Hi, Pemberley--
As you know, I am no stranger to brick walls, but the ones that your district throws up are SOMETHING ELSE. You have shown a lot of fortitude and a lot of forbearance. The big question I see is where you draw the line on forbearance and demand the move to the other school.
My sense is that you're not QUITE there yet, but that line isn't so far away and you're probing for where it is. That seems reasonable to me.
I posted here about how amazingly well DD was doing in this placement.
We have been very excited for DD. This latest change is alarming.
Do you still have your own advocate/consultant on board?
When the district changed the school bus route to require DD to spend a full hour on the bus (thereby triggering a daily migraine) the school would not take a position to address it. The director told us in no uncertain terms that any questions or concerns we raise to them will be immediately turned over to the district.
Has this now been addressed? Because it is a clear violation of your DD's rights for them to leave it unaddressed. This is a health need: I assume it is well documented in the IEP?
As part of her report consultant did not observe the 8th grade reading group or speak with the teacher. (Who we have never met. She has never come to an IEP meeting or PT conference. Or communicated with us for that matter.) Outside consultant posed the content questions to the regular classroom teacher who was, at that time, doing 1:1 enrichment once per week in an area of DD's choice. Obviously the content here was appropriate and we looked foolish in her written report for even asking the question.
Give not another thought to looking foolish. Anyone who makes you feel that way is possibly trying to manipulate you.
I find it very strange that the teacher has not been at IEP meetings, and a little unusual that the consultant wasn't able to make time to observe DD in the reading placement.
the SW suggested a goal of "having her response match the size of the problem."
Does the SW belong to the school or the district?
The school staff acknowledged that this was an awkward, not very appropriate goal. We were assured that their were no real social/emotional issues and that they would talk to DD and together brainstorm a more legitimate goal to put into the IEP.
Which school staff told you that?
This is something you might have your "people" (outside advocate?) look into. Because this definitely is all very fishy.
In the consultant's report this "problem" was referenced 4 times. DD was identified as behaving in an obnoxious way that was alienating her classmates. This behavior was not observed by the consultant, the teacher said she never said anything to her about it other than the brief reference at the IEP meeting and told us that it is absolutely NOT an issue.
Yes, the person who pays the bills has some influence over the content of the report. Your best ammunition right now is serious data obtained by your own people: observation by your advocate, progress report from your private psychologist, and so forth. Gather.
OK so fast forward to January when we get this report and a request from the district for an IEP meeting so we can formally accept It. We say no.
Correct.
In our minds the primary purpose of the report was to see if DD's 2E needs were being met and the consultant did not address this. Unless/ until that is addressed we consider it an incomplete report and see no reason for a meeting. She also specifically stated in the report that both the classroom teacher and the school administrators had fully earned our trust. That is a very awkward one to try to correct...
Can you ask the consultant to address the outstanding substantive issues, in writing? (The consultant has no basis for reporting on the trust issue or anything else concerning your emotions: the report should be based on data and directly observable phenomena.)
Turns out they FINALLy got the audio CDs after this complaint, loaded them onto the teacher's computer and then reported to the district that she did in fact have them. Not "yes it took way too long and we were equally frustrated but they are now I place." No instead , "the parents were mistaken and the CDs are there."
I know you are documenting everything. I wonder whom the most effective audience is for this set of complaints. Who in the district is responsible for this placement-- superintendent? It may be time to take the documentation, summarize it in a neat package, and let the person who can fix these problems see it. Because these are big, systemic problems you're facing.
If the district is still violating your DD's rights, there ought to be hell to pay. Surely they know that by now.
we also find out that the 1:1 enrichment has not occurred for a long time (ie, maybe December 1 or so) because of a schedule change.
Is that enrichment guaranteed in the IEP? IF so, that's a violation as well. They can't pull services without your consent.
We got the consultant's addendum and teacher told her that her report was "100% accurate" and consultant is now recommending embedded social skills work. Totally opposite of what teacher told us. Now suddenly the 5/6th grade reading group is "above her level" where just a couple of weeks ago the 8th grade group was easy for her. Never any mention before about 5/6th being anything but super easy for her. I seriously doubt that DD's abilities have actually dropped.
I see HK's point here.
We do not feel we can discuss our concerns with the teacher because she will send it right to the director who will send it right to the district.
I hear you on that too-- but it is possible to voice the questions to the teacher and communicate that you feel confusion, giving the teacher a chance to explain herself-- without tipping your hand further about plans. You could get the answers, thank her for her time, walk out and document.
We do not want to communicate anything to the district unless we are at a point that we are willing to bring consultant or attorney into the issue.
I'd say you're probably at the point where consultant and/or attorney are warranted.
It seems that all of this comes from school and outside consultant (both paid for by distinct) being in a position to support district's position that 2E needs can/ are being met so we don't renew the fight for placement at the 2E school out of state.
But you have documentation that they weren't meeting the needs, and this business about lowering the reading level needs to be addressed. What evidence can they show (besides consultant's testimony-- I'm talking evidence) that the lower level class is appropriate? If none, this is egregious. If they have evidence, you have a right to examine it and bring your own to contradict theirs.
Pemberley, I know precisely how exhausted you are. I think it's time to gather your allies and address these issues directly, so that you will know whether it's time to fight to pull DD to the 2E school, or whether the issues can be corrected in place.
I'm not sure which of those is the right thing right now, but I fully believe that you are the parent who can make it happen as it should.
Hang in there.
