Martie, Since you had asked about the IEP meeting, I thought I would update. It took place today, and although my attorney couldn't attend in person so was only there on the phone, and the SD brought two attornies, the meeting still went pretty good.
The diagnostician hit some of the points of the psychoeducational evaluation, but skipped over other parts. Understandable as it is a 20 page report. The psychologist who sees my daughter and is also a part of the IEP team discussed the auditory processing that is indicated by the discrepancies in the verbal and nonverbal memory, and nobody disputed it. Then the SD's Occupational Therapist (OT) read the indepedant Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation, and basically played up the strengths, and completely skipped over the paragraph he wrote about the prior testing. However, she did read the GE part, and that wasn't disputed. Again the psychologist discussed the impact of both the auditory processing and the visual/motor deficits and how the two together can be causing some of the behavior problems.
Anyway, some goals were discussed and agreed on, and I think they listened when the psychologist discussed that while it may look as if my daughter is willful in her refusal to do work sometimes, or in taking redirection, that her tests prove otherwise. She discussed that when my daughter is agitated, frustrated, or whatever she most likely isn't getting any of the redirection they are giving, and especially when more than one adult is involved.
All in all it was an okay meeting, but they always insist on everybody signing the signature sheet before the meeting even really begins. I refused to do so twice when it was handed to me, saying I wanted to wait until after I had read what was written on the IEP before I signed. I was told it was for attendance only, but I still declined. Then all of a sudden, they said the meeting was over, handed me a printed copy and said goodbye. The psychologist and I just looked at each other and said, I guess this meeting is over. I told her, I never signed the sheet. She said, I guess they will mail it to you. About that time one of the SD's attornies brought the sheet to me and asked me to sign it. Again I told her I hadn't had a chance to read the IEP and that everybody had left so I wouldn't be getting anything corrected if there were errors. She again told me it was just for attendance, and I said what do I do if there are errors then. She said, I guess you would contact the SpEd director. So, I signed the sheet, and signified it was to show attendance only. Then I got home and there were errors and things not reflected that were discussed. So, now I get to write a letter to reflect that and ask that it be included with the IEP.
I wouldn't bother to clarify, except anybody reading the IEP will not see that the auditory processing and visual/motor deficits were discussed and noted. They report the VIX, NIX, and CIX, and nothing else about that evaluation. Then on the Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation it only talks about the recommendations for a keyboarding device, and says nothing about the visual/motor deficits. Because not everybody who reads the IEP or has access to it may have or take time to read the evaluations, it is important that those things are noted in the IEP for today.
I did feel at a disadvantage because they refused to have their attorney attend by telephone even though they knew that was the only way mine could attend, and that they sent two instead.
The only downside was when they explained away the agreement from December regarding CPI training and documentation, and the resulting battery charges being filed when they do an improper restraint. The attorney tried to basically act like that conversation never took place and that they are properly trained. I reminded her that she had admitted that the de-escalation techniques are the most important part of CPI training, and that I am not seeing where those techniques are being used in the incident reports I am getting. She tried to take focus off that by saying that in the heat of the moment and because I am asking for this documentation the same day that they often don't have time to reflect what they did before calling a redlight and clearing the room. Mind you there are two adults who intervene during a redlight incident besides the classroom teacher, so accurate documentation shouldn't be a problem. They seem always able to report how my daughter appears (she was edgy, or agitated, could tell she wasn't going to easily calm) to be and her every action, but unable to report their de-escalation or redirections. Of course I know it is because they aren't doing positive redirections, nor are they trying to de-escalate anything prior to calling a redlight. A redlight gets called from her being too loud, crumpling a paper and refusing to do it, to slamming a book closed. Once a redlight is called, the classroom teacher and all the students leave the classroom. After that there is no choice except that difficult child leave the classroom. Once she leaves the classroom, either walking out on her own, or if she refuses to walk out, they restrain and move her, then they try to calm her down in another room. Often she only escalates to the point of needing calming down once the redlight is called. Anyway, there is little I can do about that, so hopefully the psychologist, who is also the behavior consultant can make some recommendations to the staff to better handle that.
So, that is a brief update to what took place in the IEP meeting, and while they are still proclaiming they do everything right and difficult child still has problems, difficult child is making progress in spite of it. I hope that continues.
Thanks for all your help and support.
mistmouse
The diagnostician hit some of the points of the psychoeducational evaluation, but skipped over other parts. Understandable as it is a 20 page report. The psychologist who sees my daughter and is also a part of the IEP team discussed the auditory processing that is indicated by the discrepancies in the verbal and nonverbal memory, and nobody disputed it. Then the SD's Occupational Therapist (OT) read the indepedant Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation, and basically played up the strengths, and completely skipped over the paragraph he wrote about the prior testing. However, she did read the GE part, and that wasn't disputed. Again the psychologist discussed the impact of both the auditory processing and the visual/motor deficits and how the two together can be causing some of the behavior problems.
Anyway, some goals were discussed and agreed on, and I think they listened when the psychologist discussed that while it may look as if my daughter is willful in her refusal to do work sometimes, or in taking redirection, that her tests prove otherwise. She discussed that when my daughter is agitated, frustrated, or whatever she most likely isn't getting any of the redirection they are giving, and especially when more than one adult is involved.
All in all it was an okay meeting, but they always insist on everybody signing the signature sheet before the meeting even really begins. I refused to do so twice when it was handed to me, saying I wanted to wait until after I had read what was written on the IEP before I signed. I was told it was for attendance only, but I still declined. Then all of a sudden, they said the meeting was over, handed me a printed copy and said goodbye. The psychologist and I just looked at each other and said, I guess this meeting is over. I told her, I never signed the sheet. She said, I guess they will mail it to you. About that time one of the SD's attornies brought the sheet to me and asked me to sign it. Again I told her I hadn't had a chance to read the IEP and that everybody had left so I wouldn't be getting anything corrected if there were errors. She again told me it was just for attendance, and I said what do I do if there are errors then. She said, I guess you would contact the SpEd director. So, I signed the sheet, and signified it was to show attendance only. Then I got home and there were errors and things not reflected that were discussed. So, now I get to write a letter to reflect that and ask that it be included with the IEP.
I wouldn't bother to clarify, except anybody reading the IEP will not see that the auditory processing and visual/motor deficits were discussed and noted. They report the VIX, NIX, and CIX, and nothing else about that evaluation. Then on the Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation it only talks about the recommendations for a keyboarding device, and says nothing about the visual/motor deficits. Because not everybody who reads the IEP or has access to it may have or take time to read the evaluations, it is important that those things are noted in the IEP for today.
I did feel at a disadvantage because they refused to have their attorney attend by telephone even though they knew that was the only way mine could attend, and that they sent two instead.
The only downside was when they explained away the agreement from December regarding CPI training and documentation, and the resulting battery charges being filed when they do an improper restraint. The attorney tried to basically act like that conversation never took place and that they are properly trained. I reminded her that she had admitted that the de-escalation techniques are the most important part of CPI training, and that I am not seeing where those techniques are being used in the incident reports I am getting. She tried to take focus off that by saying that in the heat of the moment and because I am asking for this documentation the same day that they often don't have time to reflect what they did before calling a redlight and clearing the room. Mind you there are two adults who intervene during a redlight incident besides the classroom teacher, so accurate documentation shouldn't be a problem. They seem always able to report how my daughter appears (she was edgy, or agitated, could tell she wasn't going to easily calm) to be and her every action, but unable to report their de-escalation or redirections. Of course I know it is because they aren't doing positive redirections, nor are they trying to de-escalate anything prior to calling a redlight. A redlight gets called from her being too loud, crumpling a paper and refusing to do it, to slamming a book closed. Once a redlight is called, the classroom teacher and all the students leave the classroom. After that there is no choice except that difficult child leave the classroom. Once she leaves the classroom, either walking out on her own, or if she refuses to walk out, they restrain and move her, then they try to calm her down in another room. Often she only escalates to the point of needing calming down once the redlight is called. Anyway, there is little I can do about that, so hopefully the psychologist, who is also the behavior consultant can make some recommendations to the staff to better handle that.
So, that is a brief update to what took place in the IEP meeting, and while they are still proclaiming they do everything right and difficult child still has problems, difficult child is making progress in spite of it. I hope that continues.
Thanks for all your help and support.
mistmouse
