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.

A child who could not say his "Ks" and only has speech will typically not have an IEP. As they would not qualify for having a specific learning disability that impacted their ability to access the curriculum. They might qualify for speech services - which may be separate.

You don’t know what you are talking about. The category is IDEA is SPEECH/LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT. you don’t need a learning disability to qualify under this category. It’s a speech only iep.

Anonymous wrote:

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

who will the 2nd adult be? 1 Gen Ed teacher and 1 _____________

“Full time adult”
https://d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20201023/69/cc/3e/04/8ecfae338bfd93202f8fc001/2020_10_23_Staff_Guidance_DCPS_Setting_Up_for_Term_2_Success_FINAL.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, I feel for you, but this argument is nuts. It’s a lottery; it’s based on chance. There are a ton of kids with IEPs and 504s; they get a shot, too.

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

who will the 2nd adult be? 1 Gen Ed teacher and 1 _____________

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I recommend finding a way to create a class action lawsuit. By selecting to provide some in person for a sub group of children with IEPs is like DCPS saying when you are creating your IEP - sorry we can't have a goals for OT because we do not have an OT at your school.

It is maddening that someone thinks that because it s a constrained resource - it is OK to allocate it by a lottery. My assumption is that since speech, OT, and special education teachers are still going to deliver services virtually, the school district determined that the delivery of service was the same for all. EXCEPT - for children in self-contained classrooms where some of the children will have the benefit of in person instruction - and others will not.

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.

A child who could not say his "Ks" and only has speech will typically not have an IEP. As they would not qualify for having a specific learning disability that impacted their ability to access the curriculum. They might qualify for speech services - which may be separate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

I see you’re trying to build a bogus case against this. But the fact is, a kid with speech disorders is likely going to do much better in person. That’s totally apart from the actual speech therapy pullout, which is likely just a few hours a week.

Not trying to do anything so dramatic as attempting to “build a case”. Just pointing out that the identified needed service will be virtual, which is not a change. A child whose services are more hands on (say, PT) would have a more tangible change as that service will allegedly be in-person. Also I’m not arguing that kids with speech do not benefit from in person teaching - I think most kids do. But, it’s odd to me that the individualized nature of IEPs aren’t considered as criteria for return when the providers of IEP services are selected to return based on perceived efficacy of service delivery. Idk, seems incongruent. Not turning all red in the face and foot stomp-y about it, though.

Anonymous wrote:So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

I see you’re trying to build a bogus case against this. But the fact is, a kid with speech disorders is likely going to do much better in person. That’s totally apart from the actual speech therapy pullout, which is likely just a few hours a week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm guessing you've done this, but have you asked your principal to appeal for one of the two school-selected seats per grade for your child? They need to make the appeal by Wednesday from what I understand.

Thanks. Yes, I have. Fingers-crossed. (I’m at a small school with few at risk or ELA kids, so it’s really like my kid drew the only short straw.)

Any idea when all the seats will be released?

If you know your child is definitely 1 of the 2 submitted, then your chances are very good---based on what our principal told us. My opinion: DCPS isn't going to permit 2 seats per grade, then deny what the principal submitted. It's possible, but it would be controversial. I think they just want some data from the school that shows the need. I don't know when we'll know. Good luck and post an update.

So kids with a speech IEP will go to school but the speech therapist won’t? Ah, okay. So their services will be virtual. What a change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we not use the term "IEP kids"? So wrong on so many levels. My god.

I have referred to my child, whom trust me I love, respect, and value deeply, in these discussions as my “IEP child” to differentiate from my child without one. Not a big deal at all. Quit trying to turn everything into a PC issue. So ridiculous

I’m the parent ranting in this chain that my autistic child was passed over in this lottery, and I’ve referred to “my IEP kid” as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm guessing you've done this, but have you asked your principal to appeal for one of the two school-selected seats per grade for your child? They need to make the appeal by Wednesday from what I understand.

Thanks. Yes, I have. Fingers-crossed. (I’m at a small school with few at risk or ELA kids, so it’s really like my kid drew the only short straw.)

Any idea when all the seats will be released?

Anonymous wrote:Can we not use the term "IEP kids"? So wrong on so many levels. My god.

I have referred to my child, whom trust me I love, respect, and value deeply, in these discussions as my “IEP child” to differentiate from my child without one. Not a big deal at all. Quit trying to turn everything into a PC issue. So ridiculous

Can we not use the term "IEP kids"? So wrong on so many levels. My god.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm guessing you've done this, but have you asked your principal to appeal for one of the two school-selected seats per grade for your child? They need to make the appeal by Wednesday from what I understand.