Nottingham?

[Anonymous]

Schools can and do get more staffing during the school year once they hit a threshold to staff another special education teacher. I'm an APS sped teacher. We have hired part time teachers during the school year multiple times since I've been here (at another APS N Arl elementary school).

I've never in my entire career in APS been told there is any sort of quota for identifying to been told directly or implied that a student should not be evaluated because we already had X numbers of students with disabilities or didn't have the staff to add another student to a caseload. I can't even imagine that happening and would never be okay with that professionally. We take teacher and parent concerns about students very seriously but it is true that if a parent puts in a request to evaluate it gets more immediate action. If a teacher is concerned there is a student study process that first uses the RTI/ATSS process to provide intervention before moving to testing in most cases.

[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 am the poster you're arguing with. You are partially correct; but the PP before you is more accurately reading and understanding my comments (though I'm not sure what "can't afford" to test means....but the gist is in that poster's interpretation). You are correct in understanding that I do believe the needs overall are greater at high-poverty schools and that there are significantly more students in need of extra services to encompass English language learning, and the need to address the lack of preschool education and broader experiences that start many more kids much farther behind, in addition to the typical LD diagnoses you previously mentioned. I never suggested that there are more dyslexic and adhd children in high-poverty schools; but I really don't know....I'd need to see the statistics on that. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean the more affluent schools can allocate more direct special ed resources - they're allotted the staff they're allotted; but I do think they should be able to manage their student body's needs (at least somewhat) more easily. If a high poverty school can do it; an affluent school should be able to do it too. You pulled the "hostility" out of your own hat. I absolutely never suggested such an attitude.

[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.

"This parent" here - thank you, you are understanding me correctly.

[Anonymous]

Except the available data doesn’t support that low SES schools have an overall higher identified SWD population than high SES school. The numbers really vary by school between 9% to 20% for the most recent year I could find a comparison (2018).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 am the poster you're arguing with. You are partially correct; but the PP before you is more accurately reading and understanding my comments (though I'm not sure what "can't afford" to test means....but the gist is in that poster's interpretation). You are correct in understanding that I do believe the needs overall are greater at high-poverty schools and that there are significantly more students in need of extra services to encompass English language learning, and the need to address the lack of preschool education and broader experiences that start many more kids much farther behind, in addition to the typical LD diagnoses you previously mentioned. I never suggested that there are more dyslexic and adhd children in high-poverty schools; but I really don't know....I'd need to see the statistics on that. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean the more affluent schools can allocate more direct special ed resources - they're allotted the staff they're allotted; but I do think they should be able to manage their student body's needs (at least somewhat) more easily. If a high poverty school can do it; an affluent school should be able to do it too. You pulled the "hostility" out of your own hat. I absolutely never suggested such an attitude.

One of the flaws in your reasoning is that even if you are correct that more affluent schools have relatively more resources to devote to special education testing, that doesn’t mean those affluent schools have enough resources to fully cover all requests for testing. One school can be in a better position than the other and still not have enough.

Beyond that, if you’re conceding the other poster’s position that you think more affluent students should have easier access to testing, that’s pretty atrocious.

[Anonymous]

APS sped teacher again. Eligibility testing always includes at least psychological testing (most typically a cognitive test such as the WISC V, plus any assessments relevant to the specific concerns of the team like CTOPP, Adhd rating scales, etc), and educational testing (done by a sped teacher most of the time) plus any related service testing (speech, PT, OT if relevant). At every APS elementary school there is one psychologist who usually isn’t there full time, sped teachers are pulling students to test when they would otherwise be servicing students, same with OT/PT/SLP. There aren’t people at any schools just hanging out twiddling thumbs. We’re all busy. The vast majority of a school psychologist’s job are eligibility, Re-eligibility, and evaluation planning meetings, doing the actual evaluations, and writing reports interpreting the assessment results to present at the meetings. They are busy and overworked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 am the poster you're arguing with. You are partially correct; but the PP before you is more accurately reading and understanding my comments (though I'm not sure what "can't afford" to test means....but the gist is in that poster's interpretation). You are correct in understanding that I do believe the needs overall are greater at high-poverty schools and that there are significantly more students in need of extra services to encompass English language learning, and the need to address the lack of preschool education and broader experiences that start many more kids much farther behind, in addition to the typical LD diagnoses you previously mentioned. I never suggested that there are more dyslexic and adhd children in high-poverty schools; but I really don't know....I'd need to see the statistics on that. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean the more affluent schools can allocate more direct special ed resources - they're allotted the staff they're allotted; but I do think they should be able to manage their student body's needs (at least somewhat) more easily. If a high poverty school can do it; an affluent school should be able to do it too. You pulled the "hostility" out of your own hat. I absolutely never suggested such an attitude.

