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:

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.

Schools are struggling to staff teachers never mind additional support staff that get paid nothing to deal with all day nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Schools are struggling to staff teachers never mind additional support staff that get paid nothing to deal with all day nonsense.

I know people applying for paraeducator jobs in MCPS. For at least the last year, they've been getting qualified applicants. But, the beginning of the year is a mess because they don't start the hiring process early enough to get them in when school starts.

[Anonymous]

I would kick up a fuss now.

File a bullying report. Email the principal. Email the counselor. Focus on your daughter in the written records. The goal is to get her out of that classroom. It’s not going to get better and they’re going to need a lot of documentation before they do anything about it. Example:

“Larla no longer feels safe at school after she was physically attacked on X/XX. She is stressed about looking down to read and is scared before recess. She is worried that her teacher cannot protect her and XXXX is going to hurt even worse than the cuts and bruises on X/XX. Everyday she tells me she is afraid of getting attacked and she is afraid of going to school. Can we talk about what we can do to make Larla feel safe at school again? This is significantly disrupting her ability to learn and participate in school.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think when you are hit with a lawsuit, jail time or fines because you broke a law, you don’t really care if it was because you failed to follow federal law or state law. RTI is mandated in many states.

Well, not in Maryland. And I'm pretty sure not DC. I'm less sure about Virginia.

Where do you teach? Is it required there?

I think the claim the pp was making is that pre-referral interventions (which, again, are different than RTI) are common in school districts, not that they're legally required.

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

As explained in more detail in Zirkel (2011), most state law provisions for RTI in both the mandatory and permissive categories are, per the foundational provisions in IDEA, exclusive to the determination of SLD. However, a handful of state laws extend RTI to other IDEA classifications.

“Second, a few states—Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland in descending order of clarity—seem to suggest the use of RTI globally via their guidelines.”

The PP is interested in blaming school systems for SPED issues. They don’t want a legislative body or state department held accountable. I don’t know why.

You're conflating RTI as a concept with pre-referral interventions. Maryland, in particular, encourages RTI as a concept for helping students, but not as a required pre-referral intervention before assessments for disabilities are done.

I would certainly support holding legislative or regulatory bodies accountable, but I don't know what you're trying to hold them accountable for, given they don't actually require what you've been suggesting.

“ Although many schools continue to use the pre-referral process, more and more are shifting to the RTI approach to identify students with learning disabilities. As of now, RTI is implemented mostly in the primary grades; however, its use is expanding and it appears that an increasing number of middle and high schools will also eventually shift to implementing RTI.”

https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/preref/cresource/q1/p01/

And again, where in Maryland law or regulation is RTI as a pre-referral intervention required before as assessment can be done? If that's there you should be able to point to something. Your problem is apparently with your school district's policies, which are almost certainly intended to prevent students from getting IEPs.

Well, if you see minority parents who were upset that their kids were getting over placed in SPED programs as “preventing students from getting IEPs” then I suppose you could frame it that way. RTI was established because of parental concerns/lawsuits that minority kids were being over identified. When the MSDE guidelines call/allude to RTI to be used across categories (see this link (84 pages you can read) and the previous one), that is who the complaints should go to.

Again, IMHO RTI shouldn’t be used for violent kids.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/OCP/Publications/TieredInstructionalApproachRtI062008.pdf


The thing about federal laws is that they need the gray areas filled in. We need to tweak this. You (or someone else) were very upset that IDEA may be “threatened” but it definitely needs work. States fill in the gray and it needs more nuance for kids like these.

You really don't want specific processes and evaluation methods engrained in federal law. You generally don't even want that in state law. Your complaint is all apparently with your school district's procedures. Neither the federal government nor the state require, or even recommend, withholding assessments as you work on educational strategies. The rather old guidelines you posted on apply RTI in Maryland say quite the opposite.

So unless you want very prescriptive federal laws, changing IDEA isn't going to address your complaint. Your school needs to fix their procedures.

It is always easier to blame those who have less power in the situation. Federal law and MSDE regulations are murky to escape any sort of accountability, that will be placed on the schools/district (according to you) parents of the kid (according to others) and the teacher.

Perhaps if the law was more prescriptive, it wouldn’t be necessary for folks like you to claim the need to “fix school procedures.” But that would require lawyers. Lawmakers and policy stakeholders to take a stand and bear responsibility.

The school has the power. Look at what happens in due process complaints-- the schools literally always win in Maryland. Courts defer to them, and parents hold the burden of proof despite having far, far fewer resources.

