Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

I'm not surprised it happens, I'm just saying that's not in IDEA. Every parent of a child with special needs will tell you school districts regularly drag their feet.

I think when you are hit with a lawsuit, jail time or fines because you broke a law, you don’t really care if it was because you failed to follow federal law or state law. RTI is mandated in many states.

Well, not in Maryland. And I'm pretty sure not DC. I'm less sure about Virginia.

Where do you teach? Is it required there?

I think the claim the pp was making is that pre-referral interventions (which, again, are different than RTI) are common in school districts, not that they're legally required.

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

As explained in more detail in Zirkel (2011), most state law provisions for RTI in both the mandatory and permissive categories are, per the foundational provisions in IDEA, exclusive to the determination of SLD. However, a handful of state laws extend RTI to other IDEA classifications.

“Second, a few states—Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland in descending order of clarity—seem to suggest the use of RTI globally via their guidelines.”

The PP is interested in blaming school systems for SPED issues. They don’t want a legislative body or state department held accountable. I don’t know why.

You're conflating RTI as a concept with pre-referral interventions. Maryland, in particular, encourages RTI as a concept for helping students, but not as a required pre-referral intervention before assessments for disabilities are done.

I would certainly support holding legislative or regulatory bodies accountable, but I don't know what you're trying to hold them accountable for, given they don't actually require what you've been suggesting.

“ Although many schools continue to use the pre-referral process, more and more are shifting to the RTI approach to identify students with learning disabilities. As of now, RTI is implemented mostly in the primary grades; however, its use is expanding and it appears that an increasing number of middle and high schools will also eventually shift to implementing RTI.”

https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/preref/cresource/q1/p01/

And again, where in Maryland law or regulation is RTI as a pre-referral intervention required before as assessment can be done? If that's there you should be able to point to something. Your problem is apparently with your school district's policies, which are almost certainly intended to prevent students from getting IEPs.

Well, if you see minority parents who were upset that their kids were getting over placed in SPED programs as “preventing students from getting IEPs” then I suppose you could frame it that way. RTI was established because of parental concerns/lawsuits that minority kids were being over identified. When the MSDE guidelines call/allude to RTI to be used across categories (see this link (84 pages you can read) and the previous one), that is who the complaints should go to.

Again, IMHO RTI shouldn’t be used for violent kids.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/OCP/Publications/TieredInstructionalApproachRtI062008.pdf


The thing about federal laws is that they need the gray areas filled in. We need to tweak this. You (or someone else) were very upset that IDEA may be “threatened” but it definitely needs work. States fill in the gray and it needs more nuance for kids like these.

You really don't want specific processes and evaluation methods engrained in federal law. You generally don't even want that in state law. Your complaint is all apparently with your school district's procedures. Neither the federal government nor the state require, or even recommend, withholding assessments as you work on educational strategies. The rather old guidelines you posted on apply RTI in Maryland say quite the opposite.

So unless you want very prescriptive federal laws, changing IDEA isn't going to address your complaint. Your school needs to fix their procedures.

It is always easier to blame those who have less power in the situation. Federal law and MSDE regulations are murky to escape any sort of accountability, that will be placed on the schools/district (according to you) parents of the kid (according to others) and the teacher.

Perhaps if the law was more prescriptive, it wouldn’t be necessary for folks like you to claim the need to “fix school procedures.” But that would require lawyers. Lawmakers and policy stakeholders to take a stand and bear responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

I'm not surprised it happens, I'm just saying that's not in IDEA. Every parent of a child with special needs will tell you school districts regularly drag their feet.

I think when you are hit with a lawsuit, jail time or fines because you broke a law, you don’t really care if it was because you failed to follow federal law or state law. RTI is mandated in many states.

Well, not in Maryland. And I'm pretty sure not DC. I'm less sure about Virginia.

Where do you teach? Is it required there?

I think the claim the pp was making is that pre-referral interventions (which, again, are different than RTI) are common in school districts, not that they're legally required.

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

As explained in more detail in Zirkel (2011), most state law provisions for RTI in both the mandatory and permissive categories are, per the foundational provisions in IDEA, exclusive to the determination of SLD. However, a handful of state laws extend RTI to other IDEA classifications.

“Second, a few states—Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland in descending order of clarity—seem to suggest the use of RTI globally via their guidelines.”

