Responding to a message by Bob, to Charles on ...
BM>I know you are only passing this on Chuck but this is one of the
BM>times that I think Shanker really has his head up his arse
I think I sensed some feeling from your reply that suggests you have 
a serious stake in this issue.  I personally think you read too much 
into what Al was saying.  Most of the teachers I work with, 
including special ed teachers, would agree with the reforms. 
BM>CB> The changes the House made today in the Individuals with
BM>CB>Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) will begin to untie teachers hands.
BM>
BM>The changes made will help school districts to further degrade
BM>services to disabled children - has nothing to do with what classroom
BM>teachers can or can not do.
I haven't read the entire bill, nor do I know if it passed the 
Senate and got signed by the President, but what I do think I 
understand is that it was supposed to loosen, a little, the 
stranglehold that inclusion has over the average classroom teacher.  
It is frightening to many teachers untrained in working with 
handicapped children to face the prospect of children in the 
classroom who are incapable of doing anything more than causing 
distractions.
BM>CB> legislation promises teachers the help they need to deal with
BM>CB>disabled students who are chronically disruptive, violent, or 
BM>CB>who bring drugs or weapons to school.
BM>
BM>And what help would that be....going to force the admins to do their
BM>jobs??  And...I strongly resent, as I'm sure many others do, his
BM>imputation that only disabled students are chronically disruptive etc
BM>etc.  If that was not his intent then he's a lousy communicator!
Perhaps our situations differ.  In our school the problem has been 
less that of a poor administrator unwilling to punish disruptive 
children and more that of a poor "handicapped committee," willing to 
excuse inappropriate behavior because they feel sorry for the child, 
and populated by people who don't have to try to teach around the 
disruption.  (I did not read anything in the post that would suggest 
that Al Shanker thought only handicapped children were the only 
children that were disruptive.)
BM>CB> It also includes an important provision that
BM>CB> would permit general education teachers to participate in each
BM>CB> childs IEP, or individualized education plan. Teacher input 
BM>CB> is crucial when deciding the most appropriate placement and 
BM>CB> services  for disabled students.
BM>
BM>If a child is receiving services from a general ed teacher, that
BM>teacher has always been a member of the IEP committee - it's been the
BM>law since 94-142 was passed in 1974.
Again, our circumstances may vary, but in our district most meetings 
of the handicapped committee are held during the school day.  
Although the teacher is deemed a "member" of the IEP team for the 
child, it is only rarely that a substitute is hired so the teacher 
can attend the meeting.  The old law was a joke - yeah, you're on 
the committee, but just try to make the meeting!
BM>If the child is NOT in a general ed class for any part of the 
BM>school day then what possible input can a general ed teacher have???
That's not the point.  We're talking about mainstreamed/included 
children who *are* in the regular ed teacher's classroom.
BM>I wonder if any of the general ed folks here feel qualified to 
BM>provide meaningful input to the IEP process for a SPH/SPD child.
The regular ed teacher plays an important role if the child is being 
mainstreamed.  At the beginning of the year, as the IEP is being 
constructed or reviewed (if the child is continuing in a 
mainstreamed program), the regular ed teacher can add the insight 
from the perspective of the mainstream - class structure, teacher 
requirements, etc.  If it's at the end of the year, the regular ed 
teacher might well have some important points to make as to the 
success of the placement of the child for that year and what could 
be done to improve the situation for the following year.  In answer 
to your question above, I respond with an unqualified "yes."
BM>CB> The AFT is pleased that the bill also eliminates some of the current
BM>CB> incentives to litigate disputes unnecessarily.
BM>
BM>Protections for children with disabilities are being gutted in the
BM>name of the almighty dollar!
My understanding was that the law offers arbitration as an 
alternative to costly lawsuits so that more of the dollars can be 
spent on educating the children and less on lawyers.
BM>CB> Teachers, parents and the American public want high standards for
BM>CB> achievement and discipline.  The reauthorization of  IDEA will help
BM>CB> that goal become a reality by making it a more flexible and fairer
BM>CB> law for all children in public schools.
BM>
BM>What Albert doesn't seem to understand AT ALL is that IDEA does not,
BM>never did, and was not intended to apply to _all_ children in public
BM>schools!
I think you underestimate him - I do believe he understands it very 
clearly.  The tail has been wagging the dog and the time has come to 
restore some balance.  We all want the best for all children, Bob, 
but it is not always possible to give everybody everything they 
want, so sometimes we must use a little common sense and do what is 
best for the majority.  If a handicapped child deserves to be in a 
regular ed class, they deserve to be treated like regular ed kids - 
they have no right to disrupt the education of others - that's what 
Al meant by making the law fairer to all children.
Some parents want to deny that their children's handicaps can cause 
problems for others, but that's not the case.  When handicapped kids 
exhibit behavior that is unlawful, disruptive or intrusive, the 
"normal" child has a right to avoid that behavior - one child can 
not continuously disrupt the learning environment for 25 others.  If 
these kids want to go to regular schools, they must be willing to 
live by the same rules as everyone else or they don't belong there.
As an example, one child who attended our school several years ago 
had Down's Syndrome.  He pulled the fire alarm one day (false 
alarm), a behavior that is usually treated as a crime in our school 
- the normal child will be suspended for 5 days and the police are 
notified.  Our Committee on the Handicapped debated for several 
hours over what to do - they didn't want to suspend him and they 
didn't want to call the police.  He didn't know better, or so they 
reasoned.  The issue was resolved when the mother arrived on the 
scene, she a teacher in another school, and she *demanded* that her 
son be treated as any other child would be.  She reasoned, 
correctly, that he was in a regular school and he should be treated 
as a regular child.  No such thing as special laws for the 
handicapped when they graduate, so treat them the same in school.
Unfortunately, such sound reasoning is not always in evidence.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* Atheist Xmas movie: "Coincidence on 34th Street!"
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------