Guiding Light Academy

I Would Of Loved For My Son To Go Back Here If They Didn’t Babied Him Or Give Him Attention He Didnt Need . I Need My Son To Be Ready To Go Back To His School & I Want Him To Focus They Didnt Give Him That He Was Better At Goodrich Only If Goodrich Would Of Gave My Son A Couple More Months He Just Started Talking. This School Is Not For My Son No Therapeutic School . He Just Need The Right Teachers To Not Give Up On Him

The kids were well cared for and looked after from what we saw. The admin, however, was more concerned with selling us on the school than telling the truth or reading my son’s IEP provided by his current school. My son has type 1 diabetes. At no point in the tour was that an issue. “He’ll get to know the nurse well”. He also currently has a one on one. The tour ended with us being told if they didn’t have the staff to give him one there, they’d hire someone. Two days later, they contacted his current school to say they can’t take him because of him needing a one on one, and that there wouldn’t be a nurse who could give him his insulin next year. Not only did they waste our family’s time (that we had to take off from work), they lied to us.

There are kids here who are taking off their clothes. Disgusting people 🤢

I saw the Guiding Light School Bus at an outing at Papas Pizza in Woodridge. It seems the students were having a great time and were happy. The instructors were very attentive to their students and treated them well.

Doctor's Letter submitted 8/6/19; Child started 8/15 & enjoyed it until "the team" didn't want to address what they did. Child reported headache (8/26) to Aide Ruby. who advised him to sit down & wait a while, then DENIED OTC Med., then Program Coordinator claimed child didn't advise her of headache. 2 days later (8/28) Aide claimed not to remember when child stated he told her he had a headache that day. Program Coordinator claimed OTC med was not given even on days that it was according to child except for 8/26/19 Monday the day of the headache. After teacher E.C. was administering OTC med. the prior week, suddenly a week later it was not administered claiming no Dr. Letter? Program Coordinator claimed things were her fault. Then how was it administered the previous week on 8/19 & 8/20 by teacher? 8/21 & 8/22 child claimed SUB allowed him to use of OTC Med himself. Due to this circumstance & the Mom pointing out the sequence of events with Program Coordinator not liking what was submitted &/or the wording of emails, sent Mom a 30 day termination letter (8/30) claiming accusatory, inappropriate communication aspects when THEY encourage working together. Being an Advocating Mom of a Special Ed child & questioning/pointing out implausibilities, should NOT disqualify ANY child from a program that claims what it does on their site, but it appears it did. Their unwillingness to work together with Mom on these aspects AFTER THEY OCCURRED & after Mom scheduled an in-person meeting for 9/4 done on 08/29 to discuss them along with a letter outlining those events that was faxed 8/29/19 at 8:51 a.m., in which Program Coordinator then stated: "I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your attached correspondence received today via fax ..." today being 8/30/19 NOT 8/29/19, was another discrepancy. The termination letter was provided 8/30/19 afterward. What they are doing is harming & denying child an education as it appears they do not actually want to discuss implausibilities on their part or occurrences so that child could remain, as their solution is to DISMISS the child at any expense to create further hardship for not only the child but his Mom because they do not want to acknowledge what has been brought to their attention as well as the inconsistencies. Yet, the letter states, "The staff at Guiding Light is willing to cooperate with your family and school district to assist in any way possible...", WHICH, if this were true, would make the attempt to keep the child! Should they have video of child not using the OTC med in the classroom on the days in question he claimed to use it, I would like to view it. That has not been offered. Just because POSITIVE EFFORTS are made by Staff, does not mean implausibilities do not exist & Guiding Light's lack of willingness to discuss these aspects to resolve this ARE UNREASONABLE, but they are exercising their right within ISBE guidelines for out of District Placements. This is a child that was abused/bullied already in Dist. 58 at Kingsley/SASED placements & SASED/Aurora Naper Transportation by the adults. It appears if you do not put up, shut up, ignore & not question accuracy/that which is supposed to be in place, you & your child are not wanted. According to GLAA, Family involvement is supposed to be a central component of the program. Parents are supposed to be RESPECTED as active partners in their student’s education through observation, training, classroom visits & coaching to SUPPORT parent/student interaction. What about Honesty? GLAA is supposed to place strong emphasis on working through behaviors or situations which may be difficult, in order to teach our students how to learn to self-regulate to avoid aberrant behaviors. It appears respect of the Advocating Mom of child was bypassed & the need to place a strong emphasis on working through behaviors or situations which may be difficult...is appearing not to apply to Adult Employees to a Physically Disabled Adult Mom. Nothing is meant to be false, misleading, misconstrued, accusatory, inappropriate, et al.

My son transitioned to Guiding Light in Shorewood and I am very happy with his transition, communication with staff, and I feel he is well cared for safe & happy!