SIL is prejudiced about putting her child in public school and disabled children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the subtext here that she can afford it and you can’t because she has one kid and you have three?

Regardless there is a lot of truth in what she says, and buying in a “good” district shouldn’t prevent you from thinking critically about your children’s school experience. My sense is that no one is blaming disabled children. Rather it’s the macroeconomics that put so many already stressed children in beforecare and aftercare—and staffing ratios that make harmonious inclusion unlikely.

Except her SIL is blaming the parents of disabled students for relying on schools to educate them. I don’t even understand the before care/after care point because most public schools will tell you straight out that they don’t have the staff to support any SN kids and I don’t know any parents with kids with iep that use it. My DC has an iep but is more of the quiet, friendless, studious type and even I wouldn’t put them in aftercare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a rich white lady with a profoundly disabled kid. While your SIL sounds like a jerk in how she said it, much of what she said is true. IDEA has never been fully funded. Schools don’t have the money to truly support kids with disabilities. And behavioral issues are particularly tough when the kid actually has the academic ability to perform in a mainstream class (this is where least restrictive environment gets tricky).

And people who preach inclusion are often focused on some ABC Family Movie of the Week version of disabilities they watched in the 80s. My 14 year old wears diapers, has no functional communication, and drools onto her bib all day. She is a baby cognitively. No, I don’t want her pushed into a mainstream environment in any way, shape or form. And, I actually do support inclusion for many kids —
But without appropriate funding, we have to realize it is a mess.

It is a tough place for everyone to be. The reality is that even though I’m rich, I will never have enough money to pay for the 24-7 care my daughter needs. She will end up in a Medicaid funded intermediate care facility (assuming republicans don’t fit Medicaid). It is a mess.

I’m confused, you are rich, but you can’t afford 24x7 care for your daughter? Is it because you just don’t want to spend your money on that kind of care because it will no longer allow you to be rich?

DP. You have no idea how expensive this stuff is and the amount of time a young severely disabled person will need care. There are regular rich people that will wipe out all of their retirement savings for less than ten years in a decent memory wing of a nursing home. Now imagine having to do that for an extra couple of decades.

[Anonymous]

THere's an inflection point where more kids with special needs - bad homes with indifferent or absent parents, adhd, emotional immaturity aggravated by covid school closures, phone and social media addiction, inability to concentrate, administration mandates that prevent teachers from discipling out of control kids, foreign language issues etc - lead to more teachers moving on in their careers. The schools than become under resourced, which further exacerbates the problem. Average and advanced students are forgotten about entirely. More and more move away to privates. And the lunatics take over the asylum. A once good neighborhood school over just a few short years becomes a terrible school. Lots of blame to go around, but it's not the teachers. We've handed them an impossible situation.

[Anonymous]

OP, there is no reason for you to be offended. Millions of kids have wonderful experiences in public schools. But many parents also choose not to send their kids for various reasons. Your mistake was asking your SIL *why.*. Just let them be parents making their own decisions for their family. And you make the best decisions for yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the subtext here that she can afford it and you can’t because she has one kid and you have three?

Regardless there is a lot of truth in what she says, and buying in a “good” district shouldn’t prevent you from thinking critically about your children’s school experience. My sense is that no one is blaming disabled children. Rather it’s the macroeconomics that put so many already stressed children in beforecare and aftercare—and staffing ratios that make harmonious inclusion unlikely.

Familial discrimination much? I have more than three kids and can afford an expensive private for all of them just fine. Don’t judge a family based on the number of kids.

[Anonymous]

OP is astounded "get this" that her SIL doesn't want her kid in a classroom with table flippers. That must be striking too close for home for OP. She should worry more about her kids getting the help they need, so their behavior is under control, instead of bashing people like her SIL who want a happy and safe school environment. SIL also gets to prioritize her own child's education and needs, not just OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the subtext here that she can afford it and you can’t because she has one kid and you have three?

Regardless there is a lot of truth in what she says, and buying in a “good” district shouldn’t prevent you from thinking critically about your children’s school experience. My sense is that no one is blaming disabled children. Rather it’s the macroeconomics that put so many already stressed children in beforecare and aftercare—and staffing ratios that make harmonious inclusion unlikely.

Familial discrimination much? I have more than three kids and can afford an expensive private for all of them just fine. Don’t judge a family based on the number of kids.

NP.

Good lord. You're really trying to be offended here.

Hard to imagine a more innocuous remark.

[Anonymous]

I was a public educator for a long time. I sent my own kids to a public school. But what I've seen over the past few years has made me think that if I had school aged kids now, I would probably not send them to a public school for the exact reasons your family member described. I have no issue with kids who have IEPs. I do have issues with physically aggressive students. Physically aggressive children do not belong in gen Ed rooms, period. I could no longer guarantee that I could provide a basic level of safety for all my students (or myself) in public Ed and I left because of it.

Your family member is making decisions based on real time experiences in schools. She's smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the subtext here that she can afford it and you can’t because she has one kid and you have three?

Regardless there is a lot of truth in what she says, and buying in a “good” district shouldn’t prevent you from thinking critically about your children’s school experience. My sense is that no one is blaming disabled children. Rather it’s the macroeconomics that put so many already stressed children in beforecare and aftercare—and staffing ratios that make harmonious inclusion unlikely.

