Here Is What Happens To Children With Special Needs In Lee's Summit
Here is my OCR report. I
have written the truth in red beside their statements. Please feel free
to use in any way that will benefit you or other families.
Sherri
UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS - REGION VII
NOV 6, 2006
Sherri
Tucker
1200 Southeast London Way
Lee's Summit,
Missouri 64081
Re: OCR Docket#
07061178
Dear
Ms. Tucker:
On May 10, 2006, the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights
(OCR), received your complaint against
the Lee's Summit R-VII School District (District), Lee's Summit, Missouri, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. This
is to inform
you we have completed our investigation of your complaint
and made the following
determination.
Specifically, you alleged the District discriminated against your son on the basis of disability by not implementing his Individualized
Education Program (IEP).
OCR is responsible for enforcing:
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 United States Code
(U.S.C) § 794,
and its implementing regulation, 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CF.R) Part 104. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
• OCR is also
responsible for enforcing Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of
1990 (Title
II), 42 U.S.C
§ 12131, and its implementing regulation, 28 CF.R Part 35. Title
II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.
As a recipient
of Federal financial assistance from the Department and a public entity, the District is subject to these laws. Additional information about the laws OCR enforces
is available on our website
at
http:/ /www.ed.gov/ ocr.
8930 WARD PARKWAY,
SUITE 2037, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64114
Our mission
is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence
throughout the nation.
.
Page 2- Sherri Tucker- 07061178
In reaching
a determination in this complaint,
OCR reviewed information provided by you and
the District, interviewed you, the Director
of Special Services,
your son's previous
case manager for the 2005-2006 school
year, and your son's current
case manager for the 2006- 2007 school year. Based on our investigation, the following is a summary
of the findings of fact, applicable legal standards, the analysis and the conclusion regarding this complaint.
Findings of Fact
You alleged the District did not correctly
implement your son's IEP during
the 2005-2006 school year. Your son has Pervasive Development Disorder - Not Otherwise
Specified (PDD-NOS) and Kanner's
Syndrome (autism). Your son was 12 years old and was
in middle school during
the 2005-2006 school
year.
You stated you experienced a myriad of problems with middle school
staff implementing your son's IEP during
the 2005-2006 school
year. Your son was evaluated
when he entered kindergarten. You stated
you did not request a reevaluation during
elementary school because you did not experience any problems with the District implementing your son's IEP while
he attended elementary school. You stated you requested your son be reevaluated on December 16, 2005, after he entered middle
school because the District was not
implementing several items on your son's IEP. You stated the District: (1) was not providing your son with extra schoolbooks; (2) counted your son as tardy on seven
occasions; (3) had placed him in art instead of music; (4) had not scheduled him for physical education (PE) at the end of the school day; (5) was not having your son take tests in small
groups; (6) wrote your son up because
he did not understand a math assignment; (7) only released him early from class once before January2006; (8) had not been providing
you with notes in his plan book; and (9) improperly disciplined your son when his special education teacher "hollered" at him for chewing
on his fingers (self-stimulatory behavior),
which is something he cannot help. Your son was
reevaluated in March 2006 per your request
in December 2005, and a new IEP was developed in April2006.
OCR received documentation from the District
regarding this complaint. The District
submitted copies of three IEPs with implementation dates of February
16, 2005, September 30, 2005, and April11, 2006. The April11,
2006 IEP included
a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) dated March 6, 2006. The District also submitted your son's 2005-
2006 transcript, discipline record, evaluation data and reports,
conference notes and email correspondence. On August 30, 2006, the District provided
OCR with a copy of the
Procedural Safeguards Log, conference notes,
email correspondence, and a draft IEP dated August 18, 2006 for your son.
Page 3- Sherri Tucker-
07061178
BadefJVU?ld
Your son's February 16, 2005
IEP was developed
by staff from his previous
elementary school and the middle school
prior to his entering middle school. The February 16, 2005
IEP included provisions for the following items applicable to this complaint: extra books - satellite; early release for transition between
classes; and check
often for understanding/ review.
