Yes, I know I'm making it personal...

[Tabby Uprising]

A teacher who is actively harming a disabled child for her own benefit does not deserve to have her actions swept under the rug.

Reasonable minds can disagree that this is an accurate description of this situation.  I think it is completely off base.  No where did I get the sense the teacher is visciously wanting to harm disabled children, and frankly choosing special education to act out some sort of "I'm going to get to the top no matter who I step on!!!!" scenario just doesn't make sense.  The teacher, to me, should have been better guided and backed by administration.  Also, unless I am mistaken, any potential employers down the road would be more likely to be interested in "I have certification for Purple Disability" over "I worked for a year with one child diagnosed with Purple Disability."  The whole, "This teacher is using the OP's child to get ahead!" just doesn't make rational sense - she isn't getting ahead!

The teacher was working with a child who had special needs.  She had no experience working with this disability.  She had no training with this disability.  Despite her ignorance and despite the concerns of the child's parent, she continued to pursue her own course of action based on nothing more than her ignorance.  She did not get any training, she didn't listen, she just blundered on.  Whether she set out to intentionally hurt this child or hurt the child due to misguided intentions doesn't make a difference in the ultimate impact it had on the child. If her actions were harmful to the child, it's the child who bears the consequences of her actions regardless of her intentions. 

I'm not saying the teacher is evil or a villain, but she was definitely in the wrong and showed a lack of common sense which in her field can be very damaging.  The teacher could be a very sweet person, but sweet people muddling about with disabilities they have no knowledge of can still do a lot of harm. 

[TurtleDove]

From what I understood, the teacher was doing what administration told her to do.  I think she was between a rock and a hard place.

[CakeBeret]

From what I understood, the teacher was doing what administration told her to do.  I think she was between a rock and a hard place.

Sure, but she also chose to not pursue any research or training. Shoot, she didn't even have to do that much: she could have just taken OP's advice in the first place.

[Bexx27]

This was a spectacular failure primarily, I think, on the part of the administration. My knowledge of special needs and IEPs is pretty limited, but it's my understanding that an IEP is developed and monitored by multiple parties, including someone with expertise such as a school counselor, therapist, or social worker. Heck, my DH is a football coach and he needs to be aware of IEPs for the students he coaches. The administration repeatedly telling the OP to just work it out with the teacher, while not providing the teacher with the necessary training or consulting with an expert, is just bizarrely irresponsible.

I disagree with the posters who are saying that the OP did everything she could to advocate for her child. Unless there is something left out of the story, she let this mistreatment go on for a year and never looked outside the school's administration for a solution. Personally, my first step would have been to get my child's therapist involved. If that didn't work, a lawyer. I would have escalated to the county's administrators, the school board, possibly even the media, whatever was necessary. The teacher was certainly in the wrong, but she was also thrown into a situation for which she was unqualified and clearly in over her head with no support whatsoever. I think the OP's focus on the teacher as the main source of the problem, while understandable, was misguided. 

That said, I don't think the OP owes the teacher an apology. She didn't go on a expletive-laden rant or throw a fit; she became emotional and accused the teacher of something she believed to be true -- after the teacher had refused to accommodate the child's IEP for a year and stated that she would continue to do so. If that's not provocation, I don't know what is. She was interacting with the teacher as a parent, not as a professional colleague, and parents shouldn't be expected to put aside their emotions and act professionally under those circumstances.

[cityslicker]

The restraint in question happened when he was damaging school property and would not stop to verbal commands.  We have an extensive Behavior Intervention plan (BIP) that has physical restraint as the absolutely last step.  This was developed by school staff with much more experience in purple disability and is in the IEP. She chose to go from step 2 directly to step 15, literally.

Purple and pink disabilities are very different, FWIW-one is neurological and one is not.

[Sharnita]

It is true that several people are usually at.IEP meetingd. I have never been to one eith fewer than three other staff members and the studeny and parent(s) are always invited. The student would be assigned to her caseload but in any case I ever heard of.admin would oversee that.

[rashea]

The restraint in question happened when he was damaging school property and would not stop to verbal commands.  We have an extensive Behavior Intervention plan (BIP) that has physical restraint as the absolutely last step.  This was developed by school staff with much more experience in purple disability and is in the IEP. She chose to go from step 2 directly to step 15, literally.

