In which I piss in your Cheerios

I've simply  heard enough of this particular argument.  Lambaste me, call me evil, call me what you will, but I can no longer tolerate this pity party. I am one of you, albeit slightly different, and your becoming an embarrassment to what I hold sacred............

 One fine example.

Proposed teacher salary pay cuts.  It's a really popular and heated topic round here.  It's all over our multiple newspapers,  nonstop board meetings, and even to be heard as a conversational topic in some local pubs.  I think possibly the only thing that could compete in notoriety would the "Occupy" movement in this county.

I am a teacher. I am a Special Education Teacher.  I am a Special Education Teacher with a special needs child of my own.  I am a Special Education Teacher who works with the most severely affected in the county.

I teach Non Public.  I teach at the most restrictive Non Public setting there is prior to institutionalization.

I make at least $18,000 dollars less a year then the public teaching sector.  I have no union, no union contractual minimum raises, and no union protection.  Our raises are based solely on merit, and in the last eleven years we have been subject to five pay freezes because the budget didn't allow for them.  Given the current budget crisis, everybody got a flat two percent pay raise, even if they deserved much more. 

I have had my classroom budget slashed by seventy five percent of what it use to be.  I have had to take on more responsibility, work more hours, figure out ways to be more creative when it comes to still writing meaning full goals that will assist my students (sans the budget money to accomplish those goals), and go back to the drawing table to recreate the whole classroom schedule when it comes to Community Based Instruction and how to access that without the previous money that funded it. 

I still pay over eight hundred dollars a month for medical benefits for my family, with costs continuing to rise every year. 

I still put in a minimum ten hour day, every day, without the luxury of overtime.

The public sector teachers have the audacity to complain about proposed pay cuts,  the roll back of their contractual seven percent salary increase, and that they begin to contribute to their health benefits cost to save our schools from insolvency.

Are you F***ing kidding me?  Take a look around at our economy.  What makes you so special that you think you don't need to make concessions like most of the rest of the country has?  How many people have been downsized, laid off, become unemployed, lost their retirement, their homes, and those that did retain employment, not take on heaps more job responsibilities while their companies adjusted to the lack of money? 

I know my household income was cut by half, the fees for my daughters school jumped ten dollars a unit, my insurance premiums tripled, and I now help support my once very well to do parents.  What makes you any different than the rest of us that have had to give up so much?

Teaching is an insanely difficult and time consuming profession.  It's certainly not for everyone.  But it is a calling.  And with any job you may perform, you need to love what you do because it's what you want to do in life, and not base its merits on the pay you receive.  Such thinking will only set you up for the feelings of dissatisfaction that you publicly complain about now.  Waisting all this effort on being pissed off that your going to  have to become like the rest of us surely must take away from your effectiveness in your job currently. 

We all have to compromise and sacrifice and some point and time.  Some of us have made that decision long ago when we entered the field because we wanted to do more for our community, and not for ourselves.  Some of us have been offered all those extra dollar signs to work for the public entity and turned it down because we know that in the long run we wont have as much impact of the life of a student; which is why we went down this road in the first place. 

One step forward, ten steps back.

After an exceptionally challenging school year I've come to the conclusion that it's time for change.  Between personal life aspects of the boy and his education, the economy, and my general energy level, it's time to go back to the drawing board.  I had planned on going down this road in the future; just not this near future.  Such as life.

I really do believe that being a Special Advocate is my perfect niche.  I have a fierce justice complex, and the tenacity to back it up when those less fortunate are being screwed over in the mix.  Too many years of games and flaming hoops with regard to my son have created a take no prisoners attitude in me when it comes to the law.

My bigger issue is if I have it in me right now to go back to school.  My time is extremely limited between my own classroom, the boy, the neurotypical daughter I'm putting through college, and that each day only allots 24 hours to get it all done in.  I'm in great hope that I just feel like I've been put through the wringer because this last year was the most physically and emotionally demanding that I've encountered in eleven years; only time will tell with that one.

Normally, I wouldn't even consider taking this leap with all that is my life.  As usual though, change is necessitated through some less than desirable happenings within the public system in my neck of the woods, and that shit aint gonna fly with me.  These are changes that will not benefit the greater good, and they are very swift moving with this new agenda.  While it will always be my responsibility to advocate for my son, and my students, I feel compelled to serve more, as this will affect most children in this district negatively.  And we all know that once one entity starts to make major change, the rest follow suit.

