Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional 504 Clarification

DS7 is HG and dysgraphic. Will he be eligible for services like a 504 or IEP for the dysgraphia? Does it vary by state and district?

I can't seem to find a straight answer in my research. Even among teacher friends I don't get the same answer twice.

Thanks!

Niki, that's because nobody can answer it. The entire thing with Section 504 is that it has to involve a finding of eligibility under individual, idiosyncratic circumstances-- it's NOT based solely upon a diagnosis, ever. It's based on the level of functional impairment, which has to be "significant" in the context of "unaffected peers" with respect to "one or more major life activities" and in an educational setting, those life activities which are impacted by the condition.

The answer is "probably" in your case, but it really depends on the environment and how much difficulty your son would have accessing the same opportunities that his classmates enjoy.

The key is that whether or not the impairment is "significant" (or COULD be under some reasonably anticipated conditions) must be determined by a group of people who are knowledgeable about the condition, about the student and his history, and about the placement options available.

They have to consider "data" which is derived from "a variety of sources."

This is why parents almost have to be included in 504 proceedings, although technically there isn't a requirement in the law.

Please note that I'm not an attorney-- just very very familiar with this process and how school administrators can try to derail it at various points. I'll advise you of this, at any rate-- do NOT discuss accommodations until you have eligibility determined. While it shouldn't happen this way, it's not unusual for elgibility to be denied to students who seem to need things that schools/districts would rather not put in writing and be obliged to actually provide.

I emailed the following the the school psych when she told me last year that DD is not impaired enough (i.e. failing) in order to qualify for a 504 plan. Her teacher thought she was doing just fine on medication and she'd "grow out of" any processing speed issues that she has (hahaha). Don't know if this helps. 6 weeks later she wrote back to me and said "I was unaware of this."

According to Section 504 Under the 2008 ADA Amendments, there have been many changes. Some of these changes include:
1)Mitigating measures (in the case of my DD, meds) cannot be considered in determining substantial limitation (except for glasses/contact lenses). When determining whether the disability materially restricts a major life function, school districts must do a "look back" evaluation to determine what a child is like when off medication or without the mitigating measure
2)kids who have learned to "self-accomodate" or adapt--or compensate, now cannot be penalized for learning to manage the disability on their own. Learned adaptive skills are a mitigation that may not be taken into consideration when determining substantial limitation
3)Evaluations under the new interpretation of section 504 must be comprehensive and look at all areas of learning: thinking, concentrating, communicating, and so on.
4)Accommodations and modifcations must actually level the playing field in order to be 504 compliant.
5) School districts must have updated their 504 evaluation criteria, procedural requirements, manuals, materials, parent letters, prior written notice letters, and so on, and must have trained personel not to make statements or policy that violates Section 504 in a manner consistent with the ADA Amendments Act. Perhaps the most challenging issue facing school districts is understanding that even children who are DOING ADEQUATELY in school may qualify for Section 504.

Thank you both.

What about RTI? The assistant principal mentioned this specifically. Will the teachers try specific strategies in the classroom and if that doesn't work we'll discuss 504/IEP?

He will have the most trouble in his GT class. They do a lot of writing and I really didn't think he was going to make it through the end of this year. The amount of writing increases quite a bit in second grade.

Well, lots of times administrators prefer to handle this kind of thing "informally" or as part of "policy" of some sort.

But that's really NOT the way to view the legal obligation-- if it is a NEED for the student, and is the result of a diagnosis/challenge not shared by normative/typical classmates, then "RTI" ought only be something that comes up in the context of reviewing a 504/IEP -- not in determining whether one is needed or not.

My daughter COULD be handled with "policy" but the problem with that is that administration can be fickle-- and she NEEDS those accommodations, period.

Why wouldn't they want this incorporated into a clear document that lays out strategies for classroom teachers, and specifies YOUR responsibilities as well, hmmm?

