Is FCPS replacing specialized instruction with “inclusion”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS is actually trending in the other direction in my experience.

Ad hoc, separate small classes (approx 5 kids) have been amazing for my high schooler with an IEP this year. He’s a great kid who has zero behavior issues.

The model last year was to have regular classes with an aide or special education teacher in the room. It was a complete waste of time for the my kid and he barely passed his core subjects.

This year, they are taking that same staff member (that’s being paid irregardless, so let’s use them!) pulling the IEP kids out of the room and doing most of the teaching in a very small group. Nothing has changed with my child’s IEP hours and I think it’s technically supposed to still be an inclusion class. But no one is complaining and the kids are actually learning.
My kid loves the classes that are run like this.

If you think the school is breaking even on cost then you don’t know much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS is actually trending in the other direction in my experience.

Ad hoc, separate small classes (approx 5 kids) have been amazing for my high schooler with an IEP this year. He’s a great kid who has zero behavior issues.

The model last year was to have regular classes with an aide or special education teacher in the room. It was a complete waste of time for the my kid and he barely passed his core subjects.

This year, they are taking that same staff member (that’s being paid irregardless, so let’s use them!) pulling the IEP kids out of the room and doing most of the teaching in a very small group. Nothing has changed with my child’s IEP hours and I think it’s technically supposed to still be an inclusion class. But no one is complaining and the kids are actually learning.
My kid loves the classes that are run like this.

If you think the school is breaking even on cost then you don’t know much.

So, are they doing this instead of the "team teaching" that has been done in the past. My DS who was in a team taught GenEd science class decided to do Honors the next year because the students were so disruptive. And, my DS was not expecially "into" school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A separate gifted education goes against the very essence, the core values of public education. It holds down, limits students. Labels them. So harmful.

"Least exclusive whenever possible" needs to apply to Gifted Education

That’s bullcrap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS is actually trending in the other direction in my experience.

Ad hoc, separate small classes (approx 5 kids) have been amazing for my high schooler with an IEP this year. He’s a great kid who has zero behavior issues.

The model last year was to have regular classes with an aide or special education teacher in the room. It was a complete waste of time for the my kid and he barely passed his core subjects.

This year, they are taking that same staff member (that’s being paid irregardless, so let’s use them!) pulling the IEP kids out of the room and doing most of the teaching in a very small group. Nothing has changed with my child’s IEP hours and I think it’s technically supposed to still be an inclusion class. But no one is complaining and the kids are actually learning.
My kid loves the classes that are run like this.

If you think the school is breaking even on cost then you don’t know much.

So, are they doing this instead of the "team teaching" that has been done in the past. My DS who was in a team taught GenEd science class decided to do Honors the next year because the students were so disruptive. And, my DS was not expecially "into" school.

Yes. There aren't enough Special Ed teachers so FCPS is expecting them to rotate through classrooms and support each teacher for 15-20 minutes and then move onto the next classroom. Gen Ed teachers will be forced to manage the entire class singlehandedly for the majority of the time.
FCPS piloted this approach at select schools this year and it hasn't been going well. They've cherry-picked a couple stories where it's working because the schools have low numbers of students with significant needs in certain classes and held these up as shining examples. The reality looks a lot different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the day teachers gave enrichment assignments for students who needed it. No student was labeled.

+1

Teachers in a mixed classroom can provide proper acceleration. It is not that hard. Sure, some of the instruction is targeted to the whole class, but good teachers have been grouping since forever.

That's not entirely true. In the past, kids who didn't meet a minimum standard failed the grade and needed to retake it. Now, everyone passes and moves onto the next grade level, even if they're years below grade level and putting in no effort to fix that. In the past, teachers perhaps had to accommodate kids ranging from slightly below grade level through several years above. Now, they have to accommodate a range from many years below grade level through many years above. There's too broad of a range of abilities for effective differentiation, especially when teachers are often required by admin to give the lion's share of their time to the below grade level kids.

The bolded may happen, but it is not common. And, teachers are NOT required to give the lion's share of time to the below grade level kids.

As for retention, it has been many decades since we had wholesale retention.

And, to get many years below grade level, you are talking about middle and high school.
Quit exaggerating.

You do know that teachers effectively taught in one room schoolhouses. Not ideal, but it can be done.