Details will remain in my own head for now; call it paranoia, but since information I receive is confidential in nature, and was not intended for my eyes, I'll just keep it all to myself.  It's sufficiently compelling to cause me to further overwhelm myself, as well as invest a chunk of money that I could certainly use elsewhere just to rail against this new proposal (which should speak for itself).

So, one step forward for me..............because I cannot allow them to go ten steps back.

The "new" push for inclusion

I've spoken of this topic before, and just this week, it seems the topic is picking up steam here in the land of sunshine.  Two different articles for two different locales, though the content and message they are trying to convey is essentially the same........as well as very pretty sugar coating.

First and foremost, the push for inclusion (at least in this county) has very little to do with trying to provide FAPE and LRE for it's students.  There are some isolated cases where that is true; but few and far between.  This is all about our budget issues and funding.  Some might find my view jaded, or overly opinionated, but I work in this field, and have a child in this system.  I have experienced first hand both sides of this push, and in both instances the word "cost" has been discussed with me.

The first article this week highlights many concerns that I had already mentioned.  The most important being adequate training of public education staff.  Most of them receive crash course special education training, that is far to generic in nature, if at all.  They are left highly unequipped to serve the population they are working with, which is in no way a better option for the students they serve.  They are not prepared to receive the influx of students being pushed back to a public campus.  On the flip side, these students are having to experience a massive transition with little warning, and staff that do not understand how to help them through this change.....

And let me elaborate on that just a little more.  Have administrator's really thoroughly thought out exactly what a child with moderate to severe disabilities has to go through with this change relative to their unique needs?  First you abruptly transition a student to a new school.  Secondly, in most cases, you are placing this student in a setting with no familiarity, several hundred more bodies, classes that change every hour (for those in Jr. through SR. high), and a myriad of other sensory overload situations.  If a student is truly ready to transition back to an LRE, this is a process in which they need to be slowly integrated into, with support staff from their current site to help both the student and the new staff understand each student individually.  Were these students able to handle a public setting with ease, they wouldn't be in a non public setting in the first place.  Third (and often most importantly) you must ensure that the receiving staff are ALREADY trained in the specific disability, as well as having whatever accommodations, visuals, etc. prepared and accessible for said student upon their arrival.  To do any less sets both the staff and the student up for failure, or at the very least, lost educational time and progress towards behavioral and academic goals.

This point was brought up in the first article by a few parents.  That they were given little to no notice that this change would happen, and that their children suffered because of it. 

One of the big themes of this first article was about non public settings cost, and strategies employed in said settings i.e. reinforcement systems, and ancillary staff.  There were many gripes about reinforcement systems being to costly, unacceptable, and one commenter who is a para educator spoke of it as it being completely unnecessary (evidently she forgot her applied behavioral analysis classes, or wasn't paying attention).  You  have to truly know the population, to understand why reinforcement is so crucial (and you need to re-examine yourself and realize that your own life if fueled by "reinforcement", nobody works for free).  I will agree that it can be overused, and not phased out soon enough in some settings, and for some students.  This does not negate its value. 

As for the cost of ancillary services in the non public setting, there are a few truths to that, and some points that have been overlooked in the comparison of non public vs public setting.  In this county, there are some non public sites that do charge separately for speech, occupational therapy, counseling, etc.  But there are also many sites that include these services as part of the daily rate charged to the district.  Many sites that include the cost also fully utilize these departments for more than just pull out sessions.  They use them to host inservices, create materials (for teachers who are already working 10+ hours a day), assist with behavioral situations, playground supervision, and any other place a need is to be met.  They, as well as the other educational staff on campus, are paid far under what the public setting pay rate is because of the unique needs of the students higher staffing ratio, and required specialized materials.  Though this article claims the opposite to be true, that is not the case in this county.

On to the second article, which in many ways, just irritates me further.  This one was highlighting the success of a particular new program and a very specific student on a public campus who came from a non public program.  I say very specific student with emphasis, and will leave it at that.  This program sells itself as innovative and forward thinking into integrating students back into the public setting (under the guise of inclusion and meeting the social needs of these students).  This programs design was borrowed from the non public setting in which this specific student came from.  They of course do not elaborate on that point, but do berate the non public settings for not having the opportunity for socialization with typical peers.  They tout the success of this student in their new program, when in reality, it was the non public setting that laid the ground work for this student.

I am a firm believer in inclusion and LREFAPE, Administrators need to take a step back and really examine what is in the best interest of each individual student, and if this sudden trend is really going to provide that free and appropriate education they are supposed to be providing.

As usual, my two cents on the subject.