What Do You Think?

IEP stands for “Independent Educational Plan” thus the curriculum requirements can be modified because it should suit his specific needs. It would not make sense for him to make up all the work he missed during pull out.

Here is one example of what effective instruction should look like:

http://www.dys-add.com/videos/barton20minDemo.html

Also check out the International Dyslexia Association to see what kind of instruction works:

http://www.interdys.org/InsInt.htm

[Modified by: dhfl143 on October 21, 2012 10:06 PM]

Thank you so much for the reply,dhfl143, and useful link. Unfortunately, our mtg on the 18th did not go well. After 2 mtgs 1.5 hrs+, the school psychologist was horrified, after clarification, my son has not been through RTI. Asst. Priniciple had been pushing for RTI instead of IEP and was almost gleeful when the school psych. discovered this (common knowledge to the rest of us). RTI is asst. principle’s domain, but he has never said or implied participation since I first requested services in spring 2012. Team thought 6 wks of RTI would be great before determining eligibility. Problem for them is, consent for evaluation was signed on 9/12 and the 60 day clock ends 11/15. Inadequate interventions were proposed, in my opinion, but I was so angry I hardly spoke. Emotions are not good in a team mtg, and I thought I was going to start crying. I had to correct the asst. principle’s mtg. minutes 2x, because he omitted the reading disability, as well as, already wrote “does not meet eligibility under prong 2.” Fired off nice but direct letters regarding the 60 day clock & fact that SC permits use of RTI but also allows for a discrepancy model. Contacted the Special Services Director regarding the 60 day notice, and she agreed the school could not push past that deadline to get RTI data. New mtg. was scheduled for 11/9. School psychologist has asked the director of special services to attend the mtg. I requested the school psych. be present at the mtg. on the 9th, because we are not confident the integrity of the process would be upheld in his absence. He is the only one on the team who has meaningful things to contribute ie: suggestions etc. The asst. principle kept brining up average & above averge MAP scores & good Math grades; however, that test has no bearing on a dx of written expression. Anyway, I am rambling out of frustration and concern. I feel let down and as if the cards are stacked against us for an IEP. I believe my son qualifies for special education services. The school will push for tier 3 RTI. How am I suppose to know if Tier 3 is appropriate or individualized enough? What if it doesn’t work, and then we have to start the evaluation process all over again? I will ask for a 504 if we get denied and IEP, but I need to figure out a way to show an IEP is most appropriate. Anyway, thanks to anyone who reads my long post. What a journey this continues to be-ugh!

Kelly, here’s a quote from the RTI Network:
‘It should be noted that at any point in an RTI process, IDEA 2004 allows parents to request a formal evaluation to determine eligibility for special education. An RTI process cannot be used to deny or delay a formal evaluation for special education.’

[url]http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti[/url]

Hi Kelly, the maze of special education can be so confounding and confusing. You did not say what state you are from, but regulations vary from state to state. It has been a couple weeks since you last posted, but maybe I can clarify a little bit of what you and your school are going through at the moment. In general, first there is a referral. This was done by you. Then a team consisting of educators and parents meets to plan how they will conduct an evaluation to decide if your child is eligible. Once you sign consent for the evaluation, the district has 60 days to complete the evaluation.

To be eligible for special education, three things have to be decided:

1. Does the child have a disability?

2. If the child has a disability, is there an adverse effect in one or more basic skill areas?

3. Does the child need specialized instruction that cannot be provided through the regular education program.

After the evaluation is completed, the team will meet to decide thse questions, and if all three can be answered affirmatively, the child will be eligible for special education. The next step will be to draw up an Individual Education Program, or I.E.P., good for the next year. Most evaluations are good for the next three years.

I will quote a passage from the Vermont special education regulations, which may help clarify this RTI confusion that has been mentioned:

“The school shall decide whether to use a discrepancy model or a problem solving, response to instruction model that determines if the student responds to scientific, research-based instruction as a part of the evaluation procedures to identify specific learning disabilities.”

These two models, discrepancy or RTI, are how the first question will be answered, does the child have a disability? Still needed are questions to answers to 2 and 3.

If your son was already diagnosed with a disorder of written expression, that might already answer whether your child has a disability. I could explain more if I knew more details about how that diagnosis was made. I am a special educator in a school located within a state prison system and we use the discrepancy model exclusivly to identify if a young adult has a learning disability. That is, we look for a significant and severe discrepancy between the student’s IQ and achievement score on standardized testing. I do not have experience with RTI so could not advise you on that. Hope some of this helps.

