Article: Violence in Aggressive Children & Youth

Excerpt from The Council of Exceptional Children & Youth

Author: Mary K. Fitzsimmons

November 1998

http://cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=2701&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

A few of the key elements that emerge from much of this research include:

• Troubled students need habilitative services instead of haphazard punishment. A full continuum of educational, mental health, and other services should be available to them.
• Aggressive and violent behaviors do not develop overnight and cannot therefore be ameliorated or eradicated in short periods of time.
• The entire community is better off when troubled students are served more appropriately.
• Schoolwide discipline policies need to be formulated and taught to all students.

What to Look For

Aggressive students often exhibit deficits in social information processing; that is, they are likely to misinterpret social cues and misassign hostile intent to others, especially during times of stress. They are more likely than others to have some social skills deficits such as poor impulse control, low frustration tolerance, limited ability to generate alternative responses to stress, and limited insight into the feelings of self and others. Social skills training can be crucial to these students.

These students also may be frequently frustrated and yet have fewer skills than others to cope with the frustration. Additional sources of frustration for these students include:

• Disorganized or inconsistent teachers
• Failure
• Boredom
• Lack of positive reinforcement
• Irrelevant curriculum
• Overexposure to punishment
• Feelings of powerlessness

The Stages of Frustration and Appropriate Responses

1.Anxiety: Student sighs or uses other nonverbal cues. Teacher can respond by active listening and nonjudgmental talk.
2.Stress: Student exhibits minor behavior problems. Teacher can use proximity control, boost student interest, or provide assistance with assignments.
3.Defensiveness: Student argues and complains. Teacher can remind student of rules, use conflict resolution, and encourage student to ask for help.
4.Physical Aggression: Student has lost control and may hit, bite, kick, or throw objects. Teacher can escort the student from class, get help, restrain student if necessary, and protect the safety of the other children.
5.Tension Reduction: Student releases tension through crying or verbal venting, or student may become sullen and withdrawn. Teacher can decide whether to use supportive or punishment techniques (or both) and help the student gain insight into feelings and behavior.

How to Respond

A nurturing, caring environment is one antidote to frustration and aggression. Teachers who are therapeutic demonstrate a high level of self-awareness and self-confidence, realistic expectations of self, and the ability to exhibit and model self-control in managing stress and frustration. Therapeutic teachers can develop the type of nurturing environment needed to establish trust and rapport with their students.

Many specific strategies are available to educators to help troubled students. However, early intervention is by far the most important predictor for success. Experts agree that if comprehensive intervention is not provided by Grade 3 or 4, success in ameliorating aggression is unlikely.

How to Intervene

Once these children have been identified, there are three stages of prevention that influence the intervention strategies:

1.Primary prevention aims at keeping problems from emerging. First Step to Success and other commercially available curriculums can be used to divert antisocial young children from a path leading to adjustment problems.
2.Secondary prevention requires individually tailored interventions applied to students who show at risk status. Individual counseling and one-on-one behavior management plans are hallmarks of this stage of intervention. The Second Step is an example of a commercially available curriculum designed for these students.
3.Tertiary prevention involves intensive "wraparound" services that extend beyond the school building to encompass family and social support services. It is applied to the most severely at-risk students.

SAMSHA's 10 Essenstial Values for Dealing with a Crisis Situation

Ten Essential Values Are Inherent In An Appropriate Crisis Response, Regardless Of The Nature Of The Crisis, The Situations Where Assistance Is Offered Or The Individuals Providing Assistance:

(As reported by Wellsphere at http://www.wellsphere.com/bipolar-disorder-article/on-what-to-do-in-a-crisis/857152)

1. Avoiding harm. Sometimes mental health crises place the safety of the person, the crisis responders or others in jeopardy. An appropriate response establishes physical safety, but it also establishes the individual’s psychological safety. For instance, restraints are sometimes used in situations where there is an immediate risk of physical harm, yet this intervention has inherent physical and psychological risks that can cause injury and even death. Precipitous responses to individuals in mental health crises—often initiated with the intention of establishing physical safety—sometimes result in harm to the individual. An appropriate response to mental health crises considers the risks and benefits attendant to interventions and whenever possible employs alternative approaches, such as controlling danger sufficiently to allow a period of “watchful waiting.” In circumstances where there is an urgent need to establish physical safety and few viable alternatives to address an immediate risk of significant harm to the individual or others, an appropriate crisis response incorporates measures to minimize the duration and negative impact of interventions used.

2. Intervening In Person-Centered Ways. Mental health crises may be routine in some settings and, perhaps, have even come to be routine for some people with serious mental health or emotional problems. Nevertheless, appropriate crisis assistance avoids rote interventions based on diagnostic labels, presenting complaint or practices customary to a particular setting. Appropriate interventions seek to understand the individual, his or her unique circumstances and how that individual’s personal preferences and goals can be maximally incorporated in the crisis response.

3. Shared Responsibility. An acute sense of losing control over events or feelings is a hallmark of mental health crises. In fact, research has shown “feeling out of control” to be the most common reason consumers cite for being brought in for psychiatric emergency care.12 An intervention that is done to the individual— rather than with the individual—can reinforce these feelings of helplessness. One of the principal rationales for person-centered plans is that shared responsibility promotes engagement and better outcomes. While crisis situations may present challenges to implementing shared, person-centered plans, ultimately an intervention that considers and, to the extent possible, honors an individual’s role in crisis resolution may hold long-term benefits. An appropriate crisis response seeks to assist the individual in regaining control by considering the individual an active partner in—rather than a passive recipient of—services.

4. Addressing Trauma. Crises, themselves, are intrinsically traumatic and certain crisis interventions may have the effect of imposing further trauma—both physical and emotional. In addition, people with serious mental illness have a high probability of having been victims of abuse or neglect. It is essential that once physical safety has been established, harm resulting from the crisis or crisis response is evaluated and addressed without delay by individuals qualified to diagnose and initiate needed treatment. There is also a dual responsibility relating to the individual’s relevant trauma history and vulnerabilities associated with particular interventions; crisis responders should appropriately seek out and incorporate this information in their approaches, and individuals should take personal responsibility for making this crucial information available (for instance, by executing advance directives).

5. Establishing Feelings Of Personal Safety. An individual may experience a mental health crisis as a catastrophic event and, accordingly, may have an urgent need to feel safe. What is regarded as agitated behavior may reflect an individual’s attempts at self-protection, though perhaps to an unwarranted threat. Assisting the individual in attaining the subjective goal of personal safety requires an understanding of what is needed for that person to experience a sense of security (perhaps contained in a crisis plan or personal safety plan previously formulated by the individual) and what interventions increase feelings of vulnerability (for instance, confinement in a room alone). Providing such assistance also requires that staff be afforded time to gain an understanding of the individual’s needs and latitude to address these needs creatively.

