RE: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!

[Guest guest]

Thank you for sharing, .It's uplifting to hear from parents of older kids who have been there, done that... Helps keep one in check and gives an insight like no other.Your last sentence says it all, to me. Some kids didn't and others won't even have a chance at it.GabiSubject: RE: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!To: sList Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 12:12 PM

Listmembers, First, thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion with

so many points of view from many different perspectives. This is what makes

the list strong. Second, when my son was in a kindergarten cluster several moons

ago, I attended ACE meetings regularly, I was even something like the parent

representative for the North area. I mentioned at one meeting that I was

hoping my son would be going into the mainstream in first grade with a shadow

aka one-on-one aide. I was universally informed at that meeting (yes by both

the parents and teachers) that inclusion was great but only if the child was

high functioning enough not to need an aide, that an aide would be a crutch,

and that my son would become dependent on the aide and that was a bad thing. I see that that attitude is still around, and it saddens me,

because it was so wrong in my son’s case, who did eventually become fully

included in gen ed with an aide, and for how many other children who never even

got the chance?

From:

sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:sList @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf

Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:55 AM

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!

Are

you stating that an appropriate reason for segregation is to avoid our children

being "on stage, creating a show"? Do you have arguments/debate

points a little stronger than that, or should I say WAY stronger

than that? There's so much research that indicates the absolute

positives of inclusion. Plus there's that IDEA law that says that

segregagtion is ONLY appropriate when it can be SHOWN (that is, it is must

first be attempted) that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment

given ALL the supports/services he requires to stay in that environment.

In

Broward, all kids with autism in preschool are automatically segregated.

Then the majority (at least from what I understand most) move onto

clusters. They are never even given a CHANCE at integration. So the

law is broken for each and every one of those students. How can it be

shown that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment when the

child was NOT IN THAT ENVIRONMENT for a school year, (or half a

school year, or even one month for Pete's sake!) (WITH appropriate

support).

To

"accomodate" the law, the School District twists the wording

into something similar that you used and that is "least restrictive, most

appropriate". The law DOES NOT state this but instead states

"To the MAXIMUM EXTENT APPROPRIATE, children with disabilities are to be

educated with their non-disabled peers unless it can be shown that this CANNOT

be achieve satisfactorily". There is no "unless the child is on

stage putting on a show" clause.

The

"show" is only temporary compared to the long-term significant

benefits of inclusion. Additionally, the person "on top of

them" is no more restrictive in a typical classroom than the person

"on top of them" in the segregated classroom environment.

The

School District may make it seem as if the "show" is something to be

hidden--kept away from typical children. In actuality, the

school's practice of widespread segregation. ..so much that its become

commonplace and acceptable.. is where the REAL shame lies.

Additionally, learning

"prerequisite skills" is NOT law, NOT based on research, but

something that the school districts make up in order to save money.

PLease, show me where it states that "prerequisite skills" are

necessary OUTSIDE of school district literature. Additionally,

what social & communication & behavioral environment are the

children given when they are segregated? All the peers/role models are

similarly disabled! Isn't that senseless?

In

Broward County, inclusion is done when the child is high functioning.

That's discrimination and that's against the law PERIOD.

From

NICHY website:

"Since its earliest days, the law has displayed a strong preference for

children with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers without

disabilities, to the maximum

extent appropriate. It recognizes

that, in many cases, supplementary aids and services must be provided to

a child with a disability to enable him or her to be educated in the general

education classroom. Simply put, then, removal of a child with

disabilities from the regular education class may occur only if the

child cannot be satisfactorily educated in the regular educational environment with

the use of supplementary aids and services." http://webcache. googleuserconten t.com/search? q=cache:xLpv0sWS JSEJ:www. nichcy.org/ educatechildren/ iep/pages/ extentofparticip ation.aspx+ to+the+maximum+ extent+appropria te & cd=3 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us

[Guest guest]

It is so unfortunate that in this day and so many years later, parents still have to fight for what their children are entitled to. Individuals are entitled to have their opinions on inclusion. However, federal law is not optional and specifically states that disabled children are to be educated in the least restrictive environment with proper supports etc. (paraphrase). From: Karp <denisekarpmyacc (DOT) net>Subject: RE: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!To: sList@ yahoogroups. comDate: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 12:12 PM

Listmembers, First, thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion with

so many points of view from many different perspectives. This is what makes

the list strong. Second, when my son was in a kindergarten cluster several moons

ago, I attended ACE meetings regularly, I was even something like the parent

representative for the North area. I mentioned at one meeting that I was

hoping my son would be going into the mainstream in first grade with a shadow

aka one-on-one aide. I was universally informed at that meeting (yes by both

the parents and teachers) that inclusion was great but only if the child was

high functioning enough not to need an aide, that an aide would be a crutch,

and that my son would become dependent on the aide and that was a bad thing. I see that that attitude is still around, and it saddens me,

because it was so wrong in my son’s case, who did eventually become fully

included in gen ed with an aide, and for how many other children who never even

got the chance?

