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

May 2, 2007

This is when it helps to have a cooperative administrator like the Principal of

the school, and/or finding an Admin that is an ally. I would try calling

another ARD and appealing to the Principal and giving suggestions like utilizing

this to fulfill community service hours for the children, instilling in the

typical kids a sense of community and compassion as well as leadership ...I

would ask her to identify several peers that she could secure parental

permission to do this...it could be during PE time, reading, whatever - if the

children she identifies are at a higher reading level and can do independent

reading at home - she can easily make these arrangements by talking with

specific parents, this is what we did with our son and the parents of the NT

typical children welcomed this option as they learned valuable skills and were

not bored in the reading class (or identify some GT children who want to get out

of PE!) - you have to phrase it as a benefit for the typical

peers as well and I firmly believe it is anyway...there are always ways to be

creative ....not having a set program/procedure in place does not absolve them

from their responiblility to provide inclusion opportunities...this is where the

squeaky wheel thing plays in... challenge them to be creative and live up to

their obligation...I think this is where they gamble on us - thinking that we

will just back down out of exhaustion or whatever (kind of like the insurance

company!)

They can absolutely take away from " educational time " in the typical classroom

if they identify the right children - we are doing at our school -...I would not

accept this...I think they will try it...but keep pushing...

" M. Guppy " wrote:

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

>

May 3, 2007

,

Build in at least one annual goal that incorporates daily interaction

with typical peers. Just as an example (and probably a bad one since

its on the fly), in at least 3 out of 5 daily opportunities [or

whatever is reasonable for your son after a year of services] during

structured play group, X will acknowledge at least one nondisabled

peer by [insert whatever - waving, eye contact, handing a toy, etc.]

and will receive return acknowledgement from that peer. I'm a firm

believer that - for our kids on the spectrum - social related goals

should be way up there in priority and should be very detailed on the

IEP. They could also set up a circle of friends with set aside time

(included in IEP, of course). In other words, they can guarantee

interactions with typical peers. When they say, " We can't... " you

say, " Sure we can, all we have to do is ... " . If they still say they

can't, ask them why and then tell them you need that reason

documented in prior-written-notice format. Are you recording?

>

> 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...

>

May 3, 2007

,

This is a long thread so I apologize if someone already mentioned

this.

A good strategy with your ARD team might be to have them " back the

truck up " to explain how they arrived at the placement decision.

Since there apparently was no discussion of the placement at your

ARD, they have already vioated IDEA procedure which states they MUST

include parents in a placement determination and must discuss the

other options they considered and their justification for a more

restrictive placement. All of this must be documented in the ARD

paperwork and minutes. If it is not, then there is your leverage

right there to request another ARD for them to clarfify/justify the

placement and to add in the goals that might lead to a preferred

placement or at least more inclusion.

The IEP/goals determine placement, so I agree with all previous

input that goals will help you get to the inclusion you need.

However, LRE is a right in and of itself, so regardless of the

goals, your child has a right to be educated in the Least

Restrictive Environment. Anything more restrictive than a regular

education classroom must be justified in writing by the ARD

committee. Per IDEA, severity or category of disability and

configuration of the delivery model may NOT be used as a basis for

determining placement.

> >

> > 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...

> >

>

May 3, 2007

You know, it's interesting...when I moved here from NJ, everyone

said " don't move here, the services are SO much better in NJ " . Well,

this type of self-contained classroom is EXACTLY what we had in NJ,

and it worked great. This class was wonderful; it was a " safe " place

for the kids to go and work with more one-on-one interaction and to

practice their classroom behavior. Now, once the kids were able to

handle it, they were mainstreamed for a small part of the day,

hopefully working up to most of the day, with an aide. Some however,

were not able to make this transition, so they spent most or all of

their day in the self-contained classroom. FYI, ABA was used

primarily there (this was elementary school level).

Here's an idea for your team, however. Connor's very gifted,

wonderful teacher there wrote a program called " playgroud pals " where

her kids spent recess every day with a class of NT kids. It appeared

to be just kids playing, but it was very carefully choreographed and

managed by the teachers so that these kids had peer modeling. I can

find the paper that Jess wrote and send it to you if you'd like,

.

Still, it's curious that we strive for full inclusion, and yet one

state that is in the lead in autism education uses more self

contained classrooms. I wish we had more self contained classrooms

and not just speech as the only " escape " for some of our kids. But I

agree that the lack of peer interaction is a problem too.

May 3, 2007

,

Does he have social goals in his IEP? Do they involve peers at all who talk?

How about his speech goals? Do they require he participate with other peers

who can communicate?

If they don't, then you need to change the goals. Then, your argument is

that the placement they are proposing will not allow him to work on his

current goals and objectives and is not appropriate. It will not confer

" meaningful benefit " and is too restrictive. He cannot make progress on his

goals in that setting.

nna

nna Bond, M.Ed., ATP

Special Education Consultant

Autism Specialist

RESNA Certified Assistive Technology Practitioner

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 5/2/2007 2:16

PM

May 3, 2007

A school district cannot refuse to implement a student's IEP goal or

objective based on money or other " administrative convenience " . What you are

talking about here, with the scheduling issues, is " administrative

convenience " . The school is obligated to do WHATEVER it takes to set up a

situation that will allow your child to work on their IEP goals and

objectives. You cannot tell me that there is not SOME time during the

school day, whether it is recess or PE or lunch or other time when they

cannot make an arrangement for a circle of friends or some other opportunity

where a child with a disability can have access to typical peers in order to

work on goals and objectives.

Using scheduling as an " excuse " is merely administrative convenience.

LAZINESS. Call them on it. It CAN be done if they put forth the effort.

nna

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 5/2/2007 2:16

PM

May 3, 2007

I would be interested in learning more about the playground pals program!

There's another type of social support program called " circle of friends. "

If any families are willing to share their experiences with Circle of

Friends, I would love to learn more about how that is working.

Thanks,

Geraldine

_____

From: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

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

Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:03 AM

To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

Subject: Re: How would you argue against this

placement decision.....