Nottingham?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My expectation is that if I see my child struggling for 3 years and I continue to tell my child’s teachers that something is going on - that they take notice and stop telling me my child is meeting expectations. I shouldn’t have to pay for outside private testing and put my child in private school because Nottingham failed to help my child whom we ultimately found out has dyslexia. What if we had spent those 3 years actually providing my child with the needed help rather than now trying to catch up.

This kind of thing is not unique to Nottingham, or to APS. The reality for just about every school system is that special education needs exceed the special education funding provided to schools, so they basically are forced to ration special education resources. No decent educator honestly believes that "meets grade level expectations" is a deciding factor on whether a student has an education-related disability and thus whether they should be evaluated for services, but in practice is has to be because (1) students who aren't meeting grade level expectations typically have greater educational needs, and thus a greater need for the limited resources, and (2) testing to assess where a child could be performing and then measuring their actual performance against that is complex and very resource-intensive, beyond what schools generally can dedicate to it without severely compromising other areas.

So this is an issue everywhere. If your child is below grade level, it is fairly easy to make a case for testing. But if you child is meeting (and especially if they are exceeding) grade level expectations, it is very difficult to make a case that your child is not meeting their actual potential and that some sort of disability likely is preventing them from doing so, and thus to make a case for why the school should test. It sucks. It's an awful system. I know, because I've been there. But public schools didn't create the system, and they have a very limited ability to change it. If you want it to change, your advocacy needs to be directed at federal and state lawmakers, because they have the real power here.

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

PP here: In fact, every parent has the right to request the school to do testing. Our first child didn't qualify for automatic testing because their issues didn't (appear to) impact learning or performance. But one staff member made a point of repeatedly saying, "You can request that we do testing, if you want us to." Or, we could have the testing done on our own and share any or all of those records with the school - but "you can request that we do testing if you want us to." I finally realized what she was trying to tell me: request the school to test my child. So we did. And they did. And they found our child eligible for an IEP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think parents are asking schools to get kids to achieve their highest potential (the horror!), but to help identify basic issues that may be impacting a kid's access to the curriculum. Like dyslexia. Or autism, even HFA. Or dysgraphia. Even if a kid is getting Bs and Cs, but is really struggling and having a hard time, seems like the schools should be trying to identify these issues. It still shocks me that my kid went through 5 years of elementary school with not a single child expert on staff at the elementary identifying them for some of these issues. It's not rocket science to identify some of these things, but I guess my child's grades were getting in the way of their view.

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My expectation is that if I see my child struggling for 3 years and I continue to tell my child’s teachers that something is going on - that they take notice and stop telling me my child is meeting expectations. I shouldn’t have to pay for outside private testing and put my child in private school because Nottingham failed to help my child whom we ultimately found out has dyslexia. What if we had spent those 3 years actually providing my child with the needed help rather than now trying to catch up.

This kind of thing is not unique to Nottingham, or to APS. The reality for just about every school system is that special education needs exceed the special education funding provided to schools, so they basically are forced to ration special education resources. No decent educator honestly believes that "meets grade level expectations" is a deciding factor on whether a student has an education-related disability and thus whether they should be evaluated for services, but in practice is has to be because (1) students who aren't meeting grade level expectations typically have greater educational needs, and thus a greater need for the limited resources, and (2) testing to assess where a child could be performing and then measuring their actual performance against that is complex and very resource-intensive, beyond what schools generally can dedicate to it without severely compromising other areas.

So this is an issue everywhere. If your child is below grade level, it is fairly easy to make a case for testing. But if you child is meeting (and especially if they are exceeding) grade level expectations, it is very difficult to make a case that your child is not meeting their actual potential and that some sort of disability likely is preventing them from doing so, and thus to make a case for why the school should test. It sucks. It's an awful system. I know, because I've been there. But public schools didn't create the system, and they have a very limited ability to change it. If you want it to change, your advocacy needs to be directed at federal and state lawmakers, because they have the real power here.

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

I don’t think you understand how school funding works. Schools with high ELL and FARMS rates get certain dedicated funding for those issues that other schools don’t, and it has nothing to do with special education funding.

