Why do teachers allow horribly behaved kids to stay in the classroom and disrupt other kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes.

+1

But increasing payroll from say $20 million to $25 million or whatever isn’t captivating or shiny. Taxpayers would rather see fancy “evidence based” curricula and updated facilities.

I personally think that 20 kids in a class is a very reasonable scenario nation wide. But I really don’t think they should need any more money to do that, just cut all money wasting programs like socioemotional training and equity sessions and cut out half of the money for management and admin layer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those other places really do not exist anymore. Would you want to work in them? I'm a teacher and I have no issues with teachers getting paid much more to work there and I don't just mean a few thousand dollar bonuses either.

The few students who do end up getting a one on one aren't much better off because they continue in the same gen ed environment that is not the right place for them. I've seen a few former students end up in a life skills placement where they thrive. Fewer transitions, fewer demands placed on them, one on one attention, etc.

I've worked in a variety of special ed placements and the specific schools/programs for behavioral disorders are actually better IMO than working in inclusion or any setting where you are trying to manage 1-2 severe behavior cases while keeping everyone safe. It's quite remarkable how much more control some kids have when they know they'll get smacked back by another student or lose meaningful privileges. I have never seen a 1:1 be a meaningful intervention outside of physical disabilities, it's always a bandaid, usually because a parent won't consent to more restrictive placement.

My kid is at RICA. It’s considered the most restrictive placement. It is FABULOUS! It’s where my kid belongs. Classes are small. Teachers can teach. There are other staff members that deal with escalating behaviors. Paras in each class support the kids academically. My kid actually feels safe there even though kids sometimes attack each other or throw chairs. He feels safe because as soon as a behavior starts, support staff are called and show up to remove the child.

My kid is ready to leave RICA but there is no place for him to go so he’ll stay. It’s a shame because that means he’s not vacating the seat for a needier child.

The people who don’t want a more restrictive placement have no idea what they’re missing out on. My kids English class has 5 kids. He reads full books. His teacher has the ability to teach grammar, sentence structure, explain about complex sentences, and what makes a good essay. You can’t get that in a comprehensive school.

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes. Most of the kids at RICA have some form of anxiety that creates the behavior. Reduce the noise, reduce the chaos, let the teachers build the relationships. The kids need to feel safe and supported. And by small classes I mean 15-20. What we do for title 1 schools needs to be the norm across the county.

I'm so glad you were able to utilize that placement. I have more experience with students going to lifeskills/autism programs but parents often express regret that they didn't do it sooner when they see their child thriving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes.

+1

But increasing payroll from say $20 million to $25 million or whatever isn’t captivating or shiny. Taxpayers would rather see fancy “evidence based” curricula and updated facilities.

I personally think that 20 kids in a class is a very reasonable scenario nation wide. But I really don’t think they should need any more money to do that, just cut all money wasting programs like socioemotional training and equity sessions and cut out half of the money for management and admin layer.

Many schools do not have the space for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes.

+1

But increasing payroll from say $20 million to $25 million or whatever isn’t captivating or shiny. Taxpayers would rather see fancy “evidence based” curricula and updated facilities.

I personally think that 20 kids in a class is a very reasonable scenario nation wide. But I really don’t think they should need any more money to do that, just cut all money wasting programs like socioemotional training and equity sessions and cut out half of the money for management and admin layer.

Many schools do not have the space for that.

So build more space. Use taxpayer money more effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes.

+1

But increasing payroll from say $20 million to $25 million or whatever isn’t captivating or shiny. Taxpayers would rather see fancy “evidence based” curricula and updated facilities.

I personally think that 20 kids in a class is a very reasonable scenario nation wide. But I really don’t think they should need any more money to do that, just cut all money wasting programs like socioemotional training and equity sessions and cut out half of the money for management and admin layer.

This should not be cut out entirely. But a lot of it is crap. Or it's good but there is no way to implement it because time and energy are finite.

-Teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those other places really do not exist anymore. Would you want to work in them? I'm a teacher and I have no issues with teachers getting paid much more to work there and I don't just mean a few thousand dollar bonuses either.

The few students who do end up getting a one on one aren't much better off because they continue in the same gen ed environment that is not the right place for them. I've seen a few former students end up in a life skills placement where they thrive. Fewer transitions, fewer demands placed on them, one on one attention, etc.

I've worked in a variety of special ed placements and the specific schools/programs for behavioral disorders are actually better IMO than working in inclusion or any setting where you are trying to manage 1-2 severe behavior cases while keeping everyone safe. It's quite remarkable how much more control some kids have when they know they'll get smacked back by another student or lose meaningful privileges. I have never seen a 1:1 be a meaningful intervention outside of physical disabilities, it's always a bandaid, usually because a parent won't consent to more restrictive placement.

My kid is at RICA. It’s considered the most restrictive placement. It is FABULOUS! It’s where my kid belongs. Classes are small. Teachers can teach. There are other staff members that deal with escalating behaviors. Paras in each class support the kids academically. My kid actually feels safe there even though kids sometimes attack each other or throw chairs. He feels safe because as soon as a behavior starts, support staff are called and show up to remove the child.

My kid is ready to leave RICA but there is no place for him to go so he’ll stay. It’s a shame because that means he’s not vacating the seat for a needier child.

