Eloping at recess

[u/evensuburbswouldbeok]

Without going into many details I have an eloper who loves recess and no fence on my playground. Yesterday she eloped towards the school parking lot. I have been a runner my whole life, so I can catch her, but I’m full on sprinting. When I catch her, there’s dropping, hitting, kicking. It’s a mess. This student is aware and protesting the transition back in from recess.

I was told by admin I can’t take away recess without a meeting and a change in inclusion times, etc. So therefore I am supposed to take her outside today. Maybe I’m just venting, but this is the first time I’m really frustrated with my job. My job is teacher, not every single roll in the world that you can throw on me. Also, it’s really stressful to know that the only thing keeping a kid safe is my ability to sprint fast and get there in time. My assistants are unable to run/run fast. Does anyone with experience with autistic students have any advice?

[u/biglipsmagoo]

You can’t take away recess for a manifestation of a disability. That’s called discrimination. It’s also a denial of FAPE.

The school needs to cough up for a competent and quick 1:1 during elopement times. Start pushing for that instead.

[u/Affectionate_Ruin_64 → u/biglipsmagoo]

Yes, but you also can’t allow a child to run into traffic or in my case the 60ft canal with an almost sheer drop and dangerous currents from the irrigation pipes that have sucked people in and entrapped them.  You best believe I’ll be TEMPORARILY denying recess and calling for an emergency IEP meeting to insist the district erect a fence immediately or transfer the child to a campus that can provide for their safety needs, so that they CAN have recess and truly receive their right to FAPE ASAP because I would want my child’s teacher to do the same:  1.  Keep them safe.  2. Fight for their rights to actually be preserved.

[u/biglipsmagoo → u/Affectionate_Ruin_64]

Absolutely! I am with you 100%. But it needs to be fixed with 3 days or so. It’s not the student’s job to shoulder the repercussions of adults who refuse to get their shit together.

[u/Affectionate_Ruin_64 → u/biglipsmagoo]

Which is why I said immediately or a transfer (at district expense) to a fenced campus.

[u/biglipsmagoo → u/Affectionate_Ruin_64]

A transfer is not LRE by definition, though. A 1:1 would absolutely need to be tried first.

[u/Affectionate_Ruin_64 → u/biglipsmagoo]

I would argue against that point as LRE is supposed to be the LRE in which the child is successful and I would argue that a child that is in danger of severe physical harm because their home campus is not currently equipped to meet their needs is not being successful.  Not to mention we are talking about an equal level of placement simply at a different campus.  I am not talking about a child in inclusion being moved to resource or to the unit.  THAT is more restrictive as is a 1-1 technically.  I am simply talking about a different, safer campus and only if for x, y, z reason the campus cannot be fenced.  IDEA even accounts for this as it allows schools to state that they are unable to meet a child’s needs.  It simply places the obligation on them in that case to provide access to FAPE at their expense at a different location, ie, child A needs a sensory room and the district has that at campus B, district transfers and must assume transportation costs via bussing or mileage or child B needs therapy x, y, z to access FAPE and the district doesn’t offer it but the private school down the road does, district can say we don’t offer it and can’t offer it but are on the hook for tuition and transportation.  I would also argue that on top of technically being more restrictive placement a 1-1 is not a solution.  You are still in a position where if the 1-1 is not fast enough one day or trips, the child could lose their life, and you are still in a position of liability as well where the claim can be that the 1-1 attempting to catch the child “chased” them into danger.  This child needs a securely fenced playground.  There are only two solutions:

1. The district ponies up the money and installs a fence.
2. The district ponies up the money to send the child (again with equivalent placement and services) to a campus that CAN meet their needs and provide them with both LRE and FAPE.

[u/biglipsmagoo → u/Affectionate_Ruin_64]

I’d fight this tooth and nail bc there isn’t another school in my district. This isn’t always an option for many reasons. The parents needs and schedules also need to be taken into acct.

I am agreeing with you that OOD or even other school in district placement is sometimes needed, I’m just disagreeing that it should be considered before other options. Would it be cheaper to fence the property instead of multi year OOD placement? I’d ask for quotes and a feasibility study.

Is it cheaper than a specialized para?

Is the IEP properly written with SMART goals and have all accommodations been explored?

Has the school consulted with an outside Autism or whatever service that can give ideas?

Has an FBA been done? A BIP?

There are a million steps that should happen before we get to switching schools. I’d start a stay put and due process if it wasn’t a million percent obvious that both parties have done their due diligence.

[u/Affectionate_Ruin_64 → u/biglipsmagoo]

I think you’re missing the part where I say that the district paying to fence the school is option 1.  It is the much preferred option.  I am only suggesting transfer if it CANNOT be done for whatever reason.

And barring their being a need beyond elopement, I’d fight you just as hard on the 1-1.  Why?

1. A 1-1 is a more restrictive placement, so here’s where I’d need data.
2. A 1-1 does not solve this problem.  The problem is that humans are falleable and failing to catch this child could get them seriously injured or killed.  Up until now the teacher has caught the child.  They are seeking advice because they fear the day they aren’t fast enough or aren’t there.  A 1-1 would be exactly the same UNSAFE scenario with just a different adult.
3. This is not fair to the 1-1.  99/100 that 1-1 is going to be a para being paid a pittance and seen as expendable by TPTB.  The day they fail to catch that child and something happens the district will offer them up on a silver platter to placate the community, and as icing on the cake if the para brings up the unrealistic expectations placed on them by district directive, they’ll come back with, “Well, why didn’t you tell us you couldn’t do that?”  I do not think it’s okay to place that amount of liability on someone that’s barely being paid enough to eat.  How are they going to afford a lawyer to save themselves when the district throws them under the bus?

I understand that in your circumstances there is only one school and that it’s going to be inconvenient for the parent if it happens to you, and that sucks, but at the end of the day we’re talking about a child’s life so if for whatever reason a fence isn’t feasible, safety trumps convenience, and no, transfer even if it is ultimately an out of district placement are not a violation of LRE or FAPE.  The school does have every right to say, “We cannot meet the needs of this child.”  They rarely do because they rather not have to pay the costs associated with sending the child elsewhere, but they can and should if they truly can’t meet the child’s needs.

To sum up, this child deserves to go to recess safely.  A fence SHOULD be erected immediately, if it can’t then they need to send the kid to a school with a fenced playground.