Thank you, Tom, for your thoughtful response. Yes, we (parents) referred my son to the school for a full evaluation. We paid for an independent eval in Feb ‘12, because I knew the school was not going to identify my son. SC allows for use of a discrepancy model or RTI, but the state encourages RTI data if possible. RTI was not going to find my son, because he was not failing/doing “well-enough.” A fact admitted to by his 1st grade teacher. I approached his teacher at the beginning of last yr with our concerns. She worked with us throughout the year allowing for accomodations on assignments, having my son receive extra help in a small group as needed etc. She provided me with teacher catalogs, and I ordered materials to use at home for extra support. The eval in Feb identified a disorder of written expression after obtaining results from the WISC-IV, WJIII, parent/teacher questionaires, and classwork samples, & GORT scores below avg. fluency. I finally shared the results with the school in the spring in prep for this school year. I had a conference call with the school psychologist (in asst. principle’s office) after they reviewed test results. The Ed.S/LPA was impressed with the quality of the evaluation and recommended we have a team mtg at the start of the school year. At no point during that call, meetings with the asst. principle (he oversees RTI), or anytime leading up to the 1st team mtg 9/2012, did anyone suggest, demand, or imply the necessity or benefit to participating in RTI. It was never discussed in the team mtg. on 9/12. The school psychologist reviewed the testing data with the team and also said there was a severe discrepancy in basic reading. Consent was signed. Classroom observations, comparative work samples, hearing/vision screen, and OT screen is what the team agreed to (in writing) to be the final data needed to determine eligibility. Again, RTI was never mentioned. Fast fwd to 10/18. Son found eligible on prong 1. Comparative writing samples w/ 2 other avg. students revealed a BIG difference. Reading showed a slightly higher # of errors on my son’s part (albiet not significant 9.8% vs. 8.3 & 8.6%), but he read 1/2 the number of words the other 2 children did. Dismissed. After discussion around how services would/could look for my son, it was clear the asst. principle was pushing for RTI. We made it clear in the 1st mtg, after being asked what we wanted, we would pursue an IEP. After almost 80 meeting minutes, it dawned on the school psychologist my son had not participated in RTI. He looked stunned and stammered. Then he said he thought he had been in RTI, needed to give it a whirl, and then the asst. principle piped in about it being the law. I was livid, but I remained silent. I knew consent had been signed & participation would push us beyond the 60 day clock which supersedes data collection. That portion of the law was never mentioned by anyone on the team, but I knew I was correct. I felt either: 1) some team members are incompetent & not knowledgeable about the law 2) it was a sneaky push to delay or deny in favor of the RTI baby. With time to reflect, I do believe the school is interested in helping my son & concerned. The asst. principle is very nice, but he is not the ‘sharpest tool in the shed.’ This concerns me. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would want to pursue a label for one of my kids as protection; however, I do believe an IEP offers protection from a model that, seemingly, fails to identify some children who are doing well comparitively by some measures but genuinely struggle. I do not think RTI should be used as a diagnostic model. It is another form of discrepancy without,IMO, what is credible or useful cognitive data. My son is getting decent grades, does avg to above avg on MAP scores, but, again, MAP does not measure writing; furthermore, no model accounts for the amount of support we provide outside of school. Weekly meetings w/ a school psychologist/consultant and supplemental materials (software & NEO 2)along with help at home. I am just afraid the school will use grades & lack of behavior problems as a reason to deny eligibility. They will have 2 wks of RTI data (even though hardly reliable for such a short time) which may show some improvement on spelling tests. That is great, but it has not been generalizeable. My son gets a 100 with daily help from the special education teacher, but a post test at home, within 24 & 48 hrs, reveals the retention is not there. What is the school concerned with? He got an A! I am grateful for any services, glad RTI is available to all, but I’m also mad. $2000 in testing, hundreds of dollars for materials to have at home, many hrs, thousands in psych. appts, and our help boils down to pencil eraser/pennies for spacing words & rote copying spelling help. Anyway…I’m sorry for such long posts. I’m just tired, a little frustrated, and worried. Thank you very much for your feedback, Tom, and reading my long posts! ou have an interesting job. Valuable services you provide. P.S. sorry for any typos. spell check?

