Tip 4: Become Familiar with Rating Scales
In evaluating a child, school staff may recommend one or more “rating scales” as part of a triennial evaluation, or sometimes to screen for whether a disability exists at all. Over the years, I have learned that these can produce results that are either incomplete or misleading, unless you have a working knowledge of them. This can impact your legal case under the IDEA if you ultimately want to challenge the evaluation, identification or progress of your child’s special education program.
What is a rating scale?
According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, a rating scale “is one of the oldest and most versatile of assessment techniques. Rating scales present users with an item and ask them to select from a number of choices. The rating scale is similar in some respects to a multiple choice test, but its options represent degrees of a particular characteristic.” I have seen a number of different types of rating scales that assess a wide variety of behaviors, feelings, skills, or traits in students, and the presence or absence of certain symptoms of a disability. Most that I have seen have one form or checklist for the parent(s) to fill out, and one for the teacher(s) to fill out. Some also have self-reports for the student to complete, where appropriate.
Rating Scales are often seen as a less “invasive” way of assessing or screening a student.
A lot of my clients are concerned about how much testing their children are put through, especially during triennial evaluations. Therefore, it is a relief to many of them to know that part of the evaluation process can be completed by them and the teachers, rather than subjecting the student to another few hours of sometimes difficult testing. This is especially true for kids who are prone to anxiety, or whose learning disabilities make writing and reading a struggle. Believe me, I am all for making things easier for students with special education needs who are already frustrated in school. But you want to make sure that the results of any assessments are reliable.
As a special education attorney, my red flags start waving when I see the following occur in the administration of Rating Scales:
• Not administering the parent form: often I will review an evaluation conducted by a school district that draws conclusions based on the results of the Rating Scales filled out by the student’s teachers, but the Parent version of the test was never given to the parents. If this occurs, ask the IEP Team if there is a Parent form, and if so, why you were not asked to fill it out.
• Not giving the right teachers the scales: if the parents are asking that the child be evaluated for a reading disability, as an example, how useful is having the forms filled out by the music or physical education teacher? Or, if the issue is whether the student’s ADHD interferes with his ability to stay on-task in a mainstream classroom, what information is gleaned from giving the rating scale to the Resource Room teacher only?
• Drawing broad conclusions about differences between the parent and teacher reports: it is very common, in my experience, that a student acts differently at home than at school, or that a kid who is feeling academically inadequate comes home upset after “holding it together” all day for the teachers. Just because parents and school staff come up with different answers does not invalidate either report. Yet, unfortunately I routinely read school evaluations which openly question the honesty of parent reports if they are discrepant from the teacher reports.
Research whatever tests your school wants to administer so that you are equipped to understand the results.
Just like all types of assessment tools, Rating Scales can be useful and informative, if they are properly administered. But, just like everything else, they are always subject to both innocent human error, and intentional misrepresentation.
My Son
Monday, February 28, 2011
Tip 3: Be Suspicious of Hard and Fast Rules on Eligibility
Tip 3: Be Suspicious of Hard and Fast Rules on Eligibility
This tip is something to consider at all times, but especially when an IEP Team is deciding whether or not a student is eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA. Far too often, I will review a file or talk to a parent, only to learn that a number of issues have presented themselves over the years in a child’s educational performance or behavior, many of which should have triggered an IEP Meeting to ascertain eligibility. Sometimes, such meetings have even been held, but eligibility has been ruled out because the child did not get a certain score on a test chosen by the school district.
Remember, there is no “litmus test” for any of the eligibility categories under the IDEA.
Believe me, life would be much easier for most of my clients if all that was necessary to figure out whether or not their child had one disability versus another was as simple as peeing on a stick, but that isn’t the world we live in. There is no blood test for dyslexia; no urinalysis for autism. Yes, some cases present themselves clearly as to what the disability is, but more often than not, a student is presenting with a number of strengths and weaknesses (and sometimes different ones at school than at home) and the adults are all just trying to figure it out.
The law prohibits the use of a “one test” rule when evaluating a child with a disability.
In the description of how to conduct evaluations, the IDEA requires that school districts use “a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent,” and that in so doing, the school can not “use any single measurement or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability or determining an appropriate educational program for the child.” 20 USC 1414(b) (emphasis supplied)
This means that schools are not supposed to be using arbitrary numbers and cut-offs to determine eligibility or to design programs.
