quote:No student has an inalienable right to be in my classroom.
quote:Our administration informally exercises this right from their end all the time--when there seems to be a huge personality conflict, where a kid is getting in trouble with the same teacher all the time, they frequently move the kid, even if the teacher has made no such request.
Do they do it without the parent's permission? Ask them.
I had two students removed from my remedial math classroom. One of them had just returned from an extended absence due to violation of his parole. Could we have proved that his presence was disruptive to my class? Sure. Did my principal remove him from my class at my request? Yes. Did he do it without asking his parents permission? Not a chance.
If the parent agrees to it, then everything's kosher. But if you do it without going through the proper steps, you've just violated PL 94-142.
Your classroom is by definition the least restrictive environment.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
"No student has an inalienable right to be in my classroom."
I don't think you will get any argument on that issue. The question is not with the result, but with the method.
Several of us, myself included, have already demonstrated courses of action that would have been more appropriate and far more kind for achieving that same goal.
Likely your own school has established procedures for handling chronically disruptive students and for removing them from the classroom. Do these procedures include humiliating a 5 year old and alienating the other students against him?
posted
BlueWizard, you have very seriously misinterpreted my position. I have not defended the teacher in this situation; I think her actions are reprehensible. In fact, I gave an example of a teacher from my childhood who was similarly ill-equipped to be around children.
I simply presented a quibble. Two people asserted that a teacher does not have a say as to what students are in his or her classroom, and I was pointing out that this was less than 100% accurate, for at least one district that I am intimately familiar with (which happens to neighbor the one in question). The larger points about her actions stand, though.
(I also pointed out that needing to use that provision of our contract tends to get teachers marked as incompetent behavior managers.)
-o-
GlennArnold, you have forgotten that PL 94-142 is superseded by Galactic Statute THX-1138-NCC-1701-D-XYZ.
Parents didn't get to place their children in my specific class in the first place. We have lots of teachers at each school, and we try to avoid ever having just one teacher teach any specific class, specifically to make it possible to move students if it proves necessary. Parents are specifically not allowed to request a specific teacher, or to request not to have a specific teacher. (Of course, they can request whatever they want, but those requests carry pretty much no weight.) Before the year starts, they certainly don't have the right to pick and choose their teachers. Why should they have a right afterward that they didn't have before?
(EDIT TO ADD: Requests by parents to switch teachers during the year are also routinely ignored. Parents quite simply do not get to choose their children's teachers.)
Least restrictive environment means that they can be in a regular classroom unless it can be proven that that is not feasible. Nobody is arguing the fact that students have the legal right to be educated in the least restrictive environment feasible. But when I teach Algebra I and so does Mrs. Smith down the hall, yes, the school has the right to switch a student from my class to Mrs. Smith's without asking permission. The student is still in the same environment--a regular classroom.
I can't speak to your school's policy when you taught remedial algebra. I wouldn't presume to claim to know more than you about your experience, and about what your principal would and wouldn't do.
I can tell you you're either misinterpreting that law or not understanding what I'm saying, though.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Not to mention that schools remove students from classrooms without parental permission a lot of times each and every year. It is called a suspension, and can be followed by expulsions from the school, or even the school system.
My niece is going thought the system right now regarding this, and I don't blame the school at all, although the final resolution is still up in the air. She isn't a threat, but she has had multiple problems for years.
There are conditions where the school can and does restrict where a child gets their education. It doesn't usually have to involve the parents consent, either, although it is for the best if it does.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Icarus, apparently I did misunderstand slightly. At any rate, on this issue, it seems we are in agreement.
Likely there are procedure, as you point out, in place to deal with difficult students in this teachers school. I can't believe this teacher actually followed them, which was my point. If this student was causing sufficient problems in the classroom to warrant being moved, then the teacher should have follow reasonable procedures to deal with the problem.
I do have great sympathy for modern teachers. It seems to me that the have been massively hamstringed by 'political correctness' and the idea that no one should even be disappointed. So, we give trophies to everyone who participates, which diminishes the accomplishments of those who succeed or stand out. Discipline seems even more no existent in the homes than it is at school.
They, teachers, also seem to be under the impression that no kid should ever fail, and when a student does and should fail, the administration blames the teachers rather than the students or parents. That puts teacher in a seeming hopeless no-win situation. I don't blame them for being frustrated.
But no matter how frustrated this particular teacher might have been, she absolutely handled the problem in the worst possible way. At least in my opinion.
posted
If the reports we have seen are correct, then I think she WILL lose her job. She should, IMO. No child, special needs or not, should be put though that, particularly at age 5.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I'm not dying on this hill, I'm just wounded but I expect to make a full recovery.
You could recover by admitting you're wrong.
quote:I have American Heritage CD-ROM dictionary installed on my computer, and it shows "Typo's" which in any case is as valid a contraction as any.
My search of Dictionary.com turns up "Typo's", typos, typo, typo-, and typo..
