Is integration hurting our kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I agree with you. My kid has 2 kids with autism in her class. At least once a week one of them has a sensory overload/meltdown. The entire class has to leave the classroom until the child calms down. I’m not sure how this benefits my kid or the kids with autism. They don’t pay attention well either and talk over the teacher etc…. I know it’s not their fault but I do think a smaller classroom with a better teacher/kid ratio would benefit them.

Are you an expert in autistic kids? Or do you know more about these particular kids than the fact that they sometimes have meltdowns?
If not, there's no way for you to know if a different class would benefit them.

I mean maybe it would. But you're not the one in the position to make that claim.

True, but I do think she's in a position to state that her child needing to leave the classroom every single week for a meltdown does negatively impact the education of her own child. If a child is having tht many meltdowns (not occasional ones) that's a pretty good indication that their needs are not getting met.

Right but you’re still making assumptions. Maybe it’s not the inclusion that’s the problem. Maybe the school isn’t following other parts of an IEP and that’s the issue keeping the kids from being successful.

People just need to be careful not to assume they know what’s best from afar.

This is what I said and would apply to every rebuttal in this thread:

An IEP should be an individualized plan that identifies an appropriate place for each child based on their individual needs. The assumption now is that it is best for ALL kids to have as much mainstreaming as possible, but nothing is best for ALL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, some of those non-integrated kids were left/locked in basements or closets with no instruction for most if the day, which is why the pendulum swung back to LRE/integration. And yes, it's swung too far for too long, and it will/should swing back, except those darn discreet classrooms with small teacher:student ratio, which is what many of these students need, are expensive. And the Special Ed teachers are overwhelmed and burnt out and can make more money elsewhere. And so, we are where we are.

The reality is, ALL students, neuro-typical or not, behavior issues or not, would benefit from smaller class sizes, but that is money the county doesn't have, and so, again, we are where we are.

This is incorrect. In the past, in some areas, and in many countries, large class sizes are effective when students behave appropriately and attentively. Not everyone every child needs smaller classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not OP and am a parent of a child with significant behavior challenges (has gone through homeschool, SESES, and now Bridge)- YES, I hate that my kid was mainstreamed so much and it definitely made him worse, made his classmates against him as they saw his behaviors and stayed away, made my life miserable with the constant calls home due to lack of support. All in all, schooling was terrible until he got into the Bridge program which has provided him almost all day small classes where he doesn't get overstimulated and overwhelmed. He has been able to make friends and is no longer traumatized by school.

Nothing makes me angrier than the push for mainstreaming for him and how much it ruined his love of learning and of school. Not to mention that I had to quit my job to deal with visiting the school multiple times a week and dealing with several calls a week. It's amazing that my relationship withstood those very traumatic elementary school years.

With that said, this is true for my one child. An IEP should be an individualized plan that identifies an appropriate place for each child based on their individual needs. The assumption now is that it is best for ALL kids to have as much mainstreaming as possible, but nothing is best for ALL.

+1. For us it wasn't until we got to RICA that everything turned around. Inclusion is not for everyone. Forcing him to try and function in a mainstream classroom was a nightmare. It was too loud, too chaotic, too many bodies in the room. It made him hate school and every day he had to go back to that environment. When the meltdowns happened and the classroom has to be evacuated he was labeled the bad kid. That did nothing for his self esteem. We're still trying to put that back together.

Wow, PPs. That sounds terrible. I'm sorry that happened to you and your child.

[Anonymous]

Integration isn’t hurting SN kids. The failure of school systems to invest in evidence-based instruction, along with Child Find obligation failures are what’s hurting “our” kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not OP and am a parent of a child with significant behavior challenges (has gone through homeschool, SESES, and now Bridge)- YES, I hate that my kid was mainstreamed so much and it definitely made him worse, made his classmates against him as they saw his behaviors and stayed away, made my life miserable with the constant calls home due to lack of support. All in all, schooling was terrible until he got into the Bridge program which has provided him almost all day small classes where he doesn't get overstimulated and overwhelmed. He has been able to make friends and is no longer traumatized by school.

Nothing makes me angrier than the push for mainstreaming for him and how much it ruined his love of learning and of school. Not to mention that I had to quit my job to deal with visiting the school multiple times a week and dealing with several calls a week. It's amazing that my relationship withstood those very traumatic elementary school years.

With that said, this is true for my one child. An IEP should be an individualized plan that identifies an appropriate place for each child based on their individual needs. The assumption now is that it is best for ALL kids to have as much mainstreaming as possible, but nothing is best for ALL.

