Special Report: WebMD - Why Bullies Bully

Excerpt from WebMD.com:

By Heather Hatfield
WebMD Feature

Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

The Phoebe Prince bullying case in South Hadley, Mass., has put bullying in the national spotlight. After months of alleged bullying by classmates that reportedly included verbal assaults, online harassment, and social exclusion, Prince, a 15-year-old high school student, took her own life.

Although most cases aren't as extreme, bullying takes its toll on children across the U.S. every day. For every 100 kids in middle school, eight are bullied every day, seven are bullied every week, and 33 are bullied once in a while, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

******

Building a Bully

Bullies seek power at someone else's expense. They harm that person over and over -- emotionally and/or physically -- to get it.

"It involves a more powerful person and a less powerful person, and is a form of aggression where one or more children repeatedly intimidate, harass, or harm a victim who cannot defend himself," says Robert Sege, MD, chief of ambulatory pediatrics at Boston Medical Center and a contributor to the American Academy of Pediatrics' updated policy on bullying.

Bullies are shaped, in part, by these factors:

• Uncontrolled anger. "The No. 1 predictor of bullying behavior is anger, particularly in kids who have no way to manage it," says Dorothy Espelage, PhD, a professor and university scholar in the educational psychology department of the University of Illinois at Champaign. Angry kids, she says, are more likely to show bullying characteristics -- even if they have high self-esteem, and even toward their own siblings at home, which is often where bullying begins.
• No consequences. If adults don't nip bullying behavior in the bud, it may worsen. "A lack of adult response early on in the bullying behavior emboldens bullies," says Peter Raffalli, MD, a child neurologist at Children's Hospital in Boston. "It fuels the bullies by basically saying to them that it's OK because the adults don't care, and aren't interjecting to put a stop to it."
• Home life. Domestic violence, emotional and/or physical abuse, anger, and hostility at home -- directed at them or someone else -- can help build a bully.
• Media and video games. Seeing bullying behavior in the media and video games can be a bad influence if it shows that behavior being rewarded.

Other factors include "low impulse control, a low frustration tolerance, a need to control or dominate, anger issues, an opposition toward authority, and aggressiveness, " Raffalli says.

For the full article, please click the following link: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/prevent-cyberbullying-and-school-bullying?src=RSS_PUBLIC

TX: 2009 Restraint Report Issued; Number Unchanged Since 2008

Excerpt from the Texas Tribune:

Still Restrained

By Emily Ramshaw

January 10, 2010

Texas educators forcibly pinned down students with disabilities as many times in 2009 as they did in 2008, despite efforts to curb the practice in public schools.

The static numbers hide dramatic drops in restraints in many large school districts. Because many smaller school districts reported restraints for the first time in 2009, statewide numbers remained virtually unchanged.

School districts like Leander and Garland, which had some of the most restraints in 2008, cut their numbers in half in 2009, according to data collected by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). But some tiny school districts reported dozens of restraints, even when they had just a few disabled students.

Of the 10 school districts that reported the most restraints of disabled students in 2008, all but one saw fewer restraints in 2009. The Northside school district in San Antonio reported 1,604 restraints in 2009 — up almost 13 percent from the previous year. Meanwhile, Leander’s restraints dropped by 55 percent. Austin’s fell by 22 percent. And Garland more than halved its restraints.

*******

Advocates for children with disabilities say it’s a good sign that restraints appear to be dropping in many large school districts — though they question whether the practice is being phased out, or whether districts have simply changed their reporting method.

“If there are some drops, I think it’s entirely random,” said Steve Elliot, an attorney who reviews school districts restraints for the non-profit Advocacy, Inc. “There is no evidence the state has been doing anything about it.”

And they say restraints, which are dangerous and are supposed to be used only as a last resort, are still far too prevalent in Texas schools. In both 2008 and 2009, Texas educatorsrestrained students with disabilities roughly 18,000 times a year — an average of 100 times a day. In some cases, the children were injured, suffering everything from bruises and black eyes to broken bones.

To access the full article, please click the following link: http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/jan/12/still-restrained/

Special Report: Abuse at Anderson School aka Anderson School of Autism

Forwarded from the Abuse at Anderson School website: http://www.andersoncenterforautism.info/

The following document is a memorandum from Mark Keegan, the Director of Quality Assurance and Investigations of the CQC (Commission on Quality of Care NYS) to Jan Abelseth of OMRDD (Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities) revealing the “STAGGERING” number of INDICATIONS (Substantiated or Proven) cases of child abuse at the Anderson School, now called the Anderson Center for Autism, occurring during the tenure of the current Director, Neil Pollack, who began his tenure at Anderson in January of 2001.

