Seeking official accommodations via the College Board (SAT/PSAT/AP)

[CMdeux]

If ANYTHING were ever a CLEAR, CLEAR reason to get a 504 plan in place no matter how well things are covered by school policy, though, this is it.  One of the easiest ways to be denied by the College Board is to have no 504 plan, or one that has been active less than a year.

I just hope that spurs someone to act while their child is still in elementary-- this stuff really matters later on in terms of history of documented accommodations and longevity of official qualification under 504.     It will matter in college, too. 

[Arkadia]

I just entered this thread and am flabbergasted.

Yes, we've "sought" out these official accommodations with the College Board (that term is on the letterhead we received without difficulty and in a timely fashion and with nothing more than a simple phone call to the Special Education Services Coordinator/Director at our high school.)

I could ask her to call you if you want?

Not a squirm, not a wiggle, not a blip. Easy Peasy.

I was told to keep the letter in a safe place as it would be used throughout his HS career.

I didn't go to testing with him, but he tested for the PSAT in a separate room with one other student and a proctor. The proctor was a regular aide from the Highschool itself. He was allowed to have his phone turned off in his backpack, and they allowed calculators on the math portion (as ALL students are), he kept his epi pen on him ("of course!" to quote him, he's sick of me badgering him while I type this), and not a bit of food there. He had a break and a snack lunch he brought.

"what did the other kid bring?"

"I don't know, I don't remember, I don't care."

Teens, huh?

anyways, they were highly aware of his allergy, trained to use the epi, and familiar with the school itself and the students. It was a nearly private location, and no difficulties noted what. so. ever. All arranged by special education services and without any haranguing by moi'.

let me know if you need further assistance. this is routine stuff. (no slight to you, just skimmed over some of what you are reporting back with revolving around difficulty getting accommodations.) They worked from his IEP and maybe the issue is here you haven't formally laid out accommodations for H.S.? If I remember, I didn't have to negotiate eligibility again for H.S., but they did request recent allergy testing at the time. <shrug>

Anyways, yes, we have a letter of accommodation and everything went smoothly. Son didn't give it a second thought. They directed him without incident to a alternate location as well, virtually around the corner from the room where testing was being held. No problems.

[yelloww]

CM, I've tried to explain the need for the 504 long term to he principal and school nurse here. They think I'm over the top for my long term planning. They think I'm  for planning for hs and college accommodations well before he's there. This thread is exactly why I plan the way I do.

Hope they pull their heads out tomorrow!

[CMdeux]

I don't mean to make this out to be a bigger deal than it is-- in my daughter's view of things, that is, or in practical difficulty in implementation.  After tomorrow, I anticipate that the College Board will hand us our magic letter in about three weeks' time.  Truly.



There are a few factors at work, basically, which make this a little more complicated than Carefulmom's of Ark's situations:

a) student is not currently covered by duty of care of any local educational provider (this was easier for Ark and Carefulmom because their kids are already in a B&M setting, and therefore it seemed seamless enough to everyone concerned to have those things carry over without a lot of thought)-- this can be a factor for any homeschooled, extremely rural, or virtually schooled student... or, for that matter, for any student that attends a very small private school or an alternative school of any kind.  If the test location isn't your child's regular school, there will be hoops to jump.  The PSAT is the 'scholarship' test, and host schools are not obligated to offer outside students seats.  (It is different from the AP and SAT's that way, where there are pretty much unlimited seats for any who want them.)  So her 504 plan and the sought accommodations do not matchy-matchy.  This is a red flag for the College Board and ACT both.  A bigger red flag, of course, is not having the disability documented to begin with; folks who have homeschooled exclusively or done things informally may really find themselves having to go to tremendous lengths (thus the specifics that I've provided, which are rather sledgehammer-like in nature...)


b) clueless new-to-the-job administrators/sp-ed staffers.  They don't know FA's, they don't know my kid, they don't know what they are doing, basically...  This is one that can be in play for pretty much anyone, at any time.  As we all know.

c) tight time-line.  My preference would have been to begin this process about ten months out.  That would have meant:  a) no special doctor's appt., b) no special 504 meeting, and c) no worries re: how fast the College Board turns things around (6-8 weeks).  That ship sailed when they bumped my DD from 9th to 11th grade officially in June, and we've had to scramble in a couple of different venues since then as we try to dot i's that would have been made in the sophomore year in the ordinary course of events. 

Plus, I figured that there is probably some value in putting this out there--
because it it is NOT out there anywhere for food allergy.  There are others behind us.   

Finally, I'm a dot-all-the-i's-and-cross-all-the-t's, obsessive kind of person when it comes to documentation.  I like the sure thing, so I'm willing to go a little over the top (in terms of information overload, I mean-- not exaggeration of anything, which this is not).   

[Carefulmom]

CM Deux, dd did not take her SAT at her home school.  Actually she did not take her SAT subject tests last year at her home school either.  Both times she was at a school where she did not know anyone--- no teachers, no kids.  However, she is not as contact sensitive as your dd.  She brought her epi with her (tote bags and backpacks allowed), no eating allowed in the room so no worries about airborne issues.  She brought a couple of wipes to clean the desk.  They actually knew nothing about her.   All the kids were allowed cell phones as long as they were off and put away.