I really don't understand why you'd want federal lawmakers determining special education procedures and evaluation methods rather than local schools.

Here is an updated version from 2020 about RTI: https://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Special-Ed/MITP/about/SchoolDisciplineBasics.pdf

This isn’t coming from the schools, it IS coming from state entities. I think those entities need to hear about the realities of their policies. This isn’t individual schools making these choices in a vacuum. It comes from above. You are hung up on going from federal law, to an individual school in every comment. There are many layers in between that you continue to ignore. Clearly I am not going to change your opinion, maybe someone will be able to use this information to help advocate at the state level to enact different policies for violent kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Schools are struggling to staff teachers never mind additional support staff that get paid nothing to deal with all day nonsense.

I know people applying for paraeducator jobs in MCPS. For at least the last year, they've been getting qualified applicants. But, the beginning of the year is a mess because they don't start the hiring process early enough to get them in when school starts.

Ok well thats good for MCPS but that is not the case in most counties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Schools are struggling to staff teachers never mind additional support staff that get paid nothing to deal with all day nonsense.

I know people applying for paraeducator jobs in MCPS. For at least the last year, they've been getting qualified applicants. But, the beginning of the year is a mess because they don't start the hiring process early enough to get them in when school starts.

You are delusional. I work in the school system and there are not many applicants. There aren’t even warm bodies. Students that are required to have a dedicated aid (one on one) have not had any for two years straight. There is nothing that can be done if we do not have the people for it. Our school system went to a local college to recruit. There were only five education majors! 5! No one is signing up to get paid nothing, get spit on by parents and their kids, and a year long of stress and anxiety medication. Summers off do not equal up to the sh!t we have to go through.

[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.

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.

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?

First, no para should be subjected to violence either. Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room. But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great. But if it doesn't, then no.

[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.

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.

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?

First, no para should be subjected to violence either. Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room. But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great. But if it doesn't, then no.

Self-contained classrooms are, be definition, among the *most* restrictive environments. Hopefully you're not a teacher, because you really should know better.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

[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.

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.

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?

First, no para should be subjected to violence either. Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room. But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great. But if it doesn't, then no.

Self-contained classrooms are, be definition, among the *most* restrictive environments. Hopefully you're not a teacher, because you really should know better.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

I find it interesting that a 1 on 1 aide is viewed as a reasonable accommodation. To me it is not. It is nuts that schools are expected to pay one person to simply be with one kid all day. That is not a reasonable use of resources and is a good example of why IDEA needs revisited. The costs are a reality and what would be ideally perfect for 1 child is just not viable to expect local schools to provide given the immense surge in disabilities.

[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.

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.

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?

First, no para should be subjected to violence either. Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room. But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great. But if it doesn't, then no.

Self-contained classrooms are, be definition, among the *most* restrictive environments. Hopefully you're not a teacher, because you really should know better.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Yes, in the eyes of the law. I’m not so sure that a 1:1 is less restrictive from the eyes of a child. Those are two very different things. Kind of like how many people with autism hate AbA therapy and find it incredibly restrictive. I’m sure your “moral” judgements have already decided the law wins, but if you are ever involved in this decision for a child do research and think about what it must feel like to have an adult constantly watching you.

[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.

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.

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?

First, no para should be subjected to violence either. Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room. But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great. But if it doesn't, then no.

Self-contained classrooms are, be definition, among the *most* restrictive environments. Hopefully you're not a teacher, because you really should know better.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Yes, in the eyes of the law. I’m not so sure that a 1:1 is less restrictive from the eyes of a child. Those are two very different things. Kind of like how many people with autism hate AbA therapy and find it incredibly restrictive. I’m sure your “moral” judgements have already decided the law wins, but if you are ever involved in this decision for a child do research and think about what it must feel like to have an adult constantly watching you.

What do you think the self-contained classrooms are like for kids with significant behavioral and emotional regulation challenges? They might not have a 1:1, but 1:2 is pretty common in those encounters.

Your reference to ABA demonstrates that you've heard bits and pieces from others, but that you don't actually understand what ABA is or what the objections to it are based on.

I should note, given your love for self-contained peograms, that some school-based autism programs are based on ABA.

[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.

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.

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?

First, no para should be subjected to violence either. Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room. But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great. But if it doesn't, then no.

