South Shore school takes individualized approach to helping students with autism
2025 marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of modern special education. In 1975, Congress passed what's now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
Throughout the year, Boston 25 News is celebrating the achievements of students and educators. We're also highlighting the challenges and barriers that still exist in our state for young people with special needs.
Advocates say the number of students with autism in Massachusetts has more than doubled in the last 10 years.
Schools and school districts are working to understand and meet each student's needs. For students on the autism spectrum, the needs are varied. Some students with autism don't thrive in a typical school setting. Districts work hand-in-hand with area collaboratives for student who might need another option.
Boston 25′s Kerry Kavanaugh recently visited Pilgrim Academy in Plymouth, part of the area collaborative serving the South Shore.
6th grader John Luciano was her tour guide. To say John was proud to show off his classroom would be an understatement.
The markers of success are built into the routine for this classroom of students with autism, visible reminders of what than accomplish even if they make a mistake.
'And feels kind of nice to just know that even if you go down, you can always rise back up,' Luciano told Kavanaugh.
That's an important reminder for any student, especially those who are neurodivergent and, before they landed at Pilgrim Academy, struggled just to get through the day.
'I just couldn't envision myself, like, having a future, at all, if any,' said 11th grader Francisco Kasameyer-Kelly.
He says it was around 7th grade when his typical school setting was triggering anxiety and panic attacks. The right fit for his education was a game changer.
'I can just hold a conversation with anyone randomly,' he told Kavanaugh. 'All these other minor things that other people don't worry about that I used to dread having to do a normal school.'
Francisco told Kavanaugh he has both an autism diagnosis and ADHD.
'It's not just their needs from being on the autism spectrum,' says Lauren Mathisen, Director of Clinical and Therapeutic Services for the Plymouth Area Collaborative.
Mathisen says students often have a variety of needs.
'Students that come from difficult families or who have suffered trauma, who have comorbid disabilities,' she said. 'We have students who also have social emotional difficulties and behavioral struggles.'
But when their needs are met — success is sweet.
'It allows for a great deal of understanding and compassion, as I have experienced very the same struggles that they have at one point or another,' says former student, Dan McMahon. McMahon now works at Plymouth Academy as education support professionals.
So does former student Elijah White.
'It's like being in the middle of a mirror. You see both sides. You see where the adults come from where the students come from,' said White. 'Yeah, there's tough days. Yeah. We push through.'
'I try to let them know that they are not alone,' said McMahon,
And they're not alone in a supportive community. Just ask John Luciano.
'Like if somebody got hurt, somebody can help them up. If somebody is not doing good at work, somebody has to help them with the work,' said Luciano.
As the need for more specialized education grows on the South Shore and across the state, many collaboratives say physical space is in short supply.
'So that's one of our biggest needs, is finding space,' said Mathisen.
The Pilgrim Academy can serve students Kindergarten through Grade 12. Currently Mathisen says they don't have a Kindergarten or Grade 1 cohort because of the current lack of room. Another challenge as communities work to find the best fit for all students.
'Coming to this school and being able to confidently be who I want to be, it's kind of opened up that passageway for me to walk through,' said Kasameyer-Kelly.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Is Rubio's PEPFAR claim ‘made up'?