I also don’t know why you would think that rates of stuff like dyslexia, autism and ADHD would be less at a high-income school than a low-income school. If anything, diagnosis rates (and this demand for special education services) tend to be higher at more affluent school because (1) parents with more education and resources are more likely to recognize or be alerted to symptoms and then to request testing; (2) those schools tend to be disproportionately white, and white students are more likely than students of color to have their special needs recognized by educators and medical professionals, and (3) if the school determines that testing isn’t needed, those parents are more likely to have the money for private testing than parents in low-income schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My expectation is that if I see my child struggling for 3 years and I continue to tell my child’s teachers that something is going on - that they take notice and stop telling me my child is meeting expectations. I shouldn’t have to pay for outside private testing and put my child in private school because Nottingham failed to help my child whom we ultimately found out has dyslexia. What if we had spent those 3 years actually providing my child with the needed help rather than now trying to catch up.

This kind of thing is not unique to Nottingham, or to APS. The reality for just about every school system is that special education needs exceed the special education funding provided to schools, so they basically are forced to ration special education resources. No decent educator honestly believes that "meets grade level expectations" is a deciding factor on whether a student has an education-related disability and thus whether they should be evaluated for services, but in practice is has to be because (1) students who aren't meeting grade level expectations typically have greater educational needs, and thus a greater need for the limited resources, and (2) testing to assess where a child could be performing and then measuring their actual performance against that is complex and very resource-intensive, beyond what schools generally can dedicate to it without severely compromising other areas.

So this is an issue everywhere. If your child is below grade level, it is fairly easy to make a case for testing. But if you child is meeting (and especially if they are exceeding) grade level expectations, it is very difficult to make a case that your child is not meeting their actual potential and that some sort of disability likely is preventing them from doing so, and thus to make a case for why the school should test. It sucks. It's an awful system. I know, because I've been there. But public schools didn't create the system, and they have a very limited ability to change it. If you want it to change, your advocacy needs to be directed at federal and state lawmakers, because they have the real power here.

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

I don’t think you understand how school funding works. Schools with high ELL and FARMS rates get certain dedicated funding for those issues that other schools don’t, and it has nothing to do with special education funding.

I also don’t know why you would think that rates of stuff like dyslexia, autism and ADHD would be less at a high-income school than a low-income school. If anything, diagnosis rates (and this demand for special education services) tend to be higher at more affluent school because (1) parents with more education and resources are more likely to recognize or be alerted to symptoms and then to request testing; (2) those schools tend to be disproportionately white, and white students are more likely than students of color to have their special needs recognized by educators and medical professionals, and (3) if the school determines that testing isn’t needed, those parents are more likely to have the money for private testing than parents in low-income schools.

Not to mention that even if pp were correct that low-income schools struggle more, that still wouldn’t mean that Nottingham is adequately funded from a special education standpoint. They can both be underfunded even if one is more underfunded than the other relative to need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My expectation is that if I see my child struggling for 3 years and I continue to tell my child’s teachers that something is going on - that they take notice and stop telling me my child is meeting expectations. I shouldn’t have to pay for outside private testing and put my child in private school because Nottingham failed to help my child whom we ultimately found out has dyslexia. What if we had spent those 3 years actually providing my child with the needed help rather than now trying to catch up.

This kind of thing is not unique to Nottingham, or to APS. The reality for just about every school system is that special education needs exceed the special education funding provided to schools, so they basically are forced to ration special education resources. No decent educator honestly believes that "meets grade level expectations" is a deciding factor on whether a student has an education-related disability and thus whether they should be evaluated for services, but in practice is has to be because (1) students who aren't meeting grade level expectations typically have greater educational needs, and thus a greater need for the limited resources, and (2) testing to assess where a child could be performing and then measuring their actual performance against that is complex and very resource-intensive, beyond what schools generally can dedicate to it without severely compromising other areas.

So this is an issue everywhere. If your child is below grade level, it is fairly easy to make a case for testing. But if you child is meeting (and especially if they are exceeding) grade level expectations, it is very difficult to make a case that your child is not meeting their actual potential and that some sort of disability likely is preventing them from doing so, and thus to make a case for why the school should test. It sucks. It's an awful system. I know, because I've been there. But public schools didn't create the system, and they have a very limited ability to change it. If you want it to change, your advocacy needs to be directed at federal and state lawmakers, because they have the real power here.

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

I don’t think you understand how school funding works. Schools with high ELL and FARMS rates get certain dedicated funding for those issues that other schools don’t, and it has nothing to do with special education funding.

