Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, in my 5 years on this journey (sounds trite) the biggest bill of goods I've been sold is typical peer exposure. It is the least important thing for my kid and in some circumstances, detrimental. That being said, at that age I fought the school system for other things with an advocate. You would then move to a lawyer.

I have a 12 yo and I tend to disagree. It is very hard to get some kids back into an inclusive classroom once they have been isolated in a Special ed only class.

I agree 100%.
Schools, especially FCPS, does what is most convenient for them and not what's in the best interest of the child. Placement is something that can have lifelong implications. We are fighting for an inclusive setting as well.

There is plenty of time for inclusion when the child gets to kindergarten and beyond.

Sure, throw them in segregated preschools only with SN kids during a crucial development stage of 2+ years, and then deal with the consequences in elementary. Winning strategy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, in my 5 years on this journey (sounds trite) the biggest bill of goods I've been sold is typical peer exposure. It is the least important thing for my kid and in some circumstances, detrimental. That being said, at that age I fought the school system for other things with an advocate. You would then move to a lawyer.

I have a 12 yo and I tend to disagree. It is very hard to get some kids back into an inclusive classroom once they have been isolated in a Special ed only class.

I agree 100%.
Schools, especially FCPS, does what is most convenient for them and not what's in the best interest of the child. Placement is something that can have lifelong implications. We are fighting for an inclusive setting as well.

There is plenty of time for inclusion when the child gets to kindergarten and beyond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LRE does not always mean mainstreaming. And since when is a school district required to provide private preschool when the district does not offer Preschool to all?

No, but for the majority of kids LRE means inclusion. So, if a district is offering inclusion to 0% of their preschoolers they are clearly violating LRE for significant numbers of kids.

If a student needs preschool, and their LRE is inclusion, then the school district has an obligation to provide inclusive preschool. If FAPE/LRE is not available in any of their programs, then they are obligated to pay for a private school.

I'm sympathetic to the belief inclusion is best for her child. But what if none of the kids whose parents' chose to preschool and seek special education services are suited for inclusion for their LRE? There could be lots of factors why a district might no have a cohort of 3 year olds who are an appropriate placement in local preschools. Especially since preschool attendance isn't compulsory there. Is the district supposed to compel people to send their three year olds to school for 3.5 hours a day so that OP's child can attend a public inclusion preschool?

How about you read the Ed document PP provided before pontificating further in defense of the school district? It outlines exactly what the LEA must do.

Pontificating doesn't mean what you think it does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LRE does not always mean mainstreaming. And since when is a school district required to provide private preschool when the district does not offer Preschool to all?

No, but for the majority of kids LRE means inclusion. So, if a district is offering inclusion to 0% of their preschoolers they are clearly violating LRE for significant numbers of kids.

If a student needs preschool, and their LRE is inclusion, then the school district has an obligation to provide inclusive preschool. If FAPE/LRE is not available in any of their programs, then they are obligated to pay for a private school.

I'm sympathetic to the belief inclusion is best for her child. But what if none of the kids whose parents' chose to preschool and seek special education services are suited for inclusion for their LRE? There could be lots of factors why a district might no have a cohort of 3 year olds who are an appropriate placement in local preschools. Especially since preschool attendance isn't compulsory there. Is the district supposed to compel people to send their three year olds to school for 3.5 hours a day so that OP's child can attend a public inclusion preschool?

How about you read the Ed document PP provided before pontificating further in defense of the school district? It outlines exactly what the LEA must do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LRE does not always mean mainstreaming. And since when is a school district required to provide private preschool when the district does not offer Preschool to all?

No, but for the majority of kids LRE means inclusion. So, if a district is offering inclusion to 0% of their preschoolers they are clearly violating LRE for significant numbers of kids.

If a student needs preschool, and their LRE is inclusion, then the school district has an obligation to provide inclusive preschool. If FAPE/LRE is not available in any of their programs, then they are obligated to pay for a private school.

I'm sympathetic to the belief inclusion is best for her child. But what if none of the kids whose parents' chose to preschool and seek special education services are suited for inclusion for their LRE? There could be lots of factors why a district might no have a cohort of 3 year olds who are an appropriate placement in local preschools. Especially since preschool attendance isn't compulsory there. Is the district supposed to compel people to send their three year olds to school for 3.5 hours a day so that OP's child can attend a public inclusion preschool?

Anonymous wrote:LRE does not always mean mainstreaming. And since when is a school district required to provide private preschool when the district does not offer Preschool to all?

No, but for the majority of kids LRE means inclusion. So, if a district is offering inclusion to 0% of their preschoolers they are clearly violating LRE for significant numbers of kids.

If a student needs preschool, and their LRE is inclusion, then the school district has an obligation to provide inclusive preschool. If FAPE/LRE is not available in any of their programs, then they are obligated to pay for a private school.

Anonymous wrote:Preschool is not compulsory education.

Yes, that is irrelevant. LRE applies to preschool IEPs.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/preschoollre22912.pdf

LRE does not always mean mainstreaming. And since when is a school district required to provide private preschool when the district does not offer Preschool to all?

Preschool is not compulsory education.

LRE is variable and dependent on the student's needs. The LRE is not necessarily found in an inclusive setting for all students. Cannot comment on that in this instance without more info, but just wanted to clarify this issue.

