They don't need to know you have their internal manual. You can sweetly ask for their policy "in writing." If they give it to you, you have evidence in writing that they are breaking the law. If you don't, you can show them IDEA 2004 and what it says about Initial Evals and get this show back on the road. BTW -- there should be free advocates in your state and also some atty's do pro bono or reduce rate work. I don't think this situation qualifies for needing an atty or even an advocate since you are very familiar with advocacy issues. We need more moms like you who are aware of their kids' rights. Great going.You smell smoke because there's a fire. The WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND A DIME THAT IS NOT NECESSARY fire. Got to www.wrightslaw.com and search "initial evaluation." Eventhough your son has been in EI, he is just getting his initial evaluation in IDEA services. From the date of your written permission (hope you put it in writing when you first knew he was supposed to be evaled) to the date the required services BEGIN is 60 days. That means, you should already have all the testing done and be getting to the IEP meeting. Clearly, that's not happening. I'd get a hold of an advocate or lawyer if I were you. Right now. Go to www.wrightslaw.com and click on Yellow Pages for Kids. There should be some listings in your state. Also, go to www.copaa.org and click on Find an ATTY or Advocate. That goes by state. You need to let them know right now that they cannot gyp your kid of what he needs. You can certainly do this yourself, but it will take more time than if the school district's lawyer gets a call from your lawyer.
Thanks tzoya - LOL!
I had the hunch that's what you'd say. And yes, everything is in writing - I've often been the lay advocate for families/children dealing on the junior high level and up with learning disabilities for other people, so although I know the law and am familiar with Wright's work and books, having never come into it from transitioning out of ECI, I was not familiar with this "get settled first-then test" approach. That's why I questioned it's validity - the illegality of it seems obvious.
Both ECI and I documented when our requests were sent, which was January 20th, 2007 - exactly 60 days prior to his 3rd birthday, when he would no longer be eligible for services through ECI. Internal protocol manuals for the district state they have 10 days to follow-up with families referred by ECI, but I didn't particularly want the district to know I was aware of that, or have copies of their internal manuals. 45 days out from the initial request was when they called to set a meeting for me to view the school and talk with the evaluators. The district was already outside the law then, and certainly is now.
Thanks for the reaffirmation - I support a family of 6 as a single parent, so hiring an attorney is out of the question. Just needed to know I was correct in trusting my internal instincts (versus my "momma bear" instincts!).
Just ... UGH. She may have something of a point -- he might regress while adjusting, and the time to observe him and figure out which services he MOST needs might play roles ... that's what makes this tough to refute!
But, yeah, I suspect they ARE dragging their feet due to time of year.
They are with MY kid!
Okay - I've dealt with the school district for years on learning disabilities for my daughters, but only after they'd been in the system for a while. They're now homeschooled because of the educational issues. I'm needing some input on a situation that's cropped up with the ISD for my son Brennan.
He was in ECI since diagnosis last year and received speech and OT - most of which we did ourselves because of the overloaded system. Now he's turned 3, and aged out of ECI and into the school district. The district was notified in January (60 days prior to his birthday) that he would be coming in and needed evaluations, etc. both by ECI and myself. They did not contact me until 45 days into the 60 days (a violation of their own internal protocols from the manual I've obtained - they were supposed to do so within 10 days of the ECI notification by their own procedures). And yes, tzoya, I document, document, document :) We set up an appointment to meet with the person overseeing the preschool program, and met her and the speech therapist for the preschool program, and to review the classroom, etc. Brennan wandered the room, occasionally made eye contact with them, lined up cars and blocks, and then held on to the cars when we went to observe the classroom. One of the teachers turned out to be his church nursery worker, so he immediately felt at ease and was more open than he would have been otherwise to being shown things in the classroom and sitting with the children.
When I raised questions in our conference prior to seeing the classroom regarding why the evaluations had not been done, and what Brennan's needs/issues were, I was told "we don't do things that way in the SN preschool program - we don't follow the "party line" - otherwise these children wouldn't get what they need. We want them in the program for a month - 6 weeks before formally evaluating them for services. It allows them to adjust to the teachers, and to feel safe in the environment so we can really see how they're doing."
Why do I smell smoke - my experience with the school district in the past? Although the psychologist was very "open" in her manner, to me it seemed tinged with condescension, but nothing I could put my finger on. Brennan needs the therapies the school can provide and I can't pay for. If my calculations are correct however, if he starts tomorrow, the evaluations wouldn't take place until mid-to-late May, and then school would be over for the summer and we wouldn't have any services through Extended Year Services for summer, since the ARD wouldn't be held until the Fall. My internal sense tells me this is a ploy to avoid putting him in the program with services until next year.
Input, anyone?