Think twice before hiring an advocate…

[Anonymous]

All these parents seem to want teachers to quit and then what? Probably sue the school districts even though it’s not their fault. The fault lies with a federal law that isn’t accompanied by money. There is no way for districts to meet what parents demand these days; the system is irrevocable broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these parents seem to want teachers to quit and then what? Probably sue the school districts even though it’s not their fault. The fault lies with a federal law that isn’t accompanied by money. There is no way for districts to meet what parents demand these days; the system is irrevocable broken.

OP here. I think my real point got lost in my lab frustration yesterday. But this is the real truth- all students will now be getting a lot less without these two teachers, and it’s not that easy to replace them (we already have one gen ed vacancy that we have been completely unable to fill). If you want us to leave and find a job where we are respected, then fine. We might. I am just so sick of being painted like the enemy when all I want is to help kids achieve.

[Anonymous]

Our kids need help. If you don't want to help or understand why a parent would advocate for their child, then you are in the wrong profession. If people like you did right by our kids, we wouldn't need to hire advocates and attorneys to get their needs met.

[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.

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.

Your situation is different - you have paid for the "special instruction" yourself and gotten it privately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We did not hire an advocate and the school screwed my child.
I only found out from talking to neighbors the gap in services that my child was getting vs similar profile student who parent's went to the meeting with an advocate.
My child had 60 minutes of reading intervention a week and was 2 years behind grade level. Same school - same grade - class mate 1 year behind and was getting 150 minutes a week. When I had tried to make a case that I thought more was needed they told me it was the most they could provide.

Parents bring advocates because they have heard these stories. There is no trust in the process because the schools have not delivered FAPE. I could see on the teachers faces and in their body language that they wanted to say more - but they would not cross the school director of special education.

Why can't you do the extra reading intervention for your child? I know that question is forbidden here, but seriously, an extra 90 minutes a week I'd just do it myself and not bother with the hassle of working the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did not hire an advocate and the school screwed my child.
I only found out from talking to neighbors the gap in services that my child was getting vs similar profile student who parent's went to the meeting with an advocate.
My child had 60 minutes of reading intervention a week and was 2 years behind grade level. Same school - same grade - class mate 1 year behind and was getting 150 minutes a week. When I had tried to make a case that I thought more was needed they told me it was the most they could provide.

Parents bring advocates because they have heard these stories. There is no trust in the process because the schools have not delivered FAPE. I could see on the teachers faces and in their body language that they wanted to say more - but they would not cross the school director of special education.

Why can't you do the extra reading intervention for your child? I know that question is forbidden here, but seriously, an extra 90 minutes a week I'd just do it myself and not bother with the hassle of working the school system.

And folks wonder why educators aren't properly respected...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these parents seem to want teachers to quit and then what? Probably sue the school districts even though it’s not their fault. The fault lies with a federal law that isn’t accompanied by money. There is no way for districts to meet what parents demand these days; the system is irrevocable broken.

OP here. I think my real point got lost in my lab frustration yesterday. But this is the real truth- all students will now be getting a lot less without these two teachers, and it’s not that easy to replace them (we already have one gen ed vacancy that we have been completely unable to fill). If you want us to leave and find a job where we are respected, then fine. We might. I am just so sick of being painted like the enemy when all I want is to help kids achieve.

I think you painted yourself as the enemy when you came to a special needs board to blame parents because your colleagues quit. What in the world did you expect?

[Anonymous]

OP I totally get it and have been there. It's unbelievably stressful when you are subpoenaed over a student you've never met and have to spend multiple hours of your school day in IEP meetings being bullied by advocates and lawyers with tape recorders while you should be working with your actual students. Mind you that you then have to find time to makeup the service hours you missed while you sat in these awful meetings. Again for a student you've never met. It's an awful. Happened years ago and it's still painful to think about. These things really happen and the school provides very little support to the teachers/ staff when it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these parents seem to want teachers to quit and then what? Probably sue the school districts even though it’s not their fault. The fault lies with a federal law that isn’t accompanied by money. There is no way for districts to meet what parents demand these days; the system is irrevocable broken.

OP here. I think my real point got lost in my lab frustration yesterday. But this is the real truth- all students will now be getting a lot less without these two teachers, and it’s not that easy to replace them (we already have one gen ed vacancy that we have been completely unable to fill). If you want us to leave and find a job where we are respected, then fine. We might. I am just so sick of being painted like the enemy when all I want is to help kids achieve.

I'm sorry, do the parents on this board work at the central office? Are the parents choosing not to raise salaries to fill open positions? Am I your team leader that assigned your caseload numbers?

[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.

You seem to have forgotten Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. My child with learning disabilities is not just entitled to access to the general ed curricula, he is entitled to participate in any school activity that receives federal funding - including advanced academic instruction available to the general student population if he is capable, with specialized instruction, of accessing that curricula.This is not a curricula that allows him to learn to his potential but access to what is offered to non-disabled students.

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . ."

[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.

Damn, so asking you to understand the laws you're supposed to implement means you don't want to teach anymore? Don't let the door hit you on the way out sis.

[Anonymous]

This thread is a learning experience for parents and staff alike. If a school assigns teachers too high of a caseload, provides them inadequate training on IDEA, and keeps salaries too low to fill critical vacancies, the remaining staff burn out and are unable to do their jobs appropriately, which ends up hurting the kids, which causes the parents to justifiably get an advocate to fight for their child. We need a multipronged legislative solution to address this. I think if there was a legally mandated maximum caseload size, class size limits, ending mandatory unpaid overtime, and regulating a set amount of hours during the workweek reserved just for IEP writing and differentiated lesson planning, so many of these issues could be resolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these parents seem to want teachers to quit and then what? Probably sue the school districts even though it’s not their fault. The fault lies with a federal law that isn’t accompanied by money. There is no way for districts to meet what parents demand these days; the system is irrevocable broken.

It wouldn’t be a bad idea if all teachers quit, tbh. Then the responsibility for teaching kids would fall back to parents, where it belongs.

[Anonymous]

There's also a real culture of fear at some schools. Teachers are threatened by their admin and central office members not to propose services or placements during IEP meetings that could be costly or inconvenient to the district, even if the child desperately needs it. Those who speak up anyways get harassed and chased out of their buildings. Ask me how I know. There needs to be a better way for teachers to report admin who want to violate the law. I wish teachers could hire an advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents can hire advocates if they want to.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.