6. Based On Strengths. Sharing responsibility for crisis resolution means understanding that an individual, even while in crisis, can marshal personal strengths and assist in the resolution of the emergency. Individuals often understand the factors that precipitated a crisis as well as factors that can help ameliorate their impact. An appropriate crisis response seeks to identify and reinforce the resources on which an individual can draw, not only to recover from the crisis event, but to also help protect against further occurrences.

7. The Whole Person. For individuals who have a mental illness, the psychiatric label itself may shape—even dominate—decisions about which crisis interventions are offered and how they are made available. An individual with a serious mental illness who is in crisis is a whole person, whose established psychiatric disability may be relevant but may—or may not—be immediately paramount. That the individual may have multiple needs and an adequate understanding of the crisis means not being limited by services that are compartmentalized according to healthcare specialty. An individual’s emergency may reflect the interplay of psychiatric issues with other health factors.And while the individual is experiencing a crisis that tends to be addressed as a clinical phenomenon, there may also be a host of seemingly mundane, real-world concerns that significantly affect an individual’s response: the whereabouts of the person’s children, the welfare of pets, whether the house is locked, absence from work, and so on.

8. The Person As Credible Source. Assertions or complaints made by individuals who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness tend to be viewed skeptically by others. Particularly within the charged context of mental health crises, there may be a presumption that statements made by these individuals are manifestations of delusional thinking. Consequently, there is a risk that legitimate complaints relating to such matters as medical illness, pain, abuse or victimization will go unheeded. Even when an individual’s assertions are not well grounded in reality and represent obviously delusional thoughts, the “telling of one’s story” may represent an important step toward crisis resolution.13 For these reasons, an appropriate response to an individual in mental health crisis is not dismissive of the person as a credible source of information—factual or emotional—that is important to understanding the person’s strengths and needs.

9. Recovery, Resilience And Natural Supports. Certain settings, such as hospital emergency departments, may see individuals only transiently, at a point when they are in acute crisis and in a decidedly high-stress environment. Even when not occurring within hospitals, mental health emergency interventions are often provided in settings that are alien to the individual and the natural supports that may be important parts of his or her daily life. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that an emergency episode may be a temporary relapse and not definitional of the person or that individual’s broader life course. An appropriate crisis response contributes to the individual’s larger journey toward recovery and resilience and incorporates these values. Accordingly, interventions should preserve dignity, foster a sense of hope, and promote engagement with formal systems and informal resources.

10. Prevention. Too often, individuals with serious mental illnesses have only temporary respite between crises.An appropriate crisis response works to ensure that crises will not be recurrent by evaluating and considering factors that contributed to the current episode and that will prevent future relapse. Hence, an adequate crisis response requires measures that address the person’s unmet needs, both through individualized planning and by promoting systemic improvements.

Sensory room is ideal for people with autism

Karen Meyer

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/disability_issues&id=7163565

December 10, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- In the late 1970s, two Dutch Therapists developed a sensory tent filled with a variety of items that are used to stimulate people with autism. Last year, Seguin Services in Cicero created their own sensory room.

The Snoezelen room at Seguin Services is visually active and physically relaxing. The most amazing thing about this room is the cost: $75,000.

• A light show featuring bubble tubes that change colors.
• A vibro chair with relaxing music playing through it.
• Images on a floor mat with different activities that can be played by the participants.

"Our people usually spend 20 minutes in the room, 20 minutes at a time, and the ideal situation is with one person with a disability and one person guiding them through different activities," said Lori Oppiela, vice president of Seguin Works.

"People with autism, people with dementia, it allows them to interact with their environment, and it allows them to interact with their environment. And it's a lot of stimulations, whether it's through your senses, visual , tactile, auditory, it allows people to interactively control their environment."

This is not the only Snoezelen room in Illinois.

"We actually remodeled out room after a school out in the South Suburbs," said Oppiela, "and there's also an organization that is out in the Rockford area."

The Snoezelen room is named for Pat Parker's husband. Their son Dan is deaf and blind and has been part of Seguin Services for 12 years. The Snoezelen room has been a godsend.

"Because my son really relaxes here, you can even tell he doesn't speak. He communicates very clearly that this is the place that he likes to be," said Parker.

"I have had a lot of staff say that they would like to come in here and take a snooze in here, but haven't had anybody hiding out that I know of," said Oppiela.

The success of people who have spend time in a Snoezelen room has been positive.

For more information go to www.seguin.org

A List of Questions You Can and Should Ask Your Child's School District about the "Training" Their Staff May Have Had on Restraint and Seclusion

December 7, 2009
By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs

The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

Many times school districts will tell the parents of a special needs child that there may be a time when their child will "need to be restrained or put into seclusion."

Depending on the laws and policies of your state, it may be a legal requirement that restraints and seclusions may only be used in an emergency or if used in accordance with the child's individualized education plan (IEP) or behavior intervention plan (BIP). In other words, a district may be required to have your signature on file before restraint/seclusion may be used.

Parents wonder (as they should) how safe these techniques are; oftentimes, parents are reassured when districts inform parents the district's staff "is appropriately trained."

Unfortunately, this may or may not be the case.

A district may have received training in the past, but may not be up to date on their training. A district may have sent individuals to a professional "crisis management training" program offered by one of the many professional organizations which "train" non-violent, non-physical and/or physical forms of intervention, but those individuals may disregard all but the "how to restrain/seclude" aspects of their training.

"Certified instructors/trainers," who have been trained by a professional organization to provide training to others within a school district, also have the leeway of "customizing training to meet the needs of their district" - which means a certified instructor/trainer has the option of training nothing BUT restraint/seclusion use.

And finally, some of the professional training organizations do not even train in seclusion use!!

Yet the school districts claim to be following "professional protocols" and insist their staff are or have been "appropriately trained" and are only using techniques learned in training. How is this possible if the district is using seclusion yet has had staff trained by a company which does not offer training in seclusion!?

Bottom line: While it may be true that a district has sent employees to a professional training session, that doesn't mean that district employees are using the training they'd received appropriately or that the district puts into practice the philosophy of the professional training company.

So....

If your school district wants you to agree to the use of restraint and/or seclusion for your child, especially if they want to include these aversive measures in your child's individualized education plan (IEP) or behavior intervention plan (BIP), you may want to first ask the district to respond to any or all of the questions listed below:

1. What is the name of the training company they use?

2. How long have they used this training organization?

3. Can they provide you with the name of their contact at the organization, so you can contact the training organization directly to address any questions/concerns you may have?

4. Will they provide you with the name and contact information for the trainer/instructor who "trained" the district's staff?

5. Are they willing to provide you with the names and "trainer identification cards" for any/all employees who are "trained" to restrain/seclude your child. (Please note: Many of the training companies provide those who have trained under them ID cards which contain a date of completion of training, which is generally good for 12 months after the date of issue. If the training date on their ID is more than a year old, then you know that that individual's training has "expired" and that they need to be "re-certified." Please contact us at tcfpbis@gmail.com or the training organization directly for more information.)

