We had some issues around our last IEP meeting - specifically the district had a "pre-IEP meeting" which isn't necessarily a problem, but in this instance it probably was. Especially since we know they had one before our last Triannual IEP meeting and made some pretty significant changes to what the district personnel was going to recommend. We saw a report from before the meeting that suggested she maintain her current speech and then another report dated two days later (right after the meeting) that recommended a decrease in services by 75%.
This time our lawyer sent a letter and confronted the situation and they swore up and down they were allowed to do what they were doing, except that they were discussing current levels and that was supposed to be discussed with us, the parents, there. They were also probably discussing placement since that was what the meeting was about - though they deny it. They also deny that they took any notes or received any reports over a two hour meeting. The worst offense was probably discussing how to change reports or how to present information in a way that makes it sound like things are other than they are. This whole thing seemed pretty fishy to us given that we knew what they had done at the last meeting. Does that sound fishy to you? It sure did to us. They also deny that they generated anything in writing or electronically (like e-mail) though we were told that there was an e-mail sent out.
So, I requested all paperwork for the last eight months, and amazingly, there was only one e-mail in the whole pile of paperwork - it was from me to them - and I can guarantee I sent and received at least 50 e-mails in the last eight months. There were no notes about phone calls or pre-meeting notes, nothing. Also strangely absent were Megan's behavioral evaluations. So I started looking at what I already had, and I had not noticed that I had two copies of the report dated 2/28/2010. Under summary and recommendations there were two different sets of writing. The one said that the aide working with my daughter was not sufficient, that she should be replaced with a person who had been trained by the ABA company. The second basically said everything was just fine. Then, in June, the next report (which was not included in the paperwork but should legally have been included) said again that the company's aide should be in the classroom since the classroom aide was not getting the job done.
Doesn't this make you wonder what else may have been changed without our knowledge to be more district friendly? Doesn't it also make you wonder what else is missing from our records since those reports and almost all e-mail that I KNOW of is messing?
No comments:
Post a Comment