Anonymous wrote:This is how it goes on DCUM

“There’s a violent kid in my DC’s class! The parents need to something! Kick him out!”

also DCUM

“Ha ha nobody needs that specialized program for kids with behavioral issues. Stop whining.”

IKR? Lots of different people with different views post here. It's not an echo chamber.

Anonymous wrote:“chase rankings and fetishize test scores, support for neurodiverse kids will always be on the chopping block because they are not represented in places where decisions are being made”

This isn’t an accurate statement. The problem is Special Education is expensive. Very expensive. And budgets have not and are not keeping pace. Yes FAPE may be law but we have to remember is not actually free. Districts have to balance spending more money for Special Education that may have a students in a class of 9 with a teacher and two para educators against classes with 25+ students.

Education is a continuous investment into the future. But we live in a society that values profit.

MCPS spec Ed unit doesn’t have a money problem more than it has a culture problem - they are mean. Full stop. Colleague took autistic kid to small Maryland town way up north from MCPS and guess what - kid thrived. There’s plenty of money - maybe too much - on MCPS but kindness? It’s just not there.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me how this program is different than classic autism services programs?

here is the xminds breakdown: https://xminds.org/elementary-services

based on these descriptions and the news story, these are kids with normal IQs but with behavioral and/or language issues that means they cannot be in Connections (eg mainstreamed) and the other self-contained programs are not appropriate academically (for more intellectually challenged kids). your basic HFA kiddo who elopes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

This would have been an interesting "article." Leave aside these fake allegations of "emaciating the program for equity" and talk about what Darnestown offers, and how the proposed alternative is different/worse.

I am sympathetic to parents who are scared and mad that a program which worked for their kids is going away! But employing culture wars rhetorical bombs to describe a pretty normal bureaucratic decision that seems primarily driven by cost is not persuasive.

right back atcha - getting fixated on a phrase you dislike and proclaiming the whole things suspect is just as much getting caught up in the culture wars as anything else.

Here's the thing - the folks seeking media coverage and bringing this article to DCUM are clearly looking to build sympathy and a critical amount of pressure on MCPS. But you do that by building bridges, not walls. The author literally uses the phrase "under the veil of equity" in the headline, so pretending that you don't understand why people might have some questions about why this is "equity" is disingenuous.

So far, the explanation is that it's equity because it's mainstreaming, but it's only "mainstreaming" if you consider "mainstreaming" be synonymous with "serving kids with autism in the same location as kids with other learning and processing differences."

Basically, if you are going to make a specific claim, you need to back it up. If you want your fellow parents to help you advocate, you need to be willing to explain things to them. That's just Organizing 101.

google is your friend. there’s plenty of other coverage if you want to look. but clearly you prefer to get up on your hobby horse.

also what the author says (and I don’t know if this is true) is that MCPS claims this is in the name of equity. Which is indeed bullsh*t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

Unfortunately MCPS probably calculated that the staffing level provided by Darnestown is not legally required by the IEPs and was above and beyond. They’re just going to put these kids back into non-cat programs that don’t have the same diploma-bound expectations and watch some kids fail out due to behavior, and the rest learn the bare minimum.

How is using evidence-based practice going above and beyond? There’s established case law on this subject:

https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/autism.index.htm

Unless the IEPs all have the staffing level written in (doubtful) they will feel free to cut back. And will claim they are “still doing evidence based practice” at the new placement.

The thing is, it is extremely difficult to force the school to change teaching/discipline methods holistically with an argument that the IEP isn’t being followed. You can argue to get into programs that exist (like Darnestown) or for discrete related services, but if you’re arguing that the non-specialist teacher needs to follow a comprehensive model with fidelity, never gonna happen. So all these parents are going to be able to do in practice is sue for private placement. Note - I am talking about how it actually works, not how it should work.

This precisely is why you hire a lawyer and hopefully already have an established EIBI program. There’s another reason EI is so vital. For the bolded, I’ve done exactly that, several times over. Using nothing but my brain and a couple years of solid ABA data.

Teacher child ratios are discussed in the existing case law. ABA is always low ratio. I’ve never seen anything over 1:4 used in practice and that’s for older children with some ability to work independently. Ratios for younger children are much lower.

Yeah but unless there’s already a program you want to access, they just are not going to provide a good ABA program in a mainstream or even self contained program. It would either be half*ssing it in mainstream while your kid fails on multiple vectors; or a non-cat self-contained classroom that has no appropriate academic instruction for normal/high IQ kids. That was the whole point of the Darnestown program - an appropriate self-contained program for higher needs diploma bound elementary kids.