Presented by With Carmen Paun and Robert King Driving the day SHOW ME THE MONEY — Democrats are sparring with Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries, Carmen, Amanda Friedman and Robert report. President Donald Trump shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired staffers who supported it. Democrats say the administration is lying about the state of the program following massive foreign aid cuts led by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency. Rubio has suggested those concerns are overblown, considering that PEPFAR remains '85 percent operative,' a claim that he made repeatedly in budget testimony before Congress. But neither Rubio nor the State Department will provide a detailed accounting to back up the figure. Dems say: 'It's made up,' Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said when asked by POLITICO about the 85 percent figure. 'It's the most successful, bipartisan, highly efficient life-saving thing that the United States has ever done, and Elon Musk went in and trashed it.' Schatz confronted Rubio about the cuts at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in May, telling him: 'You are required to spend 100 percent of the money.' Rubio's retort: Rubio said the 15 percent cut targeted programs that weren't delivering the services the government was paying for. He pointed to fraud in Namibia and armed conflict in Sudan as reasons for slashed funding, although it isn't clear those instances were related to PEPFAR. Asked repeatedly by POLITICO for more clarity on what the 85 percent figure represents, a State Department spokesperson said that 'PEPFAR-funded programs that deliver HIV care and treatment or prevention of mother to child transmission services are operational for a majority of beneficiaries.' Data collection is ongoing to capture recent updates to programming, the spokesperson also said, adding: 'We expect to have updated figures later this year.' The day after his exchange with Schatz, Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he meant 85 percent of PEPFAR's beneficiaries were still getting U.S. assistance. But the goal, he said, was to pass off the work to the countries where the beneficiaries live. 'We're by far the most generous nation on Earth on foreign aid, and will continue to be by far with no other equal, including China, despite all this alarmist stuff,' he said. Big picture: For flummoxed Democrats, the tussle with Rubio indicates a broader problem: How to respond to Trump's budget requests when his administration refuses to spend the money Congress has provided. Trump last month asked Congress to cut PEPFAR's budget for next year by 40 percent. WELCOME TO MONDAY PULSE. I'm Erin Schumaker, POLITICO's National Institutes of Health reporter, filling in today for Kelly. Are you a current or former NIH employee considering a job offer abroad? Shoot me a message! Send your tips, scoops and feedback to eschumaker@ and khooper@ and follow along @erinlschumaker and @Kelhoops. Congress RACE TO FINISH MEGABILL — Senate Republicans could finalize their domestic policy megabill this week, Robert reports, finally tackling Medicaid changes. Republicans are expected to release text for the Medicaid portion of the spending package, which seeks to extend President Donald Trump's tax cuts. The megabill includes changes to Medicaid, like restrictions on eligibility, to help generate more than $700 billion in savings to pay for the tax cuts. Senate Republicans generally agree on adding work requirements, which will mandate some able-bodied beneficiaries complete 80 hours a month of work, job training or another activity. There are exemptions for pregnant women and disabled people, among others. But there are some disagreements surrounding states' ability to levy taxes on hospitals and other providers to pay for their share of Medicaid, which is funded jointly by the federal and state governments. The House version places a moratorium on new state provider taxes but leaves current ones intact. But the question is whether the moratorium will remain intact in the Senate bill, which leadership aims to pass before July 4. Insurance PUSH AGAINST MEDICARE ADVANTAGE CHANGES — A key insurer-backed advocacy group is trying to block Senate Republicans from changing the popular Medicare Advantage program to find savings for their domestic policy megabill, Robert reports. The Better Medicare Alliance, which includes insurers among its members and advocates for Medicare Advantage, is running ads in the Washington Reporter calling for Republicans to protect the program that enables older Americans to buy private insurance plans offering benefits not covered by traditional Medicare, like dental. The group said it will also share polling data with lawmakers that shows older Americans overwhelmingly oppose the changes being discussed. 'Cutting Medicare Advantage, and particularly in-home care, would break a promise to millions of seniors who rely on it,' said Mary Beth Donahue, president and CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance. Last week, Senate Republicans weighed whether to add a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to the larger package, which seeks to extend President Donald Trump's tax cuts. The legislation, called the No UPCODE Act, clamps down on tools Medicare Advantage plans use to generate higher payments from the federal government. Cassidy pushed back on the attacks from the insurance industry and Democrats who said the legislation cuts benefits. 'We're taking care of patients and we're trying to rescue the program,' he said in a statement. 