So you've never been in a 6th grade gen ed classroom at a Title I FCPS school. Trust me, there are 6th graders reading on a 2nd grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the definition of “least restrictive environment” is a huge issue. No child is getting the attention, care, or instruction that actually meets their needs. The entire classroom is at the mercy of these children who really need specialized care and an appropriate setting that isn’t overwhelming for them, or they need someone capable of a sterner voice and more rigid structure.

Anecdote: kid throwing chair and screaming. The class is evacuated to the hall. This child is obviously struggling in this environment and not getting the structure and physical activity needed and/or emotional support, etc. He is likely not doing well academically and feels overwhelmed and frustrated there (not that the parent is told because everyone gets 2s and 3s). The other children’s education has been halted, but also permanently slowed as they now grapple with fear of their classmate. Oh, and the school doesn’t feel the need to let parents know their children are at the whims of such violent outbursts… because feels. (True story, btw.)

And by necessity, instruction will slow down and children will be even more abandoned to self-study by screen time.

Exactly. I’m for inclusion, but not for “inclusion for all and inclusion all of the time”. Also, there was a push by the Virginia Department of Education to have students in the general education setting a certain percentage of the time. They just set arbitrary goals that do not make sense and are not individualized. Students do need pull out special education instruction, for example, for phonics or literacy instruction for dyslexia or for specific specific math help if they need help in math or pull out speech therapy. Many students have extreme behaviors and emotional issues and they don’t tolerate a general education setting well. Sure they’re “in the general classroom,” but it’s not successful or positive for them or their peers or the teacher. They put one special education teacher in there with 10 kids who have IEPs. Nobody is actually getting the help that they need. These students would be better off in a self-contained classroom, at least SOME of the day. So would all the other students. But disability advocate parents and politics keep pushing for “full inclusion for all and all of the time” and sue for “their rights”
And “FAPE” and “LRE.” Inclusion is partly about funding and staffing, but it’s also about the push from certain groups for full inclusion. Public education is a huge mess. It’s worse in this area and our school system has gone to crap. Trust me, if parents knew what was actually happening inside these classrooms, they would pull their children out of public school if they could. And this mess is absolutely why FCPS does not want parents volunteering in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the day teachers gave enrichment assignments for students who needed it. No student was labeled.

+1

Teachers in a mixed classroom can provide proper acceleration. It is not that hard. Sure, some of the instruction is targeted to the whole class, but good teachers have been grouping since forever.

That's not entirely true. In the past, kids who didn't meet a minimum standard failed the grade and needed to retake it. Now, everyone passes and moves onto the next grade level, even if they're years below grade level and putting in no effort to fix that. In the past, teachers perhaps had to accommodate kids ranging from slightly below grade level through several years above. Now, they have to accommodate a range from many years below grade level through many years above. There's too broad of a range of abilities for effective differentiation, especially when teachers are often required by admin to give the lion's share of their time to the below grade level kids.

The bolded may happen, but it is not common. And, teachers are NOT required to give the lion's share of time to the below grade level kids.

As for retention, it has been many decades since we had wholesale retention.

And, to get many years below grade level, you are talking about middle and high school.
Quit exaggerating.

You do know that teachers effectively taught in one room schoolhouses. Not ideal, but it can be done.

There are some inaccuracies here. Students can be multiple years below grade level in the third grade. Many students in the class don’t even speak English.

Many students in the class have huge behavior issues and are violent or have outburst and derailed the learning of others. The current model doesn’t support these needs, and negatively impacts the rest of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the day teachers gave enrichment assignments for students who needed it. No student was labeled.

+1

Teachers in a mixed classroom can provide proper acceleration. It is not that hard. Sure, some of the instruction is targeted to the whole class, but good teachers have been grouping since forever.

That's not entirely true. In the past, kids who didn't meet a minimum standard failed the grade and needed to retake it. Now, everyone passes and moves onto the next grade level, even if they're years below grade level and putting in no effort to fix that. In the past, teachers perhaps had to accommodate kids ranging from slightly below grade level through several years above. Now, they have to accommodate a range from many years below grade level through many years above. There's too broad of a range of abilities for effective differentiation, especially when teachers are often required by admin to give the lion's share of their time to the below grade level kids.

The bolded may happen, but it is not common. And, teachers are NOT required to give the lion's share of time to the below grade level kids.

As for retention, it has been many decades since we had wholesale retention.

And, to get many years below grade level, you are talking about middle and high school.
Quit exaggerating.