Your son's IEP dated September 30, 2005 was a result
of concerns you expressed in a
September 2005 meeting with middle
school staff, and provided for the following
items applicable to this complaint: provide extra books in classroom; read tests to student in small
groups; and check often for understanding/ review.
Documentation indicated
you requested a formal
evaluation for your son on December 16, 2005, resulting in his first
BIP and a new IEP dated April11,
2006. You advised OCR you were pleased with the evaluation, IEP meeting and the provisions of the IEP and BIP; however, the IEP was done at the end of the school year and you stated you had
reservations about whether
or not the District would implement the IEP correctly when the 2006-2007 school
year began in August
2006. The April 2006 IEP called for: study guides (prior to each test);
preferential seating for teaching instruction; extended time for
completing tests as needed; directions given in a variety of ways; provision of extra books in
classroom and home unless texts are online;
reading of test directions to student in small
group; checking often for understanding/ review; visual supports;
adult support for organization; use of computer in classroom for lengthy assignments; teacher-provided notes
as needed; and encouragement with positive statements rather than negative.
Your son's
BIP states he is allowed
to pass between classes two minutes early,
have a set of textbooks at home, has music instead
of art as an elective, always take tests in small
group settings, and his teachers will
write in his plan book and your son's case manager will
update you concerning progress
monthly via telephone or email.
Implementatian of IEPs
(1)
Provision of schoolbooks. Regarding the provision of schoolbooks to your son, your
son's February 2005 IEP provided
for "extra books - satellite," and the September
2005 IEP provided for extra schoolbooks in the classroom. You stated the District did not
provide your son with extra schoolbooks in all of his classrooms until November 2005.
During this time, you were informed
that some schoolbooks would have to be accessed
on the Internet and eventually you were provided
with the username
and password to access the online schoolbooks. You stated
that the special
education teacher also accused your son of losing two schoolbooks that were being kept in her classroom; you contacted the Assistant
Superintendent and the matter was dropped and nothing else was said. The April
2006 IEP
Page 4 - Sherri
Tucker- 07061178
provided for "provision of extra books in classroom
and home unless texts are online."
Your son's April2006 IEP provided
that he be allowed to keep a set of schoolbooks at home;
however, you stated his teachers
made him return
the schoolbooks two weeks before the 2005-2006 school year ended, and consequently, he was unable to do his residual homework You
contacted the District
several times regarding
this, to no avail, and at that time
you feared your son would fail some of his classes.
Your son's previous case manager
advised OCR. your son was provided with schoolbooks during the 2005-2006
school year to take home, but could not confirm when this occurred. She informed OCR. that an extra set of schoolbooks is available in every classroom for all students. Further, she stated that if a
parent does not have access
to the Internet at home, the parent
should advise the District
and the student
will be
provided with a textbook
Regarding the matter involving
your son not having schoolbooks at home the last two weeks of school, you advised OCR. the District excused the assignments he was unable
to complete. OCR.'s
review of his record revealed
he did not fail or
have a significant change in grade in any of his classes. The
books were not made available until I demanded them and one teacher even fought
me on that. He should not have had assignments excused. He should
have been able to do his work.
(2)
Tardiness. Tardiness was not specifically addressed on any of your son's IEPs but you indicated that he did receive tardies during the first semester
of the 2005-2006 school year because your son was not allowed
to keep schoolbooks in his classrooms (to avoid having to
access his locker), his bus being late
one day, and his discomfort in leaving classes
early or having to take
his schoolbook to PE class. You
stated one of your son's teachers suggested he leave classes early
but your son is not comfortable with breaking school
rules. You also stated after you contacted
the District five of the seven tardies your son received during
the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year were removed
from his record. (The
same teacher that gave him tardies early on gave him some after this complaint
just to be mean)
OCR.'s reviewed records provided
by the District and found that your son's discipline record showed five tardies
for the first semester of the 2005-2006
school year. When
asked about this discrepancy, you advised OCR. your son's on-line discipline record showed only two unexcused tardies and your son's case worker also told you the District "erased" all but two of
your son's tardies
for the first semester. You submitted a copy of your son's
first semester grade report
that also showed
two tardies for the first semester of the 2005-2006 school year. Your son was not allowed to attend the "tardy party''
because he had two
tardies during the first semester
of the 2005-2006 school year. Your son's records for the
second semester of the 2005-2006
school year have no tardies
recorded for him during that semester. On November 6, 2006, you informed OCR. your son has not received any tardies
as of that date for the 2006-2007
school year because he has schoolbooks in each of his classrooms.
