I sub at my son's school & have been wondering all year if there are kids at his school who would be better served somewhere else.
Reading the posts about the boy who was pepper-sprayed had me thinking about the children at my son's school, because the potential is there for some of them to become equally violent. Actually, I've witnessed a few incidents and it is scary. There is one boy in particular who I've seen destroy the school psychologist's office in a fit of rage. In 1st grade, a student tried to stab my son's teacher with a pencil. And that student, now in 3rd grade, is still at the school.
Where do you think the line should be for kids who are violent to be removed from a school? And do you think the motivation to keep them there is purely financial (for the school system)?
Answer by mom24girlsmt at 8:02 AM on Apr. 8, 2011
I have been asked by schools to sign home-bound (so they can avoid having to pay for other options). But sometimes there is no one safe in the home to watch the child. Even good parents may not be able to manage and cope with a truly mentally ill child posing a risk to the child and others in the area. Parents try desperately to get help their child needs. NO insurance covers the cost for long term residential mental health needs. Parents in middle class families or low income can't afford the care needed. They scream for help and get labeled bad parents. All I can say is in my state we do not vote for the people who can make options possible. In fact, we vote consistently for those that keep pulling more and more resources so that schools are left with zero options. I now see kids who schools send to my private practice in hopes of a magic cure. Treatment is expensive. And we don't want to invest in our kids.
Answer by frogdawg at 8:25 AM on Apr. 8, 2011
I worked as a therapist in public schools and worked specifically with mentally ill children. I agree there should be appropriate settings to meet the needs of very mentally ill children....but there isn't. At least not in my state. Many times the school had options but the principal chose not to exercise those because of the politics involved (her reputation, her chances for advancements/promotions, how expensive it is). And sometimes it IS safer for a child to be at school and not at home. There is a very expensive way in my state, and many states have this option. We call it Continuum of Care. It is a therapeutic residential option for the most ill and schools are obligated to pay for at least a good part of the care. So can the Department of Juvenile Justice. Because of the expense most schools desperately try to avoid it at all costs. About the child be safer in the school:
Answer by frogdawg at 8:21 AM on Apr. 8, 2011
Answer by gemgem at 8:01 AM on Apr. 8, 2011
Answer by brypmom at 8:20 AM on Apr. 8, 2011
Answer by NorthStar115 at 9:48 AM on Jun. 16, 2011
Most Liked Posts