6. Are they willing to invite (or you could invite them yourself) any/all "trained" employees to the next IEP meeting so you can discuss their training program and methods.

7. Are they willing to ask/permit you to ask each "trained employee" if they have ever placed a child in a restraint/seclusion and to describe the circumstances surrounding its use. (Please note: Due to confidentiality laws, they may not disclose a child's name, or may be reluctant to share a specific incident, but they should be willing to discuss circumstances when they may use restraint/seclusion in "general.")

8. Does the IEP team know what training philosophy the district and/or the professional training company follows. (Hint: Some districts claim to be using a specific training organizations' techniques, such as those offered by The Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI), but instead are restraining children for discipline or placing children in seclusion. CPI does not train restraint as discipline or anything about seclusion. It's against the company's "training philosophy.")

9. Are they willing to allow you to see a copy of the training manual and a copy of the trainer's manual. (Please note: I've personally spoken to some training organizations and they insist this information IS available to parents. So if the district says they can't share this info with you, tell them point blank, "That's funny, because the training organization insists that you can." And then call the training organization to report the district. OR, you could take the list of training companies with you, along with their contact information, whip out a cell phone during the meeting (or ask to use their phone) and call the training company IN FRONT OF the IEP team and explain to the training co. exactly what the district told you about access to the training manual. (That's only if you've got the moxie to do it, though :) ))

10. Are they willing to set up an appointment with a trainer who can go through a "Parent/Advocate" training module with you, as most companies are willing to explain their program to parents. (Makes it easier for the training companies to earn $$ if parents are on board - especially in states which require parental signatures along with "trained staff.")

11. Can they tell you how many times the district has used restraint and/or seclusion in their schools in the past year, and in the past 5 years, so you have a better idea how the district is really using restraint/seclusion?

12. Are they willing to provide you with the reasons why/situations when YOUR child would be placed in a restraint and/or secluded, and are they willing to commit in writing that those are the only times when restraint/seclusion will be used, short of a true "emergency?" (Please note: This way you have a better idea whether a district only uses restraints/seclusions for true emergencies, or if your child is in a situation where abuse is ripe for the taking. Please also note, that the newly proposed federal legislation, if passed as written, would prohibit schools from including restraint/seclusion in the child's IEP.)

13. Have they always used their current "trainers" and if not, are they willing to provide you with the names of the organizations used previously and the reason why they no longer use them? (Please note: You want to know what other "philosophies" and methods staff may have been exposed to, as they may pull from another "training program" in an "emergency.")

14. Can they tell you the maximum amount of time a child has been placed in a restraint and in seclusion? (Hint: If a restraint/seclusion is used at all, it should only last as long as the child poses an imminent/immediate danger of serious injury to himself/herself or others. As soon as the child is no longer a "danger," restraints (and seclusion) are to END.)

Finally, please, please, please! If you are considering agreeing to restraint and/or seclusion use for your child, ask the district to first respond to the above questions in writing before you sign on the dotted line. Once a district has your signature, if abusive practices do occur, it becomes so much harder to prove to an attorney or to a due process hearing officer because you gave your permission for the use of those techniques.

If you have any questions or concerns, please email me at tcfpbis@gmail.com.

List of Materials to Ask Your District for re “CPI-Certified/Trained Staff”

December 6, 2009

By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

The following is a list of resources and materials which CPI provides to the districts/personnel/individuals CPI has trained, as evidence of what CPI teaches. This information is to be made available from school districts to parents/advocates upon request:

1. A Participant Workbook: This work book includes both pictorial and narrative descriptions of the different types of de-escalation and restraint techniques CPI trains.

Although this workbook is copyrighted and your district may not personally reproduce any portion of the workbook, you can ask the district to either give you access to their copy OR you could ask them to order a copy for you.

Please note: If you are ever in doubt about a technique personnel may have used on your child, ask them to show you the photograph of the technique they used, as outlined in CPI's Participant Workbook. If they cannot, or if you cannot find either a photographic or narrative description of a technique described to you, then personnel may have used a technique which is not “CPI-approved.” This needs to be reported to CPI at info@crisisprevention.com and/or us at tcfpbis@gmail.com immediately. Additionally, if the district refuses to provide you access to the CPI Participant Workbook, please contact CPI at info@crisisprevention.com and/or us at tcfpbis@gmail.com immediately.

2. An Instructor Manual: Every CPI-Certified Instructor is provided with a trainer’s manual which provides them with everything he/she needs to effectively conduct and customize training sessions, including a module which is used to educate parents/advocates on CPI’s philosophy and techniques.

Please note: If the district cannot produce the instructor's manual, or refuses you access to the manual, or if the district refuses to schedule an appointment with a trainer who could review the parent/advocate training module with you, please contact CPI at info@crisisprevention.com and/or us at tcfpbis@gmail.com immediately.

3. Identification Cards with Annual Training Date: Individuals who have completed CPI training are issued identification cards, which contains the date the individual was certified.

Please note: CPI requires annual recertification, so this “certification date” is very important. If identification cards cannot be presented, or if the certification date is more than one year ago, then the personnel may not be/may no longer be certified. If you are concerned about an individual’s certification, please contact CPI at info@crisisprevention.com and/or us at tcfpbis@gmail.com immediately.

Some additional things to know/consider:

CPI does not train in seclusion! So if your district is using/has used seclusion and/or seclusion rooms, and if they are claiming to be following “CPI training” for seclusion/seclusion rooms, then they are lying to you and should be reported to CPI at info@crisisprevention.com and/or us at tcfpbis@gmail.com immediately!

CPI also does not train restraint as discipline, punishment, nor convenience of staff; CPI is about avoiding restraint and seclusion! So if your district is using/has used restraint as discipline, punishment, or for staff’s convenience, please contact CPI at info@crisisprevention.com and/or us at tcfpbis@gmail.com immediately!

Article: An intervention that can reduce hostile perceptions in children with prenatal alcohol exposure

Posted on: november 19, 2009 - 9:30pm

http://www.sciencecodex.com/an_intervention_that_can_reduce_hostile_perceptions_in_children_with_prenatal_alcohol_exposure

• Prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) has been linked to significant impairments in social skills.
• Researchers have found that a social- skills intervention called Children's Friendship Training can lead to a decrease in hostile attributions or perceptions of children with PAE.

Prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) has been linked to a wide array of developmental deficits, including significant impairments in social skills. An examination of a social- skills intervention called Children's Friendship Training found that it led to a decrease in hostile attributions or perceptions of children with PAE.

Results will be published in the February 2010 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

"Children with PAE have a hard time making and keeping friends," explained the study's corresponding author Vivien Keil, who was a staff research associate in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA when the research was conducted.

