is 'quiet lunch' over accommodation?

[Anonymous]

Having a SN child in public school has made me completely question the motivations behind special Ed. In theory it makes sense, in practice it’s like “how fast can we traumatize these kids into compliancy because their quirks are annoying…”

I’m parent of 2nd grader who eloped. You put 200 7 year olds in an enclosed space, give them an infusion of sugar, and have maybe 3 adults — it’s going to be bedlam. It’s developmentally normal for them to get as loud and wiggly as their 7 year old bodies will let them. No blame for the kids.

The issue I have is if you already have sensory issues to sounds, smell, lighting, crowds - it’s literally torture.

Our district would rather spend millions of dollars fighting parents in IEP battles then hiring a part-time employee for a few hours to hang out with kids in an empty classroom for 30 min.

It’s was the 90s but we had a quiet lunch option in ES. The “ladies” who hung with us were retired teachers who enjoyed the time with kids and were happy with 2 hours of paid work a few days a week.

[Anonymous]

My kid's quiet lunch bunch has the option to bring one friend and since lunches are staggered, it's never too many kids at once. This means they can socialize and more importantly EAT! Anxious kids with cafeteria noise often don't eat and that throws off the rest of day for learning and results in hangry behaviors. Then again, our principal started out as a SPED teacher and she gets it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not overaccommodation. In the real world, we can pick where we eat. I’m personally hearing impaired and can’t stand loud environments which make conversations difficult. Not to mention the din of background noise is amplified. I know NT introverts who also prefer quiet lunches. In MS, many kids choose to spend lunch in a quiet classroom and no formal accommodations are needed. I know lots of kids who chose the classroom option. At our HS, the kids can also choose where inside or outside to eat lunch. I suspect this is a staffing issue. If my child had a disability, I’d fight for the accommodation. If the school claims to want to address the root cause of needing the accommodation, they should create lunch bunch groups. Our ES had those with the school counselor.

In the real world of elementary school, kids actually can’t pick where they eat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having a SN child in public school has made me completely question the motivations behind special Ed. In theory it makes sense, in practice it’s like “how fast can we traumatize these kids into compliancy because their quirks are annoying…”

I’m parent of 2nd grader who eloped. You put 200 7 year olds in an enclosed space, give them an infusion of sugar, and have maybe 3 adults — it’s going to be bedlam. It’s developmentally normal for them to get as loud and wiggly as their 7 year old bodies will let them. No blame for the kids.

The issue I have is if you already have sensory issues to sounds, smell, lighting, crowds - it’s literally torture.

Our district would rather spend millions of dollars fighting parents in IEP battles then hiring a part-time employee for a few hours to hang out with kids in an empty classroom for 30 min.

It’s was the 90s but we had a quiet lunch option in ES. The “ladies” who hung with us were retired teachers who enjoyed the time with kids and were happy with 2 hours of paid work a few days a week.

The flip side is that parents regularly insist on accommodations that are too difficult in a mainstream setting. Eventually every kid with a 504 or IEP will request a quiet lunch, not just those who actually need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids' school does a quiet lunch for kids who prefer to not eat in the cafeteria. Some neurodivergent, some who just prefer quiet. My 1st grader is ADHD and has enjoyed having a quiet place (10 or so kids in the library) to eat each day. He also likes not having to choose who to sit by.

The school is considering ending it due to "skill building" and that the students need to learn to build up their tolerance to the cafeteria, build the executive functioning to decide who to sit by, etc. We cannot overaccommodate, they say, but rather teach children the skills to deal with the things they are uncomfortable with.

What do you think?

Obvious lie. They just don’t want to be responsible for staffing. Quiet (civilized) lunch is so much better for social skill development than the chicken coop lunch. Top private schools have quiet lunch for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a SN child in public school has made me completely question the motivations behind special Ed. In theory it makes sense, in practice it’s like “how fast can we traumatize these kids into compliancy because their quirks are annoying…”

I’m parent of 2nd grader who eloped. You put 200 7 year olds in an enclosed space, give them an infusion of sugar, and have maybe 3 adults — it’s going to be bedlam. It’s developmentally normal for them to get as loud and wiggly as their 7 year old bodies will let them. No blame for the kids.

