Melanie Watson's Blog

2011-11-06T20:02:00.000-06:00

Specific DisabilitiesSpecific

Acknowledge all data available in student evaluation report· Rule out environmental reasons for student's misbehavior· Remember to use your clinical opinion when appropriateDon't 'cherry-pick' results for assessment reportsA school psychologist downplays information suggesting a student has ADHD in an assessment report to an IEP team. She also neglects to assess the student for an emotional disturbance despite teacher reports that the student's extreme withdrawal and self-isolation have an adverse impact on his learning.Ignoring these red flags of the student's potential need for special education services cost the district inHighland Park Independent School District, 57 IDELR 147 (SEA TX 2011). The IHO found the parent was entitled to reimbursement for an IEE based on the errors in the evaluation and the failure to assess the student in all areas of suspected disability.Consider and report all data you collect during a student's evaluation and assess the student in all areas of suspected disability. Recognize how environment may influence the student's demeanor during testing. And be sure to maintain a team approach throughout the process."Many of the ethics complaints I've seen over the past two decades have been the result of poor assessment practices," said Joan Struzziero, a school psychologist at Scituate (Mass.) Public Schools and co-chair of the Ethics, Professional Standards and Credentialing Committee at the Massachusetts School Psychologists Association. "Assessments must be multi-faceted. The IDEA is founded on using multiple perspectives."Take these steps:· Assess all areas of suspected disability: The school psychologist in this case did not identify the need to assess the student for an emotional disturbance, despite teacher reports that the student's extreme withdrawal and failure to interact with others had an adverse educational impact. In accordance with the IDEA, the school psychologist should have assessed the student in all areas of suspected disability and reported all her findings, Struzziero said. "This is where clinical skills are so important," she said. "If you're being led in a direction that is unanticipated, such as seeing depression in a student you are assessing for reading issues, you have an obligation to make your assessment flexible enough so you can go back and address the student's needs."· Consider all data: The school psychologist in this case disregarded teacher input because she thought it was inaccurate. She should have included this information with the rest of the records, observations, and interviews she was reviewing and conducting to inform the IEP team, said Paula Carpenter, a school psychologist at Peoria (Ill.) Public Schools. "I get data all the time that I would rather not have, but that doesn't mean I can throw it out," Carpenter said. "If there is conflicting data, you should be triangulating it and comparing interpretations and verifying the information with another source or method of assessment." Involving other team members is crucial to ensuring the assessment is not one-sided, Struzziero said. "You can't cherry-pick assessment results to support your opinion about a student," she said. "The whole team has to be a part of the process."· Eliminate environmental factors: The Highland Park school psychologist downplayed that the student's score on one assessment showed a high level of inattention. She should have observed the student in multiple settings to rule out inattention, Struzziero said. "It's very easy for a kid to behave beautifully one-to-one in the school psychologist's office, and be a totally different kid in the classroom," she said. "Discounting a teacher's input is particularly dangerous. Teachers provide such valuable information. Unlike school psychologists, who glean a snapshot of time, teachers offer a running movie."· Use your clinical opinion: Teacher reports pointed toward the need to assess the student in this case for an emotional disturbance. But the school psychologist failed to take those concerns seriously. Don't react similarly to your students' emerging mental health issues, Struzziero said. "We can sometimes get lost in our quantitative scores," she said. "You can give IQ scores, and they're tangible numbers, but attention and emotional functioning are not so easily given in quantitative entities. This is where clinical skills are so important. If my impressions differ greatly from everybody else, I go back and check my instruments and do some self-reflection."

2011-10-12T15:02:00.001-05:00

Follow @Lonestarmomcom

How does an Advocate help?

2011-10-12T14:23:00.005-05:00

Melanie Watson founder and executive director of the Texas Advocacy Service (LoneStarMom.com) is, a Professional Advocate in profession and a parent advocate in real life. Melanie concept of assisting clients is based on helping them get through the process with the least amount of anxiety, and to help them to learn the process and the empowerment that the knowledge brings. The client is an active participant in the process, assisted and guided by Melanie. We are aware that parents are often concerned about creating a negative relationship with the school. We will do everything we can to encourage a continued positive relationship between you and the school district when possible without giving up any rights afforded to your child by the law.

We do not recommend going to ARD meetings by yourself; nor do we recommend representation or assistance by someone not familiar with Special Education law and the IDEA.

