Question Thank you for the recent answer. Here is where it gets bizarre. I asked for a new tech eval. The new tech eval was by someone who claimed no knowledge in speech and language or academic software. the school themselves said they couldnt find someone qualified. This is when all the dark stuff came out about the first tech eval. For the first tech eval, i signed consent. I received NOTHING via report. The evaluator was nice and I was hopeful. He wanted to do further evaluations (said in his report) but I guess the school put the kibosh on it. They told me the evaluator said he couldn't recommend any software. I had no idea I was supposed to get a report. Fast forward years later to another evaluation (because my son is so responsive to software) and they get a handwriting/typing consultant to do this evaluation. She gave my son handwriting tests for the tech eval. I'm not making this up. There we got a report which was useless along with a lame recommendation to type (duh) and to maybe use software for scheduling. The school said they knew she wasn't qualified but they couldn't find anyone else. What else am I supposed to do? The person in charge lied about the first eval and said we didn't qualify. Once we got the report we found out it wasn't true. The whole thing was useless and token and dishonest. Not sure who to complain to or what to write. They seem very anti software even if a child works better this way. It's not right.
to be clear-two years ago my son got a tech eval. The evaluator was nice, spoke to me briefly at a meeting. I signed consent, I dont know what else may have been it, it seemed to me to only be consent to do the eval. The person then in charge said the evaluator didn't have any software. no report was sent, no meeting, I dont even know what the law is here. Fast forward two years we request a tech eval. It's done by a handwriting specialist. SHe observes my son writes derisively about him and recommends typing over handwriting though he did pretty well with the handwriting and some scheduling software. Why do that? The school says it doesn't have a tech evaluator. This time they sent the report and had a meeting at which point I asked about the original tech eval and was told my son didn't qualify. When I got the report. the opposite was indicated, that further evaluation was necessary and home observation recommended. This was more than two years ago but I didn't know I was lied to.
I believe you have the basis for a Compliance Complaint though it is a bit of a stretch. The basis for this is that you signed the current Assessment Plan and they did not use a qualified assessor. You can only go back one year so you have to focus on the latest go around. The other option is to file for Due Process. But here again you will be limited to the most recent fiasco because you can only go back two years. You can introduce the previous fiasco to prove this is an ongoing failure by the district. The basis for your filing is that they used an assessor not qualified for assessing for the unique needs of your son.
The other option is to contact the superintendent and school board to tell them about the two fiascos and ask for an assessment by a qualified assessor. You should do this in a letter. In fact, all future correspondence should be in writing. You are allowed to call for and make audio recording (must notice this 1 school day ahead of meeting) of an IEP in which you demand that the assessment be repeated by a person qualified to evaluate the unique needs of your son.
Questions concerning special education: IEP, assessments, Due Process, mediation, resolution conference, federal law, state law, qualifying for services, residential treatment, special day classes, resource specialists, procedures, having your child assessed, adaptive PE, speech & language, non-public school, FAPE, and tuition reimbursement.
I have been an education advocate representing students and parents for six years. My experience includes: representing my clients in IEPs, SSTs, Due Process, review assessment results for my clients, and mediations. I have represented clients with learning disabilities, autism, Downs Syndrome, cognitively challenged, emotional problems, learning disabilities, ADD/ADHD, and physical disabilities. I have also represented clients to County Mental Health Departments and Regional Centers. My clients range from pre-school to college students in many states.
Education/Credentials I have a degree in Mathematics from the University of California with minors in Psychology and Physics. I also studied applied statistics in psychology at the graduate level. I have taught college classes, conducted seminars, written articles for various publications, and testified as an expert witness.