Why are kids with problematic behavior left in mainstream classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in ES in the late 70s and remembered kids, mostly boys, who were in a separate class but we had lunch, recess, field trips together. Now I realize, they were probably kids with ADHD, other learning disabilities, or behavioral issues. I think they integrated in junior high. Why can’t they do that now? Why did they stop? What changed?

They didn't stop. They expanded it. It's called "self-contained". But it's extremely expensive to provide for everyone who needs it it's not in the budget.

Self contained is one solution, however there are non-violent students in the self-contained classroom that are injured by violent students. Also, you have to go through the IEP process, be identified with a disability, and the team determines that the pull out is necessary to meet the child’s needs.

Most likely, the child needs an aide. The placement might not matter as much as the staffing. If a child can learn skills to modify behavior with the support of an aide, then the general education environment would be the least restrictive environment.

My son is in a self contained class. The IEP team started with an aide in gen ed. My sons issue is anxiety. The class size is just too large. An aide only adds another body to the classroom. It does not bring down the noise level or the chaos. When he got overwhelmed, he lashed out. Yes, he turned over desks and chairs and screamed. Now he's in a relatively quiet self contained environment. No table or chair throwing or even tantrums anymore. Just a kid that is happy to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in ES in the late 70s and remembered kids, mostly boys, who were in a separate class but we had lunch, recess, field trips together. Now I realize, they were probably kids with ADHD, other learning disabilities, or behavioral issues. I think they integrated in junior high. Why can’t they do that now? Why did they stop? What changed?

One of my brothers was in the group. The boys in his class all had severe learning disabilities, but ranged in intelligence from well below average to genius. They didn’t learn much. They got busy work like word searches and no feedback other than stickers for completing it. They were not given the accommodations needed to access the regular curriculum and were not taught science-based strategies to self manage their ADHD. Some of them never realized what they were missing, but my brother was keenly aware and it causes him anxiety, depression, and distrust of schools.

Let’s not bring those back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This kumbaya stuff has proven not to work and we need to get back to what does work. Students should be tracked based on ability and disruptive kids should be removed from normal classrooms.

It is likely that the outcome will not look equitable. We should not use that as a reason not to do what’s right.

Tracking by ability will require allowing some disruptive students to stay. DCUM boys are just bored, after all. Nevermind that they could just quietly read a book instead of acting a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no other placements available. There’s only a handful of settings that are appropriate and only well-connected parents know how to get their kids in one. Can’t afford to sue? Your child stays in the classroom, even if they maim someone.

+1 There are only a handful of settings and they can cost anywhere from $30-50$+ dollars of which the district must pay the cost(which may or may not have an adjustment). There are not enough Special education and counselors to help all kids. Some parents are in denial about their kids problems which makes getting them evaluated harder and takes longer.

The Central Office Special Education Assoc Superintendent is honest about all of these. She’s even briefed the BOE about these things.

Try 80k a year and there are VERY few of these day schools and VERY few seats. There can be literally nowhere to send these kids. If there is no space at any of the handful of private day schools that are appropriate, they can't move the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no other placements available. There’s only a handful of settings that are appropriate and only well-connected parents know how to get their kids in one. Can’t afford to sue? Your child stays in the classroom, even if they maim someone.

+1 There are only a handful of settings and they can cost anywhere from $30-50$+ dollars of which the district must pay the cost(which may or may not have an adjustment). There are not enough Special education and counselors to help all kids. Some parents are in denial about their kids problems which makes getting them evaluated harder and takes longer.

The Central Office Special Education Assoc Superintendent is honest about all of these. She’s even briefed the BOE about these things.

Try 80k a year and there are VERY few of these day schools and VERY few seats. There can be literally nowhere to send these kids. If there is no space at any of the handful of private day schools that are appropriate, they can't move the kid.

Correct. The school district can agree to pay for non public placement but that doesn't mean that a school like Ivymount has to accept the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion but LRE is not beneficial for the students its in place for. So many children need to be in a resource room in order to receive the support and services they need. This is both academically and behaviorally. In theory, it looks great on paper and it sounds great for equity. However, in practice, it is not best practice for all of the students in the classroom.

I think this as well.

That post doesn't even make sense. How can you think that as well?

It most assuredly does make sense, and I agree with it also. DP

Another agreement that it makes sense, and that I agree. NP

And the research demonstrating otherwise?

Feel free to cite a recent, solid source, if you like.

30 years experience in the classroom. Listen to the people actually in the buildings, doing the work. Research means nothing when these people havent stepped foot in a classroom in years, or usually, ever.

Nope. Cite your peer-reviewed source or don’t make the claim of “research demonstrating otherwise.”

Again, you’ve given nothing. You have no experience. You have no peer reviewed articles. You probably have a kid who should be in a self contained classroom and you’re in denial. I’m a DP and absolutely agree with the OP. You’ve done nothing but make pointless comments on numerous posts.

[Anonymous]

Keep the disruptive kid home with the parent. Stop ruining the education of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't actually experienced this in MCPS, but I've dealt with these issues in other jurisdictions. Generally speaking the answer is that it's cheaper to keep them in mainstream classes.