The unique Four Phase Approach has been designed and developed from years Professional Advocate experience. She also maintains in regular contact with affiliated Texas parent lawyers/attorneys on a regular basis.

Advocacy

Help you acquire an appropriate placement and/or services for your child
Assist you in obtaining appropriate expert evaluations
Help you communicate effectively with your local school district
Accompany you to the ARD Meeting.
Present your child’s situation and what needs to be changed to educators.
Act as ‘eyes and ears’, taking contemporaneous if needed later.
Accompany you to evaluate the ARD recommended programs and placements
Help you formulate all necessary written communication at the ARD

Mediation

If the school district wishes to settle your case:

On average, 85% of cases are settled.
A settlement will not be accepted without your approval. If you do not want to settle your case, we are always ready to proceed to hearing.
We expedite and track stipulations of settlement.

Impartial Administrative Hearing

If a TEA Impartial Hearing litigation is necessary:

On average less than 10% of cases require a TEA Due Process Hearing.
When settlement is not possible and litigation is really the only option, Melanie can recommend one of the hand-picked affiliated Texas attorneys to prepare and present your case in the legal forum.
Some of the affiliated Texas parent attorneys are former TEA Hearing officers
Affiliated Texas attorneys are strong litigators, highly knowledgeable in Special Education law.
The family can choose the Texas parent lawyer who they feel will be the best family fit.
A Texas parent lawyer will prepare and present the child’s case to the Impartial Hearing Officer, many times with the team support and assistance of Melanie.

Other Litigation some affiliated attorneys are also available for:

Advising Melanie if needed
State Board of examiner Complaints
Federal Appeals
State Appeals

Case Maintenance

Once success is obtained through one or more methods above, Melanie helps parents maintain the educational success for families
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Once the child’s situation improves, the time and cost for maintenance
Most parent clients secure Melanie’s presence at each of the child’s future ARD Meetings.

Disciplinary Proceedings

We will aggressively guard your child’s rights at disciplinary hearings

Melanie Watson, special education advocate and affiliated attorneys are experienced in representing students involved in disciplinary proceedings. They will aggressively guard your child’s rights at disciplinary hearings on matters involving such accusations as:

Violence
Physical or verbal abuse of peers
Physical or verbal abuse of school staff
Drug usage
Weapons possession
Sexual assault
Insubordination
Refusal to follow school rules
Computer fraud
Cyber-bullying
Destruction of school property

If your child has been accused of violating school policy, he or she may have the right to one or more of the following:

Superintendent’s hearing
Principal’s expulsion hearing
IEP / ARD manifestation determination hearing
Disciplinary hearing
Due process hearing

Again. It is not recommended that parents go to these proceedings alone; Also, we do not recommend representation/assistance by someone not familiar with Special Education Law and the IDEA.

The penalty can be as severe as removal from school or placement in a specialized school setting. We can ensure that your child’s case is heard, that his or her rights are respected and that the punishment (if any) is within the confines of the law. We will aggressively present persuasive evidence and witnesses and negotiate skillfully on your behalf.

Repeated in-school or out-of-school suspensions are often an easy solution used by school officials to punish a child. Schools often fail to acknowledge their own responsibility in the events that led to the disciplinary proceeding. Thus repeated suspensions are usually not an adequate answer to recurring disciplinary problems. Often, a more creative solution is called for.

Again, we are aware that parents are often concerned about creating a negative relationship with the school. We will do everything we can to encourage a continued positive relationship between you and the school district when possible without giving up any rights afforded to your child by the law.

Please contact Melanie with any questions.

Http:///www.lonestarmom.com

From Parents SF and SF

2010-07-08T09:32:00.005-05:00

My wife and I have gotten to know Melanie very well during the past couple of years, and from our experiences with her she is an AMAZING Educational Advocate. We can't say enough for what she has and is still doing to help us and my daughter's education. One of the things we feel that sets Melanie apart from probably most other Educational Advocates is her knowledge of educational law. Having her support during ARD meetings tends to equal the playing field for the parents who can often times be at a disadvantage when it comes to a District's resources.
On a more personal note, Melanie is very passionate about helping both the child and the parent with the educational process. On top of all the experience she has gained from Advocating for others, she has also been thru the trenches for her own child and so she is able relate to your educational concerns and needs. She has certain "superpowers" such as being able to spot issues in records on the fly which most ordinary people would miss, she has a great memory of the facts during crunch time and she has a knack for finding the people who can best help the parents (attorneys, evaluators, experts, etc) when the need arises. Melanie really has gone above and beyond what my wife and I originally considered an Educational Advocate to be, and so for our family she has meant much more than than the term applies. We definitely recommend her!
S.F. and S.F. May 2010

From Parents CP & TP

2010-07-08T08:58:00.004-05:00

Melanie is an angel sent from heaven above to help those of us who need that voice to get help with our loved ones who have been lost in the system we call "school".

