Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional IEP Question

Yup, medication can be good. The problem is side effects and additional meds to manage those... and on and on it goes, and then... voila: a messed up kid. I think a better approach would be to PROPERLY FUND ADHD (I have no issues with this ;p ) so that meds can be a last resort and instead these kids could try dedicated TA time first.

If that happened here it would be in casual conversation with a staff member who felt comfortable enough with me to ask... it wouldn't be formal file information gathering.

I've known parents who've taken their kids on and off meds (doctor supervised of course) purposefully without the teacher knowing to see if there are any differences in class: they have the teacher fill out more assessment checklists to see the results (the teacher not knowing about the meds status removes any bias).

Actually, CCN there wasn't an IEP at that time (and therein lied the problem, I suppose). We still don't have one b/c we haven't had the meeting yet. But everything DS needs is laid out in the IEP by me and his docs. There shouldn't be issues if the IEP is followed. Period.

I guess I am getting worked up over nothing really. (I suppose if I do a bit of soul searching the reality is: I am pissed off at the 'recommendation' that we need a behavioral specialist when I feel that this iep will indeed prevent behaviors - we know the problem and the solution (doctors have laid out both clearly in reports provided to the school) as long as staff follows it all will be well. Her suggestion of this pisses me off I think b/c I think its her way of saying "well I don't believe you that the iep and his physical/neurological limitiations paired with bad/uneducated staff is the problem - I think YOUR KID is the problem and will continue to be a problem b/c he has _____ disorder."

There haven't been any behavioral problems this year to even base an FBA on (he has gotten a perfect conduct grade for every day so far and he is happy at school so far this year). His teacher reports in writing that he is happy at school, and doing well. My point is basically - we don't need an FBA/behavioral specialist because there are no "behaviors" presently at all . The behaviors he had last year were due to unknown hidden disabilities and lack of understanding and support for the disability that was nown as well as obviously for the unknown one. There shouldn't be any "behavior" issues if his IEP is followed properly. If behaviors do present and that can not be managed by follwing his IEP I will get a private assessment done by a psych/neuropsych that I think is qualified to assess a 2e child with hypotonia, vision disorder and anxiety that results from that.

And that is what I am gonna say at the meeting and in writing.

Re an aid, DS does not want and "aid" or shadow" He is very adamant about that. I don't want him to have one either.

As long as he gets his therapies and gets his accomodations, he should be fine.

Master of None- Thank you ... Awesome words of advice and thanks for understanding! I see that you totally get why I am scared.

They can have access to DS medical records (pertaining to his disabilities) In fact, I would consider giving them free reign to talk to DS' vision doc and OT. But I will not give them free reign to talk to DS psychological therapist without my being involved. DS doesn't see the therapist now anyway.

When you lose trust in your district - or feel that certain people in the district have done things to harm your child - it can be very difficult to feel comfortable releasing even more information. Sometimes, though, you may have to do it.

We were just going through this psych release question this week. Psych plans to attend the next IEP meeting so needs a release to be there. No problem - if her presence helps I'll sign a limited release. District is offering, sort of anyway, to pay for the psych eval but the person at central office handling our case said that in order to pay for it she would need to be able to speak to the psych. Just like marytheres I was uncomfortable with this - why on earth would I violate my DD's confidentiality when certain people in the district have already proven to be so untrustworthy?

Our consultant worked very hard to convince me to sign the release. He truly believes that this person is committed to helping DD and so far everything psych has said supports our position. Totally, completely supports it. He said that if there were something we were disagreeing about he may be more concerned but this way the psych can do some of the heavy lifting in terms of explaining what DD needs.

I also spoke to the psych about it. She also told me that she believes this person "is on our side - you can trust her." Psych also said that she has enough experience working with schools and is protective of her clients so it should be no problem. If she gets a bad feeling she will immediately tell me and I can pull the release. The psych also felt that the new SW working on our case seems to "get it" and would really like to be able to speak to her. "I think that SW is our salvation. She will get us out of this mess."

So I signed a release naming these 2 people personally - I did not mention the school district. Now I have to hope that it works out and doesn't back fire.

The federal government has never fully funded IDEA. Until that happens, districts are supposed to get federal money for each child identified and served under an IEP, but what they get is pathetically little compared to the cost of serving such a child. Identifying children is a money-losing proposition, which is why many districts (including mine) have been found in violation of their obligation to locate and serve children with disabilities ("child-find").

Did you know? They are *obligated* to try to find kids with disabilities. That is more likely what's going on there, CCN-- if your DS seems spectrumy, the district is obligated to attempt to determine whether he actually has an ASD and offer services, otherwise they are in violation of the law.

I'm sorry it makes you feel pursued in a bad way-- if "child find" is what's going on here, I actually find it good that someone is taking that legal obligation seriously. It certainly isn't taken seriously where we are. Perhaps you could just ask the psych why s/he thinks what she thinks and why s/he is taking the actions s/he is.

DeeDee

I don't think most practitioners want inaccurate labels as a matter of professional practice. (I have seen incompetent school psychs try to avoid labeling a child who badly needed to be identified, actually, in a school system that was pressuring staff systematically to under-identify disabled kids, but that is another story.)

Accurate labeling is beneficial in helping everyone in the situation understand what is going on (and what is not); the causes of the behavior, what strategies are likely to help or make it worse. An accurate label, accompanied by the IEP process, gives access to the proper services and accommodations that make school manageable for a kid who wouldn't manage otherwise.

And a correct label offers a handle for teachers and peers who would otherwise label a child "a behavior problem," "a bad kid," or worse-- I would much rather my DS and his peers know he has a disability than think he is a "bad kid."

I would not assume that the school psych is evil, or that there is some kind of terrible agenda at play. Sometimes that is the case, of course, but I wouldn't jump there as a first, or second, or even third option. Even though I have met people with truly bad intentions toward my kid in my travels through the educational system, I still have to be dragged to that conclusion, because most people were not deeply evil; most just didn't understand him yet.

DeeDee

I can remember a meeting where we were trying to get a higher level of services for a student. I pointed out that none of the official diagnoses in the school's file would qualify the student for the program we were meeting about and asked what the prescription was for. The school psychologist realized that the medication did not match the diagnoses we had, either, and the private provider seemed to know something that we didn't. The matter was dropped until we could set up permissions for communication with the private provider.

FTR, I don't think the psych is evil at all. But I do not trust her. I do not think or trust that she truly understands my DS or what his issues and that lack of understanding could be dangerous for my child. I think she has somehting in her head and has tunnel vision with regard to that.... I could be wrong, of course, but my instincts are rarely wrong (I am very persepctive and pretty good judge of people). I am just not willing to chance it with her as I think an iaccurate lable could be pretty devastating for my guy and prevent the support and label that he really needs, ykim?

I do not think she is "evil" - I just think she is ignorant about my DS and doesn't seem to be willing to look at other angles - basically, I think she has a bias and I don't see her willing to even attempt to shed that bias. Make sense?

Good Luck Pemberly! I followed your story and I could relate to it a bit! My fingers are corssed for you and your DD!