mandag den 12. juni 2017

"We" need to think about building inclusive leadership!

As a mother with a child recovering from assault, assault where he was allowed to be grabbed, wrestled with, held in hand, arm and neck grips in order to be made compliant and to sit still in order to learn. All this made me wonder how schools compare to hospitals, where this is "usually" not allowed and if we can learn from "hospital cases" in order to develop schools?

I am lucky my child did not hit back, as staff and administration increased their brute force and I am very lucky he was seen with "failure to thrive", before actually being pushed over into defending himself. Actually, when the bruising on his neck, arms, knees and back could be seen, people let it go since we were in court for suspected parental neglect. Note stopped it. And the teachers and carers were the ones to point out that parental interference, is making their job impossible. A job that left my child with not just physical scars but also emotional ones - best of all blaming me when I was not even a part of their school venture. I did not need to use special holding methods or wrestled with my child as they believed worked and were trained to use.

SPED actually was enforced onto us after institutional abuse was allowed to go on for too long by staff that wanted to get rid of the inclusion project they did not want, nor were trained for and blaming me, as the parent. Sadly SPED that was offered was more of the same, just over as segregation projects that people believed was best. I realised it would not work in the long run, being trained years ago and having seen the consequences when we dismantled institution like "homes". I also know that unless they wanted to change, and the administration was made aware of the situation  - where the staff shortages and lack of specialisation were critical - it would be difficult. But the system never wanted to change. Also, I did not realise the internal culture actually was!

I first saw/were given emails, internal notes, social workers from hell and foster care made when I did want to remove my child BEFORE the new teacher broke what had been rebuild, and was he was well on its way to recovery in 2011, after the court case and then the situation was another battle.

Years of no holdings one teacher effectively cancelled, when getting the other parents to accept "her new methods" when she sold to them to all of us by highlighting she "needed control" in order to teach... control by leading kids out of class ... and demonstrating how with a neck grip, and explaining how she can also hold an arm, if needed. Most parents had no idea what she was talking about, some wanted her methods and some disagreed. Sadly management had accepted this, and parents representing the class to management agreed, at that point, there was no point of return. I begged the school administrators to find another placement, they decided to sit us all down to negotiate at a dialogue meeting.

I was forced to keep my child there while waiting for her management and the municipal team to talk It was too late when my son described her "nearly breaking his arms" when he did not passively sit and watch her locking a kid out of class, a kid that at that point was suicidal after 3 yrs in SPED that did not help him, my child doing a no brainer and standing up to an adult for the sake of his friend - telling her that in their school teachers do not lock students out of class - he had inclusion as his focus and protected the other child's interests like I protected his when he was locked out of class years before, sadly he stood up without "adult" experience. And I had no status, being defamed since I did not agree on "holding techniques", amongst other things. The teacher described her own version, and as the police told me: Go home, you were not there. The police were not there for us either. Actually, what goes on in school stays in school - it's the culture of the school. A school's culture can within a few weeks become quite rotten, and it takes years to rebuild. Years and many resources.

For us speaking up, taking my kids and standing up to a SPED visitations team leader, we paid the foster care price as punishment for non-compliance. We indeed paid and learned we had no choice, we had nothing we could say. The administrators decide and then school headmasters and psychologists make the decision work. And I was effectively defamed, but people I once trusted.

Our case is now 7 yrs old in this municipality, going onto year 8. The first years after the incident people made sure administration believed we were just natives that did not understand how to behave, actually easy in a culture accepted within the organisation - allowing for the next three years where colleagues and "psychologists" that placed my child as Gifted with SPED needs (anxiety and dyslexia), placed him into a school for mainly criminal and retarded children, with administration overseeing the situation, not noting the level of abuse that staff were allowing. The team leader that had our case resigned and later said it was best, even though she had reprimanded the very same psychologist - her reprimand was forgotten in the process - to help us with the stress of the situation. She had no idea what was going on, and I let it go. Later her competencies will harm another child, but she was not part of the team here.

Then as miracles happen we were set free, and administration and his team threw us into SPED once again. A team that, as psychologists, could not stop the visitation by their team leader. But in their capacity as administrators, they enforced his leadership decisions. It's kind of complex - but boils down to budget cuts, structure changes and administrators leaving. In a system that collapsed years before.

It was interesting to listen to tapes of their reasoning ... one believed only normal kids in normal schools were allowed "her awesome" services for dyslexia (that is no handicap school or private school was given services, illegally but the budget was the budget). Reading years later that the kids get to SPED in worse shape than before, and SPED not able to pick them up - was no surprise. Number two believed my child should be locked up in SPED schools for delinquents, a decision she was reprimanded for in our case before her colleague, team leader for our case resigned, yet she succeeded doing that for 3 years! Their head was later pensioned and a new one took over one well trained in the culture of the system or more unit. But also one that was worried about their budget.

Because there were no services for Gifted Children left, a new psychologist nr 3, even after reevaluation and the case were put forward, and after being told her colleague messed up for 4 years straight enforced me to accept SPED, directly as newspapers said cannot work! The very same classes I thought Leta Hollingworth's work should have changed as matches for Gifted Children, were being "formed" again.

The new head ... just did as the administrator said, and by the time I worked out the level of chaos there was around me - I just flipped (not at all smart). Sadly they were a team, we were dispensable. How an administrator, actually is "above psychologist evaluations" is best left to just saying that public administration just works like that, and the part where not having the training is explained by - the way administration works it. As the head said: He was her boss, and somehow knew we could do nothing but did not understand the context of the decision is breaking her budget, not only our case but all cases over some years.

Luckily the last year of School was only with "one" kid that beat my kid up, and a few children too sick to understand their actions. Previous years the teachers allowed the other kids to sort out their problem child (me, through my kid) - while being dishonest about how harsh things and become and by removing parents from the school there was effectively no witnesses like I saw years before. My kids did as he always used to do and walked away and shut up .... and the class were given more staff, yet lacked the time to really be there, so business went on as per usual - their intentions were good. We coped because we had to. In order to be able to go back to normal school, but they did not want us. Nor were we allowed to receive SPED aid that was cut back.

Then the administration finally has our case again. 7 years made him even more eager to show politicians he can cope and sort this mess out. See, he has a budget and a plan where no or very few inclusion children were taught, and he allowed "methods" ... methods that made headlines in 2011, while our case was "hidden". And we were lucky landing with a headmaster that did not use "holdings" ect. but also had taken in more than they could cope with since administration did not understand how the lack of training and staff shortages work. To them, they just remove the entrepreneur and move on. Not realising they themselves need specialisation in order to evaluate the progress.

Our case went under the radar since I was of African decent or as they say non-westernised aka everybody knows our little monkeys cannot learn, cannot behave and not many actually get a diagnosed as dyslexia, while the system states no child is neglected etc. and then explaining we have serious behaviour problems (this last round - the mother again) and all teachers are trained to "be afraid", "to know its behaviour since mothers allow the boys too much", "mothers are not integrated". They were so fixated on what it was not and moved focus without saying the words. Sadly it is not spoken out loud, and offend people that they have been treating some kids differently.

But saddest of all was the general accepting of that "giftedness does not become behaviour or anxiety problems" nor "other disabilities" like ADHD, dyslexia, autism ect. The teachers were given a psychologist, consultant and still, they chose to do as they always do - also teachers have a learning wall they can hit, not only kids and they also did not recognise dyslexia. It took a year for them to realise that part stagnated - and then we lost the whole team.

My kid was described as wanting to be there, sweet and well behaved. The problem was that he kept telling everybody he did not fit in with them, and by the time they took notice he was "anxious, stress and not sleeping". Sadly that was explained as teenage hormones - and luckily straightened out.

Actually, I have no idea what they really thought, but by the time they released him it was directly back to be homeschooled, yet both administration and I insisted on normal school, thinking it would be a possibility. Except no school wanted an ex-sped / foster care case and the schools were barely coping with their own kids.

Schools had methods to move the focus and to say no without saying no. It's very difficult to explain but keep it at the level where we all know a headmaster needs to accept administration's decisions and that it does not always work out. Parents always are blamed - and we need to question this blame game!

