When is a classroom unsafe? How would you handle? Kindergarten DD scratched in face and kicked in back at recess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

What supports do you envision need to be provided in a gen ed room to provide a safe environment? I taught in a room with 2 full time TA's (only provided because my principal and I screamed bloody murder to our school board and upper admins and I said if I didn't get a 2nd aide, I was quitting, which I eventually did because not even that helped, and they still wanted to "give the student more time"), and at any given time there could be up to 4 additional staff (sped teacher, speech teacher, BCBA, principal, sped admin, etc) in the room attempting to de-escalate the violent kids unsuccessfully while the class as a whole (minus 1-2 kids) was evacuated.
We offered specific SEL lessons, choices, visual timers, weighted blankets, fidget toys, stand spots, social stories, social work services several times per week and much more. What more do you feel should be provided that might make the classroom safe enough that violent children could attend and not harm others? We had 6 months of documentation, my principal had been bruised, a sub had been threatened with scissors, I was threatened with being shot, objects had been thrown, items were destroyed.

I said "might." For some, a 1:1 that can de-escalate behaviors will be sufficient. That won't work for every child, in which case more restrictive placements may be LRE, but several posters here want to simply segregate kids based on disabilities, without regard for potentially effective supports.

No you are jumping to that conclusion. I think you are taking this very personally for your kids situation. Believe it or not, often a 1 on 1 can be the most restrictive environment from a personal space and autonomy point of view even though the kid is around peers, they do not have freedom. If my ASD kid ever needed a 1 on 1, I would advocate for having him in self contained or smaller class rather than that because I have seen how that relationship works.

How is it jumping to a conclusion to say it might work?

The kids with violent behaviors and/or SIBs that would make a 1:1 an option at all would likely either have a 1:1 or be in a class with a 1:2 ratio. Only in rare situations would paraeducator support in the inclusive gen ed environment not be LRE, provided that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

We are limited the supports we can bring in unless there is an IEP. Many of these kids in lower grades need one but no one has flagged them yet. IDEA means we have to try some minimal supports and have them fail before we can test for a disability. The change I think is necessary is the time line from noticing behavior to testing should be different perhaps shorter if a kid shows unprovoked violence. As a parent you can a call for testing whenever you want but a teacher can’t. Some parents of violent kids want it immediately some say their kid is fine (probably at home on a tablet they are). There should be some sort of protected plan for kids that are violent like this. There isn’t mostly because of idea. I’m not sure the answer and know I’m not seeing everything but to me an accelerated timeline for screening and testing seems like a good place to start.

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

Sure.

Then it ought to easy for you to show where IDEA requires that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Repeated violence in school should be considered a mental disability. Those with disabilities should be taught in a different school. Yes, including those that require so much accommodation that you are literally giving them the answers because of their learning disability. Yes, including the kid that is in 5th grade but globally on a kindergarten level. Yes, including the kid that eats pencils in the back of the classroom because they have an oral fixation. Yes, including the kid with extreme autism that they can’t sit still or stop making random noises. It’s ridiculous. School is a zoo at this point. We need to go back to when we had a class for high students. A class for on grade level and a class for special needs. But no, we have inclusion. Students that do not belong with the other population.

And this, folks, is why we have IDEA.

So you’re okay with op’s dd getting beat up in class then?

You think those are the only two options? Really?

And your solution is . . . ?

Schools provide educational supports in the gen ed environment and change placements if supports are not sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

We are limited the supports we can bring in unless there is an IEP. Many of these kids in lower grades need one but no one has flagged them yet. IDEA means we have to try some minimal supports and have them fail before we can test for a disability. The change I think is necessary is the time line from noticing behavior to testing should be different perhaps shorter if a kid shows unprovoked violence. As a parent you can a call for testing whenever you want but a teacher can’t. Some parents of violent kids want it immediately some say their kid is fine (probably at home on a tablet they are). There should be some sort of protected plan for kids that are violent like this. There isn’t mostly because of idea. I’m not sure the answer and know I’m not seeing everything but to me an accelerated timeline for screening and testing seems like a good place to start.

