Too "Low" for Special Ed in NC? (home, public school)

[RPV2NC]

Has anyone heard of this apparent anomaly? I am a public school teacher and have been told by my NC colleagues that in NC when a student is tested for special education services, if the child tests as "too low", no services will be given because essentially it is believed the child will not benefit. Further if a child has a very low IQ, but is performing above that IQ, but is still very low performing, no services will be given because that child is determined to be performing above his or her ability level. In both instances you can have struggling, low performing students achieving below the level of classmates students with IEPs, but they are not eligible for services. This seems very wrong to me. Can someone explain this to me. This affects children I am teaching now.

[CarolinaCowboy]

Originally Posted by RPV2NC

Has anyone heard of this apparent anomaly? I am a public school teacher and have been told by my NC colleagues that in NC when a student is tested for special education services, if the child tests as "too low", no services will be given because essentially it is believed the child will not benefit. Further if a child has a very low IQ, but is performing above that IQ, but is still very low performing, no services will be given because that child is determined to be performing above his or her ability level. In both instances you can have struggling, low performing students achieving below the level of classmates students with IEPs, but they are not eligible for services. This seems very wrong to me. Can someone explain this to me. This affects children I am teaching now.

I like your post, but as someone who worked years ago in special education, you're fishing for a fight. I have seen students who "test too low" benefit from services. When you bring in the so-called experts, they don't see it that way. The reason? $. They know the public at large will agree with their decision. They see no need to educate someone who THEY believe is in a vegatative state. So, it slips under the radar, usually without much fight.

[RPV2NC]

Originally Posted by CarolinaCowboy

I like your post, but as someone who worked years ago in special education, you're fishing for a fight. I have seen students who "test too low" benefit from services. When you bring in the so-called experts, they don't see it that way. The reason? $. They know the public at large will agree with their decision. They see no need to educate someone who THEY believe is in a vegatative state. So, it slips under the radar, usually without much fight.

I'm not talking about vegetables or even close. I'm talking about kids that only a teacher would know were underperforming. Kids that fail every test, but still function in day-to-day life.

[Lisalrenee]

At the high school level, it appears that there's a gap between those who are functioning - but not necessarily capable of completing the normal high school curriculum. They attend a program where they leave w/ a certificate, and learn certain life skills. The next program up for that is for students who are considered capable of completing the coursework -but not high level stuff. Lots of tech classes, etc. There's nothing in between, so if a kid tests too high for the OCS kind of stuff, they automatically get put into the next level, which may be too hard. I've never seen a child NOT get services - even my "falling between the cracks" kids have IEPs. Those IEPs may not meet their needs fully, but they are in place.

[saralee]

Interesting question. I hope you're not right. That would be tragic.

We are in UC and my son is borderline intellectual functioning, although in truth he is probably closer to low average. Why do I bring this up? IQ tests are well, subjective, even when it comes to neurotypical people. And many, many kids with LDs and SNs don't perform well in this area, particularly if reading skills are poor, comprehension limited, limited formal education (for ANY reason), unaccustomed to "societal norms", which may not transcend various cultures, etc.

And in the case of autism (or like conditions), these tests can be way off base because autistic cognition is different from "typical" human cognition. WISC relies too heavily on language. It's not the ONLY test around, even though psychologists like to pretend that's the case. I know there is another test that focuses on the abstract but the name escapes me now. In many instances, that is more appropriate, or a more accurate measure of IQ for children whom are atypical in their learning patterns.

Also, since I subscribe to the theory of multiple intelligences, it's difficult for me to talk about any of this with a straight face.

Hope the "experts" know as much as us parents and figure out that if they are excluding children from services 1) they are subject to being in violation of federal law and I hope the parents of these children are as aggressive as I am when it comes to tackling injustices at their child's school. Oh and 2) an entire population of people capable of contributing to society in a positive manner are being excluded. Denial of services is immoral, judgemental, and unethical at its best, criminal at its worse.

I tell parents all the time that this is not the time to be nice, meekness has no place here. Check your fear at the door. Cry at home but not at the IEP table. Don't mistake the administration's smiles for any type of empathy or cohesiveness. Parents and administration are never working toward the same goal.

And despite being a military veteran and understanding the notion of chain-in-command, my personal philosophy is when an individual's life is on the line, start at the top — I have no use for gatekeepers and I make it very clear that I am only interested in speaking to the person that is going to tell me "yes". I will always remain unapologetic for doing what was best for my son.

Best wishes,

Sara

[saralee]

Originally Posted by Lisalrenee

At the high school level, it appears that there's a gap between those who are functioning - but not necessarily capable of completing the normal high school curriculum. They attend a program where they leave w/ a certificate, and learn certain life skills. The next program up for that is for students who are considered capable of completing the coursework -but not high level stuff. Lots of tech classes, etc. There's nothing in between, so if a kid tests too high for the OCS kind of stuff, they automatically get put into the next level, which may be too hard. I've never seen a child NOT get services - even my "falling between the cracks" kids have IEPs. Those IEPs may not meet their needs fully, but they are in place.

However, as we all know, having an IEP and actually working toward stated goals or conducting the appropriate and recommended therapies, are two very different things. Administrations write them up all of the time. And in many intances they are following a template and just copying an pasting in the appropriate name. As for the content of the IEP, the vaguer, the better.

It is an extremely common occurence for districts to ignore IEPs all together. It takes a lot of work, effort, additional staff, concern, etc to get it right. But it is up to us parents to make sure this document doesn't just outline the child's needs in print but that it is also being implemented in real time.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "Yes, the OT evaluation indicated your son would benefit from therapy however, we haven't hired anyone for the position yet" (three months into the school year). The list goes on and on. I am like the IEP police when it comes to my child.

Sara

[tarheelcoach]

This is true in every state. Special education is for students who have a disability that keeps them from reaching their potential academically. What they look for is a significant difference between IQ and performance in a particular area.
A child who has a 70 IQ but who is performing up to that ability would not qualify for special education - they are simply classified as a slow learner.

[badger77]

No, that is completely incorrect. You are thinking of learning disabilities which are defined as low performance in comparison to IQ. Students with mental retardation, which is a low IQ with performance matching the tested IQ, will also qualify for special education if they are unable to function in a regular classroom. Your hypothetical IQ 70 student would be classified as mildly mentally retarded and would probably be placed in a resource classroom part of the day. More disabled students would be placed in a self contained classroom environment.

[melissajo]

I am in the same situation with a student. I was told they just have a low IQ and that's that. They do not qualify for services. I am in Missouri though. This is the first time I have come across the situation. I have no idea what to do to help the child. What grade do you teach? I teach 2nd grade.

[jaynarie]

Originally Posted by tarheelcoach

This is true in every state. Special education is for students who have a disability that keeps them from reaching their potential academically. What they look for is a significant difference between IQ and performance in a particular area.
A child who has a 70 IQ but who is performing up to that ability would not qualify for special education - they are simply classified as a slow learner.

That is exactly it. If a child has an IQ of 65 and are performing better than a person with an IQ of 65 should, they do not qualify for any services. I had a child like this in my room last year. It is very sad but there is nothing you can do about it.