"More specifically, they tend to have difficulty understanding social cues and common social norms," she said. "In order to make and keep friends, we must be able to read social cues such as facial expressions and other body language. If a child makes hostile attributions, this means that s/he is more likely to perceive that the people around them are hostile or negative and, as a result, s/he is likely to respond in a hostile manner, thus undermining successful social relationships."

"These social problems are due, in part, to the neurological and cognitive deficits known to be associated with prenatal exposure to alcohol," said Joseph M. Price, a research scientist in the Children and Adolescent Services Research Center at Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego.

"However, children prenatally exposed to alcohol are also more likely to be exposed to negative early-life experiences – such as unresponsive caregivers, maltreatment, disruptions in early parent-child interactions, and out-of-home placements – all of which are known to contribute to behavior and social problems during childhood and adolescence."

Price also said, given that these social problems may eventually lead to school problems, emotional and behavior problems, early school dropout, delinquency, and drug and alcohol use, that children who were prenatally exposed to alcohol will likely benefit from intervention efforts designed to improve their social skills and their relationships with peers and adults.

Researchers assigned 100 children (51 boys, 49 girls) with PAE, between 6 to 12 years of age, to one of two groups: Children's Friendship Training or a Delayed Treatment Control condition.

"The Children's Friendship Training decreased the level of hostile attributions made by children with PAE in group- entry scenarios, or those situations in which they were asked to join a group of similarly aged children in play activities," said Keil. "This means that when the children were asked about other children's intentions, they made fewer hostile attributions after the intervention. These findings are encouraging because hostile attributions were not the focus or target of the intervention. Rather, the intervention sought to improve children's social skills more broadly; decreased hostile attributions were merely a positive side-effect of the intervention and perhaps a mechanism of change."

"In short," added Price, "it appears that children's hostile interpretations of peers' social intentions, which have been found to be associated with aggressive behavior and peer rejection, can be modified by intervention efforts. What will be exciting to see is if the Children's Friendship Training procedure also improves other aspects of children's social information-processing patterns, such as social problem-solving skills or their evaluation of behavior outcomes, and improves the social behavior and peer relationships of children who have been exposed to alcohol during prenatal development."

"There are many reasons to be hopeful that children with PAE can overcome their weaknesses and reach their full potential," said Keil. "It is encouraging that a psychological intervention such as social-skills training seems to have resulted in improvements in more objective measures of child functioning such as social information-processing like hostile attributions rather than relying on more subjective parent reports of child functioning. These findings suggest that although there are neurocognitive deficits associated with prenatal alcohol exposure, children with PAE can make meaningful improvements in their social skills and overall functioning with the use of effective evidence-based treatments."

MA: Students who participate in debate do better in school

Sun Nov 08, 2009, 07:43 AM EST

Submitted by BPS

http://www.wickedlocal.com/west-roxbury/news/education/x880807319/Students-who-participate-in-debate-do-better-in-school

BOSTON -

A new study suggests that African-American students who participate in debate leagues earn better grades, are more three times more likely to graduate from high school than similar students who do not join their debate team, and are better prepared for college success.

Dr. Carol R. Johnson, Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools (BPS), has increased the district’s investment in the Boston Debate League (BDL) as a powerful tool for engaging urban students in academically rich activities during school, after school, and during the summer.

“Debate has quickly become an exciting way for Boston Public Schools students to learn and express themselves outside of the traditional school day,” said Johnson. “It’s rewarding to see the debate league help students improve skills in reasoning, argument, research, public speaking, and teamwork, and perhaps most importantly, build their self-confidence.”

The new study www.urbandebate.org/emergingresearch.shtmlconducted by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University, examined 2,500 Chicago Public Schools students who participated in at least one debate tournament over a 10-year period, comparing their performance to about 10,000 other African-American students. The researchers found a direct correlation between a student’s level of involvement in debate and academic gains across several measures — including increased college readiness in English and reading. The study is published this month in Howard University’s Journal of Negro Education.

Volunteers started the Boston Debate League in 2005 with three participating schools. Last year, Johnson committed district funding to the league, enabling it to expand to eight Boston high schools. This year, with additional support from BPS, EdVestors, The Boston Foundation, The Shapiro Family Foundation, the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, and Social Venture Partners (SVP), the league has grown to 10 schools:

Boston Latin Academy (Dorchester)

Brighton High School (Brighton)

Brook Farm Business and Service Career Academy (West Roxbury)

Charlestown High School

Dorchester Academy

East Boston High School

Media Communications Technology High School (West Roxbury)

New Mission High School (Mission Hill)

Quincy Upper School (Chinatown / South End)

Urban Science Academy (West Roxbury)

“This academically rigorous, peer-reviewed research coming out of VCU finally confirms what we have known all along: that debate can play a significant role in addressing some of the most pressing problems urban students face,” said Steve Stein, Executive Director of the Boston Debate League. “As the BDL expands to more schools and reaches larger numbers of students, we will see attendance, grades, test scores, and high school and college graduation rates go up, and dropouts and discipline issues go down.”

Hundreds of Boston public high school students participate, spending countless hours outside the regular school day researching, studying, and debating timely issues. Boston is one of 18 large cities affiliated with the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues. BPS students have competed and earned distinctions in national tournaments.

When Autism Behaviors Are Physical Pain

November 5, 2009

By Libby Rupp

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/when-autism-behaviors-are-physical-pain.html

When a child has a high fever or an oozy rash, doctors typically work to find the cause and end the problem. However, when a child is flapping or walking on their toes, the symptom is considered normal behavior for autism and the search for answers ends there.

This week we had an encounter that, on a small scale, typifies the struggles our kids have. I took my daughter to Occupational Therapy and she came out an hour later incessantly chewing her tongue. The therapist was talking about her new stim and suggesting therapeutic options to address it. Meanwhile, I was asking my daughter if there was something wrong. After repeatedly getting no reply, I shoved my finger in her mouth and found several pieces of lettuce stuck in her gums and teeth. She had to deal with that discomfort for an hour because of it was deemed 'typical autistic behavior' instead of considering that there might be a problem.

This past year my daughter went through a period of severe aggression. The “professional” response: family counseling and behavior modification. Real issue: she had kidney stones and once she received treatment, the aggression ended.

Dr. Krigsman has found gastrointestinal disorders in children that posture. See Figure 13 ((HERE)

Behaviors are symptoms. Behaviors are communication.

Listen to your children, even if they can’t speak. Push your doctors, therapists and teachers to use your kids’ behaviors to search for underlying problems. Behaviors are sometimes the only clue we have in helping our children.

Libby Rupp is the mother of an awesome little girl and an autism advocate. She maintains the website www.herbsforautism.com

VIDEO: Advocacy in Action in VA

In this one school district in Virginia, less than 35% of children with disabilities are GRADUATING. Children with IEPs are also well-below the state average in Reading and in Math.

This AMAZING video clearly gets the message across that improvements need to be made without being accusatory or confrontational.

Watch and Enjoy!!

Commentary: Flaky Excuses and Outrageous Statements Made During IEP Meetings

The following is a list of things parents/advocates have been told at IEP meetings (some of which were "caught on tape"). We're not sure where this list came from (we found it posted on a Yahoo list serve, but with no link to the original source), but want to thank whomever put this all together:

1. In my IEP meeting, the learning consultant actually told me that my son couldn't attend a specific out of district placement because the school bus driver didn't like to drive on the particular highway on which it was located....Time and time again OSEP has issued policy guidance and hearing officers have ruled that "placement decisions must be made on an individual basis... placement decisions may not be based on category of disability, the configuration of the delivery system, the availability of educational or related services, availability of space, or administrative convenience." Bus Drivers' Preferences, while not specifically mentioned, just doesn't seem to fit into the criteria for placement decisions. I'm beginning to believe, judging from the many outrageous statements I receive, that the IDEA they follow isn't the same one as what I have access to.

2. A parent brought me the IEP the school district was proposing for her child. The proposed IEP had ONE goal. Child will learn how to keyboard. This is because of messy handwriting. The parents want pragmatic language skills, test taking skills and writing skills taught. The mom wrote down the response, she was so flabbergasted. It was, "we don't have to teach test taking skills. The new law says we only have to accommodate them." The parents had the presence of mind to ask for that "law" in writing and to table the meeting until they got the progress reports on the current IEP.

3. At our IEP meeting this week, the LEA arrived halfway through the meeting, left twice to take phone calls, and took a call on his walkie talkie asking whether a student could bring their pet poodle to school!

4. While working to ensure that the audio portion of videos shown in her deaf son's classroom were provided in a format her child could have access to, the teacher involved used the excuse, "I have 30 kids in a classroom, it is hard to make adaptations." Give me a break! I doubt OSEP, OCR, any hearing officer, or any court in the country would accept that as an excuse. Nowhere in the IDEA or ADA do I see class size as an excuse for not providing needed services. For further discussion on the requirements for effective communication, please see chapter 7 of : Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Self-Evaluation Guide for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools Office for Civil Rights Department of Education United States of America

5. When asking our local school how they would handle our son's education...he is deaf, and was transferring out of a deaf school into a public school, they told me...We don't know of any interpreters so he will have to "wing it" in his classes. And we are still fighting them today. How about we put this person in a classroom being taught in a language he didn't understand and then tell them to just "wing it"?It never ceases to amaze me that just because someone knows one language, they think everybody else does.

6. Parents of child in my child's special ed room requested I attend their son's IEP meeting yesterday--which I did. The special ed classroom has a button making business and as of late have been making buttons that say "Proud to be an American" and selling them and supposedly proceeds are to go to aid NY victims. They also make all sports buttons, etc. Father during the meeting brought up concern about special ed students spending too much time making buttons (this is not an all school project) and that it was taking time away from son's learning. Various local organizations have donated money to defray cost. Special ed teachers reply was that their button business is used to gain extra money for field trips, computer printers, or needs in classroom. Am I crazy or is this a no, no? I am curious how SD can justify button business when it clearly has gone beyond educational/vocational training and becoming
an all day business to keep up with orders. Further, am I crazy or isn't that what state and federal funds are for--to provide the funding for special education to meet the children's needs. Since when are the kids supposed to fund educational needs? Sort of takes the F out of FAPE. It appears to take out the APE too. What's left???? Teacher doesn't have to spend any time planning either.

7. My son is nine years old and deaf and in the 4th grade. He is still doing math problems like 4 -1 = 3 and reading things like "See, the balloon is blue." Their excuse is that well he will always be behind the normal children and that he'll never read as well as the normal child (Do they think he's an alien from space?). I'm thinking..."He is deaf, but he still had a brain the last time I checked!" At home
I am trying desperately to get him worked up to his grade level. And I always tell him that he can do anything. He replies, "I know." Why must educators just take it upon themselves to say a child will never be able to do a certain thing? Why do they think they have the right? -A frustrated mother

8. Once at a 504 meeting that was being implemented before my son got his IEP. The school psychologist and I were going over the accommodations/modifications my son would need for his APD. When I asked for the school to reduce the amount of extraneous noise, provide copied of lecture notes and many more. I was told by the school psych now lets not go overboard here many of these things could apply to his disability. I was like DUH then why not provide them!

9. During the course of one IEP meeting, to describe a dyslexic child and explain why the school did not need to provide services: "Why are you so worried? She's not exactly college material." "She's smart, she just needs to work harder." "Intelligence testing is really meaningless." "You really believe THAT kind of child ever can catch up?" "If she would just read the directions, she'd do just fine"..."She'll never be a good reader." "I never write in cursive." No wonder my head is spinning after each meeting....

10. They are particularly lacking in training here! They pointed out to me that I had the audacity to request an IEP BEFORE the placement decision was made. What an awful Mother I must be!! From OSEP's Guidance Letter re: Deaf Students Education Services: "The decision as to what placement will provide FAPE for an individual deaf child — which includes a determination as to the LRE in which appropriate services can be made available to the child — must be made only after a full and complete IEP has been developed that addresses the full range of the child's needs." The SLP at my sons' last school gave my son the TACL (Test of Auditory Comprehension) while he was......wait for it......UNAIDED! My PROFOUNDLY deaf son, and then dutifully listed the fact that he had failed, in her report. When I asked that IEP services be implemented, the TOD gleefully pointed out that the word "MAY" was in the IEP (and indeed to my absolute DISGUST, it WAS) and that the district didn't need to provide those services after all. (Currently waiting for new IEP mtg. date to be announced). When OT and PT goals were being written, OT proudly pointed out to admin. team members that all goals are specifically geared towards classroom only and don't take into account any life skills. School provided keyboard to said child because of major fine motor delays but unfortunately, there was NO computer to hook said keyboard to FOR FOUR MONTHS; now that they have the computer, the TOD decided, by herself, that it is not helping, therefore it is not used!

11. About two weeks ago, I am at my son's school picking him up. This school is where the District INSISTED he go because he needs SO many services that it would be impossible for them to place him at his home school. (YEAH RIGHT!) Anyway, there I am 10 miles from home, enjoying the clean CO sunshine, (it WAS a beautiful day) when the Principal walks up to me and says "Oh, by the way, according to your sons' IEP, he doesn't need the same level of services anymore and will be attending his home school next year. SO, if you want your son to attend this school next year, you will have to fill out an Open Enrollment form, and of course, you know, this doesn't guarantee placement here for him." Now, shoot me if I'm wrong, BUT, doesn't the IEP Team have to meet (of which I could swear I am an integral part) and THEN the TEAM decides placement based ! ON THE IEP, AND for the District to CHANGE placement, it must be done through the IEP PROCESS?!?!? But, hell, what would I know, I'm only his mother!

12. 11. I advocated at an IEP meeting today where the SLP actually said it was against district policy to tell parents the progress the students were making on the IEP goals. Actually this may be a candidate for most stupid thing ever said at an IEP meeting. Anyway, I did ask for this policy in writing and mentioned that it seemed to
conflict with federal law. She said she often wanted to write more on the progress reports but was constrained by doing so by district policy. §300.347 of the Implementing Regulations for the IDEA state: (a) General. The IEP for each child with a disability must include— 7) A statement of - (i) How the child's progress toward the annual goals described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section will be measured; and
(ii) How the child's parents will be regularly informed (through such means as periodic report cards), at least as often as parents are informed of their nondisabled children's progress, of - (A) Their child's progress toward the annual goals; and (B) The extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to achieve the goals by the end of the year.

13. I called the State Dept. of Sped to enquire to whom should I address a Fed. Complaint. Said Dept. of Sped gave my name and phone no. to a mediator and I suddenly found myself in the middle of mediation phone calls. HUH? Said mediator, when I was trying to explain various reasons why I did not want mediation (she didn't want to take no for an answer) told me that I didn't really need a lawyer present (school district was bringing one) as it was obvious that I was capable of a higher level of thinking and that made a lawyer, for me, redundant! (But, obviously, the School District still needed THEIRS!) That the parent's level of thinking is at a higher level than that of district personnel is merely a statement of that which is manifestly obvious, and indicative of the norm. However, if the parent did not bring an attorney to the mediation, which was initiated without the parent's knowledge or consent, in an attempt to abrogate her statutory right to file a complaint, she would
not be able to sock the district for the cost of said attorney, after she beats the stuffing out of those mendacious cretins. Such is unfortunately necessary in order to teach them a lesson, since the only language they understand is the language of Green.

14. Here is an exchange that occurred at an IEP review one of my son's teachers had requested: Teacher: I'm concerned about your son. After we drew up the last IEP, he seemed to be doing well in class. For the last 4-5 weeks though, I haven't been able to get him to pay attention in class. I have to go up to him and tap him on the shoulder to get him to attend to what I'm saying, but within a few minutes of instruction time, his mind has wandered off again and he has no idea what I'm talking about in class. I think we need to look at whether this IEP is truly appropriate for your son. Me: Hmmmm......Did the timing of when this started happening in class correspond to about the same time when you accidentally flushed the transmitter for his FM system, which hasn't come back from repairs yet? Teacher: you're right! I never thought of that. I guess the thing to do then would be to get that FM system back and start using it again. It was all I could do to keep from shouting out, "Duh!" at the end of this exchange.

15. At an IEP meeting for my 5 year old daughter I inquired about adding a ramp to the playground equipment. Here are some of the many reasons that were given me for NOT doing it. "If she could get her walker up on the equipment the other children
would have a hard time running around her" "If we built a ramp then neighborhood children might ride their bikes up here, get hurt and we would be sued" "Walking up that ramp would just make her too tired to walk back into school" And my favorite.... "I don't know how we would put a ramp on the equipment without making the playground look strange" All documented in the IEP! Eventually we got the ramp and the special ed director called me at home over the summer to tell me exactly how much the school system had to spend so that my daughter could play with other children...dramatic pauses and all.

16. I got several rather startling statements on tape: Asst. Principal: "Yes, I realize we haven't done an evaluation, but I really think it was your OLD school's responsibility to do that." TOD: "We don't have to do an evaluation for specific learning disability because your daughter already has a primary disability. Deafness." SLP: "Now that we all understand what the district's philosophy is, we need to go ahead and write an IEP based on that philosophy." TOD: "You guys don't have the only disabled child in this district. We can only do so much, and that's why we have TC. I mean, I don't understand why you don't think your daughter should sign. Can you explain that to me?" Asst. Principal: "Sir, have you thought about hiring a tutor for your daughter? Isn't your aunt retiring this year? I think she could be a tremendous help to your daughter." Asst. Principal: "You say your daughter is at a 7.6 grade level now. Well, what if she regresses over the summer? Where will that leave us? You two need to work really hard this summer to maintain her skills. LD kids often suffer regression." And finally...........from the TOD......"I wish we could afford to place every child where they really need to be. But we can't." This one is almost too easy!

17. We just a received a note that our child's IEP was up for review and as we had been to the last one there was no real need for us to be there. Yea right...did you roll on the floor laughing?!?!?!?!?

18. The author of Who Pays for Audiograms Used in Schools? reports receiving an e-mail from a teacher with a yahoo.com address, who told her that what she wrote doesn't apply in HER county, because in HER county, parents have the responsibility to provide the audiograms. These people JUST DO NOT GET IT! And what is the scariest of all, is they are teaching OUR KIDS!! Oh, I understand now!! HER county is not part of the United States and therefore not subject to FEDERAL LAW!! That's the only
reasonable explanation. If they are not subject to Federal Law, then they are not
eligible for any federal funds. They should cough up everything they've been getting and refund it to the taxpayers, with interest!

19. The school contracted with a stuttering specialist, but since nothing was working they stopped paying the bills. Can we stop paying our school taxes since nothing they do seems to be working very well?

20. Objective, under the goal of personal independence: "Johnny will independently cross the street safely, 50% of the time." And what about the other 50% of the time?

21. I am going to request our daughter get either auditory/verbal therapy and / or aural rehabilitation. At our meeting last month, the sped dir. said she had never heard of these so she didn't think the district should have to pay for them. Oh, this is RICH! I can see it now, "Well, your honor, the District feels we should not have to pay for this. Since I have never heard of this stuff, it cannot possibly be appropriate. Yes, your honor, 'appropriate' is defined as stuff I know about, and feel my budget can afford.

22. These aren't from Educrats, but I think they deserve a place on this page anyway. The following are two Supreme Court rulings released on the same day. "Employers who did not know their supervisors were sexually harassing employees still can be held legally responsible for such misconduct." "School districts are not liable when teachers sexually harass or abuse students unless some administrator knew about the misconduct." Does this mean that teachers are not employees of the school districts in which they work? Or does it mean that teachers do not supervise students? Or does it mean that the Supremes are again granting school districts "most favored entity status," consistent with its ruling that teachers, unlike other professionals, cannot be sued for malpractice, thus supporting and perpetuating the notion that school districts are not subject to the laws established for the rest of the nation?

23. I was told repeatedly that it was against the regs for our daughter to have any other problems because of her hearing problem. (Unless of course she was blind or motor impaired.) I think these educrats forgot to send God a memo about their regulations.

24. "Let's not put that in the IEP because then we're required to provide it. If we leave it out, then it's optional whether we provide the service or not." Well, they are half right.

25. Testing this year was done with tests normed on hearing-impaired children. Based on test results, our child may no longer qualify for services since he no longer scores 2 deviations below "standard". Since when does qualification for services depend on testing normed on those with the handicap? We are talking apples and oranges. If they want to know his ability to benefit from regular education, then they have to use testing normed on the general population! See our document Educational Evaluation of Deaf Children.

26. Occupational therapy and physical therapy denied (our child cannot use the left hand very well as a result of partial paralysis). Reason: Our child does not need the left hand for educational purposes. Gross motor problems could not be seen by the school PT, since our child did not have any problems on the swing and on the see-saw, in addition our child was able to walk!!!, jump and run. Coordination needed for going down the stairs or dribbling a ball while walking are not considered needed for educational purposes. Doctor's certificates and PT eval disrespected.

27. They told me they don't have to provide an interpreter all the time because my child has "other issues" besides deafness. Is he deaf only part of the time because of his "other issues", or all the time? If he's deaf all the time, that's when he should have an interpreter.

28. When offering justification for wanting to send my son to a "cluster" site instead of allowing him to stay in his home based school, she told me they wanted to put him with other deaf children to "enhance his lip-reading ability!" Didn't you know - speech reading is contagious!!

29. "What the parents are asking for is an impermissible maximization of services." Silly us, we thought it would be a novel idea for the interpreter to communicate in our son's language.

30. I had a principal "refuse" to authorize his staff to attend another IEP meeting. I laughed out loud for that one!...not very lawyerly of me I suppose! And he said it on tape!

31. When a SPED Director was trying to convince the parents of a 2nd grader that retention was needed, she commented that "he was so immature that he (child) doesn't have all his teeth yet." The father replied, "is that why reading is so 'tough' for him?"

32. When a parent inquired about whether the IDEA Amendments were in effect, a SPED Director replied, "they haven't been grandfathered in yet". Sometimes I wonder where Educrats get their training.

33. We are at this meeting and the sped director says, "Geez, why are you picking on us, we aren't the only school district which isn't providing ESY. There are 400 other ones that aren't either." Having anticipated this not-so-clever comment, I said, "You know, I thought you might say that. And let me tell you why I am picking on this particular district on ESY. There are really three reasons. First, my client happens to live in this one. Second, you happen to be a well-known sped director and whatever you do will certainly "get around." And third, I've calculated it out and in my lifetime I could never get to all of the other 400 districts even if I work night and day so I've decided just to focus on one and then the others will probably have to follow suit because they won't be able to say that all the other districts routinely deny ESY because this one won't be doing that anymore, will it?" You know he's never used this reason again with me.

34. "Your list of accommodations prevents the teachers eliminating your son's ADHD." Now if they can do that, I'd like to market their talent.

35. "We can't let him have a water bottle, they're not allowed in case they bring vodka in them." Are we talking about the kids or the teachers here?

36. "ALL Middle School kids have social skills problems. They just learn by watching their peers." So THIS is what our kids are learning in school?

37. "During the Adaptive PE evaluation he was worn out after 15-20 minutes. I will be seeing him twice a week for 50 minutes a session." Sounds like this one needs a basic lesson in math. Maybe working up to 50 minutes a session...but to start out with 50 minutes?

38. "We don't have anyone who can do that." Then they better get somebody. This is no excuse!

39. We don't have any place he can go. We have a space problem here." Same applies, it's no excuse. If it's needed for the child to receive FAPE, they have to find the space.

40. Can the parents do that? Insist on staff training for the disorders?" This one should be a "no brainer". We shouldn't have to insist upon it though. It should be the school's responsibility.

41. "He doesn't really have to learn cursive. All he needs to do is learn how to sign his name." Then why do the kids in regular ed have to learn it?

42. When a parent of a sped child asked for him to be placed in a class with his typical peers, the IEP team coordinator stated, "But then we would have to place him in a class that had all Down syndrome kids in it. Those are HIS typical peers." This is certainly a creative interpretation of the IDEA.

43. Although the school district and director of special education had verified the child's disability and entitlement to receive special education services under IDEA, it was the school district's position (prior to hearing anyway) that they would not provide the child with an interpreter until the child "stopped using her disability as a crutch to get attention from her teacher and classmates". At the conclusion of the due process hearing, the school district was ordered to provide the child with an interpreter.

44. At a meeting called to evaluate a child : Parent: You need to get your Dr. on staff/retainer to do some medical testing. School: We don't have a Dr. on contract. Parent: Well, I am requesting an IEE (at which point the parent showed them supporting documents in the CFR and the Fed. Regs.) School: Oh, we don't do that here. The parent was dumbfounded and asked them if they still considered Florida to be part of the Union.

45. My family does not drink milk. Understanding that the school lunch program offered orange juice as an alternative to milk, I sent my daughters for hot lunch that day. They were told they could not have OJ because they did not have a "note". When I called to ask about the "note", the school administrator told me that they couldn't provide OJ to just anyone because then "all the kids would want it" (ohmigosh...it will be anarchy!!) and OJ is only available to children who have a note from the family doctor stating they are "SEVERELY lactose intolerant". So...I guess mildly or moderately lactose intolerant is okay???

NC: DPI's Response to Our Open Letter re IEP Meetings without Parental Particpation

We finally received a response from North Carolina's Department of Public Instruction regarding the Open Letter we sent to them to clarify if a district could hold an IEP meeting without parental participation, despite a written request from the parents to reschedule  the IEP meeting as the date/time were not convenient. 

Our letter to DPI can be found here: NC: Open Letter to N.C.'s Department of Public Instruction  or http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com/2009/03/nc-open-letter-to-ncs-department-of.html.

The response from DPI is as follows. See if you can make any more sense out of this than we've been able to thus far. We've highlighted some of the more "interesting interpretations" and placed our notes in brackets. We're also working on a response and will let you know if we hear anything more.

Dear Ms. Searcy,

 

In response to the questions you submitted on behalf of the parents of a North Carolina student with disabilities, the Exceptional Children Division is unable to respond to specific questions about a particular child or case other than to state that the parents misinterpreted the LEA's intentions.  [Note: Did you catch that? They can't comment other than to say that the parents misinterpreted the LEA's intentions. What? Is that their standard response to all inquiries? The parents misunderstood? Without even knowing who in this particular district refused to reschedule the meeting, without even knowing the name of the Local Education Agency this district falls into, DPI KNOWS the parents misinterpreted the LEA's intentions. Hmm...ok, then. Guess the district employee didn't really mean it when he wrote the meeting would occur as scheduled and then emailed it to the parents then. Good to know.]

The parents should contact the Exceptional Children Program Director regarding any concerns about a written communication.  They may contact a Consultant for Dispute Resolution in our office or may exercise their due process rights as specified in the Procedural Safeguards regarding concerns about a procedural violation.  [Note: Why would the parents need to do this, though? We asked DPI to clarify if the district was violating the law, aka "committing a procedural violation." DPI said "no," sort of...we think? Maybe? We don't know, we can't tell, but it certainly seems that way. So if DPI is saying that the district aka LEA is not violating these parents' rights, and since DPI runs the Office of Dispute Resolution in N.C. then what would be the point of exercising due process, when DPI obviously already has their mind made up that the district intended no harm - without seeing any evidence!]

