Having my daughter repeat Kindergarten..repeat with the same teacher or not?

Discussion in 'General Education' started by Triplethreatlem, Jul 5, 2018.

  1. agdamity

    agdamity Fanatic

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,649
    Likes Received:
    416

    Jul 6, 2018

    If you read the Supreme Court decision for the Endrew F. case, decided in March 2017, you’ll see that the Court interprets “adequate progress” for a student with SLD to mean they advance grade-to-grade each year. (Based on the Rowley standard). If the child cannot make this progress, then their IEP is not adequate, thus denying the child FAPE. This is most likely why students with SLD are not retained.
     
  2. bella84

    bella84 Aficionado

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,131
    Likes Received:
    1,144

    Jul 6, 2018

    Ok, I just read it. They actually don't mention anything about SLD, specifically. It's about students with disabilities in general, not only specific learning disabilities. So, I'm still unclear why a district would allow retention for some eligibility categories (like Autism, OHI-ADHD, etc.) but not others (SLD), based solely on the category by which the student has been identified.

    Also, I didn't understand it to mean that adequate progress is determined by whether or not a student advances from grade to grade each year. It states: "The IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." It goes on further to say: "We will not attempt to elaborate on what 'appropriate' progress will look like from case to case. It is in the nature of the Act and the standard we adopt to resist such an effort: The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created." And, earlier in the decision, it states: "Rowley had no need to provide concrete guidance with respect to a child who is not fully integrated in the regular classroom and not able to achieve on grade level. That case concerned a young girl who was progressing smoothly through the regular curriculum. If that is not a reasonable prospect for a child, his IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives."
     
  3. agdamity

    agdamity Fanatic

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,649
    Likes Received:
    416

    Jul 6, 2018

    Bella, I’ll have to search the exact quote later, but I just wrote a legal brief on this case for a special ed law class I just finished. Somewhere in there, Roberts referred to an education as progressing through the system, meaning moving grade-to-grade each year. I interpret “students fully integrated into the general classroom” to be students with SLD, especially in a co-taught setting. If that SLD student cannot progress with the modifications in their IEP, then they need more of different supports. You have to have a separate programming conference before any child with a disability fails a class, so that makes sense. Not all students with disabilities will be able to make the “grade to grade” progress, but they should be able to make progress per their individual needs. It’s precisely because of this difference that I think some districts have different expectations regarding retention based on qualifying category. There is currently a lot of speculation as to how the Endrew ruling will affect the “A” in FAPE from here on out.
     
  4. bella84

    bella84 Aficionado

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,131
    Likes Received:
    1,144

    Jul 6, 2018

    Are you suggesting that only students who have been identified as having a SLD can be fully integrated into the gen ed classroom? Not students with OHI for ADHD or students with mild form of Autism or Emotional Disability, for example?

    But shouldn't it be based on the individual student's needs as opposed to a label they have been given? As I mentioned in a previous post, I think we make too many blanket decisions for students based on their identified eligibility category rather than making a team decision about what is best for a student. One example of this is a district deciding that students with a particular identified eligibility category can be retained while students with a different identified eligibility category can't be retained. For any particular student, retention may or may not be the right option, but making that determination based on their identified eligibility category alone isn't very individualized.
     
  5. agdamity

    agdamity Fanatic

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,649
    Likes Received:
    416

    Jul 6, 2018

    Oh, I absolutely believe more than SLD students can be fully integrated into a classroom. I teach co-taught and have had numerous successful students with qualifying categories other than SLD. I focused on that one because that was the direction of the discussion.

    I also agree that there is too much focus on qualifying categories. My only intent was to pose a theory as to why a district may have a certain way of handling retention of students with SLD’s. The whole purpose of an IEP is to be individual. However, all too often, districts lose sight of that and blanket policies and modifications tend to take over. I’m not saying it’s right or that I agree with it.
     

Share This Page

Members Online Now

  1. Linguist92021,
  2. futuremathsprof,
  3. YoungTeacherGuy,
  4. Kelster95,
  5. wldywall,
  6. ally06,
  7. Missy,
  8. catnfiddle
Total: 287 (members: 8, guests: 243, robots: 36)
test