My son has autism and was starting middle school. It was a terrible transition and he was so afraid of what was going to happen. It wasn't long when we discovered they were not providing any services to him regardless of what his IEP read. We had tried over and over again to get them to accommodate his services and nothing would happen. I would request that they do what was required and would be told it would get done and still nothing would happen.

We were so upset that our son was paying the price for their lack of effort to help a special needs child. We gave them seven weeks to follow the IEP and to no prevail. Nothing changed. My son was coming home crying almost daily and was getting no assistance from school which was required.

We were so frustrated. We heard from a friend about Melanie, and knew that we had to get her assistance.

Melanie was /is amazing and knows exactly how we felt and exactly what to do to help us fight for what was my son's right to receive. We went to the first ARD and we were treated as if we were the bad people and we had done something wrong for having Melanie with us. It was such an eye opener to see how districts treat those of us with special needs children who get extra assistance to survive. Melanie was a tiger and met the challenge, insisting on what required and needed.

She is/was so amazing and we wouldn't have survived without her. It was not easy and it has been ongoing for seven months now, but we have finally seen the light and are so very happy with what has happened.

Melanie has worked so that the district is courteous, and is doing what is right for our son. We are excited to see how our son is going to blossom with all the help from Melanie. I believe she is a angel, here to help and speak for those of us who need a voice. I would never go to another ARD without her! Every family needs a MELANIE!!

CP and TP , July 2010

For more info on Melanie Watson, click here http://lonestarmom-dotcom.blogspot.com/2009/06/will-work-for-clients-like-these.html

from a favorite client.....

2010-01-29T06:22:00.005-06:00

POP Syndrome

The AMA* has just released information regarding a new and relatively

unknown condition plaguing a growing segment of our population.

While it is unclear exactly how many people are affected by POP Syndrome,

the condition seems to have a genetic component connecting it to

Autism, Cerebral Palsy, ADHD and a myriad of other disabilities. The

genetic connection is undeniable as POP Syndrome almost exclusively

affects mothers of disabled children. More puzzling is the fact that

the condition appears to lay dormant in a mother and only becomes

apparent shortly after her disabled child enters the public school

system.

POP Syndrome comes with a host of symptoms and unusual behaviors,

including but not limited to the following:

1. Sufferers are frequently observed repeatedly calling school

officials and then leaving messages as if they expect their call to

be returned.

2. Mothers with POP Syndrome are often seen meeting with school

officials. To the casual observer, this may seem normal. However,

this futile exercise so closely resembles talking to a brick wall, it

is deemed an unusual behavior.

3. The condition appears to affect communication and causes the

sufferer to echo the same phrases over and over again. These echoes

usually include phrases such as, "We need to schedule an IEP

meeting", "I'll need that in writing" and "Why not?".

4. Eye twitches and unexpected outbursts of foul language are also

common with this disorder.

At this time, there is no known cure for POP (Pissed Off Parent)

Syndrome. Until a treatment becomes available, these brave mothers

will live in the shadows of our society...twitching , cursing and

dialing.

*Angry Mothers Association.

This message brought to you by SpectrumHope. com. Share this with your

favorite Warrior Mom today.

NAT'L RISE in SE Litigation- story from CEC

2010-01-28T20:19:00.004-06:00

School districts spend thousands on litigation over special education

By KARI ANDREN, The Patriot-News

January 27, 2010, 12:00AM

PAUL CHAPLIN, The Patriot-NewsFamily dog Bogey gets a closer look as Lisa Berrier, 39, and her 10-year-old twins, Nicholas and Madelyn, have their portrait taken at Berrier’s Newberry Township home. Lisa and Madelyn live in Newberry Township, while Nicholas lives in East Pennsboro Township with his father allowing Nicholas to attend school in the East Pennsboro School District after he was pulled from the West Shore School District.