Purple and pink disabilities are very different, FWIW-one is neurological and one is not.

That makes it much worse. Did you ever have an IEP meeting when it became clear that she wasn't following it?

[TurtleDove]

Was this teacher left alone with a violent child? That in and of itself seems off!  Why was no other staff present?

[cityslicker]

We had an emergency meeting with the principle in which I was told that the teacher had the right to supercede the BIP if in her judgement it was an emergency.  I was later told that he was kicking a wall.

[TurtleDove]

We had an emergency meeting with the principle in which I was told that the teacher had the right to supercede the BIP if in her judgement it was an emergency.  I was later told that he was kicking a wall.

Do you think this is not appropriate? 

[NyaChan]

I'm not going to use specifics because it essentially would be legal advice, but there are clear (at least in IMO) guidelines for who should be at an IEP meeting which are listed out in the relevant statutes.  When I was working in that area, one of the weak points of the education plan which was attacked was the composition of the IEP team.  Still, the teacher should have read the IEP and followed it even if she didn't have the training to understand why her own techniques weren't better.  And yes, I agree, in addition to making her concerns known at the school, the OP could have requested a formal meeting with a lawyer present to straighten things out - this would have been helpful I think at the meeting about the wall-kicking.  Still, it seems she didn't have to as the school that didn't care that a parent was seriously concerned did care when it was the teacher coming to them with a problem - funny how it was suddenly so easy to get a new teacher in.

ETA:  It really bugs me when systems perpetuate the problem of people making a fuss to get what they need or want.  All the school did was teach people that it will ignore the polite parent and respond to those who blow up.

[TootsNYC]

The thing about teachers and other professionals becoming qualified is that there is absolutely no other way to do it than hands on experience. She wanted to work eith all sorts of disabilities, she recognized the gap in her experience was in that one area and she set about to get ecperiemce. That is not a bad thing, that is not a devious thing, it is nothing anybody should be attacked over  Her bosses allowed her to be assigned her that student, when it was made clear there was a gap in her training they neither moved her nor made sure she was getting extra purple training.

OP, I do think there was some fault in your corner. You characterized her aspirations as bad. You complained that she intended to learn by eorking with your sin. I promise the very best teachers he has ever had got.that way through.learning and practicing with student after student. I do think that if you felt she needed more/brtter training and supervision the people to talk to and the ones to blame were above her head.

But the teacher acknowledged that she had not yet even taken training on her son's disability.  I agree that real knowledge comes with experieince.  But before a professional is let loose to gain the experience they should have had the basic training.

The other thing about the point that I put in blue:

To the teacher, there's always next year to get better.

For my kid, this is the only year he will be 10. And he will be 11 very rapidly, and that precious learning time between 10 and 11 will be completely gone. My child doesn't get a do-over. That makes me a tiny bit frantic sometimes.

[AngelicGamer]

We had an emergency meeting with the principle in which I was told that the teacher had the right to supercede the BIP if in her judgement it was an emergency.  I was later told that he was kicking a wall.

Do you think this is not appropriate?

Considering what the OP said about the physical restraint being the last ever step, I think (as someone who has no dog in the race) that it is. 

I was a student under an IEP in the state of Illinois.  There was only ever four people in those meetings - the social worker who had my case, my Orientation and Mobility teacher, my mom, and me.  Yes, my disability was more physical and not psychological (legally blind), but it always seemed like it was only ever two people of the school in the room for any sort of IEP meeting. 

Also, I agree with what Toots just said.

[Bexx27]

We had an emergency meeting with the principle in which I was told that the teacher had the right to supercede the BIP if in her judgement it was an emergency.  I was later told that he was kicking a wall.

Do you think this is not appropriate?

I wouldn't think it's appropriate unless the definition of "emergency" is made clear and agreed upon. I wouldn't consider something an emergency unless it involved imminent risk of harm to the child or another person. Kicking the wall wouldn't qualify.

[Eden]

OP, what is the advice you need? I understand your previous situation and your frustration with it. I guess I'm unclear on the current issue for which you're seeking advice.

ETA: Or maybe you're just looking for confirmation that you were not out of line before?