Newsweek: "Schools Are Killing My Son's Autism Support Under the Veil of Equity"

[Anonymous]

Systemic changes like being proactive need to be made. AB2222 with required the science of reading to be mandated in california did not even get a hearing because of the powerful teachers union.. cta. It is in the public's interest to focus on literacy and foundational skills, along with universal testing , teach training and the science of reading approach taught. These practices will reduce special ed by 70% actually saving districts monies but much more importantly closing the achievement gap. About 80% of the students in special ed are dyslexic or english is not their primary language. Both groups and other vulnerable groups learn best by the science of reading approach which has 5 foundational skills, comprehension, vocabulary, phonics , phonemic awareness and fluency.
95% of all students can be successful if the system gets proactive and focuses on evidenced based practices and students. Sadly admin. have self interests over student interests when it comes down to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

This 100% this.

You read well. Others do not.

Also they were staffed for 60 kids but they don’t have 60 kids and even less are registered for next year.

she’s totally clear in her article - the equity is mainstreaming kids.

as for the number of kids enrolled, guess who controlls that? mcps.

No, it's the number of children being born, that controls enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Systemic changes like being proactive need to be made. AB2222 with required the science of reading to be mandated in california did not even get a hearing because of the powerful teachers union.. cta. It is in the public's interest to focus on literacy and foundational skills, along with universal testing , teach training and the science of reading approach taught. These practices will reduce special ed by 70% actually saving districts monies but much more importantly closing the achievement gap. About 80% of the students in special ed are dyslexic or english is not their primary language. Both groups and other vulnerable groups learn best by the science of reading approach which has 5 foundational skills, comprehension, vocabulary, phonics , phonemic awareness and fluency.
95% of all students can be successful if the system gets proactive and focuses on evidenced based practices and students. Sadly admin. have self interests over student interests when it comes down to it.

agree but these kids in the Darnestown program are still going to need intensive special ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

This 100% this.

You read well. Others do not.

Also they were staffed for 60 kids but they don’t have 60 kids and even less are registered for next year.

she’s totally clear in her article - the equity is mainstreaming kids.

as for the number of kids enrolled, guess who controlls that? mcps.

No, it's the number of children being born, that controls enrollment.

No, I’m talking about the Darnestown autism program. MCPS decides who gets to go there. You can’t just enroll your kid in it. Technically the IEP team decided but it’s really MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

Exactly this!

[Anonymous]

Check the map on this page, high concentrations of ASD programs in many of these areas if you want to move for better services.

[Anonymous]

Forgot the link

https://operationautism.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

Exactly this!

jfk. the “equity” issue she raises is the belief that MCPS is ruining the specialized program because equity demands that kids with autism be served in less-specialized centers.

but if you’re so triggered by this op-ed there’s plenty of other coverage:

https://moco360.media/2024/04/06/opinion-cutting-mcps-autism-program-is-detrimental-mistake/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

exactly. and these are the kids that PP is going to come back here crying about when MCPS decides they can just be mainstreamed and they act out. it’s astonishingly terrible. parents like this program. it should be replicated not gutted. my kid with HFA had on and off very bad behavioral issues mainstreamed in DCPS. he managed to grow out of them (knock on wood) but it was really tough for EVERYONE for a long time. and there were zero, I mean zero, programs for him, or even competent push-in ABA support. It was brutal. My heart really goes out to the Darnestown parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

Unfortunately MCPS probably calculated that the staffing level provided by Darnestown is not legally required by the IEPs and was above and beyond. They’re just going to put these kids back into non-cat programs that don’t have the same diploma-bound expectations and watch some kids fail out due to behavior, and the rest learn the bare minimum.

[Anonymous]

This is how it goes on DCUM

“There’s a violent kid in my DC’s class! The parents need to something! Kick him out!”

also DCUM

“Ha ha nobody needs that specialized program for kids with behavioral issues. Stop whining.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

Unfortunately MCPS probably calculated that the staffing level provided by Darnestown is not legally required by the IEPs and was above and beyond. They’re just going to put these kids back into non-cat programs that don’t have the same diploma-bound expectations and watch some kids fail out due to behavior, and the rest learn the bare minimum.

How is using evidence-based practice going above and beyond? There’s established case law on this subject:

https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/autism.index.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how it goes on DCUM

“There’s a violent kid in my DC’s class! The parents need to something! Kick him out!”

also DCUM

“Ha ha nobody needs that specialized program for kids with behavioral issues. Stop whining.”

Is anyone in this thread advocating for doing away with this program?