Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Thoughts on Collaberative?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Martie" data-source="post: 24396" data-attributes="member: 284"><p>Dear Sharon,</p><p></p><p>IF difficult child can manage totally in regular classes, then the consultative model might work. However, for kids who need the resource room partially for instruction and partially for refuge, consultation alone is problematic.</p><p></p><p>There is a lot going on in Sp Ed right now--specifically, its existence is under attack (again) with proponents of the three-tiered RTI (response to intervention) model saying Special Education. is unnecessary and has be a "failure." Tell that to the parents whose kids were excluded from school prior to the original federal legislation (P.L. 94-142). The advantage of RTI is that if administered with good will, it MAY deliver services to students in the "grey area" who are not sp ed qualified but need help. It is true that a large amount of money is expended on evaluation. RTI proponents view this as a "waste" and feel that intervention should be directed to "observable levels of performance." Most folks around here believe that correct evaluation is crucial to correct treatment. RTI does not subscribe to that view--recently I wrote at some length in a thread started by mistmouse about what would have happened to both my kids when they were small if they had received generic "help" of the type RTI offers. easy child would have been presumed to be MR and ex-difficult child Learning Disability (LD). Obviously easy child is not mentally retarded and ex-difficult child is not Learning Disability (LD) although he has never been a particularly motivated academic student.</p><p></p><p>Another problem with RTI is it is directed almost totally at academics or behavior interfering with academics--it is virtually useless for internalizing behaviors as far as I can tell. Further, many of our boys desperately need the protection against suspension and expulsion an IEP currently provides. (This is also under attack by the way.) I would NEVER EVER waive my child's rights to have an IEP with the full force of law behind it. If this is a requirement of the school you prefer, I would run the other way so fast--I'd be a speck of dust on the horizon.</p><p></p><p>Any administrator can tell you that in general, some approach is working well--it may be. That does not mean it will work for any particular child. RTI is definitely OSFA--and if you don't "fit" too bad.</p><p></p><p>Finally, this is a general comment having nothing to do with your difficult child: RTI will not work with the 15% of the Special Education population that is severely disabled. If the RTI advocates (who can be aggressively obnoxious and self-righteous) think that the parents of those kids will quietly let Special Education be abolished and turn the clock back 35 years, they have a poor understanding of the history of the education of children with severe disabilities in this country.</p><p></p><p>I expect if you choose the RTI (or consultation) school, your difficult child will lose most of the individual accommodations he has. They will say they have no problem with his IEP--but they will also say he will get the same services in the gen ed class room. You ask how this could happen...that would be a problem--the answer is they can SAY services will be delivered, but will they? This "first" inclusion movement led to wholesale dumping of Special Education. kids into gen ed classrooms with little to no support. RTI is the newest attempt to take the "individual" out of the system. IF Special Education. is abolished, then the funds expended will be up for grabs--and there are a lot of grabby forces out there.</p><p></p><p>Martie</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Martie, post: 24396, member: 284"] Dear Sharon, IF difficult child can manage totally in regular classes, then the consultative model might work. However, for kids who need the resource room partially for instruction and partially for refuge, consultation alone is problematic. There is a lot going on in Sp Ed right now--specifically, its existence is under attack (again) with proponents of the three-tiered RTI (response to intervention) model saying Special Education. is unnecessary and has be a "failure." Tell that to the parents whose kids were excluded from school prior to the original federal legislation (P.L. 94-142). The advantage of RTI is that if administered with good will, it MAY deliver services to students in the "grey area" who are not sp ed qualified but need help. It is true that a large amount of money is expended on evaluation. RTI proponents view this as a "waste" and feel that intervention should be directed to "observable levels of performance." Most folks around here believe that correct evaluation is crucial to correct treatment. RTI does not subscribe to that view--recently I wrote at some length in a thread started by mistmouse about what would have happened to both my kids when they were small if they had received generic "help" of the type RTI offers. easy child would have been presumed to be MR and ex-difficult child Learning Disability (LD). Obviously easy child is not mentally retarded and ex-difficult child is not Learning Disability (LD) although he has never been a particularly motivated academic student. Another problem with RTI is it is directed almost totally at academics or behavior interfering with academics--it is virtually useless for internalizing behaviors as far as I can tell. Further, many of our boys desperately need the protection against suspension and expulsion an IEP currently provides. (This is also under attack by the way.) I would NEVER EVER waive my child's rights to have an IEP with the full force of law behind it. If this is a requirement of the school you prefer, I would run the other way so fast--I'd be a speck of dust on the horizon. Any administrator can tell you that in general, some approach is working well--it may be. That does not mean it will work for any particular child. RTI is definitely OSFA--and if you don't "fit" too bad. Finally, this is a general comment having nothing to do with your difficult child: RTI will not work with the 15% of the Special Education population that is severely disabled. If the RTI advocates (who can be aggressively obnoxious and self-righteous) think that the parents of those kids will quietly let Special Education be abolished and turn the clock back 35 years, they have a poor understanding of the history of the education of children with severe disabilities in this country. I expect if you choose the RTI (or consultation) school, your difficult child will lose most of the individual accommodations he has. They will say they have no problem with his IEP--but they will also say he will get the same services in the gen ed class room. You ask how this could happen...that would be a problem--the answer is they can SAY services will be delivered, but will they? This "first" inclusion movement led to wholesale dumping of Special Education. kids into gen ed classrooms with little to no support. RTI is the newest attempt to take the "individual" out of the system. IF Special Education. is abolished, then the funds expended will be up for grabs--and there are a lot of grabby forces out there. Martie [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Thoughts on Collaberative?
Top