One of the flaws in your reasoning is that even if you are correct that more affluent schools have relatively more resources to devote to special education testing, that doesn’t mean those affluent schools have enough resources to fully cover all requests for testing. One school can be in a better position than the other and still not have enough.

Beyond that, if you’re conceding the other poster’s position that you think more affluent students should have easier access to testing, that’s pretty atrocious.[/quote]

Heavy sigh. I'm not. As much as you seem to want me to be saying that so you can criticize me and continue to argue, that's not what I've said, am saying, or ever will say. It's pointless to keep responding, as you clearly want to read into my comments what you want. The only other explanation i can think of is that you're just really that obtuse.

[Anonymous]

The current principal of Nottingham denied the first grade teacher's concerns, and parents. She wouldn't test. She denied the second grade teachers, and mine. Parents did private testing. Got significant diagnostic. Kid got a 504. Now kid spells on a 2nd grade level...is in 5th. Dereliction of duty. Stop arguing with parents about their lived experience with this person. We all have no reason to lie and every reason to warn other parents so this doesn't happen to their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS sped teacher again. Eligibility testing always includes at least psychological testing (most typically a cognitive test such as the WISC V, plus any assessments relevant to the specific concerns of the team like CTOPP, Adhd rating scales, etc), and educational testing (done by a sped teacher most of the time) plus any related service testing (speech, PT, OT if relevant). At every APS elementary school there is one psychologist who usually isn’t there full time, sped teachers are pulling students to test when they would otherwise be servicing students, same with OT/PT/SLP. There aren’t people at any schools just hanging out twiddling thumbs. We’re all busy. The vast majority of a school psychologist’s job are eligibility, Re-eligibility, and evaluation planning meetings, doing the actual evaluations, and writing reports interpreting the assessment results to present at the meetings. They are busy and overworked.

I’m sorry you have to read this thread sliming special education staff and their good faith efforts to serve students. Please know there are plenty of us out there who know you are all turning yourselves inside out to help students, and are grateful for everything you do.

[Anonymous]

I believe that school psychologists, who are shared by multiple schools etc., are busy and overworked and spend much of their time working on testing requests, IEPs, 504s, etc.

But, for example, the school psychologist at our elementary put up roadblocks for us every step of the way. Was okay with accommodations and 504, but fought the diagnoses of the private testing we got and fought any other testing or any showing that these diagnoses could be having an effect on education. Same with this principal who was at time AP for us. So I warn people: Get your own testing if you can afford it. Bring a lawyer to your IEP meeitngs. APS is not truly looking out for you or your child. Teachers and esp. special ed teachers are doing more than anyone, but they won't have the training to recognize issues that doctors doing the private testing will, so in some cases they will be applying bandaids when what your kid really needs is a tourniquet. If you suspect something is weird, get private testing. Often times your insurance will pay, and if it doesn't it might be the best $3k you've ever spent to have a true look into what is going on with your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She supervised our requested IEP meeting of my young child at McKinley and while she allowed for accommodations, she did not allow the school to do an evaluation or give us and IEP or a 504 plan. Several years down the road now and my child has been diagnosed with HFA, ADHD, and anxiety. An evaluation that early could have been so helpful, but she said no, and I stupidly trusted the school to have our best interests at heart (and waited years to get another private evaluation) after getting this hard no from the school early. But my kid was just suffering quietly, wasn't failing anything, and wasn't hitting anyone or disrupting the class, so we didn't get what we needed and my kid spent years blaming herself for struggling when the struggle wasn't her fault.