The issue I have is if you already have sensory issues to sounds, smell, lighting, crowds - it’s literally torture.

Our district would rather spend millions of dollars fighting parents in IEP battles then hiring a part-time employee for a few hours to hang out with kids in an empty classroom for 30 min.

It’s was the 90s but we had a quiet lunch option in ES. The “ladies” who hung with us were retired teachers who enjoyed the time with kids and were happy with 2 hours of paid work a few days a week.

The flip side is that parents regularly insist on accommodations that are too difficult in a mainstream setting. Eventually every kid with a 504 or IEP will request a quiet lunch, not just those who actually need it.

“Actually need it”. Maybe the school could administer a tiny bit of discipline instead of leaving children to act uncivilized.

[Anonymous]

Need to prepare children for slum life, Americas future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a SN child in public school has made me completely question the motivations behind special Ed. In theory it makes sense, in practice it’s like “how fast can we traumatize these kids into compliancy because their quirks are annoying…”

I’m parent of 2nd grader who eloped. You put 200 7 year olds in an enclosed space, give them an infusion of sugar, and have maybe 3 adults — it’s going to be bedlam. It’s developmentally normal for them to get as loud and wiggly as their 7 year old bodies will let them. No blame for the kids.

The issue I have is if you already have sensory issues to sounds, smell, lighting, crowds - it’s literally torture.

Our district would rather spend millions of dollars fighting parents in IEP battles then hiring a part-time employee for a few hours to hang out with kids in an empty classroom for 30 min.

It’s was the 90s but we had a quiet lunch option in ES. The “ladies” who hung with us were retired teachers who enjoyed the time with kids and were happy with 2 hours of paid work a few days a week.

The flip side is that parents regularly insist on accommodations that are too difficult in a mainstream setting. Eventually every kid with a 504 or IEP will request a quiet lunch, not just those who actually need it.

So the school neglects the ones who do need it?

[Anonymous]

If they want to build their social skills, maybe doing one day a week and then two days a week and gradually increasing it is an option. Those lunch rooms are so loud! For anyone, special needs or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not overaccommodation. In the real world, we can pick where we eat. I’m personally hearing impaired and can’t stand loud environments which make conversations difficult. Not to mention the din of background noise is amplified. I know NT introverts who also prefer quiet lunches. In MS, many kids choose to spend lunch in a quiet classroom and no formal accommodations are needed. I know lots of kids who chose the classroom option. At our HS, the kids can also choose where inside or outside to eat lunch. I suspect this is a staffing issue. If my child had a disability, I’d fight for the accommodation. If the school claims to want to address the root cause of needing the accommodation, they should create lunch bunch groups. Our ES had those with the school counselor.

In the real world of elementary school, kids actually can’t pick where they eat.

No, the average kid can’t, but a child with a disability is entitled to the accommodation. And it is available at many schools. In addition, I’m simply pointing out that kids with a disability should be accommodated as it’s not like in the real world outside of ES it is a requirement to eat in loud environments.

I also want to add that our ES went so far as to implement silent lunch in the cafeteria at one point. My kids complained bitterly as they needed that period of time to get their energy out after sitting quietly all morning. It was an inappropriate expectation. As I felt silent lunch shouldn’t be forced upon anyone, I’d really be a hypocrite to believe noisy lunch forced upon kids with a disability that find it overstimulating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a new trend in special needs. Teaching them skills to cope instead of special placements.

I would argue that the actual cafeteria gets the volume lowered. It's SO loud.

This. I'm all for skill building over time, but gradually. It's loud AF, and they're in a room with 24 other kids allllll day. It's fine for them to need a break. I don't know how teachers deal. Nobody should have to put up with that noise level all day long, period.

And yes this is about staffing.

I can't believe adults in this forum actually believe that kids with disabilities just need to work on skill building. It's amazing that you think some of the issues that lead to the need for quiet spaces just require skill building. Some of you really don't understand these disabilities. I'd be so embarrassed if I was you.

Exposure therapy is the only scientifically proven therapy for a a lot of things. As a parent with a young adult who has been given many accomadations over the years because they became dysregulated in a lot of situations they find uncomfortable, I look back and wish we had done less accomadating and more "skills building." If the goal is to move the kid into "regular" lunch, then, they are going to have to build a tolerance.

[Anonymous]

Many kids with disabilities that make lunchrooms intolerable may eventually be able to tolerate that environment as they get older. Forcing them into that environment earlier is not going to help them tolerate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a new trend in special needs. Teaching them skills to cope instead of special placements.

I would argue that the actual cafeteria gets the volume lowered. It's SO loud.

This. I'm all for skill building over time, but gradually. It's loud AF, and they're in a room with 24 other kids allllll day. It's fine for them to need a break. I don't know how teachers deal. Nobody should have to put up with that noise level all day long, period.

And yes this is about staffing.

I can't believe adults in this forum actually believe that kids with disabilities just need to work on skill building. It's amazing that you think some of the issues that lead to the need for quiet spaces just require skill building. Some of you really don't understand these disabilities. I'd be so embarrassed if I was you.

Exposure therapy is the only scientifically proven therapy for a a lot of things. As a parent with a young adult who has been given many accomadations over the years because they became dysregulated in a lot of situations they find uncomfortable, I look back and wish we had done less accomadating and more "skills building." If the goal is to move the kid into "regular" lunch, then, they are going to have to build a tolerance.

Fair, but I think lots of NT kids struggle to tolerate lunch with several hundred kids in an echoing cafeteria, it's awful. Why shouldn't there be better options for everybody? I feel like the consistent message of "suck it up" hurts everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a new trend in special needs. Teaching them skills to cope instead of special placements.

I would argue that the actual cafeteria gets the volume lowered. It's SO loud.

This. I'm all for skill building over time, but gradually. It's loud AF, and they're in a room with 24 other kids allllll day. It's fine for them to need a break. I don't know how teachers deal. Nobody should have to put up with that noise level all day long, period.

And yes this is about staffing.

I can't believe adults in this forum actually believe that kids with disabilities just need to work on skill building. It's amazing that you think some of the issues that lead to the need for quiet spaces just require skill building. Some of you really don't understand these disabilities. I'd be so embarrassed if I was you.

Exposure therapy is the only scientifically proven therapy for a a lot of things. As a parent with a young adult who has been given many accomadations over the years because they became dysregulated in a lot of situations they find uncomfortable, I look back and wish we had done less accomadating and more "skills building." If the goal is to move the kid into "regular" lunch, then, they are going to have to build a tolerance.

Fair, but I think lots of NT kids struggle to tolerate lunch with several hundred kids in an echoing cafeteria, it's awful. Why shouldn't there be better options for everybody? I feel like the consistent message of "suck it up" hurts everybody.

I agree that there should be options for everyone in a perfect world. I know for my own kid (who is now a young adult), they very much feel like the world should bend to their needs a bit (or a lot depending on the situation). Adulthood is a big adjustment for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a new trend in special needs. Teaching them skills to cope instead of special placements.

I would argue that the actual cafeteria gets the volume lowered. It's SO loud.

This. I'm all for skill building over time, but gradually. It's loud AF, and they're in a room with 24 other kids allllll day. It's fine for them to need a break. I don't know how teachers deal. Nobody should have to put up with that noise level all day long, period.

And yes this is about staffing.

I can't believe adults in this forum actually believe that kids with disabilities just need to work on skill building. It's amazing that you think some of the issues that lead to the need for quiet spaces just require skill building. Some of you really don't understand these disabilities. I'd be so embarrassed if I was you.

Exposure therapy is the only scientifically proven therapy for a a lot of things. As a parent with a young adult who has been given many accomadations over the years because they became dysregulated in a lot of situations they find uncomfortable, I look back and wish we had done less accomadating and more "skills building." If the goal is to move the kid into "regular" lunch, then, they are going to have to build a tolerance.

Exposure therapy works in some situations— but not for all. The issue is that schools have an all or nothing approach. Yes, it’s for financial reasons but if you have an IEP AND sitting in the loud cafeteria vs 30 minutes of quiet is the difference between being able to hold it together all day or not. Why bet on the losing proposition?

It’s not like College applications give weight to those who showed excellent tolerance for the cafeteria in grade 3.

Though as a millennial, I now want my participation trophy….my Gen alpha would just want quiet and Robux.