I also don’t know why you would think that rates of stuff like dyslexia, autism and ADHD would be less at a high-income school than a low-income school. If anything, diagnosis rates (and this demand for special education services) tend to be higher at more affluent school because (1) parents with more education and resources are more likely to recognize or be alerted to symptoms and then to request testing; (2) those schools tend to be disproportionately white, and white students are more likely than students of color to have their special needs recognized by educators and medical professionals, and (3) if the school determines that testing isn’t needed, those parents are more likely to have the money for private testing than parents in low-income schools.

Those schools also tend to have a higher %age of high-performing students who do not need extra services and/or are getting the assistance they need from parents and other experts and the schools overall are more homogenous and therefore students are receiving what they need. Or, if as you claim, so many are, then it shouldn't be too difficult to add a few more students in with them. Whereas the other schools have a far higher %age of students with additional needs - more ELL students, more ED students, more language barriers, fewer overly involved parents, lower-educated parent population, focus on basic needs like food and winter apparel, etc. And then you have the dyslexia, adhd, and other diagnoses on top of those needs. Additional resources and staffing these schools receive helps; but the increased work is not proportionate to the increased staffing. An ESOL teacher at one school may be responsible for 16 students; but at another school, 30. APS doesn't allocate staff according to a specific student-in-need:special teacher ratio.

[Anonymous]

APS doesn't allocate staff according to a specific student-in-need:special teacher ratio.

Umm that is incorrect. ELL and SPED students are staffed per population at every APS school. That is why a school like DES has one ELL teacher and a school like Carling Springs can have 8+. Same with special education staffing. It is based on services required for the number of students, absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Is someone here really arguing that Nottingham kids should get access to special ed services more easily because their school has lower percentages of kids in need due to the wealth of their feeder population? And that it's understandable that the APS schools that the poors go to may struggle with identifying learning disabilities but that Nottingham is rich enough to have the resources to identify these issues?

Some would say this is just saying the quiet part out loud. But I disagree that this is the way our public schools should to work. And I think kids at any school should have equal access to identification of learning disability issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

APS doesn't allocate staff according to a specific student-in-need:special teacher ratio.

Umm that is incorrect. ELL and SPED students are staffed per population at every APS school. That is why a school like DES has one ELL teacher and a school like Carling Springs can have 8+. Same with special education staffing. It is based on services required for the number of students, absolutely.

By enrollment[u]. Not a (for example) 5:1 student in need:teacher ratio. How can you assign by a specific ratio for special education if you haven't evaluated everyone? Like schools over 500 get 2 RTGs rather than 1. But a school of 700 with 2 RTGs does not have the same per student ratio as a school with 560 with 2 RTGs. Carlin Springs, Randolph, Barcroft, Ashlawn, Long Branch may all have different numbers of ESOL teachers; but ask the teachers at each school how many students they are each responsible for. It's not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My expectation is that if I see my child struggling for 3 years and I continue to tell my child’s teachers that something is going on - that they take notice and stop telling me my child is meeting expectations. I shouldn’t have to pay for outside private testing and put my child in private school because Nottingham failed to help my child whom we ultimately found out has dyslexia. What if we had spent those 3 years actually providing my child with the needed help rather than now trying to catch up.

This kind of thing is not unique to Nottingham, or to APS. The reality for just about every school system is that special education needs exceed the special education funding provided to schools, so they basically are forced to ration special education resources. No decent educator honestly believes that "meets grade level expectations" is a deciding factor on whether a student has an education-related disability and thus whether they should be evaluated for services, but in practice is has to be because (1) students who aren't meeting grade level expectations typically have greater educational needs, and thus a greater need for the limited resources, and (2) testing to assess where a child could be performing and then measuring their actual performance against that is complex and very resource-intensive, beyond what schools generally can dedicate to it without severely compromising other areas.

So this is an issue everywhere. If your child is below grade level, it is fairly easy to make a case for testing. But if you child is meeting (and especially if they are exceeding) grade level expectations, it is very difficult to make a case that your child is not meeting their actual potential and that some sort of disability likely is preventing them from doing so, and thus to make a case for why the school should test. It sucks. It's an awful system. I know, because I've been there. But public schools didn't create the system, and they have a very limited ability to change it. If you want it to change, your advocacy needs to be directed at federal and state lawmakers, because they have the real power here.

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

I don’t think you understand how school funding works. Schools with high ELL and FARMS rates get certain dedicated funding for those issues that other schools don’t, and it has nothing to do with special education funding.