Despite this prohibition, I routinely hear from parents that these “rules” are cited as the reason to deny services, though candidly it doesn’t often happen in my presence. Usually, school district lawyers are smart enough not to allow their clients to sit in a meeting with me and say “oh, yes, it’s true that he’s really struggling with reading and that his teacher and parents both referred him for an IEP, but he was 3 points off on the Woodcock Johnson to qualify!” But not always; I have heard many similar comments.
Is is essential to consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether a child is entitled to special education and related services.
Some kids do not fit “neatly” into one eligibility category or another, and that’s one of the reasons we consider the individual child’s strengths and weaknesses. And often, if such a child falls short of qualifying under another category, many IEP Teams will consider finding the child eligible as “Other Health Impaired” (OHI), which many consider the “catchall” category under the IDEA for those students who clearly need the special education instruction but may not have a full blown diagnosis in one of the more common categories.
If your school district is basing major decisions on one test, your red flags should start going up.
When you attend your child’s IEP meeting, whether to consider eligibility, review eligibility as a triennial, or decide how to provide services, make sure you understand what the basis is for the decision-making, and that it includes a variety of assessment tools as required by law.
Oh, and PS: this tip goes ten-fold if you’re being told that the school won’t even convene an IEP Meeting or conduct an evaluation based on the results of one test!
This tip is something to consider at all times, but especially when an IEP Team is deciding whether or not a student is eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA. Far too often, I will review a file or talk to a parent, only to learn that a number of issues have presented themselves over the years in a child’s educational performance or behavior, many of which should have triggered an IEP Meeting to ascertain eligibility. Sometimes, such meetings have even been held, but eligibility has been ruled out because the child did not get a certain score on a test chosen by the school district.
Remember, there is no “litmus test” for any of the eligibility categories under the IDEA.
Believe me, life would be much easier for most of my clients if all that was necessary to figure out whether or not their child had one disability versus another was as simple as peeing on a stick, but that isn’t the world we live in. There is no blood test for dyslexia; no urinalysis for autism. Yes, some cases present themselves clearly as to what the disability is, but more often than not, a student is presenting with a number of strengths and weaknesses (and sometimes different ones at school than at home) and the adults are all just trying to figure it out.
The law prohibits the use of a “one test” rule when evaluating a child with a disability.
In the description of how to conduct evaluations, the IDEA requires that school districts use “a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent,” and that in so doing, the school can not “use any single measurement or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability or determining an appropriate educational program for the child.” 20 USC 1414(b) (emphasis supplied)
This means that schools are not supposed to be using arbitrary numbers and cut-offs to determine eligibility or to design programs.
Despite this prohibition, I routinely hear from parents that these “rules” are cited as the reason to deny services, though candidly it doesn’t often happen in my presence. Usually, school district lawyers are smart enough not to allow their clients to sit in a meeting with me and say “oh, yes, it’s true that he’s really struggling with reading and that his teacher and parents both referred him for an IEP, but he was 3 points off on the Woodcock Johnson to qualify!” But not always; I have heard many similar comments.
Is is essential to consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether a child is entitled to special education and related services.
Some kids do not fit “neatly” into one eligibility category or another, and that’s one of the reasons we consider the individual child’s strengths and weaknesses. And often, if such a child falls short of qualifying under another category, many IEP Teams will consider finding the child eligible as “Other Health Impaired” (OHI), which many consider the “catchall” category under the IDEA for those students who clearly need the special education instruction but may not have a full blown diagnosis in one of the more common categories.
If your school district is basing major decisions on one test, your red flags should start going up.
When you attend your child’s IEP meeting, whether to consider eligibility, review eligibility as a triennial, or decide how to provide services, make sure you understand what the basis is for the decision-making, and that it includes a variety of assessment tools as required by law.
Oh, and PS: this tip goes ten-fold if you’re being told that the school won’t even convene an IEP Meeting or conduct an evaluation based on the results of one test!
Tip 2: Don’t Compare Apples and Oranges
I am by no means a psychiatrist, psychologist, school psychologist, special education teacher, or related service provider. I am not licensed or trained in administering any of the test typically given to students with disabilities in our public schools. However, over the many years I have been representing children with special education needs in my Connecticut law office, I have learned that there are a lot of ways in which a student’s needs and progress can be misunderstood if evaluations are not properly interpreted.
When it comes to reviewing school evaluations, question authority!
The most common times for students with special needs to be evaluated by school districts are 1) when determining initial eligibility under the IDEA, and 2) for “triennial” testing under the IDEA, which is required at least every 3 years for students who have been identified as requiring an IEP. For parents of those children, reviewing the results of the school district testing can be overwhelming, especially if they do not have any background or experience in reviewing such evaluation results.