As I said earlier, I've got an American Heritage Dictionary, third edition, and it does not show typo's as a plural of typo. You can go to Dictionary.com and enter "typo's" in the search box, and it'll return an entry for "typo," but that entry pretty clearly shows the plural to be "typos." Note that one of the print dictionaries that Dictionary.com draws from is AHD, fourth edition. In other words, it's pretty clear that you're misreading the entry on your electronic AHD third.
And anyway, I'd be pretty surprised if AHD showed a plural of a normal word with an apostrophe, since it's a pretty conservatively edited dictionary; it was created in response to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, which some people saw as too liberal and permissive.
quote:All of which are classified as informal which means they are not really words at all, as I have already pointed out, but are lazy informal shortenings of common words that have become acceptable not through correctness but though shear quantity and commonness of use.
Er, no. As I said earlier, you don't seem to understand what "informal" means in a dictionary entry. It has nothing to do with laziness or correctness and everything to do with, well, the level formality you're going for in your writing.
quote:Let's face it "ain't" ain't a word, but it is still in the dictionary. How did it get there? Well, it was so commonly and frequently, though incorrectly, used, that it became an informal word in the process and the dictionary had to recognize it as such.
Again, you really don't know how such things work. Ain't was once a perfectly legitimate word until some people got it into their heads that there was something wrong with it, and ever since then it's been a piece of folk linguistics that ain't isn't a word. You could try looking it up instead of just shooting from the hip.
quote:Next, while not much of an indicator, 325,000 instances from a Google search for "typo's" would seem to agree with me, including 'National Public Radio'. Though again, admittedly, that is not much of a test, and massively more people use 'typos'.
It's worth pointing out that some of those are possessives and some are obviously meant to be ironic.
quote:None the less, like it or not, "typo's" is still a valid contraction even if it isn't a formal word. I've never denied that 'typos' is a valid and common plural of the informal 'typo', but I'm standing fast that "typo's" is a valid contraction for the phrase 'typographical errors', and that is whether it is in the dictionary or not. And I've never denied that 'typos' is far more common, but that fact alone does not make me wrong.
It's not a contraction. Contractions in English are a pretty limited group. There are basically two groups: auxiliary verbs plus n't, and personal pronouns plus auxiliary verbs 'm, 's, 're, 'd, 'll, and 've. The only one I know of that doesn't fall into these two categories is let's.
But if you're so sure that it's a contraction, perhaps you can provide some evidence. Your Google search results aren't very good evidence because there's a much better explanation for the apostrophe: the fact that many people pluralize words with apostrophes, especially when the word ends in a vowel.
quote:As far as how A.T.M. and F.B.I became ATM and FBI, again it was through shear volume. A.T.M. and F.B.I. are correct, they are just not common any more, but they were at one time. You say yourself that A.T.M. is not favored, but not favored doesn't mean wrong.
Can you provide some sources? As I've said, almost all style guides now recommend dropping the periods, even if they were formerly more common. And since the style guides are the ones who make up these rules in the first place, I'd say that if they've changed their minds (with the exception of the New York Times), then it means that it's now incorrect to put periods in such abbreviations.
quote:So, wounded on the hill as I may be, no one has yet to prove to me that "typo's" is not a valid contraction of 'typographical errors'.
Nah. You just seem highly resistant to facts.
quote:And, as 'typo.' is considered correct, it would seem that 'typo' is an abbreviation. Again, acknowledging that the period was dropped for simplicity, but reminding you that it was once there, just as it was for info..
Make up your mind: is it an abbreviation or a contraction? Of course, it's actually neither; it's an apocopation.
Edited to add: Actually, it looks like typo. is an abbreviation, but it's not the same thing as the word typo. An abbreviation is basically a short way of writing something, like abbrev. for abbreviation. But these are separate things, and the apocopated form is not the same as the abbreviated form.
quote:You've made a strong argument, but you haven't convinced me that I'm wrong, partly because you are arguing the wrong point. You seem to think the question is whether "typo's" is a substitute for the informal and PLURAL 'typos'. I never claimed it was. All I've ever said is that it is a valid contraction of 'typographical errors'.
No, you're just misunderstanding. You've gotten all mixed up in talk of contractions and abbreviations and laziness and correctness and have missed the point that neither English morphology nor style work the way you claim.
[ June 02, 2008, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Parents didn't get to place their children in my specific class in the first place. We have lots of teachers at each school, and we try to avoid ever having just one teacher teach any specific class, specifically to make it possible to move students if it proves necessary. Parents are specifically not allowed to request a specific teacher, or to request not to have a specific teacher. (Of course, they can request whatever they want, but those requests carry pretty much no weight.) Before the year starts, they certainly don't have the right to pick and choose their teachers. Why should they have a right afterward that they didn't have before?
(EDIT TO ADD: Requests by parents to switch teachers during the year are also routinely ignored. Parents quite simply do not get to choose their children's teachers.)
