Why is a teacher removed from a building, told to resign, and deemed immoral to teach all because she made a mistake on an IEP? She was trying to help students. The district has destroyed her life and her emotional well being.
I have been in IEP meetings where personnel lied, denied services that were needed, ignored expert advice, and belittled parents concerns. Which is more immoral? Which deserves the removal of the employee? Which should be criminal?
Below are some examples of what I have seen:
Following are the concerns of the psychologist:
9. Jacob may benefit from more intensive, one-on-one instruction in multiplication and division. In light of his handwriting difficulties, he should be allowed to use a calculator when it is clear that he understands underlying concepts so he is not penalized for his motor skills difficulties. (Jacob still cannot multiply or divide)
The team felt that Jacob understood the concept of multiplication and division and that there was no reason to give him one-on-one help. They felt that letting him use a calculator would solve the issues that he was having with math. Mother disagreed. The team felt that Jacob understood math and most of his difficulties were due to his absences. Mother stated, many times, that his absences are a direct result of the anxiety that he experiences because of school. Mother stated that his psychiatrist believes this to be true, too. Mother stated that he was struggling with math before his absences. The team disagreed and stated that he was having no problems with math except for when he was absent
I discussed this issue with Jerry Keimig in 2005 and told him that my son wanted to die because school was just too much for him.
His present level states that the district feels he is resistive. Once again, this should be addressed in a BIP. They put the following in his IEP in May, "Jake has been resistive to carrying the Quick Pad to classes." I asked that it be changed because the statement was not accurate. In August we had a meeting and the following is taken from my notes, "As for the issue about the assistive technology, they added a sentence that stated, "Mrs. Tucker believes that this was because he believed it did not work."
I told the team that I disagreed with that statement. The device didn't work in Jake's mind and that's why he didn't want to use it. He was not resistive to carrying the Quick Pad to classes. He was resistive to working with a machine that didn't work. The team refused to take that out. I was told that I am the expert on Jake at home and the district is the expert on Jake at school.
It also states the following, which once again proves that the district can't differentiate between typical behaviors and behaviors due to his disability. "Small group testing was changed to "Access to small group testing with rephrasing of directions." We had a very long discussion on what that meant. Joy Rose stated, "Historically Jake has refused to take tests in a small group and it resulted in meltdowns and shutdowns." I would like to know where that information came from because it is totally inaccurate and should not be in Jake's file.
Had the district implemented his IEP throughout his ten years in this district, this would not be an issue right now. I have no problem with Jake taking tests in the classroom as long as he understands what the test is asking of him and he is able to take it. Making a child sit in the hallway is not my idea of small group testing and that is what has been offered on more than one occasion."
On that same discussion, I would like my notes added to the district's conference notes. The Lee's Summit School District refuses to allow parents to tape record meetings and it is not acceptable that the only conference notes in my child's file would be from the district's viewpoint. That is not allowing me to be a full participant on my son's IEP team. I been not been allowed to be a full participant in the past and I would like to see that change.
Also, I have been in contact with OSEP and my contact told me that it was inappropriate for the district to make the statement that the district is the expert on Jake at school and I am the expert at home. They also told me that Jake should have a dual diagnosis. One would be educational autism and the other would be ld because of his written language deficit and his dysgraphia. The team at the meeting yesterday told me that Missouri doesn't do that and I advised that I was contacting OSEP today to ask her why she would advise me to do that when it is not something my state does. She also advised me that she would like for me to seek mediation and I told I didn't feel that we were there yet and would like to handle this among ourselves. She is waiting for my report from my meeting yesterday.