Boy banned from playground because of disability

[MA-Caver]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=1&u=/ap/20040922/ap_on_re_us/playground_ban
As if there isn't enough things to worry about already.
IMO the boy shouldn't be banned because of this disability/communication disorder but he should be supervised with either a parent or a trained adult to prevent any altercations that may arise from the disability/misunderstanding. Other than that... I think he's a healthy kid that needs the social interaction with other kids because it just MIGHT help with the disability. Geez.

 

[D_Brady]

And when is the child going to be ALLOWED to learn and practice social skills, no matter what development stage they may be at. Some people just suck

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I was getting all ready to be righteously indignant, but I was perplexed by one part of the article. Of course I think this boy should be able to go play with other kids. But, as MACaver said, I think there should be, at least initially, some sort of knowledgeable supervisor. It sounds like the adults in charge had no idea how to handle the situation, or thought he was deliberately being difficult.

I'm curious - if you were in that situation, would you continue to educate your child at home, or opt for putting your child into regular classes, as was an option for these parents?

 

[Flatlander]

It is a difficult problem. On one hand, they are protecting the other children, as a reference was made to some of this child's agressive and violent behaviour. On the other hand, the child is now excluded.

Why a lawsuit? Why can't these people just work together to find a solution that can benefit everyone? Man, people are just ridiculous sometimes. It's really interesting to me that the parents believe that recieving a monetary award makes everything OK. Could they not have just complied with the School Board's request and had the child evaluated by a psychologist, thus facilitating a resolution to the real issue? Man, people are just ridiculous sometimes.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Much like Feisty, I opened the article ready to decry the schoolboard's actions, but after reading it I think they were in the right. I don't think they were being discriminatory towards the kid at all; he acted way out of line, so the schoolboard made a requirement that a shrink see the kid in order to evaluate the situation that the kid created. In order to make their argument stick, the parents would have to show that, when kids without neurological disorders act in the same way, the school board would react in a different manner, which I highly doubt.

And to answer the question about why a lawsuit, I'd have to say that yeah, a lot of it is the money, but it's also meant to change how things operate by hitting them where it hurts--i.e. their wallet.

In this case, I think the parents are just being a bit self-righteous in placing the blame on the schoolboard rather than their handling of the kid.

 

[D_Brady]

I have student's who are autisic(high functioning), Yes they can be prone to lack of a better term fits of rage when frustrated.they don't do well in other activities at times and they do need special attention in school.But my guys have come along way because of the interaction and I would say the examples set from the upperank students.

I feel that sometimes the whole your special, might keep some children from learning the social skills and graces they will need later just to function in society.
I'm no doctor by any means I just see the development change from when they first started with till now.

Learning to wait their turn.
They can't always win.
They're not the only ones who get my attention in class.
Teamwork always works.

Sometimes they need someone out side the family and the specialist but if we close them down then what.

Please understand I'm not ranting, it's just my 2 cents.

 

[Bob D.]

Sounds like the boy was fine while attending school. It was after he was taken out of school and home schooled for some time that his behavior worsened. I would look to that aspect for answers. Seems that he should be put back in a more social environment.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, this is the first time I've heard of a kid with Asperger's being violent because of his Asperger's.

Second off--I'll bet a shiny nickel that this is one of those families that just makes the school boards of America throw up their hands is despair--did you notice that they tried to put him in regular classes, and the parents wanted him kept out?

Third off...I say, the Board should go limp on them, a good solid martial arts principle. They want him treated like other kids? Fine. Impose exactly the same disciplinary measure that they'd impose on any other kid who attacked another student.

Fourth off--stuff like this is a chunk of the reason that we are not spending nearly enough on education. I'll bet another shiny whatever that this family screams their head off about the property taxes and levees that school boards use to raise money...OK, that's unfair, but it wouldn't surprise me.

But most likely, both sides are right. Dammit.

 

[loki09789]

I was getting all ready to be righteously indignant, but I was perplexed by one part of the article. Of course I think this boy should be able to go play with other kids. But, as MACaver said, I think there should be, at least initially, some sort of knowledgeable supervisor. It sounds like the adults in charge had no idea how to handle the situation, or thought he was deliberately being difficult.

I'm curious - if you were in that situation, would you continue to educate your child at home, or opt for putting your child into regular classes, as was an option for these parents?

They are/were homeschooling the child and the article makes it out that they were taking him to school during play time for socialization purposes. I think having him in spec ed. or even aided (spec ed or trained aide) supervision would create reinforcement and repitition of social norms where homeschooling is like letting the calf out of the pen....