(3)
Music vs. Art. This item was not included in any of your son's IEPs, but was placed
on his BIP dated March 6, 2006.
You stated you requested
music instead of art in February
2005, but the District did not place him in music unti1January2006. Your
son's academic record indicated the District placed
your son in music class instead of art as you had requested for the second
semester.
Page 5 - Sherri
Tucker- 07061178
(4)
PE at the end of the school day. This item was not included in any of your son's IEPs or in his BIP. You stated you also requested your son be placed in PE class at the end
of the school day in February2005, but this change did not happen until January2006.
(5)
Testing in small groups. Your son's September 2005 IEP stated
tests would be read
to your son in small groups.
In a meeting initiated by you in September 2005 with District staff, you inquired as to whether or not your son was
being given tests in small groups.
You stated a District staff member stated she would have to "drag him out into the hall" in order
to do so. The April 2006 IEP included a similar provision, including the statement that this is not an option and will be done. Your son's previous case manager advised
OCR that testing in small groups
may have occurred
in the hallway, but stated
she began testing
your son in small
groups prior to September 2005. This
is a complete lie. It is obvious that he was not being tested in small
groups by the comments that were made in the September 2005 meeting and doing
it in the hallway is not acceptable. All of the teachers in the meeting
stated that they were not giving him tests in small groups.
(6)
Written up for not understanding math. You informed
OCR your son was written up
because he did not understand a math assignment. You stated your son became confused
about the assignment and "shut down." The math teacher wrote
him
up and he received a “commitment letter," which made
him
extremely upset. OCR's review of your son's discipline record indicated there was no entry for this action. Your son's February 2005, September 2005 and April2006 IEPs, stated that your son's teachers were to check with him often for understanding and to review his work
Your son's previous case manager advised OCR that every teacher
was given a packet of information regarding
your son, including
new teachers on a quarterly basis. He was also introduced
to all his new teachers prior to the beginning of the classes. The
teacher called me at home because Jake was crying. Jake never
cries. I asked her what was going on. He had missed school and was
supposed to make up his work. He was doing so when she started writing
the answers on the board. He stopped because he felt he would be cheating
if he continued. She instructed him to start again. The same thing
happened again. This happened three times. He shut down
completely. She made him write a commitment letter. When he started
crying she called me. Jake will not lie or break rules so he felt that
having to write the commitment letter was a form of punishment and he does not
like to get in trouble. I explained all of this to her. She told me
that she felt that we needed to have expectations for Jake. I told her
that I agreed, but her expectations were not right. I told her that I had
expectations before he was born. I had to change mine and she needed to
change hers. I asked her if he was dancing on his desk, shouting out
loud, or doing anything else that was disrupting her classroom. She
stated that he was not. I told her that we would do the homework at home
and that there was no reason for her behavior. I told her that I would
cry to if I had to go to that school every day. Jake has always been in
regular education classrooms with no paras or support. They removed this
from his record prior to giving his records to the OCR.
(7)
Early Transition. Your son's February2005 IEP included a provision
allowing your son to leave classes early so he could get to his next class but the September 2005 IEP did not
include a similar provision. The March 2006 BIP included
a provision allowing him to pass between classes two minutes
early. The District's opinion was that having your son
leave class early would assist him in transitioning to classes because
he would have more time to
stop at his locker and would avoid the noise and confusion
in the hallways in between classes. However, as previously
stated in item 2, your son was not comfortable with breaking school rules and did not leave
class early except
on a few occasions. This is not true. They did not allow him to and I
explained it to him and he was fine with it. The noise and chaos in the
halls was so distracting for him that it overwhelmed him.
(8)
Plan book notes. Providing you with notes in your son's plan book was not a requirement in your son's IEP until April2006.