You make an interesting point about RTI being an alternative discrepancy model without the cognitive info, which is extremely important. I dont know why they would continue to push for RTI, unless the SC state DOE or the school district has decided it SHALL be done and your school is caught in the middle.

From the way you describe the situation, it may be hard to find an adverse effect, and thereby find your son eligible. In my state we have to show the student is at least a full standard deviation below his or her peers on three measures out of a total of six and have to exhaust all six before we decide the person does not show an adverse effect. The measures include, 1. individually administered standardized tests; 2. group administered norm referenced tests; 3. grades; 4. Curriculum measures; 5. criterion referenced tests; and 6. student work samples.

Being one standard deviation below average is equivalent to being in the lower 15% of the class. If your son is average or above, he would not meet the eligibility requirement even though it might be documented that he has a disability. Special education services are intended for kids who struggle because of a disability, at least as the present law is written.

It may be premature to talk about that possibility for your son because the evaluation is not complete, and it is a team that makes the decision, and you are a member of that team.

In my school, only a small fraction of those with disabilities actually receive special education because our regular ed program is able to provide the individualization and self-paced instruction needed by most students with disabilities to be successful. Special ed would be something truly different from what our regular ed program can provide to all students. I wonder if you would care to use that thought as a launch pad for what you would like to see for your son in school. What kind of instruction would allow him to be successful in school with his writing disability? Is it something he is not getting now through your school’s regular education program? Looking forward to hearing back.

Kellygh,

I have been following your original posting and the responses you have been provided. First, I wish to commend you and your husband to advocate for your son’s school interest. It would appear that the two of you have exceeded any reasonable effort.

It also would appear that you have been the victim of inappropriate handling of your son’s situation at the school level. It is no wonder that you are frustrated and weary of all this. To make a lengthy response short, you have been receiving inappropriate information from the school about what is and what is not required prior to the decision to evaluate. Your procedural safeguard rights have been minimized in no uncertain terms.

My intent is to provide you some pathway for you to achieve some relief. First, I would immediately secure the assistance of a local advocate who is knowledgeable of special education to accompany you to every single meeting you have with this school. I would also arrange a meeting with the Division Superintendent and voice your concerns about the treatment and confusion you have been receiving dealing with this issue at the school level. They would appear to be like bumper cars going in every direction.

I now wish to dispel a few myths that you are being told at the school level:

1) Statutorily, advancing from grade to grade and achieving does not preclude the issue of a potential identification of a cild with a disability. There is too much case law that states otherwise.

2) The RTI procedure is no prerequsite prior to any referral for any referral for special education consideration. From what you have described, your procedural rights have denied on the basis of the school mentioning that first your son has to go through an RTI procedure before going through the evaluation process. This was never Congressional intent in IDEA 2004. RTI can never delay or deny the right to an evaluation. This is “malarkey”.

For now, set up your meetings with higher level decision makers and make “some noise” of your dissatisfaction of how you have been treated in this issue. Also, secure the services of the advocate to assist you as I personally think you have done all you can do on your own.

If you wish to have any dialogue on this matter in a more private way my personal email is as follows: [email protected].

Best wishes in your continued efforts in this matter. I will be following your situation on this forum and I will be more than pleased to offer you further advice on the basis that you need to channel your efforts to have them be more productive in this maze. As you know advice is always the cheapest item on the table. I am a former special education administrator with extensive legal and administrative knowledge of these issues. I sense a “wrong” has taken place here and you need some help.

DRHD
[Modified by: DRHD on November 08, 2012 08:29 AM]

Thank you, DRHD & Tom, for your helpful feedback and support! I really do appreciate your time and suggestions. Warning: as y’all know, brevity is not my strong suit :-)

