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
Special Ed 101
IEP vs. 504, adverse ed. impact
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="Martie" data-source="post: 5407" data-attributes="member: 284"><p>HMHH,</p><p></p><p>Chris will NOT be able to be reimbursed because she did not go through the whole procedure one needs to do in order to be eligible for reimbursement. Since that also involves going to Due Process, that would be WAY more expense than 4 weeks of tutoring. However, the tutoring is evidence of negative educational impact.</p><p></p><p>Chris, if difficult child #2's IQ is in the average range, then "barely passing" is negative in my opinion. Any nationally normed individual reading test, such as the Stanford, that is administered monthly will give you the answer. At the beginning of 4th grade, a child at the 50th %ile reads at the 4.0 level. To STAY at the 50th %ile that same child must read at 4.9 at the end of May. </p><p></p><p>Here's a good example: "Pie in the sky" IEPs often indicate children will "catch-up" during the year--sometimes by as much as two or three grade levels. If a child has significant Learning Disability (LD) or EF and is struggling, what would make ANYONE think the child could gain at a rate of 2 to 3 times faster than average? The only children who ever do that are those who do NOT have Learning Disability (LD) problems but for some reason, have not been given an opportunity to learn. One of my students gained 6 years of reading level in 6 months. Of course, he had never been to school more than 3 weeks in any school year until he spent most of one year with me. I could essentially teach him to read and get such spectacular gain scores because no one else had done it. It also helped that he suddenly (at age 16) did not want to continue to be illiterate for his own reasons. So he gained a grade level a month, but I have never seen another student do that.</p><p></p><p>What happens more frequently is unless parents are savvy about monitoring percentile ranks, then children LOSE %ile rank because they do not gain 9 months of proficiency within 9 month's time. As Sandra Day O'Connor put it in the Carter decision--words to the effect that ..The longer Shannon was in school, the further behind she fell. Yet when her parents found an effective program (at their own expense), she gained in relation to her peers, i.e., more than 3 year's gain in the three years she was in the private school. </p><p></p><p>Pete Wright made this case by showing percentile rank drop which the public school never addressed over all of Shannon's school years until her parents' unilaterally placed her. </p><p></p><p>The monitoring doesn't have to take years. In your school district, I would think that failure to make adequate progress for one year should do it. This also can be done for math--and should be, if it is a concern. The other thing that is good about this approach is if the child is already behind, then one is looking for a year's gain in a year's time. The SD can't say, "Well we can't be expected to....because he didn't start at grade level." Response: "No, but how about maintaining the percentile rank he has?" So if a child starts at the 24%ile, he will have to gain 9 months just to remain at that %ile at the end of the year.</p><p></p><p>Wrightslaw is very effective in explaining this stuff and demystifying percentile ranks. I use their material with students who "don't get it," despite knowing how to give these tests--scary thought--they are the ones who are guilty of writing the absurd "catch-up" IEP goals.</p><p></p><p>Martie</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Martie, post: 5407, member: 284"] HMHH, Chris will NOT be able to be reimbursed because she did not go through the whole procedure one needs to do in order to be eligible for reimbursement. Since that also involves going to Due Process, that would be WAY more expense than 4 weeks of tutoring. However, the tutoring is evidence of negative educational impact. Chris, if difficult child #2's IQ is in the average range, then "barely passing" is negative in my opinion. Any nationally normed individual reading test, such as the Stanford, that is administered monthly will give you the answer. At the beginning of 4th grade, a child at the 50th %ile reads at the 4.0 level. To STAY at the 50th %ile that same child must read at 4.9 at the end of May. Here's a good example: "Pie in the sky" IEPs often indicate children will "catch-up" during the year--sometimes by as much as two or three grade levels. If a child has significant Learning Disability (LD) or EF and is struggling, what would make ANYONE think the child could gain at a rate of 2 to 3 times faster than average? The only children who ever do that are those who do NOT have Learning Disability (LD) problems but for some reason, have not been given an opportunity to learn. One of my students gained 6 years of reading level in 6 months. Of course, he had never been to school more than 3 weeks in any school year until he spent most of one year with me. I could essentially teach him to read and get such spectacular gain scores because no one else had done it. It also helped that he suddenly (at age 16) did not want to continue to be illiterate for his own reasons. So he gained a grade level a month, but I have never seen another student do that. What happens more frequently is unless parents are savvy about monitoring percentile ranks, then children LOSE %ile rank because they do not gain 9 months of proficiency within 9 month's time. As Sandra Day O'Connor put it in the Carter decision--words to the effect that ..The longer Shannon was in school, the further behind she fell. Yet when her parents found an effective program (at their own expense), she gained in relation to her peers, i.e., more than 3 year's gain in the three years she was in the private school. Pete Wright made this case by showing percentile rank drop which the public school never addressed over all of Shannon's school years until her parents' unilaterally placed her. The monitoring doesn't have to take years. In your school district, I would think that failure to make adequate progress for one year should do it. This also can be done for math--and should be, if it is a concern. The other thing that is good about this approach is if the child is already behind, then one is looking for a year's gain in a year's time. The SD can't say, "Well we can't be expected to....because he didn't start at grade level." Response: "No, but how about maintaining the percentile rank he has?" So if a child starts at the 24%ile, he will have to gain 9 months just to remain at that %ile at the end of the year. Wrightslaw is very effective in explaining this stuff and demystifying percentile ranks. I use their material with students who "don't get it," despite knowing how to give these tests--scary thought--they are the ones who are guilty of writing the absurd "catch-up" IEP goals. Martie [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
IEP vs. 504, adverse ed. impact
Top