Parents of girls beware: girls will often internalize their drama and blame themselves for it, which means schools don't always recognize what's up and give you what you need. Boys often project their drama outwards onto others, which can yield them lots of services. It's been this way forever and still schools are not always prepared to recognize these issues in girls wtf. It's so frustrating. Just don't do what I did and trust your school to have your child's interests paramount. Schools would rather not implement IEPs if they can get around it with accommodations (which they're not legally bound to and cost them less). If you see behavior in your kid that concerns you and you can afford a private evaluation, I recommend getting one. (Public service announcement of a mom who meant well but feels guilty for not doing more earlier on.)

Different school, different principal, but the same delay in diagnosis for the same reason (the school turned down our request and we trusted that they had our child's interest at heart). My child is a boy, though, and he does not project drama outward. Rather, he tries to fly under the radar. It breaks my heart how much damage we allowed them to do to him. Fairfax would have been better for us if only because he could have taken a Strategies for Success class (Instructional Studies in APS) as an elective without needing an IEP. But that is total hindsight; we didn't know any of it going in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS sped teacher again. Eligibility testing always includes at least psychological testing (most typically a cognitive test such as the WISC V, plus any assessments relevant to the specific concerns of the team like CTOPP, Adhd rating scales, etc), and educational testing (done by a sped teacher most of the time) plus any related service testing (speech, PT, OT if relevant). At every APS elementary school there is one psychologist who usually isn’t there full time, sped teachers are pulling students to test when they would otherwise be servicing students, same with OT/PT/SLP. There aren’t people at any schools just hanging out twiddling thumbs. We’re all busy. The vast majority of a school psychologist’s job are eligibility, Re-eligibility, and evaluation planning meetings, doing the actual evaluations, and writing reports interpreting the assessment results to present at the meetings. They are busy and overworked.

I’m sorry you have to read this thread sliming special education staff and their good faith efforts to serve students. Please know there are plenty of us out there who know you are all turning yourselves inside out to help students, and are grateful for everything you do.

Some are good and some are not. Some principals are blocking kids from being identified. Don't invalidate other people's lived experiences just because you're fortunate to have had a good experience.

[Anonymous]

This thread got totally hijaked but to the OP who is considering Nottingham, we just had a very productive IEP meeting yesterday and was impressed with all of the members of the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS sped teacher again. Eligibility testing always includes at least psychological testing (most typically a cognitive test such as the WISC V, plus any assessments relevant to the specific concerns of the team like CTOPP, Adhd rating scales, etc), and educational testing (done by a sped teacher most of the time) plus any related service testing (speech, PT, OT if relevant). At every APS elementary school there is one psychologist who usually isn’t there full time, sped teachers are pulling students to test when they would otherwise be servicing students, same with OT/PT/SLP. There aren’t people at any schools just hanging out twiddling thumbs. We’re all busy. The vast majority of a school psychologist’s job are eligibility, Re-eligibility, and evaluation planning meetings, doing the actual evaluations, and writing reports interpreting the assessment results to present at the meetings. They are busy and overworked.

I’m sorry you have to read this thread sliming special education staff and their good faith efforts to serve students. Please know there are plenty of us out there who know you are all turning yourselves inside out to help students, and are grateful for everything you do.

Some are good and some are not. Some principals are blocking kids from being identified. Don't invalidate other people's lived experiences just because you're fortunate to have had a good experience.

Could you say "lived experiences" three or four more times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS sped teacher again. Eligibility testing always includes at least psychological testing (most typically a cognitive test such as the WISC V, plus any assessments relevant to the specific concerns of the team like CTOPP, Adhd rating scales, etc), and educational testing (done by a sped teacher most of the time) plus any related service testing (speech, PT, OT if relevant). At every APS elementary school there is one psychologist who usually isn’t there full time, sped teachers are pulling students to test when they would otherwise be servicing students, same with OT/PT/SLP. There aren’t people at any schools just hanging out twiddling thumbs. We’re all busy. The vast majority of a school psychologist’s job are eligibility, Re-eligibility, and evaluation planning meetings, doing the actual evaluations, and writing reports interpreting the assessment results to present at the meetings. They are busy and overworked.

I’m sorry you have to read this thread sliming special education staff and their good faith efforts to serve students. Please know there are plenty of us out there who know you are all turning yourselves inside out to help students, and are grateful for everything you do.

Some are good and some are not. Some principals are blocking kids from being identified. Don't invalidate other people's lived experiences just because you're fortunate to have had a good experience.

Could you say "lived experiences" three or four more times?

14:26 here and that was the first time I commented, but ok.