In my experience, schools are able to take advantage of a parents’ ignorance on how to interpret evaluation results.
It is therefore essential that you become as familiar as possible with the different types of evaluation instruments that your school district might use to assess your child, and to be prepared for the ways in which your school district might interpret them differently than you might. There are thousands of different tests out there that could be used to test a child with disabilities, and no, I don’t expect you to become an expert on all of them. As a reminder, if you feel that your child’s needs are being dramatically misunderstood by the school staff who are testing your child, it might be time to consider an Independent Educational Evaluation.
In the interim, here are some important things to pay attention to when attending your child’s IEP at which evaluation results are being reviewed:
Tip 2: Don’t Compare Apples and Oranges
The IDEA requires that students with special education needs be evaluated at least every three years (referred to as a “triennial” evaluation), or more often if the performance or behavior of the student indicates that reassessment is necessary. The problem I often see is that, by the time a triennial or other reassessment is indicated, a new team is working with the student, and that group may or may not “prefer” the specific instruments that had been previously administered.
When re-evaluations are reviewed, be cautious about comparing the results to previous testing unless the same instrument was used in the last assessment.
There are variations among instruments that can impact the results of testing in such as way as to make comparisons useless. As an example, if a student had been previously given a WIAT to assess academic skills, and the school district uses a Woodcock Johnson achievement test three years later to measure academic skills, my understanding is that while there are some comparisons that can be reached, these two tests are different enough that a “pure” analysis as to progress can not necessarily be made.
If the purpose of a re-evaluation is at least in part to measure progress, it is essential that you are comparing apples to apples.
There are a lot of good reasons why a particular test may not be re-administered to a student. Some tests can not be repeated within a certain period of time, either due to the protocols of the test (e.g. concerns about a “practice effect”) or because a student’s age or grade placement make re-administering the same instrument impossible. Those are perfectly acceptable reasons not to use the same instrument.
My concern is not with considered judgments as to why a different tool should be used this time around; rather, I worry about arbitrary decisions to use “what we have.”
What I often see are school psychologists or special education teachers who are more comfortable with some tests over others, and they just give those instruments because they prefer them. Or, at least as often, kids are assessed using the tests that the school has purchased and which are available to the evaluators, rather than buying a new instrument because it might be more appropriate for the student in question.
Familiarity with, or access to, a particular instrument should not be the deciding factor in determining which evaluative tools to use to assess current special education needs.
My practical tip to parents is this: when your school district proposes a re-evaluation, take a look at the tests last performed, whether obtained privately or by the school. If you don’t have them with you, don’t stop there: ask some questions!
Most importantly, ask how the proposed instruments differ from the last set of testing, and why.
Special education evaluations are confusing. If you can find a way to measure your child’s progress by comparing their current level of performance to a baseline obtained on the same instrument previously given, it will be far easier to understand how he or she is doing.
And from proper evaluations, flow appropriate programs.
When it comes to reviewing school evaluations, question authority!
The most common times for students with special needs to be evaluated by school districts are 1) when determining initial eligibility under the IDEA, and 2) for “triennial” testing under the IDEA, which is required at least every 3 years for students who have been identified as requiring an IEP. For parents of those children, reviewing the results of the school district testing can be overwhelming, especially if they do not have any background or experience in reviewing such evaluation results.
In my experience, schools are able to take advantage of a parents’ ignorance on how to interpret evaluation results.
It is therefore essential that you become as familiar as possible with the different types of evaluation instruments that your school district might use to assess your child, and to be prepared for the ways in which your school district might interpret them differently than you might. There are thousands of different tests out there that could be used to test a child with disabilities, and no, I don’t expect you to become an expert on all of them. As a reminder, if you feel that your child’s needs are being dramatically misunderstood by the school staff who are testing your child, it might be time to consider an Independent Educational Evaluation.
In the interim, here are some important things to pay attention to when attending your child’s IEP at which evaluation results are being reviewed:
Tip 2: Don’t Compare Apples and Oranges
The IDEA requires that students with special education needs be evaluated at least every three years (referred to as a “triennial” evaluation), or more often if the performance or behavior of the student indicates that reassessment is necessary. The problem I often see is that, by the time a triennial or other reassessment is indicated, a new team is working with the student, and that group may or may not “prefer” the specific instruments that had been previously administered.
When re-evaluations are reviewed, be cautious about comparing the results to previous testing unless the same instrument was used in the last assessment.
There are variations among instruments that can impact the results of testing in such as way as to make comparisons useless. As an example, if a student had been previously given a WIAT to assess academic skills, and the school district uses a Woodcock Johnson achievement test three years later to measure academic skills, my understanding is that while there are some comparisons that can be reached, these two tests are different enough that a “pure” analysis as to progress can not necessarily be made.
If the purpose of a re-evaluation is at least in part to measure progress, it is essential that you are comparing apples to apples.
There are a lot of good reasons why a particular test may not be re-administered to a student. Some tests can not be repeated within a certain period of time, either due to the protocols of the test (e.g. concerns about a “practice effect”) or because a student’s age or grade placement make re-administering the same instrument impossible. Those are perfectly acceptable reasons not to use the same instrument.
My concern is not with considered judgments as to why a different tool should be used this time around; rather, I worry about arbitrary decisions to use “what we have.”
What I often see are school psychologists or special education teachers who are more comfortable with some tests over others, and they just give those instruments because they prefer them. Or, at least as often, kids are assessed using the tests that the school has purchased and which are available to the evaluators, rather than buying a new instrument because it might be more appropriate for the student in question.
Familiarity with, or access to, a particular instrument should not be the deciding factor in determining which evaluative tools to use to assess current special education needs.
My practical tip to parents is this: when your school district proposes a re-evaluation, take a look at the tests last performed, whether obtained privately or by the school. If you don’t have them with you, don’t stop there: ask some questions!
Most importantly, ask how the proposed instruments differ from the last set of testing, and why.
Special education evaluations are confusing. If you can find a way to measure your child’s progress by comparing their current level of performance to a baseline obtained on the same instrument previously given, it will be far easier to understand how he or she is doing.
And from proper evaluations, flow appropriate programs.
Tip 1: Be Wary of Broad or Composite Scores: Pay Attention to the Subtests
Top 5 Tips for Reviewing School Evaluations: Tip 1
Published on July 8, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano
I am by no means a psychiatrist, psychologist, school psychologist, special education teacher, or related service provider. I am not licensed or trained in administering any of the test typically given to students with disabilities in our public schools. However, over the many years I have been representing children with special education needs in my Connecticut law office, I have learned that there are a lot of ways in which a student’s needs and progress can be misunderstood if evaluations are not properly interpreted.
When it comes to reviewing school evaluations, question authority!
The most common times for students with special needs to be evaluated by school districts are 1) when determining initial eligibility under the IDEA, and 2) for “triennial” testing under the IDEA, which is required at least every 3 years for students who have been identified as requiring an IEP. For parents of those children, reviewing the results of the school district testing can be overwhelming, especially if they do not have any background or experience in reviewing such evaluation results.
In my experience, schools are able to take advantage of a parents’ ignorance on how to interpret evaluation results.
It is therefore essential that you become as familiar as possible with the different types of evaluation instruments that your school district might use to assess your child, and to be prepared for the ways in which your school district might interpret them differently than you might. There are thousands of different tests out there that could be used to test a child with disabilities, and no, I don’t expect you to become an expert on all of them. As a reminder, if you feel that your child’s needs are being dramatically misunderstood by the school staff who are testing your child, it might be time to consider an Independent Educational Evaluation.
In the interim, here are some important things to pay attention to when attending your child’s IEP at which evaluation results are being reviewed:
Tip 1: Be Wary of Broad or Composite Scores: Pay Attention to the Subtests
Many instruments will have a number of subtests, which are then added up and averaged to provide a “broad” or “composite” score. That score can be informative, but it doesn’t always give the full picture. Many times I will attend an IEP meeting for a client at which evaluations are being reviewed, and the person responsible for reporting the results will “gloss over” subtest results that are of grave concern. They will call them a “relative weakness,” and sometimes, they won’t even list the subtest results in the written report.
If subtest results are not included in your child’s evaluation results, ask for them.
And even if they ARE included, inquire as to their meaning. I can’t assure you that the answers you’ll get will be as comprehensive as you might want, but at least you will begin to understand what the school is measuring. A good way of inquiring about subtest results that are particularly discrepant from other scores is to ask “how would this impact him in a classroom?” I know that the cynic in me, and maybe you, is thinking that the person who administered the test will say “it doesn’t” or “don’t worry about that one,” but when you ask open ended questions like that of professionals who administer these tests, you’d be surprised at how much information you can get.
All individuals have strengths and weaknesses, but be wary of attempts by your district to “average out” subtests that stand out from the rest.
The best example I can give on this, and one which I’ve seen far too often, is what I have seen happen a number of times in cases in which a reading disability is suspected. In these cases, the parents are expressing concerns that their child might have dyslexia, as an example, and the school is either taking the position that the student does not have the disorder, or that they do but that they are making great progress with the services being provided by the district.
