Class Forum Number 5 -Chapters 8, 9, 15 by Mike Mooren

Had an interesting case regarding a student, 2nd grader, who moved from another district about an hour and a half away. When I got the most current Eval, the child only qualified for S/L. However, the IEP had other services, and referenced LD. When I called the school, they said they were providing "back door" services. This does not seem consistent with due process requirements. I immediately began the Re-Evaluation process with the intent of seeing if the child would qualify for SLD. Any thoughts on this? Anyone else run into situations like this?

2014-12-03 18:55:05 UTC

Keep in mind that in order for a student to qualify in the area of SLD, they need to go through the RTI process first. This includes two sets of intervention that run approximately 8 weeks each. There are stipulations to each of the interventions as well. That being said, you should be looking at starting an SLD referral if those RTI interventions do not work.

Rita

2014-12-04 03:02:01 UTC

Well that certainly is interesting. I must say that in 31 years of teaching students with special needs that I have never heard of "back door" services. Wonder if this was a child who technically did not qualify, but parents pushed for more? Couldn't put it on paper, but provided some type of programming anyway? I had a feeder school that liked to provide services through special education teachers to kids who did not have IEPs. The students would leave the grade school and parents would expect the same "services" at the high school and technically the students were not students with special needs. S ome parents would even insist that their child had been in special ed. Again coming back to the concept that a child has a special educational need and receives specially designed instruction, rather than believing that special education is a place.

Considering that our topic for this last class will include dispute resolutions and due process I couldn't have had a more timely experience this week. I was able to shadow a mediation between a parent and the school district. The mediation included a mediator provided by the state, the parent and his advocate, the district's lawyer and representatives from the district, as well as, a behavioral specialist as a consultant. It was an awesome experience to witness as a "non-participant". I could see the emotion within the parent and the district representatives, as they both so badly wanted what they believe is "right" for the child. It was so educational being able to observe these proceedings without having any stake in the matter. I could really see where remaining calm and unemotional was important, as well as being a good communicator. The lawyer, mediator and advocate all demonstrated professional skills at a very high level. I was also very impressed with the parent, as you could tell he had done his "homework" and was informed about not only his child but also the law. Two issues that were most important in this case were the concepts of Least Restrictive Environment and the use of Seclusion and Restraint. Has anyone else ever been invovled in a mediation or due process proceedings?

Charity Eich

charityeich — 2014-12-04 03:55:47 UTC

I can't believe this is the last Padlet for this class. I'd like to give a quick shout out to Mike, thanking him for organizing our study group. :) I have not had an opportunity to be part of a mediation or due process proceeding but did talk with the Pupil Services Director about this. She indicated that communication and documentation are critical components to have in place throughout the process. One of the most difficult parts is to depersonalize the event and focus on the issue at hand. I am looking forward to our class discussions on Saturday related to this topic.

Carrie Reid

2014-12-05 00:53:49 UTC

Surprisingly...I have heard of "back door services" and recently! As you know, my district is very small, so I often reach out to other districts or professionals in the region for consult. This can yield some very interesting discussions. Just this past week, I have a student who is beginning the sld process. As we are moving though the process one of the professionals involved is getting very antsy about qualifying this student. She has suggested a number of different ideas to move things along faster than the full 16 weeks, including doing a speech referral so we can wrap in some other services in the IEP. This same professional has made other back door service suggestions for various students. One student it was suggested for is currently in speech, but going through the SLD process as well. This particular student is struggling with academics and has been for a while, but mom is not willing to allow any further discussion of potential special education services to this point. I have found that classroom teachers who are frustrated with the lack of progress of some severely struggling students, or who are fearful of having data from poor performing students in the class reflected in their job performance review; are very supportive of these types of ideas. Clearly this is not the appropriate route to take, after all, there are laws preventing it...however, it does occur.

Jack Strebel

2014-12-06 03:56:14 UTC

Carrie - I have heard this term before when trying to figure out how to get struggling students, usually math, to graduate. One suggestion was to draw out a semester course into a yearlong course. This would give the student a chance to make up a class they failed at a slower pace. The person labeled this a “backdoor service” at the time. Also, this term came up when discussing how to make sure that a student receives accommodation for the ACT. This is not even close to best practice, but I have seen it done at my school (and have heard that it happens a lot in districts where parents can be pushy.

BTW, if you google "special education back door services" nothing comes up.

Mike Mooren

mmooren — 2014-12-06 05:08:07 UTC

I found chapters eight and nine to be particularly interesting because most recently I had a discussion with my director regarding educational records. A court case came across her desk and she was asked to provide all educational records for a particular student. We provided all the files that were kept through the district, but in question was the fact the parents' believed this student had an IEP, yet the district had no record of it. Therefore, after nothing showed up in regard to an IEP in the files provided to parents, they wanted to see the School Psychologists personal files. The school psychologist may have done this; however, she left the district last year and was instructed to shred all personal files. The parents were not too thrilled to hear this, but we needed to explain that as the LEA we maintained certain records, but any personal notes (as indicated on page 161) were the property of that individual and weren't an educational record.

The other incredibly interesting item I read was on page 267 in the box titled "A Case of Individual Teacher Liability". It summarized a 1993 case in which a public school history teacher refused to implement an IEP for a student with a learning disability. The court awarded damages of $15000 to the family to be paid by the teacher in question. This scenario brings up a couple questions that include: 1) how does this get to a court case?, 2) was the district backing the teacher? Mostly, it reminded me how often I have had a discussion with a teacher around implementing the IEP to its specifications and how, in rare instances, teachers will continually "push back" on providing the services indicated in the IEP.