DRHD-Our next mtg is tom morning @ 9:15, and I’m nervous; however, we will have my son’s psychologist/ed consultant with us for support & advocacy. Whew! Also, the Director of Special Services for our school district will be there as well. I emailed and called her within 12 hrs. of our last meeting. She was very nice, encouraged me to call her anytime I had questions, and clarified RTI is 1 piece of data that [b]may[/b]be used to determine eligibility. She also agreed with my understanding that a eligibility mtg on 12/8/12 violates the 60 day clock that times out on 11/15/12-per consent/district notice. Director said “You are exactly right about the 60 day evaluation period from consent. I am the time keeper in this district, and come hell, high water, or mutal agreement to extend the clock, that time frame stands no matter what!” Yay! A small victory after feeling a little railroaded in the last meeting. I let my guard down and made the mistake of assuming eligibility. Part of that assumption, right or wrong, came from the SPED teacher calling 3 days before the last mtg to discuss a draft IEP. In any case, I follow-up our meetings with thank-you letters to all the participants, at least the main players, and I shared I was disappointed with the outcome of the last meeting, restated our position on an IEP, and my expectation a new mtg would be set-per 60 day clock & discussion with OSS Director. The school psychologist called me to reschedule the mtg. within 3 hrs. of hand delivering my thank you letter. I included in his letter our request to have him present at the eligibility mtg., because we were not confident the integrity of the process would be upheld in his absence. I believe he shared that w/ the OSS director, and that is why she will be present. The school psych, was going to be unable to attend the mtg. originally scheduled on 12-8! Huh? He is the only one who has had valuable contributions to the mtgs, understanding of data, and some leadership. Even when there is disagreement, he goes out of his way to generate ideas for compromise. It’s really disappointing to see how schools go all-out for the newest, “greatest,” model of education without thinking of the unintended consequences; in addition, it’s disconcerting when a parent(s) seemingly knows more about state & fed law than the people “running the show.” To top it off, my son’s gen ed teacher & SPED teacher are brand new. Like brand-spanking new out of school. Both are nice, but they don’t have much experience, so they fall behind the asst. principle like ducklings. I don’t blame them, but it does limit their contributions to discussion. I will post about the mtg. tomorrow. Thank you so much for your post, DRHD! I need the support, and I may contact you with more questions. Appreciate the offer!

Tom-Your questions have been useful in helping me prepare for our meeting. Eligibility is the most perplexing portion of the law, IMO, because of the
differences in the way states seem to view the issue. 1 standard deviation or 2? RTI mandatory, encouraged, or irrelevant? SC encourages RTI but permits the discrepancy model. Either way, multiple pieces of data from varying sources are required. SC SEED (special education determination policy) states eligibilty is determined on 2 prongs. 1) does not acheive adequately for age OR meet stae-approved grade level standards in 1 or more areas (basic reading, fluency, comprehension, math calculations, math problem-solving, written expression, oral expresion or listening comprehension); and either
1)does not make sufficient progress to meet age or grade level standards using the RTI process (my paraphrasing), OR 2) exhibits a pattern of strengths & weakness in performance, acheivement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the ID of a SLD, using appropriate assessments. It goes on to say underacheivement can not be due to visual, hearing, motor, or intellectual disability. Along with several more including ruling out lack of appropriate instruction. Then finally (c) the adverse effects of the LD on the child’s educational performance require specialized instruction and/or related services. So…as you pointed out, perhaps on (c) there is an argument to be made that good grades mean the adverse effect has not reached the level of nneding specialized instruction via an IEP? I am trying very hard to separate emotion from fact. That is not easy, because from an emotional & legal standpoint, I have not bought into the RTI craze. That is what we will be asked to accept if my son is deemed ineligible on prong 2. As I said, RTI offers no legal protection, as well as, serves as an inadequate (worse, IMO) method for identification of a SLD. IMO, identification helps to inform instruction/intervention. My son would not be identified by RTI. Instead, RTI identifies via discrepancies based on grades & MAP scores which also have their own inherent issues. Even what is and what isn’t a response lacks clarification from school to school, district to district etc. So now, we will have kids potentially moving in & out of tiers with no comprehensive evaluation or refered for an evaluation that may or may not use a traditional discrepancy model. RTI’s own research shows that there is a difference in a child’s response to intervention based on IQ scores. RTI is a good instruction model which makes it hard for me to buy into it as a service. Good, research-based instruction that is implemented with fidelity should be what education is to begin with. A seamless flow of providing solid skills and support for all children. Special education is specialized to meet individual SLD needs. It’s not a place but a service that can be offered in a general education classroom. As a part of our trial run in RTI, per last mtg, the SPED teacher provides push-in services during my son’s regualr LA time. Now, my son has come home several times telling me the SPED teacher also took him out of the class to her room. That’s not what we agreed on during the last meeting. That brings up the other issue (which I know is irrelevant to my son’s current level of functioning), but it is the lack of recourse with RTI. Yes, you are suppose to get regular updates etc., but there is no teeth. What do you do when you disagree with the RTI interventions or when what is said does not translate into what gets done? You can complain, conference etc., but in the end, it’s still the fox guarding the hen house, IMO. At least with a 504 or IEP there is something binding in writing, albiet less so w/ 504. My unease with RTI, perhaps wrongly, does influence our desire for an IEP. Like you said, my son’s grades could be viewed as a hinderance to the IEP, but I will argue otherwise.

