Received an email from the school that my twins attended before I withdrew them to homeschool. The school psych is wanting to conduct some testing to "re-up" the IEP if appropriate. My husband and I just rolled our eyes. The reason we pulled them was because the school wasn't supporting them, nor following the IEP. The school psych says that if they go back to school in the district, they will have to start everything over if we do not renew the IEP now. We likely are not putting the girls back until high school...if then. Should we just fill in the documentation to renew the IEP or just forget about it and if in 3 years time we need it, we just have the district start from scratch?

I would renew it - because here, it is extremely more difficult to start over than to renew. It's possible you might never go back, but if you do, and if something changes that sends you back sooner (who knows, maybe a new opportunity will open up?)... then you're covered.

I also would look at it as a chance to look at where your girls are now, which can be really useful information in planning your homeschooling.

If they receive accommodations for testing etc, that's useful too - even if they aren't using them now. When they are older and applying for SAT etc accommodations, having the record of accommodations helps.

Best wishes,

polarbear

I agree with polarbear.

I would fill in the documentation. It'll be one less hoop to jump through if you ever decide to re enroll them and will help with your own planning.

Per federal special ed law, the eligibility bar is actually lower for maintaining an IEP than it is for initiating an IEP, as maintaining progress with the accommodations/interventions (adequate educational progress) on the IEP can be considered sufficient documentation for eligibility, whereas you need actual performance deficits for initiating an IEP.

I also agree with polarbear as well. Far far easier to give them a review every 3 years than trying to get them a new one when they enter H.S.

Parents can choose to sign OUT of special ed at any time. The same cannot be said for signing INTO special ed.

It is true that refusing to sign an initial IEP leaves the child in general education, with no accommodations or services beyond what is available to the general population. I believe OP is in a re-evaluation situation, which is somewhat different.

If parents don't sign annual IEPs, the child remains under whatever conditions the previous (now-expired) IEP had them on, under stay-put provisions. For re-evaluations (triennials), depending on the state, failure to sign a consent to re-evaluate may exit them from special ed, especially if the child is not enrolled in the public schools at the time. If the child is enrolled in public school, parents can actually reject testing, and not have the child be exited from special ed, or the school system and the parent can mutually agree to waive testing for this triennial cycle, and write the IEP based on other existing information.

However, I actually think the most important consideration in the case of the OP is accommodations for post-secondary education and the standardized tests requested when applying to post-secondary institutions. From this distance, it's hard to predict what your children will need at that point (which is only about five or six years distant, at most, if I recall their ages correctly--maybe less if they end up further grade accelerated). Both post-secondary gate-keeping tests and post-secondary institutions want a history of accommodations that dates back more than a couple of years, and will want testing that is no more than three (sometimes two) years old at the time of application for accommodations. If you maintain continuity through IEPs or 504s from now until then, it will be an easier sell at the post-secondary entry level.

Plus, some districts will actually pay for/provide related services to homeschoolers, especially those who have previously been enrolled in the system. Again, you can always refuse services, but it may be that circumstances will arise that make accepting services beneficial to your family. And you can't accept what hasn't been offered, or be offered anything without up-to-date eligibility documentation.

Caveat: Of course, you all know that I'm a little predisposed toward testing...

Thanks everyone for the feedback. It makes reasonable sense. We agree with your feedback and are going to consent to the district's testing. As usual, you have all be so wonderfully helpful!

I am a bit curious about this. Is there a difference between graduating from special ed as compared to a general ed for high school ? Does this matter for college admissions ?

My kid currently does not have an IEP, despite his diagnosis (but I am keeping an eye out for issues/resolution to said issues etc in the far future). He still has issues with writing, which I am trying to mitigate outside of the school system. He does have a 504. Academically, he does well with STEM subjects, reading, but not writing,.