I also don’t know why you would think that rates of stuff like dyslexia, autism and ADHD would be less at a high-income school than a low-income school. If anything, diagnosis rates (and this demand for special education services) tend to be higher at more affluent school because (1) parents with more education and resources are more likely to recognize or be alerted to symptoms and then to request testing; (2) those schools tend to be disproportionately white, and white students are more likely than students of color to have their special needs recognized by educators and medical professionals, and (3) if the school determines that testing isn’t needed, those parents are more likely to have the money for private testing than parents in low-income schools.

Those schools also tend to have a higher %age of high-performing students who do not need extra services and/or are getting the assistance they need from parents and other experts and the schools overall are more homogenous and therefore students are receiving what they need. Or, if as you claim, so many are, then it shouldn't be too difficult to add a few more students in with them. Whereas the other schools have a far higher %age of students with additional needs - more ELL students, more ED students, more language barriers, fewer overly involved parents, lower-educated parent population, focus on basic needs like food and winter apparel, etc. And then you have the dyslexia, adhd, and other diagnoses on top of those needs. Additional resources and staffing these schools receive helps; but the increased work is not proportionate to the increased staffing. An ESOL teacher at one school may be responsible for 16 students; but at another school, 30. APS doesn't allocate staff according to a specific student-in-need:special teacher ratio.

The implication of your post is that: (1) if a student is high-performing despite disabilities that affect learning, there is no need for the school to expend limited resources testing them or providing services, and (2) for high-performing students, parents with the resources to do so should get private testing and services instead of relying on schools given the lack of adequate resources.

This is exactly the dynamic people are complaining about here, that unless their child is failing, they cant get the school to test for disabilities so their child can get the services they need (which again, is not unique to Nottingham). So I guess you’re saying you think more affluent public schools are doing just fine on special education and parent should just pay for private testing and services if they don’t like it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is someone here really arguing that Nottingham kids should get access to special ed services more easily because their school has lower percentages of kids in need due to the wealth of their feeder population? And that it's understandable that the APS schools that the poors go to may struggle with identifying learning disabilities but that Nottingham is rich enough to have the resources to identify these issues?

Some would say this is just saying the quiet part out loud. But I disagree that this is the way our public schools should to work. And I think kids at any school should have equal access to identification of learning disability issues.

Literally no one is arguing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

APS doesn't allocate staff according to a specific student-in-need:special teacher ratio.

Umm that is incorrect. ELL and SPED students are staffed per population at every APS school. That is why a school like DES has one ELL teacher and a school like Carling Springs can have 8+. Same with special education staffing. It is based on services required for the number of students, absolutely.

By enrollment[u]. Not a (for example) 5:1 student in need:teacher ratio. How can you assign by a specific ratio for special education if you haven't evaluated everyone? Like schools over 500 get 2 RTGs rather than 1. But a school of 700 with 2 RTGs does not have the same per student ratio as a school with 560 with 2 RTGs. Carlin Springs, Randolph, Barcroft, Ashlawn, Long Branch may all have different numbers of ESOL teachers; but ask the teachers at each school how many students they are each responsible for. It's not the same.

DP. Sure, let’s make the ratios perfectly balanced. It should be easy to figure out how to assign an extra .13 staff to one school and .07 to another.

These ratios are always ranges because we deal in realty where you can only slice and dice a staff position so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is someone here really arguing that Nottingham kids should get access to special ed services more easily because their school has lower percentages of kids in need due to the wealth of their feeder population? And that it's understandable that the APS schools that the poors go to may struggle with identifying learning disabilities but that Nottingham is rich enough to have the resources to identify these issues?

Some would say this is just saying the quiet part out loud. But I disagree that this is the way our public schools should to work. And I think kids at any school should have equal access to identification of learning disability issues.

Literally no one is arguing that.

Uh, pretty sure you must have missed this:

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

This parent is saying that Nottingham kids with Bs and Cs should be able to get tested for disabilities by APS where kids at high needs schools can't afford to test the kids with only Bs and Cs. Which is exactly what I was saying above, and is imho not how public schools should operate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

APS doesn't allocate staff according to a specific student-in-need:special teacher ratio.

Umm that is incorrect. ELL and SPED students are staffed per population at every APS school. That is why a school like DES has one ELL teacher and a school like Carling Springs can have 8+. Same with special education staffing. It is based on services required for the number of students, absolutely.

By enrollment. Not a (for example) 5:1 student in need:teacher ratio. How can you assign by a specific ratio for special education if you haven't evaluated everyone? Like schools over 500 get 2 RTGs rather than 1. But a school of 700 with 2 RTGs does not have the same per student ratio as a school with 560 with 2 RTGs. Carlin Springs, Randolph, Barcroft, Ashlawn, Long Branch may all have different numbers of ESOL teachers; but ask the teachers at each school how many students they are each responsible for. It's not the same.