'To say the No UPCODE Act has bipartisan support is an understatement. This addresses an issue both Republicans and Democrats have called waste, fraud and abuse.' Merkley said in a statement that he still supports the legislation but that it should be considered 'through regular order, not in the context of a partisan bill that will end up leaving 16 million people without healthcare.' The House did consider adding similar language to its bill but eventually backed off. AROUND THE AGENCIES NIH BUDGET TALKS — NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya will testify tomorrow on the agency's budget proposal, which calls for a 40 percent funding cut. The hearing before the Senate Appropriations Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee comes amid widespread discontent at the NIH. Last month, members of the NIH fellows union walked out of a town hall Bhattacharya held in protest of cuts to programs, layoffs and funding uncertainty. While Congress will ultimately decide how much money the agency gets, and could restrict how it's dispersed, we'll be watching for how Bhattacharya defends: — The indirect cost rate cap. The budget plan proposes capping at 15 percent the rate the NIH pays for administrative and facilities costs to grantees. But lawmakers, including Republicans, have criticized indirect cost caps, which the NIH first tried to impose in February. A federal court blocked that move, and the administration has appealed. Notably, the NIH budget proposal also asks Congress to stop restricting how the NIH sets indirect cost rates. — Downsizing the NIH. The budget plan suggests consolidating the agency's 27 institutes and centers into an eight-institute structure, eliminating the National Institute of Nursing Research, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Fogarty International Center, which promotes collaboration with foreign researchers. — Spending this year's budget. While Tuesday's hearing is about the 2026 budget, Bhattacharya is likely to be questioned about this year's budget, too. During a May 29 meeting with disease advocacy organizations, Bhattacharya promised to fully utilize the NIH's fiscal 2025 budget. But with billions of dollars in grants terminated or delayed since Trump was inaugurated, researchers and NIH staffers worry the 2025 budget won't get spent before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Juan Perez Jr. reports on how President Donald Trump has universities in the bind the right has long wanted. Reuters' P.J. Huffstutter reports on how the Trump administration's aid cuts are straining food banks in Ohio. The Washington Post's Erin Blakemore reports on new research that could explain why the human brain has such large storage capacity.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Five Ways Medicaid Supports Main Streets Across America
Business district of Marquette, Michigan Gerald Bernard - In May, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget reconciliation bill that includes significant cuts to Medicaid. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would lead to more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and nearly 11 million people losing coverage, including nearly 8 million people who rely on Medicaid. The bulk of these reductions would come through work requirements. A common misconception about Medicaid is that it is simply a standalone program that provides health insurance to Americans living below or near the federal poverty level. In reality, communities and small businesses rely on the stability it brings. Here are five ways Medicaid supports Main Streets across America. 1. Employee Health and Productivity Many small businesses have tight budgets and struggle to provide basic benefits, much less comprehensive health insurance to all employees. This is especially true in underserved communities, with part-time or low-wage workers being impacted the most. Medicaid provides coverage to employees who may not qualify for employer-sponsored insurance. This ensures that workers have access to preventive care, which reduces absenteeism and improves productivity. It also lowers the burden of medical debt among workers, giving them better financial stability. 2. Expanded Labor Pool Medicaid's healthcare safety net allows more people to enter or remain in the workforce. This also allows more entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting a business, knowing their families are covered. In addition, this support also increases the number of individuals they can hire in their communities. 3. Reduced Hiring and Training Costs Access to quality healthcare coverage is generally a factor every American weighs when making a career decision. However, when workers have consistent healthcare through Medicaid, they are less likely to leave jobs for health insurance elsewhere. In turn, small businesses can save money on recruiting and training new staff and focus on growth instead of turnover-related challenges. 4. Empowered Entrepreneurs For self-employed individuals or those starting a business, Medicaid provides crucial health coverage during the startup phase when income is uncertain. Perhaps more importantly, it also empowers them to pursue their dream of entrepreneurship instead of staying in a job just for the health insurance. 5. Stronger Local Economies When people don't have to spend all of their income on healthcare, they have more money to spend at local businesses. These Medicaid dollars also support healthcare providers, including rural clinics and pharmacies, that serve as small businesses themselves. In addition, Medicaid also indirectly benefits businesses by creating jobs in areas that include retail, construction, and landscaping. It is estimated that the proposed Medicaid cuts could lead to nearly 450,000 job losses in 2026 with roughly half coming in healthcare and the rest in other business sectors. The strength of the economy in many ways boils down to the health of its workforce and entrepreneurs. Medicaid supports workforce stability, entrepreneurship, economic mobility, and small business growth. In a future column, I will explore the impact of these proposed cuts on Main Streets and their communities.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH employees publish ‘Bethesda Declaration' in dissent of Trump administration policies