“Our indication rate of 23% of all Anderson School cases is nearly four times the overall indication rate for both OMH and OMRDD facilities and Anderson accounts for a staggering 73% of all indications for OMRDD certified facilities.”

Note: There are approximately 6,000 OMRDD certified facilities.

~ Please review the following document . It is extremely important to know the truth about the Anderson School. We continue to have serious concerns for the safety of the vulnerable disabled children entrusted to the care of this facility, until significant changes are made in the leadership there.

Contact Info: abuseatanderson@hotmail.com

MA: Parents say schools look the other way

By Edward Mason
Friday, November 13, 2009

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1211565

It is the personal stories, not just the statistics, that make “Targeted, Taunted, Tormented,” a new report on the bullying of autistic children, so compelling.

Parents opened up and told their stories to the Massachusetts Advocates for Children, including:

“A child threatened to stab my son with a knife and the school never even called that child’s parents,” said the parent of a 14-year-old autistic child. “I ended up calling them. The school did nothing.”

One 15-year-old has been “ ‘knuckled’ black and blue in his upper arms” and “stabbed repeatedly with a pencil” - over several years.

A 5-year-old was “pushed, elbowed, name called” during a hellish first four weeks of kindergarten, which the school explained as, “All the children were adjusting to being in school.”

Another child kept asking his parents why, even though hitting is wrong, “the other student had the ‘right’ to hit him.”

One autistic child was forced to stand in mud puddles by a bully. Aides and playground monitors, the child’s parent said, repeatedly blamed him for the bullying and told him to “go work it out.”

Parents also detailed the psychological cost of persistent bullying.

A parent of an 8-year-old boy said, “My son was physically assaulted by a group of kids who held him down and repeatedly hit him, refusing to let him run away . . . These kids were only in second grade and they were vicious.”

“His self-esteem, which was once very high, is demolished; he has gone from a happy boy to a sad and angry boy,” the parent of a 9-year-old said.

One 14-year-old “became increasingly paranoid and became agitated to the point of hospitalization.”

In some cases, autistic children considered suicide. A 17-year-old was bullied so badly from first grade that by the age of 10 the child “wanted to die.”

The nonprofit Massachusetts Advocates for Children represents children on fronts including education reform, legislative initiatives and legal assistance.

Special Report: 1:1 Aides in Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

This information comes directly from Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools' website and appears to be their public declaration - supposedly supported by the N.C. Department of Public Instruction - to discourage the addition of 1:1 aides in the classroom for exceptional needs children.

http://documents.cms.k12.nc.us/dsweb/View/Collection-2926 (Click on Additional Assistants link. This will open a PDF document.)

INFORMATION ON ADDITIONAL ASSISTANTS

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools does not provide individual assistants (typically referred to as 1:1 assistants). Rather each school (with at least 1 full time EC teacher) already has an additional assistant based on the number of students who have a separate level of service.

DPI has advised CMS to eliminate the practice of adding 1:1 assistants on an IEP. Instead, the following should be written on the DEC 5 when additional support is needed to meet the needs of a student: “CMS will provide adequate personnel to fulfill the goals and objectives on the IEP.”

Schools should consider the following in meeting the needs of students with disabilities:

Current school staff must be considered as a whole when meeting the needs of students. It may require reallocating staff to ensure that student needs are met.

Requests for additional assistants based on physical needs will be considered through the Related Services Specialist (Naia Ward 980-343-2731 or n.ward@cms.k12.nc.us). If appropriate, additional staff allotments will be provided up front based on the students’ physical needs. The goal is to utilize existing school staff in the most effective manner and to maximize each student’s access to the general education environment.

If a school based IEP team chooses to place a 1:1 assistant on a student’s IEP, the school will be responsible for either funding the position or re-allocating current staff.

Assistance in allocating staff and implementing creative scheduling is available through the EC Department. Principals can contact the grade level specialist for their school to request this assistance.

Elementary - Adrienne Dohn 980-343-2717
adrienne.dohn@cms.k12.nc.us

Middle - Stacie Levi 980-343-6164
stacie.levi@cms.k12.nc.us

High - Valerie Morgan 980-343-2679
valerie.morgan@cms.k12.nc.us


If you have additional questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact
Audrey Dillingham at 980-343-2686 or audrey.dillingham@cms.k12.nc.us

Special Report: Disability Rights Network of North Carolina Refuses to Investigate Restraint and Abuse Allegations

UPDATE: NDRN claims they do not have authority to investigate complaints against state DRN's - that they are *only* a "voluntary membership organization."

PLEASE DISSEMINATE WIDELY

Special Report: Disability Rights Network of North Carolina Refuses to Investigate Restraint and Abuse Allegations

February 12, 2009

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

A client of ours has notified us that the North Carolina’s Disability Rights Network, the Protection & Advocacy of North Carolina – an agency that is mandated to investigate and receives grant funding to investigate abuse allegations in a variety of settings, including public schools - has twice refused her pleas to investigate documented physical restraints and allegations of abuse by a special education teacher in a public elementary school against an 8 year old boy.

At our client’s request, we are keeping her name, her son’s name, the names of the individuals involved, and the district involved confidential as the district has already twice threatened to retaliate against her.

Our client contacted the DRN last October to advise them her son, a child diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and two specific learning disabilities, had been documented to have been physically restrained by a special education teacher at his Elementary School. Documentation from the teacher in her own handwriting also indicated that at times this teacher may have abused our client’s son. Some of the documented instances of alleged abuse are as follows:

 Physically pulled the child away from a wall when he wouldn’t stop trailing his hand along it
 Physically threw the child onto a rug and dragged him and the rug into the middle of the room
 Took the child into the boy’s bathroom, stood immediately outside the stall the child had gone into, notified him that she was timing him, repeatedly kept yelling at him that he was taking too long, and, upon the child’s return to the classroom, the child yelled at his regular education teacher that “she wouldn’t let [him] go.” He then got in trouble and was disciplined for yelling at his teacher. As an additional note: The child has suspected body regulation issues thought to be due to known sensory issues and he needs to take frequent restroom breaks as he has difficulty assessing his “need to go.” His behavior plan also indicated that if he returns to the classroom after leaving to use the restroom within 2 minutes, he’d receive tickets as a reward, and oftentimes this would be used against him in the form of taking earned tickets away from him for “not following bathroom rules.”
 The child was also documented to have been found two days’ prior to this incident in the boy’s bathroom by either a female teacher or aide (not sure of her position in the school) curled up on the floor of the bathroom minus his shoes, socks, underwear and pants, and to have urinated on himself.

This information was shared with the N.C. DRN.

N.C. DRN advocate Diana Burch spoke to our client and offered to attend the next IEP meeting with her since things had become tenuous with the district. Ms. Burch attended an IEP meeting with our client on November 3, 2008. Afterward, Ms. Burch consulted with N.C. DRN’s attorneys and contacted our client to advise her that the attorney’s had deemed her son’s case as “unwinnable,” and that she should sign and agree to everything the district recommended in her son’s IEP, even though the mom disagreed with the appropriateness of the IEP, because, as Ms. Burch told her, “It could be worse.”

Things did progressively get worse with the district. Since then, he’s been transferred into a BED program at another elementary school within the district - a placement which our client and the district both disputes; the district had refused transportation, and, after a battle over this issue, is now transporting him along with all the other disabled children in the elementary & middle schools on a dedicated bus that stops at multiple schools, with children on the bus as long as close to two hours one way; the district offered and my client agreed to a crisis intervention plan during mediation to stop the physical restraints after the district refused to honor her “No Restraint Letter,” but the crisis plan has been implemented for non-emergencies and has resulted in multiple altercations with School Resource Officers and suspensions.

Our client’s son has also been suffering from nightmares, upset stomach, nosebleeds, and anxiety, and has relayed he feels like a “bad kid” who is stupid. After a day at school, he once came home and asked his mother why he is “so misguided.” This child is only 8 years old.

We advised our client to again contact the N.C. DRN and specifically ask for an investigation into allegations of abuse, including physical restraints, since we and our client were concerned that possibly the N.C. DRN didn’t realize the extent of allegations weighed against the district. She contacted them again by email, forwarding a timeline documenting the alleged abuse, and was advised via email that they would re-open her case.

She recently received word that the N.C. DRN would not be assisting her as she cannot verify if her son has been suspended for 10 or more days. He has received in-school suspensions, has been suspended multiple times for single days and multiple days, and has been sent home early for “behavioral reasons,” like yelling at a teacher or another student, but it is unclear whether the “10 days” requirement N.C. DRN inexplicably set forth has been met as we have not received written incident reports to indicate whether these “early releases” were considered suspensions, though we have asked for via FERPA request, and been denied access to these records. A formal FERPA complaint has been filed.

Our client was also physically assaulted by a secretary who kept pulling the sign in book away from our client when she attempted to sign in as a visitor and yelling at our client she “couldn’t sign there” when our client made a surprise visit to the school this past Monday, FERPA letters previously sent to the district and legal requirements of FERPA in hand.

We are disappointed and dismayed that the DRN of North Carolina is refusing to help this child, especially in light of the recently released NDRN report documenting similar cases of abuse.

We have filed a formal complaint with the National Disability Rights Network on our client’s behalf and will keep you informed if and when the NDRN responds.

SPECIAL REPORT: NDRN to publish NATIONAL REPORT of Restraint/Seclusion in Schools!!

From Colorado's P&A:
http://randychapman.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/ndrn-to-issue-report-on-seclusion-and-restraint-in-schools/

On Tuesday January 13th the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) will conduct a media briefing and will release a disturbing national report on seclusion and restraint in U.S. schools. Additionally, NDRN will call on the Obama Administration and the new Congress to introduce a national ban on seclusion and prone restraint practices in schools nationwide.

The report is a compilation of cases from NDRN's 57 member network of protection and advocacy (P&A) systems nationwide. This report will detail deaths and physical and emotional injuries inflicted on students ranging from kindergarten to high school from schools throughout the country. Moreover, the report will outline inconsistant state laws, lack of training for teachers, and virtually no government oversight or investigation of this issue.

Speakers who will attend the media briefing include U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Ct.), NDRN Executive Director Curt Decker, and families of children who were physically restrained or placed in seclusion while attending school.

My office, The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People, is Colorado's Protection and Advocacy System and part of NDRN's network of P&A Systems. We have been actively involved in investigating the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in
Colorado schools. The Legal Center has raised this issue in Colorado (Please see Defending the Rights of Children Report Sparks Controversy and The Legal Center Investigates Aurora Elementary Schools) and contributed to this upcoming report. I will follow up on this posting next week when NDRN's report becomes available.

Special Report: "District Shares Struggles with Special Education" - Blame the Parents Edition

November 28, 2008
By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

We recently came across an article published on BerksMontNews.com on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 titled, "District Shares Struggles with Special Education."

The article was about a school board, for Exeter Township School District in Reading, Pennsylvania, that decided to approve 3 settlements the school district had wanted to enter into with parents and to publicize certain information about those agreements; namely, the dollar amounts of the agreements - and not much else.

Since nothing in policy dictates that this information cannot be made available to the public, the district apparently felt the need to "expose" to taxpayers how much of their money is being "wasted" ostensibly because of "frivolous parental demands."

Russell Diesinger, who is vice president of Exeter's board of school directors - who also voted "no" twice on the settlement agreements - was quoted as saying he "believe[s] these folks that pay their taxes and are concerned about where tax money goes need to be made aware of the demands that are put on these district [sic] by these special education suits."

He went on to add, "I will tell you these people do the best they can in very difficult situations meeting the needs of children of great need," Diesinger said. "Unfortunately, the courts don't view it that way. The courts look for whatever reason there is and we end up in these settlements. Unfortunately, it costs the taxpayers in this community a lot of money."

Superintendent Linton added, "These are federal laws passed down by the state and the state tells us what to do. We have very little control over these issues."

The district is making some pretty powerful statements, so let's just "roll them around" for a little bit and see if those claims have merit.

First, yes, Due Process hearings can be costly, in both time, money and resources, and EVERYONE should be concerned any time a Due Process Hearing is requested.

And second, yes, there ARE federal and state laws that specifically lay out a districts' obligations to educate children with disabilities.

Those are two undisputed facts.

But what about the other claims the district has made?

For one thing, this article doesn't indicate whether the DISTRICT brought these suits against the parents or if the parents felt they had no choice but to bring the suits against the district.

Because, believe it or not, districts DO frequently file for due process, usually to intimidate and/or bully the parents into doing something the district wants, but the parents don't want (for example, to agree to a placement the parents don't feel is appropriate, or to agree to discontinue therapies or services they'd really rather not).

And if a parent has filed, it's not likely over something frivolous - but something important, like denials for needed services or violations of federal and/or state laws. Because unlike what the district would like the public to believe, retaining an attorney is NOT cheap, and representing yourself pro se is NOT easy. I can assure you of that from experience.

You wouldn't know it from reading this article, though, and that's what districts like these count count on: a lack of general knowledge about special education law and the special education protections under those laws, including the right to Due Process whenever "disagreements" cannot be resolved through the IEP process for whatever reason.

But would the picture change ever-so-slightly when it's the district who is willfully spending tax dollars to take parents to Due Process?

Additionally, school districts traditionally keep attorneys ON RETAINER, at TAXPAYER EXPENSE, just in case a parent EVER has the audacity to challenge the district through due process, regardless if it is the school district or the parent making the due process hearing request, rather than HIRE ATTORNEYS ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY whenever a due process is requested.

In essence, tax dollars are ALREADY being wasted on attorney fees regardless of whether there is an active or pending due process case because the district is already paying to use an attorney.

The questions then are as follows:

"Does Exeter School District keep an attorney on retainer for Due Process cases? How much money has Exeter School district spent on attorneys' fees?"

If the district has ever used the services of an attorney for a due process hearing, then they are the ones "wasting taxpayer dollars"; they are the hypocrites. Because as we understand it, a school district doesn't HAVE to hire an attorney to represent it, rather it chooses to do so; a district can represent itself without legal counsel (pro se) just as PARENTS may represent themselves without legal counsel.

Who, then, are they to criticize parents - who must pay for their attorney fees generally out of their own pockets, not the districts or taxpayers, and in advance, that's if they can even AFFORD to hire an attorney - for "wasting taxpayer dollars" when the districts are the ones who must hire and/or retain the services of an attorney - using taxpayer dollars - for "potential" and/or realized services?

Next question:

"Has the district EVER requested due process and how many have they requested?" If they have made a request even ONCE, they are again being hypocritical because there are other avenues that could be explored, like facilitated IEP's and mediation, that cost the taxpayer NOTHING.

Another question:

"Is it fiscally more expensive to go through Due Process and/or agree to settlements than to provide the requested services, OR would it be more cost efficient and/or fiscally responsible (in time, money, and resources) to provide those requested services when first asked to do so?"

Attorneys fees are not cheap. How much is the district, and therefore taxpayers, paying those attorneys anyway? How much would it cost to provide the services the parents want? Which is less expensive - and less problematic - in the long run?

Next, "Why did the district want to settle ANY of these cases in the first place?"

"If the district is so innocent and did nothing wrong, but are simply victims of an "unfair system" which keeps them "enslaved" by "unreasonable laws" - why didn't they allow the due process to move forward?"

It's common knowledge in the educational field that Due Process cases are found traditionally more IN districts' favor and AGAINST parents' than vice versa in PA and in many other states.

Some hearing officers even have a history of ruling much more favorably for districts than others, depending upon the hearing officer and the districts' "connections"- which is why advocates like me are DEMANDING changes in how the Office for Dispute Resolution operates.

So why did the district want to settle?

Unless they weren't as innocent as they claimed.

If the hearing officer found in the district's favor (and, again, the odds were most likely IN their favor) it would most likely have been CHEAPER than agreeing to settle with the parents, because most settlement agreements are written in such a way that districts pay all attorneys fees, including those of the parents, in addition to the "payoff" amount.

Another question to consider:

"Who proposed those settlements in the first place?"

Usually it's not the parents' attorneys or the parents' themselves if represented pro se that ask for a settlement - but rather school districts in general traditionally offer to settle ONLY the cases they feel they CANNOT win - which is a strong indicator, if not outright admission, that they have violated federal and/or state laws in some way.

Districts also LIKE settlements because almost ALL of them are ONLY offered with the proviso that the parents must sign a confidentiality waiver which says THEY AGREE NOT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR SITUATION FURTHER.

This way districts can continue to violate the same laws or deny the same services to others that was the "CAUSE" of the Due Process in the first place.

Then the district plays Russian Roulette again until and/or if called out by another parent. And then they offer to settle again. And again. And again.

