Comments on: Parents Should NEVER Be Asked To Sign an Incomplete IFSP…Ever https://www.veipd.org/earlyintervention/2013/05/30/parents-should-never-be-asked-to-sign-an-incomplete-ifsp-ever/ Sharing What Works in Supporting Infants & Toddlers and the Families in Early Intervention Thu, 25 Jun 2020 02:30:32 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: Dana Childress, M.Ed. https://www.veipd.org/earlyintervention/2013/05/30/parents-should-never-be-asked-to-sign-an-incomplete-ifsp-ever/#comment-407 Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:07:42 +0000 https://veipd.org/earlyintervention/?p=891#comment-407 In reply to Allan Phillips.

Thanks for getting this discussion started, Allan! You make some great points. I think we’ve thought of the IFSP as a contract because, as you know, what is written there is not guidance or a suggestion but a plan that the family has the right to have implemented. I like your idea of a collaborative agreement because collaboration really is the key. How we explain that collaboration and the whole EI process is so important when setting up the partnership with the family and with helping them learn their central role in the process. I think there is alot we can do from the very first contact to try to build that partnership and hopefully avoid any adversarial situations, and sometimes, as you suggest, it can come down to the words we use to explain what we do. Thanks again for offering another point of view!

]]> By: Allan Phillips https://www.veipd.org/earlyintervention/2013/05/30/parents-should-never-be-asked-to-sign-an-incomplete-ifsp-ever/#comment-406 Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:26:39 +0000 https://veipd.org/earlyintervention/?p=891#comment-406 I agree completly about families understanding the plan and only signing when they concur with it.

In the interest of stimulating discussion, understanding and how Part C operates I want bring up a concern about thinking of the IFSP as a contract. I don’t view it as a contract as it does not meet the standard definition of a contract in a legal sense.

When it is viewed as a contract it puts it into the legal realm which unnecessarily can lead to a confrontational stance between providers and families.

I view it as a collaborative agreement between the agency and the family.It concerns me when I hear that families and providers think families are owed X number of visits or we work hard to make up every missed service even doubling up visits. This appears to me to reinforce the view that we are the ones that make changes for the child and not the family. This does not seem to fit the family centered practice we strive for whereby families get the support they need and it changes over time and they are the ones enhancing their child’s development.

In our work to truly support our mission we need to look closely at our practices and the language we use to explain what we are doing in early intervention. The more congruent we are in melding mission, values and practice the more consistent our message will be.

Any thoughts are welcome
Thanks

]]>