![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutToday we had the PT Eval meeting. I went into it knowing perfectly well that the plan was to deny the PT services (I had requested a PT eval). And my son had come home months earlier saying that they intended to deny services — way, way, way before they even did the eval.
But at yesterday’s meeting, I pointed out that my main objection to the eval was that the reference population used as the basis for “he’s performing just fine and thus does not need services” was the CASE population. Not the general population. And that is, straight up, an error. So we went around on that for a while, and then I said, you know? Let’s just entertain this possible solution. How about we just do a few consults?
That was another nope, can’t do that, no goal, etc. So then I said, fine, I’m requesting another PT eval for next year’s IEP meeting, which is the big 3 year meeting, rather than the annual review. Crickets. “I’ve never had anyone request one of those a year ahead of time.”
We discussed what was going on, we discussed exercises, we discussed orthotics, we discussed how T. went from being a toe walker to a walk-on-and-flatten-his-arches-while-stomping walker in under a year. I said, hey, I just want someone paying attention to this and incrementally adjusting the exercises the aides are doing so we don’t have another unpleasant surprise. We discussed growth programs, and whether puberty had started or not (ha ha ha ha ha. No. I’ve seen the pubic hair. I’m not an idiot.), and what his probable end height would be.
Currently, there is no goal, but I’m getting my consults and it is going to be wedged into a comment somewhere in the IEP. I think the underlying rationale here is that they don’t hate us, and honestly, 2-3 consults over the next few months are cheaper than a full re-eval in a year.
So, you know, if that kind of perspective is useful to you, there it is.
But at yesterday’s meeting, I pointed out that my main objection to the eval was that the reference population used as the basis for “he’s performing just fine and thus does not need services” was the CASE population. Not the general population. And that is, straight up, an error. So we went around on that for a while, and then I said, you know? Let’s just entertain this possible solution. How about we just do a few consults?
That was another nope, can’t do that, no goal, etc. So then I said, fine, I’m requesting another PT eval for next year’s IEP meeting, which is the big 3 year meeting, rather than the annual review. Crickets. “I’ve never had anyone request one of those a year ahead of time.”
We discussed what was going on, we discussed exercises, we discussed orthotics, we discussed how T. went from being a toe walker to a walk-on-and-flatten-his-arches-while-stomping walker in under a year. I said, hey, I just want someone paying attention to this and incrementally adjusting the exercises the aides are doing so we don’t have another unpleasant surprise. We discussed growth programs, and whether puberty had started or not (ha ha ha ha ha. No. I’ve seen the pubic hair. I’m not an idiot.), and what his probable end height would be.
Currently, there is no goal, but I’m getting my consults and it is going to be wedged into a comment somewhere in the IEP. I think the underlying rationale here is that they don’t hate us, and honestly, 2-3 consults over the next few months are cheaper than a full re-eval in a year.
So, you know, if that kind of perspective is useful to you, there it is.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-22 05:20 pm (UTC)