For the Record

We, [MAO] and [EBO], parents of [FMO], disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of the reports by [LW] and [AM]. While both assessments contain some content which we do not dispute as true, [FMO]'s IEP shall reflect that we deem the assessments invalid, and reject both reports in entirety. The reasons are stated below.

We observed the assessments executed by [LW] and [AM] to lack accommodations for [FMO]'s disability, an Auditory Processing Disorder, a condition we informed them he had. [LW] referred [FMO] to [AM] under the false pretense that she required a psychological evaluation to complete her speech assessment.  She was not forthcoming with us about her presumption that [FMO] is Autistic, which became apparent when [AM] requested we submit to Autism screening tests prior to her meeting [FMO] in person.

The linear steps of the IEP process were circumvented. Placement recommendations were made before the team had identified [FMO]'s needs, determined appropriate services, or revised measurable annual goals. The recommendation was made for [FMO] to attend an SDC (Special Day Class), specifically for students with Autism. An SDC is a far more restrictive environment than [FMO]'s previous placement in a State Preschool classroom, where he had achieved documented successes and measured progress. Placing him in the SDC violates his right, guaranteed by the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), to obtain a FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education) in the LRE (Least Restrictive Environment).

[LW] proposed goals for substantially lower levels of attention and performance compared both to [FMO]'s previous IEP goals and to what he was reported to have achieved by his previous speech therapist, [LH] and his previous teacher, [TG]. This indicates [LW]'s lack of attention to reports of [FMO]'s current levels of performance and progress on his goals, and inaccurate observations of his abilities.

[AM] indicated that, prior to meeting us, she had knowledge of Dr. Stephen Camarata of the Late Talking Foundation at Vanderbilt University, the doctor who evaluated [FMO] and informed us that he has an Auditory Processing Disorder. Included in [AM]'s report, were her telephone interviews with [FMO]'s previous teacher, [TG], and his previous speech therapist, [LH]. She conducted no interview with any staff at the Late Talking Foundation. Neither [LW] nor [AM] established contact with Dr. or Mrs. Camarata despite our multiple requests for them to do so. [AM]'s assessment is incomplete, and her conduct suggests a bias against [FMO]'s doctor.

[AM] stated, in an IEP team meeting, that she had been under the false impression that, in order for [FMO] to qualify for placement in a Special Day Class, one specifically for students with Autism, he would need to change from his current eligibility category, "Speech Language Impairment", to the eligibility category of "Autistic-like". [AM]'s statement indicates that she had preconceived opinions about [FMO]'s diagnosis, based on [LW]'s referral for Autism screening, and that she had an agenda to produce documentation supporting a proposed change of [FMO]'s eligibility category. [AM]'s report is factually inaccurate, including fabricated information regarding [FMO]'s history, and his behavior during her observations. One or both of [FMO]'s parents observed him at all times during his participation in the classroom and during all assessments.

Because our repeated requests for [LW] and [AM] to contact Dr. or Mrs. Camarata had been ignored, [CR], independent child advocate requested, on our behalf, that Superintendent of the [POU] School District, [JS], contact Dr. Camarata to request his presence at an IEP meeting. She informed Dr. Camarata by email of the potential dates for the meeting. He returned an email indicating which date he was available. [JS] did not respond to the email or confirm with Dr. Camarata that the date for the IEP meeting was set. The continued lack of follow-through across the board displays a lack of competency by the team as a whole.

For the reasons stated above, and additional reasons not stated herein, we, [FMO]'s parents, reject and discount the validity of all content contained in his IEP and cumulative file which was accumulated while he was a resident of the [POU] School District in 2011. Service providers have not acted competently to identify and meet the needs of our son. The LEA (Local Education Agency) has not fulfilled its legal obligations to serve [FMO].