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

Sure.

Then it ought to easy for you to show where IDEA requires that.

Google response to intervention. You could even google response to intervention emotional regulation if you are interested. It is a common practice implemented at the state or local level to help school systems have things in place so they don’t over identify children who are ethnically, culturally, linguistically or racially (etc) minorities. Some states require it, others don’t.

[Anonymous]

Sorry I posted about RTI. Many DMV districts have implemented RTI and I think it is a good thing in most instances (speech, learning disabilities etc). I have a hard time with it when kids are violent because that violence is affecting a TON of other people (students, staff etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

We are limited the supports we can bring in unless there is an IEP. Many of these kids in lower grades need one but no one has flagged them yet. IDEA means we have to try some minimal supports and have them fail before we can test for a disability. The change I think is necessary is the time line from noticing behavior to testing should be different perhaps shorter if a kid shows unprovoked violence. As a parent you can a call for testing whenever you want but a teacher can’t. Some parents of violent kids want it immediately some say their kid is fine (probably at home on a tablet they are). There should be some sort of protected plan for kids that are violent like this. There isn’t mostly because of idea. I’m not sure the answer and know I’m not seeing everything but to me an accelerated timeline for screening and testing seems like a good place to start.

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

Sure.

Then it ought to easy for you to show where IDEA requires that.

Google response to intervention. You could even google response to intervention emotional regulation if you are interested. It is a common practice implemented at the state or local level to help school systems have things in place so they don’t over identify children who are ethnically, culturally, linguistically or racially (etc) minorities. Some states require it, others don’t.

So you're saying it's not in IDEA?

RTI is separate from if/when evaluations are done. The term you seem to be looking for is pre-referral interventions. And neither is addressed in IDEA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

We are limited the supports we can bring in unless there is an IEP. Many of these kids in lower grades need one but no one has flagged them yet. IDEA means we have to try some minimal supports and have them fail before we can test for a disability. The change I think is necessary is the time line from noticing behavior to testing should be different perhaps shorter if a kid shows unprovoked violence. As a parent you can a call for testing whenever you want but a teacher can’t. Some parents of violent kids want it immediately some say their kid is fine (probably at home on a tablet they are). There should be some sort of protected plan for kids that are violent like this. There isn’t mostly because of idea. I’m not sure the answer and know I’m not seeing everything but to me an accelerated timeline for screening and testing seems like a good place to start.

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

Sure.

Then it ought to easy for you to show where IDEA requires that.

Google response to intervention. You could even google response to intervention emotional regulation if you are interested. It is a common practice implemented at the state or local level to help school systems have things in place so they don’t over identify children who are ethnically, culturally, linguistically or racially (etc) minorities. Some states require it, others don’t.

So you're saying it's not in IDEA?

RTI is separate from if/when evaluations are done. The term you seem to be looking for is pre-referral interventions. And neither is addressed in IDEA.

It is a state interpretation of IDEA. IDEA is a federal law, then the states interpret it. Like abortion.

If a kid enters K scratching and biting in a state/jurisdiction that requires RTI, the kid cannot be tested for an IEP until October or November, because the teacher/team has to implement interventions. RTI does determine when evaluations are done frequently because the kid needs to fail intervention before moving to testing. In Kindergarten, this happens a lot because the kids are new to school. Only after interventions x y and z are done can the school move to testing.

This is an off shoot of IDEA, but still part of the process. It should change (IMHO) for violent kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

We are limited the supports we can bring in unless there is an IEP. Many of these kids in lower grades need one but no one has flagged them yet. IDEA means we have to try some minimal supports and have them fail before we can test for a disability. The change I think is necessary is the time line from noticing behavior to testing should be different perhaps shorter if a kid shows unprovoked violence. As a parent you can a call for testing whenever you want but a teacher can’t. Some parents of violent kids want it immediately some say their kid is fine (probably at home on a tablet they are). There should be some sort of protected plan for kids that are violent like this. There isn’t mostly because of idea. I’m not sure the answer and know I’m not seeing everything but to me an accelerated timeline for screening and testing seems like a good place to start.

