Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Do you think sp. needs kids with normal/high IQ's ....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shari" data-source="post: 499087" data-attributes="member: 1848"><p>I hadn't thought of it that way, Buddy, but it is food for thought. </p><p></p><p>My thinking of the situation stems from cgfg's evaluation when she was in elementary. She struggles to read, is more than a grade level behind in her reading ability, and has been since 3rd grade. During her evaluation, it was determined her iq is at the very bottom end of average, and therefore, the district stated her academic performance is reflective of her iq. While I don't agree with it, the laws are somewhat written to support the thought. The district doesn't even have to educate to the child's full potential. They just have to make progress. Although in this state, there have been cases argued and won that disn't settle for "progress" being good enough.</p><p></p><p>However, when there is a gap between iq and academic performance, it does leave them open to more liability, and I think part of super's response was based on that disparity between Wee's iq and his academic performance. I also think she is seeing an opportunity to save money down the road. She sees value in catching Wee up at a younger age, and her personal goal is to have him on track academically by junior high...getting him on track will be cheaper than supporting him to this extent for the next 8-11 years, although at this time, everyone (except the building admins) sees some support in the core academics for the foreseeable future. But still - support a few hours a day is much cheaper than support all day every day.</p><p></p><p>(fwiw, if cgfg's mother would have followed through, per the school, cgfg could have qualified for an IEP with extra support for reading. But mom didn't, and it was a fight we couldn't take on. Cgfg's teacher, through this, is the same teacher Wee has now, and lemme tell ya, this teacher ROCKS. Beyond her, the sped dir was the same...everyone else in the cast has changed.</p><p>As for the super, I do beleive she does care. She stays fairly on top of Wee's case since I first went to her last year. That said, they are operating on a budget just like everyone else...if they could get rid of Wee, it would probably be cheaper, but I think she, at least, gets that they are going to have to have some rock-solid evidence to back that decision if they try to go that route. Especially now.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shari, post: 499087, member: 1848"] I hadn't thought of it that way, Buddy, but it is food for thought. My thinking of the situation stems from cgfg's evaluation when she was in elementary. She struggles to read, is more than a grade level behind in her reading ability, and has been since 3rd grade. During her evaluation, it was determined her iq is at the very bottom end of average, and therefore, the district stated her academic performance is reflective of her iq. While I don't agree with it, the laws are somewhat written to support the thought. The district doesn't even have to educate to the child's full potential. They just have to make progress. Although in this state, there have been cases argued and won that disn't settle for "progress" being good enough. However, when there is a gap between iq and academic performance, it does leave them open to more liability, and I think part of super's response was based on that disparity between Wee's iq and his academic performance. I also think she is seeing an opportunity to save money down the road. She sees value in catching Wee up at a younger age, and her personal goal is to have him on track academically by junior high...getting him on track will be cheaper than supporting him to this extent for the next 8-11 years, although at this time, everyone (except the building admins) sees some support in the core academics for the foreseeable future. But still - support a few hours a day is much cheaper than support all day every day. (fwiw, if cgfg's mother would have followed through, per the school, cgfg could have qualified for an IEP with extra support for reading. But mom didn't, and it was a fight we couldn't take on. Cgfg's teacher, through this, is the same teacher Wee has now, and lemme tell ya, this teacher ROCKS. Beyond her, the sped dir was the same...everyone else in the cast has changed. As for the super, I do beleive she does care. She stays fairly on top of Wee's case since I first went to her last year. That said, they are operating on a budget just like everyone else...if they could get rid of Wee, it would probably be cheaper, but I think she, at least, gets that they are going to have to have some rock-solid evidence to back that decision if they try to go that route. Especially now.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Do you think sp. needs kids with normal/high IQ's ....
Top