Susan Levy
When I attended the January 24, 2012 CCUSD School Board Meeting, I had no intention of taking a turn at the podium. Although I have a lot to say on a range of topics, I am rather timid when it comes to sharing my ideas in an open forum; however, on this particular occasion, presentations related to CCUSD Special Education helped me find my voice.
I have spent the past six years obtaining and keeping the appropriate special education services for my child. Despite legal requirements that input from several sources should be given consideration during a special education assessment, I never felt the parents’ contribution was given much weight. That attitude does not take into account that we probably know our offspring better than anyone else.
I believe the most significant driving force behind CCUSD’s Special Education services is saving money, not spending it appropriately. The services are mandated by law, but times are tough, and despite the district’s core values that children come first, there are many parents who view this belief as self-serving. If a child is given the usual battery of tests and passes, he/she is considered not to need special services despite other information to the contrary from teachers, counselors, parents and a host of other professionals.
Our child passed the above-mentioned tests and was denied special education services despite the fact that we adopted him when he was a pre-teen. When children are adopted after the age of two, the State and the Federal Government give these children “special needs” status, which makes their adoptive parents eligible for additional funding for future psychological and medical needs. CCUSD obviously does not view “special needs” in the same light as the State and/or the Federal Government.
After being denied services, we regrouped and requested another meeting, at which time our child was given an IEP (Individualized Education Program) for an “Emotional Disturbance.” This was not an easy task because we had to bring in several outside people, test results and letters to persuade CCUSD that our child required Special Education services. I suspect we were luckier than most parents because of our affiliation with a UCLA Program called “Ties for Adoption,” which provided the free assistance used to convince the district of our child’s obvious needs. We had access to neuropsychiatric testing (provided report), family and child counselors (attended meeting), a child psychiatrist (provided diagnosis and recommendation), a special education consultant (attended meeting), and a private tutor (attended meeting). The above people and/or their reports, as well as my child’s two parents, outnumbered the district’s personnel at the second IEP meeting.
We were pleased with the District’s level of commitment and services at Culver City Middle School; unfortunately, services at Culver City High School have been meager and not very effective. I have asked that my child receive better service, but to no avail. Although there is something called an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Due Process Complaint (if the ADR proves ineffective), none of us want to endure any more of this nonsense. It would be more cost/time effective for CCUSD and everyone else if my child could leave high school with six additional weeks of speech therapy (he has lapsed into some of his old habits, possibly due to recent emotional upheavals). I know this would cost a few hundred dollars, but I thought the District cared about its students’ well-being. I guess CCUSD prefers to waste several hundred thousand dollars litigating against the children it is supposed to protect.
Susan Levy is a parent of a student at Culver City High School.
No comments:
Post a Comment