The people who don’t want a more restrictive placement have no idea what they’re missing out on. My kids English class has 5 kids. He reads full books. His teacher has the ability to teach grammar, sentence structure, explain about complex sentences, and what makes a good essay. You can’t get that in a comprehensive school.

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes. Most of the kids at RICA have some form of anxiety that creates the behavior. Reduce the noise, reduce the chaos, let the teachers build the relationships. The kids need to feel safe and supported. And by small classes I mean 15-20. What we do for title 1 schools needs to be the norm across the county.

I'm so glad you were able to utilize that placement. I have more experience with students going to lifeskills/autism programs but parents often express regret that they didn't do it sooner when they see their child thriving.

I think a lot of parents are scared of more restrictive placements. They’ve “heard” things. Their kids behavior isn’t as bad as some of the kids that they’ve heard attend and they don’t want them to be influenced and learn more bad behaviors. They don’t want to be different. Saying your kid is in a therapeutic placement doesn’t have the same cache as saying your kid is at Sidwell. They’ve heard that once you start you can never go back to a less restrictive placement.

Most parents at RICA are thrilled that their kid is there. Of course there are issues; every school has them. But overall it’s a pretty well run place. A lot of people end up there because it’s the last stop; they’ve exhausted all other options—both the school district and the parents. Yet once a kid gets there, they are no longer the “only”. They’re not the weird kid with behaviors that no one wants to hang out with. They are finally amongst their peers and can just be themselves. They don’t have to hold it together until they no longer can and just explode. RICA and other NPP placements are the type of environment that every parent of a misbehaving 3yr old on the SN forum fears—what if my kid is like that? But by the time you’ve exhausted other options, you are so grateful it exists. When you see your kid thrive for the first time all the stigma stuff goes away. It’s just really hard to accept that that’s what your kid needs before you’re ready to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

It’s federal law and not easy to overturn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

DP. How do you propose to end inclusion? No politician will touch the issue especially when children are involved. Serious question.

[Anonymous]

The parents of the disruptive and/or violent child should not be sending them to school until there is some resolution to them disrupting the education and threatening the well being of the other 25 kids in the classroom.

What a concept, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my god. You think WE want them in there either!? We are just like you, we wish we could send them home, to the hall, ANYWHERE. We can’t! You need to escalate your concerns to ADMIN but even then if the kid has an IEP, you’re not getting anywhere because they legally cannot be excluded from participating with their non disabled peers.

It's idiotic. There is no common sense left. The fact that the "non-disabled" peers have to be the socialization practice dummies for a violent or disruptive child is absurd. Everyone has a right to an education...unless you are disturbing the rights of the OTHER kids to get an education.

THAT is common sense. Let the parents figure out the kid's problems and do what they need to to have their child able to be around others before other kids have to suffer and have their education and their mental health ruined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parents of the disruptive and/or violent child should not be sending them to school until there is some resolution to them disrupting the education and threatening the well being of the other 25 kids in the classroom.

What a concept, right?

Unlike an ear infection, mental health issues aren’t curable with a week long course of some medication. It can takes years of medication and therapy.

If a child isn’t in school, the school cannot collect the data necessary to get the child into a different placement. While all the data is being collected and medications/therapy are being tried, the kid still has a right to FAPE. The demands required in a full day comprehensive school are vastly different than 1:1 home and health instruction 3x/week for 1.5hrs each time. Because the demands are different, the behaviors are different and therefore aren’t representative of the child’s behavior in a typical classroom. Thus the H&H teacher cannot collect data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a child who will, in later years, likely have interactions with the carceral system, whereas your child will be privileged. As equity is our most important value, the privileged need to face more struggle, and the future oppressed need to be able to have more enjoyment in their lives.

NP and a teacher. I recognize this is a troll post, but you're right about one thing. The kids who are acting out like this are likely to end up incarcerated, especially if they're not taught that inappropriate behavior has negative consequences. In most cases it's a parenting issue and the lax discipline policies in schools are doing them no favors. There are also kids with attentive parents who have serious mental health issues and need a lot more support than a public school system can provide.

Thank you for being honest that worthless parenting is a big contributor to this problem. It is.

I agree strongly with the teacher. It’s a parenting problem. The problematic children aren’t special needs. They’re hyper, unfocused and don’t get enough parent attention. Focus is a learned skill, so is not talking out of turn.

Part of the problem also is that schools can’t discipline or remove kids, and of course their parents don’t either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can the posters who rail on about how our education system is “inadequately funded” please be specific about what they actually expect? We already spend WAY more per student than any other country on earth, sometimes by a factor of 10. What do you seriously expect? A personal 1:1 aide for every single student with a “special needs” diagnosis? Do you have any idea how much that would cost?

Americans overwhelmingly support the idea of a chance for all at public education but that doesn’t mean we support it for all students AT ALL COSTS which seems to be what some people expect. I’m happy to give everyone a chance but if they can’t function in a mainstream classroom without affecting the safety or education of others then they need to go somewhere else. And yes that might be many such kids together in a room in a special facility without sharp tools and possibly without computers or other expensive items (or behind unbreakable glass shield or something like that) and with a teacher specially trained to handle those kids who gets paid more for the knowledge and danger.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

It’s federal law and not easy to overturn

Disagree. It is being legally interpreted a certain way the past decade or so. This law passed many decades ago. It was in place when most of us went to school yet the huge over inclusion was not a thing back then. It needs better case law to course correct the extreme spot it’s devolved to at this point.