I am sad to say: These kids end where you find them. Not "just" from their parental home, but due to stuff teachers are taught to do to enforce positive school behaviour, yet parents allow it, and they have no idea what is going on. We are not allowed to listen to our children saying "no" - and sadly some kids hide their anxiety way too long and even sadder is that parents, nor the good teachers out there can stop the culturally accepted behaviours used to allowed and enforce "classroom compliance". We find ourselves frozen out or just leaving and not looking back.

Why so many people allow it ... and where the teachers and children end up defending themselves "from school" I can explain best by referring to " the bad apple" a term used after a case of severe hospital neglect: "After Mid Staffordshire: from the acknowledgement, through learning, to improvement".

See, hospitals are also closed systems, with a very difficult job where patient care is centred around knowledge about neurology, pain relief ect... Yet in that case, something went horribly wrong. Sadly schools are not given the same amount of notice as hospitals are as far as ethical treatment of patients. Sadly in a hospital, they "can" very easily medically restrain the problems, a bit of medicine helps a lot, so patients sleep and do not disturb - in schools such medications would pose another set of problems. Although, schools are now expecting medical restraints and when that is refused they allow themselves to become physical or actually expect medical restraints or seclusion after they have been in place as a physical restraint and cannot keep up. No teacher or nurse signed up for this - it's learned behaviour.

Turning it around - I realised it's not possible so I removed my child, in 2011. Actually, other parents and teachers left as well. New people took over. Being forced by a court to accept what I only will refer to as a case of "being in Rome do as the Romans do" as my explanation for what people did to us - in a situation they had not understood the big picture, well they understood the part they needed for themselves, not the whole situation.

So, in 2016 when we finally were released, and we were indeed faced with the very same situation that created the problems in the first place. See, administrations really never change and each municipality has its own set of problems. We, actually stand as we did 10 years ago! And we are pretty ruffled.

Teachers can change jobs but never really run. Nor can parents change schools and totally get away from a growing culture. See, since it's often where the newbies are left on their own to cope - alone in the classroom- teachers and parents are left to "just cope". It's part of the initiation routine where the older staff, like in the hospital world, is to protect themselves but never really asking "for change".

They know better. See, "changing" would give them the responsibility to think about how the methods they are trained with hurt children and teachers in the long run. These compliant, non-complaining teachers become administrators ... and enforce "their ways" onto younger colleagues, by articles as the one above. The "bad apples" infect each other. But I was not completely on my own.

The teachers and children hurt in this process of neglect really need society to step in and say it's not viable for any of us. Sadly, society conforms and lets it happen ... just like the Mid Staffordshire case:

NHS culture at Mid Staffs that tolerated low standards and sold patients short:

"dealing with the cultural challenges are much more difficult to do something about"

"Francis sees the health service during these years as almost akin to a cult inspired by managerial ideology – where managers saw the glass as half-full when in fact it was empty.
He says "poor standards" risking patient care were tolerated and there was an "institutional culture" that "ascribed more weight to positive information about service than to information capable of implying cause for concern".
In short, it was the culture that did it. To change this means that actors in the system – managers, doctors (headmasters in schools) and civil servants – must change the way they do business."

Mid Staffs hospital scandal: the essential guide:

"As Francis's first report said, that inquiry heard evidence "that none of them [external organisations charged with overseeing the trust], from the PCT to the Healthcare Commission, or the local oversight and scrutiny committee, detected anything wrong with the trust's performance until the HCC investigation." The landmark report will, over many hundreds of pages, detail what he then also called "the actions and inactions of the various organisations to search for an explanation of whay the appalling standards of care were not picked up."
His task is to explain why so many people failed so badly, and to make sure it does not happen again."  

Sadly, children and teachers, as well as families, are hurt by a culture being developed in some schools. That we are not thinking how these kids will grow up and become our caregivers - befuddles my brain. Scary to think how the children will treat us after how we let them suffer in school? And, yes teachers, as well as parents, will end up in nursing homes together ... we can then talk about it in our rocking chairs and hope the caregivers understand we had no idea how to stop an administration that indeed were given a responsibility that we all should have held on to. We are all responsible, and accountable.

No teacher, parent or child asked for anything like this. The kids needed a decent environment to play, or learn to play without adults doing to them as we tell them not to do to each other.

A new type of leadership is needed in schools, as the hospitals needed. I wish somebody could show them the effects of their "holding" methods before more damage is done. But no administration will allow that!

See, no administration realises and to go to court for it is worse is no court room cares to see there is a problem - they cannot see that they were not taught to see. It's time people are taught about the methods teachers are being taught to use ... as well as understand the mechanisms behind system failure: One child at a time. It will take generations to change. We all know deep inside no child benefits from holding them until they give up and sleep right?

If you have no idea what I am talking about then start reading ... a good place to start is Jean Mercers work on Holding Therapy, and her book: Alternative Psychotherapies: Evaluating Unconventional Mental Health Treatments. This is a random one explaining RAD and "holding therapy": So, in choosing a school or therapy for your child - choose well. Find the pros and cons. And remember - it's easier to fool a person than tell them that they have been fooled.

søndag den 4. juni 2017

Lovforslaget skabe øget tryghed og gennemsigtighed for borgerne ved valg af autoriseret psykolog

Det er hovedformålet med lovforslaget at skabe øget tryghed og gennemsigtighed for borgerne ved valg af autoriseret psykolog. Også for myndighederne er det vigtigt, at der er fuld tillid til den autoriserede psykolog, og til at denne efterlever de psykologfaglige forpligtelser i psykologloven, når myndigheden skal vælge en psykolog til f.eks. at udarbejde en børnesagkyndig erklæring.
Et grundlag for kritik på grund af manglende omhu har været, at en autoriseret psykolog ikke havde beskrevet opdraget i fuldt omfang i en børnesagkyndig erklæring, og opdraget desuden ikke var tilstrækkelig belyst i erklæringen, da der ikke var foretaget en vurdering af forældrenes evne og vilje til at samarbejde med hinanden og med myndighederne.
Psykolognævnet har i sin praksis bl.a. udtalt alvorlig kritik af, at der i en erklæring om en forældrekompetenceundersøgelse manglende væsentlige beskrivelser fra sagsakterne, herunder baggrunden for og konsekvenserne af en tidligere iværksat forældrekompetenceundersøgelse. Der manglede også beskrivelser af børnenes udvikling og trivsel samt børnenes udviklingsbehov og forældrenes evner til at varetage disse behov. Manglerne i erklæringen medførte, at vurderingerne og konklusionerne fremstod overfladiske og uden den fornødne faglige tyngde. Psykologens vurdering af en tidligere forældrekompetenceundersøgelse samt gengivelse af uddrag fra udtalelser om forældrene, der alene var til fordel for forældrene, gav et indtryk af, at psykologen ikke var uhildet i sin undersøgelse.
I en anden sag om erklæring om en forældrekompetenceundersøgelse udtalte Psykolognævnet alvorlig kritik af, at den autoriserede psykolog havde foretaget en sammenblanding af beskrivelser og vurderinger. Psykologen manglende endvidere belæg for vurderingerne.

Husk at få aktindsigt og sikrer at journal optagelser sendes til kommunen .... ellers forsvinder værdifulde optegnelse om jeres barns udviklingen.

fredag den 2. juni 2017

Mennesker med handicap og socialt udsatte får bedre hjælp og enklere regler

Mennesker med handicap og socialt udsatte får bedre hjælp og enklere regler
PRESSEMEDDELELSE – Folketinget har vedtaget ændringer i serviceloven, som giver forbedringer for både borgere og kommuner. Ændringerne har været efterspurgt længe, og børne- og socialminister Mai Mercado er godt tilfreds med resultatet.
Fremover kan borgere med handicap og socialt udsatte voksne få mere sammenhængende og tidlig hjælp, så de kan udvikle sig og udnytte deres potentiale bedre. Samtidig bliver reglerne for dem enklere, så kommunerne kan fokusere på at hjælpe med at forbedre borgerens livssituation. Det sker, fordi et flertal i Folketinget i dag har vedtaget en revision af servicelovens voksenbestemmelser.
I efteråret blev et bredt flertal enig om at ændre på reglerne i serviceloven for netop at gøre det bedre og nemmere for både borgere og kommuner. Det er ændringer, som interesseorganisationer og kommuner i flere år har ønsket på området, men det er ikke lykkedes at blive enig politisk før nu.
”Jeg er meget tilfreds med, at vi langt om længe har vedtaget nogle rigtigt gode ændringer. Det har været et konstruktivt forløb, og ændringerne kommer til at gøre en reel forskel for de borgere, der har brug for hjælp, enten fordi de har et handicap eller er socialt udsatte. De vil opleve at få bedre hjælp, og kommunerne får bedre mulighed for at gribe tidligt ind, så problemerne ikke vokser sig for store. Borgerne skal heller ikke længere bruge tid på at lægge merudgifter sammen i et regneark hver måned, men får et fast beløb. Derudover vil personer med handicap kunne købe deres kendte plejepersonale med på ferie,” siger børne- og socialminister Mai Mercado.

