Think twice before hiring an advocate…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If school staff met kids needs parents and advocates would not need to step in to advocate. Our principal was a huge bully as was the special education teacher. They did not get my child. Some teachers tried and went above and beyond, but most didn’t get our child. The principal would scream at us about things in our iep meetings that made no sense acting like we were dumb and had no clue. We had our child in many many hours of private services starting at age two, multiple private evaluations, which we gave them. Our private therapists reached out multiple times to school staff to coordinate services and school staff refused to meet with them. They tried to bully us onto a false school diagnosis so they could keep their special education teachers but would not offer more services based off the diagnosis. In hindsight I should have hired an advocate but instead we walked away from the useless iep that they did not follow and was recycled from another child, whose name was in it with multiple careless mistakes and continued in private services. In the end our efforts paid off without school help but most people cannot or will not do what we did nor would that work for the majority of kids.

People like op need to be fired. No services are sometimes better than bad services, which really hurt my child as they were pulled out of class for groups that did not work on my child’s needs but focused on other higher needs kids.

Op, not being cold, but staffing issues are not parents problems. Other kids are not our problem too. We want all kids to get the help they need but as parents our focus is getting our kids the help they need so they can be successful now and in the future.

And, thank you to the amazing teachers and staff who do go above and beyond to help our kids be successful. Don’t think for a moment we don’t see what you do but sometimes parents are just trying to survive and things like a simple thank you get forgotten, especially when we hit that stage in life with our kids, aging parents, work and our own health issues.

I’d encourage any parent who can afford it to get an advocate. It’s very hard going into meetings where the focus is to get out of helping vs helping.

I have never experienced this in FCPS. I have worked with wonderful, caring, professional, intelligent, accountable, staff. I believe that there are bad apples out there. But the OP said a family had an advocate for a team tjhey have never met before. Many families come with an advocate or an attorney to an initial referrral or meeting. They have no trust or respect and aren't assuming good will. OP said "assume good will." Families are never assuming positive intent of staff anymore. This is why staff don't want to work for FCPS.

And yes- you should care about other kids. You should care about staff. It IS your problem. It DOES affect your child and all children and the future of our country. You are responsible to more than just your child.

You wrote "the focus is to get out of helping vs helping." I have never once experienced that or seen that by FCPS staff. I have seen many families expect special education services for their children who do not meet DOE requirements, and get mad at FCPS or a school for following DOE guidelines, and it goes to battle with an advocate until FCPS gives in to make the battle and hostility stop.

FCPS schools have finite resources. There simply are not enough hours available to give every kid the IEP they need and to meet the requirements. Principals know this and push where they can get away with it. Blame the county, state, and federal governments for not adequately funding special education.

Bingo. The vast majority (99%) of SPED educators absolutely want to support kids to the best of their ability. However, they are extremely limited by lack of funding/workload.

We need a shift in our country to prioritize - and fund - education, including SPED.

I fully believe this. I have never met a special educator who truly believed they were doing "enough," although many felt they were doing all they could. The funding situation is pathetic and until SPED gets all of the funding promised in IDEA, we're going to keep having these massive issues. That being said, I'll keep my attorney on retainer. Because the only time the school listened was when I brought her. The "system" isn't my concern. My child is. And if the system has to suffer to get him the education he's entitled to, so be it. Parents and their hired advocates/attorneys are the only force keeping these programs marginally compliant.

Yes, unfortunately the funding/staffing levels just aren't there to provide all of the legally-required services. Some kids will get a boost from advocates, but the vast majority won't.

It's a terrible situation that no one wants to address.

Most of these school systems have plenty of money, its how they choose to spend it.

What specifically do you suggest they cut?

DC can start by cutting the listening sessions to re-imagine high schools?
Maybe the Foreign Language instruction early elementary that is for 45 min a week but does not continue to upper elementary?
The travel basketball league for elementary school (as well as the cross country for elementary school)

I just found you at least 1 head count for every elementary school

Ok. And how to fund the rest?

If you had 2 additional people per elementary school to support special education reading instruction, DC would no longer be funding a bunch of private placements at special schools like the Lab School, Siena, Chelsea. This would pay for itself and then some. The teachers would not be pulled away from classrooms because they need to testify and therefore have more hours to provide services to those who need them. The Special Education Coordinator will not need to sit in hearings for weeks on end. DC would not be paying lawyers fees etc.
They would have better outcomes for all students as you would have less disruptions from kids who are frustrated and acting out. They would have lower costs for juvenile crime and the criminal justice system as a whole as if you look at the data many who are incarcerated had learning disabilities that were undiagnosed (and definitely not served).

You need to start somewhere.

