Thanks dg, DeeDee and mon. To be clear I am not opposed to medication if it is needed - I am just really, REALLY uncomfortable with the idea that someone would be talking about medicating a 7 year old without even meeting her.
I would be uncomfortable with that too. And, indeed, uncomfortable pursuing meds without confidence in the judgment and training of the prescriber generally. (We have a specialist developmental pediatrician who prescribes for DS; she knows what she is doing, and knows him very well.)
When she does get triggered she responds by withdrawing, getting quiet and developing physical symptoms.
How often are the triggers? Is she cheery between times?
Is the "no color chart" specified in the IEP? Sounds like maybe not?
We have not yet hired the attorney - the idea was to try to get the year started relatively amicably and move to legal action only if needed. The assumption was that the superintendent would never be able to justify to the board of education spending the money to go to mediation over a color chart when the alternative is free. I assume the district is cueing up in case we pull the trigger on due process. We were going to wait to actually hire the lawyer until we saw what they do or do not agree to do with the classroom placement.
That sounds reasonable.
My current thought - and PLEASE weigh in - is to tell them that we will not submit to a psychiatric evaluation unless/until recommended by the DPsy I am comfortable with or the neuropsych. While I would love to have DD start with the DPsy now we have already spent many, many thousands of dollars on all of this - spending more on her services before insurance approves her is hard to justify. We will wait until she is approved unless the district wants to pay for her to start during the summer. If she recommends a psychiatrist no problem - we'll go. And we'll submit it through our insurance so there is no added cost to the district. If neither DPsy nor neuropsych think psychiatrist is needed then we won't put DD through it. Does this sound reasonable?
Yep. You don't ever have to see the practitioner they wanted; they cannot force you to, and they should not try to pressure you on the choice of practitioners for your DD. This is a health care matter (with privacy rights) as well as a school management issue.
I think my plan to not insist, force, bribe, cajole her to be in school if she feels unsafe is probably what you are talking about MON.
I believe that MON's and my experiences differ both in how far we are willing to go in adversarial situations, and in outcomes. I read MON as saying, don't fight unless you decide it's worth it to your DD to put in the effort there. MON is right that all this adversarial garbage does actually take time away from nurturing the actual kid to some extent. (MON, I hope you feel I am representing your position appropriately.)
On the other hand-- my feeling is that if you can set up a situation that will genuinely work for her, it's worth some trouble to you in the short term. It will also in the process educate school staff about her needs. Our experience was that we had to bring really significant resources to bear (time, money, ugh) to get DS properly served, but then once his needs were understood the principal came around and really met those needs with appropriate supports and placements; DS has thrived for the past two years. By being firm and reasonable, we left room for them to come around and work with us, and it is a very cordial and respectful relationship now.
I am not sure what will happen with your rogue principal in this vein, but if some other school staff were to help you, including the classroom teacher and the DSS, you would need less from the prinicipal; if s/he doesn't want to be bothered, your DD's success will reduce her load, not add to it.
I'm sorry that it is so awful for you at the moment. One way or another, you will fix it.
DeeDee
