GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

I question the assertion that “we all know” a less restrictive environment is better. Where is the real data on that one? How can anyone seriously believe that least restrictive environments in public schools are educationally or sociall-emotionally superior than most restrictive environments like Churchill or Mary McDowell? Repeating that baseless assertion over and over again will never make it true. Most restrictive has a nasty sound to it. Go to an excellent self contained school and see unrestricted learning far more liberating than any ICT or SETTS model.

There is no such thing in the law as more restrictive or less restrictive.  The LRE or Least Restrictive Environment is based on the child’s needs.  It can be in a general ed classroom with some support.  It can be in a self contained classroom.  It can be in a special education program in a district school  or is can be in a special school such as Churchill or Mary Mc Dowell.  The continuum of services is not a sliding scale.  It is not a let’s try this and then try another.  The LRE is supposed to be right the first time, not the second or third….. or whatever.
The issue is having the school IEP team knowing more than just what happens at the school where they are located.  It means learning about all of the offerings in the District or in NYC.  It means training staff and training principals to look beyond what has been happening, which most folks would say was not successful. 
Are you saying we should continue providing services and education as we did in the past?  If so, how would you justify that request?
You can find information at the National Center for Inclusive Education that supports the claims that education with age appropriate peers, learning age appropriate language, exposed to age appropriate ciricculum and having age appropriate social interactions improves the students education.
.

It actually does cost more to educate students with disabilities in general education classrooms and provide appropriate special education services. However, it is money well spent as the long-term life outcomes for students with disabilities when given access to their typically developing peers and the general education curriculum are far superior (this comes from 30 years of federally funded research). These improved outcome include: higher rates of competitive employment, higher rates of independent living, lower rates of incarceration, lower rates of adult mental health services, and higher rates of social adjustment. For our society, it is actually more cost-effective to create schools where a wide range of learners can spend quality instructional time together. The segregation of the disabled is against the law, not economically wise, and is inhumane. Segregation based on disability is not justifiable. 

Private schools such as Churchill offer a premier education to print and language disabled students (dyslexia, “LD”) and offer a model for public schools. They spend a significant amount of time on literacy interventions and also on assistive technology. They make sure all their students have access to the general education curriculum. However, there are tens of thousands of children in NYC who need a Churchill-style education and are not getting it. 

This special education reform is an important first step. It opens up a range of possibilities for students who have been transported all over the city, spending hours in buses, because the NYCDOE has been using a “seat model” to place “classes” and “programs”. This reform encourages educators and parents to carefully consider what SERVICES students need and not to be hemmed in by what PLACEMENTS are available. The schools and principals and teachers I am working with are excited by the possibilities that lie ahead. 

“We all know”….no one knows what really works or there would be a one size fits all way of to educating students with special needs.  That’s why this notion of a sliding scale, less restrictive to more restrictive, is so misleading.  Creating the proper and appropriate supports and services for a student is the goal.  In theory, a team creates a system by choosing among the different supports and services offered in the continuum…not putting a child on the continuum but using the continuum to drive services and supports to the child. 
Yes, I have been to any number of IEP meetings, including my own son’s innumerable meetings.
Providing a calm, controlled environment with a teacher who has the skills necessary is a goal for all students. It is as important in general education or special education classes and programs.  The DOE’s rush to implement the roll out is because they are under the gun from the Feds for past failure to educate students like my son.  Sticking my child, or anyone else’s child, in a spot on a continuum and expecting that spot to be the right spot for the child’s entire school career is just plain dumb.  Nothing stays the same and especially not children.  The freedom to move is important. 
In any case, the parent of a child who needs a specific type of teacher with a specific type of skill, will have to press hard on the DOE and I agree that will take a good deal of push back.  The DOE is a large system with entrenched opinions and attitudes emanating from the components of the system itself: staff. The hope is to create a place where “….  unrestricted learning
far more liberating than any ICT or SETTS model” is the norm across the board.