So that would cover 1:1 ELA/OG instruction for 15-20 kids. Small group would cover more kids. What about all of the other SNs? What about adding co-teachers?

Two more reading specialists would certainly help some kids but you are underestimating the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised your PTA group hasn't tapped into their extensive professional network to lobby for more funding. I have no doubt that $65K you 'grant' to the school for special ed could be used more effectively to lobby for funding for all schools. You'd certainly get more bang for the buck. Our PTA budget is about $9K. Our school may get Title 1 support but there's not much disposable income from parents or community.

Not sure what your point is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are unrealistic about what public schools can provide. There are finite resources. Everyone is fighting for a bigger slice of pie for their child. Fair enough but something has to give. And neurotypical kids need resources + time and attention as well.

Schools get additional funding for SN kids. For each SN child coded in a specific way (which is why they push specific diagnosis) they get more funding for sped teachers. So, yes, it's reasonable to expect support given they are using our kids for those additional resources.

Do you know how much is spend per student, and how much additional funding is allocated to your SN child? Somehow that amount needs to be balanced with the services provided.

The issue is not the travel basketball team or the central office salaries, or the federal government etc. The issue is that one on one instruction most SN kids need is very expensive. But that isn’t news to anyone because if it were cheap parents would just get those services privately. Most people don’t. Even if SN kids get double the funding allocation (unheard of), at roughly $200 an hour your child will get 1-2 hours a week over the school year.

There was a mom on this thread that got 60 minutes a week reading intervention, that’s about $7500 that someone has to pay. I agree you should advocate for your child, but don’t assume the people across the table are malicious.

I have to question your experience/knowledge of special ed. I don't know a single special ed student that receives 1:1 instruction. It's not even an option where service hours are listed (at least in FCPS). You'd have to specify that in the PLOP page. I recognize students may get some individual attention while in a group setting but that's not 1:1 instruction. Even in school provided OT and ST kids aren't having individual sessions. Still, if there were some exceptions, it's rare and certainly 'most' kids with SN are not getting 1:1 instruction.

I've got a couple of kids with LDs that are in high school. One, in particular, has a severe language based learning disability. We were lucky to get 1-2 hours special ed services a week in the special ed setting - which is where 1:1 instruction would happen IF we could have gotten it. We couldn't, it was 'small group'. We couldn't get more than 6 hours a MONTH of ST in the special ed setting - again, it was small group, not 1:1. You bet I know exactly what it costs to get 1:1 services privately. It was a painful sacrifice but we're fortunate we could do it. We pay a societal cost for not educating youth and they pay a high, personal cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised your PTA group hasn't tapped into their extensive professional network to lobby for more funding. I have no doubt that $65K you 'grant' to the school for special ed could be used more effectively to lobby for funding for all schools. You'd certainly get more bang for the buck. Our PTA budget is about $9K. Our school may get Title 1 support but there's not much disposable income from parents or community.

Not sure what your point is.

Given the resources of your PTA/parent community, you could spend less time fund raising for your school specialist and lobby state/federal officials for increased funding for special ed state/nation-wide. Your community probably rubs shoulders with decision makers frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are unrealistic about what public schools can provide. There are finite resources. Everyone is fighting for a bigger slice of pie for their child. Fair enough but something has to give. And neurotypical kids need resources + time and attention as well.

Schools get additional funding for SN kids. For each SN child coded in a specific way (which is why they push specific diagnosis) they get more funding for sped teachers. So, yes, it's reasonable to expect support given they are using our kids for those additional resources.

Do you know how much is spend per student, and how much additional funding is allocated to your SN child? Somehow that amount needs to be balanced with the services provided.

The issue is not the travel basketball team or the central office salaries, or the federal government etc. The issue is that one on one instruction most SN kids need is very expensive. But that isn’t news to anyone because if it were cheap parents would just get those services privately. Most people don’t. Even if SN kids get double the funding allocation (unheard of), at roughly $200 an hour your child will get 1-2 hours a week over the school year.

There was a mom on this thread that got 60 minutes a week reading intervention, that’s about $7500 that someone has to pay. I agree you should advocate for your child, but don’t assume the people across the table are malicious.

I have to question your experience/knowledge of special ed. I don't know a single special ed student that receives 1:1 instruction. It's not even an option where service hours are listed (at least in FCPS). You'd have to specify that in the PLOP page. I recognize students may get some individual attention while in a group setting but that's not 1:1 instruction. Even in school provided OT and ST kids aren't having individual sessions. Still, if there were some exceptions, it's rare and certainly 'most' kids with SN are not getting 1:1 instruction.

I've got a couple of kids with LDs that are in high school. One, in particular, has a severe language based learning disability. We were lucky to get 1-2 hours special ed services a week in the special ed setting - which is where 1:1 instruction would happen IF we could have gotten it. We couldn't, it was 'small group'. We couldn't get more than 6 hours a MONTH of ST in the special ed setting - again, it was small group, not 1:1. You bet I know exactly what it costs to get 1:1 services privately. It was a painful sacrifice but we're fortunate we could do it. We pay a societal cost for not educating youth and they pay a high, personal cost.

DP. PP was talking about what kids need, not what they actually receive. This is the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised your PTA group hasn't tapped into their extensive professional network to lobby for more funding. I have no doubt that $65K you 'grant' to the school for special ed could be used more effectively to lobby for funding for all schools. You'd certainly get more bang for the buck. Our PTA budget is about $9K. Our school may get Title 1 support but there's not much disposable income from parents or community.

Not sure what your point is.

Given the resources of your PTA/parent community, you could spend less time fund raising for your school specialist and lobby state/federal officials for increased funding for special ed state/nation-wide. Your community probably rubs shoulders with decision makers frequently.

Not true about rubbing shoulders with decision makers, just (upper) middle class parents that want to feel good about supporting local school through writing a check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised that you have never looked at the budget.

Mine has over 10% of funding go to central administration. 1% to special ed

I was the treasurer of the PTA and know what the budget was. $65k out of $100k was spent on reading and math intervention and a on site counselor for support. The rest was to fund field trips for everyone, 10k, about 10k was for classroom supplies, library etc, and the rest was to run events and the organization.

I seriously doubt that your PTA had 10% go to central office and 1% to special ed, that just seem like some made up numbers. No PTA sends money to the central office, maybe you are referring to the membership fee split with the national PTA parent organization, about $12/member.

I'm not talking about the PTA. I was referring to the published school budgets. Numbers vary, but central administration is 50% of the cost however you slice it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised that you have never looked at the budget.

Mine has over 10% of funding go to central administration. 1% to special ed

I was the treasurer of the PTA and know what the budget was. $65k out of $100k was spent on reading and math intervention and a on site counselor for support. The rest was to fund field trips for everyone, 10k, about 10k was for classroom supplies, library etc, and the rest was to run events and the organization.

I seriously doubt that your PTA had 10% go to central office and 1% to special ed, that just seem like some made up numbers. No PTA sends money to the central office, maybe you are referring to the membership fee split with the national PTA parent organization, about $12/member.

What the heck!? I have never heard of PTAs raising money and paying for actual staff salaries. Or raising 100k/year to spend!?

In some states (VA), PTAs are not permitted to pay for salaries.

Where was it?

+1 In MD it wouldn't be permitted either. It is possible in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised that you have never looked at the budget.

Mine has over 10% of funding go to central administration. 1% to special ed

I was the treasurer of the PTA and know what the budget was. $65k out of $100k was spent on reading and math intervention and a on site counselor for support. The rest was to fund field trips for everyone, 10k, about 10k was for classroom supplies, library etc, and the rest was to run events and the organization.

I seriously doubt that your PTA had 10% go to central office and 1% to special ed, that just seem like some made up numbers. No PTA sends money to the central office, maybe you are referring to the membership fee split with the national PTA parent organization, about $12/member.

What the heck!? I have never heard of PTAs raising money and paying for actual staff salaries. Or raising 100k/year to spend!?

In some states (VA), PTAs are not permitted to pay for salaries.

Where was it?

+1 In MD it wouldn't be permitted either. It is possible in DC.

Ignore this post - I just saw your response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are unrealistic about what public schools can provide. There are finite resources. Everyone is fighting for a bigger slice of pie for their child. Fair enough but something has to give. And neurotypical kids need resources + time and attention as well.

Schools get additional funding for SN kids. For each SN child coded in a specific way (which is why they push specific diagnosis) they get more funding for sped teachers. So, yes, it's reasonable to expect support given they are using our kids for those additional resources.

Do you know how much is spend per student, and how much additional funding is allocated to your SN child? Somehow that amount needs to be balanced with the services provided.

The issue is not the travel basketball team or the central office salaries, or the federal government etc. The issue is that one on one instruction most SN kids need is very expensive. But that isn’t news to anyone because if it were cheap parents would just get those services privately. Most people don’t. Even if SN kids get double the funding allocation (unheard of), at roughly $200 an hour your child will get 1-2 hours a week over the school year.

There was a mom on this thread that got 60 minutes a week reading intervention, that’s about $7500 that someone has to pay. I agree you should advocate for your child, but don’t assume the people across the table are malicious.