Fakta om ændringerne af serviceloven:
Det skrives ind i serviceloven, at udsatte voksne og mennesker med handicap har krav på en sammenhængende og helhedsorienteret hjælp, som fremmer den enkelte borgers mulighed for at udvikle sig og udnytte egne potentialer.
En række regler bliver forenklet, blandt andet hjælpemiddel- og forbrugsgodebestemmelsen og merudgiftsydelsen. Det betyder for eksempel, at man fremover vil modtage et standardtilskud til at dække de merudgifter, man måtte have på grund af sit handicap, uden løbende at skulle aflevere kvitteringer og lave regnskab.
Kommunerne får bedre mulighed for at sætte ind, før problemerne vokser sig store, med tidlig forebyggende indsats i form af gruppebaserede indsatser, inddragelse af frivillige og midlertidig tildeling af hjælpemidler.
Beboere på kommunale og regionale tilbud får mulighed for at købe sig til ferieledsagelse, så de kan få det personale, som de kender, med på ferie.
Der indføres et minimumsvarsel på 14 uger for afgørelser, hvor nedsættelsen eller frakendelsen af hjælpen har særligt indgribende betydning for den enkelte. Varslet betyder, at kommunens afgørelse får opsat virkning i 14 uger, så afgørelsen først træder i kraft herefter. Hvis der klages, får borgeren ud over 14 uger yderligere den tid, det tager at afvikle hjælpen.

Yderligere oplysninger
Kontorchef Hanne Stig Andersen,, tlf. 41 85 12 94
Pressemedarbejder Signe Damgaard,, tlf. 41 85 11 92

Det må vi så bruge lidt tid på at få meningen af ... bare det ikke betyder at kommunen endnu nemmere kan pådutte tilbud, og tvinge forældre såvel børn igennem forløb hvor ingen tager ansvaret for diverse fejl og mangler. Reglerne er så kompleks men værre er at ingen fulgt noget ... så måske passer SEL til praksis - og hvis det er blir det meget svært at kom videre med, men vi kan have håbet.
Problemet er det er UMULIGT at får hjælpemidler, støtte og merudgifter dækket. Hverken det barnet kræver eller TAB - det er nemt nok at få en anbringelse.

søndag den 28. maj 2017

Punkt for punkt - her er Borgerrådgiverens undersøgelse

1. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at børnefaglige undersøgelser ikke er udarbejdet inden anbringelsen i 4 ud af 5 tilfælde, hvor undersøgelsen skal foreligge (22 ud af 27 børns sager).

2. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at børnefaglige undersøgelser helt mangler i hver sjette sag (14 ud af 77 børns sager).

3. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at handleplaner ikke er udarbejdet inden anbringelsen i halvdelen af de sager, hvor handleplanen skal foreligge (14 ud af 27 børns sager).

4. Jeg finder det kritisabelt, at handleplaner helt mangler i hver tiende sag (9 ud af 77 børns sager).

5. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at der i mere end hver tredje sag ikke er lavet både en børnefaglig undersøgelse og en handleplan, enten før anbringelsen eller snarest efter anbringelsen (27 ud af 77 børns sager).

6. Jeg finder det meget kritisabelt, at der ikke er afholdt en børnesamtale med mere end hvert femte barn inden afgørelsen om anbringelse blev truffet, som der burde (17 ud af 77 børns sager).

7. Jeg finder det meget kritisabelt, at der øjensynligt er undladt relevante partshøringer i mere end halvdelen af sagerne (42 ud af 76 børns sager) og herunder, at en stor del af disse undladelser er sket i forbindelse med selve beslutningen om anbringelse.

8. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at 7 ud af 10 forældre/forældrepar ikke er vejledt om reglerne om frivillighed og tvang og om konsekvenserne af at afgive henholdsvis ikke afgive samtykke (50 ud af 70 børns sager).

9. Jeg finder det meget kritisabelt, at et sted mellem 6 og 9 ud af 10 børn ikke er blevet vejledt om deres ret til en bisidder (mellem 48 og 70 ud af 77 børns sager). Jeg har tidligere i to generelle undersøgelser om tilsynet med plejefamilier påtalt denne forpligtelse over for Socialforvaltningen, som har iværksat initiativer for at sikre børnene denne vejledning i forbindelse med tilsyn, men må konstatere, at disse kun har haft en begrænset effekt.

10. Jeg finder det meget kritisabelt, at ingen af børnene er vejledt om deres ret til en støtteperson, og at kun en af forældrene er vejledt herom (0 ud af 76 børns sager henholdsvis 1 ud af 73 børns sager).

11. Jeg finder det kritisabelt, at to tredjedele af forældrene ikke er vejledt om deres ret til en støtteperson (49 ud af 75 børns sager).

12. Jeg finder det beklageligt, at der i 3 af de sager, hvor det har været relevant (35 sager), ikke er vejledt om adgangen til gratis advokatbistand.

13. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at der ikke er givet klagevejledning til forældre og børn over 12 år i næsten 9 ud af 10 børns sager (67 ud af 76 børns sager).

14. Jeg finder det meget kritisabelt, at der ikke er taget stilling til samvær i en tredjedel af børnenes sager (25 ud af 76 børns sager).

15. Jeg finder det meget beklageligt, at forvaltningens begrundelse er mangelfuld i i hvert fald en fjerdedel af de afgørelser, som forvaltningen har truffet om samvær (6 ud af 24 afgørelser).

16. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at der ikke er truffet afgørelse om valg af anbringelsessted for næsten 9 ud af 10 børn (68 ud af 76 børns sager).

17. Jeg finder det meget beklageligt, at forvaltningens begrundelse er mangelfuld i halvdelen af de afgørelser om valg af anbringelsessted, som forvaltningen har truffet (4 ud af 8 afgørelser).

18. Jeg finder det stærkt kritisabelt, at der i henved hver tredje sag kan konstateres eller ses konkrete tegn på, at forvaltningen har overskredet sin kompetence, tilsidesat hjemmelskravet, omgået reglerne om anbringelse, tilsidesat pligten til at være objektiv og upartisk, udøvet magtfordrejning eller ikke har handlet rettidigt (23 ud af 77 børns sager).

19. Ikke en eneste af børnenes sager lever op til alle de sagsbehandlingsmæssige krav, som er inddraget i Borgerrådgiverens undersøgelse. Der er således fejl i 100 % af sagerne. 

lørdag den 27. maj 2017

Børnene og de unge var helt overvejende glade for skolen. #sygeundervisningen #psykiatrien #forældre

Temarapport 2016 om børn og unge i psykiatrien 

Børnene og de unge var helt overvejende glade for skolen.

”Det er godt at gå i skole. Der er få elever, man får mere hjælp, og der er mere plads til hver elev. De tager hensyn, hvis man har det dårligt.” Pige, 13 år
Mange børn og unge havde haft en afbrudt skolegang i tiden op til indlæggelsen. Nogle havde slet ikke været i skole i lang tid, f.eks. i et år eller to. For personalet på skolerne gik der nogle gange et stort motivationsarbejde, forud for at et barn eller en ung kunne modtage undervisning.

Nogle børn og unge oplevede, at de for første gang fik succes med at gå i skole. ”

Det er rigtig godt. Man lærer meget på en time.” Pige, 14 år 
Ombudsmanden har gennemgået en række konkrete skoleforløb ud fra det skema om undervisning, inddragelse og medbestemmelse, der er vedlagt denne rapport. Ud fra denne gennemgang og de oplysninger, som besøgsholdene i øvrigt modtog, konstaterede ombudsmanden, at undervisningen generelt blev tilrettelagt efter samråd med eleverne.

Desuden var det ombudsmandens indtryk, at skolerne normalt sikrede, at den, der stod for sygeundervisningen, indhentede oplysning om elevens hidtidige undervisning.