You do know that teachers effectively taught in one room schoolhouses. Not ideal, but it can be done.

So you've never been in a 6th grade gen ed classroom at a Title I FCPS school. Trust me, there are 6th graders reading on a 2nd grade level.

If a sixth grader is reading on a second grade level and has been in school since K, there is a learning disability of some type.

And, FWIW, I spent years teaching in a Title I school--where almost all the kids qualified. Teachers can provide differentiation there as in any other school.
And, even in Title I schools you have some kids who are very, very smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the day teachers gave enrichment assignments for students who needed it. No student was labeled.

+1

Teachers in a mixed classroom can provide proper acceleration. It is not that hard. Sure, some of the instruction is targeted to the whole class, but good teachers have been grouping since forever.

That's not entirely true. In the past, kids who didn't meet a minimum standard failed the grade and needed to retake it. Now, everyone passes and moves onto the next grade level, even if they're years below grade level and putting in no effort to fix that. In the past, teachers perhaps had to accommodate kids ranging from slightly below grade level through several years above. Now, they have to accommodate a range from many years below grade level through many years above. There's too broad of a range of abilities for effective differentiation, especially when teachers are often required by admin to give the lion's share of their time to the below grade level kids.

The bolded may happen, but it is not common. And, teachers are NOT required to give the lion's share of time to the below grade level kids.

As for retention, it has been many decades since we had wholesale retention.

And, to get many years below grade level, you are talking about middle and high school.
Quit exaggerating.

You do know that teachers effectively taught in one room schoolhouses. Not ideal, but it can be done.

So you've never been in a 6th grade gen ed classroom at a Title I FCPS school. Trust me, there are 6th graders reading on a 2nd grade level.

If a sixth grader is reading on a second grade level and has been in school since K, there is a learning disability of some type.

And, FWIW, I spent years teaching in a Title I school--where almost all the kids qualified. Teachers can provide differentiation there as in any other school.
And, even in Title I schools you have some kids who are very, very smart.

I very seriously doubt that. If you are a teacher at all or ever stepped foot into a Title I school, you'd know that some kids are chronically absent. It's hard to make progress when you're frequently missing school. Some other kids just aren't trying and couldn't care less about learning. Many are ESOL of varying levels. Brand new kids who have never attended any american schools, were years below grade level, and didn't speak a word of English were still being added to my kid's class even as late as 6th grade.

Many of my kid's teachers were fantastic. My kid's above grade level reading group still only saw the teacher maybe once every 2 weeks for 15 minutes for language arts. There's a limit to how much they're allowed to enrich advanced kids when there are so many higher needs kids in the classroom. My kid was fine, since she's self motivated and used her time constructively. i doubt the same could be said for any on or above grade level kid who has lower executive function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the day teachers gave enrichment assignments for students who needed it. No student was labeled.

+1

Teachers in a mixed classroom can provide proper acceleration. It is not that hard. Sure, some of the instruction is targeted to the whole class, but good teachers have been grouping since forever.

That's not entirely true. In the past, kids who didn't meet a minimum standard failed the grade and needed to retake it. Now, everyone passes and moves onto the next grade level, even if they're years below grade level and putting in no effort to fix that. In the past, teachers perhaps had to accommodate kids ranging from slightly below grade level through several years above. Now, they have to accommodate a range from many years below grade level through many years above. There's too broad of a range of abilities for effective differentiation, especially when teachers are often required by admin to give the lion's share of their time to the below grade level kids.

The bolded may happen, but it is not common. And, teachers are NOT required to give the lion's share of time to the below grade level kids.

As for retention, it has been many decades since we had wholesale retention.

And, to get many years below grade level, you are talking about middle and high school.
Quit exaggerating.

You do know that teachers effectively taught in one room schoolhouses. Not ideal, but it can be done.

So you've never been in a 6th grade gen ed classroom at a Title I FCPS school. Trust me, there are 6th graders reading on a 2nd grade level.

If a sixth grader is reading on a second grade level and has been in school since K, there is a learning disability of some type.

And, FWIW, I spent years teaching in a Title I school--where almost all the kids qualified. Teachers can provide differentiation there as in any other school.
And, even in Title I schools you have some kids who are very, very smart.

