Been IEP Busy

I'm learning some things.  I'm not a reader, but the "Policies and Procedures for Special Education in Oklahoma" manual is my new best friend.  It's a love-hate relationship really.  Darin and I have the highest of hopes for our sweet Tessa Rayne and we are determined to make sure she gets to enjoy and learn from this life as much as the next 3 year old.  We've had some bumps in the road along our IEP path, but we are confident about, and committed to, a resolution.  I decided it was important to gather all of my thoughts and associate them with specific P&P references and put them in writing...so that's what I'm sharing here.

Helpful Abbreviations & Acronyms:
P&P - Policies & Procedures for Special Education in Oklahoma manual
IEP - Individualized Education Plan
TPC - Transition Planning Conference
IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
LEA - Local Education Agency (aka: school district)
LRE - Least Restrictive Environment
DD - Developmentally Delayed or Developmental Disability
FAPE - Free Appropriate Public Education

Note: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law that provides the regulations for early intervention, and special education and related services for children birth through age 21.  Part B outlines services for children ages three through 21, and Part C outlines services for children birth to age three and their families.  IDEA Part B is where Tessa is included now.  Part C was the SoonerStart program we were involved in over the last 3 years.

______________________________________

I’ve been going through my notes from our Transition Planning Conference from October 11, 2012 and wanted to take a minute to highlight the items that established the foundation of our original meeting.  The resource document in which we did a large part of our research was the “Transition at Age 3: Steps for Success Transition Guide” by Sandy Garrett Revised in 2005 (see pdf link included below).  This summarized the most relevant information regarding pre-school aged children with disabilities.  I will be making specific references to page 17, while also referring to several portions of the Policies and Procedures for Special Education in Oklahoma.
I've made my references to these documents in blue below.

http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/SpecEd-TransitionGuide.pdf

http://ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/SpecEd-PoliciesProcedures.pdf

Page 17 of the Transition guide focuses specifically on the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in which the child’s goals can be met.  It says “LRE is a term in the IDEA that means children with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled, to the maximum extent appropriate.”  It goes on to say “The least restrictive environment continuum for preschool-aged children with disabilities includes those early childhood settings designed primarily for children without disabilities.  These environments allow children with disabilities to participate in appropriate activities and opportunities that support children achieving age-relevant abilities and skills.  Depending on the IEP goals; modifications, supplementary aids, services, and supports may be needed.” 

On page 144 of the P&P manual regarding “Preschool Placements” it states “Options must be considered carefully when determining placement in the LRE for a preschool aged child, defined as a child aged three to Kindergarten school aged.  Placement must be considered individually, based on the unique needs of the child.”  It goes on to say on page 145 that “Some alternatives in meeting the LRE requirements include, but are not limited to: (1) participation in community-based preschools, such as Head Start, and faith-based preschools; (2) private programs for nondisabled preschool children; (3) preschool classes for children with disabilities in regular elementary schools; (4) LEA operated community/tuition based preschools; and (5) group child care.”  I would view the Yukon Community Education Early Childhood program for 3 year olds as a “(4) LEA operated community/tuition based preschool”.

On the bottom right of the page 17 attached, it outlines “Defined Placement Options Include:”…one of the options is “Part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education setting”.  This is the option that we desire Tessa’s IEP to be constructed around; based on Tessa’s inclusion in the three afternoons a week in the DD program at Central and based on Tessa’s inclusion in the Early Childhood community program for Yukon teacher’s kids at Myers Elementary school.  The combination of these two placements will allow Tessa the opportunity to participate not only in the special needs environment at Central Elementary, but also in the Least Restrictive Environment at Myers elementary in order to not isolate her achievement of abilities and skills to a special education classroom.  Tessa’s inclusion in the 3 year old Early Childhood program for teacher’s kids would be part time and her inclusion in this program should be documented in the IEP.  Her time spent at Myers Elementary in the Early Childhood program would be all day Monday, Tuesday-Thursday mornings, and all day Friday.  Her Social goals and Speech and Listening goals, at a minimum, are directly correlated to her inclusion in this community program.  Tessa’s ‘participation in appropriate activities and opportunities that support children achieving age-relevant abilities and skills’ is also directly correlated to her inclusion in this community program.

