Firstborn: Logical and Fair

On June 21, 2005 the interim superintendent responded to my letter. He said that he would accept my letter as my formal complaint against the learning consultant and investigate the matter IMMEDIATELY!

He also directed me to to the Board’s Business Administrator for filing a torts claim notice.

Lastly, he claimed he was unaware how to file a complaint against someone professional license. He said that the New Jersey State Department of Education was in charge of licensing.

Despite the fact that the interim superintendent had been rotten to me from his first day on the job, perhaps he was catching on to the conduct of the child study team members? Maybe he’d make an example of the learning consultant? Maybe I’d get at least an apology and the team would treat me as an equal from now on? Or maybe they’d finally treat me with some respect? Could this be or did I have high hopes? Only time would tell.

In the meantime, I needed to start preparing for my second Due Process. I started to do some research. I contacted Tech Connection a non-profit organization in New Jersey committed to helping children, adolescents and people of all ages with disAbilities to reach their fullest potential.

They wrote back:

“In Response to your email and our phone conversation, please find my opinion on the matter below:”

“I am sure you have the below statement of the law on using assistive technology in the home. But I will reiterate the law for those that might read this email and are not familiar with the law:”

“Does the district have to send the assistive technology home?”

“The IEP team must decide if the assistive technology is needed at home. The law states:”

“On a case-by-case basis, the use of school-purchased assistive technology devices in a child’s home or in other settings is required if the child’s IEP team determines that the child needs access to those devices in order to receive FAPE. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(12)(B)(i))

Reed, P. (2001). Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative 3″

“Although the law is not crystal clear on assistive technology for the students’ home use, in my opinion, it is only logical and fair that if the student needs to utilize assistive technology in the school setting, then he will also need to use it in the home environment. If a child has reading and writing challenges in school, I do not believe he is magically cured of these challenges on his way home. It seems unfair to have a child struggle at home when much of the writing and reading does take place for homework.”

“Please feel free to call me if you have any additional questions.”

But was the child study team logical and fair? Or were they again worried about setting precedent and money?

Copyrighted 2011: danadogooder and DMT


About danadogooder

Happily married for 20 years except when he is pissing me off! ' Mommy of 3 boys, a yellow female lab named Curious, 2 kitties Trouble and Kornelia, and bird and fish! Yes, we have a Zoo! Love to cook, entertain, and travel. I give new meaning to, "You can't fight city hall" Cause I fought worse, "Yes, The Board of Ed! " I live in a houseful of ADHD, Dyslexia, Auditory Processing, Sensory Integration and Allergies!!! I love being a Mom, to have fun and am always joking around! My job titles are: Wife, Mommy, Advocate, Friend, Maid, Cook, Self Employed Business Owner among many others!
This entry was posted in Education, Parenting, Special Education and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Firstborn: Logical and Fair

  1. Pingback: Firstborn: Logical and Fair | Γονείς σε Δράση

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s