You stated your son's
core class teachers had done this, but not on a consistent basis. The previous
case manager informed
OCR it was your son's responsibility to have his teachers writes
in his plan book All
students have plan books;
the District uses them as educational tools and they are the responsibility of the
student. I have several of his plan book
pages and none of them have been written in before or after April 2006.
Page 6- Sherri Tucker-
07061178
(9)
Self-stimulatory behavior. Your son's BIP, which is the first one he has ever had, addresses what actions to take when your son exhibits self-stimulatory behavior, such as chewing on his fingers.
These actions include a five-minute break in the Recovery Room and
completing a "Calm Down" sheet. In an interview
with your son's previous case manager, she advised OCR the District
tried using chewing
gum but your son would swallow
it. The District also allowed
him to chew
on a wristband. The previous case manager stated the whole IEP team
was involved in creating the BIP and all of your son's
teachers were aware of it and were provided
a copy of his BIP. The
district’s assistant superintendent gave my son the wrist band to chew
on. I told her that it would not be a good idea because he would have his
wrist at his mouth all of the time. They gave him one anyway and the
first day that he used it he got in trouble for it. The district never
gave him chewing gum because I told them that he would just swallow it.
The woman from OCR said that she felt as though Jake’s case manager was hiding
something or not being completely honest.
You advised OCR you met with
the District on August 18, 2006, prior
to the start 2006-2007
school year on August 23, 2006. You advised OCR on August 23, 2006, that you met with District staff on August 18th, and the meeting
seemed to go well. You stated for the first time, all of your son's
teachers were present,
as well as other pertinent District staff.
You stated your son is in music class, and has PE class at the
end of the school day. You
stated you advised the District
to leave the provision for early transition to classes in your son's IEP, just in case something
occurs to justify
his
doing so. On August 30, 2006, the District submitted a draft copy of your son's August 2006 IEP. OCR's review of the draft August 2006 IEP confirmed that all of your concerns
were addressed and/or put in writing.
On September 11, 2006, you advised OCR you were meeting
with the District
on September 12th. On September 13, 2006,
OCR contacted you. You stated
you were pleased
with the IEP meeting
and your son's August 2006 IEP. On September 19, 2006, OCR received
a copy of your son's finalized August 2006 IEP.
Legal Standard
The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R § 104.33(a) and (b)
requires school
districts to provide a free appropriate public
education to students
with disabilities. An
appropriate education is defined as regular or special education
and related aids and services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs of the student with disabilities.
Implementation of an IEP is one means of meeting
this standard. The
regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R § 35.130 places requirements on school districts comparable to Section 504 at 34 C.F.R § 104.33.
The following five inquiries have
to be answered in the investigation of whether a free
appropriate public education
is being provided: (1) whether the student is identified as disabled; (2) what the student's identified disability is; (3) what the student is to receive according to his IEP/ Accommodation Plan;
(4) what the District actually provided; and (5) if the District failed
to fully implement the student's IEPIAccommodation Plan,
whether the failure was significant enough
to have limited
the student's educational opportunity. If the
failure to implement resulted in limited educational opportunity, there was a failure
to provide a free appropriate public education.
Page 7- Sherri Tucker-
07061178
Analysis
Your son is disabled for purposes of Title II and Section
504. You advised
OCR your son had
Pervasive Development Disorder- Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and Kanner's Syndrome (autism), when you filed your complaint with OCR
On August 23, 2006, you
advised OCR your son's diagnosis had been changed
by his psychologist to Asberger's
Syndrome (autism), inattentive attention deficit with hyperactivity disorder,
and dysgraphia (inability of the brain to communicate to the hand to write). OCR has established the first
and second inquiries of the analysis.
You alleged
the District was not implementing your son's IEP. You specifically identified the following nine provisions:
(1) not providing extra books in the classroom; (2) counted him
tardy on several
occasions; (3) placed him in art instead of music;
(4) did not schedule him
for physical education at the end of the day; (5) was not having him take tests in
small groups; (6) wrote him up when he did not understand a math problem;
(7) did not release
him from class early to transition; (8) did not provide notes in his plan book; and (9) the
special education teacher "hollered" at him
for chewing on his fingers
(self-stimulatory behavior). OCR has established the third inquiry
of the analysis.
