This probably a new question, but my daughter’s school seems to present me with exceptionally unusual problems. The school called and told me that I had to come and sign some papers before they could do any testing. Of course, I left work immediately and went to the school to sign papers. I was handed a form called “Consent for Intital Evaluation for Special Education Services.” Basically, the form gave them the right to do testing…vague at best. But not necessarily a problem. In this form was a reference to a Notice of Action Form (attached). Interestingly…there was not Notice of Action Form attached. When I refused to sign the Consent Form without having seen the Notice form..they were very surprised. They finally handed me a form called a “Prior Writtem Notice Form”. I still do not have any form, or letter that indicates exactly what tests will be performed, who will be doing the testing, who and the qualifications of the person (s) doing the evaluations. I was given a multi page document called Notice of Procedural Safeguards - The docuament clearly states that if we refuse testing, the State has the right to do testing anyway under the provisions of a due process hearing. What they don’t seem to understand is that I WANT MY DAUGHTER TESTED!!!! I simply want to be informed enough to be an advocate for my daughter. I think that a lot of my concerns are related to the “special education referral form” that was filled out by her classroom teacher. On that form in the section called suspected educational disability…the teacher writes 1..”being very low last year 2…. being more than a grade level behind, 3… works better in small groups 4…. I just want her to get all the help she can„„,5….is large for her age……6…and has a sister in 1st grade. I took this to my daughter’s doctor and she asked me…”is this all you have????” Is this the kind of information that I should be getting from the school, teacher, counselor, etc. I have suggested that I would be willing to pay for outside evaluation and my medical insurance„,thank goodness, will pay for almost all of it….The school claims that if I have her tested first…their results will not be valid….They also tell be that if the school tests her first, and then I try to validate the results privately, that they will be invalid because the child “learns” how to answer the questions during the testing. HELP…..Do I need to find an attorney to help walk me through this process….Doesn’t the school understand that as parents we are trying to do the best that we can for our child, we want to be part of the team that helps her realize her potential„,whatever that may be. We simply have questions and do not want to be put off. Right now i am refusing to sign the consent forms until I get written answers to my questions…but as both the principal and my husband point out….all I am doing is delaying a process that has taken a year so far. Please any ideas would be helpful…I am very new at this, and admittedly very insecure at handing the care of my daughter over to a group of people who have in the past been so unwilling to help, and not are willing to help but unwilling to provide concrete information on what they are planning….Let’s face it…they don’t have a great track record.
Thank you.
Re: testing
In our school district the testing is done by the school psychologist.
I would suggest you go ahead with the school testing your daughter.
Later you can take her for private testing (we took our son to a neuropsychologist).
School says ‘specific learning disability in reading and written language’,
neuropsychologist says ‘developmental dyslexia’.
Whatever the label, it is a starting place. Each child is so different but
testing will give you a base line to start learning about her individual
needs.
And this is a long process, my son is having his third
review of school testing this year and we’ll learn more about him.
Testing right now will start her on the path to getting help.
Anne
I don't understand why
people can’t just do this the right way the first time…
Patti is right - the forms ARE standard and you cannot repeat the same tests within the same year because it might invalidate the results. That isn’t the issue though.
BUT-before your school contacted you to sign the forms they should have invited you to a meeting to plan the evaluation. You should have sat down with the classroom teacher, and the special educator and anyone else who might be helpful and figured out what you wantedto know about your child- at that point you dsecide what tests will be administered to gain that information.It can include hearing and vision testing, OT stuff, general physical exam, IQ testing Achievement testing and speech and Language testing among other things. You decide as a team what the questions are, how you will get the answers and who is responsible for which parts. You get a copy of the eval plan- which everyone initials to indicate that they participated in it’s development- and then you get the permission for testing and parental rights forms which explain your rights as a family throughout this process. I don’t know what bass ackward system your school is using but I cannot concieve a procedural interpretation of the law that would allow them to present testing permission before planning the eval. Sheesh…
Happy Thanksgiving !
Robin
Re: testing
Okay,first let me say,What a SMART mom you are! Of course you should question why you are required to sign a blank prior written notice form. What a crock.
Now let me tell you what “prior written notice” is. Before any evaluation,eligibility,or placement change is made by the school,they must provide you with prior written notice. Which by the way, as you probably read in your procedural safeguard notice, is one of your parental safeguard rights.
Hence the word “written” I would defnintely be asking where is the writing? Now,the principal having made a major procedural violation also needs to be aware of the fact, that telling you that by not signing is delaying testing,is also violating your child’s right to a free and appropriate public education. I will paste the coresponding sections of IDEA below,but I wanted to explain why I would be concerned as a parent with this practice. They can not test without your consent. They can not demand your signature on anything else,before they evaluate your child. They must provide you with their prior written notice of why they are doing the evaluation AND they must provide you with prior written notice of what placement they are either purposing or denying access to,AFTER the evaluation is done. Why? Because it is a team decision,no matter what testing is done and no matter what the results are. YOU are an equal member of the team. They must provide you with this information so YOU can make a decision of whether you are in agreement or not! Now about your right to an independent evaluation. The school is required to evaluate your child. They can evaluate her without your signature ONLY by filing due process procedures first. This would be going to court and explaining why they want to evaluate in front of a judge. You are not saying you refuse the evaluation,you are saying,you want to provide an “informed consent” . They do not want to go in front of a judge and explain this,gauranteed!
Now your right to an independent evaluation whether at district expense or at your expense is or should be done after you are in disagreement of their evaluation. There are MANY MANY other tests that can be done on your child. Telling you that the results will be invalid before they are done is not a true statement. Not to mention waiting a year for the school to evaluate!
You have the right to an independent eval. You MUST be in disagreement of their eval before requesting an eval done privately at their expense. BUT if you are doing an independent eval at your own expense they MUST take this eval and as a TEAM,decide whether eligibility criteria is met,and whether the TEAM is in agreemnt of the evaluation results.( and you are an equal member of this team) If you know what the district criteria of eligibility is,what specific tests they require, then your independent evaluator can make sure these tests are in the evaluation. Either way,bottom line is:
1. They can not deny the eval,if you refuse to sign that you recieved prior written notice. They must have your consent to evaluate.
2. They must provide you with prior written notice of why they want to evaluate.
3. They must provide you with prior written notice after the evaluation is done.
4. You have the right to request an IEE at district expense if you do not feel they have not reached the right conclusions or did the right tests.
5. An independent eval would not invalidate their eval,unless the very same tests are given.
6. there criteria can not include specific tests ONLY as a basis of whether or not your child qualifies or doesn’t for special educational srvices.
Now for the sections of IDEA:
300.505 Informed consent.
§300.505 Parental consent.
(a) General.
(1) Subject to paragraphs (a)(3), (b) and (c) of this section, informed parent consent must be obtained before—
(i) Conducting an initial evaluation or reevaluation; and
(ii) Initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability.
(2) Consent for initial evaluation may not be construed as consent for initial placement described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(e) Limitation. A public agency may not use a parent’s refusal to consent to one service or activity under paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section to deny the parent or child any other service, benefit, or activity of the public agency, except as required by this part.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(3); 1414(a)(1)(C) and
If you refuse to sign prior written notice but sign consent for eval,they can not delay the evaluation.
300.532 Evaluation procedures:
(f) No single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child.
(g) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities.
(h) In evaluating each child with a disability under §§300.531-300.536, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.
(i) The public agency uses technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.
(j) The public agency uses assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(6)(B), 1414(b)(2) and (3))
Analysis of Comments, Discussions and Changes from Attachment 1
Comment: Some commenters requested that the regulation be revised to require that all tests and other evaluation materials and procedures that are used to assess a child, including nonstandardized tests, be validated for the specific purpose for which they are used and administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the tests.
Other commenters asked that the regulation be revised to require that tests and other evaluation procedures be selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a disability basis, and to prohibit use of tests if there is controversy in the literature about a test’s validity for use with children with a particular disability unless a local validation study has been conducted for the particular disability that the child is suspected to have. A few commenters requested that the regulation specify that evaluations that are conducted verbally should use the language normally used by the child and not the language used by the parents, if there is a difference between the two.
