Think twice before hiring an advocate…

[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.

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.

I'm a 1:1 para; my pay is coded for central office but I've never worked a day there. I do a lot of 1:1 teaching, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you willing to fund it through your property taxes or getting a health insurance that covers more? How about funding directly your child’s SN education?

The cost per SN student is 3 times the one for NT students. One could argue that’s a reasonable amount if funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you willing to fund it through your property taxes or getting a health insurance that covers more? How about funding directly your child’s SN education?

The cost per SN student is 3 times the one for NT students. One could argue that’s a reasonable amount if funding.

And I guess SN kids from families whose parents can’t afford those things are just SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP's friend isn't really a friend of special needs children. I can't imagine leaving my profession over an IEP meeting that happens once or twice a year. Not a huge loss to the special education committee. I've noticed our school always pulls the teacher least interested in special ed to do these meetings so they can pretend the teachers aren't capable. It's a tactic. They are never the class my child struggles the most with. Usually the single male guy that looks like a deer with the headlights just sitting back hoping not to speak.

Maybe IEP meetings are only once or twice a year for parents - for special education teachers they can be weekly. At your job, how many times would you need to be yelled at and blamed for things out of your control before you quit? Once or twice a year? Every other week?

The school system is to blame for many of the problems in special ed. The teachers are to blame if they refuse to follow the IEP. Every single year my kid had one teacher who thought they knew better. They were usually completely ignorant wrt disabilities. In over a decade of attending IEP meetings I only raised my voice twice to be heard over the administrator who talked over me and made up rules that violated the IDEA. Imagine calling an IEP meeting because of a teacher refusing to allow accommodations that are specified in the IEP and to be told we will not discuss that issue in the IEP meeting because I'm recording it. I can tell you stories all day about this kind of bs I experienced in meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you willing to fund it through your property taxes or getting a health insurance that covers more? How about funding directly your child’s SN education?

The cost per SN student is 3 times the one for NT students. One could argue that’s a reasonable amount if funding.

Band kids cost as much. You just hate people with disabilities and think they are less than. People like you have been complaining about the cost since IDEA came in to place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. But only because the school will never give your child what they actually need. Just get your child in tutoring or private if you can.

I didn't read all 15 pages of sniping back and forth because I got to comment 4 and it's this.

I think spec ed teachers, in general, are great. I think public schools can only handle so much and they have over promised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you willing to fund it through your property taxes or getting a health insurance that covers more? How about funding directly your child’s SN education?

The cost per SN student is 3 times the one for NT students. One could argue that’s a reasonable amount if funding.

I don't think you have much life experience. How school district's are funded depend on the district/state. My hometown district was funded by business/industrial taxes (plus some money from the state and federal government). In Fairfax County, my property taxes fund the schools (plus some money from the state and federal government. So, I'm already doing that.

Health insurance, if you're lucky enough to have a decent policy, allows at least some therapies. There's certainly some academic benefit (OT certainly helped with the fine motor control needed to hold a pencil/crayon/scissors) but the purpose is for 'life skills' not academics. It also pays for the ADHD/anxiety/depression medications that my DCs need in order to be available for instruction. I even use my HSA/FSA to pay for things like wiggle seats and fidget toys which absolutely benefit academics.

As far as directly funding my child's education, I have no doubt the vast majority of people in this forum, including myself, have paid a lot of money for things that directly benefit our kids' education.

It is people like you that have required us to seek legal rulings to make things accessible and equitable. If you're lucky, you'll live long enough to need the cut curbs, ramps, elevators, accessible bathrooms, captioning, etc. that are only available because peopel like us became vocal about discrimination and unequal treatment under the law. It's people like us that recognize the huge societal cost of not educating children.

Even if you can't get on board with it being the right thing to do, look at the economics of it. One way or another, society pays. You can pay to educate kids and support their transition to contributing members of society and reap the rewards/lower lifetime costs. Or, you can pay for with higher incarceration rates, higher health costs, higher social services costs, increaed poverty, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you willing to fund it through your property taxes or getting a health insurance that covers more? How about funding directly your child’s SN education?

The cost per SN student is 3 times the one for NT students. One could argue that’s a reasonable amount if funding.

Many of us do private pay therapies. It is not three times as much for all kid, some yes but most just get minimal help at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shit. This thread is making me feel like I should have hired an advocate.

It's also making overwhelmed SPED teachers want to quit. Two sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. This post just makes me even more sure that the decision to homeschool my 2E kids was the best one. I realize teaching is hard. OP, sounds like you should move on to a different career.