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

Sure.

Then it ought to easy for you to show where IDEA requires that.

Google response to intervention. You could even google response to intervention emotional regulation if you are interested. It is a common practice implemented at the state or local level to help school systems have things in place so they don’t over identify children who are ethnically, culturally, linguistically or racially (etc) minorities. Some states require it, others don’t.

So you're saying it's not in IDEA?

RTI is separate from if/when evaluations are done. The term you seem to be looking for is pre-referral interventions. And neither is addressed in IDEA.

It is a state interpretation of IDEA. IDEA is a federal law, then the states interpret it. Like abortion.

If a kid enters K scratching and biting in a state/jurisdiction that requires RTI, the kid cannot be tested for an IEP until October or November, because the teacher/team has to implement interventions. RTI does determine when evaluations are done frequently because the kid needs to fail intervention before moving to testing. In Kindergarten, this happens a lot because the kids are new to school. Only after interventions x y and z are done can the school move to testing.

This is an off shoot of IDEA, but still part of the process. It should change (IMHO) for violent kids.

Well, I agree that's idiotic. But it isn't motivated by anything in IDEA, other than school districts trying to shirk their responsibilities under IDEA by trying to keep kids off IEPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

We are limited the supports we can bring in unless there is an IEP. Many of these kids in lower grades need one but no one has flagged them yet. IDEA means we have to try some minimal supports and have them fail before we can test for a disability. The change I think is necessary is the time line from noticing behavior to testing should be different perhaps shorter if a kid shows unprovoked violence. As a parent you can a call for testing whenever you want but a teacher can’t. Some parents of violent kids want it immediately some say their kid is fine (probably at home on a tablet they are). There should be some sort of protected plan for kids that are violent like this. There isn’t mostly because of idea. I’m not sure the answer and know I’m not seeing everything but to me an accelerated timeline for screening and testing seems like a good place to start.

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

Sure.

Then it ought to easy for you to show where IDEA requires that.

Google response to intervention. You could even google response to intervention emotional regulation if you are interested. It is a common practice implemented at the state or local level to help school systems have things in place so they don’t over identify children who are ethnically, culturally, linguistically or racially (etc) minorities. Some states require it, others don’t.

So you're saying it's not in IDEA?

RTI is separate from if/when evaluations are done. The term you seem to be looking for is pre-referral interventions. And neither is addressed in IDEA.

It is a state interpretation of IDEA. IDEA is a federal law, then the states interpret it. Like abortion.

If a kid enters K scratching and biting in a state/jurisdiction that requires RTI, the kid cannot be tested for an IEP until October or November, because the teacher/team has to implement interventions. RTI does determine when evaluations are done frequently because the kid needs to fail intervention before moving to testing. In Kindergarten, this happens a lot because the kids are new to school. Only after interventions x y and z are done can the school move to testing.

This is an off shoot of IDEA, but still part of the process. It should change (IMHO) for violent kids.

Well, I agree that's idiotic. But it isn't motivated by anything in IDEA, other than school districts trying to shirk their responsibilities under IDEA by trying to keep kids off IEPs.

Not sure I see your point at all. You will be arrested for getting an abortion in Texas, but can have one in Maryland, both are interpretations of the abortion law. Just because the motivation behind one of those you disagree with doesn’t mean they aren’t both about the federal law for abortion.

