state statute for behavior intervention....

[buddy]

[h=1]I was researching transition planning ideas and ended up reading through the disability law stuff on the MN governmental website for rules and statutes.....

How many of us really think this is being done for our kids?

3525.0850 BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS.[/h]This policy is intended to encourage the use of positive approaches to behavioral interventions. The objective of any behavioral intervention must be that pupils acquire appropriate behaviors and skills. It is critical that behavioral intervention programs focus on skills acquisition rather than merely behavior reduction or elimination. Behavioral intervention policies, programs, or procedures must be designed to enable a pupil to benefit from an appropriate, individualized educational program as well as develop skills to enable them to function as independently as possible in their communities.

[h=2]Statutory Authority:[/h]MS s 121.11; L 1994 c 647 art 3 s 23

[h=2]History:[/h]19 SR 2432; L 1998 c 397 art 11 s 3

 

[InsaneCdn]

Rhetorical question, of course...

But... good ammo for the meeting tomorrow!

 

[klmno]

Buddy, there are many laws on the books that aren't being followed by the gov agencies our taxpayers dollars are paying for. It takes advocacy, attnys, screaming out, and anything else you can think of to get anyone to pay attention. Most people really don't give two hoots about difficult children or their rights. I'm sorry to say that, but I really think it's true. We warrior parents are here to make a difference, in my humble opinion. It's our kids that are paying the price.

 

[buddy]

Interesting>>>>

in honig v. Doe, the u.s. Supreme court ruled that an indefinite suspension was a change of placement in violation of the idea's "stay-put" provision and that idea did not provide for a "dangerousness" exception.
The "stay-put" provision of the idea mandates that a child with a disability remain in his then-current placement pending any proceedings to change the placement. The purpose of the provision was to prohibit a school from unilaterally excluding a disabled child from a classroom for dangerous or disruptive behavior caused by the disability.
The court reasoned that, because the idea did not include an emergency exception for dangerous students, congress wanted to deny school officials their unilateral authority to exclude students with emotional disabilities.
The court in honig pointed out that educators could continue to use normal disciplinary procedures when dealing with students who endangered themselves or others: Study carrels, time out, detention, the restriction of privileges, and short-term suspensions of up to ten days. Educators could not use disciplinary procedures that might result in a unilateral decision for change in placement. The decision provided a cooling off period during which educators could initiate individual education plan (iep) reviews or negotiate changes of placement with students' parents. Finally, schools could ask a court to change the placement of a student who presents a real threat to himself or others.

and

idea does not require that every student with a disability be placed in the regular classroom regardless of individual abilities and needs. This recognition that regular class placement may not be appropriate for every disabled student is reflected in the requirement that school districts make available a range of placement options, known as a continuum of alternative placements, to meet the unique educational needs of students with disabilities. This requirement for the continuum reinforces the importance of the individualized inquiry, not a "one size fits all" approach, in determining what placement is the lre for each student with a disability. The options on this continuum must include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education under 300.17 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions).

 

[susiestar]

I have a feeling they are going to seriously regret making it necessary for you to go read those rules and decisions. Oh well.

 

[buddy]

I'm locked and loaded. My advocate kept saying you need to get really angry. I think I have hit that mark.

 

[TeDo]

YIPPPPEEEEEE!! She's FINALLY ready to get "down and dirty". Go Get 'Em Warrior Mom!!!

 

[buddy]

funny TeDo! you are all great.