Anonymous wrote:Sometimes your/our kids are just not ready to be mainstreamed. That could be one reason why you are 'fighting' schools.
A good rule of thumb is that if you are asking for more than 10 hours a week of services it's pragmatic to put in self contained.

I don't understand the service hour breakdowns. Can someone shed light on this? My son has 17.5 hours in his IEP and he is in a mainstream class. He has ASD. At what point is the cut off for going in a more restrictive environment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My confession is that I rarely see inclusion work in practice. Many classroom teachers don't want us in there, the staffing for in classroom support is too low and the pace of the modern classroom makes it incredibly difficult.

I'm really curious about this, because our issue with the school has been different from most people's. We keep advocating for DS to be in LRE and the school's plan is always to put him in SC classrooms, arguing that he can't keep up otherwise. The kid has A's and B's and passed advanced the SOLs in his mainstream classes and had lower SOL scores (but still passing) in the SC classes. How is that "not keeping up?"

Obviously I don't know the particulars of your child, is behavior a factor in why they want him contained? That's the only reason I have seen academically proficient students put in self contained classrooms.

NP. Our school wanted to give us funding for SN school without going through Due Process bc of behavioral issues. DC is at least two grades above grade level across the board academically but was giving his teachers a really hard time. Once the behavior issues were gone, no more mention of SN placement.

I got the impression that it is probably easier to get funding for SN school due to behavioral issues than it is for academics.

Not true in our case. We desperately seek an ED label so our child can get support, and ultimately private placement, but DCPS claims that being on track academically means the child cannot qualify for an IEP.

Sometimes your/our kids are just not ready to be mainstreamed. That could be one reason why you are 'fighting' schools.
A good rule of thumb is that if you are asking for more than 10 hours a week of services it's pragmatic to put in self contained.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My confession is that I rarely see inclusion work in practice. Many classroom teachers don't want us in there, the staffing for in classroom support is too low and the pace of the modern classroom makes it incredibly difficult.

I'm really curious about this, because our issue with the school has been different from most people's. We keep advocating for DS to be in LRE and the school's plan is always to put him in SC classrooms, arguing that he can't keep up otherwise. The kid has A's and B's and passed advanced the SOLs in his mainstream classes and had lower SOL scores (but still passing) in the SC classes. How is that "not keeping up?"

Obviously I don't know the particulars of your child, is behavior a factor in why they want him contained? That's the only reason I have seen academically proficient students put in self contained classrooms.

NP. Our school wanted to give us funding for SN school without going through Due Process bc of behavioral issues. DC is at least two grades above grade level across the board academically but was giving his teachers a really hard time. Once the behavior issues were gone, no more mention of SN placement.

I got the impression that it is probably easier to get funding for SN school due to behavioral issues than it is for academics.

I'm really curious about this, because our issue with the school has been different from most people's. We keep advocating for DS to be in LRE and the school's plan is always to put him in SC classrooms, arguing that he can't keep up otherwise. The kid has A's and B's and passed advanced the SOLs in his mainstream classes and had lower SOL scores (but still passing) in the SC classes. How is that "not keeping up?"

You want your son to be taught the full grade level curriculum and in a general ed classroom, he will be taught the full grade level curriculum. No surprise he does better. This is the good thing about the SOLs for some, otherwise, lower performing students. Poster, keep insisting.

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm- cowards or a flawed system. I am a special education teacher and a SN mom. I don't think there is anything heroic about being unemployed. And as an advocate (paid) you can get your clients great results, right?

My secret would be that the best balance is struck in the place between passive/compliant and hostile. I see many parents come in and treat the teachers as enemies. I feel like they have been coached into doing so- and it's sad. Have a strong voice, for sure and question everything. I do! But stop the rage.

I've not found this middle ground. I've been in the trenches doing this for over a decade and anything other than absolute compliance with what little the school metes is met with hostility from school staff.

Anonymous wrote:I am an SLP and I honestly feel like I want to do my best with students and their families. Most families have the best intentions, but have other kids and a lot going on. I am empathetic towards parents. Sometimes I wish they would carry over the treatment at home, but I know what it's like to be a busy parent. The only parents who I gave ever had issued with are those that are demanding and ungrateful.

We constantly work with our child at home. Its easy to make comments when you are not dealing with all the other issues with speech delays. Its far more than being a busy parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My confession is that I rarely see inclusion work in practice. Many classroom teachers don't want us in there, the staffing for in classroom support is too low and the pace of the modern classroom makes it incredibly difficult.

I'm really curious about this, because our issue with the school has been different from most people's. We keep advocating for DS to be in LRE and the school's plan is always to put him in SC classrooms, arguing that he can't keep up otherwise. The kid has A's and B's and passed advanced the SOLs in his mainstream classes and had lower SOL scores (but still passing) in the SC classes. How is that "not keeping up?"

Obviously I don't know the particulars of your child, is behavior a factor in why they want him contained? That's the only reason I have seen academically proficient students put in self contained classrooms.

I am an SLP and I honestly feel like I want to do my best with students and their families. Most families have the best intentions, but have other kids and a lot going on. I am empathetic towards parents. Sometimes I wish they would carry over the treatment at home, but I know what it's like to be a busy parent. The only parents who I gave ever had issued with are those that are demanding and ungrateful.

...Would you really have us NEVER discuss students without parents present? That would make it very difficult to do our job. We send our draft goals home to the parents at least 3 days before an IEP meeting so they can review them beforehand, just as the psychologist meets separately with parents at least 3 days before an elig. meeting to discuss the test results. If we meet before the official meeting, we are not plotting or hoarding resources--we are sharing our assessment results, discussing similiarities or interesting findings, considering possible factors in student performance, etc. All of which is intended to improve the outcome for the students, AND make sure the meeting is run in a professional and informed manner...

I'm 13:53. I have absolutely no problem with your approach and, in fact, would expect this of teachers. But, I've had too many experiences where the school staff have had meetings to get on the same page and to pre-determine services/delivery options. I've been denied meaningful participation in the development of the IEP or not been provided sufficient information or time to make informed decisions. IME, you are in the minority and that's a realy shame.

Veteran sped teacher here. It is the job of all teachers to constantly review data and discuss student progress. That is how we plan instruction, determine who is meeting/exceeding expectations and who needs more intervention. We have weekly team meetings to discuss instruction and student progress. It is no different when we are assessing students for special education or developing IEPs--we may need to discuss a test result or brainstorm with a fellow IEP team member about a behavior plan--this is what we are supposed to be doing! I always discuss a draft IEP with the student's other service providers...as in, I think he needs goals in these areas, or can you do a pragmatics goal, etc. I also run them by the gen. ed. teacher before sharing them with the parent to make sure they are on target and consistent with what he/she sees in the classroom. The IEP is a draft until it is signed by the parent, and it is our job to make sure we are presenting the best draft to the parents. We are professionals working in a collaborative setting with administrators and general education staff. Would you really have us NEVER discuss students without parents present? That would make it very difficult to do our job. We send our draft goals home to the parents at least 3 days before an IEP meeting so they can review them beforehand, just as the psychologist meets separately with parents at least 3 days before an elig. meeting to discuss the test results. If we meet before the official meeting, we are not plotting or hoarding resources--we are sharing our assessment results, discussing similiarities or interesting findings, considering possible factors in student performance, etc. All of which is intended to improve the outcome for the students, AND make sure the meeting is run in a professional and informed manner.

I'm pretty sure attorneys and physicians discuss cases amongst themselves without clients and/or patients present...again, it is their job to have all the information they need before meeting with their clients and/or patients. Just as it it our job as educators to have all of our data ready. Parent input is a crucial part of the process, just as it is for medical histories, depositions, etc. But you are paying for the expertise of the professionals. We are charged with taking all of our data and developing interventions plans and IEP proposals. The school-based team members should never be officially predetermining a placement or level of service, but they should have a good idea of what they think will work best based on the data they have, and then present that proposal that to the parents. That is the expectation. Would you expect to be included in every consult or records review your doctors engage in about you? Would you be upset to learn that they had reviewed lab results and consulted with colleagues about possible diagnoses without you present?

Parent consent is required for many components of the eligibiity and IEP process, but parent consent is not required (or expected!) for day to day interactions between teachers, or for student specific discussions between the appropriate staff members--I would hope that this would be understood.

Anonymous wrote:My confession is that I rarely see inclusion work in practice. Many classroom teachers don't want us in there, the staffing for in classroom support is too low and the pace of the modern classroom makes it incredibly difficult.

I'm really curious about this, because our issue with the school has been different from most people's. We keep advocating for DS to be in LRE and the school's plan is always to put him in SC classrooms, arguing that he can't keep up otherwise. The kid has A's and B's and passed advanced the SOLs in his mainstream classes and had lower SOL scores (but still passing) in the SC classes. How is that "not keeping up?"

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the poster about resources. We are also spending a tremendous amount of money that insurance doesn't pick up for us. The schools think that just because we do these services, and that our child hasn't completely bombed out, that we shouldn't get these services from the school. But the money we are spending is a huge burden on us. I sometimes feel that the school administrators think it's easy for us to come up with this money. We are constantly on the edge financially bc of the expenses we have to deal with. If school would help more, maybe we wouldn't be almost drowning in debt!


I'm the PP you are referring to us. I remember at one meeting telling the principals that DD probably WOULD fail if we stopped all of the resources we provide (and then they'd have to provide an IEP), but I wasn't willing to put her through that. Basically, what we were providing was keeping her from needing an IEP. The principal had the nerve to say to me, "Isn't it nice that you can afford to do that for her?"

Different poster here - we have the same issue. I tell them 'I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't'. If I do it, DS makes progress and requires less intensive services thru the IEP. If I don't do it, he fails and by the time the IEP is amended his self-confidence and attitude take a severe hit. I'm not willing to let him fail (again) so I shell out. It sucks.

I'm the PP you quoted. Yep. I shell it out, too. I'd rather pay the money for tutoring/remediation now rather than therapy later. My DD really thought she was stupid. We've spent a year trying to get her to see that she's not (I'm still not sure she believes us). She knows what she should be able to do and it kills her that she can't. The wait and see approach was really damaging to her. I fear the new school year. She was such a different kid over the summer. It's so hard to watch her struggle and suffer.

Thank you for this. The point about comparing the child to others is a very good one.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a SN Parent/Sped teacher. I haven't weighed in on this particular topic, although I am the one having the conversation upthread about limited resources, and needing time to brainstorm.

I agree with you 100% that parents need a chance to understand the report, and digest that information, before they're asked to participate in a meeting where critical decisions, such as eligibility, are made based on the report. The best school psychologists I've worked with encourage parents to call them during the time between getting the report and the meeting, or even schedule 1:1 meetings to review reports before the eligibility meeting. I think this should be standard practice, partially because I think that parents need to be equal participants in meetings, but also because I think that parents deserve privacy when they are processing difficult news.

I also think that most people who are trying to interpret a report, do so in the context of what they already know. For gen ed teachers, it means that many of the questions we get when we first get a report are things like "Why do you see him as not qualifying for LD when he's in the same reading group as Johnny who has an IEP?" or "When you say working memory, do you mean like Leo?" For parents that might be the opportunity to ask questions that relate a child to a family member, such as "His uncle who has the same symptoms has X diagnosis, do you think he might have the same thing?" In both cases there are confidentiality concerns.

I agree with the poster about resources. We are also spending a tremendous amount of money that insurance doesn't pick up for us. The schools think that just because we do these services, and that our child hasn't completely bombed out, that we shouldn't get these services from the school. But the money we are spending is a huge burden on us. I sometimes feel that the school administrators think it's easy for us to come up with this money. We are constantly on the edge financially bc of the expenses we have to deal with. If school would help more, maybe we wouldn't be almost drowning in debt!


I'm the PP you are referring to us. I remember at one meeting telling the principals that DD probably WOULD fail if we stopped all of the resources we provide (and then they'd have to provide an IEP), but I wasn't willing to put her through that. Basically, what we were providing was keeping her from needing an IEP. The principal had the nerve to say to me, "Isn't it nice that you can afford to do that for her?"

Different poster here - we have the same issue. I tell them 'I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't'. If I do it, DS makes progress and requires less intensive services thru the IEP. If I don't do it, he fails and by the time the IEP is amended his self-confidence and attitude take a severe hit. I'm not willing to let him fail (again) so I shell out. It sucks.