Think twice before hiring an advocate…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

Preach! I am not looking for the 'best education' for my DC. I am looking for my DC to be able to access the curricula they are capable of mastering and that is available to every other student in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the 2e kids who ARE quite close to grade level but could be doing much more if they weren't managing to create their own supports. Also, they are probably struggling with a lot of issues that are non-academic.

I agree that the public school probably can't offer what is actually needed, and I feel for the teachers who are stuck in the middle. We ended up having to go private to get what we need - to a private SN school, even though our kid would have fallen into the category you describe with being almost at grade level.

On the other hand, of course, I agree you need to assume good intent. We went into our first IEP meeting with an advocate because our neuropsych basically told us we would need one, and I felt like she was way too antogonistic.

What you are saying is 100 percent true. To get a 2E kid their ideal perfect education, you sometimes have to go private. But many families can’t afford that nor afford an advocate, and it’s just not fair that a child who is achieving well but not as well as they COULD earns the resources over a child who is so low that they might not learn to read without supports.

The thing is - the way this is being framed is illegal. The law says that decisions about whether a kid qualifies for an IEP and what should be in that IEP are to be made without reference to the available resources of the schools system.

If you want to be mad that you have too many kids and not enough resources, be mad at the federal government for not giving more funding for this to states, be mad at state and local authorities for not appropriating more funding, and be mad at yourselves and your bosses. You have so many managerial problems and you never fix them. They cost your time and aggravation.

I have zero sympathy for my school system - MCPS - who for years has had a caseload of dyslexic students and has never until the last few years started to put in structural supports and train teachers in dyslexia-appropriate reading instruction.

I see that schools, despite having dozens of kids with ADHD, still use shame as their main behavioral management tool and do not have any systemic supports for ADHD. They do not have packages of instruction tailored to the kinds of reading comp problems that ADHD kids have. There are no special instruction packages for dysgraphia. Teachers lack training to know how to support students with depression and anxiety in school. Worse, on a personal level, many teachers are ignorant about these disorders and thus shame these students instead of helping them.

FAPE isn't a competition between students to see who is worse off and needs it more. FAPE is a civil right held by each student, created by a state and society who knows that disabled students have academic potential that must be met in order to have stable jobs and lives and become taxpayer citizens who contribute to the state. FAPE is an investment in our country's human capital. FAPE (and IDEA, Sec 504 and the ADA) is also a safety net for every individual. Historically, our society has thought of disabled people as not able to learn or participate in society or worse as somehow responsible for being disabled. But the reality is that every day you and your family wake up whole and healthy is a blessing because at any moment one of us or our loved ones could fall ill or be injured. Can you imagine being told that you are only allowed to have the resources necessary to develop up to "almost average"????

It is not up to the OP and her IEP team to decide that some kids are deserving of public investment and others are not. If a parent's assertion of their own child's civil rights was so offensive to your peers that they quit, then they did not have an adequate understanding of their profession, and it's good for all of us that they move on.

I have seen many kids who tried and failed to get IEPs or 504s, and I assure you the consequences are devastating even for those that are "almost average" - depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, de-motivation and even suicidality. It's just as tragic as a kid who doesn't learn to read, but in a different way. Our disabilities are not your pain Olympics, OP.

Thank you. Parents like us are not the problem. I'd be happy to partner with a teachers' union to advocate for more special ed resources and interventions. I'd be happy to advocate for requirements that all teachers have explicit instruction on how to work with students with disabilities. I appreciate the work teachers do and think it's appalling how under-resourced schools and teachers are. But, my kids and I are not the problem. We are symptoms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t blame an advocate for a teacher’s lack of backbone.

Don't blame a teacher for not being adversarial; it's (thankfully) not in their job description.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t blame an advocate for a teacher’s lack of backbone.

Don't blame a teacher for not being adversarial; it's (thankfully) not in their job description.

+1

[Anonymous]

If more people voted for politicians who prioritize public education, a lot of this would be a non-issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

Dear teacher - you do not understand special education law. "Impedes access to the general education curriculum" is not a component of the IDEA law. Rather, a student must have 1) a qualifying disorder that 2) adversely impacts education and 3) necessitates special instruction.

