Disruptive student in class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would internet service and technical support be provided for students forced to learn remotely? Free public education and all.

Do you not remember the past 5 years?

You didn't answer the question. Would taxpayers pay for internet service and technical support if selected students were forced to learn remotely while their peers learned in person?

Sure, basic internet and laptops if needed.

Great! What about technical support? And adult supervision? Especially for younger kids and those with autism and other disorders that also include whatever degree of disruptive behavior deemed unacceptable to qualify for in person learning. Public education is free by law. It can't result in a parent having to give up their job, or it wouldn't be free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conflating learning disabilities with violent, disruptive behavior is insulting. Vast majority of kids with iep’s are not attacking their classmates. There is no excuse for allowing that behavior, there is no accommodation that give a kid a right to hit other kids. They must be removed to a place where they can’t hurt others.

Yes, lock 'em up.

You are so out of touch. We are just talking about protecting the safety of the 99+% of students.

And when they turn 18, is your plan to just send them straight to prison? Or do you want them to live on the street for a couple years first? You obviously don’t care about giving them the support they would need to learn critical life skills.

I cannot imagine what school has to do with this. However, of course the kids would still have access to school, either in-person or virtual.

You don’t think schools play a role in teaching kids how to interact and cooperate with one another?

It is pathetic to expect schools to do this.

How old are you? This is a major part of public schools. How could you be so ignorant of that?

Though, it appears you didn’t manage to pick up social/emotional skills in school.

If parents don’t teach critical life skills, what do these parents even do? Leaving it up to the schools really is pathetic.

You’re free to think that, but you probably know it goes against modern understandings of the role of public education in society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conflating learning disabilities with violent, disruptive behavior is insulting. Vast majority of kids with iep’s are not attacking their classmates. There is no excuse for allowing that behavior, there is no accommodation that give a kid a right to hit other kids. They must be removed to a place where they can’t hurt others.

Yes, lock 'em up.

You are so out of touch. We are just talking about protecting the safety of the 99+% of students.

And when they turn 18, is your plan to just send them straight to prison? Or do you want them to live on the street for a couple years first? You obviously don’t care about giving them the support they would need to learn critical life skills.

I cannot imagine what school has to do with this. However, of course the kids would still have access to school, either in-person or virtual.

You don’t think schools play a role in teaching kids how to interact and cooperate with one another?

It is pathetic to expect schools to do this.

How old are you? This is a major part of public schools. How could you be so ignorant of that?

Though, it appears you didn’t manage to pick up social/emotional skills in school.

If parents don’t teach critical life skills, what do these parents even do? Leaving it up to the schools really is pathetic.

Schools have always taught critical life skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conflating learning disabilities with violent, disruptive behavior is insulting. Vast majority of kids with iep’s are not attacking their classmates. There is no excuse for allowing that behavior, there is no accommodation that give a kid a right to hit other kids. They must be removed to a place where they can’t hurt others.

Yes, lock 'em up.

You are so out of touch. We are just talking about protecting the safety of the 99+% of students.

And when they turn 18, is your plan to just send them straight to prison? Or do you want them to live on the street for a couple years first? You obviously don’t care about giving them the support they would need to learn critical life skills.

I cannot imagine what school has to do with this. However, of course the kids would still have access to school, either in-person or virtual.

You don’t think schools play a role in teaching kids how to interact and cooperate with one another?

It is pathetic to expect schools to do this.

Lol. That is what schools do. Goodness.

This is what parents are supposed to do. Expecting schools to do this is just sad.

See, this just shows how unserious you are. Schools teach socialization and cooperation and problem solving and always have.

Schools are not a substitute for parenting. You must be joking.

You're moving the goalposts. Socializing and cooperation and problem solving and other life skills are part of public education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would internet service and technical support be provided for students forced to learn remotely? Free public education and all.

Do you not remember the past 5 years?

You didn't answer the question. Would taxpayers pay for internet service and technical support if selected students were forced to learn remotely while their peers learned in person?

Sure, basic internet and laptops if needed.

Great! What about technical support? And adult supervision? Especially for younger kids and those with autism and other disorders that also include whatever degree of disruptive behavior deemed unacceptable to qualify for in person learning. Public education is free by law. It can't result in a parent having to give up their job, or it wouldn't be free.