On a brisk and sunny January morning, Jennifer King and her third-grade son, Christopher, who has Down syndrome, sat in a reception room at the West Shore School District administration building waiting for their special education hearing to begin.

A staff training room became an informal courtroom: Folding tables for King and her attorney faced tables for school district officials. A state-appointed hearing officer presided from her own temporary bench at the head of the room. Eighteen thick binders, filled nearly to capacity with thousands of pages containing Christopher’s Individual Education Program, evaluations and other documents covered the tables.

Over the course of several weeks, King will argue to keep her son included in a regular classroom for the entire school day. The district wants to put him in a special education class for two subjects each day.

King said she believes there are more ways to modify her son’s curriculum within a mainstream classroom and that doing so gives him a better chance of success after schooling. “It is almost inevitable that the expectations drop when the child is moved to a special education classroom,” King said. “My son’s capability could be far, far greater than anybody can imagine right now. I’m careful not to limit what the possibilities would be for him.”

Perry Zirkel, an education and law professor at Lehigh University and a special education expert, said due process hearings have increased nationally over the last two decades, a trend mirrored in Pennsylvania. He said the state ranks among the 10 most litigious in the nation in special education.

And it’s showing up here in the midstate.

Central Dauphin School District’s legal spending increased by more than 260 percent from the 1997-99 school year period to the 2007-09 school year period. Over the same 10 years, legal spending in the West Shore School District increased by about 67 percent while other districts saw smaller increases.

Of those legal bills, nearly half of Central Dauphin’s for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years went toward legal fees pertaining to special education.

Broadening definitions have put more conditions under the special education umbrella and parents’ increasing awareness of their child’s legal rights have contributed to increased special education enrollment and litigation, he said.

From 1990 to 2008, the latest year for which data were available, special education enrollment increased from about 14.5 percent to 19 percent of students in school districts covered by the Capital Area Intermediate Unit. Special education enrollment includes gifted students.

The increase can be attributed, in part, to autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder becoming recognized disorders under federal special education law within that time span, Zirkel said.

Increases also could be due to a reduction in the costs to districts to provide special education services as those students became included in regular classrooms and the removal of the stigma of receiving such services for students and parents, he said.

When parents or district officials disagree over the course of a student’s educational plan, they have several resolution options, including mediation and due process hearings. Last year, 817 due process hearings were requested statewide. Due process hearings are similar to trials but often take place on school grounds. Attorneys typically represent both parents and the school district with a hearing officer presiding as a judge who renders a decision in the dispute.

Resolving disputes over a student’s educational plan can be expensive for all parties involved.

Parents routinely spend several thousand dollars on attorney’s fees and expert witnesses for a due process hearing that usually spans several days over the course of weeks. Districts can spend as much or more per case for attorneys to review and draft documents, prepare witnesses and see the disagreement through the legal proceeding.

Lisa Berrier, whose son, Nicholas, has a type of autism and has difficulty speaking, said she spent about $12,500 between lawsuits she filed against the Capital Area Intermediate Unit and the West Shore School District that were both settled just before reaching due process.

Berrier’s settlement with West Shore was one of two the school board approved in December 2008, but Berrier said a gag order included in her settlement means she cannot say which one was hers. “It just appeared that no matter what we did, they weren’t going to cooperate with us,” Berrier said. She said the district was cooperative in putting together her son’s education plan, but the district didn’t fully implement the plan as agreed.

Berrier said she pulled Nicholas from the district because she felt he regressed during his years in the district.

The Patriot-News obtained documents detailing midstate districts’ spending on legal bills and the amount of those legal fees spent on special education issues through a series of Right to Know requests. The documents revealed that the midstate’s largest school districts varied greatly in the portions of their legal expenses spent on special education.

Central Dauphin School District spent about 41 percent of its legal fees on special education issues. Special education students account for about 17 percent of total district enrollment.

In contrast, Harrisburg School District, where slightly more than 20 percent of the students receive special education services, spent about 13 percent of its legal expenses on special education.

West Shore and Cumberland Valley school districts fell in between, spending 16 percent and 26 percent, respectively, on legal fees associated with special education issues.

Zirkel said several factors could account for the disparity in spending, including parents’ ability to hire an attorney and the will of both parents and district officials to fight for their positions. “Some districts spend a lot more on special education because they happen to have more cases … and more parents who say ‘We’re going all the way,’¤” Zirkel said.

With 28 percent of Harrisburg residents falling below the poverty line in 2007, it can be more difficult for those families to spend the money needed to hire an attorney to challenge their child’s educational program. In contrast, areas like Paxtonia and Colonial Park, where students attend Central Dauphin, poverty rates hovered around 6 percent to 7 percent. In New Cumberland it was just under 4 percent that year.

Federal poverty for a family of four in 2007 was about $21,300.

Kelly Darr, a staff attorney for the Disability Rights Network, a statewide federally mandated protection and advocacy group, said that federal law and the regulations that implement it give special education parents an elaborate system for resolving disputes. “Those kinds of rights, at least to that extent, don’t exist outside of special education,” Darr said.

She said those options were put in place to reinforce the rights specified in the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and that regular education students don’t necessarily have the same menu of resolution options.

That could explain, in part, why a district’s spending on legal fees dealing with special education doesn’t appear to match the percentage of its student body composed of special needs students, Darr said.

Put even more simply, Zirkel said special education litigation is just expensive. “If you pick a district that, in a given time, happened to have one or two cases … it’s not representative,” Zirkel said. “Even though we’re a highly litigious state, it’s not like each district has a constant stream of due process hearings. They may have one and then maybe not again for two years.”

Legal fees paid by districts for 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years combined:

Central Dauphin School District: $852,973 total; $351,109 special education; 10,956 students; 17.3 percent special education enrollment

Cumberland Valley School District: $210,718 total; $54,364 special education; 7,730 students; 18.8 percent special education enrollment

Harrisburg School District: $1,009,642 total; $129,900 special education; 8,391 students; 20.6 percent special education enrollment

West Shore School District: $402,526 total; $66,427 special education; 8,122 students 21.4 percent special education enrollment

Jennifer Laviano hit another out of the park with her blogged words

2009-11-10T21:40:00.003-06:00

Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities

Published on November 9, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano

One of the more controversial posts I’ve written is this one, encouraging public school teachers and service providers to speak out against violations of the civil rights of children with disabilities when they see it.

Of course, I didn’t think it was controversial when I wrote it; I thought it was common sense.

My goal was to let educators know that they, too, have rights, including the right to be free from retaliation if they are honest with parents and colleagues about what those children need. It was, and is, my belief that the vast majority of special educators genuinely care about kids with special needs, and that they feel intimidated, coerced, and generally pressured to “tow the party line” and either side with the administration openly, or stay silent when they see the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA being violated.

I caught a lot of flack for that piece, both “on the record” and off, by those who were offended by it.

I received emails and other communications from public school employees (interestingly, mostly special education administrators) who expressed shock, dismay and outrage I could even suggest such a thing. Not surprisingly, the most violent reactions tended to come from those most likely to violate the IDEA, who vehemently denied not just participating in any such conduct, but also having ever witnessed anything like it ever in decades of service.

Right. Because all of the teachers I’ve met over the years who’ve told me horrible stories about pressure they receive to misrepresent how a child is doing were just making it all up

School district employees who work with children with disabilities face these tough choices every day.

Well, last week I returned from a family vacation to learn that an excellent Decision just was issued on October 23rd by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As a reminder, the US Courts of Appeal are those federal courts just below the United States Supreme Court, so their rulings are extremely important and of strong precedential value. In Barker v. Riverside County Office of Education, the Ninth Circuit held that Ms. Barker, a veteran special education teacher, had standing to sue under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act for being retaliated against by her school district employer.

What did Ms. Barker do to invoke the wrath of her bosses?

She filed a Complaint with the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) because she felt that the special education students in her charge were being denied free and appropriate public educations by the school district. In response, she was intimidated, excluded from staff meetings and email communications, assigned jobs farther away, and was denied work opportunities and benefits.

The conditions became so extreme that Ms. Barker was forced to leave her job entirely.

The school district’s legal argument for consideration by the Court was, basically, that Mrs. Barker did not have “standing” to sue under these statutes because she, herself, is not disabled.