To assess the situation, the student has been given an academic achievement test, like the Woodcock Johnson or the WIAT.
When a student with a high IQ and a reading disability is given such a test, often I see a profile where the reading comprehension score is high, but the decoding skill is low. So, let’s say you have a 4th grade student who has a Very Superior IQ, and on the decoding subtest they score at the 1st grade level, but on the comprehension subtest they score as an 8th grader. To get the average of these subtests you might add 8th grade level to 1st grade level, and divide by two, resulting in a “broad reading” score of 4.5 grade level. And yet, this is still a fourth grade child who decodes at the 1st grade level.
It might take this kid an hour to read a paragraph, but when he does so, he understands it.
Unfortunately, the way this “plays out” at an IEP meeting is that the person who administered the evaluation says: “his reading score is actually right on target, he’s solidly within the fourth grade level! Of course, his decoding is a relative weakness, but we’re working on that.” What parent would know enough to understand that, in fact, the key deficit of reading decoding remains 3 grade levels behind?
Published on July 8, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano
I am by no means a psychiatrist, psychologist, school psychologist, special education teacher, or related service provider. I am not licensed or trained in administering any of the test typically given to students with disabilities in our public schools. However, over the many years I have been representing children with special education needs in my Connecticut law office, I have learned that there are a lot of ways in which a student’s needs and progress can be misunderstood if evaluations are not properly interpreted.
When it comes to reviewing school evaluations, question authority!
The most common times for students with special needs to be evaluated by school districts are 1) when determining initial eligibility under the IDEA, and 2) for “triennial” testing under the IDEA, which is required at least every 3 years for students who have been identified as requiring an IEP. For parents of those children, reviewing the results of the school district testing can be overwhelming, especially if they do not have any background or experience in reviewing such evaluation results.
In my experience, schools are able to take advantage of a parents’ ignorance on how to interpret evaluation results.
It is therefore essential that you become as familiar as possible with the different types of evaluation instruments that your school district might use to assess your child, and to be prepared for the ways in which your school district might interpret them differently than you might. There are thousands of different tests out there that could be used to test a child with disabilities, and no, I don’t expect you to become an expert on all of them. As a reminder, if you feel that your child’s needs are being dramatically misunderstood by the school staff who are testing your child, it might be time to consider an Independent Educational Evaluation.
In the interim, here are some important things to pay attention to when attending your child’s IEP at which evaluation results are being reviewed:
Tip 1: Be Wary of Broad or Composite Scores: Pay Attention to the Subtests
Many instruments will have a number of subtests, which are then added up and averaged to provide a “broad” or “composite” score. That score can be informative, but it doesn’t always give the full picture. Many times I will attend an IEP meeting for a client at which evaluations are being reviewed, and the person responsible for reporting the results will “gloss over” subtest results that are of grave concern. They will call them a “relative weakness,” and sometimes, they won’t even list the subtest results in the written report.
If subtest results are not included in your child’s evaluation results, ask for them.
And even if they ARE included, inquire as to their meaning. I can’t assure you that the answers you’ll get will be as comprehensive as you might want, but at least you will begin to understand what the school is measuring. A good way of inquiring about subtest results that are particularly discrepant from other scores is to ask “how would this impact him in a classroom?” I know that the cynic in me, and maybe you, is thinking that the person who administered the test will say “it doesn’t” or “don’t worry about that one,” but when you ask open ended questions like that of professionals who administer these tests, you’d be surprised at how much information you can get.
All individuals have strengths and weaknesses, but be wary of attempts by your district to “average out” subtests that stand out from the rest.
The best example I can give on this, and one which I’ve seen far too often, is what I have seen happen a number of times in cases in which a reading disability is suspected. In these cases, the parents are expressing concerns that their child might have dyslexia, as an example, and the school is either taking the position that the student does not have the disorder, or that they do but that they are making great progress with the services being provided by the district.
To assess the situation, the student has been given an academic achievement test, like the Woodcock Johnson or the WIAT.
When a student with a high IQ and a reading disability is given such a test, often I see a profile where the reading comprehension score is high, but the decoding skill is low. So, let’s say you have a 4th grade student who has a Very Superior IQ, and on the decoding subtest they score at the 1st grade level, but on the comprehension subtest they score as an 8th grader. To get the average of these subtests you might add 8th grade level to 1st grade level, and divide by two, resulting in a “broad reading” score of 4.5 grade level. And yet, this is still a fourth grade child who decodes at the 1st grade level.