Not childcare.

[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:Conflating learning disabilities with violent, disruptive behavior is insulting. Vast majority of kids with iep’s are not attacking their classmates. There is no excuse for allowing that behavior, there is no accommodation that give a kid a right to hit other kids. They must be removed to a place where they can’t hurt others.

Yes, lock 'em up.

You are so out of touch. We are just talking about protecting the safety of the 99+% of students.

And when they turn 18, is your plan to just send them straight to prison? Or do you want them to live on the street for a couple years first? You obviously don’t care about giving them the support they would need to learn critical life skills.

I cannot imagine what school has to do with this. However, of course the kids would still have access to school, either in-person or virtual.

You don’t think schools play a role in teaching kids how to interact and cooperate with one another?

It is pathetic to expect schools to do this.

Lol. That is what schools do. Goodness.

This is what parents are supposed to do. Expecting schools to do this is just sad.

See, this just shows how unserious you are. Schools teach socialization and cooperation and problem solving and always have.

Schools are not a substitute for parenting. You must be joking.

You're moving the goalposts. Socializing and cooperation and problem solving and other life skills are part of public education.

Nobody is discussing removing school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would internet service and technical support be provided for students forced to learn remotely? Free public education and all.

Do you not remember the past 5 years?

You didn't answer the question. Would taxpayers pay for internet service and technical support if selected students were forced to learn remotely while their peers learned in person?

Sure, basic internet and laptops if needed.

Great! What about technical support? And adult supervision? Especially for younger kids and those with autism and other disorders that also include whatever degree of disruptive behavior deemed unacceptable to qualify for in person learning. Public education is free by law. It can't result in a parent having to give up their job, or it wouldn't be free.

Not childcare.

Call it what you want, but your solution wouldn't work legally without taxpayer-paid supervision of children forced by the school district to learn remotely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conflating learning disabilities with violent, disruptive behavior is insulting. Vast majority of kids with iep’s are not attacking their classmates. There is no excuse for allowing that behavior, there is no accommodation that give a kid a right to hit other kids. They must be removed to a place where they can’t hurt others.

Yes, lock 'em up.

You are so out of touch. We are just talking about protecting the safety of the 99+% of students.

You're talking about locking up eight year olds.

Finding a safe alternative where they cannot harm others. Stop defending the violent aggressors while ignoring the victims. It is nauseating.

Don’t be ridiculous. Whenever this topic comes up on dcum, its almost always from people complaining about disruptive behavior, rather than realized threats to the safety of kids in the classroom. I wish there was good data on injuries in schools resulting from these, and other, behaviors. I’m not going to claim they never happen, but if this was a real problem I’m sure we’d see a lot more stories about injuries than we do. Instead, I strongly suspect injury numbers simply blend into the background with accidents and conflicts about and within NT kids.

I’m sympathetic to any fear and discomfort felt by kids when they observe outbursts from peers, but they’re obviously not the only ones that feel that way. Many of those outbursts are the result of schools, teachers, and peers being unwilling to provide a comfortable and safe environment for the child with special needs. Or perhaps not knowing how to.

If you actually want to fix the problem, you be more focused on asking how mcps can provide a more supportive and inclusive environment, rather than trying to make excuses for locking up (or locking out) kids with special needs.

Please read this post. I am a teacher and I would say that 9 out of 10 cases of disruptive behavior by a child with special needs it was easily avoidable by providing a more supportive environment. I don't mean anything major but just teachers who know how not to overreact or how to work behavior plans into their daily routines. Teachers need more education about this and more support from specialists who can come in and advise them.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Conflating learning disabilities with violent, disruptive behavior is insulting. Vast majority of kids with iep’s are not attacking their classmates. There is no excuse for allowing that behavior, there is no accommodation that give a kid a right to hit other kids. They must be removed to a place where they can’t hurt others.

Yes, lock 'em up.

You are so out of touch. We are just talking about protecting the safety of the 99+% of students.

And when they turn 18, is your plan to just send them straight to prison? Or do you want them to live on the street for a couple years first? You obviously don’t care about giving them the support they would need to learn critical life skills.

I cannot imagine what school has to do with this. However, of course the kids would still have access to school, either in-person or virtual.

You don’t think schools play a role in teaching kids how to interact and cooperate with one another?