Basically, just politely insist that you think he qualifies under Section 504, and steer all inquiries about accommodations/needs back to that. It's not about whether a student NEEDS a plan or designation, or any particular accommodations. All of that has to come after the determination of eligibility to begin with. If he isn't eligible, he's not entitled to anything in particular beyond what the teacher does (or withholds) for any student upon whim or demand.

So discussing RTI (or R to begin with, actually) is premature unless they think he's eligible.

"Oh he doesn't need a 504 plan,"

Well, but if he's ELIGIBLE for one, that's what you want (trust me, you do).

Largesse is lovely, but children shouldn't have to feel at the mercy of anyone in getting access to the education that they are entitled to under the law. Don't place yourself in the position to reinvent the wheel every time you get a new teacher, a new administrator, or move schools. Some of that is unavoidable, to be sure-- but kids with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to those kinds of changes without any formal documentation in place. He's entitled to it, and hey-- maybe that magical bit of paper says that they'll do whatever policy happens to be right now-- that's fine, too-- but that bit of paper says they'll KEEP doing it for him even if policy shifts. Important, that.

RTI CAN be good, but in my experiences it's a giant waste of everyone's time. I am a fairly intelligent person. If there was some simple accommodation that could be made to rectify the problems my kids have, I have figured it out and let the teachers know. I can't imagine a kid with dysgraphia improving or getting what they need simply from the RTI process. They are going to need a 504 to get the proper accommodations.

How much influence do teachers have in this? The AP mentioned that his first grade teachers will participate in this process. I don't suspect they will help our cause at all, which concerns me.

I just sat in my son's 504 eligibility meeting and then wrote the accommodations plan on Tuesday.

For me, it finally went smoothly because I had outside testing and he had just taken a high stakes writing state test where he didn't finish the conclusion and his abilities and the results of a test like that don't match.

There isn't anything wrong with his writing skills...his problem is in processing speed, perfectionism and anxiety during timed tasks and sometimes during class assignments. Add in ASD and hypotonia and you have a perfect storm.

Luckily the teacher in this meeting was his number one fan and advocate. And the school psychologist didn't raise a fuss, said the time she observed him he appeared on task 90% of the time (and random boys in the class were on task 96%of the time). What that had to do with anything I don't know but she signed the paper which was all I cared about.

This was a far cry from 4years ago when they said he has straight As, no 504 for him, he doesn't need it. And this time it was me, the language arts teacher, the guidance counselor and the psychologist. Last time when he was denied there were an additional 3 teachers in the room and it was like they had already decided no before I got there.

NikiHarp, I have a lot to say in a reply and absolutely no time today - I'm so sorry! I did want to quickly address the ? about RTI though. RTI stands for "Response to Intervention" - it's intended as a plan to *remediate* that happens prior to determining a student's eligibility for an IEP (which is an individualized education plan), and it's also used in a broader sense in our school district in terms of sort of an "RTI for all" but I won't even go into that because it's irrelevant here. SO... here's the deal, and it can be tricky. You need to differentiate when you're talking with the school between skills that can be remediated and abilities that must be accommodated. I can't speak for you individual ds, but in general, dysgraphic students are not able to show the full extent of their knowledge when using handwriting and no amount of remediation on the planet will ever change that. You will most likely want to be advocating to allow your ds to have accommodations that remove the impact of dysgraphia from any type of writing required in school. If the school is addressing the actual act of handwriting through "RTI" - that *might* be ok.. or it might not... totally depends on what expectations they have re RTI and handwriting instruction. Wish I had time to say more, but I don't at the moment.

I'll try to come back to this later - good luck!

polarbear

Glad it went so much better for you this time.

The statement about the observation is because any good evaluation in a school setting ought to include an observation of the student in their natural setting. In this case, the utility of the observation is to confirm that the speed and performance issues are not the result of a lack of effort or attention on his part. The 90%/96% means the observer also confirmed that the level of on-task behavior was consistent with the classroom and that of (presumably) non-disabled peers. The comparison ratings are usually more important in the case of a student who has low on-task behavior, but when you see that the whole classroom is a hot mess, you can conclude that it's more the teacher than the student.

polarbear, that is a nice concise statement of the difference between accommodations and modifications/interventions. I wish more teachers understood it.

