MCPS teachers - what would you tell parents in your class(es) if you could?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends - if they have an iep? I’d tell them that most of the services are delivered by the general Ed teacher because inclusion spec Ed teachers are stretched too thin and we spend so much time on paperwork and not with kids. I’d also tell them no matter what they “advocate for” in the iep, it doesn’t actually happen during the school day due to limited resources and time so half the time we just agree to make you go away

We know. Thanks for being a failure in your life's work.

NP; When you're considered a failure for not being to clone yourself, you know MCPS parents have high expectations. Keep holding those teachers feet to the physically impossible fire

We are talking about kids with disabilities who have legal rights to an accessible education. Parents aren’t holding teachers to anything unreasonable. There is a legal, moral, and ethical obligation here and if you can’t meet it because of “resources” your beef isn’t with the parents and their expectations aren’t unreasonable. The problem lies elsewhere. Stop taking it out on the kids and their parents.

Parents are asking for more than an accessible education. They're asking for special education in the general education classroom.

OK, but that’s what IDEA says students are entitled to.

Unfunded entitlements take general funding from everyone else. It sounds like IDEA needs to be updated so that all the obligations are fully covered from the level of government issuing the mandate, and on a regional cost parity basis. With enough implementation experience, now, it also might be modified to reduce the gaming described. If these aren't done, everyone else suffers unjustly.

You propose that federal legislation be passed? In 2023?

LOL

She’s just venting because she doesn’t want to have to teach kids with developmental disabilities but likely doesn’t have unique skills that would get her a position in a decent private school. She’s probably in her 50s or 60s, stuck in a job she hates, surrounded by kids that she hates even more.

That's funny, because I was a different poster observing the effects of unfunded mandates, and not a teacher.

To the PP, I'm not saying what will happen, but what should (within that microcosm). Expecting the burdens of legislation to be picked up by others, mostly teachers in this case, but also other students due to the knock-on effects of under-resourcing, is magical thinking.

Federal legislation on IDEA—passed by this Congress—that does something any of us will like is also magical thinking.

It doesn’t need to happen at a federal level. State action could substantially improve things. Not overnight, but making it easier for parents to compel districts to provide necessary resources would eventually improve things for students and classroom teachers alike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends - if they have an iep? I’d tell them that most of the services are delivered by the general Ed teacher because inclusion spec Ed teachers are stretched too thin and we spend so much time on paperwork and not with kids. I’d also tell them no matter what they “advocate for” in the iep, it doesn’t actually happen during the school day due to limited resources and time so half the time we just agree to make you go away

We know. Thanks for being a failure in your life's work.

NP; When you're considered a failure for not being to clone yourself, you know MCPS parents have high expectations. Keep holding those teachers feet to the physically impossible fire

We are talking about kids with disabilities who have legal rights to an accessible education. Parents aren’t holding teachers to anything unreasonable. There is a legal, moral, and ethical obligation here and if you can’t meet it because of “resources” your beef isn’t with the parents and their expectations aren’t unreasonable. The problem lies elsewhere. Stop taking it out on the kids and their parents.

Parents are asking for more than an accessible education. They're asking for special education in the general education classroom.

OK, but that’s what IDEA says students are entitled to.

Unfunded entitlements take general funding from everyone else. It sounds like IDEA needs to be updated so that all the obligations are fully covered from the level of government issuing the mandate, and on a regional cost parity basis. With enough implementation experience, now, it also might be modified to reduce the gaming described. If these aren't done, everyone else suffers unjustly.

You propose that federal legislation be passed? In 2023?

LOL

She’s just venting because she doesn’t want to have to teach kids with developmental disabilities but likely doesn’t have unique skills that would get her a position in a decent private school. She’s probably in her 50s or 60s, stuck in a job she hates, surrounded by kids that she hates even more.

That's funny, because I was a different poster observing the effects of unfunded mandates, and not a teacher.

To the PP, I'm not saying what will happen, but what should (within that microcosm). Expecting the burdens of legislation to be picked up by others, mostly teachers in this case, but also other students due to the knock-on effects of under-resourcing, is magical thinking.

It’s telling that you’re focused on the teachers and students without disabilities, rather than the students with special needs who aren’t getting the services and supports they’re entitled to.

I'm not sure where you draw some kind of moral superiority by focusing only on SN students based on existing statute instead of seeking to accommodate the needs of all students (including SN) with proper funding. Are we supposed to accept current law as perfect or something?

There are finite resources. We can't wave a wand and make them infinite, but we can increase that available with, say, higher taxes, allocating/expending in line with the various needs we identify. I'd suggest that it would not be in the right to allow whatever resources that are made available to be allocated in a manner that vastly overrepresents the cost-commensurate needs of one group over the other.

If teachers are saying that they can't address the legitimate (if not as legally protected) needs of the rest of a class because they are under-resourced vs. total need but required to allocate resources to SN, it would be a case in point.

[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:Depends - if they have an iep? I’d tell them that most of the services are delivered by the general Ed teacher because inclusion spec Ed teachers are stretched too thin and we spend so much time on paperwork and not with kids. I’d also tell them no matter what they “advocate for” in the iep, it doesn’t actually happen during the school day due to limited resources and time so half the time we just agree to make you go away

We know. Thanks for being a failure in your life's work.