Can anyone tell me how this program is different than classic autism services programs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how it goes on DCUM

“There’s a violent kid in my DC’s class! The parents need to something! Kick him out!”

also DCUM

“Ha ha nobody needs that specialized program for kids with behavioral issues. Stop whining.”

Is anyone in this thread advocating for doing away with this program?

Well people seem fixated on believing the author is a Moms 4 Liberty type.

Huh? That doesn't answer my question on who in this thread is actually advocating for doing away with the program.

I do think this program is beneficial and think it's worthwhile to keep it. Maybe even expand it to different parts of the county. What I would like to know:
What other special needs group require their own special program like this?
How many of these special programs would be needed across the county?
How many staff would be needed to fully staff these programs?
How much money would it cost to run these programs all across the county?

I don’t know of any other SN groups that have such well-established data and IEP cases for specific programs like autism does with ABA. There was a big push around 2005 for more programs like this one because school systems got tired of being sued for full home based ABA programs and losing.

Ideally these programs are best started at age 3 with a focus on mostly 1:1 and small group 1:2 or 1:3. Placement in typical classroom is generally limited for the first year or two. This gives time for focus on foundational skills and barriers to learning. It should be a progression where as they age they need less 1:1 instruction and can function more in small group 1:3/4 classes with some pull outs for 1:1 and also join regular ed part of the day. There’s no set time line to that progression, every child is different, but generally speaking the younger they start the younger they can be fully integrated.

I can’t tell you costs precisely but can tell you that a huge portion of the costs is in start up and especially training. If they dismantle this program and just to have to recreate the same thing again it will cost them much more than just continuing it. Replication and focusing on earlier age groups should be key here not dismantling it completely.

FWIW I don’t get the equity argument either. I do think it’s a program worth fighting for though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

This would have been an interesting "article." Leave aside these fake allegations of "emaciating the program for equity" and talk about what Darnestown offers, and how the proposed alternative is different/worse.

I am sympathetic to parents who are scared and mad that a program which worked for their kids is going away! But employing culture wars rhetorical bombs to describe a pretty normal bureaucratic decision that seems primarily driven by cost is not persuasive.

right back atcha - getting fixated on a phrase you dislike and proclaiming the whole things suspect is just as much getting caught up in the culture wars as anything else.

Here's the thing - the folks seeking media coverage and bringing this article to DCUM are clearly looking to build sympathy and a critical amount of pressure on MCPS. But you do that by building bridges, not walls. The author literally uses the phrase "under the veil of equity" in the headline, so pretending that you don't understand why people might have some questions about why this is "equity" is disingenuous.

So far, the explanation is that it's equity because it's mainstreaming, but it's only "mainstreaming" if you consider "mainstreaming" be synonymous with "serving kids with autism in the same location as kids with other learning and processing differences."

Basically, if you are going to make a specific claim, you need to back it up. If you want your fellow parents to help you advocate, you need to be willing to explain things to them. That's just Organizing 101.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

Unfortunately MCPS probably calculated that the staffing level provided by Darnestown is not legally required by the IEPs and was above and beyond. They’re just going to put these kids back into non-cat programs that don’t have the same diploma-bound expectations and watch some kids fail out due to behavior, and the rest learn the bare minimum.

How is using evidence-based practice going above and beyond? There’s established case law on this subject:

https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/autism.index.htm

Unless the IEPs all have the staffing level written in (doubtful) they will feel free to cut back. And will claim they are “still doing evidence based practice” at the new placement.

The thing is, it is extremely difficult to force the school to change teaching/discipline methods holistically with an argument that the IEP isn’t being followed. You can argue to get into programs that exist (like Darnestown) or for discrete related services, but if you’re arguing that the non-specialist teacher needs to follow a comprehensive model with fidelity, never gonna happen. So all these parents are going to be able to do in practice is sue for private placement. Note - I am talking about how it actually works, not how it should work.

This precisely is why you hire a lawyer and hopefully already have an established EIBI program. There’s another reason EI is so vital. For the bolded, I’ve done exactly that, several times over. Using nothing but my brain and a couple years of solid ABA data.

Teacher child ratios are discussed in the existing case law. ABA is always low ratio. I’ve never seen anything over 1:4 used in practice and that’s for older children with some ability to work independently. Ratios for younger children are much lower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how it goes on DCUM

“There’s a violent kid in my DC’s class! The parents need to something! Kick him out!”

also DCUM

“Ha ha nobody needs that specialized program for kids with behavioral issues. Stop whining.”