Ombudsmanden anbefalede en afdeling at sikre, at sådanne oplysninger blev indhentet. Det var også ombudsmandens indtryk, at skolerne sikrede, at de undervisere, der skulle undervise eleven efter sygeundervisningens ophør, fik de nødvendige oplysninger om sygeundervisningens forløb.

Ombudsmanden anbefalede de fleste skoler, at de justerede deres praksis, så undervisningen blev tilrettelagt efter samråd med forældrene.


Psykisk syge børn og unge fastspændes jævnligt - 17. maj 2017

Forældre behøver ikke at tage stilling
Ombudsmanden har som en anden konsekvens af besøgene opfordret alle psykiatriske afdelinger til at informere forældre om, at de kan undlade at tage stilling til brug af tvang over for børn under 15 år.

På ombudsmandens tilsynsbesøg fremgik det, at flere afdelinger ønsker, at forældrene giver samtykke til at bruge tvang over for deres børn under 15 år, fordi forældrene på den måde også tager ansvar for en del af behandlingen. Men når forældre giver samtykke til f.eks. fiksering, bortfalder nogle af retssikkerhedsgarantierne i psykiatriloven, f.eks. beskikkelse af en patientrådgiver og muligheden for at klage. Derfor har ombudsmandens pointeret, at forældre skal informeres om, at de kan undlade at tage stilling til brugen af tvang.

Ombudsmanden vil drøfte en række af de problemstillinger, som tilsynsbesøgene har afdækket, med Sundheds- og Ældreministeriet.

Så jeg havde en samtale med den psykolog, der havde vores sag #inkusion # 2ekids

Så jeg havde en samtale med den psykolog, der havde vores sag for mange år siden ... og hun konkluderede stadig, at specialskolen ville havde været bedst, selv efter at hun hørte hvordan de "forskellige" typer af specialskoler og klasser fungerede for mit barn ... ikke engang deres konklusioner rykkede hende! I betragtning af "specialskolens målgrupper" vs "vores behov" savnede jeg forståelsen for at hendes valg var som det var! Og jeg indså, at alle specialskoler er faktisk det samme: Segregation uden plan for fremtidig Inklusion. 

Jeg tygger stadig på, hvordan hun ikke gav sig, og heller ikke kunne ændre hendes tankegang, men jeg håber, at hun måske tænker over vores samtale og får en smule nysgerrighed vakt. Måske læser hun noget ... ogsamtidig indser jeg, at hun kun hørte om hans adfærd i klassen og nået aldrig at observerer situationen.

"Uddannelsesmæssige fejlplaceringer" er ikke gjort med andet formål end de virkeligt vil hjælpe et barn - hun havde virkelig ingen anelse om, hvad konsekvenserne ville være i det lange løb hvis hun havde valgt en specialskole. Og så konkluderede hun at konsekvenserne skyldtes, at vi ikke accepterede specialskolen, og ​​hun placerede ham i en normal skole! Samtidig tror jeg ikke på, at hun forstod, at barnet kun havde haft specialskoler og intet andet siden hun hvade ham! Så hvis specialskolen ikke virker som tiltænkt, konkluderede hun som resten,  mere specialskole? Ingen læste EVA raporten eller KORAS beskrivelser - så meget opdagede jeg da.

Nonsens placeringer. Og så uden observation, sådan er det. Gad vide for hvor mange 2e børn?

Alt, hvad hun havde at gøre godt med, var personale en skoleleder valgt, og for en skole som skolelederen skabte rammer for. Hun kun jo ikke vide de ansatte havde ikke nogen uddannelse for det job, hun gav dem, og hun vidste hellere ikke, hvordan man kunne hjælpe læree, lærer der ikke havde behov for at ændre deres undervisningsstil. Hun havde heller ikke nogen mulighed for at hjælpe eller give de lærer et ordentligt støtte, da det opgave var skolelederens. Skolelederen måtte finde personale - til det inklusionsopgave ledelsen gav hende. Det hele alt "nyt" for hende (og helt nyt mig, hvor jeg endeligt ikke kendte skolenvæsenet ret godt).

Alligevel fortsat hun med den sædvanlige "handlingsplan", og at specialskolen ville have klarede mit barn, hvor de har generaliserede klasser, hvor børn lander på grund af deres adfærd med behov for ekstra personale og færre børn i en klasse ... selv efter at rapporterne angiver at efter flere år med forskellige specialskoler, blomstrende han ikke som da hun mødt ham efter et år på en specialskole. 

Sjovt, at lærerens adfærd, manglende undervisning og test eller den del, hvor de ignorerede forældre samtykke, fik hende fra hende til at tænke om hendes valg af løsning. Men det faktum, at barnet er for stille eller for højtrustede og ikke deltager i undervisning, er den vigtigste udløsende faktor for at få et barn ind på en specialskole. Mens hun talte om at det var "for barnets bedste". 
Imens børnenes forældre, som mig, er enige med deres valt om at prøve en 
specialskole eller nogle gange et eller andet sted "til mere behandlingskrævende børn", hvor ingen nogensinde observerer børnene igen, andet end skolens personale. Faktisk så denne psykolog mit barn "to gange", før placeringen - og så ham aldrig igen, mens hun flyttede ham ind i specialskolen via en socialrådgiver, der fik sagen og besked på at hun må overtage her. 

Psykologen havde gjort det klart, at hendes valg af test var "på grund af mig", men jeg er forbavset her da jeg aldrig ville have sagt nej til en WISC, som hun forsøgte at fortælle mig, jeg gjorde, men det må være noget hun tror jeg gjorde. Og helt sikkert - mine noter / emails stillede jeg spørgsmålstegn ved hendes valg af test, efter det var overstået og min manglende spørgsmål til hende er et bevis på at jeg gav hende tid til at finde ud af det hele og ikke ønskede at overteste mit barn, som afskyede alle form for testning.

Jeg gjorde som hun forventede af mig, eller sådan jeg troede hun vil have jeg gjor! Alligevel var jeg bare en gene ifølge de lærere, der talte med hende, og hun forstod aldrig noget andet om vores tilfælde end "blame shifting". Det faktum, at lærerne ikke var enige med mine eller hendes observationer, er klare, mens jeg læser sagen igen. Det var også klart, at de ønskede mig fjernet, og troede de kunne "let" arbejde med mit barn trods psykologens anbefalinger. Desværre endte de med at sætte ham i isolation ...

Jeg var også den, der kæmpede for hans ordblinde screening. Læreren bemærkede aldrig selv, eller sagde at han ikke skrev eller kunne læse - hun gjorde dog håndhævelsen af "mere læsning" og insisterede han lærte at læse trods personale der engang, indså jeg senere, at han var langt bagud ift. de andre børn. De bemærkede kun "vores" opførsel, og krævede vi rettede ind men ikke hvor langt bagud han faktisk var imens de skældte ud over at han ikke skal andet end de andre børn. Skolen hellere ingen idé om, hvordan man implementerede den IT rygsæk PPR leverede.

Faktisk, da vi talte, indså jeg, at hun aldrig havde haft en sag før hvor hun fik et barn ud af specialskolen, tilbage ind i en folkeskole-klasse, og hun forsøgte aldrig at kvalitetssikre, om evalueringerne faktisk var "objektive" eller bare "subjektive". Hun antog, som jeg antog at alt var i orden. Men hvordan virker dette? Og med al den ekstreme testning der er indført af børnenes færdigheder, hvordan skete det at de lærer aldrig testede mit barn?

Så hvis specialskolens børns skal tilbage i folkeskolen kan skole afvise placeringer og forældrene "åbent", mens specialskolen hænger fast på de lette børn, indtil  specialskolen skal tvinges til at træffe rigtige hårde valg på grund af økonomiske begrænsninger? Og hvis det er sådan - hvad er konsekvenserne aælt efter hvordan er det gjort? Ja,  hvilke konsekvenser vil der være? For barnet, skolen og forældrene ...

Mens specialskolens og folkeskolens inklusions børn placeres og genplaceres "i nogle tilfældige klasser", kontrollerer ingen virkelig, om de udvikler sig. De testes hellere ikke de børn - da det er tilladt at fritage dem som test, og de officielle teststandarder måler ikke alt. Så det er let at "lade nogle børn glide igennem", under radaren indtil de skal i 9. klasse. Og idet børnene ofte fik lov til at springe test over på lærerers skøn, alt mens lærerne ikke er klar over, at de kompleksesager vokser, hvor børn ikke får test, mens de forklarer at de beskytter barnet mod fiasko ...