The PP is interested in blaming school systems for SPED issues. They don’t want a legislative body or state department held accountable. I don’t know why.

You're conflating RTI as a concept with pre-referral interventions. Maryland, in particular, encourages RTI as a concept for helping students, but not as a required pre-referral intervention before assessments for disabilities are done.

I would certainly support holding legislative or regulatory bodies accountable, but I don't know what you're trying to hold them accountable for, given they don't actually require what you've been suggesting.

“ Although many schools continue to use the pre-referral process, more and more are shifting to the RTI approach to identify students with learning disabilities. As of now, RTI is implemented mostly in the primary grades; however, its use is expanding and it appears that an increasing number of middle and high schools will also eventually shift to implementing RTI.”

https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/preref/cresource/q1/p01/

And again, where in Maryland law or regulation is RTI as a pre-referral intervention required before as assessment can be done? If that's there you should be able to point to something. Your problem is apparently with your school district's policies, which are almost certainly intended to prevent students from getting IEPs.

Well, if you see minority parents who were upset that their kids were getting over placed in SPED programs as “preventing students from getting IEPs” then I suppose you could frame it that way. RTI was established because of parental concerns/lawsuits that minority kids were being over identified. When the MSDE guidelines call/allude to RTI to be used across categories (see this link (84 pages you can read) and the previous one), that is who the complaints should go to.

Again, IMHO RTI shouldn’t be used for violent kids.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/OCP/Publications/TieredInstructionalApproachRtI062008.pdf


The thing about federal laws is that they need the gray areas filled in. We need to tweak this. You (or someone else) were very upset that IDEA may be “threatened” but it definitely needs work. States fill in the gray and it needs more nuance for kids like these.

You really don't want specific processes and evaluation methods engrained in federal law. You generally don't even want that in state law. Your complaint is all apparently with your school district's procedures. Neither the federal government nor the state require, or even recommend, withholding assessments as you work on educational strategies. The rather old guidelines you posted on apply RTI in Maryland say quite the opposite.

So unless you want very prescriptive federal laws, changing IDEA isn't going to address your complaint. Your school needs to fix their procedures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

I'm not surprised it happens, I'm just saying that's not in IDEA. Every parent of a child with special needs will tell you school districts regularly drag their feet.

I think when you are hit with a lawsuit, jail time or fines because you broke a law, you don’t really care if it was because you failed to follow federal law or state law. RTI is mandated in many states.

Well, not in Maryland. And I'm pretty sure not DC. I'm less sure about Virginia.

Where do you teach? Is it required there?

I think the claim the pp was making is that pre-referral interventions (which, again, are different than RTI) are common in school districts, not that they're legally required.

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

As explained in more detail in Zirkel (2011), most state law provisions for RTI in both the mandatory and permissive categories are, per the foundational provisions in IDEA, exclusive to the determination of SLD. However, a handful of state laws extend RTI to other IDEA classifications.

“Second, a few states—Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland in descending order of clarity—seem to suggest the use of RTI globally via their guidelines.”

The PP is interested in blaming school systems for SPED issues. They don’t want a legislative body or state department held accountable. I don’t know why.

You're conflating RTI as a concept with pre-referral interventions. Maryland, in particular, encourages RTI as a concept for helping students, but not as a required pre-referral intervention before assessments for disabilities are done.

I would certainly support holding legislative or regulatory bodies accountable, but I don't know what you're trying to hold them accountable for, given they don't actually require what you've been suggesting.

“ Although many schools continue to use the pre-referral process, more and more are shifting to the RTI approach to identify students with learning disabilities. As of now, RTI is implemented mostly in the primary grades; however, its use is expanding and it appears that an increasing number of middle and high schools will also eventually shift to implementing RTI.”

https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/preref/cresource/q1/p01/

And again, where in Maryland law or regulation is RTI as a pre-referral intervention required before as assessment can be done? If that's there you should be able to point to something. Your problem is apparently with your school district's policies, which are almost certainly intended to prevent students from getting IEPs.

Well, if you see minority parents who were upset that their kids were getting over placed in SPED programs as “preventing students from getting IEPs” then I suppose you could frame it that way. RTI was established because of parental concerns/lawsuits that minority kids were being over identified. When the MSDE guidelines call/allude to RTI to be used across categories (see this link (84 pages you can read) and the previous one), that is who the complaints should go to.

