberly! I did say at the meeting that I would , "be vigilant [not] hesitate to call another meeting to change the IEP if [I] think "monitor" or "consider" isn't meeting his needs." I have said twice now I am not comfortable with the wording... So they know.

I am just wondering if there isn't a compromise - i.e., a middle ground between being this vague and getting wording a bit more specific? Any suggestions?