I have to question your experience/knowledge of special ed. I don't know a single special ed student that receives 1:1 instruction. It's not even an option where service hours are listed (at least in FCPS). You'd have to specify that in the PLOP page. I recognize students may get some individual attention while in a group setting but that's not 1:1 instruction. Even in school provided OT and ST kids aren't having individual sessions. Still, if there were some exceptions, it's rare and certainly 'most' kids with SN are not getting 1:1 instruction.

I've got a couple of kids with LDs that are in high school. One, in particular, has a severe language based learning disability. We were lucky to get 1-2 hours special ed services a week in the special ed setting - which is where 1:1 instruction would happen IF we could have gotten it. We couldn't, it was 'small group'. We couldn't get more than 6 hours a MONTH of ST in the special ed setting - again, it was small group, not 1:1. You bet I know exactly what it costs to get 1:1 services privately. It was a painful sacrifice but we're fortunate we could do it. We pay a societal cost for not educating youth and they pay a high, personal cost.

DP. PP was talking about what kids need, not what they actually receive. This is the gap.

This. To put things into perspective, the average cost per student is about $15k yearly, and that’s in a classroom of 1 teacher to 25 students. Even small group instruction is expensive, just scale it up with how much smaller the group is. 1:1 instruction is prohibitively expensive unfortunately, and is actually the most effective not only for SN, but for all students period, gifted included. Sure there’s a lot of overhead and inefficiencies, but nobody knows how to get rid of them all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a special education teacher (I also have a child with an IEP, so I have personal skin in the game). We just got the news that two of our fellow teachers have quit following a prolonged battle with a family and their advocate. This family required at least four IEP meetings to get to an IEP they’d be willing to sign- insulting and demoralizing two excellent teachers in the process who hadn’t even WORKED with the child yet.

Mostly I’m just asking you to assume good will. Stop coming into meetings assuming we want to screw your child’s life up and deny them FAPE. This was a particularly egregious case for me because it’s a child whose academics are so close to grade level!! And we were offering the child a good supportive plan to help them get there.
We are doing the best we can to serve ALL students with needs and come Monday my caseload is about 5 students higher. You don’t need to hire an advocate before you even meet with the team once. We aren’t out to deny your kid what they need to succeed academically.

Meaning your team came in prepared to give them the bare minimum because you've got more pressing issues on your case load.

Or maybe because they have X number of other students, and the reality is that they can't meet all of the needs some classrooms have.

I can see both sides. If giving one child more than the bare minimum means neglecting or not provided mandated services to three other students, which should they do? In many schools now, there are not enough special educators to provide more than the minimum to students. Many school districts have tried hiring more special education specialists, but even with incentives, there aren't enough people applying for the positions. If they only have enough staff to provide the bare minimum to all students, what does PP expect them to do? They are required by law to provide education for these students, so they have to ensure that everyone gets the bare minimum. If they have addtional staff or time, they can do more than the minimum, but in many school systems, that just isn't possible. There are only so many things that teachers can do when they don't have sufficient staffing or resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised that you have never looked at the budget.

Mine has over 10% of funding go to central administration. 1% to special ed

I was the treasurer of the PTA and know what the budget was. $65k out of $100k was spent on reading and math intervention and a on site counselor for support. The rest was to fund field trips for everyone, 10k, about 10k was for classroom supplies, library etc, and the rest was to run events and the organization.

I seriously doubt that your PTA had 10% go to central office and 1% to special ed, that just seem like some made up numbers. No PTA sends money to the central office, maybe you are referring to the membership fee split with the national PTA parent organization, about $12/member.

I'm not talking about the PTA. I was referring to the published school budgets. Numbers vary, but central administration is 50% of the cost however you slice it.

Ok, but what’s the proposed solution? Vouchers, charter schools? Don’t think they have much lower cost per student. You can’t cut central office to 0%. You want to have a special ed office, right? Someone wants the DEI office. They’ll need staff and salaries are about 200k for the leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised about how little parents of SN kids know about how those programs are funded. Theres is a huge discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s funded. There’s nowhere near enough money to provide the needed services. At our school the PTA main job is to raise money for special ed, roughly 65k out of the 100k yearly budget so it is literally funded through charity. The interventionist is split between the school because in some years she might not be covered.

Another uncomfortable truth, the services your kid gets are the services another SN kid won’t, because money doesn’t appear based on what’s in the IEP, it’s just that the pie is cut in different slices.

I’m not commenting if it’s fair or not, it’s just the way things are.

I'm surprised that you have never looked at the budget.

