When Nick was 13 and in the sixth grade, our local school system hired a new superintendent. These were the days when the favored special education label was "learning disabled" and money was being made available to districts for programs for students with learning disabilities (LD). Thus, the new superintendent decided that all children in special education programs in the district should be re-evaluated to determine if they would qualify as student with LD. What that meant for Nick and our family was inappropriate testing, inappropriate labeling, and inappropriate programming. It also presented a learning opportunity and what follows is what I learned.
I learned that how a child is "labeled" often does, but does not necessarily have to, affect their school services. I learned that parents have the right to demand services for their children even if that means cross-districting, that is, schooling them outside of their home district. I also learned that teachers that you have worked with over a number of years can become staunch allies when you feel as though you are being "pushed around" by the system. I also learned that I could, and needed to, review all of Nick's records on an annual or semi-annual basis and request copies of anything that I felt was important information for his "Master File" that I kept at home.
So this is what happened. Although Nick had been diagnosed and "labeled" educably mentally impaired and speech- and language-impaired for many years, the new superintendent wanted as many kids as possible also labeled LD. This happened and resultantly Nick's services were decreased, even though funding for programs was increased. What I then needed to do, after many failed meetings with the school personnel, was to hire a well-known independent psychologist to retest Nick. This person was an expert and widely published in the LD field. He then attended an IEPC which I requested be convened and presented his findings, which included recommendations for long-term programming to maximize Nick's strengths versus trying to compensate for his weaknesses. The "label" was reverted back to EMI, which it had been for at least eight years, and programming was restored. But something else also happened.
Although this effort was costly, time-consuming, frustrating, and difficult, it opened my eyes to how powerful the use of an outside resource could be to help everyone take a fresh look at Nick's needs. Earlier, I alluded briefly to the fact that we needed to take a practical approach to Nick's education. It was during the unfolding of these events that this was crystallized. We shifted dramatically from a focus on deficit to a focus on maximizing strengths; however, not without some difficult, painful and contentious meetings. With that the flavor of the IEPC meetings also changed. We talked about what Nick did really well, like his ability to recognize places that he had been, or his easygoing nature and willingness to help others. We also began to engage in more focused discussions about Nick's long-term educational opportunities and where his needs would be best met.