Teachers are glad you homeschool too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents can hire advocates if they want to.

Maybe the key is to hire an advocate who isn’t adversarial. The advocate gets paid either way, but the family and team have to work with each other the rest of the year.

The best advocates get an IEP that's appropriate without alienating the very people charged with implementing it.

This....but they are far and few between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the 2e kids who ARE quite close to grade level but could be doing much more if they weren't managing to create their own supports. Also, they are probably struggling with a lot of issues that are non-academic.

I agree that the public school probably can't offer what is actually needed, and I feel for the teachers who are stuck in the middle. We ended up having to go private to get what we need - to a private SN school, even though our kid would have fallen into the category you describe with being almost at grade level.

On the other hand, of course, I agree you need to assume good intent. We went into our first IEP meeting with an advocate because our neuropsych basically told us we would need one, and I felt like she was way too antogonistic.

What you are saying is 100 percent true. To get a 2E kid their ideal perfect education, you sometimes have to go private. But many families can’t afford that nor afford an advocate, and it’s just not fair that a child who is achieving well but not as well as they COULD earns the resources over a child who is so low that they might not learn to read without supports.

The thing is - the way this is being framed is illegal. The law says that decisions about whether a kid qualifies for an IEP and what should be in that IEP are to be made without reference to the available resources of the schools system.

If you want to be mad that you have too many kids and not enough resources, be mad at the federal government for not giving more funding for this to states, be mad at state and local authorities for not appropriating more funding, and be mad at yourselves and your bosses. You have so many managerial problems and you never fix them. They cost your time and aggravation.

I have zero sympathy for my school system - MCPS - who for years has had a caseload of dyslexic students and has never until the last few years started to put in structural supports and train teachers in dyslexia-appropriate reading instruction.

I see that schools, despite having dozens of kids with ADHD, still use shame as their main behavioral management tool and do not have any systemic supports for ADHD. They do not have packages of instruction tailored to the kinds of reading comp problems that ADHD kids have. There are no special instruction packages for dysgraphia. Teachers lack training to know how to support students with depression and anxiety in school. Worse, on a personal level, many teachers are ignorant about these disorders and thus shame these students instead of helping them.

FAPE isn't a competition between students to see who is worse off and needs it more. FAPE is a civil right held by each student, created by a state and society who knows that disabled students have academic potential that must be met in order to have stable jobs and lives and become taxpayer citizens who contribute to the state. FAPE is an investment in our country's human capital. FAPE (and IDEA, Sec 504 and the ADA) is also a safety net for every individual. Historically, our society has thought of disabled people as not able to learn or participate in society or worse as somehow responsible for being disabled. But the reality is that every day you and your family wake up whole and healthy is a blessing because at any moment one of us or our loved ones could fall ill or be injured. Can you imagine being told that you are only allowed to have the resources necessary to develop up to "almost average"????

It is not up to the OP and her IEP team to decide that some kids are deserving of public investment and others are not. If a parent's assertion of their own child's civil rights was so offensive to your peers that they quit, then they did not have an adequate understanding of their profession, and it's good for all of us that they move on.

I have seen many kids who tried and failed to get IEPs or 504s, and I assure you the consequences are devastating even for those that are "almost average" - depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, de-motivation and even suicidality. It's just as tragic as a kid who doesn't learn to read, but in a different way. Our disabilities are not your pain Olympics, OP.

You sound extremely out of touch and ignorant about what schools can and can't provide. You are extremely condescending and I hope the next principal you deal with puts you in your place. But let's be real you don't talk like this with school staff just on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shit. This thread is making me feel like I should have hired an advocate.

It's also making overwhelmed SPED teachers want to quit. Two sides.

If SPED teachers would collaborate with parents and outside professionals and just listen, then maybe parents would not need to hire advocates. If it were your child, you'd just be ok with them getting at best the minimum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

Dear teacher - you do not understand special education law. "Impedes access to the general education curriculum" is not a component of the IDEA law. Rather, a student must have 1) a qualifying disorder that 2) adversely impacts education and 3) necessitates special instruction.

A child can "access the curriculum" but still not be able to learn from it adequately commensurate with their ability. This happens in the case of dyslexia for example - dyslexic typically can "access" the general ed curriculum in the sense that they can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc. They also tend to learn something about reading, just nothing compared to their peers. They progress at a slower rate and their reading is often laborious. Indeed, they may be the kind of student you are referring to who is "almost" reading at average grade level, and so appears to you not to need special education, especially compared to other "more needy" students you identify. They appear to be "accessing" instruction, but since the test is actually whether their disorder "adversely impacts" their "education" and "necessitates special instruction", they qualify for IEPs where their assessed ability (IQ) is significantly above their ability to read (as measured by achievement). These students benefit from special instruction in reading appropriate to dyslexics (OG and other instruction that focuses on the sound symbol relationship).

