Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is it common to have a plan under which parents must attend with their kid? I've never heard of this.
I have never encountered this in more than 20 years of education.
As a special ed lawyer I've seen schools ask for it occasionally, never as an official IEP requirement but something unofficial. We tend to push back on it (if a kid needs that level of support we're generally fighting for them to be placed in a different setting), but it's not unheard of.
So most likely he needed to be in a specialized classroom and his parents were fighting that placement.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of kids in general education classrooms with one to one aides. This tells me that the school knew the kid needed a one to one but was shirking its responsibility to provide it.
Again, this is just a possibility, but it’s a decision many of us should recognize that we might make under the same circumstances.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who decided the parent didn't need to be sitting next to this kid on that day? Hope that administrator who approved his attendace without them goes to jail TOO. Seriously. Kid never belonged there in the first place.
It was likely a perfect storm of factors. Just speculating, but here’s some possibilities:
He’s had 5 months of somewhat reasonable behavior while his parents supervised him in class. It seems safe to take the risk because that particular day, mom is feeling unwell and dad can’t take off work at such short notice because his boss has already warned him twice that his absences are a problem. If he goes to school unsupervised and gets into trouble, what’s the worse that could happen? He’s six after all. Mom would come pick him up. Meanwhile, she’ll take some DayQuil and nap until dismissal.
Again, this is just a possibility, but it’s a decision many of us should recognize that we might make under the same circumstances.
Anonymous wrote:
Who decided the parent didn't need to be sitting next to this kid on that day? Hope that administrator who approved his attendace without them goes to jail TOO. Seriously. Kid never belonged there in the first place.
It was likely a perfect storm of factors. Just speculating, but here’s some possibilities:
He’s had 5 months of somewhat reasonable behavior while his parents supervised him in class. It seems safe to take the risk because that particular day, mom is feeling unwell and dad can’t take off work at such short notice because his boss has already warned him twice that his absences are a problem. If he goes to school unsupervised and gets into trouble, what’s the worse that could happen? He’s six after all. Mom would come pick him up. Meanwhile, she’ll take some DayQuil and nap until dismissal.
Again, this is just a possibility, but it’s a decision many of us should recognize that we might make under the same circumstances.
Anonymous wrote:This is definitely at least partly on the school. The placement was totally inappropriate, as evidenced by the fact that the parents attended for the entire day for months!!? In all my years in education I have never seen that. And then to just stop cold turkey? No kid goes from that great a need to no need that quickly, if ever.
Also how in the hell did the school search his bag (as they said they did) and not find a GUN?
Anonymous wrote:This is definitely at least partly on the school. The placement was totally inappropriate, as evidenced by the fact that the parents attended for the entire day for months!!? In all my years in education I have never seen that. And then to just stop cold turkey? No kid goes from that great a need to no need that quickly, if ever.
Also how in the hell did the school search his bag (as they said they did) and not find a GUN?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who decided the parent didn't need to be sitting next to this kid on that day? Hope that administrator who approved his attendace without them goes to jail TOO. Seriously. Kid never belonged there in the first place.
It was likely a perfect storm of factors. Just speculating, but here’s some possibilities:
He’s had 5 months of somewhat reasonable behavior while his parents supervised him in class. It seems safe to take the risk because that particular day, mom is feeling unwell and dad can’t take off work at such short notice because his boss has already warned him twice that his absences are a problem. If he goes to school unsupervised and gets into trouble, what’s the worse that could happen? He’s six after all. Mom would come pick him up. Meanwhile, she’ll take some DayQuil and nap until dismissal.
Again, this is just a possibility, but it’s a decision many of us should recognize that we might make under the same circumstances.
Anonymous wrote:Who decided the parent didn't need to be sitting next to this kid on that day? Hope that administrator who approved his attendace without them goes to jail TOO. Seriously. Kid never belonged there in the first place.
Anonymous wrote:With abortion being made illegal or severely restricted, this is only going to get much, much worse in about 5 years. Negligent and irresponsible parents, kids with issues that don't make them fit for group settings, and teachers are going to be leaving at even a faster rate than now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a teacher:
I’ve never heard the term “acute disability.” That’s some shady lawyer wording to avoid implicating the son as like PERMANENTLY disabled . There is no IDEA category that contains the language of “acute disability”
Kids with disabilities needing parental supervision at school should not be in a Gen Ed setting
Interesting he never brought the totally secured gun while his parents had to be in the room with him
Acute disability is a real thing. It’s a mental health disorder that has the potential to be treated. Google it. Just because you aren’t familiar doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I imagine that not too many of us have ever seen a child that young who is that severely mentally ill. I’m sure the parents, school and health care providers were really struggling to figure out how to help him.
What I mean is I have never seen it in an education setting. IDEA does not have a category for “acute disability” for an IEP. A child with a disability so severe they need a 1:1 aide as a parent attending would somehow have to be involved in the sped process but “acute disability” isn’t a category that can be used to define a student with social needs. If anything it sounds like the category under which he would receive sped services would be Emotional Disability. So the lawyer is using language to give the child a label that is NOT a disability under IDEA. It sounds like an “out” because it is. The child should never have been in a Gen Ed setting. He shouldn’t even have been in self contained. If his disability was this great he needed to be in a specialized school for students with severe mental disabilities.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s really alarming how many of you think that the problem is the child being in a mainstream school instead of a “more restrictive setting”. I work in self-contained special education and it isn’t a dumping ground for dangerous kids. My students are extremely vulnerable. Many of them are nonverbal and most of them can’t read or write in a traditional way. Although they are in upper elementary, many of them are functioning on a kindergarten or prekindergarten level. We had a student transfer to my class who was of above average intelligence but disruptive and violent. The students in my class had no way to advocate for themselves around this child and I was terrified about what he could do to them. The children with the highest needs ALSO have rights and need us to protect them. Do better.
Why are they dumping such disparate children in the same classroom? It sounds like there’s enough need to justify separate classrooms or separate centers. When people say more restrictive setting, nobody is thinking of lumping a violent kid in the same room as one who uses a communication board. They are thinking of put all the kids who clearly violent in their own building with very good ratios. 1:1, even. There’s a public school in nyc with 1:1 ratios for autistic students. It has been done. The tax payers just need to be willing to pay for it.
Anonymous wrote:"responsible gun owner" "Gun secured"
These parents are awful with their statement. Unless you're telling me that the 6yr old loaded that gun, the gun was kept and stored LOADED, which is a huge no no. You store the gun and ammunition SEPARATELY. HFS!!!!