Yesterday was Miss Kat's IEP. It did not go well. I left the meeting with absolutely no changes to her services or classroom. I cried, the program director cried, her teacher cried. But they were more worried about keeping their "program philosophy" intact than getting Miss Kat the things she needs.
They told me they were unwilling to give her an interpreter to voice during the voice-off class times. They told me they would not give her spoken language time, and they told me they would not give her AVT. They said that if I didn't like it, we can move her to an oral only school. I DON'T WANT ORAL-ONLY!!! I told them that I want Miss Kat to be BI-lingual. I don't want to take away ASL. They even said that the point of the oral only class would be to "wean her off signing".
I asked why she couldn't have these services, and they told me because it goes against their "bi-bi philosophy". Is that a legal argument? I thought that if we as a team decided that a service was appropriate for Miss Kat, than she needed to get it? How is having a CI user in a voice-off school for 6 hours a day the "Least Restrictive Environment"? Again, they the offered oral-only class. HOW IS PUTTING AN ASL USER IN A CLASS WITH TEACHERS WHO KNOW ZERO SIGN BETTER????
Then I asked if we can just change from a classic "speech" pullout to an auditory/aural rehab (AVT) one. Again, they said no. They said that they can't support AVT at the school. So much for "individual" education plan. They admitted she needs that, but they won't provide it......
So, what do we do now? I am dumbfounded. I feel like we are stuck. Why does our state have to be so backward? Why can't they attempt to see the big picture?
I sent the school an email:
I have a few questions about the IEP meeting we had yesterday. It was my impression that there were a few items that were not finished.
My first question has to do with the auditory rehab that Katrina needs for her cochlear implant. It was my impression that Katrina will not be given the appropriate rehab. If that is the case, I would like, in writing, the reason for denial of that service.
Next, we very briefly discussed a "voice interpreter" in her classroom, and again that service was denied. I would like to know the legal reason that was denied as well.
I also felt that we never established appropriate auditory/aural and speech goals. I believe it is very important that Katrina makes at least one years progress in one years time, so we need to have goals that reflect that.
Lastly, I believe that the services that (teacher) is providing in the classroom, as far as listening times, and oral language development need to be noted on the IEP so that we can all be sure that those times will continued in Katrina's next classroom.
I hope this will start the dialogue again. I am going to continue to push. We are going to leave Miss Kat in her current placement, but I am going to fight this battle. I am looking into the option of starting due process now.