Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Illinois is not using the rooms as intended and that definitely should be corrected. But at that doesn’t mean they are abused everywhere. SN kids can’t hurt people, even their teachers. I can’t believe some parents are okay with that.

Who said it was ok?

We are talking about whether it's okay to hurt the child. Pushing the kid into a seclusion room is causing psychological danger and often also physical danger. Clearing a room is not intended to leave teachers to get injured. They should absolutely not be in danger's way and able to move around the room out of harm's way which will be safer than trying to force an out of control flailing child into a room/closet.

Again, the teacher and other students shouldn’t have to move “out of harms way” AT SCHOOL.

Plus 1.

The parents should be called to pick up their child when he/she is out of control.

Are parents of children with behavioral disabilities not allowed to have a job? Should they just wait around to pick up their child because their child is not receiving an appropriate education? Or should we just make a decision that these disabled children should just not get any education?

School is not daycare. We are reminded of this by DCUM every time we complain about bogus snow days. If a parent can’t get their kid’s behavior under control then yes they or the nanny or grandma or I don’t care who, need to come get the kid. This should not be the school’s job. And it’s incredibly expensive to tax payers. The county has to slash other budgets to cough up the money for all the extra staff to deal with these kids. A disproportional amount of money is spent on them and it’s not right.

Wow. Just wow. Karma is a bitch and you should be ready.

Whatever. No one thinks this is the school’s job other than SN activist parents. And we all resent the money and resources it costs the school district. No one believes it’s fair for one class to have 30 kids and 1 teacher and another class to have 7 kids and 3 teachers.

A study was done in the 1990s (met one of the people who did the study at a conference) of the financial burden experienced by parents of children with emotional disturbance in terms of additional expenses although it did not include lost work opportunity, and at the time they came up with a tally of $18k.

And in fact, if a pattern of parents being called because of a child being "out of control" developed, that constitutes a change of placement and requires a manifestation determination process.

And for whether it "is the school's job" are you by any chance the teacher my DS had in 6th grade who complained that if a parent has SN they should be home schooled or placed in private school? You might read the history of the struggle to obtain educational rights for all students, which grew directly out of the civil rights movement for African-Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

Attending school is not a "treatment." It's something that all children are entitled to. Heck, schools are even legally obligated to educate people who aren't nice people- like people who think that disabled kids aren't worthy of education. You were allowed to attend school, right?

If a school day is 8 hours and it is possible that your child may have a 10 minute event during the day, is it reasonable to ask that a parent sits outside the classroom waiting for the tantrum to happen? What if the parent works? Should we ask the parent to quit his job and go on welfare so he can be available in case that 10 minute tantrum happens? Is it better to pay all those parents welfare?

You have a lot of criticisms but no actual solutions.

Expecting a teacher to magically get your child to behave when you the parent have failed to do this is absolutely expecting the teacher to “treat” your child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

I would say it's more like an epileptic attack than cancer. If a child has a seizure in school, we expect the school to handle it. It is expected that the parents would have provided appropriate medication and knowledge transfer to the teacher and nurse. It would not be expected that the parent be on premises just in case the child had an attack in order to handle it. If the child's seizures were beyond what the staff could handle, we would expect the school system to find a way to provide FAPE. For many of the SN children, that placement is a non public placement. For either medical or behavioral issues that require a different placement, there has to be a lot of documentation as to why the LRE is not appropriate and the child needs a different placement. It is not a quick process.

If your child had a seizure at school, you would come pick them. Many parents on the SN forum have advised other parents to not pick up their children who were destroying classrooms and admin offices.

You lie bigly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a good article on the problem and rising cost od special ed funding. I wish the quiet room story went into this part of the story.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/focus/story/2019-04-05/districts-struggle-with-rising-special-ed-costs

Thank you. It kind of struck me about Otto (in particular) being tracked to "life skills" education until his parents battled and got additional testing. The track he was on likely would have had him on SSI and likely needing case management and even guardianship for the rest of his life -- instead of being on track to get a regular diploma. So maybe it cost more upfront for him to get intensive services--but in the long run society GAINS materially.