Students with "mild dyslexia" should never be served under a 504 plan instead of an IEP, otherwise they miss the chance for special instruction that they need to have a chance at becoming fluent readers near their level of ability. It would never be appropriate to substitute a 504 plan with an "accommodation" like audiobooks or more time or text to speech instead of OG reading instruction.

FWIW, IDEA is very clear that a student can have good grades and be on grade level and still need an IEP as my 2E DS had for dysgraphia and "mild" ADHD. (Although as parents we did not think it so mild - it required medication and a lot of other support.) These kids are also eligible to take magnet and advanced classes, with IEP supports as necessary.

If you were parroting this misinformation at my child's special education meeting, I would file some kind of complaint and make sure that I brought an advocate or lawyer to my meetings with you.

Maybe you are right, but you should know that you are the reason no one wants to be a SPED teacher.

oh ffs. if you don’t want to comply with the primary regulations affecting your profession then yeah, don’t enter that profession. if you don’t want to develop skills that are fundamental to your profession (working with parents of SN kids, including the ones who want to be involved closely) then don’t enter that profession.

writing and implementing IEPS is your job. talking to parents and their representatives is your job.

Not PP but I left SPED like many other teachers and therapists....I'm still teaching but I don't have to deal with advocates and pointless meetings dragging me away from the kids you say need my time so much. 3-4 meetings for one child guess what all your kids lose out. There is advocating and then there is crossing a contentious line. If thats the game you want to play-play it. But enjoy the shortage half the SPED team at my daughters school are teacher trainees.....because the principal said they can't get enough people in SPED. This is happening across many counties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

Dear teacher - you do not understand special education law. "Impedes access to the general education curriculum" is not a component of the IDEA law. Rather, a student must have 1) a qualifying disorder that 2) adversely impacts education and 3) necessitates special instruction.

A child can "access the curriculum" but still not be able to learn from it adequately commensurate with their ability. This happens in the case of dyslexia for example - dyslexic typically can "access" the general ed curriculum in the sense that they can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc. They also tend to learn something about reading, just nothing compared to their peers. They progress at a slower rate and their reading is often laborious. Indeed, they may be the kind of student you are referring to who is "almost" reading at average grade level, and so appears to you not to need special education, especially compared to other "more needy" students you identify. They appear to be "accessing" instruction, but since the test is actually whether their disorder "adversely impacts" their "education" and "necessitates special instruction", they qualify for IEPs where their assessed ability (IQ) is significantly above their ability to read (as measured by achievement). These students benefit from special instruction in reading appropriate to dyslexics (OG and other instruction that focuses on the sound symbol relationship).

Students with "mild dyslexia" should never be served under a 504 plan instead of an IEP, otherwise they miss the chance for special instruction that they need to have a chance at becoming fluent readers near their level of ability. It would never be appropriate to substitute a 504 plan with an "accommodation" like audiobooks or more time or text to speech instead of OG reading instruction.

FWIW, IDEA is very clear that a student can have good grades and be on grade level and still need an IEP as my 2E DS had for dysgraphia and "mild" ADHD. (Although as parents we did not think it so mild - it required medication and a lot of other support.) These kids are also eligible to take magnet and advanced classes, with IEP supports as necessary.

If you were parroting this misinformation at my child's special education meeting, I would file some kind of complaint and make sure that I brought an advocate or lawyer to my meetings with you.

Maybe you are right, but you should know that you are the reason no one wants to be a SPED teacher.

oh ffs. if you don’t want to comply with the primary regulations affecting your profession then yeah, don’t enter that profession. if you don’t want to develop skills that are fundamental to your profession (working with parents of SN kids, including the ones who want to be involved closely) then don’t enter that profession.

writing and implementing IEPS is your job. talking to parents and their representatives is your job.

Not PP but I left SPED like many other teachers and therapists....I'm still teaching but I don't have to deal with advocates and pointless meetings dragging me away from the kids you say need my time so much. 3-4 meetings for one child guess what all your kids lose out. There is advocating and then there is crossing a contentious line. If thats the game you want to play-play it. But enjoy the shortage half the SPED team at my daughters school are teacher trainees.....because the principal said they can't get enough people in SPED. This is happening across many counties.

If schools would work with parents and outside professionals to develop a good iep before the meeting there would not be a need for multiple meetings. What would you do if it were your child?