Again, IMHO RTI shouldn’t be used for violent kids.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/OCP/Publications/TieredInstructionalApproachRtI062008.pdf


The thing about federal laws is that they need the gray areas filled in. We need to tweak this. You (or someone else) were very upset that IDEA may be “threatened” but it definitely needs work. States fill in the gray and it needs more nuance for kids like these.

Anonymous wrote:Look at the presentation below from Pennsylvania State Education Association You can only remove a student with an IEP for up to 45 school days *for a weapons offense*?!
Looks like most violent IEP students will be back within 10 days because after that they are entitled to all sorts of services off-site. This is CRAZY. We are spending huge amounts of resources on this instead of actually safely educating the majority of children. We place the rights of the violent above those who are abused. It’s sickening. https://www.psea.org/globalassets/for-members/professional-practice/special--gifted-education/files/dealing-with-threats-or-violent-behaviors-from-students-with-ieps.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

No, those students aren't at risk of hurting students or teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

If a student needed a 1:1 aide to accomodate physical disabilities, would you also say they don't "belong" there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

I'm not surprised it happens, I'm just saying that's not in IDEA. Every parent of a child with special needs will tell you school districts regularly drag their feet.

I think when you are hit with a lawsuit, jail time or fines because you broke a law, you don’t really care if it was because you failed to follow federal law or state law. RTI is mandated in many states.

Well, not in Maryland. And I'm pretty sure not DC. I'm less sure about Virginia.

Where do you teach? Is it required there?

I think the claim the pp was making is that pre-referral interventions (which, again, are different than RTI) are common in school districts, not that they're legally required.

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

As explained in more detail in Zirkel (2011), most state law provisions for RTI in both the mandatory and permissive categories are, per the foundational provisions in IDEA, exclusive to the determination of SLD. However, a handful of state laws extend RTI to other IDEA classifications.

“Second, a few states—Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland in descending order of clarity—seem to suggest the use of RTI globally via their guidelines.”

The PP is interested in blaming school systems for SPED issues. They don’t want a legislative body or state department held accountable. I don’t know why.

You're conflating RTI as a concept with pre-referral interventions. Maryland, in particular, encourages RTI as a concept for helping students, but not as a required pre-referral intervention before assessments for disabilities are done.

I would certainly support holding legislative or regulatory bodies accountable, but I don't know what you're trying to hold them accountable for, given they don't actually require what you've been suggesting.

“ Although many schools continue to use the pre-referral process, more and more are shifting to the RTI approach to identify students with learning disabilities. As of now, RTI is implemented mostly in the primary grades; however, its use is expanding and it appears that an increasing number of middle and high schools will also eventually shift to implementing RTI.”

https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/preref/cresource/q1/p01/

And again, where in Maryland law or regulation is RTI as a pre-referral intervention required before as assessment can be done? If that's there you should be able to point to something. Your problem is apparently with your school district's policies, which are almost certainly intended to prevent students from getting IEPs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the progressive mantra is that all people are entitled to a mainstream education so those at the bottom behaviorally or intellectually can have good examples and be pulled up. The losers, of course, are the stable and focused kids.

My Republican friend, it is a law so progressive or not, you are supposed to follow it. I understand sometimes your party and its leaders choose not to follow laws, but most people don’t like jail.

I’m not a Republican. I’m also stating facts. Congratulations on the ad hominem attack. Did you have anything substantive to add? The fact this was codified into law was a result of the mantra. This does hurt certain populations, but because we feel they can suffer, we let it go.

No you are not. The FACT is more kids are born with autism than before. The FACT is the law was in place to help sped families of all varieties. The FACT is we have more violent kids who need a different kind of service and iDEA hasn’t kept up with the rising rates of emotional disorders or adhd or autism.
The FaCT is that the latest iteration of the law was revisited in 2004 as part of no child left behind- the one w started. It needs to be revised again, but claiming progressive thinking did it is NOT Factual.

There are no significant problems with the federal law, which simply says you have to provide an appropriate education to kids with disabilities, along with procedural safeguards so parents can protect the rights of their children.

The problem is that school districts aren't doing that.

You’re delusional. The “significant problem with the federal law” is that they made a law that is financially impossible for public schools to implement. The law needs to CHANGE.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not "fiscally impossible" for public schools to educate students with special needs. Is it expensive? Sure. And schools aren't budgeting appropriately.

