how is one teacher going to manage 11 IEP kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance sent to teachers specifically said two adults per room.

who will the 2nd adult be? 1 Gen Ed teacher and 1 _____________

An aide/receptionist/secretary to cover lunch and resource time. The adults won’t be in the room at the same time but there will be two adults interacting with the cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance sent to teachers specifically said two adults per room.

who will the 2nd adult be? 1 Gen Ed teacher and 1 _____________

An aide/receptionist/secretary to cover lunch and resource time. The adults won’t be in the room at the same time but there will be two adults interacting with the cohort.

The guidance posted a few posts above says it will be a full time adult.

[Anonymous]

How is this different than regular school? A couple of years ago, our non-DCPS school had 19 kids in one of the self-contained classrooms due to understaffing and crappy allocation. 11 sounds very average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance sent to teachers specifically said two adults per room.

who will the 2nd adult be? 1 Gen Ed teacher and 1 _____________

An aide/receptionist/secretary to cover lunch and resource time. The adults won’t be in the room at the same time but there will be two adults interacting with the cohort.

The guidance posted a few posts above says it will be a full time adult.

im




I’m telling you. I’m PreK-K the second adult is the aide. In 1-5 the second adult is the person doing lunch/resource relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

I see you’re trying to build a bogus case against this. But the fact is, a kid with speech disorders is likely going to do much better in person. That’s totally apart from the actual speech therapy pullout, which is likely just a few hours a week.

No the most they could get is 1 hour a week. Even students in self-contained don't get more than this.

So it is a little weird that a speech only IEP would get preference over a child with speech AND 10 hours push in or pull out

[Anonymous]

My IEP on the spectrum child is BELOVED by teachers and not a behavior issue at all. DL has been a disaster because of learning disabilities. There are lots like mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

I see you’re trying to build a bogus case against this. But the fact is, a kid with speech disorders is likely going to do much better in person. That’s totally apart from the actual speech therapy pullout, which is likely just a few hours a week.

No the most they could get is 1 hour a week. Even students in self-contained don't get more than this.

So it is a little weird that a speech only IEP would get preference over a child with speech AND 10 hours push in or pull out

This. I completely agree. And my child has a speech-only IEP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal IDEA law prohibits a class of 11 students with IEPs because doing so would make it a self-contained classroom, and would not be the least restrictive environment for those students.

There will be a mix.

I would argue that learning at home without peers is more restrictive, and that a self-contained classroom would thus be the least restrictive environment available.

In any case, my autistic child has been deeply, deeply burned by the lottery system. The lottery system feels like a big slap in the face, as kids with minimal IEPs were selected over my child.

I recommend finding a way to create a class action lawsuit. By selecting to provide some in person for a sub group of children with IEPs is like DCPS saying when you are creating your IEP - sorry we can't have a goals for OT because we do not have an OT at your school.

It is maddening that someone thinks that because it s a constrained resource - it is OK to allocate it by a lottery. My assumption is that since speech, OT, and special education teachers are still going to deliver services virtually, the school district determined that the delivery of service was the same for all. EXCEPT - for children in self-contained classrooms where some of the children will have the benefit of in person instruction - and others will not.

Yes, frankly the whole thing is a legal morass. An IEP is a legal contract, and recent litigation has shown that the pandemic isn't a valid reason for not meeting the IEP. I wonder what will happen when a parent is able to prove that a school is meeting the needs of a mostly similar student with a similar IEP, but their child's IEP needs are not being met.

[Anonymous]

Like...how on earth could they prove they weren't able to give a reasonable accommodation if they're giving the same accommodation to someone else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

I see you’re trying to build a bogus case against this. But the fact is, a kid with speech disorders is likely going to do much better in person. That’s totally apart from the actual speech therapy pullout, which is likely just a few hours a week.

No the most they could get is 1 hour a week. Even students in self-contained don't get more than this.

So it is a little weird that a speech only IEP would get preference over a child with speech AND 10 hours push in or pull out

This. I completely agree. And my child has a speech-only IEP.

All kids are different - I can see a kid with receptive/expressive issues having a REALLY hard time with DL. This is about DL/in person, not just service hours. Although yes, I agree that it would have made sense to prioritize by service hours or at least some metrics. I think the schools probably should have been allowed to rank the IEPs by need of in person but OTOH there also needed to be an efficient and impartial system. So an all-IEP lottery plus school discretion to add 2 additional seems OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like...how on earth could they prove they weren't able to give a reasonable accommodation if they're giving the same accommodation to someone else?

Well, we’re in a new landscape aren’t we ... the kids who did not get in person but need it for FAPE will probably have a good case for compensatory education down the line, but DCPS was trying to serve the most high needs kids as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

I see you’re trying to build a bogus case against this. But the fact is, a kid with speech disorders is likely going to do much better in person. That’s totally apart from the actual speech therapy pullout, which is likely just a few hours a week.

No the most they could get is 1 hour a week. Even students in self-contained don't get more than this.

So it is a little weird that a speech only IEP would get preference over a child with speech AND 10 hours push in or pull out

For those in the back... THERE ARE NO PREFERENCES WITHIN IEPs. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like...how on earth could they prove they weren't able to give a reasonable accommodation if they're giving the same accommodation to someone else?

Well, we’re in a new landscape aren’t we ... the kids who did not get in person but need it for FAPE will probably have a good case for compensatory education down the line, but DCPS was trying to serve the most high needs kids as possible.

I agree with this- its setting up an inequity that will get challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

I see you’re trying to build a bogus case against this. But the fact is, a kid with speech disorders is likely going to do much better in person. That’s totally apart from the actual speech therapy pullout, which is likely just a few hours a week.

No the most they could get is 1 hour a week. Even students in self-contained don't get more than this.

So it is a little weird that a speech only IEP would get preference over a child with speech AND 10 hours push in or pull out

This. I completely agree. And my child has a speech-only IEP.

All kids are different - I can see a kid with receptive/expressive issues having a REALLY hard time with DL. This is about DL/in person, not just service hours. Although yes, I agree that it would have made sense to prioritize by service hours or at least some metrics. I think the schools probably should have been allowed to rank the IEPs by need of in person but OTOH there also needed to be an efficient and impartial system. So an all-IEP lottery plus school discretion to add 2 additional seems OK.

That is not the reason. The reason is that they did not want to create classes of 11 of the most severe needs - it would require more help that a teacher and aid can give. This was done intentionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Wrong. They didn't rank IEPs.

So a kid that can't say his "ks," and won't even be getting in-person speech therapy when schools go back in this limited form, can qualify for spot OVER a child with more significant learning impediments as reflected in his or her IEP? That's ridiculous--if that's how it was actually done.

A child who could not say his "Ks" and only has speech will typically not have an IEP. As they would not qualify for having a specific learning disability that impacted their ability to access the curriculum. They might qualify for speech services - which may be separate.

You don’t know what you are talking about. The category is IDEA is SPEECH/LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT. you don’t need a learning disability to qualify under this category. It’s a speech only iep.

My PK3er has an IEP for only speech articulation issues. It's not just his Ks, but it is entirely and only moderate articulation issues (a bunch of consonant sounds he should have by this age, including l and s). Expressive and receptive both tested as "above average" by the early stages crew (somewhere around the 90%ile). In his case, they think it's largely a physical thing. He can't raise his tongue to the roof of his mouth. Anyway, just wanted to dispense with the fiction that articulation issues only can't get you an IEP.