Vores psykolog havde ingen anelse om, at lærerne ikke underviste mit barn som hun anbefalede, eller testede mit barn jf lovpligtige testning osv. Hun så ikke, på samme måde som nye lærer senere gjorde, at der var probemer. På trods af at jeg påpegede - han læser ikke - forsvarede skolen deres arbejde med ham! Jeg holdt ham hjemme, efter at han blev slået af et andet barn.

Men hvordan kunne læreren ikke blive fundet skyldig i grov forsommelse af denne psykolog? Selv når alle senere kun se at læren ikke gennemførte den uddannelsesplan som PPR lagte frem, og hvordan kan forældre blive revset, for de job, som skolerne har af opgave. Desværre var det barn, der mobbede min, bare iganng med at vise adfærd, han havde lært af dem omkring ham.

Mit barn løb faktisk væk, og jeg lærte ham ikke at advokere for sig selv, eller forsvar sig selv i sådan en situaion. Det troede jeg lærere tog sig af, for alle børn i deres klasser. Classroom management! Det kom bag på mig at jeg skulle sikre at få dokumentert at hans lærer nægtede at gennemføre det uddannelsesplan PPR havde lagt frem som var aftalt. Men det gjor vores næste skole. 

At en lærer skældte ham ud, fordi han ikke behøvede at være foran i matematik, den anden havde ingen anelse om, hvad "dysleksi" medførte, hellere ikke hvordan en IT rygsæk skulle bruges i et klasseværelse så jeg ikke komme. Jeg ved i dag at læren bare skulle gentage ganske almindige pensum, trods hans ordblindhed krævede en anden tilgang og opmuntring. Forstil jer chefen blev ved med at kræve I udføre en opgave som I ikke magter? Og gav det samme instirukser hver dag ... Hans klasselærer - hun var nødt til at klare ham og alt andet, med støttelærer der forlod jobbet efter bare 14 dage - der var ingen chance at hun kunne klare, og at mit barn betalte prisen for alt dette. Måske er der derfor de fleste børn ende op i specialskolee, mere ildetilredtand før inklusion var afprøvet?

Et barn, der var langt foran sine klassekammerater, klar til arbejde med stof normalt givet til børn 5 år ældre end ham, men endt som et barn der aldrig det grundlæggende for at kunne klare skolens krav ... og på en eller anden måde blev stemplet "dumme" og "dovne" men også "sød og velopdragen" ... alt afhængig af hvilke lærer han havde og de opgaver, de lavede med ham er hårdt at have.

Med hensyn til læsning og skrivning viste det sig, at et grundlæggende kursus ikke var nok - og ingen gennemførte deres planer de mente ville virke. Han kæmper stadig, men i folkeskole var der ingen hjælp fremmedrettet 5 år senere, ligesom i 2009 ... Så andet end en specialskolen med de andre misfits, netop som psykologen sagte er der ikke. 
Desværre fortalte hun mig aldrig om skolen, andet end at det var en skole til børn med autisme, ADHD-adfærdsproblemer, og jeg sagde, men han er ikke diagnosticeret, præcis som jeg forklarede og det hjalp ikke den sidste gang?
 Men hun fastholdt sit, og sagde bare: Det er det bedste sted for et barn som ham, mens jeg spekulerede på om hendes argumentation uden at lytte til mig, vores vej igennem systemet i det 7 år efter hun så os gav mening for hende. Hun sagde, og fastholdt at børnene er "testede" langt mere end de selv magter ... det kom bag på hende at min dreng ikke var, og så mente hun jeg selv farvalgt det. Jeg ved jeg fravælgt specialskolen, ikke alt det andet, udefra målgruppen på skolen ift mit barns behov ...

So I had a chat with a psychologist that had our case years ago #inclusion #2ekid

So I had a chat with a psychologist that had our case years ago ... and she still concluded that SPED would have worked, even after she heard how the "different" types of SPED classes turned out to be like for my kid... especially their conclusions! Considering the "SPED kids profiles" vs "ours" I missed why her choice was like it was! And I realised all SPED is actually the same: Segregation with no plan of future inclusion.

I am still chewing on how she did not learn, nor was able to change her thinking, but I hope she might think about our conversation and get a tad curious. Maybe read something... and at the same time, I realise she only heard about the classroom episodes and did not go and observe the situation.

Educational misplacement is not done on purpose - she really had no idea what the consequences would be in the long run. And then concluded the consequences were due to us not accepting SPED, and her placing him in a normal school. At the same time, I don't think she realised the kid only had SPED school and nothing else since! So, if SPED does not work she concluded like the rest more SPED? 

Nonsense. And then without observation, such it is.

All she had was staff that had no training for the job she gave them, and she did not know how to facilitate teachers that had no need to change their style. As well as, she also had no way to help or give the teacher decent aide since the headmaster had to find staff. It was all "new" for her (and me).

Yet, she also held on to the usual "plan of action" and that SPED would have worked, that is generalised classes,  where kids land due to their behaviour with more staff and fewer children in the class... even after the reports stating that after years of SPED, he was not thriving.

Funny, not the teacher's behaviour, lack of teaching/testing or the part where they disregarded parental consent, nudged her from her thinking about her choice of solution. Yet, the fact that the child is too quiet or too loud and not participating according to teachers is the main trigger for getting a kid into SPED. While she talked about "in the best interest of the child". And those kids parents agree to be placed get taken to SPED or somewhere "more sinister" where nobody really ever observes them again. Actually, the psychologist saw my kid "twice", before placement - and then never again while moving him into SPED via a social worker that was given the case.

She had made it clear, her choice of testing was "because of me" but I am damn sure I would never have said "no" to a WISC like she tried to tell me I did, yet she believes I did. And sure as heck - my notes/emails questioned her choices of test and my lack of questioning her is proof since I gave her time to figure it all out and did not want to over test my child, that detested testing. 

I was doing as she expected me to, or so I thought! Yet, I was just a stick in the mud according to the teachers that talked to her, and she never understood anything about our case other than "blame shifting". The fact that the teachers did not agree with my, or her observations are clear while reading the case again. It was also clear that they wanted me removed, and thought they could "easily" work with my kid. Sadly they ended up putting him into isolation ...

I also was the one that fought for the dyslexia screening. The teacher never even noticed or said he was not writing, or able to read - she did, however, enforce "more reading" and staff that kept leaving were kind, yet not once did I realise he was way behind the other children. They only noticed "our" behaviour and not how far behind he actually was. They also had no idea how to implement his IT stuff.

Actually, as we talked I realised she had never had a case where she got a kid out of SPED, back into a mainstream class and she never made an effort to check if the evaluations actually were "objective" or just "subjective" - she assumed like I assumed all was in order. But, how does this work? And with all the extreme testing of children's abilities - how come the teacher did not test him?

So, if placing kids back into mainstream classes was not normal then, and now it is done - yet schools fight placements and the parents "openly" while SPED hangs on to the easy kids or have to make really hard choices due to financial restraints... if they can - how is it done? And what consequences will there be?

While these kids are kept "in some class", nobody really checks if they are developing or test them - everybody is phased out by all the official testing standards so it's easy to "let some slip through". And here kids are often allowed to skip testing at the teacher's discretion, while teachers are not realising they are missing the harder cases, where kids are not given tests, explaining that they are protecting the child from failure ... 

Our psychologist had no idea the teachers did not teach my kid, test my kid etc. nor did she want to notice, as our new teacher later did. As well as I pointed out - he was not reading! Focus and Attention were onto blaming me for the teacher's lack of classroom management, and we made that easy - I kept him home after he was hit by another kid.

Yet, how could the teacher not be blamed... even when she did not implement the ordered educational plan, and more so how can parents get bullied for the jobs schools have. Sadly, the kid that bullied mine was just showing behaviour taught to him by the adults around him. 

My kid ran away, and I did not teach him to advocate for himself, thinking teachers take care of all the children in their class. Classroom management I left up to them, but then again ... the teachers refused to implement the educational plan as we had agreed on. 