I very seriously doubt that. If you are a teacher at all or ever stepped foot into a Title I school, you'd know that some kids are chronically absent. It's hard to make progress when you're frequently missing school. Some other kids just aren't trying and couldn't care less about learning. Many are ESOL of varying levels. Brand new kids who have never attended any american schools, were years below grade level, and didn't speak a word of English were still being added to my kid's class even as late as 6th grade.

Many of my kid's teachers were fantastic. My kid's above grade level reading group still only saw the teacher maybe once every 2 weeks for 15 minutes for language arts. There's a limit to how much they're allowed to enrich advanced kids when there are so many higher needs kids in the classroom. My kid was fine, since she's self motivated and used her time constructively. i doubt the same could be said for any on or above grade level kid who has lower executive function.

Well, former Title I teacher here: your experience is sad. I taught primary grades and always worked with all groups daily. However, in the upper grades, I would not assume that the teacher is not providing instruction if they are advanced. The teacher does not need to hear them read out loud. If they are advanced, they should be able to write answers rather than have face to face interaction. One on one face time is not always needed. If you were a teacher, you would know that. Teachers are likely preparing lessons that you think are trivial because your kid does not get pulled aside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the day teachers gave enrichment assignments for students who needed it. No student was labeled.

+1

Teachers in a mixed classroom can provide proper acceleration. It is not that hard. Sure, some of the instruction is targeted to the whole class, but good teachers have been grouping since forever.

That's not entirely true. In the past, kids who didn't meet a minimum standard failed the grade and needed to retake it. Now, everyone passes and moves onto the next grade level, even if they're years below grade level and putting in no effort to fix that. In the past, teachers perhaps had to accommodate kids ranging from slightly below grade level through several years above. Now, they have to accommodate a range from many years below grade level through many years above. There's too broad of a range of abilities for effective differentiation, especially when teachers are often required by admin to give the lion's share of their time to the below grade level kids.

The bolded may happen, but it is not common. And, teachers are NOT required to give the lion's share of time to the below grade level kids.

As for retention, it has been many decades since we had wholesale retention.

And, to get many years below grade level, you are talking about middle and high school.
Quit exaggerating.

You do know that teachers effectively taught in one room schoolhouses. Not ideal, but it can be done.

So you've never been in a 6th grade gen ed classroom at a Title I FCPS school. Trust me, there are 6th graders reading on a 2nd grade level.

If a sixth grader is reading on a second grade level and has been in school since K, there is a learning disability of some type.

And, FWIW, I spent years teaching in a Title I school--where almost all the kids qualified. Teachers can provide differentiation there as in any other school.
And, even in Title I schools you have some kids who are very, very smart.

I very seriously doubt that. If you are a teacher at all or ever stepped foot into a Title I school, you'd know that some kids are chronically absent. It's hard to make progress when you're frequently missing school. Some other kids just aren't trying and couldn't care less about learning. Many are ESOL of varying levels. Brand new kids who have never attended any american schools, were years below grade level, and didn't speak a word of English were still being added to my kid's class even as late as 6th grade.

Many of my kid's teachers were fantastic. My kid's above grade level reading group still only saw the teacher maybe once every 2 weeks for 15 minutes for language arts. There's a limit to how much they're allowed to enrich advanced kids when there are so many higher needs kids in the classroom. My kid was fine, since she's self motivated and used her time constructively. i doubt the same could be said for any on or above grade level kid who has lower executive function.

With Benchmark, reading groups held by the gen ed teacher are basically non-existent now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS is moving toward fully inclusive classrooms with fewer breakouts, putting special ed (including significant autism), non-English speakers, kids needing speech/OT, grade-level students, and advanced kids all in the same room.

How is one teacher supposed to meet all those needs at once? Doesn’t this just spread services thinner?

Feels like they have yet again fallen victim to nonsense.

Fcps is a mess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the definition of “least restrictive environment” is a huge issue. No child is getting the attention, care, or instruction that actually meets their needs. The entire classroom is at the mercy of these children who really need specialized care and an appropriate setting that isn’t overwhelming for them, or they need someone capable of a sterner voice and more rigid structure.

Anecdote: kid throwing chair and screaming. The class is evacuated to the hall. This child is obviously struggling in this environment and not getting the structure and physical activity needed and/or emotional support, etc. He is likely not doing well academically and feels overwhelmed and frustrated there (not that the parent is told because everyone gets 2s and 3s). The other children’s education has been halted, but also permanently slowed as they now grapple with fear of their classmate. Oh, and the school doesn’t feel the need to let parents know their children are at the whims of such violent outbursts… because feels. (True story, btw.)

