Aaauuuggghhhh! They called ANOTHER IEP meeting

[JJJ]

Our district has called yet another IEP meeting for Kanga -- the 3rd this year already. They are trying to force me to allow Kanga to be mainstreamed for 1st & 2nd period. She currently starts her day at 3rd period. They spend 3 hours repeating themselves and then act surprised when I say "no", again. Their offer hasn't changed, what makes them think that my response will???? So, I have to get a babysitter for Tigger, and trek out to the school, listen to the same old stuff AGAIN. To say no, AGAIN.

 

[Sheila]

Hope it goes better than expected.

 

[nvts]

Just curious: did they tell you that this is the purpose of the meeting? I would seriously consider getting an advocate involved here. It seems to me that they're going the "bullying" route and are bordering on harassment.

In order to find an advocate, simply google "free education advocates" and your state. I've found a ton of them and have had great success with them.

Strong-arm tactics are cruel and shouldn't be tolerated, but having someone with you quoting fact often stops them in their tracks.

I swear, some of these administrators are difficult child's themselves. You know "if I keep at it, maybe I can wear her down!".

:smile:

Good luck!

Beth

 

[SRL]

Actually the school can insist that the student attend (or an alternative situation such as homebound or alternative school) the total number of instructional hours required by the state. In my state that is 5 total hours of direct instruction (excludes recess, lunch, etc). The SD made it very clear that it was their right to retain him in that grade if he weren't attending a full instructional day. When I started adding up instructional time the way that the school day was divided that meant he had to arrive by 9:05 in order to make a full day. When they saw him making progress towards that goal they eased up. When he was stalled out at a point less than that, they kept up the pressure.

By law as long as a student is enrolled in a public school, they are required to provide proof that they are educating them, including attendance data and state test scores. I sympathize with your situation because my kiddo couldn't handle a full day for most of his first grade year. But I also see where they are coming from because legally the responsibility to educate is on their plate. My district did offer a number of alternatives though.

 

[JJJ]

Beth: The purpose of the meeting is to "review and/or develop your child's IEP and determine the child's educational placement". I quote federal and state law at them on a regular basis. :warrior: Most of the staff get lost in the first few minutes of my children's IEP because they don't know the law and they (wrongly) assume that district policy and procedures reflect the law.

SRL: Our state requires 5 "clock hours" of attendance - it includes lunch, recess, etc. Kanga is currently enrolled for 4 hours 55 minutes per day - but she arrives 5-10 minutes ahead of that every day on her bus so she is in the building for the full 5 hours.

I also have a doctor's note from last March stating that it is against her medical advice for Kanga to attend mainstream classes due to increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempts. They are mad that the psychiatrist hasn't submitted a more recent one. psychiatrist has it written but due to changing office buildings hasn't given it to me yet. I'm getting it from her on Friday. It is basically the exact same note just dated this month.

My parent input statement will include the reference to feelings of harassment that these repeated IEP meetings are generating. I may also include a bill for babysitting Tigger as he is homeschooled due to their inability to keep him safe.

Our district is very good with kids that fit their cookie cutter programs but heaven forbid we need an actual individualized program.

 

[mstang67chic]

Our district is very good with kids that fit their cookie cutter programs but heaven forbid we need an actual individualized program.

That's our district also. I call it the Pink Floyd effect. (The "good" kids line up like the bricks in the wall and do what they are told. Our kids don't get to eat their pudding.)

 

[Martie]

Once again, I am jumping in late, but it is the end of the semester for me and I am massively behind.

As most of you know, ex-difficult child attended school half time in 7th and 8th grades. This obviously was before NCLB, but NCLB does not REPEAL IDEA. A psychiatrist's note that doing ANYTHING that would increase suicidal risk should send shivers up and down their liability spines. I FIRMLY believe that half time attendance kept ex-difficult child in the community for two more years which was definitely in his best interest.

I never heard ONE WORD about whether or not they counted/got credit for ex-difficult child as "enrolled" or not. All some staff were concerned about was 'setting a precedent,' i.e., they don't want you to be able to get have what I got. In one of the few really common sensical things that happened, the principal (who was for the idea because he was really liability conscious but also cared a bit about ex-difficult child) polled the teachers at the IEP meeting and asked if, in their careers, they had ever seen a child such as ex-difficult child. They all went on and on about how DIFFERENT he was than every other kid (talented musicians tend to be good students---exceptionally talented musicians do not usually care about school work) they had known. The SD attorney stepped in with a brief comment to stop worrying about "precedent" and focus on the IEP because this child was a once in 20 years occurence.

So I TOTALLY REJECT THE IDEA THAT YOUR SD HAS THE RIGHT TO GO OVER YOUR PSYCHIATRIST'S HEAD and say "we NEED full day attendance." A child with suicidal ideation only has one life to lose, and the SD has no right to tip the risk the wrong way for their own needs, high stakes testing be d*mned.

My .02

Martie :warrior:

 

[JJJ]

Wish me luck -- today is the meeting. Course the ante has now been upped since they called CPS.