OHI vs. LD and a school's motivation

[d]

In that past few months, I've come across two instances where the school either already has or was recommending to change a kid's IEP classification from LD to OHI.

Both have ADHD, but their LD's are profound and secondary to their ADHD. In fact, for one child (LD, CAPD, PDD and only possibly ADHD), the school is really pushing for OHI, most recently using CAPD as the basis but has been trying to tell the parents for the last year+ before the recent CAPD dx, that untreated ADHD was causing all the kid's problems.

I just don't get it. Bc if a child is classified, theoretically all needs are covered, right? Or does this have something to do with my child who was classified OHI in elem school and the school refusing to recognize that her reading issues needed SDI, but is classified LD in HS so that it will be easier for her to get SAT accoms (said somewhat that way by the school psych)?

I am just stunned bc my child aside, these kids that the school (one my district, one the town next door) is really pushing OHI for severe, profoundly LD kids and you guessed it, the schools are doing both of these children a serious serious serious disservice. So, why??? I am just really thick in getting it?

[sld123]

it is supposed to be services for identified needs, not the label

[michellea]

SLD is right - the primary category shouldn't matter. Once a child has an IEP, they qualify for goals and services in EVERY area of need.

I have seen districts use a mental health diagnosis to avoid addressing academic needs. This shouldn't happen, but some TEAMS like to blame the child for not learning rather than taking the time and resources to provide the environment, remediation and accommodations to help the child.

I always recommend that for children with multiple disabilities and a primary category other than LD, that the ACADEMIC goals be listed first. While the "order" shouldn't matter, I believe that listing reading, writing, or math first sends a message that these issues are of primary importance.

[Mayleng]

Maybe in your area (and you know your SDs tend to make up their own rules), under OHI they can blame it on the "disorder" and don't feel the need to remediate with special multisensory programs unlike SLD. They can just blame it on the child and say it is a medical condition.

[d]

Silly silly me. The % OHI classified kids #'s are trending up and naively I thought that was for all those ADHDers with borderline LD #'s.

My dd's LD IEP says her second language exemption is due to her "ADHD issues".

This stuff is truly unbelievable. Years and years later even when you think you've heard everything, it just keeps getting better doesn't it? I still find this stuff so ironic bc the reason I send my kids to school is life is a learning experience and therefore critical thinking skills are an extremely important life skill. I've "entrusted" both my kids to the public school system (and by now you all know how much "trust" I have in them), yet all those 'academic types' (yeah right, sorry Gina this doesn't apply to you) running the schools don't seem to have any critical thinking skills themselves much less apply them to their jobs.

Three more years of this for older ADHD/LD dd (and me). Thankfully, younger dd so far seems to make it through the public school system unscathed. She's the type of kid that can do well/fine with almost any type of teacher and need no special considerations. So, I can't wait for older dd to be done with the public school system.

[mamak]

Upon providing you with appropriate testing which confirms that they have fully remediated and or cured your child's learning disabilities you may "consider" removing SLD from the IEP but until they do that tell them to pack sand!

As soon as my son was diagnosed with ADHD and DP looming in the future, they tried to stick us with the reason he was not learning as the underlying cause of his LD (not the D word). It all came down to the school not teaching and confirmed by the 310 hours of LMB they have or will be providing. It is their big escape clause and keeps them from taking responsibility for their lack of appropriate programs. The next school in same district took his ADHD lable off of his IEP because she didn't see it and had no real knowlege of what inattentive looks like without the bouncing off the wall symptoms accompanying them .

Even though the label is not supposed to drive the services, it does and it also drives the attitude of those providing them who lack basic knowledge of what learning disabilities really are. Proven by each RSP I have had the displeasure of working with my child. Of course this is just my humble opinion. ED and ADHD allows them to say they have no control over the situation and write the kids off unless you can get them to actually follow the laws that are suposed to be protecting them.

[lillian12]

Sounds to me like it be a difference in getting money vs. getting money AND providing remediation. With a dxed LD, the school is suppose to provide specialized instruction to remediate the LD. Perhaps, that's more expensive than just labeling ADHD, particularly in this day and age of inclusion. They get money for their ADHD kids, but they aren't providing many services from what I am seeing and hearing.

I agree that all a child's needs are suppose to be met in an IEP, but I don't see that happening here. The label on the IEP definitely drives what few services the school district actually provides.

[healthy11]

llinois allows a "primary" and "secondary" IEP classification, and both OHI and SLD were listed for my son, for his ADHD and reading/writing issues. The school rep stated "it doesn't matter which is which, since all needs are supposed to be met in the IEP.

What I later discovered is that my state guidelines indicate the maximum number of students who have a given primary IEP eligibility that may be assigned to the same classroom... More students with an OHI designation can be "grouped together" than the number of students with a primary SLD designation... So, at least in my state, while services to a student on an IEP are supposed to be individualized to meet all their needs, the LRE class setting that the student is in seems to differ...

[nvrsaynvr]

"Even though the label is not supposed to drive the services, it does and it also drives the attitude of those providing them who lack basic knowledge of what learning disabilities really are."

This is so true!

In our SD the big push is to keep kids from getting an Autism classification. If a student has a cleft palate and autism, the classification is OHI. If a student has Downs Syndrome and Autism, It's OHI. Students with high functioning autism alone are pushed into Emotionally Disturbed.

I think it is two reasons.
1. If a child is ED, the SD can blame the parents
2. The ratio for ED in self-contained is 12-1 and the ratio for AI is 5-1.

There may be other reasons that I haven't discovered yet. It's bizarre the lengths that they go to do this. They will disregard their own tests, disregard medical diagnosis, and lie lie lie to manipulate the outcome of the classification.

[d]

As usual, you guys rock. I like lillian's way of putting it - "Sounds to me like it be a difference in getting money vs. getting money AND providing remediation."

nvrsaynvr, strangely enough in my district, the autism, multiply disabled and ED IEP kids seem to get a "free ride" (I know that sounds bad, it's the wrong word choice but I can't think of better ones). The parents literally rave about all the services for those kids. We had two sp ed directors that 'grew up' in the business in autism so you're in great shape if you have an autistic kid here. They have luxury IEP's (and yes, I've seen the list of services these kids get so can say that). The LD and ADHD kids, that majority of classified kids in my district, get perpetually screwed. It seems like maybe they "save" $ on bad IEP's and minimal services for ADHD/LD kids and that "saved $" is spent on autism, ED and multiple disability kids.

So, neversaynvr, if your child is on the spectrum, you need to move to my district. Just make sure your child isn't dyslexic too. I've seen my district go to lengths to bend things and get away with not providing. Your district sounds like they take it up a notch.

[kewpie]

I agree with nvrsaynvr too.

Don't change the classification. Face it, it there is a benefit to re-classify, it is for the ease of the district, not to help your child.