When I was reading about the quiet rooms all I could think was the direct track this would likely create to other institutions, particular prisons, because of the skills kids DON'T get when stuck in a padded room along with the trauma they DO experience. And those institutions cost plenty as well.

Wha struck me about Otto is he is holding an iPhone and his mother is holding a keyboard in the air. I am skeptical of facilitated communication where the student types while someone holds a keyboard and moves it around. You never know if the person is moving the keyboard to the child's finger or the child is really typing independently. If he can manage to use an iPhone why isn't he typing independently? So who knows if he really is independently able to be on a diploma track?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

I would say it's more like an epileptic attack than cancer. If a child has a seizure in school, we expect the school to handle it. It is expected that the parents would have provided appropriate medication and knowledge transfer to the teacher and nurse. It would not be expected that the parent be on premises just in case the child had an attack in order to handle it. If the child's seizures were beyond what the staff could handle, we would expect the school system to find a way to provide FAPE. For many of the SN children, that placement is a non public placement. For either medical or behavioral issues that require a different placement, there has to be a lot of documentation as to why the LRE is not appropriate and the child needs a different placement. It is not a quick process.

If your child had a seizure at school, you would come pick them. Many parents on the SN forum have advised other parents to not pick up their children who were destroying classrooms and admin offices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a good article on the problem and rising cost od special ed funding. I wish the quiet room story went into this part of the story.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/focus/story/2019-04-05/districts-struggle-with-rising-special-ed-costs

Thank you. It kind of struck me about Otto (in particular) being tracked to "life skills" education until his parents battled and got additional testing. The track he was on likely would have had him on SSI and likely needing case management and even guardianship for the rest of his life -- instead of being on track to get a regular diploma. So maybe it cost more upfront for him to get intensive services--but in the long run society GAINS materially.

When I was reading about the quiet rooms all I could think was the direct track this would likely create to other institutions, particular prisons, because of the skills kids DON'T get when stuck in a padded room along with the trauma they DO experience. And those institutions cost plenty as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

Attending school is not a "treatment." It's something that all children are entitled to. Heck, schools are even legally obligated to educate people who aren't nice people- like people who think that disabled kids aren't worthy of education. You were allowed to attend school, right?

If a school day is 8 hours and it is possible that your child may have a 10 minute event during the day, is it reasonable to ask that a parent sits outside the classroom waiting for the tantrum to happen? What if the parent works? Should we ask the parent to quit his job and go on welfare so he can be available in case that 10 minute tantrum happens? Is it better to pay all those parents welfare?

You have a lot of criticisms but no actual solutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

Attending school is not a "treatment." It's something that all children are entitled to. Heck, schools are even legally obligated to educate people who aren't nice people- like people who think that disabled kids aren't worthy of education. You were allowed to attend school, right?

If a school day is 8 hours and it is possible that your child may have a 10 minute event during the day, is it reasonable to ask that a parent sits outside the classroom waiting for the tantrum to happen? What if the parent works? Should we ask the parent to quit his job and go on welfare so he can be available in case that 10 minute tantrum happens? Is it better to pay all those parents welfare?

You have a lot of criticisms but no actual solutions.

I think the money saved on quiet rooms and related lawsuits would pay for the welfare spent on parents who need to be at school all day long so their child doesn’t kick the pregnant teacher and bite several IAs.

So you are also bad at math?

Does that mean that you agree that the costs associated with dangerously disturbed children is such a crushing part of state budgets that we need other solutions?

Anonymous wrote:Here's a good article on the problem and rising cost od special ed funding. I wish the quiet room story went into this part of the story.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/focus/story/2019-04-05/districts-struggle-with-rising-special-ed-costs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Illinois is not using the rooms as intended and that definitely should be corrected. But at that doesn’t mean they are abused everywhere. SN kids can’t hurt people, even their teachers. I can’t believe some parents are okay with that.

Who said it was ok?

We are talking about whether it's okay to hurt the child. Pushing the kid into a seclusion room is causing psychological danger and often also physical danger. Clearing a room is not intended to leave teachers to get injured. They should absolutely not be in danger's way and able to move around the room out of harm's way which will be safer than trying to force an out of control flailing child into a room/closet.

