Re: How would you argue against this placement decision.....

[Guest guest]

IDEA further provides that States must have in place procedures assuring

that, " to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,

including children in public or private institutions or other care

facilities, are educated with children who are *not disabled*, and that

special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with

disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs *only* when the

nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular

classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved

satisfactorily. "

Why couldn't your son at the very least be placed in a classroom with the

higher-functioning children and then have some inclusion in addition to this

placement? I think you could make many, many arguments based on IDEA and

LRE to have him in a different classroom. Could IEP goals be specifically

written to include opportunities for social interactions with non-disabled

peers? Your son should not be in a setting with just two students - both at

the same functioing level. There will be better responses that are posted

with exact law - I just know for a fact that this is unacceptable...

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and when

> they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they placed the

> students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning students in one

> class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about people first at this

> point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no chance of

> appropriate interaction and modeling and even language. The 2 in that room

> are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept through

> that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my thoughts - which - I

> would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your God is!

> Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to

> compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should

> live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education.

> Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right

> to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must. "

>

>

[Guest guest]

http://wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm

>

> IDEA further provides that States must have in place procedures assuring

> that, " to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,

> including children in public or private institutions or other care

> facilities, are educated with children who are *not disabled*, and that

> special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with

> disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs *only* when

> the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular

> classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved

> satisfactorily. "

> Why couldn't your son at the very least be placed in a classroom with the

> higher-functioning children and then have some inclusion in addition to this

> placement? I think you could make many, many arguments based on IDEA and

> LRE to have him in a different classroom. Could IEP goals be specifically

> written to include opportunities for social interactions with non-disabled

> peers? Your son should not be in a setting with just two students - both at

> the same functioing level. There will be better responses that are posted

> with exact law - I just know for a fact that this is unacceptable...

>

>

> >

> > There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and when

> > they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they placed the

> > students as follows:

> >

> > The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning students in

> > one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about people first at

> > this point!) in another class.

> >

> > Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no chance of

> > appropriate interaction and modeling and even language. The 2 in that room

> > are non-verbal.

> >

> >

> > They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept through

> > that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my thoughts - which - I

> > would have disagreed with.

> >

> > What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

> >

> >

> > Help!

> >

> > M. Guppy

> > Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your God

> > is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvo cacy.org

> >

> > " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to

> > compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should

> > live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education.

> > Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right

> > to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must. "

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

http://wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm

>

> IDEA further provides that States must have in place procedures assuring

> that, " to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,

> including children in public or private institutions or other care

> facilities, are educated with children who are *not disabled*, and that

> special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with

> disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs *only* when

> the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular

> classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved

> satisfactorily. "

> Why couldn't your son at the very least be placed in a classroom with the

> higher-functioning children and then have some inclusion in addition to this

> placement? I think you could make many, many arguments based on IDEA and

> LRE to have him in a different classroom. Could IEP goals be specifically

> written to include opportunities for social interactions with non-disabled

> peers? Your son should not be in a setting with just two students - both at

> the same functioing level. There will be better responses that are posted

> with exact law - I just know for a fact that this is unacceptable...

>

>

> >

> > There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and when

> > they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they placed the

> > students as follows:

> >

> > The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning students in

> > one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about people first at

> > this point!) in another class.

> >

> > Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no chance of

> > appropriate interaction and modeling and even language. The 2 in that room

> > are non-verbal.

> >

> >

> > They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept through

> > that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my thoughts - which - I

> > would have disagreed with.

> >

> > What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

> >

> >

> > Help!

> >

> > M. Guppy

> > Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your God

> > is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvo cacy.org

> >

> > " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to

> > compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should

> > live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education.

> > Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right

> > to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must. "

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

Placement, without a doubt, is an ARD decision and Nagla is correct, you

should call an ARD immediately. My school district does not have an inclusive

setting for preschoolers and I was able to get them to do a " reverse " inclusion

situation for my son. Prior to this, their idea of an inclusive setting was

having them eat at separate tables in the cafeteria at lunch time. Not

meaningful at all! I know your son is older but the arguments are the same - if

you want to contact me to discuss this...feel free to do so...There is new

language in IDEA 2004 that can be quite helpful - including, and in addition to

what Staci quoted below..

I am sorry ...does anyone else have a problem with this " life skills " class

garbage in elementary school - maybe it is my pet peeve - but I think it

illustrates how they are writing these children off way way too early...

asccnagla wrote:

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

Placement, without a doubt, is an ARD decision and Nagla is correct, you

should call an ARD immediately. My school district does not have an inclusive

setting for preschoolers and I was able to get them to do a " reverse " inclusion

situation for my son. Prior to this, their idea of an inclusive setting was

having them eat at separate tables in the cafeteria at lunch time. Not

meaningful at all! I know your son is older but the arguments are the same - if

you want to contact me to discuss this...feel free to do so...There is new

language in IDEA 2004 that can be quite helpful - including, and in addition to

what Staci quoted below..

I am sorry ...does anyone else have a problem with this " life skills " class

garbage in elementary school - maybe it is my pet peeve - but I think it

illustrates how they are writing these children off way way too early...

asccnagla wrote:

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well - they are coming back with " The initial placement of " Life Skills " was

determined at ARD.... " my argument is that WITHIN life skills - there is an

opportunity for more appropriate peer interaction - and they have instead placed

him in the most restrictive classroom. They said they didn't need an ARD or my

consent for that " placement " issue.

Mara LaViola wrote:

-

Placement, without a doubt, is an ARD decision and Nagla is correct, you should

call an ARD immediately. My school district does not have an inclusive setting

for preschoolers and I was able to get them to do a " reverse " inclusion

situation for my son. Prior to this, their idea of an inclusive setting was

having them eat at separate tables in the cafeteria at lunch time. Not

meaningful at all! I know your son is older but the arguments are the same - if

you want to contact me to discuss this...feel free to do so...There is new

language in IDEA 2004 that can be quite helpful - including, and in addition to

what Staci quoted below..

I am sorry ...does anyone else have a problem with this " life skills " class

garbage in elementary school - maybe it is my pet peeve - but I think it

illustrates how they are writing these children off way way too early...

asccnagla wrote:

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Legally you would be entitled to the least restrictive environment and they

are not providing that.

Of course we have been to due process over that one and it all boils down to

a matter of opinion on what LRE is and they can always find someone to agree

with them and even if you don't agree they can go forward with it unless you

file for due process

Good Luck THis is what led us to homeschooling

in Austin

Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You can call an ARD whenever you like, I know you know that...but I would

recommend jumping on this, whether you are contesting the actual placement in

life skills or whether you want to create opportunities for appropriate

interaction within the context of that classroom. I do think that they need

your consent for a " placement " issue and I agree with you that there should and

can be opportunities built into the context of the life skills class for your

son...It is similar to mine, only children with IEP's are in his class - he is

pulled out of the class and placed with two typical peers for a facilitated,

integrated playgroup - but I had to request this, develop the idea and push for

it....you can ask for reasonable, creative options as well - it is not easy but

I would push them. Also, draft IEP goals that require typical peer interaction

to be worked on and mastered - then use these, along with the IDEA, statute to

try and get them to be creative and reasonable in

developing some meaningful inclusive opportunities.

" M. Guppy " wrote:

Well - they are coming back with " The initial placement of " Life

Skills " was determined at ARD.... " my argument is that WITHIN life skills -

there is an opportunity for more appropriate peer interaction - and they have

instead placed him in the most restrictive classroom. They said they didn't need

an ARD or my consent for that " placement " issue.

Mara LaViola wrote:

-

Placement, without a doubt, is an ARD decision and Nagla is correct, you should

call an ARD immediately. My school district does not have an inclusive setting

for preschoolers and I was able to get them to do a " reverse " inclusion

situation for my son. Prior to this, their idea of an inclusive setting was

having them eat at separate tables in the cafeteria at lunch time. Not

meaningful at all! I know your son is older but the arguments are the same - if

you want to contact me to discuss this...feel free to do so...There is new

language in IDEA 2004 that can be quite helpful - including, and in addition to

what Staci quoted below..

I am sorry ...does anyone else have a problem with this " life skills " class

garbage in elementary school - maybe it is my pet peeve - but I think it

illustrates how they are writing these children off way way too early...

asccnagla wrote:

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

....and DO NOT go alone!! I always feel bamboozled at ARDs. I don't think

you'll get what you want without a fight so bring an advocate. I find things

get down to business much faster with the right people on your team.

Woods with FOCUS has helped parents in our area alot. good luck, lisa

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

You can call an ARD whenever you like, I know you know that...but I would

recommend jumping on this, whether you are contesting the actual placement in

life skills or whether you want to create opportunities for appropriate

interaction within the context of that classroom. I do think that they need your

consent for a " placement " issue and I agree with you that there should and can

be opportunities built into the context of the life skills class for your

son...It is similar to mine, only children with IEP's are in his class - he is

pulled out of the class and placed with two typical peers for a facilitated,

integrated playgroup - but I had to request this, develop the idea and push for

it....you can ask for reasonable, creative options as well - it is not easy but

I would push them. Also, draft IEP goals that require typical peer interaction

to be worked on and mastered - then use these, along with the IDEA, statute to

try and get them to be creative and rea developing some meaningful inclusive

opportunities.