It is pathetic to expect schools to do this.

Lol. That is what schools do. Goodness.

This is what parents are supposed to do. Expecting schools to do this is just sad.

See, this just shows how unserious you are. Schools teach socialization and cooperation and problem solving and always have.

Schools are not a substitute for parenting. You must be joking.

You're moving the goalposts. Socializing and cooperation and problem solving and other life skills are part of public education.

Nobody is discussing removing school.

Is remote learning as effecitve as in person learning when it comes to learning socialization skills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would internet service and technical support be provided for students forced to learn remotely? Free public education and all.

Do you not remember the past 5 years?

You didn't answer the question. Would taxpayers pay for internet service and technical support if selected students were forced to learn remotely while their peers learned in person?

Sure, basic internet and laptops if needed.

Great! What about technical support? And adult supervision? Especially for younger kids and those with autism and other disorders that also include whatever degree of disruptive behavior deemed unacceptable to qualify for in person learning. Public education is free by law. It can't result in a parent having to give up their job, or it wouldn't be free.

Not childcare.

Call it what you want, but your solution wouldn't work legally without taxpayer-paid supervision of children forced by the school district to learn remotely.

Laws can be changed.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conflating learning disabilities with violent, disruptive behavior is insulting. Vast majority of kids with iep’s are not attacking their classmates. There is no excuse for allowing that behavior, there is no accommodation that give a kid a right to hit other kids. They must be removed to a place where they can’t hurt others.

Yes, lock 'em up.

You are so out of touch. We are just talking about protecting the safety of the 99+% of students.

And when they turn 18, is your plan to just send them straight to prison? Or do you want them to live on the street for a couple years first? You obviously don’t care about giving them the support they would need to learn critical life skills.

I cannot imagine what school has to do with this. However, of course the kids would still have access to school, either in-person or virtual.

You don’t think schools play a role in teaching kids how to interact and cooperate with one another?

It is pathetic to expect schools to do this.

Lol. That is what schools do. Goodness.

This is what parents are supposed to do. Expecting schools to do this is just sad.

See, this just shows how unserious you are. Schools teach socialization and cooperation and problem solving and always have.

Schools are not a substitute for parenting. You must be joking.

You're moving the goalposts. Socializing and cooperation and problem solving and other life skills are part of public education.

Nobody is discussing removing school.

Is remote learning as effecitve as in person learning when it comes to learning socialization skills?

Can you prove that it isn’t?

[Anonymous]

Fun fact! The Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 in 2017 that a public school district had to provide an autistic student with "severe behaviorial issues" a free and appropriate public education. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would internet service and technical support be provided for students forced to learn remotely? Free public education and all.

Do you not remember the past 5 years?

You didn't answer the question. Would taxpayers pay for internet service and technical support if selected students were forced to learn remotely while their peers learned in person?

Sure, basic internet and laptops if needed.

Great! What about technical support? And adult supervision? Especially for younger kids and those with autism and other disorders that also include whatever degree of disruptive behavior deemed unacceptable to qualify for in person learning. Public education is free by law. It can't result in a parent having to give up their job, or it wouldn't be free.

Not childcare.

Call it what you want, but your solution wouldn't work legally without taxpayer-paid supervision of children forced by the school district to learn remotely.

Laws can be changed.

Go find 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate for a platform of forcing disabled children to learn remotely then, I guess!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would internet service and technical support be provided for students forced to learn remotely? Free public education and all.

Do you not remember the past 5 years?

You didn't answer the question. Would taxpayers pay for internet service and technical support if selected students were forced to learn remotely while their peers learned in person?

Sure, basic internet and laptops if needed.

Great! What about technical support? And adult supervision? Especially for younger kids and those with autism and other disorders that also include whatever degree of disruptive behavior deemed unacceptable to qualify for in person learning. Public education is free by law. It can't result in a parent having to give up their job, or it wouldn't be free.

Not childcare.

Call it what you want, but your solution wouldn't work legally without taxpayer-paid supervision of children forced by the school district to learn remotely.

Laws can be changed.

Go find 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate for a platform of forcing disabled children to learn remotely then, I guess!

No need for federal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fun fact! The Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 in 2017 that a public school district had to provide an autistic student with "severe behaviorial issues" a free and appropriate public education. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances."

Did they do virtual learning?