Anonymous wrote:Federal IDEA law prohibits a class of 11 students with IEPs because doing so would make it a self-contained classroom, and would not be the least restrictive environment for those students.

There will be a mix.

I would argue that learning at home without peers is more restrictive, and that a self-contained classroom would thus be the least restrictive environment available.

In any case, my autistic child has been deeply, deeply burned by the lottery system. The lottery system feels like a big slap in the face, as kids with minimal IEPs were selected over my child.

Federal IDEA law prohibits a class of 11 students with IEPs because doing so would make it a self-contained classroom, and would not be the least restrictive environment for those students.

There will be a mix.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Wrong. They didn't rank IEPs.

So a kid that can't say his "ks," and won't even be getting in-person speech therapy when schools go back in this limited form, can qualify for spot OVER a child with more significant learning impediments as reflected in his or her IEP? That's ridiculous--if that's how it was actually done.

It would be a real abberation to get an IEP for minor speech articulation issues.

Shows how much you know. There are speech only IEPs.

As I said, it would be an aberration for a minor articulation issue. Of course there are (needed) IEPs for more severe receptive or expressive speech issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Wrong. They didn't rank IEPs.

So a kid that can't say his "ks," and won't even be getting in-person speech therapy when schools go back in this limited form, can qualify for spot OVER a child with more significant learning impediments as reflected in his or her IEP? That's ridiculous--if that's how it was actually done.

It would be a real abberation to get an IEP for minor speech articulation issues.

Shows how much you know. There are speech only IEPs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Wrong. They didn't rank IEPs.

So a kid that can't say his "ks," and won't even be getting in-person speech therapy when schools go back in this limited form, can qualify for spot OVER a child with more significant learning impediments as reflected in his or her IEP? That's ridiculous--if that's how it was actually done.

It would be a real abberation to get an IEP for minor speech articulation issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Wrong. They didn't rank IEPs.

So a kid that can't say his "ks," and won't even be getting in-person speech therapy when schools go back in this limited form, can qualify for spot OVER a child with more significant learning impediments as reflected in his or her IEP? That's ridiculous--if that's how it was actually done.

Anonymous wrote:Our our NW school these kids are always spread across 5 classrooms.
Class placement is literally built around them each year.
Usually the strongest teacher in the grade is given 3 or 4.
It's always evident who they view the strongest teacher to be based on this.

How is one poor teacher going to handle them all?
This makes zero sense.

11 is a lot!

When I teach inclusion, I typically have 7-9 students with a para if I am lucky. One year, the special educator resigned in the first grading period and we had a long term sub all year with 1/3 of the class under an IEP and another 1/3 with 504 plans or in ESOL. I almost quit! Last year, no para and by the end of the year, seven additional IEPs and 504s established. Rough spring in DL trying to work with students and families remotely when their accommodations were not designed for zoom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the “IEP kids” are often smarter and more well behaved than your “normal” kid.

That is certainly true in some cases, but having an IEP does typically indicate that you have more complex learning needs.

And then why wouldn't you want them at home. If they are smarter and more well behaved why do you want them out of your house.

you should really stop talking now

Anonymous wrote:Our our NW school these kids are always spread across 5 classrooms.
Class placement is literally built around them each year.
Usually the strongest teacher in the grade is given 3 or 4.
It's always evident who they view the strongest teacher to be based on this.

How is one poor teacher going to handle them all?
This makes zero sense.

Your post makes it seem that no consideration is made of the other 100 students. That "A" is a known bully and needs to be placed away from "B", "C" and "D" who have been victims.
Or that the mental health of student "Z" who had a death in the family is not considered. Yes, strong teachers typically get the children who may have some classroom behavior challenges - they kids do not all have IEPs - as if it is "just" ADHD it is typically a 504.

You might be surprised that the "3 or 4" who are given to a teacher who you think have IEPs - are not the kids with IEPs - the kids with IEPs do not where a patch sewn to their shirts each day to identify them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the “IEP kids” are often smarter and more well behaved than your “normal” kid.

That is certainly true in some cases, but having an IEP does typically indicate that you have more complex learning needs.

And then why wouldn't you want them at home. If they are smarter and more well behaved why do you want them out of your house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Wrong. They didn't rank IEPs.

This. Intentionally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Wrong. They didn't rank IEPs.

Admin: "You know how the charter school lottery didn't work out for you guys?"

Parents:

Admin: "Here's another lottery for you to lose!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A kid with an IEP for speech therapy or OT or something won't add significantly (if at all) to the techer's workload, and certainly won't take time away from your child.

Kids with IEPs for speech are going to be the ones invited for in-person instruction.

**AREN'T

Yes they are. They did not differentiate. An IEP is an IEP In this lottery

The guidance sent to teachers specifically said two adults per room.