A few commenters requested that the regulation be revised to require that public agencies collect information regarding a child’s learning style(s) and needed methodologies as part of an evaluation, because such information is critical in formulating appropriate instructional methods to promote the child’s learning. A few commenters requested that the regulation be revised to require that three individuals from different disciplines evaluate each child. A few commenters requested that the regulation be revised to clarify that tests and other materials used in evaluating each child must include a full range of diagnostic techniques, including observations and interview. A few commenters requested that §300.532(g) be revised to require a comprehensive evaluation for all students, regardless of their area of suspected disability, and a functional behavioral assessment for each child who exhibits behavior that impedes learning.
A few commenters requested that the regulation be revised to require that initial evaluations and reevaluations address all of the special factors that IEP teams must consider under §300.346(a)(2). A few commenters asked that the regulation be revised to require that evaluations provide information to enable public agencies to comply with the requirements of §300.534(b)(1), which requires that a child not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is a lack of instruction in reading or math.
A few commenters requested that paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), and Notes 1, 2, and 3, be deleted because they exceed the requirements in the statute.
A few commenters were concerned that Note 2 does not address the broad array of unique circumstances in which it may be necessary, for communication or other disability-specific reasons, to seek out an appropriate evaluator who is not on the staff of the public agency.
A few commenters raised concerns about valid assessment of Native American children who are either Navajo-dominant speakers or bilingual. They expressed particular concern regarding the limitations of standardized written instruments in assessing children who speak Navajo, which is a predominantly oral language, and asked for guidance as to how Bureau of Indian Affairs schools will meet the requirements in §300.532 regarding standardized assessment tools.
A few commenters were concerned that the reference in Note 3 to administration of assessment components by persons whose qualifications do not meet standard conditions would appear to “give permission” for the use of unqualified assessment personnel, and requested that this reference be deleted from the note. Other commenters asked that Note 3 be deleted because it inappropriately implies that IDEA permits public agencies to conduct assessments under “substandard” conditions.
Several commenters requested that the substance of all of the notes in the NPRM be incorporated into the text of the regulations, or that the notes be deleted in their entirety.
Discussion: The provisions of §300.532(c) regarding requirements for standardized tests are consistent with section 614(b)(3)(B), which limits applicability of those requirements to standardized tests. The selection of appropriate assessment instruments and methodologies is appropriately left to State and local discretion.
A public agency must ensure that: (1) the IEP team for each child with a disability has all of the evaluation information it needs to make required decisions regarding the educational program of the child, including the consideration of special factors required by §300.346(a)(2); and (2) the team determining a child’s eligibility has all of the information it needs to ensure that the child is not determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is a lack of instruction in reading or math, as required by §300.534(b)(1). It is not, therefore, necessary to establish an additional requirement that evaluations address the requirements of §300.346(a)(2) or §300.534(b)(1).
Paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) were all among the provisions included in the regulations as in effect on July 20, 1983, and are unaffected by the IDEA Amendments of 1997.
In evaluating each child with a disability, it is important for public agencies to ensure that the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, including any needs the child has that are commonly linked to a disability category other than the disability in which the child has been classified. Further, public agencies must ensure that the services provided to each child under this part are designed to meet all of the child’s identified special education and related services needs, and not those resulting only from the disability area in which the child has been initially classified.
As proposed Note 1 indicated, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (1) in order to properly evaluate a child who may be limited English proficient, a public agency should assess the child’s proficiency in English as well as the child’s native language to distinguish language proficiency from disability needs; and (2) an accurate assessment of the child’s language proficiency should include objective assessment of reading, writing, speaking, and understanding.
Both Title VI and Part B require that a public agency ensure that children with limited English proficiency are not evaluated on the basis of criteria that essentially measure English language skills. Sections 300.532 and 300.534(b) require that information about the child’s language proficiency must be considered in determining how to conduct the evaluation of the child to prevent misclassification. In keeping with the decision to eliminate all notes from the final regulations, however, Note 1 has been removed. The text of §300.532 has been revised to require that assessments of children with limited English proficiency must be selected and administered to ensure that they measure the extent to which a child has a disability and needs special education, and do not instead measure the child’s English language skills.