You attended IEP meetings for your son in February
2005, September 2005, March
2006 and August 2006. The February2005 IEP addressed extra schoolbooks, earlytransition and checking often for understanding. You stated your son did not receive schoolbooks in all
his classes until November
2005 for the 2005-2006 school year and that your son has been
provided with all of his schoolbooks for home and in his classrooms for the 2006-2007 school year. Your son received
tardies, partly as a result of not having schoolbooks in his classrooms, but you told OCR and provided documentation showing that the District
dismissed five of the
seven tardies your son received
after you contacted them. You believe having the schoolbooks in your son's classrooms should
prevent him from receiving tardies this school year, unless something unexpected should occur, which
is why you asked the District to leave in the earlytransition provision in your son's IEP. You confirmed
your son has not received any tardies since the first semester of the 2005-2006
school year.
You stated
you requested your son be placed in music and his PE be scheduled
at the end of the day in February
2005 but the District did not implement
these changes until January 2006. This school year your son is taking music and his PE class is scheduled at the end of
the school day for the entire year. A provision regarding
your son being tested in small
groups was placed in your son's
September 2005 IEP; however, the District stated it began testing your son in small groups
prior to September 2005. Your son's current case manager
advised OCR that when your son takes
tests this school
year, he will leave the classroom
with a small group of students and take his tests in the Student Administration Conference
Page 8- Sherri Tucker-
07061178
Room, the Library or the Media Center.
You alleged your son was written
up for not understanding a math assignment; however,
there is no evidence of this on his discipline record.
Your son's current case manager advised OCR when the District
held the IEP meeting on August
18, 2006, your son's teachers
attended and the provisions of his IEP were discussed. You advised OCR that as long as your son's schoolbooks are provided in the classroom the early transition provision
that appeared in his earlier
IEPs is not necessary. The planning
book provisions in your son's April2006 are now being addressed by having your son write his daily notes on a revised
form specifically created for him. His notes are then checked
by
his teachers
and rewritten if necessary so you can read them. Self-stimulatory behavior
is being addressed and was specifically covered in the BIP.
Your son's current case manager is aware
of the BIP, your son's exhibitions of behaviors that need to be addressed, and how to accomplish the provisions of his BIP. These facts address the fourth inquiry
of the analysis.
You advised
OCR you met with the District staff on August 18,2006, prior to the 2006-07
school year and that meeting
seemed to go well.
You stated for the first time, all of your
son's teachers were present, as well as other pertinent
District staff. You
stated your son is
in music class, and has PE class at the end of the day for the entire school year.
You stated you advised the District to leave the provision for early transition to classes in your son's IEP, just in case something occurs
to justify his doing so. On August
30, 2006, the District
submitted a draft copy of your son's August 2006 IEP.
On September
19,2006, OCR received a copy of your son's finalized
August 2006 IEP and confirmed
that all of your
concerns have been addressed. Additionally, you are pleased with the August 2006 IEP and your
son's current case manager is aware of the provisions of his IEP and his special
education needs.
OCR has determined
that while the District may have failed to implement some provisions
of your son's IEP during the 2005-2006 school year,
the District took actions to correct
the deficiencies when you brought them to the District's attention. OCR has reviewed the provisions of your son's IEP that the District
had not implemented and the District's response when you advised
District staff of the failure to implement those
provisions and concluded that there is insufficient evidence
to support a conclusion that the failure
to implement some provisions of your son's IEP materially limited your son's educational
opportunity. Additionally, subsequent
actions by the District,
which you confirmed, show that the District
developed a new IEP in September 2006 for
the 2006-2007 school year
resolving the issues of the complaint.