Just got word back from the school psych (the one that readily admits she doesn't know anything about gifted kids-which I kinda appreciate) and she advised that she will be administering the WISC V and WIAT in order for my DD to maintain her IEP. DD is 5e (CAPD, vision convergence issues, r. hand syndactyly, mild adhd, sensory proc.issues, and possibly dysgraphia). On the WISC IV, it was evident that there were issues. Given these diagnoses and Flynn effect, I am assuming her results on the WISC V will be less than they were on the WISC IV. Does anyone know if the WISC V will demonstrate NVLD as well as the WISC IV seemed to? The school never believed either of my twins gifted results from outside testing(or 2e dxs). IEP for DD twin A was for physical hand malformation..nothing related to giftedness or 2e conditions. Worried that a self admitted inexperienced tester is going to make our situation even more difficult. As usual, your guidance is always appreciated.

Is there any way to request a different school psychologist to evaluate her? It is a concern that the psychologist admits to not understanding giftedness. It also may result in not knowing when to use or discard and prorate subtests. At the very least, if you have concerns over the results, perhaps you could consult with a psychologist outside of the school to review the results and then bring your questions back to the IEP team. Good luck

Gail makes a good point.

On the WISC-V, for most children, I actually prefer it for documenting NVLD, over the WISC-IV, because it separates fluid reasoning from visual spatial abilities. Some learners with perceptual deficits have strong enough abstract thinking that their fluid reasoning scores drag their WISC-IV PRIs up, which clouds the NVLD picture at the index level.

aeh - you've flagged a question I've had for a long time now. Would you mind clarifying: you would expect NVLD to show much lower visual spatial scores but not necessarily fluid reasoning? Thanks!

NVLD is the subject of ongoing discussion in the field, so you will hear different views on what constitutes NVLD, or even if it exists, from different professionals (it is not a DSM-V diagnosis; closest related Dx is probably SLD in mathematics). For those who find the data to be supportive of its existence, the most convincing descriptions of the profile I've seen emphasize the perceptual-visual-spatial deficits (social skills deficits are actually secondary effects).

The intent of the WISC-V FRI is to assess abstract thinking and problem-solving, as distinct from verbal reasoning or spatial reasoning. Of course, one must use some means of accessing the items, and the need to reduce language effects results in more visually-oriented tasks in the FRI, but they're not as strongly reliant on perceptual or spatial thinking as the visual spatial tasks are (partly because they are accessible to using either visual or verbal reasoning to solve). On the WISC-IV, the FRI-type and VSI-type subtests were combined into the PRI, which means that some children, who had high FRI-type scores, but low VSI-type scores, didn't show a difference between VCI and PRI at the index level. A reasonable fraction of clinicians noted and reported the differences anyway, at the subtest level, but a pretty sizable proportion did not, leading to underidentification of NVLD. Hence the improved identification of NVLD on the WISC-V.

In the past, I have sometimes selected the DAS/DAS-II to address this confound of visual spatial with fluid reasoning, as the two areas have been separate on that instrument from the beginning. It also can be picked up, for some children, on the SBV (not as well, because of the paired verbal/nonverbal structure of each area), or if enough additional subtests of the WJ are given.

Of course, some persons who could be described as NVLD have deficits in both visual spatial and fluid reasoning. They were easily identified on the WISC-IV, and continue to be readily identified on the WISC-V.

There's a decent description of NVLD, and its distinctions from ASD, in this little article/book excerpt. Note that the end of the comparison chart is off by two rows, beginning from the section headed "Behavior" (you'll see the two extra rows of "mostly" or "sometimes" at the end--back them up two rows, and they will be lined up again):

http://www.nldline.com/yvonna.htm

I didn't vet it in its entirety, so I can't vouch for 100% accuracy, but the gist of it is reasonable.

AEH--would you mind sharing what an NVLD profile would look like on the DAS? Low non-verbal, low spatial, or both?

Thanks aeh! Much appreciate your help as I continue to struggle with trying to figure out what relation - if any! - our weird PRIs have to our weird real-life challenges.

You are correct: an NVLD profile on the DAS could be low spatial, low nonverbal, or low in both. But more likely low spatial or low both, than only low in nonverbal, as the core deficit is believed to be visual spatial.