Proposed Note 2 explained that paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (2)(ii) when read together require that even in situations where it is clearly not feasible to provide and administer tests in the child’s native language or mode of communication for a child with limited English proficiency, the public agency must still obtain and consider accurate and reliable information that will enable the agency to make an informed decision as to whether the child has a disability and the effects of the disability on the child’s educational needs. In some situations, there may be no one on the staff of a public agency who is able to administer a test or other evaluation in a child’s native language, as required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, but an appropriate individual is available in the surrounding area. In that case a public agency could identify an individual in the surrounding area who is able to administer a test or other evaluation in the child’s native language include contacting neighboring school districts, local universities, and professional organizations. This information will be useful to school districts in meeting the requirements of the regulations, but consistent with the general decision to remove all notes, Note 2 would be removed.
An assessment conducted under non standard conditions is not in and of itself a “substandard” assessment. As proposed Note 3 clarified, if an assessment is not conducted under standard conditions, information about the extent to which the assessment varied from standard conditions, such as the qualifications of the person administering the test or the method of test administration, needs to be included in the evaluation report. A provision has been added to the regulation to make this point.
This information is needed so that the team of qualified professionals can evaluate the effects of these variances on the validity and reliability of the information reported and to determine whether additional assessments are needed. Again, while the proposed note provided clarifying information on the regulatory requirements, in keeping with the general decision to eliminate notes, Note 3 would be removed.
The provisions of the Act and §300.532, as revised to include a provision regarding the use of nonstandard assessments, are sufficient to ensure that the provisions of the regulation are appropriately implemented for Navajo children, and no further changes are needed.
Changes: Section 300.532 has been revised to require that assessments of children with limited English proficiency must be selected and administered to ensure that they measure the extent to which a child has a disability and needs special education, and do not, instead, measure the child’s English language skills.
A provision has been added to §300.532 to require that if an assessment is not conducted under standard conditions, information about the extent to which the assessment varied from standard conditions, such as the qualifications of the person administering the test or the method of test administration, must be included in the evaluation report. Notes 1, 2, and 3 have been removed.
A provision has been added to §300.532 to require that the assessment be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of a child’s special education and related services needs. A change also has been made to §300.300 clarifying that services provided to each child must be designed to meet all the child’s identified special education and related services needs.
Paragraph (b) has been revised consistent with section 614(b)(2) of the Act, to clarify that information about enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum or for a preschool child to participate in appropriate activities may assist in determining both whether the child has a disability and the content of the child’s IEP.
Independent Evaluation 300.502
(a) General.
(1) The parents of a child with a disability have the right under this part to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child, subject to paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(2) Each public agency shall provide to parents, upon request for an independent educational evaluation, information about where an independent educational evaluation may be obtained, and the agency criteria applicable for independent educational evaluations as set forth in paragraph (e) of this section.
(3) For the purposes of this part—
(i) Independent educational evaluation means an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question; and
(c) Parent-initiated evaluations. If the parent obtains an independent educational evaluation at private expense, the results of the evaluation—
(1) Must be considered by the public agency, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child; and
(2) May be presented as evidence at a hearing under this subpart regarding that child.
Re: testing
Wow!! Thank you so much for all the helpful and most informative information. Everytime my husband and I have a meeting with someone from the school system, I have felt so uninformed. Consequently, I know that I have not been in a position to be an effective advocate for my daughter. I think with your helpful sugestions, and information, along with all the other support that I have been given through this site…I will be much better prepared to address the school system. This process may not proceed the way I want it done…but from this point on…it WILL be conducted correctly. You are correct..t;hey do not want to be put in the postion of explaining to an administrative law judge why they have not followed established written procedures. These procedures have been established for the protection of the school districts, and the parents…but most importantly, for the children. This web site and bulletin board is such a valuable resourse for parents that the school systems should automatically give out the information to every parent or guardian. I know that I am going to make sure that I tell everyone about it!!! Thank you!!
we are in the same boat...Re: testing
If you have an hour (:) ) please read my posting in Parenting a child with ADD, about our first fact finding IEP meeting when they tried to talk us out of testing. (Disasterous first meeting & no coverage under 504 & ?s about school psychologists) It was an incredible experience.