DP. Sure, let’s make the ratios perfectly balanced. It should be easy to figure out how to assign an extra .13 staff to one school and .07 to another.

These ratios are always ranges because we deal in realty where you can only slice and dice a staff position so far.

Typical DCUM over-picking-apart every little thing and missing the point.

The point is that the proportion doesn't [u]equalize the availability of the resources. And yes, I do believe that Nottingham has the ability and obligation to work with parents like OP who are confident there is something that can be gleaned from an evaluation of their child; and I believe if Nottingham really wanted to, it would find a way to do it. Admins generally dissuade parents of children who the admins deem to be doing fine, or well, from seeking additional services or evaluations because they don't want to overburden the evaluation staff they have. I believe, overall, the high FRL/ELL schools are "more" overburdened and overwhelmed with identifying needs and gifted students than the Nottinghams even with the Nottinghams' fewer staff. If the staff at my kids' high FRL/ELL elementary school can do it as they did for our family, Nottingham should be able to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is someone here really arguing that Nottingham kids should get access to special ed services more easily because their school has lower percentages of kids in need due to the wealth of their feeder population? And that it's understandable that the APS schools that the poors go to may struggle with identifying learning disabilities but that Nottingham is rich enough to have the resources to identify these issues?

Some would say this is just saying the quiet part out loud. But I disagree that this is the way our public schools should to work. And I think kids at any school should have equal access to identification of learning disability issues.

Literally no one is arguing that.

Uh, pretty sure you must have missed this:

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

This parent is saying that Nottingham kids with Bs and Cs should be able to get tested for disabilities by APS where kids at high needs schools can't afford to test the kids with only Bs and Cs. Which is exactly what I was saying above, and is imho not how public schools should operate.

I am not that poster (I am the one arguing with that poster), but I think you are misreading their comment. I don't think they were saying that, as a matter of principal, it should be easier for more affluent students to get special education testing. I think they were arguing that in practice, the overall needs of the student body at a more affluent schools like Nottingham are not as great as at less affluent schools, that more affluent schools can devote more resources to testing and services for students who are at or above grade level as a result, and therefore any decision by an affluent school not to test a student for disabilities cannot be the result of inadequate resources and instead must be due to administration hostility toward students with special needs.

I disagree with some of their underlying assumptions on that, but I don't think they were saying that's how it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is someone here really arguing that Nottingham kids should get access to special ed services more easily because their school has lower percentages of kids in need due to the wealth of their feeder population? And that it's understandable that the APS schools that the poors go to may struggle with identifying learning disabilities but that Nottingham is rich enough to have the resources to identify these issues?

Some would say this is just saying the quiet part out loud. But I disagree that this is the way our public schools should to work. And I think kids at any school should have equal access to identification of learning disability issues.

Literally no one is arguing that.

Uh, pretty sure you must have missed this:

I'd buy that argument more at high needs schools like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, etc. But not at schools like Nottingham. Those schools do not have the high percentage of students with big special needs schools with high FRL and high% ELL have. They should absolutely be able to test more kids in the middle, especially when the parent is consistently expressing concerns. APS keeps telling us parents know their children best....until we ask APS for something. Then suddenly the teacher knows our kid better.

This parent is saying that Nottingham kids with Bs and Cs should be able to get tested for disabilities by APS where kids at high needs schools can't afford to test the kids with only Bs and Cs. Which is exactly what I was saying above, and is imho not how public schools should operate.

I am not that poster (I am the one arguing with that poster), but I think you are misreading their comment. I don't think they were saying that, as a matter of principal, it should be easier for more affluent students to get special education testing. I think they were arguing that in practice, the overall needs of the student body at a more affluent schools like Nottingham are not as great as at less affluent schools, that more affluent schools can devote more resources to testing and services for students who are at or above grade level as a result, and therefore any decision by an affluent school not to test a student for disabilities cannot be the result of inadequate resources and instead must be due to administration hostility toward students with special needs.

I disagree with some of their underlying assumptions on that, but I don't think they were saying that's how it should be.

I'm not sure why you're not seeing that these two things are functionally equivalent. Arguing that your kid should get more support because your school district is wealthy is the same thing as arguing that your kid should get more support because your school district is wealthy.