Mine has over 10% of funding go to central administration. 1% to special ed

I was the treasurer of the PTA and know what the budget was. $65k out of $100k was spent on reading and math intervention and a on site counselor for support. The rest was to fund field trips for everyone, 10k, about 10k was for classroom supplies, library etc, and the rest was to run events and the organization.

I seriously doubt that your PTA had 10% go to central office and 1% to special ed, that just seem like some made up numbers. No PTA sends money to the central office, maybe you are referring to the membership fee split with the national PTA parent organization, about $12/member.

I'm not talking about the PTA. I was referring to the published school budgets. Numbers vary, but central administration is 50% of the cost however you slice it.

50% the cost of what? SPED budgets?

In our districts, the various specialists are funded by the central admin budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a special education teacher (I also have a child with an IEP, so I have personal skin in the game). We just got the news that two of our fellow teachers have quit following a prolonged battle with a family and their advocate. This family required at least four IEP meetings to get to an IEP they’d be willing to sign- insulting and demoralizing two excellent teachers in the process who hadn’t even WORKED with the child yet.

Mostly I’m just asking you to assume good will. Stop coming into meetings assuming we want to screw your child’s life up and deny them FAPE. This was a particularly egregious case for me because it’s a child whose academics are so close to grade level!! And we were offering the child a good supportive plan to help them get there.
We are doing the best we can to serve ALL students with needs and come Monday my caseload is about 5 students higher. You don’t need to hire an advocate before you even meet with the team once. We aren’t out to deny your kid what they need to succeed academically.

Meaning your team came in prepared to give them the bare minimum because you've got more pressing issues on your case load.

Or maybe because they have X number of other students, and the reality is that they can't meet all of the needs some classrooms have.

I can see both sides. If giving one child more than the bare minimum means neglecting or not provided mandated services to three other students, which should they do? In many schools now, there are not enough special educators to provide more than the minimum to students. Many school districts have tried hiring more special education specialists, but even with incentives, there aren't enough people applying for the positions. If they only have enough staff to provide the bare minimum to all students, what does PP expect them to do? They are required by law to provide education for these students, so they have to ensure that everyone gets the bare minimum. If they have addtional staff or time, they can do more than the minimum, but in many school systems, that just isn't possible. There are only so many things that teachers can do when they don't have sufficient staffing or resources.

When, in your own job, you have been assigned too much work to complete, what do you do? You raise it to your leadership to identify how leadership wants you to handle it and to identify what your priorities are. If your leadership does not provide relief, you are in a unionized job and you want to stay in that job or feel committed to your clients/customers/students, what do you do? You bring it up with your union - must like nurses' unions are doing across the country. Why aren't the teachers' unions addressing this issue in addition to school administrations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a special education teacher (I also have a child with an IEP, so I have personal skin in the game). We just got the news that two of our fellow teachers have quit following a prolonged battle with a family and their advocate. This family required at least four IEP meetings to get to an IEP they’d be willing to sign- insulting and demoralizing two excellent teachers in the process who hadn’t even WORKED with the child yet.

Mostly I’m just asking you to assume good will. Stop coming into meetings assuming we want to screw your child’s life up and deny them FAPE. This was a particularly egregious case for me because it’s a child whose academics are so close to grade level!! And we were offering the child a good supportive plan to help them get there.
We are doing the best we can to serve ALL students with needs and come Monday my caseload is about 5 students higher. You don’t need to hire an advocate before you even meet with the team once. We aren’t out to deny your kid what they need to succeed academically.

Meaning your team came in prepared to give them the bare minimum because you've got more pressing issues on your case load.

Or maybe because they have X number of other students, and the reality is that they can't meet all of the needs some classrooms have.

I can see both sides. If giving one child more than the bare minimum means neglecting or not provided mandated services to three other students, which should they do? In many schools now, there are not enough special educators to provide more than the minimum to students. Many school districts have tried hiring more special education specialists, but even with incentives, there aren't enough people applying for the positions. If they only have enough staff to provide the bare minimum to all students, what does PP expect them to do? They are required by law to provide education for these students, so they have to ensure that everyone gets the bare minimum. If they have addtional staff or time, they can do more than the minimum, but in many school systems, that just isn't possible. There are only so many things that teachers can do when they don't have sufficient staffing or resources.

When, in your own job, you have been assigned too much work to complete, what do you do? You raise it to your leadership to identify how leadership wants you to handle it and to identify what your priorities are. If your leadership does not provide relief, you are in a unionized job and you want to stay in that job or feel committed to your clients/customers/students, what do you do? You bring it up with your union - must like nurses' unions are doing across the country. Why aren't the teachers' unions addressing this issue in addition to school administrations?

At some point, it will require more funding.

Any politicians willing to fund it?