And by necessity, instruction will slow down and children will be even more abandoned to self-study by screen time.

Exactly. I’m for inclusion, but not for “inclusion for all and inclusion all of the time”. Also, there was a push by the Virginia Department of Education to have students in the general education setting a certain percentage of the time. They just set arbitrary goals that do not make sense and are not individualized. Students do need pull out special education instruction, for example, for phonics or literacy instruction for dyslexia or for specific specific math help if they need help in math or pull out speech therapy. Many students have extreme behaviors and emotional issues and they don’t tolerate a general education setting well. Sure they’re “in the general classroom,” but it’s not successful or positive for them or their peers or the teacher. They put one special education teacher in there with 10 kids who have IEPs. Nobody is actually getting the help that they need. These students would be better off in a self-contained classroom, at least SOME of the day. So would all the other students. But disability advocate parents and politics keep pushing for “full inclusion for all and all of the time” and sue for “their rights”
And “FAPE” and “LRE.” Inclusion is partly about funding and staffing, but it’s also about the push from certain groups for full inclusion. Public education is a huge mess. It’s worse in this area and our school system has gone to crap. Trust me, if parents knew what was actually happening inside these classrooms, they would pull their children out of public school if they could. And this mess is absolutely why FCPS does not want parents volunteering in school.

Can you be more specific about which groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think FCPS is actually trending in the other direction in my experience.

Ad hoc, separate small classes (approx 5 kids) have been amazing for my high schooler with an IEP this year. He’s a great kid who has zero behavior issues.

The model last year was to have regular classes with an aide or special education teacher in the room. It was a complete waste of time for the my kid and he barely passed his core subjects.

This year, they are taking that same staff member (that’s being paid irregardless, so let’s use them!) pulling the IEP kids out of the room and doing most of the teaching in a very small group. Nothing has changed with my child’s IEP hours and I think it’s technically supposed to still be an inclusion class. But no one is complaining and the kids are actually learning.
My kid loves the classes that are run like this.

This is actually a team teaching model. I agree it works very well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the definition of “least restrictive environment” is a huge issue. No child is getting the attention, care, or instruction that actually meets their needs. The entire classroom is at the mercy of these children who really need specialized care and an appropriate setting that isn’t overwhelming for them, or they need someone capable of a sterner voice and more rigid structure.

Anecdote: kid throwing chair and screaming. The class is evacuated to the hall. This child is obviously struggling in this environment and not getting the structure and physical activity needed and/or emotional support, etc. He is likely not doing well academically and feels overwhelmed and frustrated there (not that the parent is told because everyone gets 2s and 3s). The other children’s education has been halted, but also permanently slowed as they now grapple with fear of their classmate. Oh, and the school doesn’t feel the need to let parents know their children are at the whims of such violent outbursts… because feels. (True story, btw.)

And by necessity, instruction will slow down and children will be even more abandoned to self-study by screen time.

Exactly. I’m for inclusion, but not for “inclusion for all and inclusion all of the time”. Also, there was a push by the Virginia Department of Education to have students in the general education setting a certain percentage of the time. They just set arbitrary goals that do not make sense and are not individualized. Students do need pull out special education instruction, for example, for phonics or literacy instruction for dyslexia or for specific specific math help if they need help in math or pull out speech therapy. Many students have extreme behaviors and emotional issues and they don’t tolerate a general education setting well. Sure they’re “in the general classroom,” but it’s not successful or positive for them or their peers or the teacher. They put one special education teacher in there with 10 kids who have IEPs. Nobody is actually getting the help that they need. These students would be better off in a self-contained classroom, at least SOME of the day. So would all the other students. But disability advocate parents and politics keep pushing for “full inclusion for all and all of the time” and sue for “their rights”
And “FAPE” and “LRE.” Inclusion is partly about funding and staffing, but it’s also about the push from certain groups for full inclusion. Public education is a huge mess. It’s worse in this area and our school system has gone to crap. Trust me, if parents knew what was actually happening inside these classrooms, they would pull their children out of public school if they could. And this mess is absolutely why FCPS does not want parents volunteering in school.

Can you be more specific about which groups?

SEPTA. Parents of children with FCPS preschoolers who want more inclusive preschools. And the litigious parents.