In finding in her favor, the Ninth Circuit wrote as follows:

‘While Congress could have limited the remedial provisions of the Rehabilitation Act to claims brought by or on behalf of disabled individuals, it did not do so in apparent recognition of the fact that disabled individuals may need assistance in vindicating their rights…’ Weber 212 F. 3d at 49. Indeed, empathetic people who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are those most likely to recognize their mistreatment and to advocate on their behalf.”
ove that language: “empathetic people who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are those most likely to recognize their mistreatment and to advocate on their behalf.”
How very true. If you are one of those “empathetic people,” or you know one…perhaps you want to share this important Ruling with them today. You may never know how many children you might help by doing so, but I assure you, it will be worth the effort if you help even one.
Filed Under Current AffairsTags: 504, ADA, IDEA, Retaliation, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, special education, Special Education Law, special education teachers rights, Teachers rights, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
One Response to Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities
Diane Willcutts
November 9th, 2009 | 10:29 pm
This is such a common problem that, when I described a similar situation to Tom Badway (now retired from the CT Bureau of Special Education) he not only finished the story for me but he LAUGHED. “Oh, the teacher must have gotten in trouble.”
District retaliation against teachers who speak up for children is frighteningly common. Teachers need to know that retaliation is illegal and that there is support for them among those of us who work on behalf of children.
Thanks for this post.
D.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Tweets that mention Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities | Special Ed Justice | Connecticut Special Education Lawyer -- Topsy.com
Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities
Published on November 9, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano
One of the more controversial posts I’ve written is this one, encouraging public school teachers and service providers to speak out against violations of the civil rights of children with disabilities when they see it.
Of course, I didn’t think it was controversial when I wrote it; I thought it was common sense.
My goal was to let educators know that they, too, have rights, including the right to be free from retaliation if they are honest with parents and colleagues about what those children need. It was, and is, my belief that the vast majority of special educators genuinely care about kids with special needs, and that they feel intimidated, coerced, and generally pressured to “tow the party line” and either side with the administration openly, or stay silent when they see the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA being violated.
I caught a lot of flack for that piece, both “on the record” and off, by those who were offended by it.
I received emails and other communications from public school employees (interestingly, mostly special education administrators) who expressed shock, dismay and outrage I could even suggest such a thing. Not surprisingly, the most violent reactions tended to come from those most likely to violate the IDEA, who vehemently denied not just participating in any such conduct, but also having ever witnessed anything like it ever in decades of service.
Right. Because all of the teachers I’ve met over the years who’ve told me horrible stories about pressure they receive to misrepresent how a child is doing were just making it all up.
School district employees who work with children with disabilities face these tough choices every day.
Well, last week I returned from a family vacation to learn that an excellent Decision just was issued on October 23rd by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As a reminder, the US Courts of Appeal are those federal courts just below the United States Supreme Court, so their rulings are extremely important and of strong precedential value. In Barker v. Riverside County Office of Education, the Ninth Circuit held that Ms. Barker, a veteran special education teacher, had standing to sue under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act for being retaliated against by her school district employer.
What did Ms. Barker do to invoke the wrath of her bosses?
She filed a Complaint with the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) because she felt that the special education students in her charge were being denied free and appropriate public educations by the school district. In response, she was intimidated, excluded from staff meetings and email communications, assigned jobs farther away, and was denied work opportunities and benefits.
The conditions became so extreme that Ms. Barker was forced to leave her job entirely.
The school district’s legal argument for consideration by the Court was, basically, that Mrs. Barker did not have “standing” to sue under these statutes because she, herself, is not disabled.
In finding in her favor, the Ninth Circuit wrote as follows:
‘While Congress could have limited the remedial provisions of the Rehabilitation Act to claims brought by or on behalf of disabled individuals, it did not do so in apparent recognition of the fact that disabled individuals may need assistance in vindicating their rights…’ Weber 212 F. 3d at 49. Indeed, empathetic people who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are those most likely to recognize their mistreatment and to advocate on their behalf.”
I love that language: “empathetic people who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are those most likely to recognize their mistreatment and to advocate on their behalf.”
How very true. If you are one of those “empathetic people,” or you know one…perhaps you want to share this important Ruling with them today. You may never know how many children you might help by doing so, but I assure you, it will be worth the effort if you help even one.
Filed Under Current AffairsTags: 504, ADA, IDEA, Retaliation, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, special education, Special Education Law, special education teachers rights, Teachers rights, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
One Response to Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities
Diane Willcutts
November 9th, 2009 | 10:29 pm
This is such a common problem that, when I described a similar situation to Tom Badway (now retired from the CT Bureau of Special Education) he not only finished the story for me but he LAUGHED. “Oh, the teacher must have gotten in trouble.”
District retaliation against teachers who speak up for children is frighteningly common. Teachers need to know that retaliation is illegal and that there is support for them among those of us who work on behalf of children.
Thanks for this post.
D.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Tweets that mention Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities | Special Ed Justice | Connecticut Special Education Lawyer -- Topsy.com
uberVU - social comments
Trackback URL
http://www.connecticutspecialeducationlawyer.com/current-affairs/court-rules-to-protect-teacher-who-protected-kids-with-disabilities/trackback/