Yet. You haven’t experienced it yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yea, what happened to detentions and suspensions. I’m a taxpayer, I want those back for whom deserves it!!!

And wth is the restorative justices crap?!

Detentions, suspensions, and expulsions are only available in private schools. It is one of the reasons we switched. Ridiculously expensive, but when I look at our kids, we know we made the right choice. They were too sensitive to handle the chaotic classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it’s cheaper and because the kids need to be in the least restrictive environment.

How can we change or amend this law? Who would we lobby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yea, what happened to detentions and suspensions. I’m a taxpayer, I want those back for whom deserves it!!!

And wth is the restorative justices crap?!

Detentions, suspensions, and expulsions are only available in private schools. It is one of the reasons we switched. Ridiculously expensive, but when I look at our kids, we know we made the right choice. They were too sensitive to handle the chaotic classrooms.

There's a high bar for suspensions and expulsions. Our MS does detentions (lunch normally) all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion but LRE is not beneficial for the students its in place for. So many children need to be in a resource room in order to receive the support and services they need. This is both academically and behaviorally. In theory, it looks great on paper and it sounds great for equity. However, in practice, it is not best practice for all of the students in the classroom.

I think this as well.

That post doesn't even make sense. How can you think that as well?

It most assuredly does make sense, and I agree with it also. DP

Another agreement that it makes sense, and that I agree. NP

And the research demonstrating otherwise?

Feel free to cite a recent, solid source, if you like.

30 years experience in the classroom. Listen to the people actually in the buildings, doing the work. Research means nothing when these people havent stepped foot in a classroom in years, or usually, ever.

Nope. Cite your peer-reviewed source or don’t make the claim of “research demonstrating otherwise.”

Nah. I’d rather hear from people with actual experience and who are in the buildings on a daily basis than some outdated peer reviewed “source.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion but LRE is not beneficial for the students its in place for. So many children need to be in a resource room in order to receive the support and services they need. This is both academically and behaviorally. In theory, it looks great on paper and it sounds great for equity. However, in practice, it is not best practice for all of the students in the classroom.

I think this as well.

That post doesn't even make sense. How can you think that as well?

It most assuredly does make sense, and I agree with it also. DP

Another agreement that it makes sense, and that I agree. NP

And the research demonstrating otherwise?

Feel free to cite a recent, solid source, if you like.

30 years experience in the classroom. Listen to the people actually in the buildings, doing the work. Research means nothing when these people havent stepped foot in a classroom in years, or usually, ever.

Nope. Cite your peer-reviewed source or don’t make the claim of “research demonstrating otherwise.”

Nah. I’d rather hear from people with actual experience and who are in the buildings on a daily basis than some outdated peer reviewed “source.”

Yeah. 'Cause anecdotes are science. :roll:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion but LRE is not beneficial for the students its in place for. So many children need to be in a resource room in order to receive the support and services they need. This is both academically and behaviorally. In theory, it looks great on paper and it sounds great for equity. However, in practice, it is not best practice for all of the students in the classroom.

I think this as well.

That post doesn't even make sense. How can you think that as well?

It most assuredly does make sense, and I agree with it also. DP

Another agreement that it makes sense, and that I agree. NP

And the research demonstrating otherwise?

Feel free to cite a recent, solid source, if you like.

30 years experience in the classroom. Listen to the people actually in the buildings, doing the work. Research means nothing when these people havent stepped foot in a classroom in years, or usually, ever.

Nope. Cite your peer-reviewed source or don’t make the claim of “research demonstrating otherwise.”

Again, you’ve given nothing. You have no experience. You have no peer reviewed articles. You probably have a kid who should be in a self contained classroom and you’re in denial. I’m a DP and absolutely agree with the OP. You’ve done nothing but make pointless comments on numerous posts.

What the hell are you talking about? Your reading comprehension is laughably bad. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion but LRE is not beneficial for the students its in place for. So many children need to be in a resource room in order to receive the support and services they need. This is both academically and behaviorally. In theory, it looks great on paper and it sounds great for equity. However, in practice, it is not best practice for all of the students in the classroom.

I think this as well.

That post doesn't even make sense. How can you think that as well?

It most assuredly does make sense, and I agree with it also. DP

Another agreement that it makes sense, and that I agree. NP

And the research demonstrating otherwise?

Feel free to cite a recent, solid source, if you like.

30 years experience in the classroom. Listen to the people actually in the buildings, doing the work. Research means nothing when these people havent stepped foot in a classroom in years, or usually, ever.

Nope. Cite your peer-reviewed source or don’t make the claim of “research demonstrating otherwise.”

Nah. I’d rather hear from people with actual experience and who are in the buildings on a daily basis than some outdated peer reviewed “source.”

So you don’t have one and when you (or whomever, if you claim it wasn’t you) made the claim that there was “research demonstrating otherwise,” you/they were lying.

Thanks for confirming what we already knew.