Ironically, some people here want to push even more students into more restrictive, self-contained programs, which would be even more expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

I'm not surprised it happens, I'm just saying that's not in IDEA. Every parent of a child with special needs will tell you school districts regularly drag their feet.

I think when you are hit with a lawsuit, jail time or fines because you broke a law, you don’t really care if it was because you failed to follow federal law or state law. RTI is mandated in many states.

Well, not in Maryland. And I'm pretty sure not DC. I'm less sure about Virginia.

Where do you teach? Is it required there?

I think the claim the pp was making is that pre-referral interventions (which, again, are different than RTI) are common in school districts, not that they're legally required.

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

As explained in more detail in Zirkel (2011), most state law provisions for RTI in both the mandatory and permissive categories are, per the foundational provisions in IDEA, exclusive to the determination of SLD. However, a handful of state laws extend RTI to other IDEA classifications.

“Second, a few states—Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland in descending order of clarity—seem to suggest the use of RTI globally via their guidelines.”

The PP is interested in blaming school systems for SPED issues. They don’t want a legislative body or state department held accountable. I don’t know why.

You're conflating RTI as a concept with pre-referral interventions. Maryland, in particular, encourages RTI as a concept for helping students, but not as a required pre-referral intervention before assessments for disabilities are done.

I would certainly support holding legislative or regulatory bodies accountable, but I don't know what you're trying to hold them accountable for, given they don't actually require what you've been suggesting.

“ Although many schools continue to use the pre-referral process, more and more are shifting to the RTI approach to identify students with learning disabilities. As of now, RTI is implemented mostly in the primary grades; however, its use is expanding and it appears that an increasing number of middle and high schools will also eventually shift to implementing RTI.”

https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/preref/cresource/q1/p01/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who told you that? That's absolutely not in IDEA. It sounds like your school district is illegally withholding evaluations.

NP, but that’s what the child study process looks like in every district I’ve worked in. They require teachers to br8ng data to the table of the interventions annd supports they have tried. Even if a child is fast tracked to an evaluation due to the kind of alarming situation described here, it takes about two months from the referral for the evaluation to complete all the testing and meet again to come to a decision.

I'm not surprised it happens, I'm just saying that's not in IDEA. Every parent of a child with special needs will tell you school districts regularly drag their feet.

I think when you are hit with a lawsuit, jail time or fines because you broke a law, you don’t really care if it was because you failed to follow federal law or state law. RTI is mandated in many states.

Well, not in Maryland. And I'm pretty sure not DC. I'm less sure about Virginia.

Where do you teach? Is it required there?

I think the claim the pp was making is that pre-referral interventions (which, again, are different than RTI) are common in school districts, not that they're legally required.

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines

As explained in more detail in Zirkel (2011), most state law provisions for RTI in both the mandatory and permissive categories are, per the foundational provisions in IDEA, exclusive to the determination of SLD. However, a handful of state laws extend RTI to other IDEA classifications.

“Second, a few states—Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland in descending order of clarity—seem to suggest the use of RTI globally via their guidelines.”

The PP is interested in blaming school systems for SPED issues. They don’t want a legislative body or state department held accountable. I don’t know why.

You're conflating RTI as a concept with pre-referral interventions. Maryland, in particular, encourages RTI as a concept for helping students, but not as a required pre-referral intervention before assessments for disabilities are done.

I would certainly support holding legislative or regulatory bodies accountable, but I don't know what you're trying to hold them accountable for, given they don't actually require what you've been suggesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the heck is wrong with schools?! Is there some reason we can't open more for disciplinary issues? There's a lot of focus on special needs and also gifted kids, but what about the ones who are violent?

What is wrong with the parents sending a kid not ready to be in a social environment without intensive supervision? Maybe schools establish a base-level set of requirements around behavior….. fully potty trained, not aggressive towards others? Until parents reach that a child is in home-school or a private setting?

It seems unreasonable to demand that schools address this kind of behavior. The demand upon schools to raise children is just too much.

Because as a society we've moved beyond warehousing people with disabilities.

Ill-behaved and out of control isn’t a disability.

No, but ASD is a developmental disability.

No ****, Sherlock. Except unfortunately for you and your paper thin argument, most violent kids in school DON’T HAVE ASD.