The previous has to do with the placement of students in class. I have no problem at all with this.
quote:Least restrictive environment means that they can be in a regular classroom unless it can be proven that that is not feasible. Nobody is arguing the fact that students have the legal right to be educated in the least restrictive environment feasible. But when I teach Algebra I and so does Mrs. Smith down the hall, yes, the school has the right to switch a student from my class to Mrs. Smith's without asking permission. The student is still in the same environment--a regular classroom.
As I have been taught repeatedly: Once the student has been placed in a regular classroom, that classroom is the least restrictive environment. Removing the student from that classroom is a restriction. It can be done, yes, but not merely because a teacher requests it. There must be a reason, or the parent must agree to it. My argument with you is not whether it can be done, or whether it is done, but whether a parent has a right under the law to demand that it is not done.
A parent can claim that: "My child had developed a routine in this class, changing that routine represents a restriction." Or: "My child has friends in that class, so moving my child will be traumatic to him." Or, "If you move my child, the other children will know it's because of her behavior, and this will stigmatize her."
I'll go back to your original statement that I disagreed with, because this thing has gotten blown up out of proportion:
quote:Actually we (teachers in Osceola County, the neighboring county to the one in which this event occurred) have the right to demand that a disruptive student be removed from our classes and not returned until the disruption has been dealt with.
Number one I have a disagreement with the word "right." You have a contractual agreement with your administration that they will support you when you ask that a child be removed from your class. Fine.
Number two I have a disgreement with the phrase "not returned until the disruption has been dealt with." That's too broad. The administration has a certain amount of time to have an "administrative hearing" or whatever language they use where you are, but they have to go through that step if they haven't "dealt with the disruption" before that time is up. And even then, if the parent argues that the student should remain in your room, the burden of proof is on the school. Again, you may have a contractual agreement that they will attempt to do this, but if they fail to prove that the student can't be accommodated in your room, the student will be back in your room. The part you keep leaving out of your response is the parent's reaction to the move. You and your school have no control over that.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, I checked with teacher friends of mine in Philadelphia. What Icarus is saying is correct for them too.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn: as that's a pretty radical definition of least restrictive environment, you would need to find a court case supporting it to even begin to prove the position. Ideally a court case that is precedent for a decent chunk of the country.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This just in: Icarus might just know his job and its specific ins and outs better than Glenn Arnold!
I am qualified and certified to do Icarus' job. Beyond that I have no interest in arguing credentials.
quote:Glenn: as that's a pretty radical definition of least restrictive environment, you would need to find a court case supporting it to even begin to prove the position. Ideally a court case that is precedent for a decent chunk of the country.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, which is why I invited legal types to weigh in on this in my original post. But this is from wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I think it's relevant.
quote:According to the United States Department of Education, for children with disabilities who have been suspended for 10 days total for each school year, including partial days, the local education agency (LEA) must hold a manifestation determination hearing within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct following either the Stay Put law which states that the child shall not be moved from his or her current placement or interim services in an alternative placement if the infraction was deemed to cause danger to other students. The LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the individualized education program (IEP) team (as determined by the parent and LEA) shall review all relevant information in the student's file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if the conduct in question was:
* Caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child's disability; or * The direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the IEP.
If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP team shall:
* Conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan for such child, provided that the LEA had not conducted such assessment prior to such determination before the behavior that resulted in a change in placement described in Section 615(k)(1)(C) or (G); * In the situation where a behavioral intervention plan has been developed, review the behavioral intervention plan if the child already has such a behavioral intervention plan, and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior; and * Except as provided in Section 615(k)(1)(G), return the child to the placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavior intervention plan.
posted
In particular, there's a key element: "children with disabilities". They have an IEP indicating the steps of how they need to be treated. Children without an IEP have no such restrictions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is imperfect enough that it offers no support to speak of. The situation it applies in has long been understood to be different in relevant ways.
Oh, I'd also take an official opinion from the DOE instead of a court case.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the best of my knowledge, Icarus never made a distinction between whether he has the right to remove a non-classified student from his room as opposed to classified one. Even then, I see no reason why a non-classified student would have fewer rights than a classified one. And the child in question (going back to the thread topic) is classified, yes?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which speaks to my point, actually, because he had the same right to remain in his placement even before he was classified. Or, saying it another way, any student can potentially be classified, and kicking them out of your room may well be the catalyst that starts the process.
In any case, IDEA (which is pretty much just PL 94-142 renamed when they renewed it) gives rights to classified students which previously were assumed to only apply to "educable" children. Educable children already had those rights, although they weren't encoded into law.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question about this court ruling is what is meant by "a change in placement", while this could refer to moving a child from one classroom to an equivalent classroom in the same school, I suspect that it does not. I would interpret "Change in placement" to refer to change from one school to another or from one program (such as accelerated or remedial) to another program.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