Anonymous wrote:In MCPS, there is PEP Itinerant, where a special education teacher visits a child's typical preschool classroom a couple of hours per week. MCPS pays for the special education teacher to visit (and any related service providers to visit) and the family pays for the private preschool. MCPS is not paying for the preschool but is providing IEP services in the LRE in that case. I believe that's all the law requires...

PEP Itinerant may be the best option in this case.

I just want to say that I've worked with so many families that worry about exposure to typical peers at this age. There are a couple of things that we discuss in that situation. Is the child getting any other peer exposure in their life? Most preschool programs are half day and allow for sports, classes, and playing with neighborhood children. Opportunities don't have to happen exclusively at school. Does the child have the ability to benefit from typical peers? I can't tell you how many private preschools that I've gone into where the child that I'm observing might as well be in the room alone. Proximity to peers means nothing if the child doesn't have the skills, competence, and desire to interact and learn from them in a way that is positive for both children. Is a short term classroom (such as PEP from 3-4) without typical peers that gives more support more beneficial now, to hopefully lead to a less restrictive kindergarten placement? Or is the area of weakness primarily/just in social skills/pragmatics, and peers are the main focus of the services?

Peer interaction and social skills are hugely important, but moreso at 5 than at 3. If a child has the chance to gain more skills and have more positive outcomes with peers a year or two later rather than frustrating ones leading to feelings of self-doubt and aversion, I'm always going to choose that option. Every child is different and needs different things, but that has been my experience over the years. I hope, OP, that you won't write off the services that the county wants to provide to give your child the best chance that they can because it's not your ideal classroom for your child. There is no ideal classroom for any child in any school system. And again, you can always take charge of your child's learning and focus on the social piece outside of school if you think your child needs something more or different, just as you would if you felt they needed help/more opportunities for growth in math class, for example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that there (probably legitimate) defense is that because there are NO programs available to other students, the special needs program is, in fact, the least restrictive environment that can meet your child's need. There is no other alternative.
I'm confused about what you want. Do you want the distrcit to just pay for the preschool placement at a regular preschool? How will that help meet the needs of your child as laid out in the IEP? How will services be rendered for your child in that scenario?
Private placements are used when the school district can't meet the child's needs within the available programs/classrooms. A private, not-special-needs preschool doesn't have any special resources that the district doesn't, and in fact will give your child fewer resources than in the district programs.

I know there are lots of districts around here that have programs with "peer" students and special needs students. But if that isn't the program available, I'm having a hard time seeing how the district paying for a private preschool gets you where you want to be or what your child needs.

How is that a legitimate defense? There are programs available to other children. The fact that children without disabilities are paying tuition for them is not relevant. OP's child is entitled to free education in an inclusive setting.

Research is really clear that inclusive placements are best. LRE is the law. If people just accept the current situation, and don't advocate for federal law to be followed, then the situation is never going to change.

"Best" is not federal law. Appropriate is.

LRE is the law. OP wants what's best for her child. In this case, since what's best is the LRE, the law also requires it.

The school may feel LRE, in this case, is the classroom that they have provided. It is the opinion of the OP that the LRE, in this case, is inclusion in a general ed classroom.

In MCPS, there is PEP Itinerant, where a special education teacher visits a child's typical preschool classroom a couple of hours per week. MCPS pays for the special education teacher to visit (and any related service providers to visit) and the family pays for the private preschool. MCPS is not paying for the preschool but is providing IEP services in the LRE in that case. I believe that's all the law requires...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that there (probably legitimate) defense is that because there are NO programs available to other students, the special needs program is, in fact, the least restrictive environment that can meet your child's need. There is no other alternative.
I'm confused about what you want. Do you want the distrcit to just pay for the preschool placement at a regular preschool? How will that help meet the needs of your child as laid out in the IEP? How will services be rendered for your child in that scenario?
Private placements are used when the school district can't meet the child's needs within the available programs/classrooms. A private, not-special-needs preschool doesn't have any special resources that the district doesn't, and in fact will give your child fewer resources than in the district programs.

I know there are lots of districts around here that have programs with "peer" students and special needs students. But if that isn't the program available, I'm having a hard time seeing how the district paying for a private preschool gets you where you want to be or what your child needs.

How is that a legitimate defense? There are programs available to other children. The fact that children without disabilities are paying tuition for them is not relevant. OP's child is entitled to free education in an inclusive setting.

Research is really clear that inclusive placements are best. LRE is the law. If people just accept the current situation, and don't advocate for federal law to be followed, then the situation is never going to change.

"Best" is not federal law. Appropriate is.

LRE is the law. OP wants what's best for her child. In this case, since what's best is the LRE, the law also requires it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, in my 5 years on this journey (sounds trite) the biggest bill of goods I've been sold is typical peer exposure. It is the least important thing for my kid and in some circumstances, detrimental. That being said, at that age I fought the school system for other things with an advocate. You would then move to a lawyer.

I have a 12 yo and I tend to disagree. It is very hard to get some kids back into an inclusive classroom once they have been isolated in a Special ed only class.

I agree 100%.
Schools, especially FCPS, does what is most convenient for them and not what's in the best interest of the child. Placement is something that can have lifelong implications. We are fighting for an inclusive setting as well.