" M. Guppy " wrote:

Well - they are coming back with " The initial placement of " Life Skills " was

determined at ARD.... " my argument is that WITHIN life skills - there is an

opportunity for more appropriate peer interaction - and they have instead placed

him in the most restrictive classroom. They said they didn't need an ARD or my

consent for that " placement " issue.

Mara LaViola wrote:

-

Placement, without a doubt, is an ARD decision and Nagla is correct, you

should call an ARD immediately. My school district does not have an inclusive

setting for preschoolers and I was able to get them to do a " reverse " inclusion

situation for my son. Prior to this, their idea of an inclusive setting was

having them eat at separate tables in the cafeteria at lunch time. Not

meaningful at all! I know your son is older but the arguments are the same - if

you want to contact me to discuss this...feel free to do so...There is new

language in IDEA 2004 that can be quite helpful - including, and in addition to

what Staci quoted below..

I am sorry ...does anyone else have a problem with this " life skills " class

garbage in elementary school - maybe it is my pet peeve - but I think it

illustrates how they are writing these children off way way too early...

asccnagla wrote:

,

I would request another ARD in writing to discuss the new placement,

your very valid concerns.

My arguments would be the lack of appropriate peer role models in the

class room, that would constitute a violation of LRE since it is self

contained with no chance of inclusion with appropriate peer models.

In view of the child's progress history, his language and

communication needs, positive peer role modeling is essential for any

fair and appropriate placement. To be placed in this situation with

another non-verbal child with worse behaviors would definitely

constitute lack of LRE for him.

Another solution that might (big might there!) help would be

rquesting reverse inclusion.

Selecting several peers to come in and do activities with your son on

a daily basis inside his classroom. Still, even with this, the

majority of time would be spent in a poor modeling situation.

Nagla

>

> There are now 3 Life Skills Classrooms at my son's school - and

when they opened that third one - and from what I can tell, they

placed the students as follows:

>

> The medically fragile in one class, the higher-functioning

students in one class, and the 2 severely autistic (don't care about

people first at this point!) in another class.

>

> Now - my son being one of the severely autistic - he has no

chance of appropriate interaction and modeling and even language.

The 2 in that room are non-verbal.

>

>

> They said placement is an ARD decision - but apparantely I slept

through that ARD because I don't ever remember being asked my

thoughts - which - I would have disagreed with.

>

> What, based on IDEA, would my arguments be?

>

>

> Help!

>

>

> M. Guppy

> Don't tell God how big your storm is - tell the storm how big your

God is! Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right

to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No

one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures. All must. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the assumption

that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher functioning "

do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of perhaps non-verbal

kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance than the others and are

farther behind socially than the " higher functioning " . If so, that is a pretty

fair description of my son, Ben, who shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is

verbal and functioning higher socially). However, even though Joe appears to be

functioning at a higher level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben

is exposed to all of the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only

difference is that he participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing

to give information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want to

segregate your child(in an already segregated environment!) Ben generally has

the same homework as Joe, but again, is required to type and/or point to answer

questions. At a recent ARD, Ben's teacher said that when she is reading a story

to the class, sometimes Ben will roam around the room--and she'll allow

it--because she knows he is still listening and involved in what they're doing,

although he doesn't appear to be. She knows that because he is usually accurate

in answering any questions regarding the material they cover. Our schools need

to understand that appearances are sometimes deceiving and that these " severely

autistic " kiddos may have abilities that are not being recognized. Sometimes,

it simply takes a creative teacher to tap into it by finding ways to bring it

out!

As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very specific

goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical peers under

teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the kids from the

regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week and play board

games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least it's something,

especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical kids throughout his

day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to and from the buses and

the cafeteria for lunch!

I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I hope it

does...

Good Luck!!

a

uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the assumption

that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher functioning "

do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of perhaps non-verbal

kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance than the others and are

farther behind socially than the " higher functioning " . If so, that is a pretty

fair description of my son, Ben, who shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is

verbal and functioning higher socially). However, even though Joe appears to be

functioning at a higher level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben

is exposed to all of the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only

difference is that he participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing

to give information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want to

segregate your child(in an already segregated environment!) Ben generally has

the same homework as Joe, but again, is required to type and/or point to answer

questions. At a recent ARD, Ben's teacher said that when she is reading a story

to the class, sometimes Ben will roam around the room--and she'll allow

it--because she knows he is still listening and involved in what they're doing,

although he doesn't appear to be. She knows that because he is usually accurate

in answering any questions regarding the material they cover. Our schools need

to understand that appearances are sometimes deceiving and that these " severely

autistic " kiddos may have abilities that are not being recognized. Sometimes,

it simply takes a creative teacher to tap into it by finding ways to bring it

out!

As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very specific

goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical peers under

teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the kids from the

regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week and play board

games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least it's something,

especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical kids throughout his

day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to and from the buses and

the cafeteria for lunch!

I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I hope it

does...

Good Luck!!

a

uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

[Guest guest]

Even though your son's initial placement was life skills, the district has

" effectively " changed his placement to a more restrictive one by creating

differentiated life skills classes. I think you could argue that the three

classrooms are substantially different types of programs. Why else would

the district have grouped the students according to the nature of their

disabilities?

You consented to his placement in a life skills class because his objectives

could be met in that setting. That might not be true, now, because of the

new, effectively more restrictive placement and lack of access to peers. I

definitely think you could argue that the district has unfairly and

unilaterally changed his placement to a more restrictive one.

If that approach fails, perhaps you can work this to your advantage by

asking the district to commit to developing a real autism program (as I

recall, your district doesn't have specialized autism programs). If the

district is going to group students together by disability, shouldn't it at

least offer programming which is designed to confer educational benefit to

targeted populations???

Geraldine

_____

From: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

[mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy ] On Behalf Of

Singleton

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:26 PM

To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

Subject: RE: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Yeah, that was going to be what I predicted. If he's in Life Skills, then

he's not really changing his placement, and they don't need that.

The only way to fix that is going to be having social skills goals that

included structured play interaction with typical or peers who have fluent

language for 10 min at a time throughout the day. I would push for that in

a variety of academic settings.

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Well - they are coming back with " The initial placement of " Life Skills "

was determined at ARD.... " my argument is that WITHIN life skills - there is

an opportunity for more appropriate peer interaction - and they have instead

placed him in the most restrictive classroom. They said they didn't need an

ARD or my consent for that " placement " issue.

Recent Activity

a.. 15New Members

b.. 2New Files

Visit Your Group

[Guest guest]

Are all the autistic children in your district on the same campus?

Actually I like the idea of separate classes for a couple of reasons. If

your son starts out in the severely autistic classroom and gets the one

on one supports he needs to be able to learn to point or type on a

letter board to express himself then perhaps he could " move up " to a

higher functioning class. I think in the more severe class the time

spent one on one should be greater and there could be benefits to having

children who learn and respond in the same way. I have seen non verbal

children type conversations in a group setting at HALO. They were much

more poetic and thoughtful about their comments than my comedian who is

just learning this approach. Every child is entitled to inclusion with

typical peers, we have done both reverse inclusion and inclusion and as

my son learns how to interact and to type his inclusion opportunities

are greater and more beneficial. Also I think behaviors should be a huge

focus. Instead of " severely autistic " the class could look something

like " communication and behavior modification class " . We have been in a

class with a older child who knocked over bookshelves and screamed non

stop all day. Although we had 45 minutes of one on one very little time

was spent with my child because this other child needed 3 adults to make

sure he didn't hurt someone most days. Even then my son was bitten

several times and had his hair pulled out because the teachers were not

fast enough to prevent it. Just placing all the kids in the same room

rarely helps anyone. There should be specific objectives and a plan for

advancement with the end goal being full inclusion. For everyone. Trina

>

> Even though your son's initial placement was life skills, the district has

> " effectively " changed his placement to a more restrictive one by creating

> differentiated life skills classes. I think you could argue that the three

> classrooms are substantially different types of programs. Why else would

> the district have grouped the students according to the nature of their

> disabilities?

>

> You consented to his placement in a life skills class because his

> objectives

> could be met in that setting. That might not be true, now, because of the

> new, effectively more restrictive placement and lack of access to peers. I

> definitely think you could argue that the district has unfairly and

> unilaterally changed his placement to a more restrictive one.

>

> If that approach fails, perhaps you can work this to your advantage by

> asking the district to commit to developing a real autism program (as I

> recall, your district doesn't have specialized autism programs). If the

> district is going to group students together by disability, shouldn't

> it at

> least offer programming which is designed to confer educational benefit to

> targeted populations???

>

> Geraldine

>

> _____

>

> From: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

> <mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy%40yahoogroups.com>

> [mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy

> <mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of

> Singleton

> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:26 PM

> To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

> <mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy%40yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: RE: Re: How would you argue against this

> placement decision.....

>

> Yeah, that was going to be what I predicted. If he's in Life Skills, then

> he's not really changing his placement, and they don't need that.

>

> The only way to fix that is going to be having social skills goals that

> included structured play interaction with typical or peers who have fluent

> language for 10 min at a time throughout the day. I would push for that in

> a variety of academic settings.

>

> Re: Re: How would you argue against this

> placement decision.....

>

> Well - they are coming back with " The initial placement of " Life Skills "

> was determined at ARD.... " my argument is that WITHIN life skills -

> there is

> an opportunity for more appropriate peer interaction - and they have

> instead

> placed him in the most restrictive classroom. They said they didn't

> need an

> ARD or my consent for that " placement " issue.

>

>

>

> Recent Activity

> a.. 15New Members

> b.. 2New Files

> Visit Your Group

>

[Guest guest]

I think Geraldine's argument is valid - if they have changed the composition of

the classroom to such an extent that there are no longer language models or

social models and the modalities for teaching are going to be different...I

would argue that they definitely have effectively changed the placement

irregardless of the label...

Geraldine Bliss wrote: Even though your son's

initial placement was life skills, the district has

" effectively " changed his placement to a more restrictive one by creating

differentiated life skills classes. I think you could argue that the three

classrooms are substantially different types of programs. Why else would

the district have grouped the students according to the nature of their

disabilities?

You consented to his placement in a life skills class because his objectives

could be met in that setting. That might not be true, now, because of the

new, effectively more restrictive placement and lack of access to peers. I

definitely think you could argue that the district has unfairly and

unilaterally changed his placement to a more restrictive one.

If that approach fails, perhaps you can work this to your advantage by

asking the district to commit to developing a real autism program (as I

recall, your district doesn't have specialized autism programs). If the

district is going to group students together by disability, shouldn't it at

least offer programming which is designed to confer educational benefit to

targeted populations???

Geraldine

_____

From: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

[mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy ] On Behalf Of

Singleton

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:26 PM

To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

Subject: RE: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Yeah, that was going to be what I predicted. If he's in Life Skills, then

he's not really changing his placement, and they don't need that.

The only way to fix that is going to be having social skills goals that

included structured play interaction with typical or peers who have fluent

language for 10 min at a time throughout the day. I would push for that in

a variety of academic settings.

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Well - they are coming back with " The initial placement of " Life Skills "

was determined at ARD.... " my argument is that WITHIN life skills - there is

an opportunity for more appropriate peer interaction - and they have instead

placed him in the most restrictive classroom. They said they didn't need an

ARD or my consent for that " placement " issue.

Recent Activity

a.. 15New Members

b.. 2New Files

Visit Your Group

[Guest guest]

I think Geraldine's argument is valid - if they have changed the composition of

the classroom to such an extent that there are no longer language models or

social models and the modalities for teaching are going to be different...I

would argue that they definitely have effectively changed the placement

irregardless of the label...

Geraldine Bliss wrote: Even though your son's

initial placement was life skills, the district has

" effectively " changed his placement to a more restrictive one by creating

differentiated life skills classes. I think you could argue that the three

classrooms are substantially different types of programs. Why else would

the district have grouped the students according to the nature of their

disabilities?

You consented to his placement in a life skills class because his objectives

could be met in that setting. That might not be true, now, because of the

new, effectively more restrictive placement and lack of access to peers. I

definitely think you could argue that the district has unfairly and

unilaterally changed his placement to a more restrictive one.

If that approach fails, perhaps you can work this to your advantage by

asking the district to commit to developing a real autism program (as I

recall, your district doesn't have specialized autism programs). If the

district is going to group students together by disability, shouldn't it at

least offer programming which is designed to confer educational benefit to

targeted populations???

Geraldine

_____

From: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

[mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy ] On Behalf Of

Singleton

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:26 PM

To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

Subject: RE: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Yeah, that was going to be what I predicted. If he's in Life Skills, then

he's not really changing his placement, and they don't need that.

The only way to fix that is going to be having social skills goals that

included structured play interaction with typical or peers who have fluent

language for 10 min at a time throughout the day. I would push for that in

a variety of academic settings.

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Well - they are coming back with " The initial placement of " Life Skills "

was determined at ARD.... " my argument is that WITHIN life skills - there is

an opportunity for more appropriate peer interaction - and they have instead

placed him in the most restrictive classroom. They said they didn't need an

ARD or my consent for that " placement " issue.

Recent Activity

a.. 15New Members

b.. 2New Files

Visit Your Group

[Guest guest]

Yes it helps a - thank you and all of you listmates who have replied!!!!

But ..... how do you redirect when they say, " We can't guarantee typical peer

interaction because other students have their daily schedules and blah blah. "

On what basis that would hold up in mediation or due process do I argue that

point? (besides common sense and decency....)

That's my issue. I say - and then they say - but who has the final say - and

on what legal authority is that based?

Ho hum...

Jeff & a Sell wrote:

Just for the record...I have no clue what

" uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl " (under my name below) is supposed to mean OR how it got

there!

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Hi ,

My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the assumption

that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher functioning "

do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of perhaps non-verbal

kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance than the others and are

farther behind socially than the " higher functioning " . If so, that is a pretty

fair description of my son, Ben, who shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is

verbal and functioning higher socially). However, even though Joe appears to be

functioning at a higher level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is

exposed to all of the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only

difference is that he participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing

to give information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very specific

goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical peers under

teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the kids from the

regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week and play board

games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least it's something,

especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical kids throughout his

day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to and from the buses and

the cafeteria for lunch!

I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I hope it

does...

Good Luck!!

a

uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

[Guest guest]

Yes it helps a - thank you and all of you listmates who have replied!!!!

But ..... how do you redirect when they say, " We can't guarantee typical peer

interaction because other students have their daily schedules and blah blah. "

On what basis that would hold up in mediation or due process do I argue that

point? (besides common sense and decency....)

That's my issue. I say - and then they say - but who has the final say - and

on what legal authority is that based?

Ho hum...

Jeff & a Sell wrote:

Just for the record...I have no clue what

" uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl " (under my name below) is supposed to mean OR how it got

there!

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Hi ,

My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the assumption

that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher functioning "

do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of perhaps non-verbal

kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance than the others and are

farther behind socially than the " higher functioning " . If so, that is a pretty

fair description of my son, Ben, who shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is

verbal and functioning higher socially). However, even though Joe appears to be

functioning at a higher level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is

exposed to all of the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only

difference is that he participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing

to give information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very specific

goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical peers under

teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the kids from the

regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week and play board

games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least it's something,

especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical kids throughout his

day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to and from the buses and

the cafeteria for lunch!

I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I hope it

does...

Good Luck!!

a

uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

[Guest guest]

You CAN compel typical peer interaction through certain types of objectives.

For example " take part in an activity with at least 2 new peers by (a)

relinquishing item on request and (b)requesting item from peer " or " answer

'hi' or 'hello' in response to being greeted by a peer. " If your child has

objectives of this nature, and the district cannot guarantee some

interaction with typical peers, they will be unable to provide your child

with FAPE.

Have you talked to anyone at Family to Family? I've gotten some great

advice from F2F about writing objectives to compel inclusion.

Here's what 20 U.S.C. Section 1412(5)( says about inlusion: " To the

maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children

in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated

with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling,

or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational

environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a

child is such that education in regular classes with the use of

supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. "

Geraldine

_____

From: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

[mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy ] On Behalf Of M.

Guppy

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:41 AM

To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

Subject: Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Yes it helps a - thank you and all of you listmates who have replied!!!!

But ..... how do you redirect when they say, " We can't guarantee typical

peer interaction because other students have their daily schedules and blah

blah. "

On what basis that would hold up in mediation or due process do I argue that

point? (besides common sense and decency....)

That's my issue. I say - and then they say - but who has the final say - and

on what legal authority is that based?

Ho hum...

Jeff & a Sell <jzsellhouston (DOT) <mailto:jzsell%40houston.rr.com> rr.com>

wrote:

Just for the record...I have no clue what " uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl " (under my

name below) is supposed to mean OR how it got there!

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Hi ,

My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the

assumption that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher

functioning " do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of

perhaps non-verbal kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance

than the others and are farther behind socially than the " higher

functioning " . If so, that is a pretty fair description of my son, Ben, who

shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is verbal and functioning higher

socially). However, even though Joe appears to be functioning at a higher

level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is exposed to all of

the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only difference is that he

participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing to give

information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very specific

goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical peers

under teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the kids

from the regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week and

play board games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least it's

something, especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical kids

throughout his day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to and

from the buses and the cafeteria for lunch!

I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I hope

it does...

Good Luck!!

a

uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

[Guest guest]

You know that's a good question...this goal has been included in the boys' IEPs

for a number of years. I was lucky that they had cooperative regular ed

teachers in Elem. school who helped make this happen--however, there was a year

when it wasn't working out because of scheduling. At that time, I talked to the

school diagnostician, who is someone I trust completely, and asked her how it is

that an IEP can be ignored? She was well aware of the situation which indicated

to me that they were truly making an effort, but hadn't yet figured out how to

make it work. As it turned out, shortly after that--the situation was remedied

but the point is--I don't think I really had a leg to stand on if they truly

could not make it work out with scheduling--even though it was an agreed upon

goal. She basically told me that even though it is an agreed upon goal, if they

simply don't have the means to address that goal--there's not anything that can

be done about that. I guess you just have to hope(and pray) that the people you

are dealing with want it to work as much as you and we have been truly fortunate

to have staff like that in our Elementary school and also in the Intermediate

school they attend now.

a

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....

Hi ,

My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the assumption

that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher functioning "

do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of perhaps non-verbal

kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance than the others and are

farther behind socially than the " higher functioning " . If so, that is a pretty

fair description of my son, Ben, who shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is

verbal and functioning higher socially). However, even though Joe appears to be

functioning at a higher level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is

exposed to all of the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only

difference is that he participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing

to give information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very specific

goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical peers under

teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the kids from the

regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week and play board

games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least it's something,

especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical kids throughout his

day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to and from the buses and

the cafeteria for lunch!

I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I hope it

does...

Good Luck!!

a

uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

[Guest guest]

I am confused what that means that they can't guarantee peer interaction

because of scheduling?

>

> You know that's a good question...this goal has been included in the

> boys' IEPs for a number of years. I was lucky that they had cooperative

> regular ed teachers in Elem. school who helped make this happen--however,

> there was a year when it wasn't working out because of scheduling. At that

> time, I talked to the school diagnostician, who is someone I trust

> completely, and asked her how it is that an IEP can be ignored? She was well

> aware of the situation which indicated to me that they were truly making an

> effort, but hadn't yet figured out how to make it work. As it turned out,

> shortly after that--the situation was remedied but the point is--I don't

> think I really had a leg to stand on if they truly could not make it work

> out with scheduling--even though it was an agreed upon goal. She basically

> told me that even though it is an agreed upon goal, if they simply don't

> have the means to address that goal--there's not anything that can be done

> about that. I guess you just have to hope(and pray) that the people you are

> dealing with want it to work as much as you and we have been truly fortunate

> to have staff like that in our Elementary school and also in the

> Intermediate school they attend now.

>

> a

> Re: Re: How would you argue against this

> placement decision.....

>

> Hi ,

>

> My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the

> assumption that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher

> functioning " do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of

> perhaps non-verbal kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance

> than the others and are farther behind socially than the " higher

> functioning " . If so, that is a pretty fair description of my son, Ben, who

> shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is verbal and functioning higher

> socially). However, even though Joe appears to be functioning at a higher

> level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is exposed to all of

> the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only difference is that he

> participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing to give

> information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

> Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

> As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very

> specific goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical

> peers under teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the

> kids from the regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week

> and play board games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least

> it's something, especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical

> kids throughout his day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to

> and from the buses and the cafeteria for lunch!

>

> I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I

> hope it does...

>

> Good Luck!!

>

> a

> uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am confused what that means that they can't guarantee peer interaction

because of scheduling?

>

> You know that's a good question...this goal has been included in the

> boys' IEPs for a number of years. I was lucky that they had cooperative

> regular ed teachers in Elem. school who helped make this happen--however,

> there was a year when it wasn't working out because of scheduling. At that

> time, I talked to the school diagnostician, who is someone I trust

> completely, and asked her how it is that an IEP can be ignored? She was well

> aware of the situation which indicated to me that they were truly making an

> effort, but hadn't yet figured out how to make it work. As it turned out,

> shortly after that--the situation was remedied but the point is--I don't

> think I really had a leg to stand on if they truly could not make it work

> out with scheduling--even though it was an agreed upon goal. She basically

> told me that even though it is an agreed upon goal, if they simply don't

> have the means to address that goal--there's not anything that can be done

> about that. I guess you just have to hope(and pray) that the people you are

> dealing with want it to work as much as you and we have been truly fortunate

> to have staff like that in our Elementary school and also in the

> Intermediate school they attend now.

>

> a

> Re: Re: How would you argue against this

> placement decision.....

>

> Hi ,

>

> My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the

> assumption that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher

> functioning " do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of

> perhaps non-verbal kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance

> than the others and are farther behind socially than the " higher

> functioning " . If so, that is a pretty fair description of my son, Ben, who

> shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is verbal and functioning higher

> socially). However, even though Joe appears to be functioning at a higher

> level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is exposed to all of

> the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only difference is that he

> participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing to give

> information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

> Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

> As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very

> specific goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical

> peers under teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the

> kids from the regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week

> and play board games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least

> it's something, especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical

> kids throughout his day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to

> and from the buses and the cafeteria for lunch!

>

> I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I

> hope it does...

>

> Good Luck!!

>

> a

> uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

>

>

[Guest guest]

In that situation, there were kids from a designated class of 4th graders that

would come into my boys' special ed class once a week and interact with

them--play board games, etc. under teacher supervision. I was referring to one

year when they couldn't find a time that worked for the students to come.

Re: Re: How would you argue against this

> placement decision.....

>

> Hi ,

>

> My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the

> assumption that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher

> functioning " do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of

> perhaps non-verbal kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance

> than the others and are farther behind socially than the " higher

> functioning " . If so, that is a pretty fair description of my son, Ben, who

> shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is verbal and functioning higher

> socially). However, even though Joe appears to be functioning at a higher

> level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is exposed to all of

> the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only difference is that he

> participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing to give

> information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

> Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

> As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very

> specific goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical

> peers under teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the

> kids from the regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week

> and play board games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least

> it's something, especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical

> kids throughout his day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to

> and from the buses and the cafeteria for lunch!

>

> I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I

> hope it does...

>

> Good Luck!!

>

> a

> uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

>

>

[Guest guest]

They can't " take away from the 'typical' students " educational time for them to

go into a Life Skills class for " typical peer interaction " .

Staci Cavazos wrote:

I am confused what that means that they can't guarantee peer

interaction

because of scheduling?

>

> You know that's a good question...this goal has been included in the

> boys' IEPs for a number of years. I was lucky that they had cooperative

> regular ed teachers in Elem. school who helped make this happen--however,

> there was a year when it wasn't working out because of scheduling. At that

> time, I talked to the school diagnostician, who is someone I trust

> completely, and asked her how it is that an IEP can be ignored? She was well

> aware of the situation which indicated to me that they were truly making an

> effort, but hadn't yet figured out how to make it work. As it turned out,

> shortly after that--the situation was remedied but the point is--I don't

> think I really had a leg to stand on if they truly could not make it work

> out with scheduling--even though it was an agreed upon goal. She basically

> told me that even though it is an agreed upon goal, if they simply don't

> have the means to address that goal--there's not anything that can be done

> about that. I guess you just have to hope(and pray) that the people you are

> dealing with want it to work as much as you and we have been truly fortunate

> to have staff like that in our Elementary school and also in the

> Intermediate school they attend now.

>

> a

> Re: Re: How would you argue against this

> placement decision.....

>

> Hi ,

>

> My problem from the start with the separated groups of kids is the

> assumption that the " severely autistic " are not able to learn as the " higher

> functioning " do. By " severely autistic " , I'm assuming you're speaking of

> perhaps non-verbal kids who need alot more hand over hand type assistance

> than the others and are farther behind socially than the " higher

> functioning " . If so, that is a pretty fair description of my son, Ben, who

> shares a class with his brother, Joe(who is verbal and functioning higher

> socially). However, even though Joe appears to be functioning at a higher

> level intellectually than Ben--it is just not so. Ben is exposed to all of

> the same academics that Joe is exposed to and the only difference is that he

> participates in a different way by typing and/or pointing to give

> information. If his teachers were not open minded to the possibility of

> Ben's intelligence--Ben might be segregated in the same way that they want

> As far as the social aspects, both of my boys have always had very

> specific goals written within their IEPs addressing interacting with typical

> peers under teacher direction/supervision. At their school , they have the

> kids from the regular Lifeskills class come into their classroom once a week

> and play board games and other things with them. It's not alot but at least

> it's something, especially for Ben who has no other contact with the typical

> kids throughout his day--except for passing them in the hallways walking to

> and from the buses and the cafeteria for lunch!

>

> I don't know if any of this information helps you in your situation--I

> hope it does...

>

> Good Luck!!

>

> a

> uuuuummkdkdskdkdlslslsl

>

>