At least, this is what they told us at our last IEP meeting. By "they" I mean the principal, the school psychologist, and the special education rep from the district office they brought in to strong-arm us.
I really, really want to be indignant, because I did well at the last IEP meeting. I caught them off guard and was prepared, and they were agreeing with what we wanted. We weren't asking for anything crazy. We just wanted specific ways they were going to work on our son's social skills. We wanted measurable goals. We wanted Present Levels of Functional Performance to address his Autism. We wanted them to address his communication needs and Autism in some form on his IEP. Our IEP before this meeting was fifteen pages. The "fixed" IEP was fifteen pages. How much do you think they added?
Communication: Denied because school psychologist says my boy can communicate very well. Yes, he knows big words. He speaks like an adult. However, he does not understand nuances of nonverbal communication like sarcasm, body language, facial expressions, etc. Everyone in the IEP meeting explained to us that the IEP question about "Does the student have communication needs?" only referred to children requiring technological devices to assist them. I asked how we were going to address his communication deficit then. Their plan, was to put everything he needs into a Functional Behavior Plan, their ruby slippers for the IEP. The FBP was going to give them the tools to help our son succeed. When they said this, I kept waiting for the orchestral music to begin, but I guess they forgot to add the soundtrack to the little show they were putting on for us.
Specificity: Denied on the grounds that if something doesn't work, then they can't try anything new. Guess what? You can call as many IEP meetings as you want as often as you want. I received a pat on the head. Does this mean I get a cookie? Central Office Guy said that he had seen IEPs that were specific and, well, many areas didn't know how to write an IEP so we should just listen to him. (Smarmy car salesman.) The IEP, he said, using small words for our benefit, was only to set goals for Connor, a roadmap. The FBP, was how they would accomplish it. Since not everyone with an IEP has to have a FBP, it struck us that they are still making our son out to be a behavior problem, rather than Autistic. Hmmm....
Measurability: Apparently the goals are already measurable because when my son does something wrong, they can correct it. Corrective is not instructional and if they are only measuring infractions, then they are not measuring successes. Good, the last thing my kid needs is positive reinforcement; its not like he has any friends at school to give it to him.
Present Levels of Functional Performance: I wanted to laugh and cry at the same time when they denied this one. School Psychologist explained that Present Level of Performance is solely for Academic needs. Reinforcement from Central Office Guy/Smarmy Car Salesman and smirky grin of acknowledgment from the Principal. But, I countered, the advocate endorsed by the state and in my IDEA handbook said that this was required. Another Pat on the head. Well, said Smarmy Central Office Salesman, the advocates are "good people" and he had been through their training and it was lacking. We were, he said, better off doing as he said instead.
Still not giving up, I asked, if we cannot be specific and we cannot put in communication requirements, how then are we addressing his Autism in the IEP? Here's the good part! Smarmy Central Office Carsalesman looked at us like we might also need an IEP. Because Autsim is listed as his disability on page 1 of his IEP, that tells all current and future educators how they should help our son. Apparently, everyone in the district has had extensive Autism training, so they know how to teach to Autistic children. Good thing Autistic kids all have the same meltdown triggers, communication needs, peer relationships, intellectual gifts, etc. Besides, I asked, since the current Autism provisions had been in place for a year already, why had they not already been doing the things they had been trained to do? In fact, why did we have to call yet another meeting to address his Autism, if the label on the IEP was all they needed with which to help him succeed? A lot of non-answers and regurgitation of previous statements followed. I see.
We did not approve nor sign the IEP. None of our concerns were addressed with anything less than disdain, so the Crazy Sped Mom costume is being donned once more. An IEP should be in place to protect children, not to give them unattainable and unmeasurable goals or to have a place to hide a behavioral plan, an agenda by the principal which she refuses to review.
If all Autistic children were alike, then there would not be a need for an Individualized Education Program. Just saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment