how is one teacher going to manage 11 IEP kids?

[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.

Not trying to do anything so dramatic as attempting to “build a case”. Just pointing out that the identified needed service will be virtual, which is not a change. A child whose services are more hands on (say, PT) would have a more tangible change as that service will allegedly be in-person. Also I’m not arguing that kids with speech do not benefit from in person teaching - I think most kids do. But, it’s odd to me that the individualized nature of IEPs aren’t considered as criteria for return when the providers of IEP services are selected to return based on perceived efficacy of service delivery. Idk, seems incongruent. Not turning all red in the face and foot stomp-y about it, though.

The speech therapist at our school is going to be in the building to do physical pull out sessions. I think this varies by school and teacher though

[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.

Selfcontained classrooms are separate from the inperson slots we are talking about

[Anonymous]

^^ I am jealous that you know anything at all about what staff will be in the building. In my school I don't know a single teacher who has been drafted. We are all still waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, your child shouldn’t have an IEP because what you describe clearly doesn’t impact their ability to learn given the above average reports you describe. I say this as a parent of a child with an articulation issue who has an IEP - it was quite explicit that he needed to show impairment and a certain percentage below average to qualify for his IEP (which he did - expressive was below 50%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ I am jealous that you know anything at all about what staff will be in the building. In my school I don't know a single teacher who has been drafted. We are all still waiting.

PP doesn't. They are pointing out that you are conflating the self-contained classes with the in-person classes. They are two separate things at any school that has self contained. I suspect yours does not, so it might not be clear.

Self-contained - "DCPS’s self-contained, districtwide classrooms provide specialized supports to students with 20 or more hours of specialized instruction outside of general education in their IEP. Our self-contained classrooms are designed to give more support to students with disabilities who have a high level of need."

In person- ELL/Homelss/IEPs with less than 20 hours, etc...

CARES- everyone else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be clear I think DCPS is doing the right thing. Keeping all kids DL because they can’t return all kids with IEPs would be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that’s apraxia right? expressive speech. And since he’s only 3 you just have to show a 25% delay in expressive speech. For older kids, they’d have to show the delay also kept them from accessing the curriculum. A significant articulation problem like that that impacts intelligibility is totally a reason to prioritize in person learning. the point is, it’s not just “can’t pronounce ks”. DCPS is not the business of handing out IEPs like candy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be clear I think DCPS is doing the right thing. Keeping all kids DL because they can’t return all kids with IEPs would be wrong.

But if I were a parent with a kid with an IEP who doesn't get a spot, I think I might sue. Mostly because I bet I would then get a spot, knowing DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that’s apraxia right? expressive speech. And since he’s only 3 you just have to show a 25% delay in expressive speech. For older kids, they’d have to show the delay also kept them from accessing the curriculum. A significant articulation problem like that that impacts intelligibility is totally a reason to prioritize in person learning. the point is, it’s not just “can’t pronounce ks”. DCPS is not the business of handing out IEPs like candy.

Truth!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that’s apraxia right? expressive speech. And since he’s only 3 you just have to show a 25% delay in expressive speech. For older kids, they’d have to show the delay also kept them from accessing the curriculum. A significant articulation problem like that that impacts intelligibility is totally a reason to prioritize in person learning. the point is, it’s not just “can’t pronounce ks”. DCPS is not the business of handing out IEPs like candy.

NP. My second-grader has an IEP for not being able to reliably pronounce the "k" and "l" sound--pure articulation issues. Doesn't prevent him from accessing the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I am jealous that you know anything at all about what staff will be in the building. In my school I don't know a single teacher who has been drafted. We are all still waiting.

PP doesn't. They are pointing out that you are conflating the self-contained classes with the in-person classes. They are two separate things at any school that has self contained. I suspect yours does not, so it might not be clear.

Self-contained - "DCPS’s self-contained, districtwide classrooms provide specialized supports to students with 20 or more hours of specialized instruction outside of general education in their IEP. Our self-contained classrooms are designed to give more support to students with disabilities who have a high level of need."

In person- ELL/Homelss/IEPs with less than 20 hours, etc...

CARES- everyone else

Don't forget that In-Person also prioritizes "at-risk" students which is those receiving TANF/SNAP, homeless, and under CFSA care. At many schools, there are very large percentages of at-risk students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that’s apraxia right? expressive speech. And since he’s only 3 you just have to show a 25% delay in expressive speech. For older kids, they’d have to show the delay also kept them from accessing the curriculum. A significant articulation problem like that that impacts intelligibility is totally a reason to prioritize in person learning. the point is, it’s not just “can’t pronounce ks”. DCPS is not the business of handing out IEPs like candy.

NP. My second-grader has an IEP for not being able to reliably pronounce the "k" and "l" sound--pure articulation issues. Doesn't prevent him from accessing the curriculum.

Ok well ... that’s a very rare and unusual case. How were you able to show that was a disability that kept him from accessing the curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that’s apraxia right? expressive speech. And since he’s only 3 you just have to show a 25% delay in expressive speech. For older kids, they’d have to show the delay also kept them from accessing the curriculum. A significant articulation problem like that that impacts intelligibility is totally a reason to prioritize in person learning. the point is, it’s not just “can’t pronounce ks”. DCPS is not the business of handing out IEPs like candy.

NP. My second-grader has an IEP for not being able to reliably pronounce the "k" and "l" sound--pure articulation issues. Doesn't prevent him from accessing the curriculum.

How does he have an IEP if his disability does not require services to access the curriculum? How did you show that was a 25% delay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that’s apraxia right? expressive speech. And since he’s only 3 you just have to show a 25% delay in expressive speech. For older kids, they’d have to show the delay also kept them from accessing the curriculum. A significant articulation problem like that that impacts intelligibility is totally a reason to prioritize in person learning. the point is, it’s not just “can’t pronounce ks”. DCPS is not the business of handing out IEPs like candy.

NP. My second-grader has an IEP for not being able to reliably pronounce the "k" and "l" sound--pure articulation issues. Doesn't prevent him from accessing the curriculum.

How does he have an IEP if his disability does not require services to access the curriculum? How did you show that was a 25% delay?

Because under age 8 you can qualify under developmental delay. That can encompass a wide range of services. after that it becomes harder to qualify

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that’s apraxia right? expressive speech. And since he’s only 3 you just have to show a 25% delay in expressive speech. For older kids, they’d have to show the delay also kept them from accessing the curriculum. A significant articulation problem like that that impacts intelligibility is totally a reason to prioritize in person learning. the point is, it’s not just “can’t pronounce ks”. DCPS is not the business of handing out IEPs like candy.

NP. My second-grader has an IEP for not being able to reliably pronounce the "k" and "l" sound--pure articulation issues. Doesn't prevent him from accessing the curriculum.

How does he have an IEP if his disability does not require services to access the curriculum? How did you show that was a 25% delay?

Because under age 8 you can qualify under developmental delay. That can encompass a wide range of services. after that it becomes harder to qualify

You still have to show it’s a certain level of impairment under DD and that it requires special ed to access the curriculum. I know that speech is a special subcategory, but I just don’t think it’s common to have an IEP for articulation issues that don’t really impact the child’s intelligibility. In which case, placement in the in-person classroom makes sense.