The fed Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)responded to concerns presented by the state of NC regarding identifying a SLD, eligibility, and separately in a letter to State Directors re: RTI can not be used to delay or deny a full eval. In its response to the state of NC (full doc/links can be found on wrightslaw)it clarifies that “underacheivement is measured against the student’s own ability, and not against a normative performance standard. Thus each child’s educational needs are determined on a case-by-case basis…” It goes on to say “adversely effects a child’s educational performance” has not been operationally defined despite “adversely effects” being used in part B of 34 CFRs. “Since the measurement of [i]educational performance[/i]is different for each child, the Department has not developed a single definition for this term. Simialrly, the term [i]adversely affects[/i]must be determined on an individual basis. OSEP also clarifies that passing grades of As, Bs, Cs are not a basis to disqualify. A severe discrepancy and scheivement not commensurate with age or ability level is what is standard decision drivers. It even discusses tutoring in the OSEP response. It states that if a team determines there is a SLD then “Generally, it would be appropriate for the evaluation team to consider information about outside or extra learning support provided to the child in developing the written report required at 34 CFR 300.543, as such information may indicate that the child’s current educational acheivement reflects the service augmentation, not what the child’s acheivement would be without such help.” This OSEP response is not a legal document, but it does offer some guidance. I believe my son is best served in the LRE with indivdualized, implicit writing instruction that is linked to his basic reading, orthographic, processing, and motor weaknesses. Intensive services now could remediate potential big trouble as the complexity of material increases, along with pace, as we move forward in grades. My son’s processing speed score was a 5. I see this play out each day in homework. It takes him longer to complete the work to get some good grades. Throw in other weaknesses, and he needs help. If an IEP is not in the cards, I will absolutely push for a 504 & whatever we can get in RTI. The most important thing, even though it may sound like I more focused on a label, is that my son get the support and services he deserves. If RTI had a more solid research base, especially outside of reading, not in its infancy of implementation, and being overseen by a strong leader in our school, then I would be less worried about protections. So, now that I have talked in a circle, I have come back to one of your questions or comments. Perhaps, I need to accept my son is not eligible & have faith there are good, caring folks in school, like yourself, who will act with us on behalf of our son’s best interest. I will reread you post & hope, for everyone sake :-), it does not prompt another book like response from me. Your post is helping me prepare and clarify goals. Thank you so much! I genuinely value the feedback I have been getting in this thread! This continues to be a crazy journey. Apologies for all typos, grammar etc.
[Modified by: kellygh on November 08, 2012 04:06 PM]

[Modified by: kellygh on November 08, 2012 04:06 PM]

Well, TomW, you were right. Sam does not meet eligibility on prong 2 according to our team. We disagree, but I guess that doesn’t matter. Good grades, a glowing report from the SPED teacher comparing Sam to others/grade level= no eligibility.

Are you ok with how it turned out? Disappointed? Relieved? Ambivalent? Still trying to sort it all out?

If your son is not doing badly in school then I think you can rightly be thankful that school is working out for him in spite of his written expression problems. In not all schools would such a child fare so well. So too, it often happens that a child receives a lot of close attention and nurturing in the younger grades, but it disappears in middle school or high school. A child with a disability might flourish in these younger grades where he or she can get lots of individualized instruction, but begin to experience problems in the upper grades when all that attention goes away. So just remain alert especially as he gets older.

Did you get a chance to think about what you would like to see for your son? What would you want to make sure he gets because of his disability that he cannot get in the regular education program? This remains an important question.