You advised
OCR on September 13, 2006,
you requested adaptive
PE for your son. On September 19, 2006, you informed OCR the District
has given you the option of deleting
PE from your son's classes rather
than providing adaptive
PE to him. The provision of adaptive PE to your son is an educational decision. OCR does not, except in extraordinary
Page 9- Sherri Tucker- 07061178
circumstances, review
the results of individual placement and educational decisions made by a recipient
as long as the process
requirements of the Section 504 regulation are met. The Section 504 process requirements include an evaluation, a placement decision by a group
of individuals who are knowledgeable about the evaluation and placement options
and who consider information from a variety
of sources, and procedural safeguards. The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R § 104.36 requires
a recipient to provide a system of procedural
safeguards that includes
notice, an opportunity for the parents or guardian
to examine relevant records,
an impartial hearing
with opportunity for
participation by the person's
parents or guardian and representation by counsel, and a review
procedure. This applies
to actions regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of persons who, because of disability, need or are believed to need special
instruction or related
services. The documentation received
by OCR indicated the District advised
you of its procedural safeguards. You maywish to utilize the District's
due process procedures regarding your request for adaptive PE for your son.
Conclusion
Based on the above, OCR determined the evidence
did not establish that the District's
failure to provide some of the special
education and related
services identified in your son's IEPs during
the 2005-2006 school
year materially limited
your son's educational opportunities. Further,
you stated all of your concerns have been addressed
in an August 2006 IEP for the 2006-2007 school year and all of your
son's teachers participated in the August 2006 IEP meeting.
Also, your son's current case manager is aware of the provisions of his IEP and his special
education needs. Therefore, OCR has determined the allegation of this complaint has been resolved.
OCR has determined there is an insufficient factual
basis to support a conclusion that the District's failure to fully implement your son's IEP materially limited
his educational opportunities in violation of Section 504. OCR has also determined that there are no
current allegations appropriate for complaint resolution and that there are no allegations
applicable to a class of students. Therefore, we are closing
your complaint effective the date of this letter.
The determinations contained
in this letter are not intended and should not be construed
to cover any other issues regarding compliance with the regulations implementing Section 504 and Title II that may exist but are not specifically discussed herein.
OCR is committed to a high quality
resolution of every
case. If you have any
questions or concerns about OCR's case determination, you maycontactJulie Murphy, Equal OpportunitySpecialist, at (816) 268-0577
(voice), (877) 521-2172 (telecommunications device
for the deaf), or by email at julie.murph}@ed.gov. If you still have concerns,
you may send a request for reconsideration to the Office Director within 60 days of the date of this
Page 10 - Sherri
Tucker- 07061178
letter. Contacting Ms. Murphy neither stops the running
of the 60-daytimeline for filing
a request for reconsideration, nor is it a prerequisite to filing a request for reconsideration with the
Office Director. If you choose
to request reconsideration, please be as specific as possible, focusing on factual or legal concerns that could change
the disposition of the case.
In any future correspondence with OCR,
please refer to the number referenced above. This
will enable OCR staff to immediately route
your correspondence to the individual assigned to your complaint. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Julie Murphy, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at the above telephone
numbers or email address.
Sincerely,
Jody A VanWey
Supervisory Equal
Opportunity Specialist
Page 10 - Sherri
Tucker - 07061178
letter. Contacting Ms. Mutphy neither stops the running of the 60-daytimeline for filing a request for reconsideration, nor is it a
prerequisite to filing a request
for reconsideration with the
Office Director. If
you choose to request reconsideration, please be as specific as possible, focusing on factual or legal concerns that could change
the disposition of the case.
In any future correspondence with OCR,
please refer to the number referenced above. This
will enable OCR staff to immediately route your correspondence to the individual assigned to your complaint. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Julie Murphy, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at the above telephone numbers or email
address.
Sincerely,
Jody A VanWey
'
Supervisory Equal
Opportunity Specialist
Date: 03/07/2006
PROVISIONS THAT
WERE DISCUSSED IN SPRING, 2005
FOR THE
EDUCATION OF JACOB EDWARD TUCKER
1. A copy of every textbook in the
classroom and at home.
2. Leave each class a minute early so
that Jake would avoid the chaos in the hallways.
3. PE at the end of the day so that Jake
would not have to take showers.
4. Music because Jake has poor motor
skills and art might be a challenge.
5. Typing long essays. Jake does not put
all of his thoughts on paper when he has to write in longhand.
6. Going to lunch early so that he
doesn't have to wait in line and can finish his meal.
There was discussion on other things,
but I can't recall them. These seem to be the most important. I have enclosed
an article that reinforces the importance of these things.