From:

sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:sList @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf

Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:55 AM

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!

Are

you stating that an appropriate reason for segregation is to avoid our children

being "on stage, creating a show"? Do you have arguments/debate

points a little stronger than that, or should I say WAY stronger

than that? There's so much research that indicates the absolute

positives of inclusion. Plus there's that IDEA law that says that

segregagtion is ONLY appropriate when it can be SHOWN (that is, it is must

first be attempted) that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment

given ALL the supports/services he requires to stay in that environment.

In

Broward, all kids with autism in preschool are automatically segregated.

Then the majority (at least from what I understand most) move onto

clusters. They are never even given a CHANCE at integration. So the

law is broken for each and every one of those students. How can it be

shown that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment when the

child was NOT IN THAT ENVIRONMENT for a school year, (or half a

school year, or even one month for Pete's sake!) (WITH appropriate

support).

To

"accomodate" the law, the School District twists the wording

into something similar that you used and that is "least restrictive, most

appropriate" . The law DOES NOT state this but instead states

"To the MAXIMUM EXTENT APPROPRIATE, children with disabilities are to be

educated with their non-disabled peers unless it can be shown that this CANNOT

be achieve satisfactorily" . There is no "unless the child is on

stage putting on a show" clause.

The

"show" is only temporary compared to the long-term significant

benefits of inclusion. Additionally, the person "on top of

them" is no more restrictive in a typical classroom than the person

"on top of them" in the segregated classroom environment.

The

School District may make it seem as if the "show" is something to be

hidden--kept away from typical children. In actuality, the

school's practice of widespread segregation. ..so much that its become

commonplace and acceptable.. is where the REAL shame lies.

Additionally, learning

"prerequisite skills" is NOT law, NOT based on research, but

something that the school districts make up in order to save money.

PLease, show me where it states that "prerequisite skills" are

necessary OUTSIDE of school district literature. Additionally,

what social & communication & behavioral environment are the

children given when they are segregated? All the peers/role models are

similarly disabled! Isn't that senseless?

In

Broward County, inclusion is done when the child is high functioning.

That's discrimination and that's against the law PERIOD.

From

NICHY website:

"Since its earliest days, the law has displayed a strong preference for

children with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers without

disabilities, to the maximum

extent appropriate. It recognizes

that, in many cases, supplementary aids and services must be provided to

a child with a disability to enable him or her to be educated in the general

education classroom. Simply put, then, removal of a child with

disabilities from the regular education class may occur only if the

child cannot be satisfactorily educated in the regular educational environment with

the use of supplementary aids and services." http://webcache. googleuserconten t.com/search? q=cache:xLpv0sWS JSEJ:www. nichcy.org/ educatechildren/ iep/pages/ extentofparticip ation.aspx+ to+the+maximum+ extent+appropria te & cd=3 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us

[Guest guest]

It is so unfortunate that in this day and so many years later, parents still have to fight for what their children are entitled to. Individuals are entitled to have their opinions on inclusion. However, federal law is not optional and specifically states that disabled children are to be educated in the least restrictive environment with proper supports etc. (paraphrase). From: Karp <denisekarpmyacc (DOT) net>Subject: RE: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!To: sList@ yahoogroups. comDate: Thursday, April 29, 2010, 12:12 PM

Listmembers, First, thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion with

so many points of view from many different perspectives. This is what makes

the list strong. Second, when my son was in a kindergarten cluster several moons

ago, I attended ACE meetings regularly, I was even something like the parent

representative for the North area. I mentioned at one meeting that I was

hoping my son would be going into the mainstream in first grade with a shadow

aka one-on-one aide. I was universally informed at that meeting (yes by both

the parents and teachers) that inclusion was great but only if the child was

high functioning enough not to need an aide, that an aide would be a crutch,

and that my son would become dependent on the aide and that was a bad thing. I see that that attitude is still around, and it saddens me,

because it was so wrong in my son’s case, who did eventually become fully

included in gen ed with an aide, and for how many other children who never even

got the chance?

