Due to the high volume of calls, we're experiencing a higher-than-usual backlog.

We appreciate your patience. In the meantime, please refer to our Resource Directory, Special Education Legal Library, or Insurance Portal as needed on our website while you're waiting

Gala 2023MORE INFO

Lessons Learned from Lina's Three-Year Evaluation

Lessons Learned from Lina's Three-Year Evaluation

A parent offers a window into the process of a public school's three-year evaluation for special education services.

Trish is mom to 8-year-old Lina who has autism spectrum disorder, and is also one of WAAA’s Family Resource Coordinators.  Earlier this year, Lina had her three-year evaluation for special education services.  Lina attends a public school, spending part of her day in an intensive learning support class and part of the time in a regular classroom.

Students in Washington enrolled in special education are reevaluated for services every three years. This can be a high stakes process. In this story, Trish reflects on what happened, what she wished had happened differently, and her plans for future evaluations. 

trish-lina

What Happened:

At our first three year evaluation meeting the Occupational Therapist (OT) was not present and there was no OT portion of the evaluation filled out. Lina’s teacher and the school’s psychologist, who is also the IEP case manager, informed me there is not an OT assigned to the school.

I requested and got an OT assigned to the school. I did this by contacting the District head of special education for elementary/PT and OT via email who is the same person in our district and letting him know that services were not being provided to my daughter and her evaluation could not be completed until an OT was assigned to the school.

The new OT called and arranged for Lina to come to the therapy center for an evaluation.

The OT did one session of standardized testing at the therapy center.  When I dropped Lina off she revealed she had not read any of Lina’s file.  She had only been given Lina’s name, my phone number and Lina’s age/primary diagnosis. She told me that she would evaluate fine motor skills.

Mistakes I made: I agreed to this over the phone, and did not send a confirmation email. I assumed she had all the information needed to do her assessment.

What this means:

Her evaluation was not individualized to Lina. She was not gathering information from a variety of sources.

What I did:

I went home and got private therapy notes from our PT/VT and asked that she read and consider them.

I explained that Lina has additional diagnosis of Abnormality of Gait, Vestibular Processing Deficit and Duane’s Syndrome that relate to OT.

What happened:

The OT indicated she did not know what Abnormality of Gait or Daune’s syndrome were but that these were more suited for the PT to evaluate or our private therapists to handle. She told me that the Vision teachers were not something Lina would have access to as she is not blind. We had a strained conversation about the districts evaluation policies.  She said that this year she has begun to evaluate some ball skills in her assessments.

What this means:

The OT has violated the law for full and compressive evaluations for all areas of suspected disability.  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=392-172A-03020 I got the impression that she is a gatekeeper to services and was not pleased that I had asked for an OT to be assigned to Lina’s school. I had created more work for her.

Mistakes I made:  I engaged in a conversation based on emotion about the districts evaluation procedures instead of waiting and getting the information later when I wasn’t upset.

What Happened:

When I returned to pick up Lina the OT was reluctant to accept the private therapy notes (did not seem to understand why she might want them). She said Lina had done very well on all fine motor skills and though she had not scored the fine motor assessments she would likely not qualify for OT.

What I did:

I requested a Sensory Profile for myself and Lina’s teacher.

Mistakes I made:  I didn’t ask for the name of the Sensory Profile provided to Lina’s teacher. I assumed the tests would be the same.

What this means:  The OT has violated the law for Prior Written Notice and pre-determined services without doing a full and comprehensive evaluation for all areas of suspected disability. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=392-172A-03020

  • I have grounds for a re-evaluation by another OT within the school or Independent Education Evaluation.

The OT three year results;

Lina no longer qualifies for Occupational Therapy in her IEP but continues to qualify for OT as related service (accommodations in the classroom) based on Sensory. The OT told us that Lina did well doing mazes, using scissors and other fine motor tasks.

Lina scored low on sensory integration, visual integration and vestibular in my sensory profile. Lina scored low on sensory and visual integration on her teacher’s sensory profile but vestibular was not included. The tests used do not have similar questions and were not comparable.

From the OT’s standardized testing Lina scored average on Visual Integration and vestibular processing.

What this means:   There is a large discrepancy between the private visual assessments and physical therapy assessments, parent assessment, teachers assessment and the OT’s assessments.

What Happened:

She mentioned that we are addressing Lina’s vestibular deficits in private therapy. I said that this should be addressed at school as well.

Her response was that they do not see this at school.

What this means:

The OT is not familiar with the requirements for the “functional” portion of assessments and has unknowingly violated the law: http://www.wrightslaw.com/howey/iep.functional.perf.htm

What Happened:

Lina’s teacher made mention of walking Lina around the school when she was frustrated; her teacher does not have good working knowledge of vestibular challenges. The OT explained vestibular processing challenges as a child who might want to swing a lot but have trouble doing so.  The school Lina attends does not have a swing set.

The OT told me that she visits the classroom once a week (not to see Lina in particular) at the same time of day and has not seen Lina having a hard time.

What this means: The OT did not observe Lina in a variety of settings to get an overview of her vestibular processing, visual integration or sensory needs.  Her evaluation is not individualized to Lina. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=392-172A-03020

What I did:  I requested that during our upcoming IEP meeting the OT write specific accommodations for the OT Related Service. She replied that that is not usually done. I said that it would be wonderful if she would do so and that there are specific recommendations for school in the PT private therapy notes for her to work from.

She stated she hadn’t read them but would look them over (she emailed me the next day to return them).

What this means:  The OT may not understand the law in regards to individualized evaluations or taking information from a variety of sources. She may be offended that I asked her to review the Private Therapy notes or she may feel that she is an expert and doesn’t need to read them.

What I did: I asked for a consent form for the PT notes to be placed in Lina’s legal file with the district. I also asked the OT to speak over the phone or in an email with Heidi Sanford, PT about creating accommodations in the IEP for Related Service OT. She agreed to do so.

What I would like to see happen:  I would like for the OT to speak with Heidi prior to our IEP meeting on the 19th of Dec. This will ensure she gets an idea of Lina’s unique needs and does get information from a variety of sources. Lina is spending more time in general education and it would be beneficial to have good accommodations written for sensory.

Why I choose to pursue accommodations and not a reevaluation:

While I could argue that the OT has broken the law, and have her to redo the evaluation.  I don’t think see a benefit for Lina.

I don’t want the OT working directly with Lina as an Occupation Therapist.  She doesn’t understand Lina’s disability or her strengths, and is resistant to learning about Lina.

If I had pointed out her legal mistakes during the evaluation results meeting this would have made me seem overly critical and an antagonist to the entire team.

Ultimate Goal: I would like to work positively with the OT, Heidi and Lina’s teacher to create accommodations that will work well for Lina for OT as a Related Service.

My plans for the future: I don’t think the OT wants to stay as the OT for our school. When the district hires another OT for the school I will request a re-evaluation for services, using the prior mistakes made by the OT as a basis, if I feel the accommodations in the classroom are not sufficient.

 

Share this article 

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

phonemap-markercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram