Opinion: Should a Child Be Arrested for Doodling on a Desk?

February 6, 2010

By: Jennifer Searcy

Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs

The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

The Associated Press is running a story on how twelve-year-old Alexa Gonzalez was taken from her school, Junior High School 190 in Queens, NY, in handcuff's for doodling "Lexa was here 2/01/10" and "I love my friends Abby and Faith" on her desk in erasable marker.

That's right: She was taken away in handcuffs for doodling on a desk with an erasable marker. Not because she was excessively violent, or because she'd assaulted someone; not because she'd committed or threatened murder or was selling drugs on school property - but because she "vandalized a desk" with an erasable marker.

What are our school systems becoming?

Should a twelve-year-old have known better than to "doodle" on a desk? Most likely, yes. Should she have been punished for vandalizing school property? Again, most likely yes. But should she have been arrested? Absolutely not.

Wouldn't a more appropriate punishment have been requiring her to wash the marker off of the desk and/or given her after-school detention?

Eric Cantor, a NY Education Department spokesperson, agrees the school over-reacted: "[T]he incident shouldn't have happened, and that common sense should prevail."

What kind of message is this sending to our children, when relatively normal childhood behaviors are criminalized? Is this really where our "Zero Tolerance" policies have led us?

The AP also reported that the ACLU filed a lawsuit just last month which alleges that more than 20 instances of wrongful arrests and assaults by school safety officers occurred.

As for Alexa, she was released from the police station after several hours and was assigned 8 hours of community service, a book report, and an essay.

What are your thoughts on this?

Child Abuse Still in Schools?

In her article entitled "Can It Still Be True: Child Abuse in Schools?", Judy Molland wonders:

What's wrong with the education system in this country? Every industrialized country in the world now prohibits school corporal punishment, except the U.S. and Australia. (In Outback regions only) Yet here, not only do twenty states permit corporal punishment in public schools, but in the 2006 - 2007 school year, 223,190 school children in the U.S. were subjected to physical punishment. And that's just the cases that were reported.

As the National Assocation of School Psychologists states, "Corporal punishment negatively affects the social, psychological, and educational development of students and contributes to the cycle of child abuse and pro-violence attitudes of youth." Shouldn't this be a no-brainer for anyone involved in education?

It's a sad statement on the U.S. that there has to be a school law banning the use of mechanical restraints, prohibiting the use of restraints that restrict breathing, and forbidding staff members to deny students water, food, clothing, or access to toilet facilities in order to control behavior. But at least we can thank Representatives Miller and McMorris, and Senator Dodd, for introducing this legislation that will begin to address this issue, by outlawing the worst cases. And then we can wonder: what do educators think they are achieving by physically abusing a child?

A school discipline policy should be designed to guarantee the safey of students and staff, create an effective learning environment, foster respect for others, and teach students how to resolve conflicts.

Corporal punishment achieves none of these goals, so why is it still around?

What do you think should be done to deal with this?

To post your answer to Judy's question, please follow the link:

http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/child-abuse-at-school/

PA: Editorial: No justice, no peace

Posted on Fri, Dec. 11, 2009

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/79034922.html

School district officials must act more aggressively to reduce tension and ensure safety at South Philadelphia High School, which has been rocked by racial attacks on Asian students.

Superintendent Arlene Ackerman was slow to publicly respond to the first major crisis in her administration. Now, she must work harder to reassure anxious students and parents that racist violence won't be tolerated.

In heart-wrenching testimony Wednesday before the School Reform Commission, Asian students painted an ugly picture of hostility against them by African American students that has been rampant for some time.

Even more troubling, they said the problem extended beyond fellow students to school staff, who allegedly not only turned a blind eye to the verbal and physical abuse by black students, but even encouraged the assaults and hurled racial slurs.

In at least five separate attacks last week, inside the school and on nearby streets, 30 students were assaulted, and at least seven landed in the hospital. The student body - 70 percent black and 18 percent Asian - has a serious race problem.

Afraid for their safety, about 50 Asian students boycotted school this week, missing out on instruction time to send a strong message to the district. Given the district's tardiness, they say they are also working on their own solutions.

Meanwhile, the district will announce a new safety plan today that calls for additional security officers, counselors, and translators at the school to facilitate easier reporting by students and peer mediation. The district is also wisely looking beyond South Philadelphia High by appointing a district-wide racial and cultural task force, and implementing a U.S. Justice Department program to help students deal with racial and ethnic divisiveness.

Those are welcome moves, which should not have been delayed by Ackerman's letting days pass before commenting on the situation. By not publicly addressing the racial violence for nearly a week, she gave the impression that it was not a priority.

The superintendent planned to finally visit the school today. "We're going to make it right," she said, "There's no tolerance for violence."

But her late visit may do little to reassure wary students that it will be safe to return to school next week. Ackerman should meet with everyone, from the janitors to the principal, to make sure they understand that the high school's environment of hostility must change.

In her remarks at Wednesday's SRC meeting, Ackerman said the violence was a reflection of the racism that exists in the larger community as well. Absolutely, which is why administrators must be sensitive to the plight of all of the minority groups in their schools that look to them for protection.

Opinion: Outlaw child abuse in schools

By George Miller and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Special to CNN
December 9, 2009 8:48 a.m. EST

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/08/miller.mcmorrisrodgers.childabuse.legislation/index.html

Editor's note: U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-California, is the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and the chairman of the House Democratic Policy Committee. U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, is a member of the House Education and Labor Committee and vice chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Washington (CNN) -- All Cedric wanted was lunch.

A 14-year old student in a special education classroom in Texas, Cedric was living with a foster family because of a history of neglect, including malnutrition. But on this day in 2002, his teacher tried to punish him by withholding food, despite the abuse he had suffered as a young child.

Cedric's teacher delayed his lunch for hours to discipline him for refusing to do his work. When he wouldn't comply, his teacher put him in a face down restraint and sat on him in front of his classmates. Cedric said repeatedly that he could not breathe. He died minutes later on the classroom floor.

Cedric's tragic story isn't an isolated case in America's schools today.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, over the last 20 years there have been hundreds of allegations of school personnel using restraint and seclusion in abusive ways on children. It's happening disproportionately to students with disabilities, often at the hands of untrained staff. Many of these students bear haunting physical and emotional scars. And in a number of cases, students have died.

It's difficult to believe, but there are no federal laws to prevent this from happening.

Local newspapers recount bone-chilling stories of schoolchildren tied to chairs, or with their mouths taped shut, sometimes locked in dark closets, or pinned to the floor for hours at a time. If parents treat their kids this way, it's considered a criminal offense.

But unlike in hospitals and other institutions that receive federal taxpayer funding, there are no federal protections against these abusive practices when they happen in schools.

Cedric said repeatedly he could not breathe. He died minutes later on the classroom floor.

The Children's Health Act of 2000 regulates how and when restraint and seclusion can be used in medical settings and community facilities. But classrooms, where students spend the majority of their day, are exempt.

In the absence of a federal standard, state protections for kids are all over the map. Many states have no regulations whatsoever. Children are left vulnerable and staff untrained.

Restraint and seclusion techniques should be used only as a last resort, when someone is in imminent danger of physical injury and there are no alternatives. Without proper training, staff can be hurt and students, especially small children, are at risk.

Yet the GAO and news reports confirm that these practices are used frequently, often as discipline, when students aren't physically aggressive. While there is no centralized reporting, data from the few states that do track incidents paints a troubling picture. In the 2007-2008 school year in California alone, the GAO reports, there were more than 14,300 cases of restraint, seclusion and other "emergency interventions." We don't know how many of these merited real emergencies.

In one California case, Paige, a young girl with Asperger's syndrome, was restrained in class because she was wiggling her loose tooth. Her mother, who had never consented to physical interventions, had no idea restraint was regularly imposed until her daughter came home with bruises.

As parents, when we send our children to school, we expect they will be safe from danger. And when the very people we entrust with our children's well-being inflict this type of abuse, it's not just the victims and their families who suffer. It hurts their classmates, who witness these terrifying events. It undermines the vast majority of teachers and staff who are trying to give students a quality education.

It's a nightmare for everyone involved.

The easy answer here would be to blame teachers. But it would be the wrong one.

Ultimately, the root of this problem has been our system-wide failure to provide direction and enforcement. As long as school systems continue to lack the tools they need to create good policies and properly train staff, these incidents will continue.

The solution is a balanced approach to make classrooms safe for students and teachers.

With that goal in mind, on Wednesday we are introducing legislation to finally ensure that schools in every state have the resources they need to prevent inappropriate restraint and seclusion.

Our bill would set minimum safety standards in schools, similar to the protections children already receive in other institutions, so that states can ensure appropriate school district policies. It would limit physical restraints or locked seclusion to situations involving imminent danger, and require staff to be trained in administering these practices. It would outlaw mechanical restraints, such as strapping kids to chairs, and prohibit restraints that restrict breathing.

It will increase transparency and oversight, so we will finally know just how widespread these practices are, and provide the Secretary of Education with tools to enforce the law.

And it would give schools the support they need to equip their staff to handle difficult situations in the most positive manner possible.

In a time of deep partisan divide, some may wonder what prompted strange bedfellows -- a member of Democratic leadership and a member of Republican leadership -- to team up.

It's as simple as this: Schools are places for our children to learn, grow, and thrive. As a nation we must do better.

It's time to ensure that no child in this country suffers the same fate as Cedric.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of U.S. Reps. George Miller and Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Message from the Founder: A “Behind the Scenes” Report

December 6, 2009

From: Jennifer Searcy, Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs

I wanted to apprise our readers of some things that have been going on behind the scenes.

First, I learned at a recent conference (sponsored by TASH) that individuals from Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI), The MANDT System, Inc, NAPPI, Inc (Non Abusive Psychological and Physical Intervention), and JKM Training, Inc. (Safe Crisis Management) - the organizations which train individuals in deescalation and other "non-violent physical intervention" techniques have agreed to work together to begin developing a Code of Ethics for Trainers for use in the U.S. The code is to be based upon the British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) Model, with the hope that, with a code of ethics in place which clearly outlines which techniques are/are not appropriate, then the use restrictive interventions (such as restraints and seclusions) will not only become safer, but also decrease.

Next, I have begun dialog with some of the training organizations I’d met at the conference to learn more about what exactly these different organizations train and what policies and/or procedures they follow when allegations of abuse by their “certified instructors or trainers” are brought to their attention.

We have asked them to answer the following questions:

What de-escalation and physical intervention techniques does your organization train?

Does your organization train “prone” or other “floor” restraints?

Does your organization train in the use of seclusion and/or seclusion rooms?

Does your organization have policies/procedures in place for when a parent or advocate reports incidents of possible training/technique abuse/misuse?

Does your organization have a Division of Compliance or employ compliance officers who personally investigate instances of alleged misuse/abuse of your organization’s techniques?

If not, are there any plans to create a “compliance division,“ to address issues of possible misuse/abuse?

Do you have any employees who physically visit the location where possible misuse/abuse of techniques may have occurred/be occurring; to conduct interviews with the instructor and individuals he/she has trained?

Do you have employees who actually observe the “training”- in action and on location, if at all possible - to see if appropriate techniques are being taught/have been used?

Is there a “probationary period” – where a newly-certified instructor/trainer is observed by another employee/certified instructor/trainer for a set number of training sessions to ensure the newly-certified instructor/trainer is training others correctly from the get-go?

Do you have any employees who review previously documented incidents of restraint use and other techniques to see if misuse has/had occurred?

What procedures does your organization follow when a certified instructor/trainer has been identified/confirmed as not putting your organization’s philosophy and techniques into practice (“mistraining”)?

If an instructor/trainer has lost their certification due to either misuse/abuse of techniques or through “mistraining” others, can that previously-certified instructor/trainer re-obtain their instructor/training certification by going through a retraining program?

If the instructor loses his/her certification status, but is permitted to complete retraining and successfully obtains certification again, is there a probationary period for that instructor/trainer, where the instructor/trainer can only train under direct supervision by another employee/certified instructor/trainer for a set number of trainings?

Does your organization offer retraining to any individual who may have been “mistrained” by a confirmed “mistrainer”?

We’ll let you know what responses (if any) we receive.

In the meantime, CPI has given us a list of materials that parents can ask their district for if they have concerns over CPI techniques that may be used on/for their child. A post with this information will be up shortly.

We are also following up on a story we shared with you earlier this week about the Frederick County School District in Maryland. We have grave concerns about what was reported in that news article and are in the process of compiling data which we will share with the Disability Rights Network/Law Center of Maryland. We do know the DRC of Maryland is aware of this situation, but do not know much beyond that. In any case, we intend to ask them to formally investigate this district for abuse of aversive techniques and on civil rights issues. A copy of the investigation request will appear on this blog as soon as it is ready to be sent.

We have also been reviewing the Kansas Seclusion and Restraint Guidelines, which can be found here: http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K7cj9wBVQno%3D&tabid=3119&mid=7422. A blog post with our criticisms and concerns will be posted within the next few days.

And as usual, we're also working with a number of families on school (abuse) issues, as well as trying out best to keep you up to date on any news articles/locations we run across.

It's been a busy, but productive, few weeks.

MD: Opionion, Seclusion rooms "useful and effective option"

NOTE: The following opinion was posted on FrederickNewsPost.com at http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_editorial.htm?StoryID=98513 on December 3, 2009.

While we disagree that "FCPS has been deliberate and cautious about creating and using these rooms," it is always helpful to read other points of view.

Some parents of FCPS students may have been taken aback to learn that "seclusion rooms" are present and being used at some county schools.

According to News-Post education reporter Marge Neal's Nov. 27 story, the rooms are used to isolate students who are experiencing emotional or behavioral stress that may be a concern for themselves and others.

Decades ago, students with emotional, cognitive or behavioral issues were often educated at separate institutions or were highly segregated from the rest of the students at a school.

In recent times, however, the trend has been to mainstream such children as much as possible under the theory that being in the standard school atmosphere and interacting with a wide range of other students is helpful in both educating and socializing them. We believe this is true and of great help to special-needs students' progress.

Practically, however, this is a big, complicated and expensive challenge for public schools. For instance, there are a number of children with autism or Asperger syndrome attending county public schools. Because of emotional, social or cognitive issues, many of these children require special staff, special learning spaces and curriculum, and special handling.

In some cases, special-needs children may even require a place to defuse or work through a traumatic episode they are experiencing at school.

According to Neal's story, FCPS has been deliberate and cautious about creating and using these rooms. FCPS said it has followed the Code of Maryland regulations, which provides the legal definition and authority for the use of seclusion spaces. The rooms are specially constructed, monitored, and used for short intervals and only when deemed necessary. Parents must also provide written approval for use by their children.

Karen Williams is a licensed clinical social worker at Lewistown Elementary School, one of the county schools that has a seclusion room. She notes that students themselves sometimes "self-advocate" to be placed in the room to decompress in a controlled, stimulus-free atmosphere.

Williams aptly sums up the concerns and value of this resource, saying, "The concept of seclusion and restraint always makes people nervous ... and it should. It's a very serious intervention, and should only be used to match the level of seriousness of the behavior being disciplined."

She went on to say, "We employ this tool in a professional, appropriate and positive manner. It's a necessary thing at times."

As in anything else, the tools to do a job well must be suited to the task at hand. Despite the negative connotation some may have of them, seclusion rooms appear to be a useful and effective option when utilized appropriately and responsibly.

Commentary: A Review of Proposed Changes To Mandatory Data Collection

A Review of Proposed Changes to the Annual Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education Data through EDFacts

By: Jennifer Searcy

Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs

The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

October 11, 2009

The Department of Education makes it mandatory that schools and local education agencies (LEAs) submit certain civil rights data to the Department twice a year during each school year. The Department notifies schools and LEAs in writing of what information (data sets) they must submit. Schools may report information through an electronic system known as the Eden Survey Tool (ESS), by mainframe submissions, or by paper surveys.

Because data was not collected for the 2008-2009 school year reportedly as a result of a delay in the approval of the 2009 budget, this year, a request for a new data set to be collected has been proposed beginning with the 2009-2010 school year.

New data reporting is to include, but is not limited to: “Restraints and Seclusion Incidence Table” by School, “Restraints or Seclusion IDEA Students Subjected Table” by School, “Restraints or Seclusion Non-IDEA Students Subjected Table” by School, “Harassment or Bullying Policy Table” by LEA, “Harassment or Bullying Incidence Table” by School, and “Harassment or Bullying Students Subjected Table” by School.

A request has also been made to discontinue collecting certain data. Among the data that previously was collected but has been proposed to be omitted includes, but is not limited to: “Children Evaluated for Special Education but Not Receiving Services Table” by School and “Children without Disabilities Cessation Table” by School.

It is unclear why the request to discontinue data collection regarding children who are eligible for but not yet receiving special education services and children who have been expelled but not offered other educational services has been made. However, data for “Children Awaiting Evaluation for IDEA”, “Children Receiving Services Solely under Section 504”, and “Discipline of Students with Disabilities (IDEA and Section 504)” will continue to be collected.

Data that was collected by the Eden Survey Tool (ESS) only that had been previously approved and which has been requested to be merged in with data collected by the Civil Rights includes but is not limited to: “Children with Disabilities (IDEA) School Age Table – Disability Category and Education Environment” by School, Teacher Quality in Elementary and Secondary Classes Tables by School, and Student Performance in Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science Tables by School.

Data that was collected by both the Eden Survey Tool (ESS) and the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), which is proposed to only be collected by ESS includes “Disability Category and Educational Environment in the data group: Children with Disabilities (IDEA) School Age Table by School” and LEA-level Totals in the Data Group: Children with Disabilities (IDEA) School Age Table by LEA.

The Department is also proposing the CRDC “[c]ollect data from a sample of approximately 7,000 LEAs and all schools in those LEAs. The sample will include all LEAs with enrollment of 3,000 or more, about 300 other LEAs specified by OCR, and about 3,000 LEAs statistically selected by random stratified sampling. This sample size and composition will ensure that the Office for Civil Rights has data on a widely representative group LEAs and adequate coverage for statistically reliable national and state projections.”

What this means is that data from every school in every district in every local education agency (LEA) in every state of this nation will not be collected, analyzed, or made publicly available.

The ability to collect this data already exists; data was collected from all schools in all LEAs in every district in every state in 2000.

Additionally, “[t]he last two CRDCs, the 2004 CRDC and the 2006 CRDC, were conducted primarily on-line via the EDEN Survey Tool as part of the EDFacts family of data. Mainframe submissions and paper surveys were allowed; one state provided all the data on behalf of its LEAs and another state provided some data on behalf of its LEAs. All data from these alternate methods were merged with data collected via the EDEN Survey Tool and the entire dataset was transferred into EDFacts.”

To read the document in its entirety, go to http://edicsweb.ed.gov, click on ‘browse pending collections’ and then click on ‘info collection 04127 at http://edicsweb.ed.gov/browse/browsecoll.cfm?pkg_serial_num=4127. Scroll down this page and then click “Att_EDFacts CRDC 2009 B-4 changes v23-cb.doc” for the list of data to be collected.

The public may submit comments on these proposed revisions to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov until November 10, 2009.

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???

Torture in America's Schools

From the Wall Street Journal
By JAMES TARANTO
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124412724085285291.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Last month the Government Accountability Office issued a shocking report on "selected cases of death and abuse"--not at Guantanamo Bay or other detention facilities for terrorists, but at schools for American children:

GAO also examined the details of 10 restraint and seclusion cases in which there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. The cases share the following common themes: they involved children with disabilities who were restrained and secluded, often in cases where they were not physically aggressive and their parents did not give consent; restraints that block air to the lungs can be deadly; teachers and staff in the cases were often not trained on the use of seclusions and restraints; and teachers and staff from at least 5 of the 10 cases continue to be employed as educators.

The 10 cases involved children ranging in age from 4 to 14, and eight of the cases occurred at government schools. Here is just a sample:

At a public school in West Virginia, a 4-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism "was 'uncooperative,' so teachers restrained her in a chair with multiple leather straps that resembled a 'miniature electric chair.' " The girl was later diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. "At least one of the three teachers responsible" is still at the school.

At a Texas public school, a 230-pound "special education teacher" placed a 129-pound boy of 14 "into a prone restraint and lay on top of him because he would not stay seated." The student died. The case was ruled a homicide but no charges were filed. The teacher "currently teaches in Virginia and is licensed to instruct children with disabilities."

In a California public school, the teacher of a 7-year-old autistic girl "secluded child in a walled off area because she refused to do work, sat on top of her because she was wiggling a loose tooth, and repeatedly restrained and abused her." The teacher "left the school but began teaching again in a different school district."

"GAO could not determine whether allegations were widespread," the report disclaims, but it makes clear they are more widespread than just the 10 cited cases:

GAO did find hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death related to the use of these methods on school children during the past two decades. Examples of these cases include a 7 year old purportedly dying after being held face down for hours by school staff, 5 year olds allegedly being tied to chairs with bungee cords and duct tape by their teacher and suffering broken arms and bloody noses, and a 13 year old reportedly hanging himself in a seclusion room after prolonged confinement.

When the report came out on May 19, we figured it would be a good opportunity to find common ground with politicians and commentators who've been complaining for years about the "torture" of terrorists. We figured President Obama would issue an executive order banning torture in schools, the New York Times would publish an indignant editorial, Dick Durbin would take to the Senate floor to declare that the teachers unions remind him of the Gestapo, and that nut who writes for The Atlantic would proclaim himself "shocked to the core."

We were going to respond by saying that although we think there are circumstances under which it is justifiable to treat terrorists roughly, all good people can agree that torturing schoolchildren is categorically wrong. But we didn't have anything to respond to. As far as we are aware, the GAO's findings have been greeted with silence by the leading self-proclaimed "torture" opponents--though Education Secretary Arne Duncan did tepidly promise "he will ask state school chiefs around the country about the use of restraints and confinement of pupils in the classroom," according to the Associated Press.

Where's the outrage? Could it be that all the complaining about "torture" was but a pretext for some less noble agenda?

NC: Can a District Hold an IEP Meeting Without the Child's Parents?

By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports
Published on: March 27, 2009

Some NC parents recently contacted us to notify us that their school district notified them in writing that the district intended to hold an IEP meeting "as previously scheduled," with or without the parents - even after the parents notified the district in advance in writing that the date/time wasn't convenient and asked if the district could please reschedule the meeting.

The parents wanted to know, can the district legally do this?

The easy answer should be a resounding "NO! They can't" in this case, but...well, we've seen stranger things happen (and even stranger decisions from state Departments of Education/Public Instruction).

So, let’s take a look at the facts:

The parents claim that:

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 and 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’ 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.

Now, according to the Department of Education’s website at (http://www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#team), “[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.”

But what laws support the parents’ (and our) contention that the district’s intent to deliberately and willfully exclude the parents may be, well, less than “legal”?

34 CFR 300.345 of IDEA outlines Parent Participation in depth, and the full text can be found here: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/300-parent-participation-19761947

The portions relevant to the above-referenced scenario are as follows:

(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. (Fact: the parents notified the district in advance & in writing that this meeting is NOT mutually agreed upon and have asked for the meeting to be rescheduled. We have a copy of the email.)

(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. (Fact: The letter from district staff did NOT include a statement about what alternative means of participation may be available to the parents so that they may be able to participate in the meeting as scheduled. We have a copy of this email.)

(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. (FACT: Parents have notified the district in advance & in writing that they cannot attend the meeting on the date/time as scheduled and requested that the meeting be rescheduled. Therefore, the parents have not expressed to the district a unwillingness to attend an IEP meeting, and in fact, have participated in other IEP meetings with said district. We have emails and other documents attesting to these facts, and have even personally attended an IEP meeting with one of the parents. Parents want to be included in these meetings; it's the district who doesn't want them there because the parents disagree with many things included in the district's draft IEP and it would be so much easier to simply "go around" the parents and their wishes than deal with them directly)

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 (FACT: The district has acknowledged receipt of the parents' request to reschedule this IEP meeting. Parents have indicated in writing of their desire to participate in said meeting. We have copies...); and
(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent's home or place of employment and the results of those visits.

Also 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.

North Carolina’s statutes echo the federal regulations. The full NC statute can be found here: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf

Further, NC 1503-4.2 identifies members of the IEP team here: (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; (NOTE: Parents are listed as the NUMBER ONE participants. Think that means anything?)

NC 1503-4.3 identifies Parent participation here: (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. (NOTE: And here's that pesky clause again about the meeting needs to occur at a mutually agreed upon time and place. Remember, parents can't make the next meeting on the "as scheduled date." Here's an idea: Reschedule the meeting!)
(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). (NOTE: There's this clause again too. Keep in mind the written notice - via email - the district provided to the parents did not include an explanation of what other means the district may be willing to offer - if the parents could be available on this date, which they can't, so this point is rather moot but... - so that the parents might participate in this meeting on the scheduled date.)
(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. (NOTE: In this case, it is the parents who have repeatedly indicated their willingness to attend IEP meetings, in writing no less, but for some reason the district appears to remain unconvinced, and as such, appears to believe that future IEP meetings don't need to include any parents).
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 (Email/fax sent indicating parental willingness to participate in IEP meeting, but please reschedule, CHECK!); and
(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent’s home or place of employment, if appropriate, and the results of those visits.

So, it would appear that if the district does proceed with the IEP meeting “as scheduled” without the parents in attendance, the district would be doing so in flagrant disregard of the law.

But...these are crazy times we live in.

However, it's our opinion that the district is "misinforming parents"of their parental rights, is informing parents in writing of the district's intention to flout federal and state laws, and we’re sticking to it, but will the N.C. Department of Public Instruction, with whom we’ve contacted for their opinion, side with us, or side with the district? Only time will tell….

As we've said, stranger things have happened.

We’ll keep you informed…

FL: Help teachers, help students

Palm Beach Post Editorial
Saturday, February 14, 2009
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2009/02/14/a22a_leadedit_portillo_0214.html

At this point, everybody agrees that Alex Barton never should have been voted out of his kindergarten class at Morningside Elementary in Port St. Lucie. Even Wendy Portillo, the teacher who imposed that bizarre punishment, agrees that she was out of line: "If I could take that morning back, I would."

Ms. Portillo herself is out of the classroom now. She has appealed the yearlong suspension imposed by the St. Lucie County School Board on the recommendation of Superintendent Michael Lannon. Though the suspension is appropriate, students such as Alex pose problems for teachers, and districts don't always provide the level of training and support teachers need.

The Palm Beach County School District also has been confronting its shortcomings - though not strictly voluntarily. The school board last week settled a lawsuit that will change how the district teaches and disciplines special education students. Ms. Portillo's mishandling of Alex Barton, and the resulting controversy, can help the public to better understand what teachers face.

When he came to the class, Alex had not been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. That process stretched out over months. The teacher's options for dealing with constant disruption were limited. She could take away tokens, or she could send him out of the room.

Tellingly, on the day Ms. Portillo made her cruel mistake, the volunteer and alternate teacher who often looked after Alex when he was sent out of the classroom were not available. The principal's office, to which Alex was sent, returned him to the classroom after a short time. More effective support might have saved Ms. Portillo from her mistake.

To help teachers, a spokesperson for the St. Lucie School District said, "We have offered an array of training over the years and continue to make that training available." The district is dealing with "exponential growth in children identified with the autism spectrum. Based on the sensitivity associated with this issue this school year, we have offered (training) for all teachers on Autism Spectrum Disorder." She said that the district also is working closely with the Center for Autism and Related Disabilities at FAU.

Palm Beach County has not had an episode that caused public outrage on the scale of the Portillo/Barton case. But parents and groups that advocate for special-education students sued the district for using harmful discipline techniques that unnecessarily took students out of regular classes and programs.

The settlement requires the district to spend up to $100,000 for a consultant to develop a better system. The scope is striking. The settlement says that training "shall include all principals, assistant principals, teachers (general and special education), student support services staff, paraprofessionals, disciplinarians, other school administrators, and other educational service providers working at all schools in the district and shall also include school resource officers, bus drivers and cafeteria workers."

Schools are struggling to keep special education students in regular classrooms - which should be the goal - without disrupting the education of other students. Without proper training, the result can be kindergartners being shunned by classmates. New and continuing training for staff will make life better for everyone in the classroom.

Commentary: You are Now Entering the Twilight Zone...

You are Now Entering the Twilight Zone...
By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

AKA “How far will a district go-oh-oh to deny educational records?” (sung to the tune of “What would you dooo-oo-ooo for a Klondike bar.”)

No, don’t ask me why that song is going through my head; maybe it’s sleep deprivation finally kicking into overdrive, but quite possibly it’s the amazement I’m still feeling from last Monday at how far this one school district in North Carolina went to deny a mother’s right to access her son’s educational records.

Their story is complicated, as anyone who has gone to bat with a school district over a child’s right to FAPE can attest, but….

Long story short, she’s been trying for months and months to get her son’s educational records from his former and current elementary schools. Information is trickling in slowly, very….very….slowly, one or two pieces at a time, but the district keeps deliberately withholding important information from her, like tests results, behavioral logs, incident reports, etc. And some of the information that she has received so far - like his attendance log – is full or errors.

She finally formally filed a FERPA complaint because the district hasn’t fully complied with the FERPA request she made in I believe it was early November.

Finally, tired of waiting around for the district to share those records, she made an unannounced visit to his former elementary school to inspect those records, with FERPA letters and policy in hand, and…..she entered the Twilight Zone.

I swear, she must have. How else do you explain that when she tried to sign into the log book so there’d be an actual physical record of her visit and the reason for her visit, the secretary physically assaulted her by tugging, and pulling, and yanking the sign-in book away from this mom?

Seriously. And this was before anyone at the school knew WHY she was there to begin with.

Fortunately, dear Mom KEPT WRITING! Even as the book was tugged and pulled away from her, even as the secretary told her she couldn’t sign there, she kept her pen to paper and finished signing her name. She didn’t get to sign in WHY she was there, BUT, she signed her name.

And then she slapped on a visitor’s sticker and explained why she was there.

And how was Mom rewarded for her valiant efforts?

The secretary CROSSED OUT HER NAME!! Repeatedly!

And then Mom was told some confusing things.

First, she was told none of his records were in the building she was standing in, but had been transferred to the new school her son is currently attending; a placement that both she and the school district dispute is even appropriate for him. (Told you it was complicated.)

Mom asked if the behavioral log one of his former teachers had kept in a journal had also been forwarded, and, after the secretary consulted with said former teacher, Mom was told that the teacher confirmed that particular educational record was still there and still in that former teacher’s possession, and that she’d have to make an appointment with said former teacher, who has been holding that particular educational record hostage for whatever reason, if she wanted to see it.

Mom leaves note for said teacher, includes the day’s date, slaps her visitor’s pass onto that letter (also dated), and sweetly asked the secretary if she would make a copy of it for her records. Surprisingly, the secretary actually did. Bingo! Mom has record of being a visitor in that building that day.

Next Mom drives to the “new” school. Upon arrival she is also promptly told she’ll have to make an appointment to inspect those records. Mom tries to reason with the district, but no dice. I don’t even believe they would confirm the records were actually there.

I wish I were kidding. Can you just picture this? A grown woman grappling with another grown woman over a sign in sheet simply because the Mom wanted to inspect her child’s educational records, as is her legal right!?

Fortunately Mom and I had a good laugh over the ridiculousness of it all, but it does make you wonder what else – besides pulling his arm behind his back in a restraint and shoving at him from behind, tossing him on a carpet, physically yanking him away from a wall he was trailing his hand on, and screaming in his face how sick one of his former special education teachers is of everything being about him all the time that this former teacher admitted to in her own handwriting – the district is trying to hide.

And the battle continues to rage on into another day….

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

You've GOT to be kidding me!

WARNING, WARNING, WARNING: PO'D MAMMA ALERT!

Now that that little disclaimer is out of the way....

I got an email from the Massachusettes Disability Law Center (DLC) yesterday (10/24/08) and just got around to reading it. Since you've already been warned, I'm not going to insult your intelligence, but let's just say, I am NOT a happy camper right now.

No, more than that, I'm seeing red. I'm so...so...LIVID I can barely see straight. And here's why.

On October 18, 2008, I sent an email to the DLC after reading an article about 6 kids who were "allegedly" repeatedly abused by their teacher. For example, she punched one child in the back of the head and then threatened to do it again, telling them, "I'm bigger. I'm badder, and I'm stronger than you." These 6 kids all are on the autism spectrum and are all NON-VERBAL - which, as research supports, make them the perfect targets of abuse, because the kids in question LITERALLY CANNOT TELL ANYONE WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.

I forwarded the article onto the Massachusettes Disability Law Center, because that's the link the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) listed as their contact for such issues in Massachusettes, as the NDRN (aka Protection and Advocacy (P&A)) has the legal authority to investigate allegations of abuse against people with disabilities, whereas this organization can't.

I'll be honest here, in my dealings with P&A's/DLC's, I've found them to be pretty worthless as far as actually directly helping people who need it. Advoocacy on a larger scale, yeah, they do ok, and when they actually publish their investigations, it's powerful reading and powerful motivation that THINGS NEED TO CHANGE. But those publications are few and far between.

Naively, optimistically, I'd hoped things would be different since so many children were involved and because the witness accounts seemed credible.

But...seemingly, such was not the case.

Here's an excerpt from the response:

"While there seems to be credible evidence of repeated abuse by the teacher, DSS did not substantiate the complaints of abuse and refused to re-consider their decision, despite the advocacy by the attorney representing the families. However, the District Attorney is apparently still considering filing criminal charges.

Because the police did a very thorough investigation, it does not make sense for DLC to initiate a P&A investigation on the same matter. In addition, it appears that these specific students are no longer at risk as Ms. Gibbons is no longer their teacher.

At this time, I don't see a role for DLC, especially in light of our limited resources. However, if we receive any reports that Ms. Gibbons has abused or neglected children during this school year, we would almost certainly want to initiate an investigation."

So, let me get this straight here. There is credible evidence of abuse, but you won't do an independent investigation because Children and Families "found no evidence" and "refused to change their findings." And the police are investigating, so it would be a duplication of efforts. BUT...if this goes to trial, you can bet that the reports "finding no evidence of abuse" are going to be front and center of the defense. And the parents - and their abused children - have nothing to counteract that other than witness accounts, which may have been discredited. YET, you're telling me that THERE IS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE, yet YOU won't have the P&A investigate because ANOTHER AGENCY - found no evidence of abuse. A P&A report refuting that other report (if findings warrant) would at least give the parents and kids something to fight back with.

And another thing...while in a way, I can understand the reasonings for not doing an investigation - limited resources/duplication of efforts - but to just take the attitude that "so what if the teacher hurt those kids, it doesn't matter because she's not able to hurt them now," but IF she's still teaching and IF further allegations emerge, THEN "we'd ALMOST CERTAINLY" get involved just SICKENS me.

Now, I know all about limited resources because I personally run this blog and provide services at no cost taking no salary. (We're all volunteer here, baby! ) I also know all about how federal monies are funneled into P&A's/DLC's so that they can INVESTIGATE and LITIGATE allegations of abuse. So why aren't they doing what they're legally obligated to do, what they receive GRANT MONEY to do. (Grant money is given with stipulations about how it can and cannot be spent. Yes, there is a limited amount, but does that give them the right to refuse to investigate, if that's what the law established that organization to do?) I'm so sick of seeing this "excuse" (not enough money) for not doing something to protect the most vulnerable of children from abuse. Connect with universities and offer work study or unpaid internship opportunities. Get more volunteers to help man the phones/help process applications. Train volunteers to go into schools to help investigate allegations. There are alternatives that require little to no monetary compensation. USE THEM.

I'll also put up this disclaimer and say that I'm looking at this right now through an emotional perspective, not a rational one, so maybe, just maybe, there's merit to not duplicating investigations.

However, as a researcher, I know that duplication is power in an of itself because if something can be duplicated, it's validity (and therefore truthfulness) increases. And if they investigate and find facts to support these kids were abused...makes the other reports less credible, less believable.

Children with disabilities are NOT disposable and should not be treated like garbage by those who are paid by federal, state, and local - public - monies to care, nurture, and EDUCATE all kids. These kids most likely were abused (I'm convinced they were, but my convictions don't mean anything in the eyes of the law), yet because the abuse is not happening NOW, it's being treated as if it NEVER happened. And the teacher was transferred to other students and got to keep (and may even still be, since the district won't say) teaching.

No, I take that back, it's being treated as if is ALMOST never happened, since the DA's office MIGHT press charges. But then again, maybe the DA won't. And if the DA won't then this teacher will still have access to kids and COULD do this again!

So, there's my rant of the day. THIS is the realities many parents of kids who were abused in public school face. We're pretty sure our kids were abused, we may even have people (staff, family members, other parents, etc) who witnessed abuse come forward, and yet...the very agencies that are supposed to help families with these types of crises turn a blind eye (Yeah, I'm looking at you, too, Dept of Ed and Office for Civil Rights). "Sorry, we can't help you."

Yeah, well maybe they can't (or rather won't), but at least I'll try. So for anyone who has been/is going through something like this, PLEASE EMAIL ME, and I'll do what I can, even if it's only to fruitlessly send emails asking for help on your behalf and publicly blasting them when they won't. But know this, you're not alone.

Take care,

Jennifer Searcy

Note about the author:

Jennifer Searcy is the mother of four daughters, ages seven through 13. Her nine year old daughter was diagnosed with epilespy at 15 months and PDDNOS by age 2 1/2. This daughter was illegally and inappropriately restrained in a public school on October 17, 2006 at age 7. Because of the abuses she suffered in a public school, this daughter was removed from public school and is being homeschooled/cyberschooled.

She is also a graduate of Pennsylvania State University, holding a bachelor of science degree in Human Development and Family Studies with a minor in psychology, and was a co-founder of Families Against Restraint and Seclusion and Pennsylvania Families Against Restraint and Seclusion. She is currently the Founder and Director of Public Policy and Affairs for The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

Isolation: It's not punishment; it's "removal for reinforcement"

Reposted from Families Against Restraint and Seclusion
Commentary by Jennifer Searcy
Co-Founder/Contributing Editor
Families Against Restraint and Seclusion/PA Families Against Restraint and Seclusion
August 2007

In Response to "School Expands on Mission to Aid Autistic Children" from the Boston Globe:

There are a few upsetting things about this article. First is that this school seems to think it's ok to place children with autism in isolation rooms, because after all, they're autistic. They can't be expected to be treated with the same dignity and understanding as "neurotypical" or even other nondisabled children, because they're "autistic" (sarcasm fully intended).

For the record, "autistics" aren't the problem; it's individuals who don't know how to communicate with them that's a problem - either unintentionally or deliberately - and that's understanding that a child with autism may react with aggression when met with aggression. It's because the people who worked with this little girl refuse to learn how to speak "her language" [credit to Amanda Baggs, a "nonverbal" adult with autism] that this little girl is punished for behaviors directly related to her disorder, which, by the way, is illegal.

Next, how is "isolation" therapeutic in this incidence? The little girl in question has been identified as having difficulty with transitions, as do many idividuals with autism. As a person with autism, she also has difficulty communicating in a way that "neurotypicals" understand, and so uses "behaviors" to communicate. If they know she has "a little trouble with transitions" and communicates the feeling of discomfort, unreadiness, or unpreparedness by "acting out," why aren't they using that knowledge to develop a "functional behavior assessment" to determine what "positive behavioral interventions" and techniques could be used to ease her into transitions, such as the use of a timer or countdowns, frequent verbal reminders, a pictorial schedule which she personally can use (PECS, etc.) or other techniques that are proven to be effective in addressing transition issues, and provide her with alternatives to communicating her needs, such as how to say she isn't ready to "transition," or maybe she just needs more time to process what was asked of her, rather than adult, teacher-enforced isolation, which research does not prove to be as effective as positive behavioral interventions, interventions which are to be used in accordance with IDEA law?

Using isolation is not going to address two of her core deficits: a problem with changes in routine and communication. How is she ever going to be a productive member of society if she's not given the "tools" or "skills" to become better adapted to change? No, let's just treat her like a common criminal and lock her up in this tiny room until SHE calms down.

Putting her in this room may only be reinforcing the very behaviors they wish to "extinguish." Maybe she's come to associate transitions with isolation, and so communicates her fears the only way she knows how, by exhibiting "behaviors" relating to the natural "fight or flight" instinct, or maybe she's communicating by exhibiting "behaviors" to "explain" that she's not appropriately prepared for a change in routine at that time, but maybe would be with appropriate preparation; instead, they "treat" her "behaviors," her attempts at "communication," with isolation. They've said it themselves, "removal for reinforcement." They are using isolation to "reinforce" negative behaviors instead of "reinforcing" and "rewarding" positive behaviors. This child is destined for failure under this plan.

I'm tired of children and adults with autism being blamed for their "behaviors." Those "behaviors" are their way of communicating with us. Are they always appropriate? NO. Can we always figure out what they're trying to communicate? NO. Can we give them tools and skills and other methods to communicate more effectively? YES!!! But we "neurotypicals" who work with children with autism also need to take ownership of OUR OWN ACTIONS and yes, even OUR INABILITY to understand what they're trying to say, THEN we will see change for the better. It's time to stop "passing the buck" for OUR inadequacies and blaming individuals with autism.

Sorry, but if this school wants to be the "best," they need to try harder and stop punishing kids with autism by putting them into seclusion. Sounds like they're doing a lot of things right, but they also have a ways to go.

Note about the author:

Jennifer Searcy is the mother of four daughters, ages seven through 13. Her nine year old daughter was diagnosed with epilespy at 15 months and PDDNOS by age 2 1/2. This daughter was illegally and inappropriately restrained in a public school on October 17, 2006 at age 7.

She is also a graduate of Pennsylvania State University, holding a bachelor of science degree in Human Development and Family Studies with a minor in psychology, and was a co-founder of Families Against Restraint and Seclusion and Pennsylvania Families Against Restraint and Seclusion. She is currently the Founder and Director of Public Policy and Affairs for The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.