Reply to 5/12 County Council Meeting -- Gutting MCPS Budget Request to the Tune of $180M

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "5/12 County Council Meeting -- Gutting MCPS Budget Request to the Tune of $180M"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]How about the gutting of our special ed programs, putting children with behavioral challenges in learning centers, and paying for Ivymount and the like for so many?  Get rid of the Homeschool Model (which doesn't help those in need and makes the classroom environment challenging for teachers and neurotypical students), bring back the amazing special ed programs we had 15 years ago, and you'll dramatically improve things for all and free up money at the same time[/quote]

Not sure if this poster is saying this in jest, but how will putting more kids in learning centers or paying for non-public placements like Ivymount help the budget? Learning centers have small teacher to students ratios and typically there is an assigned para to the classroom.[/quote]

I read that comment as recommending the opposite: discrete programs for sped students instead of ad-hoc individual arrangements. [/quote]

Agreed, if you can meet the needs of those students in discrete placements, they don't have to go non-public. That's the whole point. Those SpEd placements support those students to make progress, instead of being unsupported in the gen ed setting, where everyone is affected, both staff and gen ed students.[/quote]

At issue, there, are federal/state requirements for placement in the least restrictive environment consistent with education delivery to the particular individuals.  MCPS's hands are tied in that respect.

The law doesn't really consider (at least on a basis of equivalence) the related impact on education delivery to others.  And while those needing/seeking accommodation see such a large relative impact one way or the other that they are incentivized to push very hard for favorable placement for the individual student, including retention of legal representation when they are wealthy enough for that, the impacts across the general student population typically are smaller, such that a litmus of such aggressive push rarely is reached, especially with the potential stigma of opposing accommodation.

That is not to say that there should be no accommodation or that the LRE concept should be abandoned.  The impacts on others definitely exist, though, and it might be better if we could employ a certain equivalence of consideration for the needs of all students.  Funding, as a separate matter, should follow determinations, and MCPS holds the burden of figuring out whether operations of centers or equivalent private placements are a best use of funds.[/quote]

You seem knowledgeable about this so maybe you can educate me. IDEA passed in 1990, yet over the past 35 years there's been a movement toward placing as many kids as possible in mainstream classrooms. Were there amendments to IDEA, or just different interpretations of LRE? I'm trying to get at whether the models more often used between around 1991-2010 would be considered consistent with IDEA today.

If it's determined that a student can succeed in a mainstream classroom if and only if they have a full-time aide, what happens if there isn't the money for that? [/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