And they can get away with it. Because parents' voices are effectively stifled.

This is why districts are able to get away with abuse of their power - because if the parents say anything, then THEY have violated the settlement agreement and can/will lose everything they may have gained. Including the "settlement dollar amount."

I don't know about you, but I'm a little tired of the bias being perpetuated against us "overbearing parents who expect miracles from children who have 'no future', but to be a further drain on society's limited resources," yet the "poor district" has to legally "do everything they can for us" because federal and state laws SAY they have to, and they know they're providing "everything they can for us" because THEY SAID SO.

And we should be able to trust them, right? Because they'd NEVER lie to us, they'd never, ever, ever do anything illegal. Really, why would they? They're educators and the future of society, nay, the very world, is on their shoulders.

They're trying soooo hard, after all, giving their all, but our children are just virtually impossible to work with. And their parents? Well, they're even WORSE.

Not to mention these poor districts just don't have the money to offer the best services possible, as we ungrateful parents demand, all the while hinting that it's because of the "parents' delusions about their child, and their child's 'abilities' (or rather DIS-abilities) and our inability to accept reality."

Yet they fail to mention that not only do they receive more money from the government for special education students so they CAN provide them with "extra, special services," but also the fact that most services (expenses) could be and most likely ARE reimbursed in full to the districts through the child's Medicaid - which the child most likely receives, as they qualify because of their disability.

The districts also fail to mention that the money they receive for special education doesn't have to be "accounted for." What that means is that the money doesn't have to be designated or remain in its own "fiscal category" or "account"; monies received for "special education," including insurance payments to the best of our knowledge and experience, are permitted to be transferred into a school's general education fund.

That GENERAL FUND is just as it sounds; monies that can be used on whatever a district wants, even if it's astro-turf, band instruments, or football uniforms, and not necessarily the special education services they'd received the monies for.

So the argument that the "funds just aren't there," or "we don't have the money" are automatically suspect, not for the fact that the money isn't or wasn't there to begin with, but that it was and should be.

Nope, we PARENTS are causing TAXPAYERS and SCHOOLS undue financial hardship every time a due process request is made. Everyone else is just an innocent by-stander.

And ya know, parents are just rushing left and right to make these "demands" on schools right away. That's why there's just soooo many due process hearings.

How many due process cases are heard a year again?

According to the Office of Dispute Resolution, the agency responsible for handling Due Process cases in PA, 822 requests were filed in PA from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 , but only 663 requests in the whole state were heard.

Let me repeat that: 663 requests were heard in the WHOLE ENTIRE STATE in a single year. (http://odr.pattan.net/files/ODRStats/cum_07_08_dp.pdf)

Out of the 1,821,383 eligible children receiving special education services in PA. (PA Dept. of Education, Special Education Statistical Summary, 2006-2007, page 147).

Oh, and in Exeter school district from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, only 6 Due Process Hearings were filed; 5 were heard, 1 was withdrawn.

Four of the 5 that were heard were resolved with "agreements." (PA Dept of Education, Special Education Statistical Summary 2006-2007 - no page number given, please scroll down or "find" Exeter to confirm information)

Out of 648 children identified as eligible for and in receipt of special education services in Exeter schools. (Exeter Special Education report filed with the PA Dept of Education.)

So yeah, you can really tell we've given up even TRYING to work with the "poor, financially strapped districts" like Exeter, because we parents are filing all these Due Process hearing requests.

We parents also have all this money to hire an attorney to represent us. (Oh, what was that about Winkleman vs Parma and parents winning the ability to represent themselves pro se because we CAN'T afford to hire attorneys, yet school districts CAN afford to spend OUR TAX DOLLARS to keep attorneys ON RETAINER or HIRE ONE just IN CASE a parent decides to challenge the school? Hmmm, I must be mistaken.)

And we have so much time to prepare and file all those LEGAL documents, gather expert witnesses, and prepare oral and written testimony just as if we were going to a "real" court trial, because it's not like this is a "real" court case anyway. Despite the fact that hearing officers CAN issue summary judgments and demand restitution, just like "real judges."

Because we don't need to take our children to therapies or specialists in addition to what the school might offer. We don't have to spend more time helping them with their homework than we might our non-disabled children, children who also get all the love, time, and attention from us that they need; time that is not taken from them because a brother or sister with a disability is in the middle of a daily after-school meltdown. We don't have any additional family obligations or work obligations pressing upon us. We don't have to spend time researching and interpreting laws and trying to make sense of them, or trying to locate advocates for help. Nope, we have all the time in the world.