 

The North Carolina Policies Governing Services for Children with Disabilities does not differ from the IDEA regulations regarding parental participation in meetings. [Note: But then there's this statement. North Carolina's policies do not differ from the federal law. So...if the district held that meeting without the parents, despite the parents requests to reschedule the meeting so they could attend, then the district would be in violation of IDEA? See, this is what we wanted DPI to clarify, since they're the governing education body in North Carolina. The laws appear to support the parents in this case, but DPI doesn't appear to be interpreting those same statutes the same way.] 

 

 

Lynn M. Smith, Consultant for Dispute Resolution
NC Department of Public Instruction
Exceptional Children Division

6356 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-6356
(919)  807-3978 phone
(919)  807-3755 fax

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ec

NC: Open Letter to NC's Department of Public Instruction

NOTE:  A parent contacted us to let us know that a district intended to hold an IEP meeting without her or her husband. The parents had already sent in a written request to reschedule the meeting, but the request was tersely denied. By federal and state laws, an IEP meeting cannot be held without the parents, unless the district cannot convince the parents to attend. In this case, the parents are definitely willing to attend, and signaled that fact by asking for the meeting to be rescheduled so that they could attend.

We wanted to bring this situation to the attention of North Carolina's Deparment of Public Instruction, the states' education agency to ask if legally the district could hold the meeting without the parents under the given circumstances and to see if they'd be willing to share what recourse the parents might have should the meeting be held without the parents. 

Below is a copy of the letter we sent to them. We'll keep you informed if they respond. 

March 28, 2009

Dear Ms. Neale, Smith, and Pruitt:

 

We are writing to you today to seek your advice and clarification about whether a school district may hold an IEP meeting without a parent under the following circumstances:

 

Staff from a N.C. school district emailed and mailed an invitation to attend an IEP meeting to an eligible child’s parents. The parents have participated in the child’s prior IEP meetings. The parents have also previously notified the district that they want to participate in future IEP meetings, but they are unable to attend the above-referenced IEP meeting on the scheduled meeting date. The parents notified the district in advance in writing via email and fax that they would not be able to attend the meeting on the scheduled date and requested (in writing) that the meeting be rescheduled for another date/time. In response, the Director of Special Education for the district sent the parents an email to inform them that the IEP meeting would proceed as scheduled.

 

We are very concerned about the information that has been disseminated to the parents by district staff, and of the district’s notification of intent to hold an IEP meeting without the parents as:

Under 34 CFR 300.345 Parent Participation of the federal IDEA regulations:

(a) Public agency responsibility--general. Each public agency shall take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including--

(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

 

(c) Other methods to ensure parent participation. If neither parent can attend, the public agency shall use other methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls.

(d) Conducting an IEP meeting without a parent in attendance. A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to convince the parents that they should attend. In this case the public agency must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as--
(1) Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls;
(2) Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and
(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent's home or place of employment and the results of those visits.

34 CFR 300.501 Opportunity to examine records; parent participation in meetings.

(a) General. The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded, in accordance with the procedures of §§ 300.562-300.569, an opportunity to—

 

(2) Participate in meetings with respect to--

(i) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and
(ii)The provision of FAPE to the child.

(b) Parent participation in meetings. (1) Each public agency shall provide notice consistent with § 300.345(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that parents of children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in meetings described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

 

 Under North Carolina Statutes:

NC 1503-4.2 IEP team (http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf, pg 90 of pdf)

(a) General. The LEA must ensure that the IEP Team for each child with a disability includes--

(1) The parent(s) of the child; 

NC 1503-4.3 Parent participation (http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf, pg 91 of pdf)

(a) Public agency responsibility--general. Each LEA must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP Team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including--

(1) Notifying the parent(s) of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an

opportunity to attend; and

(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

(c) Other methods to ensure parent participation. If neither parent can attend an IEP Team meeting, the public agency must use other methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls, consistent with NC 1503-5.4 (related to alternative means of meeting participation).

(d) Conducting an IEP meeting without a parent in attendance. A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to convince the parent(s) that they should attend. In this case, the LEA must keep a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as-

(1) Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls;

(2) Copies of correspondence sent to the parent(s) and any responses received; and

(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent’s home or place of employment, if appropriate,

and the results of those visits.

 

According to the Department of Education’s website at http://www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#team (See 7. IEP Team Members), “[b]y law, certain individuals must be involved in writing a child's Individualized Education Program” and that “Parents are key members of the IEP team. They know their child very well and can talk about their child's strengths and needs as well as their ideas for enhancing their child's education. They can offer insight into how their child learns, what his or her interests are, and other aspects of the child that only a parent can know. They can listen to what the other team members think their child needs to work on at school and share their suggestions. They can also report on whether the skills the child is learning at school are being used at home.”

 

To summarize the salient points:

 

1.      The district sent a written request to the parents requesting parental participation at an IEP meeting.

2.      The parents notified the district in advance in writing that the date/time of said IEP meeting was not convenient, and therefore, not mutually agreed upon.

3.      The parents asked the district in advance and in writing to reschedule the meeting for a date/time that is mutually agreed upon so that the parents can participate in the IEP process.

4.      The district denied the parents’ written request to reschedule the IEP meeting, did not offer or explain what alternative means of participation may be available to the parents, and have indicated in writing that the IEP meeting will occur as scheduled, with our without the child’s parents.

5. The above-referenced federal and state laws seem to indicate that the district may not hold an IEP meeting without the parents, unless the district has not been able to convince the parents they need to participate in the IEP process, and that those attempts by the district to encourage parental participation must documented.

6. The parents have provided written documentation to the district to indicate their willingness to attend IEP meetings, but cannot attend a specific IEP meeting at the scheduled date/time (but could participate in an IEP meeting if the district would be willing to reschedule the next meeting.) Therefore, parents have provided sufficient written notice to the district that the district has convinced the parents of their need to participate in their child's IEP. 

7. The district should not be able to hold the IEP meeting without the parents and should reschedule the meeting for an agreed-upon date/time.

 

Despite the importance the Department of Education places on parental participation and the fact that parents have indicated they do want to participate in the IEP process for their child, district staff is refusing parents’ request to reschedule an IEP meeting.

 

In light of this information, can the district legally hold the child’s IEP meeting on a date/time that is not mutually agreed-upon, without the parents? If the district cannot legally hold the IEP meeting, but chooses to do so anyway, what recourse do the parents have?

 

We’d appreciate any recommendations, opinions, and/or advice you could share and look forward to your response. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us at tcfpbis@gmail.com.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Jennifer Searcy

Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs

The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports