The situation begins unfortunate from the start. Bertha, the person who is in charge of testing children for special education placement in the school district lacked communication with Tyler’s mother Cindy. Bertha would not answer and return emails, phone calls, and consistently would change the dates to meet Cindy to discuss concerns about her son Tyler’s education. This caused Cindy to go visit the elementary school that Tyler would be attending. Cindy has a very busy schedule and since she had time to spare, she thought that this would be a good opportunity. The personnel that Cindy encountered when she visited the school were not friendly and welcoming. This caused Cindy to feel uneasy about visiting the school. There was an unwritten
…show more content…
Bertha, who lacked communicating with Cindy and consistently moving back the meeting day was not only unprofessional, but also delayed by months. Bertha also did not arrange and discuss an appropriate time and date that would work for the meeting, instead she told Cindy what day would work for her. This is also very unprofessional and the time and date should revolve around the child’s family (Tyler and Cindy), rather than Bertha. Once Tyler’s IQ scores were received, Bertha did not want to inform Cindy about his scores. Without informing Cindy about these results, this is breaking the Rights and Responsibilities for parents-2004 stated by Berger and Riojas-Cortez, “Parents have the right to inspect and review all records relating to their child that a public agency collects, maintains, or uses regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child” (pg.269). Therefore, Cindy has the right to know what her son Tyler’s IQ scores are as well as what his IQ scores entails in regards to his education. Bertha also made the conclusion that Tyler should be labeled as trainable mentally handicapped. She made this assumption solely based on Tyler’s IQ score. Berger and Riojas-Cortez state that, “Placement must be based on the use of tests and other evaluations that evaluate specific areas of need, not solely a single intelligence quotient” (pg. 261). Bertha should not have made this assumption based on Tyler’s low IQ score, rather she should have evaluated Tyler and not jump to conclusion. For the scheduling of the IEP meeting again, Bertha set a time and date that only worked with her personal schedule and did not ask Cindy what days and times would work with her schedule in regards to Tyler’s IEP meeting. This is not only unprofessional, but also creates a message that Cindy’s personal life and busy schedule is not a concern
Bertha, who lacked communicating with Cindy and consistently moving back the meeting day was not only unprofessional, but also delayed by months. Bertha also did not arrange and discuss an appropriate time and date that would work for the meeting, instead she told Cindy what day would work for her. This is also very unprofessional and the time and date should revolve around the child’s family (Tyler and Cindy), rather than Bertha. Once Tyler’s IQ scores were received, Bertha did not want to inform Cindy about his scores. Without informing Cindy about these results, this is breaking the Rights and Responsibilities for parents-2004 stated by Berger and Riojas-Cortez, “Parents have the right to inspect and review all records relating to their child that a public agency collects, maintains, or uses regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child” (pg.269). Therefore, Cindy has the right to know what her son Tyler’s IQ scores are as well as what his IQ scores entails in regards to his education. Bertha also made the conclusion that Tyler should be labeled as trainable mentally handicapped. She made this assumption solely based on Tyler’s IQ score. Berger and Riojas-Cortez state that, “Placement must be based on the use of tests and other evaluations that evaluate specific areas of need, not solely a single intelligence quotient” (pg. 261). Bertha should not have made this assumption based on Tyler’s low IQ score, rather she should have evaluated Tyler and not jump to conclusion. For the scheduling of the IEP meeting again, Bertha set a time and date that only worked with her personal schedule and did not ask Cindy what days and times would work with her schedule in regards to Tyler’s IEP meeting. This is not only unprofessional, but also creates a message that Cindy’s personal life and busy schedule is not a concern