[Carefulmom]

Also, about the PSAT and scholarships, in this day and age, there is very little money given out based on PSATs, almost none.  You have to be in the top fraction of 1% (don`t recall if it was 0.1% or even less) and the amount was about $1000.  However, this may be California specific.  You may want to check on your state.  If there is that little riding on your dd`s results, she can relax about the test.

[CMdeux]

I don't really expect that she'll be concerned about the $$, which has never been enough to really get too excited about, honestly...  it's more about the prestige of being named a NMS finalist, which is a pretty big deal on a CV.  So it's not really 'pressure' in terms of performance for her, since we'll be sending her to college either way, YK?  It's more just relax and see how well you can do.  She's very, very good at standardized testing.  Very.  She kind of... um... enjoys them.   


Just wanted to mention that our allergist happily provided BOTH documents on letterhead... he even copyedited my bad typing and corrected some formatting on my reference list.     He also added "asthma" to fatality risk in both documents.  We just that man.  I just wish that I could clone him, because truly, everyone with food allergies deserves an allergist this great. 

[joanna5]

Also, about the PSAT and scholarships, in this day and age, there is very little money given out based on PSATs, almost none.  You have to be in the top fraction of 1% (don`t recall if it was 0.1% or even less) and the amount was about $1000.  However, this may be California specific.  You may want to check on your state.  If there is that little riding on your dd`s results, she can relax about the test.

That's true. I think I got $2000 a year from it.

[Carefulmom]

Also, about the PSAT and scholarships, in this day and age, there is very little money given out based on PSATs, almost none.  You have to be in the top fraction of 1% (don`t recall if it was 0.1% or even less) and the amount was about $1000.  However, this may be California specific.  You may want to check on your state.  If there is that little riding on your dd`s results, she can relax about the test.

That's true. I think I got $2000 a year from it.

I think it is even less now.  I am guessing that your $2000 was before you had kids.

[CMdeux]

I think that NMSC offers $1000 now, last I checked.  So no, definitely nothing too substantial in the face of tuition and fees in the 10-20K range annually.  It's definitely more about the prestige than finances. 

[CMdeux]

Ack.  GGA.  Not the "A" team has just taken on a whole new dimension of absurdity.  I'm clearly dealing with Abbott and Costello here.




More later.

[Ra3chel]

Also, about the PSAT and scholarships, in this day and age, there is very little money given out based on PSATs, almost none.  You have to be in the top fraction of 1% (don`t recall if it was 0.1% or even less) and the amount was about $1000.  However, this may be California specific.  You may want to check on your state.  If there is that little riding on your dd`s results, she can relax about the test.

That varies tremendously from state to state and school to school. Being a NMF paid more than a quarter of my (private) college tuition; this was 2000-2004. If I'd gone to a state school in FL, I'd have gotten a full ride on that basis alone.

[Carefulmom]

Also, about the PSAT and scholarships, in this day and age, there is very little money given out based on PSATs, almost none.  You have to be in the top fraction of 1% (don`t recall if it was 0.1% or even less) and the amount was about $1000.  However, this may be California specific.  You may want to check on your state.  If there is that little riding on your dd`s results, she can relax about the test.

That varies tremendously from state to state and school to school. Being a NMF paid more than a quarter of my (private) college tuition; this was 2000-2004. If I'd gone to a state school in FL, I'd have gotten a full ride on that basis alone.

Oh....so long ago.  Times have changed unfortunately.  Big change in the economy since 2000-2004.

[CMdeux]

Ack.  GGA.  Not the "A" team has just taken on a whole new dimension of absurdity.  I'm clearly dealing with Abbott and Costello here.




More later.

Good golly, the draft that they sent had all kinds of dorky changes, most of them completely out of left field and unrelated to anything discussed in the 504 review meeting from Tuesday. 


The e-mail that I fired off first thing this morning... (redacted, of course)...

Abbott and Costello;

Briefly, my concerns regarding the new draft document dated April 2012 are:

a) Grade level. I'm not clear on precisely when this document is intended to take effect, but it is quite important to us that {DD}'s grade level remain "9" through the end of this academic year. She will otherwise lose an additional year of eligibility with some particular extracurricular activities, and because of her multiple radical accelerations, she's already lost several.

b) Impairment and Life Activities Impacted-- There are some problems with the verbiage in the impairment description. I'm sorry, but I'm a little particular about these statements, and I know that her allergist is as well. "{DD} has been DIAGNOSED WITH AND HAS A HISTORY OF severe food allergies (anaphylaxis). When EXPERIENCING ANAPHYLAXIS, she is profoundly impaired in all life activities. Her HISTORY AND DIAGNOSIS (multiple severe food allergy, asthma) places her at elevated risk of fatal anaphylaxis."