One teacher scolded him since he did not need to be ahead, the other had no idea what "dyslexia" entailed, let alone using a PC in a classroom setting. His class teacher - she had to manage him and everything else - there was no way she could cope, my kid paid the price and maybe most kids will end up back in SPED worse off than before inclusion?

A kid, that was way ahead of his classmates, ready for work given to kids 5 yrs older than him, yet he never learned the basics needed for going to school ... and somehow was labelled "dumb" and "lazy" yet also "sweet and well behaved" ... depending on the teacher he had and the accommodations they made. 

As for reading and writing it turned out a basic course was not enough - he still struggles but a school has no help they can offer, just like in 2009 ... other than a SPED class with the other misfits, according to the psychologist. She never told me much other than that it was a school for kids with Autism,  ADHD behaviour problems and I said but he is not diagnosed and that did not help the last time? She just said: It's the best place for a kid like him while I wondered about her reasoning, without listening to reason nor any assessments, yet she kept saying kids are over tested. 

torsdag den 25. maj 2017

“Best practices” for #inklusion in school #magtanvendelse #skolechat #FGU

On December 28, 2016, OCR published a press release and several reports describing “best practices” for restraint and seclusion in school. According to these best practices, restraint and seclusion at school should be practiced only by “trained” staff and should never be used for the purpose of discipline. Schools should avoid using mechanical restraints, and should restraint or seclude students “only if a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others.”
The Fact Sheet, written in a question-and-answer format, is a two-page summary of the 24-page Dear Colleague Letter. The Fact Sheet states that the Dear Colleague Letter advisory is provided in response to OCR’s concern that school districts are discriminating against students who have special needs. The Civil Rights Division found that the rates of “mechanical and physical restraint and seclusion” of students with special needs in the 2013-2014 school year “far exceeded those of other students.” There were concerns about “legal violations.”

Hell may freeze over and I will still say once you start it's hard to stop. Restraining at child, then punishing or treating the child through isolation or segregation never ends well. Damage done to my child cannot be undone .... and worse the so called professionals were the most abusive. So don't think that a person claiming to be educated knows best. Your child - is still your child and no person should ask you to consent to anything you do not do at home.

If you need to restrain your child, isolate your child or segregate your child YOU need help to change your methods but don't expect people to know how to help you especially when they only have best practices that claim: The only use restraints or seclude students and “only if" a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others. If they explain it like that - then make sure you understand what they define at imminent danger ect. It's your call to make sure you understand their "pre and post" actions. It's your child you are putting into a situation that can harm your child, either by observing other children being restrained ect or ending up being restrained.

Absolutely horrid how the sentence was used and not one person investigated or agreed not to restrain and seclude. We suffered for years, and I got my child removed from harmful people until a social worker got tired of my antics and put my child into a group home and school where "things happened" to him for his own benefit. And the saddest was that not one person put into the legalisation of her choices stopped the "trained staff", actually nobody even cared to investigate! Although the social worker was told it was her responsibility to stop the restraint and seclusion at the group home and later in the school. She did not understand she said, and nobody told me nor did they act.

Foster care .... and their schools left me unable to grasp that all of that was done. The most abusive were the school, but also the home. Telling me it's for his best then when they were proved wrong, they collectively decided to protect themselves as they still had no intention of inclusion. One person promised they do not use "methods" to restrain, exclude when we were placed at her school and was then the person that had the responsibility to call and let me know my child was beaten by a boy that lost control. Just the action of the school placement was an illegal action, but alas nobody cared to allow us to say no, and after a foster care stint, we were also easy to coerce or let's say forced to agree.

And all this allowed by our municipality that could not even apologise while the responsible ones turned to saving each other's jobs or careers rather than making needed changes.

So, yesterday my kidlet was supposed to finish 9th grade and start Gymnasium this August. All the other kids had a "lovely day" living life - without the classmate they bullied and the teachers allowed to be bullied. Not one school but via several schools. Some did not even care to make a plan of action so that my kid was not hit, and he did not hit back so he was an easy target. Once he decided to "react" he realised punishment was severe ...

Being secluded into special ed having to deal with children that hit because their autism or drug abuse left them no options in the places they were .... was no solution. (These kids end up in special education, most often mixed and left in schools with untrained staff. Where some schools were better at sorting the troubled ones other take kids to earn money) Seeing all "that" and how nothing was done, nobody stopped our local politicians or teachers but rallied for more of "their solutions with exclusion".

 Realising that headmasters were allowed to be abusive and not being allowed to point out that their lack of insight will give the same results as 2009 or 2007 was not easy. I cracked like most parents, they give up and accept the exclusion, taxi service and sick days.

Homeschooling to prevent exclusion, abusive treatments or teaching methods from hell while being threatened is nothing new. Unbelievable was how many people allowed restraining, isolation and seclusion in the best interest of MY child before I gave up and said no. Again. Incredible was the first conversation and the brand new social worker that wanted to start off by "explaining" her right to use a parental injunction!

Well, I needed to explain to her that my child has special needs and that I do not accept restraint or seclusion of students and that my child’s behaviour was described as good and well behaved unless he was pressured with "school work" and we have agreed that he needs help. She has closed the case, but forgot to send my applications in - yet she pops up each time I speak to anybody about services. Not to facilitate but to check on me, while she always claims it's not her job to decide. Never telling me who's job it is, or answering my question.

So yesterday, seeing friends and so on celebrating, was harsh. It was the milestone we did not make after help was given by a social worker and her team. Help that was given to make sure my kidlet passes 9th grade, yet help that left him stagnated. Paperwork is easy to fix to look like it's all fine - so sad really that the system does not have qualified staff to make sure it's more than words and actually backed up by real evaluations ect. Where the staff very clearly say he needed help for his dyslexia, yet also mentioned school has nothing and to offer him a placement with no access to books ect. since he was smart enough to cope without. Not realising that that was the reason for us ending in special ed in the first place.

But seeing how parents are proud of their children and knowing these kids were allowed by the adults to bully and exclude the kids with handicaps ... I wonder what these kids will become as they learned to get on with life without realising what they did to a classmate. The children were all too young to realise, they did what kids do: Make some fun ... my kid was their toy. He was thrown under the desk of another kid to bully and make them fight, he was given notes he could not read but the saddest was the teacher she made a big desk and set 5 or 6 desks aside. Those were for the kids that needed to work harder - so they would understand they needed to work to be able to join the "group". Most the kids that were placed there were quite happy since they got a break from the others. But, inside they felt excluded and best of all they had not received help to give them a chance ...

Seeing the teachers claiming expertise .... made me realise that they really have no clue they were abusive in their ways. And having stood up while some of them told me I must "realise that ...." well I did realise school is just an institution and horribly run .... more often than I needed to see. I also realised that teachers were used to sending kids away, and not able to see handicap ect.

The teachers out there practising true inclusion are way too few. Methods to exclude, ridicule and punish are taught faster and more furious than inclusion as if it is inclusion. People just have no idea!

Now to read the article I linked to above. Seeing so many parents unable to stop the abuse and then making the decision to "stop fighting for a safe seat in a classroom" no parent should go through. The administration did not protect my child when they forced our presence in a public school. Nor did they ever take a responsibility for the consequences. They only have laws protecting their teachers. There was no handover procedure - each year kids start over. Mine did 7 years in a row, even when i begged them not to.

And sadly in the flock, they can be extreme when they punish children and parents for pointing out that some teachers fail ... I never thought that an Administration would allow that kind of culture. Sadly the biggest failure is that in our municipality there is no money for inclusion nor have the made sure the classroom teachers understand the basics of dyslexia, autism ect. Actually, and sadly schools very rarely take children excluded to special education or foster care schools back. But they have to.

But sadly pointing out inclusion is not working out was turned into something I gave up on. No teacher or headmaster dared speak up but hell they knew a lot about something I did not.... and they believed in their beliefs: They blamed us even before meeting us, as their "school culture" expected and taught them. And they did not even realise. Neither did I, until a little while ago.

Take it or leave it ... I tried, we gave up. Not freely, but because I realised the schools were ill-equipped. People moved on. Nothing changed just the way the administration loves it - their objectives were met, so they believe. It was our choice to accept a non-inclusive class. It was not the way the law was, intended but not many people take the time to notice. We gave up because of the risk of restraints, isolation and seclusion were too high and not one we cared to keep taking. My child was already hurt and scared.

