Reply to When is a classroom unsafe? How would you handle? Kindergarten DD scratched in face and kicked in back at recess

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "When is a classroom unsafe? How would you handle? Kindergarten DD scratched in face and kicked in back at recess"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I strongly believe in LRE for students with disabilities.  LRE sometimes means placement in a gen ed room, with support.  That support is often not supplied, despite the law.

LRE sometimes means a self contained class, or partial inclusion in a gen ed room, or it can mean a therapeutic school.  Students who are violent are entitled to FAPE and LRE, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to be in gen ed. This is the crux of the issue.  No child or staff member should have to attend school where they are harmed.  Students with behavioral and emotional issues are sometimes harming other students and staff.  This is not okay.  I don't care if a student is being violent because of their disability or not.  If they are being violent because of their disability, then they should absolutely still have access to LRE...but LRE for them isn't gen ed.[/quote]

If might be, if supports in the gen ed classroom would provide a safe environment. [/quote]

What supports do you envision need to be provided in a gen ed room to provide a safe environment?  I taught in a room with 2 full time TA's (only provided because my principal and I screamed bloody murder to our school board and upper admins and I said if I didn't get a 2nd aide, I was quitting, which I eventually did because not even that helped, and they still wanted to "give the student more time"), and at any given time there could be up to 4 additional staff (sped teacher, speech teacher, BCBA, principal, sped admin, etc) in the room attempting to de-escalate the violent kids unsuccessfully while the class as a whole (minus 1-2 kids) was evacuated.  
We offered specific SEL lessons, choices, visual timers, weighted blankets, fidget toys, stand spots, social stories, social work services several times per week and much more.  What more do you feel should be provided that might make the classroom safe enough that violent children could attend and not harm others?  We had 6 months of documentation, my principal had been bruised, a sub had been threatened with scissors, I was threatened with being shot, objects had been thrown, items were destroyed.  [/quote]

I said "might." For some, a 1:1 that can de-escalate behaviors will be sufficient. That won't work for every child, in which case more restrictive placements may be LRE, but several posters here want to simply segregate kids based on disabilities, without regard for potentially effective supports.[/quote]

It’s completely insane that things are to the point where people throw around 1:1 aide for school kids like it’s a normal thing.

Someone who needs their own private aide to function in a regular school and not hurt other people does not belong there.[/quote]

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?[/quote]
No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers. [/quote]

So why don't the other students "belong there" if a 1:1 addresses that risk?[/quote]

First, no para should be subjected to violence either.  Also, a 1:1 is considered MORE restrictive than a self contained room.  But imo, if the 1:1 leads to a complete stop to physical aggression, then great.  But if it doesn't, then no.[/quote]

Self-contained classrooms are, be definition, among the *most* restrictive environments. Hopefully you're not a teacher, because you really should know better.

[quote](2) Each public agency must ensure that—
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
[/quote][/quote]

Yes, in the eyes of the law. I’m not so sure that a 1:1 is less restrictive from the eyes of a child. Those are two very different things. Kind of like how many people with autism hate AbA therapy and find it incredibly restrictive. I’m sure your “moral” judgements have already decided the law wins, but if you are ever involved in this decision for a child do research and think about what it must feel like to have an adult  constantly watching you.[/quote]

What do you think the self-contained classrooms are like for kids with significant behavioral and emotional regulation challenges? They might not have a 1:1, but 1:2 is pretty common in those encounters.

Your reference to ABA demonstrates that you've heard bits and pieces from others, but that you don't actually understand what ABA is or what the objections to it are based on.

I should note, given your love for self-contained peograms, that some school-based autism programs are based on ABA.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics