Opinion: Parents not the ones wasting tax dollars

Our letter to the Editor was published on Tue, Dec 9, 2008 on BerksMontNews.com:
http://www.berksmontnews.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Weekly?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_wk_article&r21.pgpath=%2FBMN%2FOpinion&r21.content=%2FBMN%2FOpinion%2FTopStoryList_Story_2610724


Dear Ms. Tassmer:

I'm writing in response to the November 25, 2008 article, "School Shares Struggles with Special Education," about Exeter Schools' agreement to three due process "settlements."

The district illustrated taxpayer dollars were "wasted" and complained they're tied by "unfair laws," parents, and courts; that they're forced to "give into parents' excessive demands" - all the while failing to disclose how they themselves waste taxpayer dollars.

Here are some examples:

1. There are alternatives to due process which cost taxpayers nothing additional.

2. Districts aren't obligated to have legal representation at due process, yet the district hired attorneys to represent them - at taxpayers' expense.

3. With odds notoriously in districts' favor, it seems fiscally irresponsible those settlements were even offered.

Districts aren't obligated to offer expensive "settlements;" they can proceed with due process, because if they "win," the only additional taxpayer expenses incurred are the districts' fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. If they lose, tax dollars generally pay both parents' and districts' attorneys and expert witnesses, and for whatever services/placements districts are ordered to provide.

4. With settlements, districts (taxpayers) generally pay all attorney and expert witness fees - in addition to any "settlement amount," and/or whatever services/placements they'd agreed to provide.

5. Historically, districts request due process, and only typically "settle" cases they know they won't win.

6. Districts "prefer" settlements because they "hush up" parents -- who must sign confidentiality waivers guaranteeing they won't talk about their situation. This means districts may continue to deny services to others, because if parents "squeal" they risk losing everything.

7. Districts receive additional funding for each child receiving special education services.

Unfortunately, nothing requires districts to set that funding aside specifically for special education services; it can be transferred to general education accounts to be spent on anything districts want -- even if that means denying services for special education, and later claiming they don't have funds to provide requested/needed services.

8. Ironically enough, most, if not all, services children with disabilities receive are almost fully reimbursable by Medicaid and/or private insurance -- if the family allows schools to bill them.

Knowing this, how can the district claim parents are strapping the district with their "unreasonable demands" by "forcing them" into "agreements?"

For more information about how Exeter is wasting your tax dollars, please see my article: "District Shares Struggles with Special Education: Blame the Parents' Edition" at http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com.

Jen Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports