I’m trying to picture my APs filling in as a one on one. Lol. Nope. I can’t.

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. We have students like this at my school every few years. Usually the parent is/was an addict and the child is living in chaos. Sometimes it is a very permissive parent who lets their kids do whatever they want. I’ve had years where it took months to get a kid tested for an IEP. I can’t just request a meeting and have it happen. I have to document months of behaviors before anything happens. Now, if the parent requests the meeting, it will occur within 30 days.

As for someone who mentioned that an aid should’ve stayed with this child on a day the parent didn’t come to school, you obviously don’t understand the staffing shortages in public schools. On any given day, we have between 5-18 staff members out of the building (sick, personal day, jury duty, etc). Every day our admin scrambles to find people to cover for classroom teachers. There is nobody to cover for a parent as a one-on-one.

I’m the pP and I’m very aware of the shortages. (And I assume that’s why they used the parent as the shadow for so long.). But this seems like such an extreme case they never should have stopped the parent shadow unless they had some warm body to use as a transition. Maybe it should have been the AP who has now resigned. At our school the AP does fill in for things like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "acute disability" mean? How unusual is it for a parent to attend classes with the child as part of an IEP?

It probably means no one knows what the child’s disability is yet. I have a 6 year old who has been diagnosed with probably 8 different things by a variety of specialists over time. It’s very hard to tell what kids have when they are so young. It will become clear when he gets older what he has, but they know now that it’s severe and disrupts his ability to think and function in a classroom.

The special education eligibility area of Significant Developmental Delay is often applicable for children who need support, but the diagnosis isn't clear yet. I do wonder if this child had an appropriate IEP.

No there is no way he did because the entire situation violates a real IEP in a million ways. The parents had a DEAL with admin to try to work it out for some reason.

PP here. I've thought the same, but there seems to be a lot of misinformation in the news due to (understandably) lack of info. Certainly, the AP who resigned from the district wouldn't have done that unless some of the info about what happened were accurate.

Schools do a lot of things that violate IEPs. It happens every day.

Maybe the school didn't want to provide the resources this kid needs and refused to write a 1:1 into the IEP. Maybe he was supposed to have a 1:1 in his IEP but the school couldn't hire one due to staffing shortages. Maybe the school refused to give him an IEP. Who knows.

PP here. I get it. I've worked in the special education field a long time. I also know that the AP wouldn't have left the district so fast, unless this situation were handled very poorly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "acute disability" mean? How unusual is it for a parent to attend classes with the child as part of an IEP?

It probably means no one knows what the child’s disability is yet. I have a 6 year old who has been diagnosed with probably 8 different things by a variety of specialists over time. It’s very hard to tell what kids have when they are so young. It will become clear when he gets older what he has, but they know now that it’s severe and disrupts his ability to think and function in a classroom.

Or maybe they know and don't want to disclose it to the world.

Then best to allow the child to have an evaluation and receive needed support services; otherwise, go private. The world is getting ready to know a whole lot more than just the disability area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "acute disability" mean? How unusual is it for a parent to attend classes with the child as part of an IEP?

It probably means no one knows what the child’s disability is yet. I have a 6 year old who has been diagnosed with probably 8 different things by a variety of specialists over time. It’s very hard to tell what kids have when they are so young. It will become clear when he gets older what he has, but they know now that it’s severe and disrupts his ability to think and function in a classroom.

Or maybe they know and don't want to disclose it to the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does "acute disability" mean? How unusual is it for a parent to attend classes with the child as part of an IEP?

It probably means no one knows what the child’s disability is yet. I have a 6 year old who has been diagnosed with probably 8 different things by a variety of specialists over time. It’s very hard to tell what kids have when they are so young. It will become clear when he gets older what he has, but they know now that it’s severe and disrupts his ability to think and function in a classroom.

The special education eligibility area of Significant Developmental Delay is often applicable for children who need support, but the diagnosis isn't clear yet. I do wonder if this child had an appropriate IEP.

No there is no way he did because the entire situation violates a real IEP in a million ways. The parents had a DEAL with admin to try to work it out for some reason.

PP here. I've thought the same, but there seems to be a lot of misinformation in the news due to (understandably) lack of info. Certainly, the AP who resigned from the district wouldn't have done that unless some of the info about what happened were accurate.

Schools do a lot of things that violate IEPs. It happens every day.

Maybe the school didn't want to provide the resources this kid needs and refused to write a 1:1 into the IEP. Maybe he was supposed to have a 1:1 in his IEP but the school couldn't hire one due to staffing shortages. Maybe the school refused to give him an IEP. Who knows.

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. We have students like this at my school every few years. Usually the parent is/was an addict and the child is living in chaos. Sometimes it is a very permissive parent who lets their kids do whatever they want. I’ve had years where it took months to get a kid tested for an IEP. I can’t just request a meeting and have it happen. I have to document months of behaviors before anything happens. Now, if the parent requests the meeting, it will occur within 30 days.

As for someone who mentioned that an aid should’ve stayed with this child on a day the parent didn’t come to school, you obviously don’t understand the staffing shortages in public schools. On any given day, we have between 5-18 staff members out of the building (sick, personal day, jury duty, etc). Every day our admin scrambles to find people to cover for classroom teachers. There is nobody to cover for a parent as a one-on-one.

Then, one of the administrators should have stayed with him -- either in the classroom or in the front office.

Anonymous wrote:The way I read the story was that the day of the shooting was the first day that the parent wasn’t scheduled to attend with the child — as if it was a planned step down of that accommodation. If that’s the case, it’s crazy to me that an aide wasn’t placed in the classroom for at least a transitional period. You don’t remove a support like that all of a sudden with no scaffolding.