From:

sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:sList @yahoogroups. com] On Behalf

Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:55 AM

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!

Are

you stating that an appropriate reason for segregation is to avoid our children

being "on stage, creating a show"? Do you have arguments/debate

points a little stronger than that, or should I say WAY stronger

than that? There's so much research that indicates the absolute

positives of inclusion. Plus there's that IDEA law that says that

segregagtion is ONLY appropriate when it can be SHOWN (that is, it is must

first be attempted) that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment

given ALL the supports/services he requires to stay in that environment.

In

Broward, all kids with autism in preschool are automatically segregated.

Then the majority (at least from what I understand most) move onto

clusters. They are never even given a CHANCE at integration. So the

law is broken for each and every one of those students. How can it be

shown that a child CANNOT be educated in the gen ed environment when the

child was NOT IN THAT ENVIRONMENT for a school year, (or half a

school year, or even one month for Pete's sake!) (WITH appropriate

support).

To

"accomodate" the law, the School District twists the wording

into something similar that you used and that is "least restrictive, most

appropriate" . The law DOES NOT state this but instead states

"To the MAXIMUM EXTENT APPROPRIATE, children with disabilities are to be

educated with their non-disabled peers unless it can be shown that this CANNOT

be achieve satisfactorily" . There is no "unless the child is on

stage putting on a show" clause.

The

"show" is only temporary compared to the long-term significant

benefits of inclusion. Additionally, the person "on top of

them" is no more restrictive in a typical classroom than the person

"on top of them" in the segregated classroom environment.

The

School District may make it seem as if the "show" is something to be

hidden--kept away from typical children. In actuality, the

school's practice of widespread segregation. ..so much that its become

commonplace and acceptable.. is where the REAL shame lies.

Additionally, learning

"prerequisite skills" is NOT law, NOT based on research, but

something that the school districts make up in order to save money.

PLease, show me where it states that "prerequisite skills" are

necessary OUTSIDE of school district literature. Additionally,

what social & communication & behavioral environment are the

children given when they are segregated? All the peers/role models are

similarly disabled! Isn't that senseless?

In

Broward County, inclusion is done when the child is high functioning.

That's discrimination and that's against the law PERIOD.

From

NICHY website:

"Since its earliest days, the law has displayed a strong preference for

children with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers without

disabilities, to the maximum

extent appropriate. It recognizes

that, in many cases, supplementary aids and services must be provided to

a child with a disability to enable him or her to be educated in the general

education classroom. Simply put, then, removal of a child with

disabilities from the regular education class may occur only if the

child cannot be satisfactorily educated in the regular educational environment with

the use of supplementary aids and services." http://webcache. googleuserconten t.com/search? q=cache:xLpv0sWS JSEJ:www. nichcy.org/ educatechildren/ iep/pages/ extentofparticip ation.aspx+ to+the+maximum+ extent+appropria te & cd=3 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us

[Guest guest]

Isn't it better to direct the necessary awareness to typical

children more so than the parents? What could be a better place to do it than

the typical classroom?

From:

sList [mailto:sList ] On Behalf

Of Busch

Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 8:48 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!

Yes, it will

inconvenience the teacher and the other children to have my son in an

integrated class because sometimes he won't behave like the typical kids. He

will need extra support and special attention at times but he will benefit

from interaction and observation of typical kids. But it's easier for the

teacher to not have him in her classroom. The parents of the other children

would prefer that he not be in there because he'll take some of the teacher's

time and attention away from their children. Despite this, their children

will most likely learn to read and write and function in society in a typical

fashion. My son may not learn to function in society if he is only

allowed to interact with atypical children.

The truth is that having an

atypical child join a class with typical kids is scary for a parent. Kids are

cruel to other kids who are different and teachers can lose patience with

kids who don't behave typically. Keeping them isolated and safe would be

easier.

Easier on the parent, easier

on the child and easier on the system. But don't we all know by now that

doing whats easiest is almost never what's best or more importantly - what's

right.

Kel

From: Diane Rosenstein <Wamtzembellsouth (DOT) net>

Subject: Re: WoW! Inclusion is GOOD!

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 3:57 AM

Mama:

Do

you have any research on inclusion, especially preschoolers or kindergarten

students with autism? Broward County only has

SEGREGATED preschools for children with autism. (Except for

those who are the very highest functioning) . I've only ever come

across research where inclusion is GOOD, ESPECIALLY for preschoolers- -but

there are exceptions.

I

think Broward County has it a little backwards

The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail

from your inbox. Get started.

Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and

e-mail from your inbox. Learn more.