+1. For us it wasn't until we got to RICA that everything turned around. Inclusion is not for everyone. Forcing him to try and function in a mainstream classroom was a nightmare. It was too loud, too chaotic, too many bodies in the room. It made him hate school and every day he had to go back to that environment. When the meltdowns happened and the classroom has to be evacuated he was labeled the bad kid. That did nothing for his self esteem. We're still trying to put that back together.

Happy for you but I want people to know that no such programs exist in DCPS. So my kid remains in gen ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in school, those who had behavioral concerns or other special challenges were out of the classroom for most of the day with support that could help them thrive and learn..... By forcing integration on children, do you think those with special needs and behavioral concerns as well as those without are actually benefiting from this new system? Because to be honest I would rather have specialized detention than full integration but I think I'm alone on that.

First of all - you mean inclusion not integration - you're using a word that means non-segregated by race.

Also it's too big of a group you're talking about to make blanket statements. Some kids w/ special needs are absolutely benefiting from inclusion and their gen ed peers also benefit from having them there.

Other special needs kids are being kept from better options for them because it's too expensive. And that is wrong and helps no one.

All of this. Inclusion is not the problem; lack of adequate financial support for special education is. Well supported inclusion is actually great for everyone because the NT kids get a chance to get to know the SN kids and vice versa.

I am 100% in favor of self contained classrooms when it serves the needs of the SN kids, but not ok with the idea that they should be put there so they stop bothering the NT kids. Unfortunately, when you have bad inclusion programs the rest of the SN programs are often awful, too. Because money.

[Anonymous]

The School Divisions try to do it now as they view it as a cost effective options - until, of course, it blows up on some child who definitely can't operate in such a large setting. The opposite years ago with self-contained for many students was that there was little if any oversight of the SC teachers, the curriculum, the evaluation systems of student progress etc. You basically often had a parallel set of teacher s-- and many of them just loved it!! It was "my way or no way!" I remember well while my regular education daughters had their teachers busting their butts as the SOL system of evaluation began for stude,ts in the regular education classroom - there was no change in evaluation of students in SC for years. I observed two years ahead of our youngest going to high school and was asked to see the syllabus (did not have one to share), how much homework was assigned (none as most students would not have home setting to get it done in), what kind of evaluations/testing on material was done (nothing formal) AND the materials were old or at a higher reading level then the students then in the Educable class could master. We gave it one year, and you could not prod those oafs to change their ways (why because usually they did not have an interested AND informed parent asking questions!!

So, there are two sides to any coin. Parents pushed for mainstreaming, if not full inclusion because they realized their children especially with milder disabilities would get much better access to the regular education curriculum. However, teachers often have struggled in having not necessarily so many students now in a regular class, but even a few with very different educational needs and accommodations to meet them. A former college student who worked with our daughter a couple of years ago went to NOVA and told me she had 20 students to cover as a "push in" SE teacher in various classes with various needs. She was an excellent teacher, but knew she was pulled in too many directions, so quickly got a self-contained class where she will be able to teach.

It also seems that school divisions have gone back to a program approach for some disabilities such as not only functional/life skills, but also now some programs for those with autism and others with more emotional/psychological support for those with behavior challenges. It is important to learn about all the levels or kinds of classes in a school district and to decide what goals the school system might really be able to meet and what you may want to just supplement with an academic tutor for a subject area or with community sports, arts or group clubs (scouting, church based youth group) for social opportunities. It really is hard to ask one teacher to meet so many diffrent needs of so many diverse students now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes I agree with you. My kid has 2 kids with autism in her class. At least once a week one of them has a sensory overload/meltdown. The entire class has to leave the classroom until the child calms down. I’m not sure how this benefits my kid or the kids with autism. They don’t pay attention well either and talk over the teacher etc…. I know it’s not their fault but I do think a smaller classroom with a better teacher/kid ratio would benefit them.

Have you thought about homeschooling your DD?