I am disappointed but not surprised. What I want for my son is to get assistance in the basic foundation re: areas of difficulty. For example, S is capable of memorizing spelling words, with ample practice, for a test; however, it is common for him to mispell 50%, of what was spelled correctly on a test, within 24 hrs. What he might spell correctly in a list does not translate into sentences or “free writing.” I would like to see him get explicit instruction in spelling that is directly tied to orthography and morphology. Orthographic memory is quite weak. I would like to see him get multisensory instruction with spelling and reading fluency rather than endless amounts of worksheets. The other day, my son and I were playing hangman (he enjoys playing games to study words), and he started making random guesses at letters. I said “it’s a vowel.” He remarked “what’s a vowel?” Homework is exactly the same as it was in September. The variety is a different math work sheet each day. Rote copying of words etc. I would like to see my son get explicit instruction and practice in writing beyond using a posicle stick for spacing. I would like my son to get repeated exposure/practice (with variety) to “overlearn” the foundation that will further crack as material gets more complex. He already takes 2x as long to write a simple sentence compared to peers. The lack of fluency and a low processing speed will increases the pressure to keep up. I want the school to stop comparing my son to other strugglers who have nothing to do with the discrepancies between my son’s ability & performance commensurate with the amount of effort it takes to acheive. Learning takes a functional toll on my son & the family system. I want the school to provide keyboarding support (not to replace writing but to relieve some of the fatigue). When we got home from the meeting, I went to ed.gov-Department of Education/Office of Civil Rights. It addresses changes in the ADA & 504. There is also a paragraph that speaks directly to grades & eligibility. It gave an example of a child dx w/ ADHD receiving “good grades in academically rigorous classes.” It states that grades may not be the determinitive factor in deciding whether a student with a disability needs special education or related aids or services. Oh well for us. Apparently adverse effects can only be measured by failure, behind peers, or below average by school standards. Individualized does not exist. SO, here we are. Not where I want to be but it-is-what-it-is. We will pursue a 504 (mtg on 12/12) and supplement his education on our own. If I have to hit the street corner to make sure my son gets what he needs to acheive to his abilities, grow into a happy, productive, well-adjusted guy, then that’s what I/we will do. Thank you for your feedback, support, and encouraging me to think about goals.
[Modified by: kellygh on November 09, 2012 05:09 PM]

[Modified by: kellygh on November 09, 2012 05:10 PM]

A 504 might be the more appropriate choice for your son. It protects him if something about his learning prevents equal access to the education program.

I think you are on the right track thinking about long term goals and that will help you focus on what he really needs and avoid all the other distractions. Good luck :-)

I would encourage you to try to get the 504 plan in place. Also you might want to consider requesting an assistive technology evaluation too.

Look at Franklin Spelling Ace. Check out getting him qualified for Bookshare or Learning Ally. (See http://www.bookshare.org and http://www.rfbd.org)

Rather than getting into a prolonged engagement with the school over the IEP, I would recommend you provide appropriate instruction (see http://www.brightsoluntions.us)

Time is of the essence at this point — http://www.dyslexiafacts.net

Best wishes.

In writing ask for the districts written policy on the procedure for requesting, obtaining, and implementing a 504 plan.

Glad the links were helpful. Do you have an iPhone or iPad? Also, take a look at your state’s standards for his grade. In Florida they are called “The Sunshine State Sandards”. Compare what he should be able to do for his grade to where he is actually at. Begin to build a case to demonstrate how suggested AT will improve, maintain, or increase functionality.

For example, download demo software and she work without AT compared to work output with AT.

Thank you for your helpful response, dhfl143! I just sent in the paperwork for Bookshare. We also received an amended copy of the school OT evaluation, and my son qualifies for consultative services for assistive technology & help with grip (we have been working on grip for over a yr w/ every OT pencil grip made). We purchased a NEO2 for my son, but I regret I have not been as proactive as I should be with having my son become familiar with it/practice keyboarding. I just need a few more hours in the day along with an additional arm or two :-) No excuse though.

We are moving fwd with the 504; however, I am already concerned. The team encouraged the 504 at our IEP eligibility mtg. “Encouraged 504” is written in the minutes, and the school psychologist said “there is more than enough data” to move forward immediately. Now I am working with the school counselor (504 coordinator), and she has described a ridiculous process! I had to fill out a form describing our concerns etc., she then said we would review what data the team might want at our RTI progress mtg., and then decide eligibility in January! What a dog & pony show! This is nuts, IMO, and I will not consent to more data at our next mtg. on the 12th. We were encouraged to go this route, told ample data, so I will push the team to move fwd asap. Sorry to rant, again.

Thank you for the feedback & helpful links! I am off to brightsolutions & Franklin spelling. Appreciate the support.
[Modified by: kellygh on November 25, 2012 09:43 AM]

[Modified by: kellygh on November 25, 2012 09:44 AM]