It might take this kid an hour to read a paragraph, but when he does so, he understands it.
Unfortunately, the way this “plays out” at an IEP meeting is that the person who administered the evaluation says: “his reading score is actually right on target, he’s solidly within the fourth grade level! Of course, his decoding is a relative weakness, but we’re working on that.” What parent would know enough to understand that, in fact, the key deficit of reading decoding remains 3 grade levels behind?
5 Tips for Reviewing School District Evaluations
5 Tips for Reviewing School District Evaluations
There are few aspects of special education that are more confusing than understanding school district testing. Reading and listening to the results of assessments can give you the sudden impression that you have been air-dropped into a college statistics course for which you’ve done none of the reading! Even I feel that way sometimes, and I have read thousands of evaluation reports over the years, not to mention having benefited from listening to some of the premier experts in various disabilities testify and present at conferences. But these reports are as important to your child’s education as they are complex. Hopefully, these tips will help you get started.
Tip 1: Pay Attention to Subtests
Tip 2: Don’t Compare Apples to Oranges
Tip 3: Be Suspicious of Strict Rules on Eligibility
Tip 4: Learn About Rating Scales
Tip 5: Use the Right Assessment Tool
There are few aspects of special education that are more confusing than understanding school district testing. Reading and listening to the results of assessments can give you the sudden impression that you have been air-dropped into a college statistics course for which you’ve done none of the reading! Even I feel that way sometimes, and I have read thousands of evaluation reports over the years, not to mention having benefited from listening to some of the premier experts in various disabilities testify and present at conferences. But these reports are as important to your child’s education as they are complex. Hopefully, these tips will help you get started.
Tip 1: Pay Attention to Subtests
Tip 2: Don’t Compare Apples to Oranges
Tip 3: Be Suspicious of Strict Rules on Eligibility
Tip 4: Learn About Rating Scales
Tip 5: Use the Right Assessment Tool
Unseemly IEP Team Member: “The Liar”
Unseemly IEP Team Member: “The Liar”
Published on June 20, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano
“The Liar”
Let me start by saying that, while I have unfortunately seen my share of dishonesty on the part of many IEP Team Members over the many years I have been practicing special education law on behalf of children, usually it comes in the form of misleading comments, convenient omissions, or minor misrepresentations when the individual feels cornered by the parent or the special education director. This isn’t the type of dishonesty I am talking about when I refer to The Liar.
The Liar is blatantly dishonest, willing to not only switch positions 180° from what he told the parents privately to what he says in the IEP Meeting, but to deny ever having taken the opposite position in the first place.
It is extremely difficult for me to sit still when I witness The Liar slither around an issue of dispute at an IEP Team Meeting, but my discomfort does not even compare to the reaction my clients have. Connecticut being a small State, I can at least sometimes warn my clients in advance if I know I’m walking into a meeting with a notorious Liar. “Don’t lose your cool,” I’ll tell them, “just write me a note giving me the truth, or tell me we need to step out into the hallway to talk.” Even with these warnings, I sometimes have to physically prevent some of my clients from jumping out of their seats and yelling “YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!”
When I talk to new clients, or to people outside of the special education legal community, and tell them that there are serious Liars working in our public schools, they sometimes don’t believe me.
Sometimes I’ll be on the phone with a prospective client, who will say “even the special education teacher told me that she completely agreed that he needs 1:1 speech therapy.” And after getting the details of the exchange (estimated date, name of the teacher, context of discussion, where it took place) I will usually say “well, that’s good to know, and I hope she is willing to admit that publicly or under oath.” When the response is “well, you don’t think she’d lie about it do you, that’s exactly what she told me!” a part of me winces. I tell them that I am jaded and cynical, and I really hope I’m wrong, but that I see it all the time.
When “push comes to shove,” when a statement is made to a parent that could genuinely harm the school district’s case, in my experience, the person who made denies it 90% of the time.
Now, don’t get me wrong; parents can lie too, and I’ve had a few experiences over the years where I’ve discovered that it was my own client who was the source of dishonesty. When that has happened, I’ve often terminated my representation of them. In addition, there are misunderstandings in life. Sometimes a caring teacher will make a comment to a parent like “I understand why you think he needs to be in a private placement,” and in fact, she does. That does not necessarily mean that the teacher believes the school district’s program is inappropriate.
Yet, when a school district is exposed to potential litigation, all bets are off, and flat-out lying does occur.