Is anyone in this thread advocating for doing away with this program?

Well people seem fixated on believing the author is a Moms 4 Liberty type.

Huh? That doesn't answer my question on who in this thread is actually advocating for doing away with the program.

I do think this program is beneficial and think it's worthwhile to keep it. Maybe even expand it to different parts of the county. What I would like to know:
What other special needs group require their own special program like this?
How many of these special programs would be needed across the county?
How many staff would be needed to fully staff these programs?
How much money would it cost to run these programs all across the county?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

This would have been an interesting "article." Leave aside these fake allegations of "emaciating the program for equity" and talk about what Darnestown offers, and how the proposed alternative is different/worse.

I am sympathetic to parents who are scared and mad that a program which worked for their kids is going away! But employing culture wars rhetorical bombs to describe a pretty normal bureaucratic decision that seems primarily driven by cost is not persuasive.

right back atcha - getting fixated on a phrase you dislike and proclaiming the whole things suspect is just as much getting caught up in the culture wars as anything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how it goes on DCUM

“There’s a violent kid in my DC’s class! The parents need to something! Kick him out!”

also DCUM

“Ha ha nobody needs that specialized program for kids with behavioral issues. Stop whining.”

Is anyone in this thread advocating for doing away with this program?

Well people seem fixated on believing the author is a Moms 4 Liberty type.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

Unfortunately MCPS probably calculated that the staffing level provided by Darnestown is not legally required by the IEPs and was above and beyond. They’re just going to put these kids back into non-cat programs that don’t have the same diploma-bound expectations and watch some kids fail out due to behavior, and the rest learn the bare minimum.

How is using evidence-based practice going above and beyond? There’s established case law on this subject:

https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/autism.index.htm

Unless the IEPs all have the staffing level written in (doubtful) they will feel free to cut back. And will claim they are “still doing evidence based practice” at the new placement.

The thing is, it is extremely difficult to force the school to change teaching/discipline methods holistically with an argument that the IEP isn’t being followed. You can argue to get into programs that exist (like Darnestown) or for discrete related services, but if you’re arguing that the non-specialist teacher needs to follow a comprehensive model with fidelity, never gonna happen. So all these parents are going to be able to do in practice is sue for private placement. Note - I am talking about how it actually works, not how it should work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

This would have been an interesting "article." Leave aside these fake allegations of "emaciating the program for equity" and talk about what Darnestown offers, and how the proposed alternative is different/worse.

I am sympathetic to parents who are scared and mad that a program which worked for their kids is going away! But employing culture wars rhetorical bombs to describe a pretty normal bureaucratic decision that seems primarily driven by cost is not persuasive.

Agree the article stinks. The next step for parents is the same, fight this tooth and nail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these programs being killed under the veil of equity? I read the article and I came away with they were being killed because of budgetary reasons. What are the equity reasons?

I truly don't think there are any, which is what makes me suspicious of the entire "article," which is really just the equivalent of a blog post. It seems that MCPS is phasing out this specific approach, which is sort of a "magnet" for kids with autism. Current kids will finish, but new kids will attend geographically closer programs that serve kids with autism and other learning differences.

Now, I think there's an interesting discussion that folks could bring to the table about whether autism-specific programs are better than programs that serve a variety of kids on the diploma track, but I don't see those arguments being made. More importantly, the insistence that this is about "equity" makes it seem like the author is trying to turn it into a culture war discussion instead of a "how to best meet the needs of kids with IEPs" discussion.

The components of this program are already considered evidence-based practice. Removal of this program will eliminate much of what’s considered EBP for ASD programs.

http://www.autismdiagnostics.com/assets/Resources/NSP2.pdf

https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/sites/ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/EBP%20Report%202020.pdf

If I were a parent in that system I’d read and print these and call an IEP meeting asap. Check all the specific types of intervention being used currently. Ask how each intervention type will be implemented to the same standards in the proposed new setting. Ask what training new teachers will have received to ensure this happens. Ask how teacher student ratios will affect these interventions. Ask for expected outcomes under the proposed system.

This would have been an interesting "article." Leave aside these fake allegations of "emaciating the program for equity" and talk about what Darnestown offers, and how the proposed alternative is different/worse.

I am sympathetic to parents who are scared and mad that a program which worked for their kids is going away! But employing culture wars rhetorical bombs to describe a pretty normal bureaucratic decision that seems primarily driven by cost is not persuasive.