A child can "access the curriculum" but still not be able to learn from it adequately commensurate with their ability. This happens in the case of dyslexia for example - dyslexic typically can "access" the general ed curriculum in the sense that they can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc. They also tend to learn something about reading, just nothing compared to their peers. They progress at a slower rate and their reading is often laborious. Indeed, they may be the kind of student you are referring to who is "almost" reading at average grade level, and so appears to you not to need special education, especially compared to other "more needy" students you identify. They appear to be "accessing" instruction, but since the test is actually whether their disorder "adversely impacts" their "education" and "necessitates special instruction", they qualify for IEPs where their assessed ability (IQ) is significantly above their ability to read (as measured by achievement). These students benefit from special instruction in reading appropriate to dyslexics (OG and other instruction that focuses on the sound symbol relationship).

Students with "mild dyslexia" should never be served under a 504 plan instead of an IEP, otherwise they miss the chance for special instruction that they need to have a chance at becoming fluent readers near their level of ability. It would never be appropriate to substitute a 504 plan with an "accommodation" like audiobooks or more time or text to speech instead of OG reading instruction.

FWIW, IDEA is very clear that a student can have good grades and be on grade level and still need an IEP as my 2E DS had for dysgraphia and "mild" ADHD. (Although as parents we did not think it so mild - it required medication and a lot of other support.) These kids are also eligible to take magnet and advanced classes, with IEP supports as necessary.

If you were parroting this misinformation at my child's special education meeting, I would file some kind of complaint and make sure that I brought an advocate or lawyer to my meetings with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

Dear teacher - you do not understand special education law. "Impedes access to the general education curriculum" is not a component of the IDEA law. Rather, a student must have 1) a qualifying disorder that 2) adversely impacts education and 3) necessitates special instruction.

A child can "access the curriculum" but still not be able to learn from it adequately commensurate with their ability. This happens in the case of dyslexia for example - dyslexic typically can "access" the general ed curriculum in the sense that they can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc. They also tend to learn something about reading, just nothing compared to their peers. They progress at a slower rate and their reading is often laborious. Indeed, they may be the kind of student you are referring to who is "almost" reading at average grade level, and so appears to you not to need special education, especially compared to other "more needy" students you identify. They appear to be "accessing" instruction, but since the test is actually whether their disorder "adversely impacts" their "education" and "necessitates special instruction", they qualify for IEPs where their assessed ability (IQ) is significantly above their ability to read (as measured by achievement). These students benefit from special instruction in reading appropriate to dyslexics (OG and other instruction that focuses on the sound symbol relationship).

Students with "mild dyslexia" should never be served under a 504 plan instead of an IEP, otherwise they miss the chance for special instruction that they need to have a chance at becoming fluent readers near their level of ability. It would never be appropriate to substitute a 504 plan with an "accommodation" like audiobooks or more time or text to speech instead of OG reading instruction.

FWIW, IDEA is very clear that a student can have good grades and be on grade level and still need an IEP as my 2E DS had for dysgraphia and "mild" ADHD. (Although as parents we did not think it so mild - it required medication and a lot of other support.) These kids are also eligible to take magnet and advanced classes, with IEP supports as necessary.

If you were parroting this misinformation at my child's special education meeting, I would file some kind of complaint and make sure that I brought an advocate or lawyer to my meetings with you.

Maybe you are right, but you should know that you are the reason no one wants to be a SPED teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

Dear teacher - you do not understand special education law. "Impedes access to the general education curriculum" is not a component of the IDEA law. Rather, a student must have 1) a qualifying disorder that 2) adversely impacts education and 3) necessitates special instruction.

A child can "access the curriculum" but still not be able to learn from it adequately commensurate with their ability. This happens in the case of dyslexia for example - dyslexic typically can "access" the general ed curriculum in the sense that they can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc. They also tend to learn something about reading, just nothing compared to their peers. They progress at a slower rate and their reading is often laborious. Indeed, they may be the kind of student you are referring to who is "almost" reading at average grade level, and so appears to you not to need special education, especially compared to other "more needy" students you identify. They appear to be "accessing" instruction, but since the test is actually whether their disorder "adversely impacts" their "education" and "necessitates special instruction", they qualify for IEPs where their assessed ability (IQ) is significantly above their ability to read (as measured by achievement). These students benefit from special instruction in reading appropriate to dyslexics (OG and other instruction that focuses on the sound symbol relationship).

Students with "mild dyslexia" should never be served under a 504 plan instead of an IEP, otherwise they miss the chance for special instruction that they need to have a chance at becoming fluent readers near their level of ability. It would never be appropriate to substitute a 504 plan with an "accommodation" like audiobooks or more time or text to speech instead of OG reading instruction.

FWIW, IDEA is very clear that a student can have good grades and be on grade level and still need an IEP as my 2E DS had for dysgraphia and "mild" ADHD. (Although as parents we did not think it so mild - it required medication and a lot of other support.) These kids are also eligible to take magnet and advanced classes, with IEP supports as necessary.

If you were parroting this misinformation at my child's special education meeting, I would file some kind of complaint and make sure that I brought an advocate or lawyer to my meetings with you.

Not a teacher - I am a school psychologist and have taken courses in special education law. I am copy and pasting directly from IDEA below:

"Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—
(i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and
(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children."

What you are missing here is that, to qualify, a child needs specially designed instruction in order to access the general curriculum and meet educational standards. If a child is already accessing the curriculum and meeting educational standards, they would not qualify.

I am not the original poster - I welcome advocates into my meetings. And I wish that we could provide services to more students. I'm just describing the legal parameters of IDEA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

Dear teacher - you do not understand special education law. "Impedes access to the general education curriculum" is not a component of the IDEA law. Rather, a student must have 1) a qualifying disorder that 2) adversely impacts education and 3) necessitates special instruction.

A child can "access the curriculum" but still not be able to learn from it adequately commensurate with their ability. This happens in the case of dyslexia for example - dyslexic typically can "access" the general ed curriculum in the sense that they can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc. They also tend to learn something about reading, just nothing compared to their peers. They progress at a slower rate and their reading is often laborious. Indeed, they may be the kind of student you are referring to who is "almost" reading at average grade level, and so appears to you not to need special education, especially compared to other "more needy" students you identify. They appear to be "accessing" instruction, but since the test is actually whether their disorder "adversely impacts" their "education" and "necessitates special instruction", they qualify for IEPs where their assessed ability (IQ) is significantly above their ability to read (as measured by achievement). These students benefit from special instruction in reading appropriate to dyslexics (OG and other instruction that focuses on the sound symbol relationship).

Students with "mild dyslexia" should never be served under a 504 plan instead of an IEP, otherwise they miss the chance for special instruction that they need to have a chance at becoming fluent readers near their level of ability. It would never be appropriate to substitute a 504 plan with an "accommodation" like audiobooks or more time or text to speech instead of OG reading instruction.

FWIW, IDEA is very clear that a student can have good grades and be on grade level and still need an IEP as my 2E DS had for dysgraphia and "mild" ADHD. (Although as parents we did not think it so mild - it required medication and a lot of other support.) These kids are also eligible to take magnet and advanced classes, with IEP supports as necessary.

If you were parroting this misinformation at my child's special education meeting, I would file some kind of complaint and make sure that I brought an advocate or lawyer to my meetings with you.

Maybe you are right, but you should know that you are the reason no one wants to be a SPED teacher.

oh ffs. if you don’t want to comply with the primary regulations affecting your profession then yeah, don’t enter that profession. if you don’t want to develop skills that are fundamental to your profession (working with parents of SN kids, including the ones who want to be involved closely) then don’t enter that profession.

writing and implementing IEPS is your job. talking to parents and their representatives is your job.

[Anonymous]

Same poster here - just adding another thought. You seem to misunderstand what it means to access the curriculum. This doesn't mean just that they "can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc." If dyslexia is preventing a student from grasping material and falling behind grade level standards - then this student is not accessing the curriculum. Having a disability that impedes access to the curriculum doesn't mean that they student is getting absolutely nothing out of class, but that their disability is preventing them from fully accessing and learning the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same poster here - just adding another thought. You seem to misunderstand what it means to access the curriculum. This doesn't mean just that they "can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc." If dyslexia is preventing a student from grasping material and falling behind grade level standards - then this student is not accessing the curriculum. Having a disability that impedes access to the curriculum doesn't mean that they student is getting absolutely nothing out of class, but that their disability is preventing them from fully accessing and learning the curriculum.

This is true! However, if a child is achieving on grade level, but has dyslexia, he is accessing the curriculum. Our area districts tend to it interpret IDEA more broadly with the idea that a child has to be achieving “to their potential” (which is not a 1:1 correlation with their IQ no matter what parents or advocates think). So this results in kids who are learning to read fluently getting IEP goals to read above grade level - to match their “potential”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my degree was useful for literally anything other than teaching special education, I would do it. Full stop.