Self-contained classrooms are, be definition, among the *most* restrictive environments. Hopefully you're not a teacher, because you really should know better.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

I find it interesting that a 1 on 1 aide is viewed as a reasonable accommodation. To me it is not. It is nuts that schools are expected to pay one person to simply be with one kid all day. That is not a reasonable use of resources and is a good example of why IDEA needs revisited. The costs are a reality and what would be ideally perfect for 1 child is just not viable to expect local schools to provide given the immense surge in disabilities.

You really think it's cheaper to set up a variety of separate self-contained programs with very low student:teacher ratios than to bring in support to gen ed classrooms? There's no way schools could logistically or financially accommodate the massive increase in self-contained classrooms that you're suggesting.

By the way, we keep talking about 1:1's, but in reality that level if support wouldn't always be necessary. Even if a child needs paraeducator support, it could be shared. Schools already often group kids with IEPs together for this reason.

[Anonymous]

The current system is broken. Too many kids with violent behavior are in general education classrooms. The protections and accommodations afforded violent students generally and especially those with an IEP are too great. The timeline to action is too slow. Their victims are not protected. I’m not a policy or a lawyer. I do not know the solution, but I can tell you that it is a problem. This problem needs to be addressed differently than it is today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current system is broken. Too many kids with violent behavior are in general education classrooms. The protections and accommodations afforded violent students generally and especially those with an IEP are too great. The timeline to action is too slow. Their victims are not protected. I’m not a policy or a lawyer. I do not know the solution, but I can tell you that it is a problem. This problem needs to be addressed differently than it is today.

Everyone agrees it is broken, but properly funding special education isn't a popular policy position. They'll give it lip service, but they won't get their pocketbooks out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?

First, no para should be subjected to violence either. Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room. But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great. But if it doesn't, then no.

Self-contained classrooms are, be definition, among the *most* restrictive environments. Hopefully you're not a teacher, because you really should know better.

(2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Yes, in the eyes of the law. I’m not so sure that a 1:1 is less restrictive from the eyes of a child. Those are two very different things. Kind of like how many people with autism hate AbA therapy and find it incredibly restrictive. I’m sure your “moral” judgements have already decided the law wins, but if you are ever involved in this decision for a child do research and think about what it must feel like to have an adult constantly watching you.

What do you think the self-contained classrooms are like for kids with significant behavioral and emotional regulation challenges? They might not have a 1:1, but 1:2 is pretty common in those encounters.

Your reference to ABA demonstrates that you've heard bits and pieces from others, but that you don't actually understand what ABA is or what the objections to it are based on.

I should note, given your love for self-contained peograms, that some school-based autism programs are based on ABA.

My kid is in group ABA once a week for unstuck and on target type of social experiences and goals. I think about the effects of it on them constantly.

Part of what people with autism say is that ABA was training them to be typical and use typical behaviors when they really needed to stim, vocalize etc. This is more allowed in self-contained classes because there are fewer kids. There is typically more freedom of movement in self-contained as well. The very fact that there are only 5-8 bodies in a classroom make it easier to give the kids freedom of movement, movement activities are more easily accessible (swings in the room) etc. In a gen ed setting, there are more stimulants (other kids, noises etc) and all kids have to sit quietly for longer periods of time. There are longer transition periods because it takes a LONG time to move things and people in gen ed classrooms and that is a longer time for a kid to have to listen to direct instructions from a 1:1 just to get their lunch box or papers whereas in a self contained, they can go get them and get back to their seats on their own without as much waiting.

My asd kid is HFA so he is doing okay-ish in gen ed, but if it ever came to it, I would ask to have him moved to more time in self contained rather than a 1 to 1 in gen ed. Of course, I probably wouldn’t have a say, or much of one, but do know that not every SPED parent thinks gen ed is the best place if the only way to function is 1:1.

But a 1:1 aid is a very drastic measure and I think as far as restricting a CHILD’s autonomy to move and express oneself having an all day 1:1 in gen ed is very restrictive compared even to a 1:2 or self contained.

If you have any studies that have looked at this, I would definitely be interested. I think most studies have focused on the academic down sides of self contained, which shouldn’t be minimized, but the law and studies don’t really delve into what that feels like to the kids. I sure wouldn’t want some one following me around all day. My 4 year old niece has ASD and she has asked why she always has an aide (Ms Jane) following her around at school (her 1:1) she has said she doesn’t like it and she needs some space. The 1to 1 is there because she scratches and bites her peers. I’m not sure she wouldn’t be better off in a very small class.