Again, the teacher and other students shouldn’t have to move “out of harms way” AT SCHOOL.

Plus 1.

The parents should be called to pick up their child when he/she is out of control.

Are parents of children with behavioral disabilities not allowed to have a job? Should they just wait around to pick up their child because their child is not receiving an appropriate education? Or should we just make a decision that these disabled children should just not get any education?

School is not daycare. We are reminded of this by DCUM every time we complain about bogus snow days. If a parent can’t get their kid’s behavior under control then yes they or the nanny or grandma or I don’t care who, need to come get the kid. This should not be the school’s job. And it’s incredibly expensive to tax payers. The county has to slash other budgets to cough up the money for all the extra staff to deal with these kids. A disproportional amount of money is spent on them and it’s not right.

Wow. Just wow. Karma is a bitch and you should be ready.

Whatever. No one thinks this is the school’s job other than SN activist parents. And we all resent the money and resources it costs the school district. No one believes it’s fair for one class to have 30 kids and 1 teacher and another class to have 7 kids and 3 teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

Attending school is not a "treatment." It's something that all children are entitled to. Heck, schools are even legally obligated to educate people who aren't nice people- like people who think that disabled kids aren't worthy of education. You were allowed to attend school, right?

If a school day is 8 hours and it is possible that your child may have a 10 minute event during the day, is it reasonable to ask that a parent sits outside the classroom waiting for the tantrum to happen? What if the parent works? Should we ask the parent to quit his job and go on welfare so he can be available in case that 10 minute tantrum happens? Is it better to pay all those parents welfare?

You have a lot of criticisms but no actual solutions.

I think the money saved on quiet rooms and related lawsuits would pay for the welfare spent on parents who need to be at school all day long so their child doesn’t kick the pregnant teacher and bite several IAs.

So you are also bad at math?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

Attending school is not a "treatment." It's something that all children are entitled to. Heck, schools are even legally obligated to educate people who aren't nice people- like people who think that disabled kids aren't worthy of education. You were allowed to attend school, right?

If a school day is 8 hours and it is possible that your child may have a 10 minute event during the day, is it reasonable to ask that a parent sits outside the classroom waiting for the tantrum to happen? What if the parent works? Should we ask the parent to quit his job and go on welfare so he can be available in case that 10 minute tantrum happens? Is it better to pay all those parents welfare?

You have a lot of criticisms but no actual solutions.

I think the money saved on quiet rooms and related lawsuits would pay for the welfare spent on parents who need to be at school all day long so their child doesn’t kick the pregnant teacher and bite several IAs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

Attending school is not a "treatment." It's something that all children are entitled to. Heck, schools are even legally obligated to educate people who aren't nice people- like people who think that disabled kids aren't worthy of education. You were allowed to attend school, right?

If a school day is 8 hours and it is possible that your child may have a 10 minute event during the day, is it reasonable to ask that a parent sits outside the classroom waiting for the tantrum to happen? What if the parent works? Should we ask the parent to quit his job and go on welfare so he can be available in case that 10 minute tantrum happens? Is it better to pay all those parents welfare?

You have a lot of criticisms but no actual solutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP I just want to make sure I understand. You think it would be fine to tell the parent to treat the cancer patient at home with no school or hospital help? Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.

If your child had cancer and was in the hospital, you would be at their side constantly for treatment. You would not expect the hospital staff to handle it. You would want to see for yourself that the appropriate treatment was being delivered and your child was being treated kindly. You would not go attend a work meeting while your child is getting a radiation treatment or bone marrow transplant. So the two are obviously not the same if it is unreasonable for you to be at school all day while your child is attempting to harm himself or others.

I would say it's more like an epileptic attack than cancer. If a child has a seizure in school, we expect the school to handle it. It is expected that the parents would have provided appropriate medication and knowledge transfer to the teacher and nurse. It would not be expected that the parent be on premises just in case the child had an attack in order to handle it. If the child's seizures were beyond what the staff could handle, we would expect the school system to find a way to provide FAPE. For many of the SN children, that placement is a non public placement. For either medical or behavioral issues that require a different placement, there has to be a lot of documentation as to why the LRE is not appropriate and the child needs a different placement. It is not a quick process.