I have been doing this long enough to know the kinds of questions to ask, and to get a feel for people; not always, but most of the time, I can tell if someone is lying to me. In addition, I sometimes represent a number of children within the same district, even within the same program in the same district. So when I am at one IEP Meeting and the staff is telling the parents that none of the other students in the class use augmentative communication devices, and I happen to have a client in that very classroom who uses an augmentative communication device, I KNOW they are lying.
Thankfully, the full-fledged Liars are in the minority in our public schools, but they do real harm.
It really is an outrage, and it is part of why I tell parents to document all important discussions they have with the school district staff. I can’t tell you how many parents I have witnessed undergo shock and disappointment when they hear the school staff lie to their faces at an IEP Team Meeting. Worse still is the realization that someone who is working with their child is willing to outright deny their conversations with them.
The truth is, if you are unwilling to be honest about the needs of children with disabilities, you have no business working with them.
Published on June 20, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano
“The Liar”
Let me start by saying that, while I have unfortunately seen my share of dishonesty on the part of many IEP Team Members over the many years I have been practicing special education law on behalf of children, usually it comes in the form of misleading comments, convenient omissions, or minor misrepresentations when the individual feels cornered by the parent or the special education director. This isn’t the type of dishonesty I am talking about when I refer to The Liar.
The Liar is blatantly dishonest, willing to not only switch positions 180° from what he told the parents privately to what he says in the IEP Meeting, but to deny ever having taken the opposite position in the first place.
It is extremely difficult for me to sit still when I witness The Liar slither around an issue of dispute at an IEP Team Meeting, but my discomfort does not even compare to the reaction my clients have. Connecticut being a small State, I can at least sometimes warn my clients in advance if I know I’m walking into a meeting with a notorious Liar. “Don’t lose your cool,” I’ll tell them, “just write me a note giving me the truth, or tell me we need to step out into the hallway to talk.” Even with these warnings, I sometimes have to physically prevent some of my clients from jumping out of their seats and yelling “YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!”
When I talk to new clients, or to people outside of the special education legal community, and tell them that there are serious Liars working in our public schools, they sometimes don’t believe me.
Sometimes I’ll be on the phone with a prospective client, who will say “even the special education teacher told me that she completely agreed that he needs 1:1 speech therapy.” And after getting the details of the exchange (estimated date, name of the teacher, context of discussion, where it took place) I will usually say “well, that’s good to know, and I hope she is willing to admit that publicly or under oath.” When the response is “well, you don’t think she’d lie about it do you, that’s exactly what she told me!” a part of me winces. I tell them that I am jaded and cynical, and I really hope I’m wrong, but that I see it all the time.
When “push comes to shove,” when a statement is made to a parent that could genuinely harm the school district’s case, in my experience, the person who made denies it 90% of the time.
Now, don’t get me wrong; parents can lie too, and I’ve had a few experiences over the years where I’ve discovered that it was my own client who was the source of dishonesty. When that has happened, I’ve often terminated my representation of them. In addition, there are misunderstandings in life. Sometimes a caring teacher will make a comment to a parent like “I understand why you think he needs to be in a private placement,” and in fact, she does. That does not necessarily mean that the teacher believes the school district’s program is inappropriate.
Yet, when a school district is exposed to potential litigation, all bets are off, and flat-out lying does occur.
I have been doing this long enough to know the kinds of questions to ask, and to get a feel for people; not always, but most of the time, I can tell if someone is lying to me. In addition, I sometimes represent a number of children within the same district, even within the same program in the same district. So when I am at one IEP Meeting and the staff is telling the parents that none of the other students in the class use augmentative communication devices, and I happen to have a client in that very classroom who uses an augmentative communication device, I KNOW they are lying.
Thankfully, the full-fledged Liars are in the minority in our public schools, but they do real harm.
It really is an outrage, and it is part of why I tell parents to document all important discussions they have with the school district staff. I can’t tell you how many parents I have witnessed undergo shock and disappointment when they hear the school staff lie to their faces at an IEP Team Meeting. Worse still is the realization that someone who is working with their child is willing to outright deny their conversations with them.
The truth is, if you are unwilling to be honest about the needs of children with disabilities, you have no business working with them.
Unseemly IEP Team Member: “The Cheerleader”
Unseemly IEP Team Member: “The Cheerleader”
Published on June 8, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano
“The Cheerleader”
So, a parent of a child with special education needs arrives at an IEP meeting with a list of serious concerns. Not infrequently, their child is struggling, and the parents’ disagreements with the program are significant. There may even be severe academic or behavioral regression at the time of the meeting. Sometimes the parents have even retained an advocate or a special education attorney to represent them at the meeting.
I ask, is this the right time for a cheerleader?
