negative reinforcement?

[Mel]

Hi,
Our child has concerns with executive function and task initiation. She was marked unexcused tardy as per the sped teacher she did not begin packing up when her watch alerted her to and did not leave when directed by the teacher. She has in her IEP the goal to stop what she is doing and Cath because she will not stop and go. This is a life skill goal. Is this appropriate response from the school if the child didn't follow the IEP goal/directions?

We live in Minnesota.

[Carolyn Rowlett]

I'm not sure that the goal to stop what she is doing and Cath relates to this particular situation where she was asked to begin packing up and leave, but I may not have all the facts.  l would suggest adding an IEP goal about following instructions (within so many minutes, within so many prompts, etc., and gradually reducing the minutes/prompts) and relate it so the present levels of executive functioning and task initiation.  I would also add an accommodation for being late to class.  But in the meantime, if you can tie this behavior to her disability, then no, this is not an appropriate response from the teacher.

[JSD24]

Some state laws don't allow for any wiggle room when it comes to tardies and absences.  If your state laws allow for it, you can have an accommodation in the IEP that, while she is working on her IEP goal, that she doesn't get an unexcused tardy when she she has difficulty transitioning to be cathed and ends up late because of that.

There are intuitional things that are in school discipline policies that don't follow 'the science'.  IMO, this is what you've run into.  The tardy is supposed to teach her to do better next time.  (Doesn't work like this when you have an EF disability.)

[Mel]

1 hour ago, JSD24 said:

Some state laws don't allow for any wiggle room when it comes to tardies and absences.  If your state laws allow for it, you can have an accommodation in the IEP that, while she is working on her IEP goal, that she doesn't get an unexcused tardy when she she has difficulty transitioning to be cathed and ends up late because of that.

There are intuitional things that are in school discipline policies that don't follow 'the science'.  IMO, this is what you've run into.  The tardy is supposed to teach her to do better next time.  (Doesn't work like this when you have an EF disability.)

Thanks!

I think we can add it to the IEP here. Any recommendations on how to approach it to the school to have that added without them saying no right away? 

[JSD24]

Start by asking the school if the student should have a consequence when they fail to meet an IEP goal.  Ex:  If a student had to learn times tables and get 80% in 4 out of 5 trials, ask what should happen if they only get 80% in 3 out of 5 trials.  Or if a reading goal was 75 CWM, what if they only do 71?  In these cases, the consequence is nothing.  (I'm in PA and they only allow for positive behavior support so you'd never see a consequence.)  If your child has a goal of promptly transitioning, what should be the consequence if they fail at this goal?  Ask them to write 'no consequence/no unexcused tardies when delayed transitioning results in being late for class' in the IEP.  This goal should be treated like oner IEP goals where there are no consequences if the goal isn't met.

I'd also look at what specially designed instruction the school is providing (prompts are accommodations - not SDI) with teaching your child how to promptly transition to a non-preferred activity.  You might also need to change up the SDI if the current instruction isn't working.