{the caps there were to fix new and incredibly screwed up verbiage that demonstrated a pretty profound lack of understanding of the nature of LTFA}

Secondly, the passage of ADAA in 2008 has resulted in a need to consider episodic conditions, meaning that the life-activities listed under qualification must be those which would be impaired "if the condition were active." Anaphylaxis very definitely impairs pretty much everything on that list. It's hard to imagine a more pervasive set of impairments that full body shut-down of multiple organs. Episodic? Certainly-- and until 2008, the items currently listed would have been complete and sufficient under the law. This is not in compliance with current legislation, however.

Finally, under "Breathing" in the notes, this information is not correct. {DD}'s asthma is episodic and quite well-controlled. What *can* limit her ability to maintain a regular study schedule for weeks is the course of treatment following anaphylaxis. The medications taken to prevent relapse or death can impact executive function and cognitive skills for an extended period of time.

c) Curriculum Accommodations and/or Modifications: the verbiage on the provision of wet-wipes has been changed from "{school} will provide" to "parents will provide." This is incorrect. {National} has been through this particular accommodation (presumably with legal) and it MUST not be in writing that *we* are obligated to additional expense for {DD}'s participation. We may *choose* to provide wipes, or to donate them. (And we often do.) But we cannot be obligated to do so because it is a violation of FAPE.

d) Curriculum Accommodations and/or Modifications: if you've seen my note from late Tuesday, I still believe that an addendum regarding "daily work" and the environment that is required might be added. Yes, I know that the school is obligated to do very little there, but I think that it is a missing piece for the College Board, since familiarity with virtual schooling may well be somewhat fuzzy for outsiders.

e) Curriculum Accommodations and/or Modifications: "testing" in the context of curriculum accommodations and/or modifications cannot, in my own understanding, include modifications to the practices, policies, and procedures of those agencies not affiliated with {school} in pursuit of meeting {DD}'s educational needs to the same degree as her unaffected peers. I'm not convinced that colleges and universities, much less the College Board, can be covered here. Perhaps for an AP examingation, yes. I feel that it would be better to indicate the basic NEEDS which must be met routinely for all assessment, and to explain how those needs are currently met by us. That is, we as partners supply an allergen-controlled environment at all times (materials and environment), and parents alone supply any necessary oversight and medical evaluation.

The paired statements in d) and e) do not overstep the bounds of the family-school partnership. I am concerned that the current statement in the draft *does* do so. We can't dictate conditions to external agencies without input from them, and I have concerns that this current document may do that. It also includes accommodations which are not in place at all, and won't ever be, given the nature of virtual schooling. This doesn't meet the standard of "necessary" in the context of FAPE and LRE with {SCHOOL}. Ergo, I'm not sure that it properly has a place in her 504 plan. Adjusting the verbiage so that it better matches the terminology in the document submitted to the College Board is fine, but we're getting the cart in front of the horse, here, I think. The 504 plan is about {DD}'s educational access via {School}, so accommodations needed from the College Board shouldn't be driving accommodations in this document. Technically, since {Another magically appearing accommodation that has been in place for years but was never in writing} isn't about disability accommodation but about GT accommodation, I'm not sure that even that belongs in here, unless we are going to roll gifted needs into this document. I'm fine with that approach, though the more obvious route to GT accommodations is via an IEP.

f) Notes: {DD}'s percentage hasn't been %% in several years (if ever), at least not until sometime yesterday. It most properly isn't NOW, either, if not for the fairly zealous application of "temporary zeros" by one teacher in particular, and on a single assignment which is not yet a week overdue and requires us to make a trip to check out materials at a local research university. {please note that there ARE no 'official' due-dates for assignments anyway in DD's school given the way it operates} We've had to fit this trip in around her other academic and extracurricular obligations and numerous medical appointments, and our family's other obligations. I think it is fair to see how that might take additional time. I am not at all happy about this percentage being unfairly reported in this document. If the College Board is going to see this, then let them see reality, at least. That percentage is continuously something like {+10% higher percentage}, a fact that her transcripts reflect much more accurately. The current statement is therefore misleading and also potentially deeply damaging to {DD}'s credibility. {Identifyin statements} and there is nothing borderline about her qualifying academic performance in earning that honor. I realize that neither of you is especially familiar with {DD} as a student at this time, and also that for many students, such an average would be cause for delight-- but I noted that statement with horror. I suspect that {teacher} would be equally horrified to know what potential trouble a single temporary zero inadvertently caused.

Do we need an additional meeting to discuss this? Hopefully my explanations for each item above make sense. I apologize for the length of this message, but I wanted to be very clear about my objections and the reasons for each.

Thank you for your continued hard work on this document,

CM

Following that, walked Costello through the document on the phone-- line-by-line.  Thank goodness DH was here and able to run DD to her medical appt. on time.     Costello agreed with me once he realized that I wasn't looking to cherry pick additional accommodations-- and that I understood why language about delegation, etc. should be in there somewhere, since that means they won't be obligated to hire a paramedic to have her seated for the SAT if she has to test with them.  He and I got along fine, though he is still learning about LTFA as a qualifying disability.   Costello is apparently the brains of the operation here.  <sigh>  Too bad Costello's job title doesn't have "504" in it anywhere.     We're at Abbott's mercy, I fear, and that is not a good thing. 

[CMdeux]

Lesson here is that staffing changes can rapidly screw up a very good 504 document if you aren't vigilant.