One other suggestion for you to look into. We live in Pennsyvlania with a former governor who has a hearing disability. I think because of that, the educational supports for Parents are very good. We have a Parents
Education Advocate Network (PEN) paid for by the state, and a Parents hotline at the Dept. of Education and they are great too. We haven’t made any headway unfortunately but we are very well informed with all the law materials the above mentioned groups sent us!! Haha. Seriously, you may have such a group in your state. Call your local CHADD or LD group for a reference. It took alot of digging and talking to other parents to find PEN so keep trying.
Re: I don't understand why
We had the meeting you described in your message, and it went so very wrong. They said we might not want to know that all that’s wrong with her is she is ‘emotionally disturbed’. I think our problem is we have an ‘emotionally disturbed’ school pyschologist. With that in place, and that psychologist telling us she is backlogged 4 months, where do we go from there? All this info on our disasterous meeting is in the Parenting an ADD child, should you care to wade threw my ramblings!
Another bulletin board
Another very good bulletin board that has all kinds of information is the one on the International Dyslexia Association site. Even tho this may not be your child’s problem, there are many posts about testing, IDEA, IEP, etc. that will help you to become better informed.
I am also getting my child tested…we are SURE she has dyslexia. In fact, we had some free testing done at a University Graduate Program, and they said she had phonological processing deficits and a high IQ. But even with this, the school has done nothing specific, and she isn’t even classified as a child in need.
Doing a lot of little things that they do with other LD children, but not specific for her auditory learning ABILITIES and reading disabilities. Not appropriate education. So I requested the school do testing, even tho I know it won’t be adequate. They have said the state of Kansas does not even recognize dyslexia!!! then how do we get appropriate education? That is why we are getting testing done by a Neuropsychologist in a few weeks, to get a specific diagnosis and interventions, and then the school will have to follow the doctors orders and get specific dyslexia tutoring/programs.
Good luck! Let them test, educate yourself, be an advocate for your child by getting all the info you can.
Re: we are in the same boat...Re: testing
Audrey, Will you please e-mail me any info. on PA. My daughter is in first grade and i just had her tested at a private learning center. She has tested very low and will be getting 3hrs. of tutoring a week.I would like any info. you could give me. THANK-YOU! Debbie
Re: specific language disability
My child is classified as having a specific language disability not dyslexia. For this he receives pull out reading and language arts instruction.
Re: testing
Wow, What a fantastic response you gave! I have a dyslexic son who is now 16. We knew something was up when he was 6 and i HAPPENED to know a person who turned out to be a fabulous evaluator. That full scale private evaluation turned out to be the best tool we could have possibly have obtained to facilitate my son’s education. When children are being assessed don’t forget that it feels very high stakes to them. One of the reasons we had him privately assessed was because he couldn’t make it though standardized testing in the 1st grade without dissolving into tears! As it turns out he is now a high achieving student (4.3) who because of his assessment qualifies for Gate and AP classes—but would be cut off at the knees without accommodations. I can certainly see why so many kids with learning disabilites are school dropouts!
The sad part for him now is that he is up against MORE standardized testing which after all his hard work will put him at the back of the bus for college admissions. I have read some fabulous reports on the web that essentially say that even with accomodations SAT type tests seriously discriminate against the learning disabled/dyslexic student for a multitude of reasons…….I recently ran across an article that said that Massachuetts signed into law in 1983 a system that waives standardized testing for college admissions for learning disabled/dyslexic students (for public colleges and Universities). So someone has some common sense! ETS even testified their support! I’m hoping to get some similar legislation written in California… What do you think?
They want to test your daughter and the legal mumbo jumbo they want you to sign consists of the same forms that they give each parent to sign before they test a child. They are just following standard procedure.
In regards to the IQ and language testing results can be INVALIDATED if the SAME TESTS are given within one year and their point is very VALID. You would have to make sure that your private testing is with different assessments. For instance if they do the Woodcock Johnson-III then your private person can do the Detroit Test of Learning Aptitudes-III, If they do a WISC and a WIAT then you would have to have your psychologist do another IQ test like the Kaufmann. There are dozens of different language assessments that SLP’s can pick from, so that there will not be an overlap.
Take a deep breath and relax, it sounds like the process is starting to roll. You will find the answers you seek in due time. My daughter had both district and private testing, she survived and so will your kiddo.