Is this even legal? IEP and exclusion from advanced classes and ec

[Tanaqui]

I haven't seen kids with ASD function well, even kids functioning at a high level, without at least some services or accommodations.

 

A lot of us managed it before the diagnostic standards were expanded in the early 90s. (And a lot of us didn't, let's be fair.)

 

[gardenmom5]

Definitely, sometimes the most expedient option is to find the most helpful principal.  But if one is at a school with a principal that wants to break the law and, for whatever reason, can not change schools, it's important to be ready to take it up with the district or even the state.  I am the main parent/pseudo parent on three different IEPs in two districts right now so I have the various Sped offices and the number for the state department of education (in our state that is OSPI) programmed into my phone and printed and taped to the inside of each child's IEP/Sped binder.  

 

kids needs vary too much to be able to be a blanket one size fits all. 

 

one child tested gifted - but also had an unspecified learning disability. (probably apd)   the one school where the principal didn't abide by the law was too focused on scores and how they looked.  couldn't stand the school pysch either.  (she insisted this child's major stomach issues - requiring er trips with iv's and narcotics - were all in his head/stress related.  when the cause was finally diagnosed - he had a pinched nerve in his spine.) - then a teacher FOUGHT agasint giving another a very very simple accommodation.

 

this is why I pushed for an actual diagnoses for dudeling - the schools may balk - but they can't claim doesn't exist and it helps in enforcing the iep.   the other schools have been much more supportive and forthcoming.   and some are more competent than others.

[gardenmom5]

A lot of us managed it before the diagnostic standards were expanded in the early 90s. (And a lot of us didn't, let's be fair.)

 

I'm one who absolutely did NOT fair well. by  today's standards I would have been diagnosed asd.   (and apd)

 

even then, I had speech therapy in the school (60s/70s), I was getting pulled out for support services regularly.  but they stopped in jr high - when in some ways I needed it even more.

[LucyStoner]

I'm one who absolutely did NOT fair well. by  today's standards I would have been diagnosed asd.   (and apd)

 

even then, I had speech therapy in the school (60s/70s), I was getting pulled out for support services regularly.  but they stopped in jr high - when in some ways I needed it even more.

 

I'm in the same boat.  I got great speech services most places we lived.  I also got some other services over the years.  But I left 7th grade and didn't go back until 9th grade and I quickly switched from a larger more traditional high school program to a very small program where every student got a lot of individual support and attention due to the model of education (not for any spelled out special needs). 

[lulubelle]

This is a timely topic for me. My son, with ASD level1, was just granted an IEP to enter public school this fall. My husband and I have been discussing whether we should ask for honors math and science, since that is what he excels in. I am going to the high school tomorrow, so I will find out how they do it.

[Katy]

Where are you getting the grade level thing from the court ruling? 

 

I read the entire 20 page decision, including where it differed from the previous case where they had ruled that a hearing impaired child that was performing above average did not get the right to an interpreter.  That ruling has been used to justify bad IEP's ever since.  The recent ruling defined the standard as attempting to reach grade level, but not exceed it.

 

Here's the document:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

[LucyStoner]

I read the entire 20 page decision, including where it differed from the previous case where they had ruled that a hearing impaired child that was performing above average did not get the right to an interpreter.  That ruling has been used to justify bad IEP's ever since.  The recent ruling defined the standard as attempting to reach grade level, but not exceed it.

 

Here's the document:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

 

I've read the entire thing as well and discussed the case at length with a special education attorney.  

 

Advancing from "grade to grade" does not mean meeting grade level is enough or that those who are at or above grade level do not qualify for specialized instruction and accommodations laid out in an IEP.  

 

From the ruling, every mention of "grade level"doesn't distill down to your summary of it:

 

 

 

Rowley did not provide concrete guidance with respect to a child

who is not fully integrated in the regular classroom and not able to

achieve on grade level. A child’s IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement

if that is not a reasonable prospect. But that child’s educational

program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances,

just as advancement from grade to grade is

appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom.

The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet

challenging objectives.

This standard is more demanding than the “merely more than de

minimis†test applied by the Tenth Circuit. It cannot be right that

the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children

with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom,

but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for

children who are not. Pp. 9–15.

 

 

 

“Regular examinations are administered,

grades are awarded, and yearly advancement to

higher grade levels is permitted for those children who

attain an adequate knowledge of the course material.†Id.,

at 203. Progress through this system is what our society

generally means by an “education.†And access to an

“education†is what the IDEA promises. Ibid. Accordingly,

for a child fully integrated in the regular classroom, an

IEP typically should, as Rowley put it, be “reasonably

calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks

and advance from grade to grade.† 

 

 

 

Rowley had no need to provide concrete guidance with

respect to a child who is not fully integrated in the regular

classroom and not able to achieve on grade level. That

case concerned a young girl who was progressing smoothly

through the regular curriculum. If that is not a reasonable

prospect for a child, his IEP need not aim for grade level

advancement. But his educational program must be

appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just

as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately

ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The

goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to

meet challenging objectives.

 

My son was reading at a 12th-grade level before he was 12 years old.  Needing an IEP doesn't preclude him from advanced offerings or mean that they don't have to show progress since he's not below grade level.  Progress is defined by where the child started and where they can if properly supported, go.  That is why these are INDIVIDUAL education plans and not a one size fits all standard.  Challenging is not defined by the grade level but by the individual child's particular circumstances.  

 

From the ruling:

 

 

 

We will not attempt to elaborate on what “appropriateâ€

progress will look like from case to case. It is in the nature

of the Act and the standard we adopt to resist such an

effort: The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique

circumstances of the child for whom it was created. This

absence of a bright-line rule, however, should not be mistaken

for “an invitation to the courts to substitute their

own notions of sound educational policy for those of the

school authorities which they review.â€

Edited April 5, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Katy]

No, but the decision and explanation of the misinterpretation of the previous case, Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176. does.

 

My guess is your attorney is not only discussing this precedent, but local laws that apply as well.

 

 

ETA:  not implying that this is moral or constitutional, I do hope people fight these types of rules, but I do think it will need to be fought, because I don't think this ruling will be interpreted to say that extracurricular programs are guaranteed. 

 

ETA2: whenever this much money is involved, my presumption is that it will need to be worked out in court.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Katy

[QueenCat]

A lot of us managed it before the diagnostic standards were expanded in the early 90s. (And a lot of us didn't, let's be fair.)

 

I'm glad that you did. My experiences, both as a parent and as a professional, have been different. My classmates, that I now wonder if they were on the spectrum, didn't do well. They were typically bullied and often not understood by classmates or teachers. They were viewed as weird and other not nice terms.

[Lecka]

Katy -- I think there are two different things being discussed.

 

One, a child with a special education placement.

 

Two, a child with an IEP but NOT a special education placement.

 

I think the quotes are about a special education placement and what are appropriate goals within that setting.

 

A child in AP classes is not on a special education setting for that time period and then if that IS the least-restrictive setting appropriate for that child, and the child has some supports and/or accommodations, then they are part of the IEP. Or maybe nothing is needed during the AP class but some service is provided at another time in the day or related to something else.

 

But that is not a special education setting.

 

IEPs (ime -- between my two sons) are really, really different if they are wrt a special education placement, or wrt a child in regular education who receives some service, support, or accommodation.

 

All of the things that apply to special education placements just do not come up at all with my son who is not in special education, even though he has an IEP.