In October 2020, two months before Covid-19 vaccines would become available in the US, Stanford health policy professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and two colleagues published an open letter calling for a contrarian approach to managing the risks of the pandemic: protecting the most vulnerable while allowing others largely to resume normal life, aiming to obtain herd immunity through infection with the virus. They called it the Great Barrington Declaration, for the Massachusetts town where they signed it. Backlash to it was swift, with the director-general of the World Health Organization calling the idea of allowing a dangerous new virus to sweep through unprotected populations 'unethical.' Bhattacharya later testified before Congress that it – and he – immediately became targets of suppression and censorship by those leading scientific agencies. Now, Bhattacharya is the one in charge, and staffers at the agency he leads, the US National Institutes of Health, published their own letter of dissent, taking issue with what they see as the politicization of research and destruction of scientific progress under the Trump administration. They called it the Bethesda Declaration, for the location of the NIH. 'We hope you will welcome this dissent, which we modeled after your Great Barrington Declaration,' the staffers wrote. The letter was signed by more than 300 employees across the biomedical research agency, according to the non-profit organization Stand Up for Science, which also posted it; while many employees signed anonymously because of fears of retaliation, nearly 100 - from graduate students to division chiefs - signed by name. It comes the day before Bhattacharya is due to testify before Congress once more, in a budget hearing to be held Tuesday by the Senate appropriations committee. It's just the latest sign of strife from inside the NIH, where some staff last month staged a walkout of a townhall with Bhattacharya to protest working conditions and an inability to discuss them with the director. 'If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe,' said Dr. Jenna Norton, a program officer at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a lead organizer of the Declaration, in a news release from Stand Up for Science. She emphasized she was speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the NIH. The letter, which the staffers said they also sent to US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, urged Bhattacharya to 'restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue,' citing work in areas including health disparities, Covid-19, health impacts of climate change and others. They cited findings by two scientists that said about 2,100 NIH grants for about $9.5 billion have been terminated since the second Trump administration began. The NIH budget had been about $48 billion annually, and the Trump administration has proposed cutting it next year by about 40%. The research terminations 'throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars,' the NIH staffers wrote. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million.' They also urged Bhattacharya to reverse a policy that aims to implement a new, and lower, flat 15% rate for paying for indirect costs of research at universities, which supports shared lab space, buildings, instruments and other infrastructure, as well as the firing of essential NIH staff. Those who wrote the Bethesda Declaration were joined Monday by outside supporters, in a second letter posted by Stand Up for Science and signed by members of the public, including more than a dozen Nobel Prize-winning scientists. 'We urge NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership to work with NIH staff to return the NIH to its mission and to abandon the strategy of using NIH as a tool for achieving political goals unrelated to that mission,' they wrote. The letter called for the grant-making process to be conducted by scientifically trained NIH staff, guided by rigorous peer review, not by 'anonymous individuals outside of NIH.' It also challenged assertions put forward by Kennedy, who often compares today's health outcomes with those around the time his uncle John F. Kennedy was president, in the early 1960s. 'Since 1960, the death rate due to heart disease has been cut in half, going from 560 deaths per 100,000 people to approximately 230 deaths per 100,000 today,' they wrote. 'From 1960 to the present day, the five-year survival rate for childhood leukemia has increased nearly 10-fold, to over 90% for some forms. In 1960, the rate of measles infection was approximately 250 cases per 100,000 people compared with a near zero rate now (at least until recently).' They acknowledged there's still much work to do, including addressing obesity, diabetes and opioid dependency, 'but,' they wrote, 'glamorizing a mythical past while ignoring important progress made through biomedical research does not enhance the health of the American people.' Support from the NIH, they argued, made the US 'the internationally recognized hub for biomedical research and training,' leading to major advances in improving human health. 'I've never heard anybody say, 'I'm just so frustrated that the government is spending so much money on cancer research, or trying to address Alzheimer's,' ' said Dr. Jeremy Berg, who organized the letter of outside support and previously served as director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH. 'Health concerns are a universal human concern,' Berg told CNN. 'The NIH system is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but has been unbelievably productive in terms of generating progress on specific diseases.'