[Anonymous]

Special ed elementary teacher here. My own children had IEPs in school. Now one of my grandchildren is in the process of being identified for special ed. What I see, on a daily basis, is that many children with special needs 'relax' in the resource or self-contained classrooms. Most of them are aware, at least somewhat, of their differences and are more comfortable with the smaller classes and greater attention. Some of them relax too much - they hold it together in the general ed class and then show unwanted behaviors in the smaller class. But many of them spend time in the gen ed class trying to melt into the background so their peers don't realize how difficult it is for them, and then they turn into talkative, interactive young people in the special ed setting. I think that for the majority of my students, time spent with the gen ed population is worth it socially. But when it's a child that melts down regularly and is overly disruptive, it's misguided to think that they are benefitting from time in the gen ed class - if anything, the other students are seeing first-hand that this kid is unpredictable and/or dangerous and it hurts them socially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, some of those non-integrated kids were left/locked in basements or closets with no instruction for most if the day, which is why the pendulum swung back to LRE/integration. And yes, it's swung too far for too long, and it will/should swing back, except those darn discreet classrooms with small teacher:student ratio, which is what many of these students need, are expensive. And the Special Ed teachers are overwhelmed and burnt out and can make more money elsewhere. And so, we are where we are.

The reality is, ALL students, neuro-typical or not, behavior issues or not, would benefit from smaller class sizes, but that is money the county doesn't have, and so, again, we are where we are.

I grew up when schools were just starting to dip their toe into inclusion. Special Ed was in discrete buildings and kids with behavioral issues were either expelled, put in vo tech or put in schools for violent kids.

I was in second grade when the first kid would come into our room for reading. She was third grade age and the teacher used to say that if she had just worked harder last year she wouldn’t be a third grader taking reading with little kids. She was held up to the class as what happens to kids who are lazy.

In third grade we had our first kid come to spend lunch with the class. She was made fun of and anyone who became her friend or was nice to her was ostracized.

I eventually became a social worker and worked in institutions and other programs for people with disabilities. By that time we were more enlightened and we’re starting to move people into the community with supports. During that time, my geriatric residents would tell me stories of what life had been like and it was awful. And, getting institutionalized happened for so many reasons that are horrifying. Like promiscuity in a teen girl, homosexual tendencies, blindness with no other issues.

LRE has resulted in such significant positive changes in the way we treat people and the way we view people. It’s not black and white anymore - there’s a continuum of abilities. And just because there are deficits in an area or some areas doesn’t mean you don’t have average or superior abilities in other areas. As a result of LRE, inclusion and ADA, we treat people with disabilities so much better.

Yes the pendulum has swung far from where we started. But people with disabilities have really benefited from this swing, including those on this board who are having difficulty getting their kids what they need. We have work to do, but the time before inclusion was nothing that any of us would want for our kids.

And to the RICA poster, I get it. Mine was in ESESES and the journey to get there was tough. Glad your child got a spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a child who has dyslexia or is hard of hearing or needs glasses or is blind? Should they be sequestered elsewhere too?

They often are placed in dyslexia-focused classrooms and schools for deaf and blind, respectively.

Where? Not around here.

[Anonymous]

It depends on the kid. I'm a special educator. TBH, most of the inclusion I see sucks. Badly. For everyone involved. And isn't so inclusive. But some classes and teachers do it beautifully and everyone thrives.

I've been in art classes where the mainstream kids are doing something like pottery and the sped kids are with a para in a corner coloring with crayons. That is utter crap.

And I've been in classes where they do group projects and help each other and everyone participates equally at the level they can. Teachers modify activities so that they are accessible to all and allows everyone to stretch themselves just enough. But this is unbelievably rare in my experience.

When done correctly it's a beautiful thing. When done poorly it's not worth doing at all.

[Anonymous]

WTH is "specialized detention"?

[Anonymous]

We need to be thinking about why there is such a proliferation of children who are exhibiting these extreme behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in school, those who had behavioral concerns or other special challenges were out of the classroom for most of the day with support that could help them thrive and learn..... By forcing integration on children, do you think those with special needs and behavioral concerns as well as those without are actually benefiting from this new system? Because to be honest I would rather have specialized detention than full integration but I think I'm alone on that.

First of all - you mean inclusion not integration - you're using a word that means non-segregated by race.

Also it's too big of a group you're talking about to make blanket statements. Some kids w/ special needs are absolutely benefiting from inclusion and their gen ed peers also benefit from having them there.

Other special needs kids are being kept from better options for them because it's too expensive. And that is wrong and helps no one.

All of this. Inclusion is not the problem; lack of adequate financial support for special education is. Well supported inclusion is actually great for everyone because the NT kids get a chance to get to know the SN kids and vice versa.

I am 100% in favor of self contained classrooms when it serves the needs of the SN kids, but not ok with the idea that they should be put there so they stop bothering the NT kids. Unfortunately, when you have bad inclusion programs the rest of the SN programs are often awful, too. Because money.

Underlining all of this. And special Ed and inclusion done badly makes the general Ed parents mad at the kids with special needs, which is the opposite of what inclusion is supposed to accomplish.