I’m also wondering about the trigger lock on the gun. I don’t know how those work but it sounded like he needed to steal his mom’s key to unlock it? Is it a physical key?

I also wonder if the child was adopted from an orphanage or severely abusive home — its just so unusual to have a child this disturbed at this young an age that I suspect there is some story of deep trauma there, or a physical injury to the brain. I initially assumed the home itself was abusive but if the parents were invested enough to be attending school daily, that seems less likely.

The school made so many bad decisions here.

+1 I've wondered the same.

Teacher here. We have students like this at my school every few years. Usually the parent is/was an addict and the child is living in chaos. Sometimes it is a very permissive parent who lets their kids do whatever they want. I’ve had years where it took months to get a kid tested for an IEP. I can’t just request a meeting and have it happen. I have to document months of behaviors before anything happens. Now, if the parent requests the meeting, it will occur within 30 days.

As for someone who mentioned that an aid should’ve stayed with this child on a day the parent didn’t come to school, you obviously don’t understand the staffing shortages in public schools. On any given day, we have between 5-18 staff members out of the building (sick, personal day, jury duty, etc). Every day our admin scrambles to find people to cover for classroom teachers. There is nobody to cover for a parent as a one-on-one.

The way I read the story was that the day of the shooting was the first day that the parent wasn’t scheduled to attend with the child — as if it was a planned step down of that accommodation. If that’s the case, it’s crazy to me that an aide wasn’t placed in the classroom for at least a transitional period. You don’t remove a support like that all of a sudden with no scaffolding.

I’m also wondering about the trigger lock on the gun. I don’t know how those work but it sounded like he needed to steal his mom’s key to unlock it? Is it a physical key?

I also wonder if the child was adopted from an orphanage or severely abusive home — its just so unusual to have a child this disturbed at this young an age that I suspect there is some story of deep trauma there, or a physical injury to the brain. I initially assumed the home itself was abusive but if the parents were invested enough to be attending school daily, that seems less likely.

The school made so many bad decisions here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it a “deal” or is this a legitimate way how schools are dealing with “troubled” kids (whatever the reason)?

Some parents with kids who were in the same classroom are obviously upset and terrified, but I haven’t heard anyone mention how utterly disruptive and inappropriate it is to have parents of one child in your child’s classroom every single day all day. I can’t even believe this is allowed.
100% this child needed to be out of the general classroom, and quickly.

I don’t think it’s a legitimate way to deal with troubled kids. What I am wondering is whether the school had adequate resources to deal with such a difficult kid.

No, which is why a sped evaluation should have been performed and his placement changed. Impossible for me to believe his K/1st teachers didn’t want to refer for evaluation so what will be interesting to see is if they did refer and admin ignored and didn’t schedule an evaluation within 60 days (not legal) or bullied them into not referring so she could continue just working with the parents. It baffles my mind.

Anonymous wrote:Was it a “deal” or is this a legitimate way how schools are dealing with “troubled” kids (whatever the reason)?

Some parents with kids who were in the same classroom are obviously upset and terrified, but I haven’t heard anyone mention how utterly disruptive and inappropriate it is to have parents of one child in your child’s classroom every single day all day. I can’t even believe this is allowed.
100% this child needed to be out of the general classroom, and quickly.

I don’t think it’s a legitimate way to deal with troubled kids. What I am wondering is whether the school had adequate resources to deal with such a difficult kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it a “deal” or is this a legitimate way how schools are dealing with “troubled” kids (whatever the reason)?

Some parents with kids who were in the same classroom are obviously upset and terrified, but I haven’t heard anyone mention how utterly disruptive and inappropriate it is to have parents of one child in your child’s classroom every single day all day. I can’t even believe this is allowed.
100% this child needed to be out of the general classroom, and quickly.

I have these same questions....as a parent I wouldn't be ok with this.

It is so highly unusual as to be singular. As an educator I’ve never seen or heard of anything like it with a kid of even a less concerning profile, let alone this kid’s history. No parent would be ok with it which is why classmates parents are also suing (and should) but it is not a common concern you should have.

Anonymous wrote:Was it a “deal” or is this a legitimate way how schools are dealing with “troubled” kids (whatever the reason)?

Some parents with kids who were in the same classroom are obviously upset and terrified, but I haven’t heard anyone mention how utterly disruptive and inappropriate it is to have parents of one child in your child’s classroom every single day all day. I can’t even believe this is allowed.
100% this child needed to be out of the general classroom, and quickly.

I have these same questions....as a parent I wouldn't be ok with this.

Anonymous wrote:Was it a “deal” or is this a legitimate way how schools are dealing with “troubled” kids (whatever the reason)?

Some parents with kids who were in the same classroom are obviously upset and terrified, but I haven’t heard anyone mention how utterly disruptive and inappropriate it is to have parents of one child in your child’s classroom every single day all day. I can’t even believe this is allowed.
100% this child needed to be out of the general classroom, and quickly.

It was 100% a deal of some kind because admin could have referred him for evaluation and changed his placement . Parents do not have to consent to that. But admin didn’t. They also didn’t heed multiple warnings THAT DAY from teachers and kids despite him being a known threat from past incidents. The fact parents were allowed to be the daily support person and attend with him alone is highly unusual and a huge red flag. For reasons that will only later come out, admin allowed him to remain in a Gen Ed class with parent attending (except when they didn’t) when he was a known physically violent student who also made consistent verbal threats to students. It’s a stunning display of absolute negligence but there is no way with the wording of their initial statement that the child has an actual IEP with an IDEA-categorized disability. Admin and parents were working together to keep him out of sped and in Gen Ed.