policy not to test k-garteners

[lordhelpme]

i was talking to my easy child's former dance aid who is a student teacher is k-garten class. she was told that it is district policy not to test this age group even if the teachers suspect emotional impairment.

? sorry but that is exactly why my difficult child didn't get anything more than the school sw observation after i asked in writing for her to see him cuz i knew something was not right. i know it is a moot point now but what about all those kids coming in the school in the future? is this a general policy everywhere? now wonder there are so many of us with-1st and 2nd graders just scrambling to get help!

 

[Sheila]

This policy -- written or unwritten -- is a noncompliance issue.

I'd bet money that this "policy" is not in writing; rather it's an unwritten rule.

This type misinformation gets passed to teachers in in-service meeting settings, training sessions, or something one teacher has been told by an administrator and it gets passed along to other teachers.

The school of hard knocks taught me that when "policy" is mentioned, ask for a copy of it. Kind of a trust, but verify method. lol

At the least, unwritten rules contrary to the law, contribute to the problem.

 

[PollyParent]

School Districts, at least in California, are mandated to provide services for all children from age three (in preschool) until they turn 22. School Districts operate the programs for kids ages 3 to school age under a separate grant than the K-12 program.

OK, so that being said, they really do have to test young children well before they enter grade one.

The staff may be getting a broad hint to cut down on the numbers of identified children by making testing less accessible to Kindergartners, but I'd ask for a copy of that policy if I were you. (Speaking as a Board Member who just spent most of last year reviewing and updating rather ancient policies in our district. Some of them had last date of review: 1989. Think some laws have changed since then?)

PollyParent

 

[Sheila]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">School Districts, at least in California, are mandated to provide services for all children from age three (in preschool) until they turn 22. </div></div>

If you're speaking of IDEA/IEP, that holds true across the USA. It's a Federal law. States must adopt it, or they don't get federal money.

For newcomers, the Federal regs can be viewed as minimum requirements. School districts can do more than required if they so choose.

There are areas of IDEA that are silent. It's my understanding that in these instances, the States are allowed to create their own rules/regs. For this reason, it's a good practice to be familiar with IDEA and your State special education and disability laws.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">spent most of last year reviewing and updating rather ancient policies in our district. Some of them had last date of review: 1989. </div></div>

Special education policies also? I'd find that amazing! But it wouldn't change the fact that changes in the law had been tendered from the US Dept of Ed to State Ed Agencies, and from SEAs to their school districts.

Another reason to "trust by verify."

For those that are not aware, State law supercedes sd policy and
Federal law supercedes state law.

 

[PollyParent]

Most recent legislation or legal opinions ALWAYS supercede School District policies. School Districts must operate in a lawful manner in accordance with state and federal laws.

It's just that if staff isn't keeping on top of updating the policies (we get formal update notices three times a year from our state School Board Association), then school district staff is not aware that the laws have changed and that district practice must change.

If the sd doesn't update, and it refers back to an obsolete policy in attempting to support sd practice ("We were just following our policies!") the sd can land in more and more hot water for carrying on obsolete practices without regard to the law.

Which is another reason for parents to really know their laws. Just because the District is DOING it doesn't necessarily mean that they are allowed to.

(Yes, there were a variety of discipline and behavior policies referring to Special Education students which had not been updated for more than a decade. Scary. We also had an "attendance boundaries by home address" policy which did not include an entire school. The school was built in 1987. Obviously district practice had been placing those children into schools, and there was documentation in the District Office relative to that practice, but no one had bothered to update the policy, or to apparently read it and discover how very out of compliance we were. And we have gone through four State Compliance reviews since that school was built. But that policy never showed up on their random audits.)

PollyParent