NP; When you're considered a failure for not being to clone yourself, you know MCPS parents have high expectations. Keep holding those teachers feet to the physically impossible fire

We are talking about kids with disabilities who have legal rights to an accessible education. Parents aren’t holding teachers to anything unreasonable. There is a legal, moral, and ethical obligation here and if you can’t meet it because of “resources” your beef isn’t with the parents and their expectations aren’t unreasonable. The problem lies elsewhere. Stop taking it out on the kids and their parents.

Parents are asking for more than an accessible education. They're asking for special education in the general education classroom.

OK, but that’s what IDEA says students are entitled to.

Unfunded entitlements take general funding from everyone else. It sounds like IDEA needs to be updated so that all the obligations are fully covered from the level of government issuing the mandate, and on a regional cost parity basis. With enough implementation experience, now, it also might be modified to reduce the gaming described. If these aren't done, everyone else suffers unjustly.

You propose that federal legislation be passed? In 2023?

LOL

She’s just venting because she doesn’t want to have to teach kids with developmental disabilities but likely doesn’t have unique skills that would get her a position in a decent private school. She’s probably in her 50s or 60s, stuck in a job she hates, surrounded by kids that she hates even more.

That's funny, because I was a different poster observing the effects of unfunded mandates, and not a teacher.

To the PP, I'm not saying what will happen, but what should (within that microcosm). Expecting the burdens of legislation to be picked up by others, mostly teachers in this case, but also other students due to the knock-on effects of under-resourcing, is magical thinking.

It’s telling that you’re focused on the teachers and students without disabilities, rather than the students with special needs who aren’t getting the services and supports they’re entitled to.

I'm not sure where you draw some kind of moral superiority by focusing only on SN students based on existing statute instead of seeking to accommodate the needs of all students (including SN) with proper funding. Are we supposed to accept current law as perfect or something?

There are finite resources. We can't wave a wand and make them infinite, but we can increase that available with, say, higher taxes, allocating/expending in line with the various needs we identify. I'd suggest that it would not be in the right to allow whatever resources that are made available to be allocated in a manner that vastly overrepresents the cost-commensurate needs of one group over the other.

If teachers are saying that they can't address the legitimate (if not as legally protected) needs of the rest of a class because they are under-resourced vs. total need but required to allocate resources to SN, it would be a case in point.

Though, as you've alluded to also, the current situation of not properly funding or supporting special education ultimately harms all students by forcing teachers into an impossible situation where they need to try to make up for the lack support in general education classrooms. Additional paraeducators and special education resources teachers would help everyone.

But again, it's hard to make that case when classroom teachers tell parents that they are doing the impossible.

[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:Depends - if they have an iep? I’d tell them that most of the services are delivered by the general Ed teacher because inclusion spec Ed teachers are stretched too thin and we spend so much time on paperwork and not with kids. I’d also tell them no matter what they “advocate for” in the iep, it doesn’t actually happen during the school day due to limited resources and time so half the time we just agree to make you go away

We know. Thanks for being a failure in your life's work.

NP; When you're considered a failure for not being to clone yourself, you know MCPS parents have high expectations. Keep holding those teachers feet to the physically impossible fire

We are talking about kids with disabilities who have legal rights to an accessible education. Parents aren’t holding teachers to anything unreasonable. There is a legal, moral, and ethical obligation here and if you can’t meet it because of “resources” your beef isn’t with the parents and their expectations aren’t unreasonable. The problem lies elsewhere. Stop taking it out on the kids and their parents.

Parents are asking for more than an accessible education. They're asking for special education in the general education classroom.

OK, but that’s what IDEA says students are entitled to.

Unfunded entitlements take general funding from everyone else. It sounds like IDEA needs to be updated so that all the obligations are fully covered from the level of government issuing the mandate, and on a regional cost parity basis. With enough implementation experience, now, it also might be modified to reduce the gaming described. If these aren't done, everyone else suffers unjustly.

You propose that federal legislation be passed? In 2023?

LOL

She’s just venting because she doesn’t want to have to teach kids with developmental disabilities but likely doesn’t have unique skills that would get her a position in a decent private school. She’s probably in her 50s or 60s, stuck in a job she hates, surrounded by kids that she hates even more.

That's funny, because I was a different poster observing the effects of unfunded mandates, and not a teacher.

To the PP, I'm not saying what will happen, but what should (within that microcosm). Expecting the burdens of legislation to be picked up by others, mostly teachers in this case, but also other students due to the knock-on effects of under-resourcing, is magical thinking.

It’s telling that you’re focused on the teachers and students without disabilities, rather than the students with special needs who aren’t getting the services and supports they’re entitled to.

I'm not sure where you draw some kind of moral superiority by focusing only on SN students based on existing statute instead of seeking to accommodate the needs of all students (including SN) with proper funding. Are we supposed to accept current law as perfect or something?

There are finite resources. We can't wave a wand and make them infinite, but we can increase that available with, say, higher taxes, allocating/expending in line with the various needs we identify. I'd suggest that it would not be in the right to allow whatever resources that are made available to be allocated in a manner that vastly overrepresents the cost-commensurate needs of one group over the other.

If teachers are saying that they can't address the legitimate (if not as legally protected) needs of the rest of a class because they are under-resourced vs. total need but required to allocate resources to SN, it would be a case in point.

Though, as you've alluded to also, the current situation of not properly funding or supporting special education ultimately harms all students by forcing teachers into an impossible situation where they need to try to make up for the lack support in general education classrooms. Additional paraeducators and special education resources teachers would help everyone.

But again, it's hard to make that case when classroom teachers tell parents that they are doing the impossible.

Agree. Transparency, etc., is just as important.