Get a new degree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same poster here - just adding another thought. You seem to misunderstand what it means to access the curriculum. This doesn't mean just that they "can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc." If dyslexia is preventing a student from grasping material and falling behind grade level standards - then this student is not accessing the curriculum. Having a disability that impedes access to the curriculum doesn't mean that they student is getting absolutely nothing out of class, but that their disability is preventing them from fully accessing and learning the curriculum.

This is true! However, if a child is achieving on grade level, but has dyslexia, he is accessing the curriculum. Our area districts tend to it interpret IDEA more broadly with the idea that a child has to be achieving “to their potential” (which is not a 1:1 correlation with their IQ no matter what parents or advocates think). So this results in kids who are learning to read fluently getting IEP goals to read above grade level - to match their “potential”.

Great point! States and districts are allowed to more broadly include children in special education than IDEA mandates. A child like you describe may qualify in a specific district, but states/districts are not obligated to qualify them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this doesn't sound nice, but the purpose of special education is to help students with disabilities access the general education curriculum. It isn't to help children reach their highest potential. That sounds rough, but it is the legal truth. It would be great if schools could individually help each child reach their potential, but that isn't special education. A child with a disability who is performing at or near grade level is accessing the curriculum (assuming we're focused on academics in this example, not other areas of need). It is okay (and good!) to want more for your kid if you think they can achieve more than grade-level. But look somewhere other than special ed.

This is reaching qanon levels of misinformation. The Endrew F case set precedent that every child should have the chance to meet objectives that reasonably challenge them, not de minimus progress.

PP here. I may not have been clear - I was talking about what it takes to qualify for special education. Which is a disability that impedes access to the general education curriculum, and requires SDIs to access the curriculum. Endrew F has nothing to do with special education eligibility; it is only relevant once a student qualifies for an IEP. Once a child qualifies - yes! The school must set goals and provide SDIs to reach ambitious goals. This does not apply to students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A student with mild ADHD or dyslexia served under a 504 plan? Endrew F does not apply.

Dear teacher - you do not understand special education law. "Impedes access to the general education curriculum" is not a component of the IDEA law. Rather, a student must have 1) a qualifying disorder that 2) adversely impacts education and 3) necessitates special instruction.

A child can "access the curriculum" but still not be able to learn from it adequately commensurate with their ability. This happens in the case of dyslexia for example - dyslexic typically can "access" the general ed curriculum in the sense that they can use books, see print, hear the teacher, etc. They also tend to learn something about reading, just nothing compared to their peers. They progress at a slower rate and their reading is often laborious. Indeed, they may be the kind of student you are referring to who is "almost" reading at average grade level, and so appears to you not to need special education, especially compared to other "more needy" students you identify. They appear to be "accessing" instruction, but since the test is actually whether their disorder "adversely impacts" their "education" and "necessitates special instruction", they qualify for IEPs where their assessed ability (IQ) is significantly above their ability to read (as measured by achievement). These students benefit from special instruction in reading appropriate to dyslexics (OG and other instruction that focuses on the sound symbol relationship).

Students with "mild dyslexia" should never be served under a 504 plan instead of an IEP, otherwise they miss the chance for special instruction that they need to have a chance at becoming fluent readers near their level of ability. It would never be appropriate to substitute a 504 plan with an "accommodation" like audiobooks or more time or text to speech instead of OG reading instruction.

FWIW, IDEA is very clear that a student can have good grades and be on grade level and still need an IEP as my 2E DS had for dysgraphia and "mild" ADHD. (Although as parents we did not think it so mild - it required medication and a lot of other support.) These kids are also eligible to take magnet and advanced classes, with IEP supports as necessary.

If you were parroting this misinformation at my child's special education meeting, I would file some kind of complaint and make sure that I brought an advocate or lawyer to my meetings with you.

I am a parent of a child with "mild dyslexia", and disagree with you. It takes her more time than her classmates to read, but with extended time she does fully grasp what she's reading. She just works more slowly. Her phonological challenges are genuinely mild - just at the cutoff for being diagnosed. She has definitely benefited from private OG tutoring at my expense, but I would not expect the district to provide it when she does just fine in gen ed with extra time.