Familial discrimination much? I have more than three kids and can afford an expensive private for all of them just fine. Don’t judge a family based on the number of kids.

NP.

Good lord. You're really trying to be offended here.

Hard to imagine a more innocuous remark.

Never mind that PP. She just wanted to brag about being rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a public educator for a long time. I sent my own kids to a public school. But what I've seen over the past few years has made me think that if I had school aged kids now, I would probably not send them to a public school for the exact reasons your family member described. I have no issue with kids who have IEPs. I do have issues with physically aggressive students. Physically aggressive children do not belong in gen Ed rooms, period. I could no longer guarantee that I could provide a basic level of safety for all my students (or myself) in public Ed and I left because of it.

Your family member is making decisions based on real time experiences in schools. She's smart.

+1. Also a former public school teacher. Very supportive of inclusion of kids w various needs and abilities and went through lots of training to effectively differentiate instruction for all learning levels/abilities BUT finally left teaching as I realized that the kids who are violent, aggressive, defiant and oppositional are not going to be managed and it is often not a safe environment for students or staff. neither admin nor parents will do anything about it. Kids aren’t suspended or expelled until something horrible happens. It is is not an environment that is safe for students or teachers. Obviously not every public school has the same issues and there are lots of great public schools out there. but the system is broken and classrooms/schools that were once great can quickly devolve into chaos with a bad mixture of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am physically disabled person from birth. In the 80s when my mother went to register me for kindergarten at our neighborhood school, they refused to agree to put me in a mainstream classroom and wanted to warehouse me in a separate building with all "disabled kids" as in physical, mental, developmental, behavioral, all together aka special ed.

You know who would gladly take me: the three private schools in my town. So maybe OP privates are more inclusive than your preconceived mind thinks. Spend a lot of time with disabled people?

See this is the problem with using catch all terms like disabled and special needs. Your physical disability should have nothing to do with your ability to learn and behave in the classroom. You might need reasonable accommodations if you can't run the mile in PE for instance. Kids with ODD however are being grouped in with disabled and a lot of these kids just cannot function in normal classrooms. We had a kid who would tantrum and throw things.

I'm so sorry that they were trying not to mainstream you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a public educator for a long time. I sent my own kids to a public school. But what I've seen over the past few years has made me think that if I had school aged kids now, I would probably not send them to a public school for the exact reasons your family member described. I have no issue with kids who have IEPs. I do have issues with physically aggressive students. Physically aggressive children do not belong in gen Ed rooms, period. I could no longer guarantee that I could provide a basic level of safety for all my students (or myself) in public Ed and I left because of it.

Your family member is making decisions based on real time experiences in schools. She's smart.

+1. Also a former public school teacher. Very supportive of inclusion of kids w various needs and abilities and went through lots of training to effectively differentiate instruction for all learning levels/abilities BUT finally left teaching as I realized that the kids who are violent, aggressive, defiant and oppositional are not going to be managed and it is often not a safe environment for students or staff. neither admin nor parents will do anything about it. Kids aren’t suspended or expelled until something horrible happens. It is is not an environment that is safe for students or teachers. Obviously not every public school has the same issues and there are lots of great public schools out there. but the system is broken and classrooms/schools that were once great can quickly devolve into chaos with a bad mixture of students.

This demonstrates the real misunderstanding around disabled kids who demonstrate aggressive behaviors. In most cases, these kids are not choosing to be violent, but rather it is a behavioral symptom of their disability. Suspending or expelling them makes the parents of NT kids and teachers feel good, but does nothing for the SN child. Reward/consequence does not work here. I 100% agree that kids with these behaviors should not be in mainstream classrooms- it is not a safe situation for all of the kids involved and makes learning very difficult.

[Anonymous]

OP, you have something to post. It stirs debate. Just make sure you don't live your life, and make decisions on how to interact with family -- so you have something to post. You know you shouldn't have asked "why". Not if you were needing to get along, for a short time, in a social setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the subtext here that she can afford it and you can’t because she has one kid and you have three?

Regardless there is a lot of truth in what she says, and buying in a “good” district shouldn’t prevent you from thinking critically about your children’s school experience. My sense is that no one is blaming disabled children. Rather it’s the macroeconomics that put so many already stressed children in beforecare and aftercare—and staffing ratios that make harmonious inclusion unlikely.

Familial discrimination much? I have more than three kids and can afford an expensive private for all of them just fine. Don’t judge a family based on the number of kids.

NP.

Good lord. You're really trying to be offended here.

Hard to imagine a more innocuous remark.

Says the person that most likely does not hear these kinds of remarks in a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the subtext here that she can afford it and you can’t because she has one kid and you have three?

Regardless there is a lot of truth in what she says, and buying in a “good” district shouldn’t prevent you from thinking critically about your children’s school experience. My sense is that no one is blaming disabled children. Rather it’s the macroeconomics that put so many already stressed children in beforecare and aftercare—and staffing ratios that make harmonious inclusion unlikely.

Familial discrimination much? I have more than three kids and can afford an expensive private for all of them just fine. Don’t judge a family based on the number of kids.

NP.

Good lord. You're really trying to be offended here.

Hard to imagine a more innocuous remark.

Says the person that most likely does not hear these kinds of remarks in a daily basis.

NP. The PP was correct. You are being ridiculous and I say that as someone who receives these remarks myself. You are looking to be offended.