How a couple of psychologists and special ed teachers or 3 worked the case shows why untrained teachers unintentionally end up hurting a child in a classroom. Either by just making the rules clear or letting children and parents get rid of the kid or parent they are tired of. I am frankly tired of them allowing injunctions because they are tired of me - it's not an option I have when their system is not ready to take on inclusion.

I also got tired of their injunctions, promises and regrets (beklagelser mm.) But yesterday they celebrated their success. Teachers and students finished 9th grade. We carry on, but I cannot help but wonder what kind of adults these kids will turn into or if they even notice the missing ones or care to play with the kids that are different. But most of all I wonder if I should be scared of the people, parents and administrators that allow certain unofficial "best practises" by just not understanding what it is like to walk the walk of a person that has a handicap?

Magtanvendelse og andre indgreb og begrænsninger
− Håndtering af urolige/voldelige elever
− Disciplinære foranstaltninger
− Uformelle tiltag
− Anmeldelse til politiet
− Administration af bekendtgørelse om fremme af god orden i folkeskolen (anvendelse af sanktioner, bekendtgørelsens § 6, eftersidning, udelukkelse, overflytning og udskrivning)
− Administration af anstaltsbetragtninger
− Hærværk
− Klager og klagevejledning
− Typiske situationer, hvor der anvendes magt og andre indgreb og begrænsninger
− Registrering og indberetning
− Forebyggelse og pædagogiske principper

− Undervisningstilbud, herunder tilbud om ordblindeundervisning, og organisering
− Undervisningsindhold og fagudbud
− Pædagogiske principper
− Undervisning af elever med særlige behov (folkeskolelovens §§ 20-22, hvordan arbejder skolen med inklusion og elevindflydelse, jf. folkeskolelovens § 12, stk. 2, og § 19 d, stk. 8)
− Fravær (indskrevne elever, der aldrig møder)
− Bistand til førskolebørn (folkeskolelovens § 4)
− Elev- og uddannelsesplaner (folkeskolelovens § 13 b) og vejledning af den enkelte elev (folkeskolelovens § 13, stk. 2)
− Elever, der afslutter undervisningen efter 7. klasse (folkeskolelovens § 33, stk. 4 og 5)
− Resultat af trivselsmåling
− Fysiske rammer
− Sygeundervisning (tilrettelæggelse efter samråd med forældrene og eleven, indhentelse af oplysning om hidtidig undervisning og sikring af, at undervisere efter sygeundervisningens ophør får oplysninger om sygeundervisningens forløb)

Betænkning fra Udvalget om magtanvendelse på anbringelsessteder for børn og ungeObs. I denne er der skrevet men praksis ... real life turde de nok ikke beskrive eller så er deres og andres grænser ikke godt nok defineret jf lovlig vs ulovlig praksis hvor der kna være langt fra toerien om noget til almen praksis. Det kommer ikke bag på folk som har noget med anbringelsesområdet at gøre at der er mere magtanvendelser end som så, og at det ikke er muligt at blive straffet som fagprofesionel skulle grænsen overskrides. Kun camara på alle deres såkaldte "hjemmelige omgivelser" vil afsløre når der sås tivl. 

»Det er positivt, at kommunen bl.a. har fået nedbragt antallet af sager per sagsbehandler. Men efter- og videreuddannelse og ikke mindst oplæring af dem, der skal sidde med sagerne, kan man ikke sætte på en liste over ting, man skal implementere om lang tid. Det er ting, der skal foregå parallelt, for ellers får man ikke rettet op på de mange fejl i sagsbehandlingen,« siger hun.

Men er de rådgiver også gjort klar til handicap? Eller drukner de i alt det andet ... 

søndag den 21. maj 2017


"Med direktivet bliver det muligt uden forudgående tilladelse fra rettighedshaverne for Nota at fremstille handicapegnede formater af bøger m.v. til brug for personer med syns- og læsehandicap. Danmark kan opretholde sine regler om, at rettighedshaverne skal have kompensation. Danmark vil også kunne fastsætte regler om, hvorvidt der ved vurderingen af niveauet for kompensationen skal tages højde for den mulige skade, som rettighedshaverne måtte lide. Det følger af aftalen, at medlemslande ikke kan beslutte, at personer med syns- og læsehandicap selv skal betale kompensationen til rettighedshaverne" 

Ærgeligt KLO er nedlagt for de havde probleme rmed rettigheder for at måtte indlæse bøger der hvor børnene ikke magtede lydkvaliteten af de sytetisk tale stemmer alle danske programmer udvikles af. Disse kan justeres og lyden kan gøres bedre hvis finthørende bruges til den del og musiker sætter filtre på. At de også på sigt skal udvides så vi får flere ord med betyder at visse fag skla læses vha daisy ... men måske kan forlag nu levere OCR scannede bøger i håb om at skoler vælger dem frem for konkurenten.

Jeg kan kun håbe at grundskole bøger og hjemmesider hurtigt kommer på plads. Det er surt sjow at kommuner ikke ved de har ansvaret men det kræver også at "centrale" ændringer tvinger handicap venlighed igennem. Og når vi ser på hvor svært det er for kørestolsbrugere ved vi jo det ikke sker uden en kamp. Godt Thorkild Olesen​ er der oppe og vi må håbe på det behov ordblinde og blinde har vi sammen skabe et produkt som husker begge gruppes behov og at NOTA kan bære det nye tilgængelighedskrav i deres database.

torsdag den 18. maj 2017

NLD - non verbal learning disorder

NLD: En ujævn Wechsler profil hvor Verbal IQ langt overstiger Handle IQ, kan nogle gange give vægt til denne diagnose. Når det er præcis, så det henviser til en svaghed i højre hjernehalvdelens evne til at opfatte, huske og udtrykke visuelle og spatiel information.

Generelle disorganisering og roderi kan ledsage dette, sammen med dårlig håndskrift, og svært ved at læse sociale signaler korrekt. Med andre ord, virker den højre hjernehalvdel ikke som den skal.

Dog kan nogle af de samme kvaliteter vedrører et barn, der er meget højre hjern orienteret, den visuelle-rumlige elev, der kan være dårlig på den sekventielle opgave i skrivning og er ofte uorganiserede og usædvanlig dårlige til "time management".

Den højt begavede barn kan være distræte, eller "abstrakte", bare fordi teorier og tanker om tænkning er så lokkende.

Herudover er det meget vigtigt at udelukke enhver vision-relaterede svaghed. En grundig syns undersøgesler af en udviklingssynslæge kan afgøre afgøre, om eye-tracking, samsyn og "accomodating" arbejder som de skal. Visuelle svagheder kan forhindre børn i at præstere i en meget visuel-perceptuelle og rumlige områder ....

Bare for at understøtte at det endeligt er forkert at forklare NLD diagnosen udefra en skæv WISC profil. Jeg beklager hvis det er svært at læse men jeg ved at jeg ikke lige oversætter ret god i dag, men hvis der er en som kan omskrive det så er i velkom til at smække det på. Vi er her for at få relevant viden ... og få en god dialog om alt det mulige ting der kan forveksles ... for man kan sagtens have NLD og være højt begavet!

onsdag den 17. maj 2017

Læserbrev: Dummebøder til folkeskoler

Læserbrev: Dummebøder til folkeskoler
10. maj 2017 Østbirk Avis Sektion 1 Side 8 Birgit Skovgaard, Talsmand for Maren Spliid Gruppen, Snerlevej 7, 8700 Horsens

Sådanne udskrives - ikke af rockere - men af Horsens kommune.

I 2013, op til sidste kommunalvalg, fortalte jeg om det vi i Maren Spliid Gruppen dengang kaldte en pengeafpresningsmetode.

For hver elev en folkeskole henviser til specialklasse, vil det koste skolen 200.000,-kr pr år. Måske kommunen har fundet, at det er for grådig at være, for beløbet er mig bekendt havnet på ca.

150.000,-kr pr. elev pr. år.

Da det ikke er et beløb som følger barnet, må formålet alene være at straffe skolen - altså kan man fint kalde det en dummebøde.

Nogle børn kan ingen forsvare at inkludere. Hvis " skolen" heller ikke kan forsvare at henvise børn til specialklassetilbud p. g. a.

skolens økonomi, kan " man" blive kreativ.