I do not have perfect clarity regarding the monthly $400 tuition required for this self-sustaining 3 year old community program.  The P&P makes a brief reference on page 142 under “Early Childhood Program” and it says “Attendance at an early childhood program need not be funded by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B funds.  If a child attends an early childhood program, the LEA must specify the amount of time the child receives special education and related services in the early childhood program.”  I understand that this is where things get very individualized for Tessa because her requirement of a one-on-one paraprofessional is a full-time requirement.  Typically, I could see how the LEA would be responsible for documenting the time and services that are rendered in a community program, that are related to special education and related services, and that those services would then be covered by the IDEA Part B funds.  Instead, in our case, it will be necessary to outline the time that will define Tessa’s “part-time” inclusion in this program, which in turn, will be directly associated with the one-on-one assistance of a paraprofessional.

I also found, in the middle section on page 145, where it says “The LEA responsible for providing a FAPE to the child is responsible for ensuring that all costs associated with special education and related services contained in the IEP are at no cost to parents whether placement is in a program operated by the LEA, another public agency, or in a private facility, community-based preschools or day care centers.”  It goes on to say “Transportation must be provided if it is a related service documented in the IEP.  The LEA is not responsible for services not documented in the IEP; therefore, unless the IEP calls for full-day placement in a community-based preschool, and/or day care, the LEA is not responsible for tuition for the full day and other expenses not related to the IEP.”   At our original TPC in October, everyone was in overwhelming agreement that the 3 year old community program would be a great part-time placement for Tessa.  The discussions of hiring Kayla, Tessa’s nanny for the last 2 years, full-time as Tessa’s one-on-one para, took place.  Discussions regarding transportation of Kayla and Tessa from Myers to Central, 3 days a week, took place.  Tessa’s inclusion in the community program should be specifically documented on the IEP to address not only the requirement of the full-time assistance of her one-on-one para, but also to address her goals specifically related to this program.

Another section in the P&P that I found very relatable to Tessa’s individualized plan is the “Nonacademic Settings” section on page 146.  It says that “LEAs must take steps in such manner as necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities when these services are available to children who are not disabled.  LEAs must ensure that children with disabilities have the supplementary aids and services determined necessary and appropriate by the IEP team to participate in any extracurricular services and activities.  To the maximum extent appropriate, each child must be provided with opportunities to participate in services and activities with peers who are nondisabled.”  It goes on to say that “Nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities may include, but are not limited to; meals, recess periods, counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, recreational activities, field trips, community work settings, special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the LEA, referrals to other service agencies, and employment of children (including both employment by LEA and by making outside employment available).”  If there is a provision in the Policy and Procedures manual regarding inclusion in nonacademic settings, it would only make sense, that we would be focusing on the inclusion in an Early Childhood program that would be a huge benefit to Tessa’s overall growth in abilities and skills at the age of 3.  The Early Childhood program is not a ‘nonacademic or extracurricular service or activity’, it is exactly what it says, an environment for early childhood development.  If the Policy and Procedures manual explains that the LEA must ensure that children with disabilities have the “supplementary aids and services determined necessary and appropriate by the IEP team” to participate in extracurricular activities, it seems the same would be absolutely true of an environment that promotes early childhood development.  The last part that I reference above from the P&P is very important: these nonacademic activities include mealtime, recess periods, transportation, and recreational activities.  These activities would exist as part of the Early Childhood program with nondisabled peers and would prove to be areas of incredible growth for Tessa.  Preschoolers thrive and learn from the environments in which they are placed.  Our son Parker learned invaluable skills and made great strides in his abilities while he was involved in this very same program.  We have the same desires for Tessa.

On page 119 of the P&P it says “Written Notice – Written notice must be given to parent(s) before the LEA proposes to change the identification and placement of the child.  The LEA may document written notice through the use of the IEP Review (OSDE Form 8) or Written Notice to Parents (OSDE Form 9)”.  We found out just a few hours before our last IEP meeting on Monday 5/13 that they would be removing Tessa’s option to be included in the Early Childhood program at Myers due to new findings on the ADA.gov and U.S. Department of Justice websites.  This piece of information changes the entire foundation of Tessa’s IEP and we were only given notice via a phone call just a few hours before our IEP meeting.

We definitely need to schedule another meeting and continue our conversations and the development of Tessa’s IEP.

_________________________________________

Now we wait.  But we are not idly waiting, we are praying for continued provision of knowledge, strength, wisdom, courage and grace.  We advocate for our children, but more importantly, we trust in the Lord's plan for our lives.  We try and use these moments in life to seek out lessons to be learned and the associated growth in our spiritual lives.  We remind ourselves to be moldable in God's plan.  When we are weary and emotional exhaustion has taken its toll, we do our best to persevere with an eternal perspective.

~Whitney