Present
Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
Parents
concerns are as follows:
Turning
in assignments continues to be a concern for Jacob. He would benefit from adult
support for make-up work and tests and turning in assignments.
Jacob's
handwriting continues to be an issue He would benefit from typing his
assignments or having a scribe. He has been diagnosed with Dysgraphia and would
benefit from assistive technology. He needs to be able to type in his classroom
so that he can remain in his least restrictive environment and he needs to be
able to bring home his work. At present he has to leave the classroom to type
and he is not able to complete his work at home because it is saved on a
computer at school. He needs to be able to type almost all of his work.
Jacob
becomes overwhelmed easily. Too much stimuli causes him to become
overwhelmed. This can cause him to shutdown or become stressed. He has
started chewing and has difficulty paying attention when he becomes stressed.
Jacob would benefit from having something to chew on. He also should continue
going to the recovery room when he becomes overwhelmed. He would benefit from
modifications to school rules that may discriminate against him. He would
benefit from behaviors being ignored that are not seriously disruptive and an
individualized behavior intervention plan that is positive and consistent with
his ability and skills. He has been diagnosed with anxiety.
Jacob
has difficulty in the area of organization, using time wisely in class and
completion of work. He would benefit from adult support for organization in all
classes. Jacob does not communicate the events of his day when he gets
home. He would benefit from having all of his teachers write in his planbook
every day. Psychologist has stated that Jake does not have the ability to do
this for himself and that his adult sup-port should be performing secretarial
duties for him. He has been diagnosed with Inattentive ADHD.
Jacob
gets easily confused as to what he is supposed to be doing. He would benefit
from both oral and printed directions, being given directions in small steps
and in as few words as possible, numbering and sequencing the steps in a task,
visual aids, having progress checked and feedback given in the first few
minutes of each assignment, being provided study guides and study questions
that directly relate to tests, directions given in a variety of ways.
Jacob
was given tests in small groups and studied for tests in speech when he was in
elementary school. He also was in the learning center for math and any other
areas that he was not doing well in. He would benefit from taking all tests in
small groups (in all of his classes), being permitted as much time as needed to
finish tests, and having the tests read to him. Jacob's classroom performance
indicates that he may benefit from small group instruction and modifications
within the math, science, and language arts curriculum.
Jacob's
disability affects participation in class, staying on task, understanding and
following instructions, turning in work on time, completing work on time,
organization, asking for make-up work, taking notes, writing essays, taking
tests, and understanding emotions of peers and teachers.
It
also affects how he is perceived by his peers and teachers. He may be perceived
as lazy or refusing to work and that is not the case. .He would benefit from
his teachers being thoroughly
trained
in his disability by a source outside of the school district. Mother has
offered many training materials to the district and will continue to do so.
Jake's
Vineland Behavior Scales indicate that he is at an age equivalent of a three
year old in some areas. He would benefit from a plan that would address those
deficits. His future is dependent on him being able to be independent and that
needs to be addressed in his IEP.
Narrative Report
The
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II) measures
the personal and social skills of individuals from birth through adulthood.
Because adaptive behavior refers to an individual's typical performance of the
day-to-day activities required for personal and social sufficiency, these
scales assess what a person actually does, rather than what he or she is able
to do. The Vineland-II assesses adaptive behavior in four domains:
Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills. It also
provides a composite score that summarizes the individual's performance across
all four domains.
JAKE
TUCKER was age 12:9 on the interview date of March 1,2006. The respondent was
his Mother, Sherri Tucker. Sherri was administered the Vineland-II Parent /
Caregiver Rating Form by EMILY MILLER.
JAKE
was previously classified with the following diagnosis: Autism.
JAKE's
Adaptive Behavior Composite standard score of74 summarizes his overall level of
adaptive functioning. The 90 percent confidence level shows that JAKE's true
Adaptive Behavior Composite is likely to be within the range of 69 to 79
(confidence interval of +/-5). JAKE's Adaptive Behavior Composite classifies
his general adaptive functioning as moderately low; he scores higher than only
4% of similarly aged individuals in the Vineland-II norm sample.
Comments