I suppose our children aren't "real" either.

And it's not the fact that we parents have to practically beg and plead the district on hands and knees for EVERY LITTLE THING or that Due Process is a LAST RESORT when our kids are denied necessary services.

Nope, school districts do everything in their power and within their means to give us parents all that they can.

Like safe transportation to and from school or ANY transportation at all (Yeah, because I didn't have to call the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to file a complaint on our district when they REFUSED to transport my child because she has epilepsy and might have a seizure on the bus, therefore I must take her EVERY DAY.)

Like staff who are trained in our kids disabilities so we parents can send our kids to school safely and they can teach our kids in ways our kids can understand (You know, because my daughter really was "just" daydreaming or falling down because she's "just" a klutz, not because of seizures. Oh, and that behavior - totally "not autistic" - because her teacher and the Dir. of Special Education don't think she "looks" autistic, so she must instead be "emotionally disturbed." And no, they didn't just conveniently ignore the multiple medical and psychological reports confirming her multiple disabilities, after all, they're TRAINED.)

Like a permanent nurse on staff in the school every day for more medically fragile kids (who have just as many, if not more, legal rights to be there as their non-disabled peers), rather than a "hit or miss" situation if their "roaming nurse" happens to be in another building during a medical emergency. ("But you're more than welcome to stay with her on the days the nurse can't be here.")

And no I didn't need to file a 20 page civil rights complaint against my district when she was abused in school by school staff, because they wouldn't DARE violate federal law. Because it NEVER happened. Honestly, her grandmother must have imagined those two aides holding her down in a chair by her arms, with them standing behind her, pushing her chair against a desk so hard and so far she could hardly breath and couldn't do more but kick and struggle to call for help, and I must have imagined the finger-print-like red marks on her arms right after it "didn't happen."

Gee, wonder why we needed federal and state laws to specifically outline a district's obligations to kids with special needs in the first place? Wonder why there are Protection and Advocacy's and other Disability Rights organizations popping up, if there's no need? It couldn't have been because children with disabilities were being denied services or otherwise discriminated against, even abused, because schools are/were only trying to do the "right thing."

Here's a plea to districts like these:

"Puh-lease get over yourselves and YOUR delusions of selflessness. Stop acting like you deserve a gold medal just because YOU 'allow' our kids to step foot in your 'hallowed halls.'

It is YOU who should be honored that we trust you enough to "do right" by our kids; that we trust and expect you to give them the education, skills, and tools they need to function as best they can in society in a SAFE environment by staff who care for and about them; that WE send OUR kids to YOUR schools because of the wealth of knowledge YOU and your STAFF can gain by working with them, rather than 'around' them.

Not to mention the benefits all children, not just those with disabilities, could glean in return by spending time with children who are different from them, learning about and with them.

Who knows, maybe you could all even be better people because of them. If you give them a chance, that is.

My daughter attended one of your wonderful public schools in Southwestern PA, and you know what? She was abused by the very same people who told ME the same thing: "We're doing all we can." And then THEY filed for due process. And I represented myself pro se and got the hearing officer to toss the whole thing because they didn't provide the hearing officer with "sufficient information" and refused to "provide sufficient information."

Well, they were right about one thing, at least. They WEREN'T appropriate and refused to even try to BE appropriate.

Why would I want to put my straight A daughter, who had been in a general education classroom FULL TIME with few behavior problems who CAN LEARN, into any of your schools or any you recommend, when you've asked me to give you permission to restrain my child "at staff discretion?"

Because not having restraints written into her behavior plan or IEP with my signature on file allowing you to abuse her was what got you in trouble with the Dept of Ed in the first place.

There's a reason why I'm now homeschooling. "

To my readers: Please join me in writing to Heather Tassmer, the author of the original article, to ask for a follow up investigation - one that gives a more complete "view" of the situation; one that asks that the "other side" be heard. She can be reached by email at htassmer@berksmontnews.com or by phone at 610-367-6041, ext.225.

_____________________________________________________
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 19, 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, and is a volunteer for The Arc of PA's Systems Advocacy and Governmental Affairs Sub-Committee for Early/Childhood Education.