Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

It’s federal law and not easy to overturn

Disagree. It is being legally interpreted a certain way the past decade or so. This law passed many decades ago. It was in place when most of us went to school yet the huge over inclusion was not a thing back then. It needs better case law to course correct the extreme spot it’s devolved to at this point.

You just said the magic word (in bold). Inclusion.

I am opposed to inclusion.

More people need to get comfortable with opposing inclusion, equity, and diversity. Until they do become more comfortable saying it out loud, nothing will change in our violent and dysfunctional schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those other places really do not exist anymore. Would you want to work in them? I'm a teacher and I have no issues with teachers getting paid much more to work there and I don't just mean a few thousand dollar bonuses either.

The few students who do end up getting a one on one aren't much better off because they continue in the same gen ed environment that is not the right place for them. I've seen a few former students end up in a life skills placement where they thrive. Fewer transitions, fewer demands placed on them, one on one attention, etc.

I've worked in a variety of special ed placements and the specific schools/programs for behavioral disorders are actually better IMO than working in inclusion or any setting where you are trying to manage 1-2 severe behavior cases while keeping everyone safe. It's quite remarkable how much more control some kids have when they know they'll get smacked back by another student or lose meaningful privileges. I have never seen a 1:1 be a meaningful intervention outside of physical disabilities, it's always a bandaid, usually because a parent won't consent to more restrictive placement.

My kid is at RICA. It’s considered the most restrictive placement. It is FABULOUS! It’s where my kid belongs. Classes are small. Teachers can teach. There are other staff members that deal with escalating behaviors. Paras in each class support the kids academically. My kid actually feels safe there even though kids sometimes attack each other or throw chairs. He feels safe because as soon as a behavior starts, support staff are called and show up to remove the child.

My kid is ready to leave RICA but there is no place for him to go so he’ll stay. It’s a shame because that means he’s not vacating the seat for a needier child.

The people who don’t want a more restrictive placement have no idea what they’re missing out on. My kids English class has 5 kids. He reads full books. His teacher has the ability to teach grammar, sentence structure, explain about complex sentences, and what makes a good essay. You can’t get that in a comprehensive school.

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes. Most of the kids at RICA have some form of anxiety that creates the behavior. Reduce the noise, reduce the chaos, let the teachers build the relationships. The kids need to feel safe and supported. And by small classes I mean 15-20. What we do for title 1 schools needs to be the norm across the county.

I'm so glad you were able to utilize that placement. I have more experience with students going to lifeskills/autism programs but parents often express regret that they didn't do it sooner when they see their child thriving.

I think a lot of parents are scared of more restrictive placements. They’ve “heard” things. Their kids behavior isn’t as bad as some of the kids that they’ve heard attend and they don’t want them to be influenced and learn more bad behaviors. They don’t want to be different. Saying your kid is in a therapeutic placement doesn’t have the same cache as saying your kid is at Sidwell. They’ve heard that once you start you can never go back to a less restrictive placement.

Most parents at RICA are thrilled that their kid is there. Of course there are issues; every school has them. But overall it’s a pretty well run place. A lot of people end up there because it’s the last stop; they’ve exhausted all other options—both the school district and the parents. Yet once a kid gets there, they are no longer the “only”. They’re not the weird kid with behaviors that no one wants to hang out with. They are finally amongst their peers and can just be themselves. They don’t have to hold it together until they no longer can and just explode. RICA and other NPP placements are the type of environment that every parent of a misbehaving 3yr old on the SN forum fears—what if my kid is like that? But by the time you’ve exhausted other options, you are so grateful it exists. When you see your kid thrive for the first time all the stigma stuff goes away. It’s just really hard to accept that that’s what your kid needs before you’re ready to.

I sure hope the bolded isn’t true. The irony and entitlement would make my blood boil.

Ha ha! Sadly it's very true. Lots of parents post on the Kids with SN forum about this. The kids in NPP are not walking around throwing tantrums all day. For the most part, they can handle the school day appropriately. But when they explode, it's huge. RICA takes some of the most mentally ill/challenged kids in the county. Yes, your kid will be exposed to things you don't like. But someone else's kid will be exposed to your kids behaviors.

It does crack me up when parents want the support from these schools but feel that their kid is too high functioning to be lumped in with other kids just like them. That's the part that parents have a hard time admitting--your kid is just like those other kids. Your kid is one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those other places really do not exist anymore. Would you want to work in them? I'm a teacher and I have no issues with teachers getting paid much more to work there and I don't just mean a few thousand dollar bonuses either.

The few students who do end up getting a one on one aren't much better off because they continue in the same gen ed environment that is not the right place for them. I've seen a few former students end up in a life skills placement where they thrive. Fewer transitions, fewer demands placed on them, one on one attention, etc.

I've worked in a variety of special ed placements and the specific schools/programs for behavioral disorders are actually better IMO than working in inclusion or any setting where you are trying to manage 1-2 severe behavior cases while keeping everyone safe. It's quite remarkable how much more control some kids have when they know they'll get smacked back by another student or lose meaningful privileges. I have never seen a 1:1 be a meaningful intervention outside of physical disabilities, it's always a bandaid, usually because a parent won't consent to more restrictive placement.

My kid is at RICA. It’s considered the most restrictive placement. It is FABULOUS! It’s where my kid belongs. Classes are small. Teachers can teach. There are other staff members that deal with escalating behaviors. Paras in each class support the kids academically. My kid actually feels safe there even though kids sometimes attack each other or throw chairs. He feels safe because as soon as a behavior starts, support staff are called and show up to remove the child.

My kid is ready to leave RICA but there is no place for him to go so he’ll stay. It’s a shame because that means he’s not vacating the seat for a needier child.

The people who don’t want a more restrictive placement have no idea what they’re missing out on. My kids English class has 5 kids. He reads full books. His teacher has the ability to teach grammar, sentence structure, explain about complex sentences, and what makes a good essay. You can’t get that in a comprehensive school.

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes. Most of the kids at RICA have some form of anxiety that creates the behavior. Reduce the noise, reduce the chaos, let the teachers build the relationships. The kids need to feel safe and supported. And by small classes I mean 15-20. What we do for title 1 schools needs to be the norm across the county.

I'm so glad you were able to utilize that placement. I have more experience with students going to lifeskills/autism programs but parents often express regret that they didn't do it sooner when they see their child thriving.

I think a lot of parents are scared of more restrictive placements. They’ve “heard” things. Their kids behavior isn’t as bad as some of the kids that they’ve heard attend and they don’t want them to be influenced and learn more bad behaviors. They don’t want to be different. Saying your kid is in a therapeutic placement doesn’t have the same cache as saying your kid is at Sidwell. They’ve heard that once you start you can never go back to a less restrictive placement.

Most parents at RICA are thrilled that their kid is there. Of course there are issues; every school has them. But overall it’s a pretty well run place. A lot of people end up there because it’s the last stop; they’ve exhausted all other options—both the school district and the parents. Yet once a kid gets there, they are no longer the “only”. They’re not the weird kid with behaviors that no one wants to hang out with. They are finally amongst their peers and can just be themselves. They don’t have to hold it together until they no longer can and just explode. RICA and other NPP placements are the type of environment that every parent of a misbehaving 3yr old on the SN forum fears—what if my kid is like that? But by the time you’ve exhausted other options, you are so grateful it exists. When you see your kid thrive for the first time all the stigma stuff goes away. It’s just really hard to accept that that’s what your kid needs before you’re ready to.

I sure hope the bolded isn’t true. The irony and entitlement would make my blood boil.

Anonymous wrote:Teachers don't want them either. We had a violent chair thrower in our class last year. Teachers can't physically restrain him so they had to evacuate 25 kids instead. We are not in a W district so no heavy weight lawyer parents who could really rally others and sue the district and school board. But thats what needs to be done in each case. My and 24 other kids education was compromised because this child was repeatedly allowed to come back to class after violent incidents. Principal and teachers are powerless in these cases. It sucks.

Anonymous wrote:Why the F are you blaming teachers!!!! Do you think we want a kid in our class to threaten to kill us? Or a kid who hits, bites, or spits on us? Do you think we want a kid who is destroying the classroom we use our own money to decorate. Do you really believe we want a kid who is making all the other kids in the class suffer? There is NOTHING we can do.

Blame administrators- principals, special Ed. Directors, and board members who no longer allow kids to be suspended or disciplined. Or block kids from going to special Ed placements. Teachers send kids to the office and they are sent right back to our class often with a treat. We are told to “build a relationship” with the kid who is threatening to kill us or cussing us out or attacking us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

It’s federal law and not easy to overturn

Disagree. It is being legally interpreted a certain way the past decade or so. This law passed many decades ago. It was in place when most of us went to school yet the huge over inclusion was not a thing back then. It needs better case law to course correct the extreme spot it’s devolved to at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those other places really do not exist anymore. Would you want to work in them? I'm a teacher and I have no issues with teachers getting paid much more to work there and I don't just mean a few thousand dollar bonuses either.

The few students who do end up getting a one on one aren't much better off because they continue in the same gen ed environment that is not the right place for them. I've seen a few former students end up in a life skills placement where they thrive. Fewer transitions, fewer demands placed on them, one on one attention, etc.

I've worked in a variety of special ed placements and the specific schools/programs for behavioral disorders are actually better IMO than working in inclusion or any setting where you are trying to manage 1-2 severe behavior cases while keeping everyone safe. It's quite remarkable how much more control some kids have when they know they'll get smacked back by another student or lose meaningful privileges. I have never seen a 1:1 be a meaningful intervention outside of physical disabilities, it's always a bandaid, usually because a parent won't consent to more restrictive placement.

My kid is at RICA. It’s considered the most restrictive placement. It is FABULOUS! It’s where my kid belongs. Classes are small. Teachers can teach. There are other staff members that deal with escalating behaviors. Paras in each class support the kids academically. My kid actually feels safe there even though kids sometimes attack each other or throw chairs. He feels safe because as soon as a behavior starts, support staff are called and show up to remove the child.

My kid is ready to leave RICA but there is no place for him to go so he’ll stay. It’s a shame because that means he’s not vacating the seat for a needier child.

The people who don’t want a more restrictive placement have no idea what they’re missing out on. My kids English class has 5 kids. He reads full books. His teacher has the ability to teach grammar, sentence structure, explain about complex sentences, and what makes a good essay. You can’t get that in a comprehensive school.

A poster above asked what we need—we need smaller class sizes. Most of the kids at RICA have some form of anxiety that creates the behavior. Reduce the noise, reduce the chaos, let the teachers build the relationships. The kids need to feel safe and supported. And by small classes I mean 15-20. What we do for title 1 schools needs to be the norm across the county.

I'm so glad you were able to utilize that placement. I have more experience with students going to lifeskills/autism programs but parents often express regret that they didn't do it sooner when they see their child thriving.

I think a lot of parents are scared of more restrictive placements. They’ve “heard” things. Their kids behavior isn’t as bad as some of the kids that they’ve heard attend and they don’t want them to be influenced and learn more bad behaviors. They don’t want to be different. Saying your kid is in a therapeutic placement doesn’t have the same cache as saying your kid is at Sidwell. They’ve heard that once you start you can never go back to a less restrictive placement.

Most parents at RICA are thrilled that their kid is there. Of course there are issues; every school has them. But overall it’s a pretty well run place. A lot of people end up there because it’s the last stop; they’ve exhausted all other options—both the school district and the parents. Yet once a kid gets there, they are no longer the “only”. They’re not the weird kid with behaviors that no one wants to hang out with. They are finally amongst their peers and can just be themselves. They don’t have to hold it together until they no longer can and just explode. RICA and other NPP placements are the type of environment that every parent of a misbehaving 3yr old on the SN forum fears—what if my kid is like that? But by the time you’ve exhausted other options, you are so grateful it exists. When you see your kid thrive for the first time all the stigma stuff goes away. It’s just really hard to accept that that’s what your kid needs before you’re ready to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

It’s federal law and not easy to overturn

Disagree. It is being legally interpreted a certain way the past decade or so. This law passed many decades ago. It was in place when most of us went to school yet the huge over inclusion was not a thing back then. It needs better case law to course correct the extreme spot it’s devolved to at this point.

Isn't this now precedent though, meaning it will take another suit from the other side to change the interpretation?

Yes agree. We need families impacted by that chair throwers to start suing to create opportunities for thr case law corrections that are so urgently needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

It’s federal law and not easy to overturn

Disagree. It is being legally interpreted a certain way the past decade or so. This law passed many decades ago. It was in place when most of us went to school yet the huge over inclusion was not a thing back then. It needs better case law to course correct the extreme spot it’s devolved to at this point.

Isn't this now precedent though, meaning it will take another suit from the other side to change the interpretation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

DP. How do you propose to end inclusion? No politician will touch the issue especially when children are involved. Serious question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think it’s the teachers’ decision to keep these kids in their rooms? I had a student in my classroom who destroyed it. I’d say at least a few hundreds of dollars worth of my belongings were destroyed including nearly half of my classroom library, bulletin boards, art supplies, etc. It took months of documentation and a very on board admin to get this student a one on one aid (didn’t help much). The kid ended up in a different program this year.

I had no idea. I’m not a teacher so how am I suppose to know. Whatever the problem is, it has to stop.

We are letting the majority of the class suffer because of one or two struggling students.

You did not know this is the result of the “I” for Inclusion, in DEI ?

The sooner we end DEI entirely, the better.

It’s federal law and not easy to overturn

Disagree. It is being legally interpreted a certain way the past decade or so. This law passed many decades ago. It was in place when most of us went to school yet the huge over inclusion was not a thing back then. It needs better case law to course correct the extreme spot it’s devolved to at this point.