[Anonymous]

That violent kids get months of ineffective intervention instead of swift removal from those they harm is absurd. Remove them. Test them. All children have a right to learn in a safe environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Repeated violence in school should be considered a mental disability. Those with disabilities should be taught in a different school. Yes, including those that require so much accommodation that you are literally giving them the answers because of their learning disability. Yes, including the kid that is in 5th grade but globally on a kindergarten level. Yes, including the kid that eats pencils in the back of the classroom because they have an oral fixation. Yes, including the kid with extreme autism that they can’t sit still or stop making random noises. It’s ridiculous. School is a zoo at this point. We need to go back to when we had a class for high students. A class for on grade level and a class for special needs. But no, we have inclusion. Students that do not belong with the other population.

And different schools for the darkies? But equal, of course...

No one is talking about race, so stop.

Got it. So are there other characteristics it's OK to discriminate kids based on, or is it just disabilities? And is it just developmental disabilities, or is OK to discriminate based on physical disabilities, too?

Your disability doesn't give you carte blanche to beat the crap out of other people. What you call discriminate, everyone else calls consequences.

No one says that it does. But the manifestation of a disability doesn't give the school carte blanche to ignore their responsibilities to provide an appropriate education in the LRE. Schools have options, and they're frequently slow to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities. LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support. That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school. Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue. No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed. Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff. This is not okay. I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not. If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment.

We are limited the supports we can bring in unless there is an IEP. Many of these kids in lower grades need one but no one has flagged them yet. IDEA means we have to try some minimal supports and have them fail before we can test for a disability. The change I think is necessary is the time line from noticing behavior to testing should be different perhaps shorter if a kid shows unprovoked violence. As a parent you can a call for testing whenever you want but a teacher can’t. Some parents of violent kids want it immediately some say their kid is fine (probably at home on a tablet they are). There should be some sort of protected plan for kids that are violent like this. There isn’t mostly because of idea. I’m not sure the answer and know I’m not seeing everything but to me an accelerated timeline for screening and testing seems like a good place to start.

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

Sure.

Then it ought to easy for you to show where IDEA requires that.

Google response to intervention. You could even google response to intervention emotional regulation if you are interested. It is a common practice implemented at the state or local level to help school systems have things in place so they don’t over identify children who are ethnically, culturally, linguistically or racially (etc) minorities. Some states require it, others don’t.

So you're saying it's not in IDEA?

RTI is separate from if/when evaluations are done. The term you seem to be looking for is pre-referral interventions. And neither is addressed in IDEA.

It is a state interpretation of IDEA. IDEA is a federal law, then the states interpret it. Like abortion.

If a kid enters K scratching and biting in a state/jurisdiction that requires RTI, the kid cannot be tested for an IEP until October or November, because the teacher/team has to implement interventions. RTI does determine when evaluations are done frequently because the kid needs to fail intervention before moving to testing. In Kindergarten, this happens a lot because the kids are new to school. Only after interventions x y and z are done can the school move to testing.

This is an off shoot of IDEA, but still part of the process. It should change (IMHO) for violent kids.

Well, I agree that's idiotic. But it isn't motivated by anything in IDEA, other than school districts trying to shirk their responsibilities under IDEA by trying to keep kids off IEPs.

Not sure I see your point at all. You will be arrested for getting an abortion in Texas, but can have one in Maryland, both are interpretations of the abortion law. Just because the motivation behind one of those you disagree with doesn’t mean they aren’t both about the federal law for abortion.

There are federal laws and there are state laws. IDEA is a federal law. Nothing in it even hints at pre-referral interventions. If anything, I think it suggests the opposite.

States have their own laws. They can't directly conflict with federal law, but they can add their own restrictions.

Maryland law and regulations, since you bring them up, don't require pre-referral interventions, either.

[Anonymous]

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

I'm not surprised it happens, I'm just saying that's not in IDEA. Every parent of a child with special needs will tell you school districts regularly drag their feet.

[Anonymous]

OP, I am sorry to hear about your daughter. Good luck. Not sure how the school measures the incidents for a kid, but agree talking to other parents could be important.