The other issue is that the child is obviously categorized and eligible by law for some kind of school sponsored assitance. I don't know if that applies now that he is in a homeschool status or not though.

I think the parents did a disservice by excluding the child and homeschooling him IF the concern is socialization deficiencies. I think the school did a disservice to the child by not offering individual supervision during this playground time (they may be required to do so, though it sounds like they aren't) AND preparing the other children with some kind of skills, information that would help them understand and cope with a disabled child intermixed with them.

At my last High School the spec ed kids were mixed in with the mainstream classes (though their expected standards of academic performance were different and they had aides in the room with them. The ALL students benefitted. The mainstream kids were welcoming and patient. They were empathetic without seeming pitying...and the spec ed students were comfortable enough with the interaction that they didn't demonstrate any severe insecurities or 'social retribution' because of their difference...it was very nice to see.

 

[shesulsa]

Well, y'all gotta know I'd have something to say about this. (Takes deep breath)

I've been following this story for about a year now on the autism lists I belong to. Here's some points to ponder:

1. As children on the autism spectrum grow, they go through periods of behavioral problems. My son had two and half years where it was all he could do to keep himself from giggling constantly - even when he got hurt - he would stop for five seconds, then start giggling again. He went through a period of about a year where all he would do at recess is walk the perimeter and refused one-on-one interaction with anyone. Now he likes to show off his martial arts in the middle of the quad (which I highly discourage) and bows and says, "thank you, thank you!" as though he's given some great performance. He also has gone through violent stages. So the fact that this is happening now may or may not have something to do with being removed from school.

2. Meeting with educational professionals such as teachers, administrators and so-called therapists to arrive at the best possible or most appropriate (as they like to call it) educational set-up for your child is the bane of parents' existences. I HATE I.E.P. MEETINGS!! First, you have to fight tooth and nail to get 10% of what your child requires to be successful at learning in public school. Also, having a child at a public school who is classified as a "special education student" but is placed in a regular class looks promising in written word - however, it is often a ploy to get and keep special ed funding while not providing special ed to a high-functioning student. Removing support from a student who is successful with support is a questionable action and should be done very, very gradually. However, I'm not sure I agree with removing him from the school completely - this lends credence to the idea that these people wanted the child removed from the school period (yes, unfortunately, there are teachers like that - and I have a great respect for the teaching profession).

3. I concur that this boy most likely needed a social aide to accompany him on the playground and in social settings - especially since the social aspects of interaction are one of the biggest challenges for kids on the autism spectrum. It is extremely difficult to teach these kids that when they are teased or excluded that violent response is only reinforcing other kids' trepiditious nature around challenged persons. Helping them find subtle ways of maintaining dignity requires the child to have an underlying ability to transcend the haughtiness of other kids and this just is not in the nature of an aspie or an autie - sorry, but that's just the way it is.

4. Getting money from the school district in a lawsuit like this is like squeezing blood out of a turnip - it's HARD to win a case against a school / district unless the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favor. Does money help? YES! It helps that family get intervention that insurance FREAKING REFUSES TO PAY FOR so that this kid can eventually contribute to society and be relatively functional as opposed to costing the taxpayers even more freaking money to institutionalize him or pay for a full-time caregiver in adulthood for the rest of his life. Getting the money also GETS THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC, THE DISTRICT AND POLITICIANS that this is an ongoing problem.

Being the parent of an autistic child, I was relieved at first to hear about IDEA which grants the rights of challenged children to a free and appropriate education. Then I found out it's not funded and most teacher balk at it. I know why, but...pushing them away isn't going to make special needs kids stop attending school.

MY BOTTOM LINE: I wouldn't dream of allowing my son to join other kids unsupervised, nor would I tolerate his violent outbursts with other kids, nor would I tolerate other kids goading of him. However, if the supervisor doesn't want to do the job and the kid still gets into trouble, who's really at fault? The child (with no control over his involvement) or the supervising adult?

 

[loki09789]

However, if the supervisor doesn't want to do the job and the kid still gets into trouble, who's really at fault? The child (with no control over his involvement) or the supervising adult?

To what ever is a reasonable level of proper proportion or developmental expectation, the child should be held accountable because otherwise he will never learn. I don't care if the child is spec. needs or 'mainstream.' I do agree that there is enough 'corporate mind' institution mentallity to go around when it comes to these issues. Unfortunately, the conflict tends to be between the "individual student" support view and the "student body" support view when in these cases. Parents will, of course, be advocates for their individual child and the institution will be concerned with that also but from the perspective of a decision maker that has to weigh choices with the whole student body in mind as well.

I would rather see the School house supervisor (sounds like it would be an elementary principal) deal with it in house by using it as an opportunity to educate students on cooperation, diversity awareness....all those good things that get talked about but in this case seem to be forgotten to a degree. I think, from the parents side, you can get kind of thin skinned and always expect resistance and may, at times, over react out of a desire to keep the child from being neglected or hurt because of past experiences. In this case it seems taht both sides are doing some unproductive things and need to put the developmental growth of the child/children as a whole first and foremost.

Sometimes districts and administrators make decisions that 'don't rock the boat' and don't take advantage of real life situations because they might be disruptive for a while until the learning kicks in....let the kid play in with supervision and some training for the whole school. In the end, after the 'disruption' becomes part of the norm, the benefits will become obvious.

In our district we had parents complain about some of the "Safety Scenario" discussions in health class for middle school students. They thought that the situations were 'a bit much' for their children and didn't think exposure was appropriate for the age...... but I can just about bet that they took them to movies like Spiderman, Daredevil and let them watch TV shows with scenarios that were WAY beyond these 'harmful' scenarios that were being used to educate and rehears good 'stranger danger' and personal safety habits.

This is the same district where better than 70% of Middle and High school students are driven and picked up from school....PLEASE! I don't see how they will learn 'self reliance' if parents reinforce this dependency or become the 'chaufer' in the childs mind....

 

[Ping898]

You know, what is written also doesn't contain any of the background info either, like did the parents try to keep him in the school in the special ed classes and the school refused? I've seen that before. Has he been in mainstream classes in the past and run into problems that the parents are looking to avoid again? And the school wants him evaluated by a psycholigist, but are they paying for it? I don't agree that the kid should loose his playground time just cause of some problems, that might be solved by better or more direct supervision, but I also have to wonder if there is some of this story we are not reading. The writer seemed to take it mostly from the parents perspective, and not that the parents are wrong, but I feel like there is another side of the story that has not been told. Fighting for what your kids needs and deserve from their public school is not easy and half the time you are lucky if you get much of anything, I watched my parents do it for me, but I also know that at that time in the school there were people on my side doing what they could to help me. I bet not everyone is out to screw the kid out of his play time or make things difficult for the parents, they just may not know another good way to make things better and the parents don't help any by jumping to sue.

Just my thoughts on it.....

 

[shesulsa]

To what ever is a reasonable level of proper proportion or developmental expectation, the child should be held accountable because otherwise he will never learn.

I agree, thus the need for a social aide or supervisor. There really needs to be two - a recess duty (don't all schools have these? perhaps they need to stop jawing and daydreaming and pay attention - that's what they're for) and supervision specifically for the child. When undesirable behavior starts to rear its ugly head and the supervisor of the child can read the cues, immediate intervention is needed and if the behavior can't be avoided, then the child must have reasonable consequences. But banning the child from the playground won't help him nor the other kids in the long run.

Parents will, of course, be advocates for their individual child and the institution will be concerned with that also but from the perspective of a decision maker that has to weigh choices with the whole student body in mind as well.

Fair and agreed. I have learned, over the course of 11 years, that there are very cooperative professionals who know how to work the system fairly to get what is truly the most appropriate and functional needs for each individual child and they work their hearts out. And there are those who just don't give a crap and everything inbetween. I prefer to lay back and see who I'm dealing with before I come out with guns a-blazin' and hopefully I don't ever need to.

I would rather see the School house supervisor (sounds like it would be an elementary principal) deal with it in house by using it as an opportunity to educate students on cooperation, diversity awareness....all those good things that get talked about but in this case seem to be forgotten to a degree.

Preach, brother, preach! Guess what I get to do next week? For only the second time in 11 years, I get to go talk about autism to my son's choir classmates by invitation. I wish there were more people like you who believe that this is a viable action and could work.

I think, from the parents side, you can get kind of thin skinned and always expect resistance and may, at times, over react out of a desire to keep the child from being neglected or hurt because of past experiences. In this case it seems taht both sides are doing some unproductive things and need to put the developmental growth of the child/children as a whole first and foremost.

So true. It's tough when resources are thin, respite is scarce, funding is low and insurance is nil. It's a tough road to walk and don't we all get thinskinned about things that are so necessary and we are so alone in negotiative situations? See my note above.

Sometimes districts and administrators make decisions that 'don't rock the boat' and don't take advantage of real life situations because they might be disruptive for a while until the learning kicks in....let the kid play in with supervision and some training for the whole school. In the end, after the 'disruption' becomes part of the norm, the benefits will become obvious.

I like you.

In our district we had parents complain about some of the "Safety Scenario" discussions in health class for middle school students. They thought that the situations were 'a bit much' for their children and didn't think exposure was appropriate for the age...... but I can just about bet that they took them to movies like Spiderman, Daredevil and let them watch TV shows with scenarios that were WAY beyond these 'harmful' scenarios that were being used to educate and rehears good 'stranger danger' and personal safety habits.

...or let them watch cable or get on the internet without supervision or restriction...or let them watch shock-talk tv or R-rated movies. *sigh*

This is the same district where better than 70% of Middle and High school students are driven and picked up from school....PLEASE! I don't see how they will learn 'self reliance' if parents reinforce this dependency or become the 'chaufer' in the childs mind....

Yeah - let's not educate them on stranger danger, safety, etcetera and when they are ready, let them have responsibility for getting themselves to school on time - let's just protect them to death from strangers and program them with soft porn and violence so when they are set free they can be intolerant, irresponsible, propogating-too-early, needy, unemployed brats!

(pant...pant...pant) okay, I'm done now.

PSA: Progression - it's a word and a way of parenting and teaching...make it your friend.

 

[shesulsa]

You know, what is written also doesn't contain any of the background info either, like did the parents try to keep him in the school in the special ed classes and the school refused? I've seen that before. Has he been in mainstream classes in the past and run into problems that the parents are looking to avoid again? And the school wants him evaluated by a psycholigist, but are they paying for it? I don't agree that the kid should loose his playground time just cause of some problems, that might be solved by better or more direct supervision, but I also have to wonder if there is some of this story we are not reading. The writer seemed to take it mostly from the parents perspective, and not that the parents are wrong, but I feel like there is another side of the story that has not been told. Fighting for what your kids needs and deserve from their public school is not easy and half the time you are lucky if you get much of anything, I watched my parents do it for me, but I also know that at that time in the school there were people on my side doing what they could to help me. I bet not everyone is out to screw the kid out of his play time or make things difficult for the parents, they just may not know another good way to make things better and the parents don't help any by jumping to sue.

Just my thoughts on it.....

Yes, Ping, the parents tried to keep an interventive approach with the child and the school said either he's going to be mainstreamed or he's out - he no longer qualifies for special education, in their opinion. See, the support level they finally reached with him worked so well he was successfully learning, making transitions well, learning social interaction well, so he was not too distinguishable from the other kids, so they thought he didn't need sped anymore.

 

[JPR]

I am not intending to stir anyone up or upset them with this post. That being said, I serve on a school board and from that perspective I understand the initial decision to restrict / ban the boy from the playground. When you have the responsibility for other people’s children, you tend to not take chances. The initial response is to immediately control the situation, investigate and get background, then make a final / lasting decision. Any sign of violence or overly aggressive behavior has to be dealt with immediately. If it is not and someone gets seriously injured the legal ramifications are severe. A legal issue centers around did you know / suspect (based upon past behavior or other evidences) that this child could be violent? If the answer is yes, and you show no other effort to control / alleviate / mitigate the situation, you are in deep, deep trouble as a school. And none of this even begins to touch upon the violation of trust with the parents of a hurt child, the moral imperative to protect children under your authority, etc.



According to the accounts: “Students reported that Jan swore and threatened them, played roughly with younger children and kicked one child. Teacher's aides said he defied their commands and told students they didn't have to listen, either. “ A child, not in the school, exhibits this behavior at a school controlled area, the school is obligated to remove the child for the others’ safety. The school also seemed to have a ready remedy; “They (the school) wanted to return him (Jan) to the playground once a psychologist could evaluate his behavior and determine ways for him to interact better with other children.”



I, obliviously, don’t fully understand why the parents didn’t want Jan tested again or seem reluctant to work with the school to find a solution. Seems like a shame, because in the long run if the adults would work together to resolve the problem the children would do what children do best; live, play, love, and have fun.



JPR

 

[loki09789]

I am not intending to stir anyone up or upset them with this post. That being said, I serve on a school board and from that perspective I understand the initial decision to restrict / ban the boy from the playground. When you have the responsibility for other people’s children, you tend to not take chances. The initial response is to immediately control the situation, investigate and get background, then make a final / lasting decision. Any sign of violence or overly aggressive behavior has to be dealt with immediately. If it is not and someone gets seriously injured the legal ramifications are severe. A legal issue centers around did you know / suspect (based upon past behavior or other evidences) that this child could be violent? If the answer is yes, and you show no other effort to control / alleviate / mitigate the situation, you are in deep, deep trouble as a school. And none of this even begins to touch upon the violation of trust with the parents of a hurt child, the moral imperative to protect children under your authority, etc.



According to the accounts: “Students reported that Jan swore and threatened them, played roughly with younger children and kicked one child. Teacher's aides said he defied their commands and told students they didn't have to listen, either. “ A child, not in the school, exhibits this behavior at a school controlled area, the school is obligated to remove the child for the others’ safety. The school also seemed to have a ready remedy; “They (the school) wanted to return him (Jan) to the playground once a psychologist could evaluate his behavior and determine ways for him to interact better with other children.”



I, obliviously, don’t fully understand why the parents didn’t want Jan tested again or seem reluctant to work with the school to find a solution. Seems like a shame, because in the long run if the adults would work together to resolve the problem the children would do what children do best; live, play, love, and have fun.



JPR

I imagine/hope that at some point in the involve parties discussions, the board/administration members can articulate their concerns and decision making process as calmly as you did here JPR. I also hope that the parents are open, calm and not so emotionally worked up to hear that tone as well....

Maybe you should apply to the district..,

 

[shesulsa]

Any sign of violence or overly aggressive behavior has to be dealt with immediately. If it is not and someone gets seriously injured the legal ramifications are severe. A legal issue centers around did you know / suspect (based upon past behavior or other evidences) that this child could be violent? If the answer is yes, and you show no other effort to control / alleviate / mitigate the situation, you are in deep, deep trouble as a school. And none of this even begins to touch upon the violation of trust with the parents of a hurt child, the moral imperative to protect children under your authority, etc.

One effort to control the situation is proper supervision and education. I in no way feel that other kids should just have to endure being tortured by challenged kids - however, closely supervised exposure to others will really do wonders for the child. My belief is that the child was probably not being supervised well enough and that is the fault of all adults involved in this story.

According to the accounts: “Students reported that Jan swore and threatened them, played roughly with younger children and kicked one child. Teacher's aides said he defied their commands and told students they didn't have to listen, either. “

Yeah, this sounds like the child has been influenced a bit by his parents. We can't know the entire story here, but from my past readings of this family's dealings with the school and the district left the family feeling very disenfranchised and resentful. I'm sure this spilled over onto the boy.

The school also seemed to have a ready remedy; “They (the school) wanted to return him (Jan) to the playground once a psychologist could evaluate his behavior and determine ways for him to interact better with other children.”

I, obliviously, don’t fully understand why the parents didn’t want Jan tested again or seem reluctant to work with the school to find a solution. Seems like a shame, because in the long run if the adults would work together to resolve the problem the children would do what children do best; live, play, love, and have fun.

Well, first they wanted to remove all support and place him, a child with special needs who became successful with sped support, into regular classes with no support whatsoever while keeping his diagnosis. Now they want to psychologically evaluate him? Don't they already know what the problem is? Why not return to the original plan wherein the boy was successful? A psychological evaluation is just not needed - the original support system is what is needed. A psych eval will only re-classify the boy based on current behavioral manifestations as potentially violent - isn't one label enough? Reclassification could require the boy to take meds at school and then we'll be back at the mandatory medication thread debating that decision.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The more I'm reading, the more I'm tilting towards the notion that the parents are a big chunk of the problem. Some of the details seem to indicate that the school has bent over backwards for this kid--and the parents just don't like the decisions, and aren't terribly respectful of the other kids and parents. Particularly, what's the claptrap about home schooling, but bringing the kid to recess "for his socialization?" This strikes me as something that can ONLY cause problems...kids take long enough to accept newcomers anyway, and a weird kid who just gets dropped off to play with them...not gonna work.

 

[D_Brady]

bringing the kid to recess "for his socialization?" This strikes me as something that can ONLY cause problems...kids take long enough to accept newcomers anyway, and a weird kid who just gets dropped off to play with them...not gonna work.[/QUOTE]

Ok but where should the as put it WEIRD kids learn to interact with new people out side the family.

I'm only asking so those with WEIRD kids can make everyone happy.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'm only asking so those with WEIRD kids can make everyone happy.

I think robertson just meant that the other kids at the park, who take long enough to get used to someone new anyway, would only take longer to get to know a weird (read different) kid who only shows up for recess.

Or I may be wrong.