NikiHarp, the AP probably referenced RTI because, if you are in an RTI-requiring state, s/he's had it drilled in that you have to try RTI for at least 8 weeks on everything before beginning the 504/IEP process. But, of course, if one thinks about it logically (and I'm constantly being chaffed at work about this crazy need I have to do so), we would never use the RTI process on a sensory impaired (visual/hearing) student before taking them through the 504/IEP process, because their disabilities are clearly documented, and not open to remediation. So, obviously, the RTI-first mantra is not universally-applicable, and you will have to draw a clear analogy regarding the nature of the disability.

I cannot thank you all enough. This information is very helpful and I feel entirely overwhelmed.

I just want DS to get the help he needs and it breaks my heart to think that I have to go to these lengths with the school to get that help. School is supposed to be HIS place. He's smart and loves learning. He should thrive at school, but he doesn't and it almost feels like grief to watch it all unfold.

Exhale. Thanks for listening.

aeh, looks like I am in an RTI-requiring state. Looks like my state has to follow the RTI model "completely with the option of adding severe discrepancy." Does this mean that they can bypass RTI if there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability?

(source: http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines)

Without knowing your exact state regs, I would say that what that means is that students who are achieving at grade level, but exhibit a severe discrepancy between aptitude and achievement, can also be qualified as special needs. Otherwise, under a pure RTI eligibility model, a student who has no normative weaknesses (at or above grade level in all assessed areas) can't be qualified regardless of their ability, because they are not dually-discrepant (significantly below grade level, and nonresponsive to tier 2 (or 3, in a 4 tier system) interventions). The severe discrepancy clause is intended to allow eligibility for students of high ability, who are underperforming, but still meeting grade-level standards.

It's not necessarily a short-cut to eligibility, depending on how your state has chosen to clarify policy. If there is a performance measure that is below grade level, you may still have to work your way through the eight weeks of RTI, to see if there is a general ed intervention that will bring the trend line on track to reach grade level. If there are no performance measures below grade level, then you might be able to move more quickly to the severe discrepancy stage of things. That might be aided by any data that shows asynchronous academic development, as above-grade-level achievement in one area will support the hypothesis that there is high overall aptitude.

Time on task had nothing to do with his problems though....which was why I was confused about her focus of her observation....but ultimately it turned out okay and it was just a hoop they had to do.

I just talked to someone from the Dept. of Special Education yesterday and we talked about Rti and the "discrepancy model". She said that she doesn't know which my school uses, it could be one or the other. I am completely mystified by that.

In some states, districts can make their own decision about which model they use for determining SLD, or they can use both. The discrepancy model postulates that students with SLDs will present with a profile of average to above average cognitive ability, but achievement in one or more areas that is significantly (statistically) below that predicted by their cognitive ability. This is a generally discredited model, as it lacks a good evidentiary base, but persists in practice because it has face validity and is easy to implement. It also has value for 2e kids, who otherwise have a hard time qualifying under RTI.

RTI (or RTII, or MTSS) requires frequent progress monitoring of academic skills. It has some ideological value, especially for low-performing kids, as it is focused on identifying children who are performing below grade-level, and remediating them, without worrying about the diagnostic category. If a student is below normative expectations, and does not respond to increasingly intense general education interventions, then they are determined to have a learning disability that requires specialized instruction. Unfortunately, if you are a 2e kid, you might have all your skills at or above grade level, but still be significantly underperforming, and so won't qualify easily under RTI.

It sounds like in my state they can either use RTI or the discrepancy model but the way the woman was talking it's either an RTI school or a discrepancy school. It seems odd and I'm wondering why the school wouldn't just decide on a case-by-case basis. I really think DD would probably qualify for an IEP for writing if using the discrepancy model, but probably not RTI.