But, thankfully, I didn't need them.
I'd like to, again, thank everyone who offered advice and a virtual shoulder to lean on. I went in with a sense of confidence, ready to listen objectively to what was going to be said. I was prepared in my mind to not replace anything I knew to be true about my daughter with a label or a percentage.
In a nutshell, it went about as well as it possibly could have.
Within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there are a thirteen categories under which a student can qualify for special education services. For the purpose of this discussion, I will use the word "label" when referencing the category.
I was fighting against the "Intellectual Disability" label prior to the testing because I didn't want it to possibly pigeonhole Playette in the future (some people form an opinion of a person upon seeing that label and can't move past it, impacting placement, level of support, expectations, etc).
I had suggested "Other Health Impairment" or "Speech or Language Impairment" but the rest of the team wasn't convinced.
As it turns out, based on Playette's scores, the ID label isn't the the most accurate option after all. It's not clear which one best relates to her situation and that doesn't surprise me a bit, knowing my kid the way I do.
We will discuss further and decide on the most appropriate label at the next IEP meeting in two weeks.
Seems like a lot of time and effort for a label. The services won't change. She's still the same kid. And I hate the whole label deal, regardless. But I kinda get it.
I do feel like I'm missing something though. Is the label just a means to an end? Label drives funding, right? If so, what difference does it make which one it is? Does one label secure more funding than another?
It feels like every time one question gets answered, so many more pop up.