Kreativitet kan være en gave, men af og til også det modsatte.

Økonomisk kreativitet er f. eks. ofte det modsatte.

Når skoler opretter små klasser med ukvalificerede tilbud/ opbevaring/ pasning/? til børn med behov for specialklassetilbud, så er der ikke tale om en gave i ordets positive forstand. Specielt ikke for de børn som det handler om og deres forældre/ familie.

Men heller ikke for samfundet.

Ingen kan være tjent med, at der er børn/ unge som ikke får det for dem bedste tilbud. Det taber vi alle sammen på.

Nu har vi snart valg igen.

Derfor vil jeg opfordre alle partier til at bidrage til denne debat. Det bør ikke være skjult for vælgerne, hvordan det enkelte parti stiller sig her. Meld derfor ud - vil I straffe den enkelte skole for at sørge for den rette undervisning til det enkelte barn? Hvad vil I tilbyde? Man har i Horsens Kommune i årevis gjort præcis det samme med it-rygsæk til ordblinde børn. Det var den enkelte skole der ud af deres budget skulle betale den, hvis barnet blevet testet ordblind. Det var derfor en fordel for skolen at undlade at teste barnet, for udgiften til it-rygsæk betød jo færre midler til alle de andre børn.

Ansvaret for sådanne despotiske ordninger påhviler kommunalbestyrelsen.

Kan vi stemme nogen ind, som ikke alene vil se Horsens by og kommune vækste, men som i højeste grad ønsker vækst for kommunens børn og unge?.

søndag den 14. maj 2017

Learn Your Times Tables in 5 Minutes or so #findyourmethod

Learn Your Times Tables in 5 Minutes

Fast checking wheel

Circle multiplication

Multiplication Table 

Lattice multiplication

Japanese multiplication

The Vaughn Cube - a unique memory device

Multiplication Tables upto 1000 in vedic maths

Traditionel ....

songs, stories ... or games like Dragon Box

fredag den 12. maj 2017

Skal vi fjerne børn eller skal vi fjerne autisme? #handicap #autisme #adhd #svigt


Når man ser et meget lille barn med fattig mimik som fx. ikke søger opmærksomhed på helt almindelig vis, så kan der være tale om autisme.

Men hvis man kun kigger efter omsorgssvigt, ja så er det desværre i mange tilfælde det man finder - det er et stort problem :(
Læs hele artiklen på linket:

En dygtig advokat skrev:
Skal vi tvangsfjerne børn med autisme?
Skal vi fjerne børn eller skal vi fjerne autisme?
Efter udsendelsen står jeg igen tilbage med det indtryk, at børn med autisme og Adhd bare har haft dårlige forældre og hvis de bare blev fjernet fra fødegangen, ville de ikke have haft problemer.... æv

Støtteforanstaltninger ... guderne ved hvad ligner deres indsats set fra en vinkel hvor autisme "ses"? Hvad skulle aftaler laves for med folk der ikke havde et begreb om hvorfor de skulle derude ... og vi betaler 30 000kr og op til 200 000kr om måneden for det niveau der blev leveret. Tænk, vi betaler for den niveau og kvalitet. 

Plejefamilien ... de stået med håret i postkassen. Men de sagt ikke fra. Ikke før nu ... 

Anni, Jørgen og Mads og deres fædre. Det siger alt at Anni råbt om hjælp, igen.  

Skolen javel der må folk google tilsynsrapporter, politiske valg, voldssager og tænke om det er godt nok Byråd levere til børn med autisme. Og lige forstå mig ret: Ydrestyring og medicin er akutte løsninger. 

Kommunen lavede ingen fejl, vurderes af kommunen. 

Jeg kan kun henvise til bl. a. Temple Grandins arbejde med dyr som skulle slagtes. Og håbe på at hun eller en anden skriver om autisme og specialskoler som hun beskrev slagterier - fordi det er sgu klart at kommunen nok ikke forstår det. Ikke dengang, ikke med de stor reform af 2007 eller i dag. 

TV2 - kan i så få fingrene ude på tasterne og lige rette op på at autisme og adhd ikke er forårsaget af omsorgssvigt. Og at det hellere ikke er pga. misbrug ... men at det situation der er "worst case" og Kommunen deltog, uden at gøre megen forskel på udfaldet. Hvad det så skal betyde ... 

Jeg håber ikke at børn igen fjernes på stribe af bekymrede høns, for det de leverer er på ingen måde noget hverken de udsatte eller de handicappede oplever som et stort hjælp. Firmaer åbner og lukker på stribe og den sag er på film, men hvad med de andre sager ... sager som grundet denne udsendelse får ben at gå på?

Jeg er bang for børn ender fjernet fra fødegangen og det vil ende lige så galt så længe ingen ved noget om diversitet, neurologi eller om årsag og virkning. Og afsnit 2 siger alt om et mystisk verden hvor barnet ikke havde et barndom men skulle trækkes igennem de voksnes behov, eller deres idé om det han skulle vide. Jørgen sagt det selv: Hvorfor skal jeg det? Lyttede de eller så nogen ham i alt det her ... hans hele væsen skreg på de bare skulle stop. Hverken skolen, plejen, foranstaltninger eller forældrene mærkede efter. Men sådan er det, bagklogskabens klare lys. Utroligt at hans mor skriger stop, med de udfordringer vi ser hun har! Og at plejefamilien bakkede op - men at ingen sagt noget før, forstår jeg ikke. Det viser systemet som den er. 

Skal vi fjerne børn eller skal vi fjerne autisme?

Og er det godt nok det vi levere som samfund.
Vi vælger jo løsningerne.
Jeg ville håbe på en som Temple Grandin ser det efter og får fat i at lave Børneværnet helt om. Det er jo et dårlig drevet hjælpeforanstaltning.

She has her theory: It takes a village, and details about yours ...

While in Africa we say ... It takes a village to raise a child.

Temple Grandin’s tips for success in educating special needs kids
... Even if your school no longer has vocational-technical classes, you still have power to help your student find a path to employment ... find your path!

More about Temple Grandin ... and her work:

Temple Grandin, Killing Them Softly at Slaughterhouses for 30 Years
by Ryan Bell

For nearly three decades, Temple Grandin has been leading the charge for animal welfare reform in the cattle industry from the inside out. I wanted to know exactly how she did it, and why she kept going in a world that didn’t always appreciate her. This is part one of a two-part look at the state of farm animal welfare.

First of all, there’s no reason to tippy toe around it: Burger and steak are made of cow. More likely, they are made of steer, because males are expendable (sorry, guys.) And that steer was alive for two years. During its lifetime, it met cowboys, ranchers, veterinarians, truck drivers, health inspectors, and in its final minutes, a person working at a slaughterhouse.

Twice Exceptional Denmark

Twice Exceptional Denmark er lavet for dobbelt exceptionelle børn dvs. børn med særlige forudsætninger som samtidig har indlæringsvanskeligheder. Disse børn kan have opmærksomheds-, koncentrations- og kontakt- vanskeligheder som oftest er pga. Ordblindhed/ Dyslexi, ADHD, AS, PDD NOS, OCD, Tourette osv.

Det ofte set at Børn med særlige forudsætninger er af natur Asynkron Udviklet dvs. det halter med at deres emotionelle og sociale udvikling følger med det som ses ved jævnaldrende, samtidig med at de lærer lynhurtigt det emner de er motiveret for og ender således ofte foran jævnaldrende i disse oråder, uden sparringspartner. Børnene ender ofte meget ”misforstået” og en tværfagligindsats er nødvendig hvis sådan en situation skal kunne vendes.

Tværfaglighed bør bestå af en BMSF konsulent/psykolog og derudover specialister jvf. barnets specifikke diagnoser og andre problemer hver gang handleplaner udarbejdes, barnets evalueres osv. Men der er langt vej endnu, da BMSF ikke anerkendes i Kommunerne, og dermed overses det at barnet har behov for en ”særlig” forståelse og indsigt for at børnene kan få den rette hjælp jvf. Socialloven og Inklusion.

Men desværre ses disse børn i AKT forløb, heldagsskoler og kan ende i Udsatte grupper:

De unge, som kommer til opholdsstederne, har været vanskelige at placere i de kommunale tilbud, hvor hverken de unge, som kommer til opholdstederne eller de elever, der går i de kommunale tilbud, vil profitere af at være sammen.