An IEP cheerleader is a school district employee who takes it upon themselves to focus exclusively on what they see as the positives of the school in general, or the special education programs in the district in particular. Usually an IEP Cheerleader is not trying to cause harm or even to openly disagree with the parents. They are just remarkably upbeat people who are faithful to their “team.” In this case, however, the “team” is not necessarily the IEP Team, but rather, the school district itself.
Loyalty is nice, but for many of my clients, an honest assessment of how their child with special needs is performing would be preferred.
As I have mentioned before, in my experience as a special education attorney in Connecticut for over a decade, parents of children with disabilities are not fabricating their child’s needs for special education services. In fact, having to admit that their child is in serious need of help is difficult for any parent. Therefore, it is at best dismissive, and at worst insulting, to respond to a parents’ pleas for help with a sunny “really, he does that at home? We NEVER see him try to hurt himself here! He always seems so HAPPY!”
It would be useful if school district staff would take a moment to imagine what it must be like to be in the parents’ position, before they make assumptions, or even comments.
Like in any other aspect of life, putting yourself in the other person’s shoes can dramatically change the way you look at a situation. Unfortunately, The IEP Cheerleader seems incapable of such perspective.
The worst example of this I have ever experienced was a principal whose bubbly personality was only matched by her equally sparkly MASSIVE rhinestone teddy bear pin that said “HUG ME!” As she sat in that IEP meeting, with a plastered on smile and her pin glistening, my client shared the heartbreaking news of the serious mental illness which had swiftly taken over his child’s life, leading to the current psychiatric hospitalization. Even the school district’s lawyer looked on the verge of tears.
And yet the cheerleader, loyal as ever, chose to interject “we have a really WONDERFUL alternative program here for kids who have mental problems!”
I should have known that someone who was genuinely compassionate would not require a flashy pin to advertise it, but still…
It is difficult not to feel outrage when you are seriously concerned about your child’s special education program, and The IEP Cheerleader sugar-coats all that is worrisome and glorifies your child’s few successes. My only suggestion is to ignore this person; they are usually as harmless as they are clueless.
Published on June 8, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano
“The Cheerleader”
So, a parent of a child with special education needs arrives at an IEP meeting with a list of serious concerns. Not infrequently, their child is struggling, and the parents’ disagreements with the program are significant. There may even be severe academic or behavioral regression at the time of the meeting. Sometimes the parents have even retained an advocate or a special education attorney to represent them at the meeting.
I ask, is this the right time for a cheerleader?
An IEP cheerleader is a school district employee who takes it upon themselves to focus exclusively on what they see as the positives of the school in general, or the special education programs in the district in particular. Usually an IEP Cheerleader is not trying to cause harm or even to openly disagree with the parents. They are just remarkably upbeat people who are faithful to their “team.” In this case, however, the “team” is not necessarily the IEP Team, but rather, the school district itself.
Loyalty is nice, but for many of my clients, an honest assessment of how their child with special needs is performing would be preferred.
As I have mentioned before, in my experience as a special education attorney in Connecticut for over a decade, parents of children with disabilities are not fabricating their child’s needs for special education services. In fact, having to admit that their child is in serious need of help is difficult for any parent. Therefore, it is at best dismissive, and at worst insulting, to respond to a parents’ pleas for help with a sunny “really, he does that at home? We NEVER see him try to hurt himself here! He always seems so HAPPY!”
It would be useful if school district staff would take a moment to imagine what it must be like to be in the parents’ position, before they make assumptions, or even comments.
Like in any other aspect of life, putting yourself in the other person’s shoes can dramatically change the way you look at a situation. Unfortunately, The IEP Cheerleader seems incapable of such perspective.
The worst example of this I have ever experienced was a principal whose bubbly personality was only matched by her equally sparkly MASSIVE rhinestone teddy bear pin that said “HUG ME!” As she sat in that IEP meeting, with a plastered on smile and her pin glistening, my client shared the heartbreaking news of the serious mental illness which had swiftly taken over his child’s life, leading to the current psychiatric hospitalization. Even the school district’s lawyer looked on the verge of tears.
And yet the cheerleader, loyal as ever, chose to interject “we have a really WONDERFUL alternative program here for kids who have mental problems!”
I should have known that someone who was genuinely compassionate would not require a flashy pin to advertise it, but still…
It is difficult not to feel outrage when you are seriously concerned about your child’s special education program, and The IEP Cheerleader sugar-coats all that is worrisome and glorifies your child’s few successes. My only suggestion is to ignore this person; they are usually as harmless as they are clueless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)