FREE RECORDINGS FOR BLIND and DYSLEXIC

2009-11-08T13:56:00.000-06:00

Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic - Individual Membership is now Free

Thanks to major funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Grant #H327D090001 and support of private donors, Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic ® (RFB&D®) Individual Membership is now free to individuals with proper certification*.

Member benefits include:

FREE access to the nation's largest audiobook library of textbooks and literature titles
Human-narrated audiobooks with descriptions of images, tables and graphs
Easy-to-use online catalog
24/7 online member services and phone support
Various audiobook downloadable formats, including DAISY and WMA (Windows Media Audio)

------

Teacher Protection under 504

2009-11-07T22:50:00.000-06:00

November 07, 2009

CA: Victory! Court Protects Teacher-Advocate-Whistleblower from Retaliation

Thank you Larry Komar for contributing this information:

A new decision, Susan Barker vs. Riverside County Office of Education, (9th Cir., 10/23/09), reversed a federal district court's decision to dismiss the teacher's retaliation suit on the grounds that she lacked standing under Section 504 and the ADA. The 9th Circuit held that a teacher that complains to her administrators and files a complaint with the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights for violations of the students' rights is protected from harassment and retaliation under both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

After Barker complained to supervisors that the special education services provided to students with disabilities at her school violated the special education laws, and subsequently filed a complaint on behalf of her students with OCR for violations of Section 504, she was allegedly subjected to various acts of intimidation including failure to respond to her emails and calls, excluding her from important meetings, changing her to work sites further from her home, reducing her workload and refusing to allow her to fill in for other staff. Based on the treatment she was receiving, Barker resigned, but alleged that she was "constructively discharged." Notably, on June 16, 2006, the Office for Civil Rights "determined that the preponderance of the evidence showed that....(the school system) retaliated against Barker in violation of Section 504 and Title II...." Holding that Barker had standing to sue under Section 504, the court wrote, "empathetic people who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are the most likely to recognize their treatment and to advocate on their behalf." The court also found that her actions were protected under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title II of the ADA. The case was remanded to the district court to allow her to go forward in attempting to prove the underlying allegations in her complaint.

This decision is a welcome victory affirming the right of school employees to speak out when they believe that the rights of children with disabilities are being violated. Hopefully, it will encourage other school staff that are aware of serious problems in relation to the treatment of children with disabilities to bring these complaints to their school administrators or to the OCR.

Conference w/ Wrights! It's worth the drive, Texas Parents!

2009-11-07T10:59:00.004-06:00

Wrightslaw Special Education Law and Advocacy Conference
with Peter Wright, Esq.
Edmond (Oklahoma City Area), Oklahoma

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Wrightslaw Special Education Law and Advocacy Conference, a Wrightslaw training program, is sponsored by The Oklahoma Disability Law Center and Partners in Education Advocacy and it's FREE* for parents, family members, and individuals who work with children with disabilities and are residents of Oklahoma. Speaker Pete Wright.

The program will be held at:

University of Central Oklahoma
Constitution Hall
100 N University Drive
Edmond, Oklahoma 73034

Program Description

One-day special education law and advocacy programs focus on four areas:

special education law, rights and responsibilities
tests and measurements to measure progress & regression
SMART IEPs
introduction to tactics & strategies for effective advocacy

Wrightslaw programs are designed to meet the needs of parents, educators, health care providers, advocates and attorneys who represent children with disabilities regarding special education. The program is not disability specific.

Agenda

8:30-9:00	Registration
9:00-10:30	Introductions IDEA History and Overview Section 1400 Findings, Purpose Section 1401 Definitions: Special Education, Related Services, LD, etc.
10:30-10:45	Break
10:45-12:00	Section 1412 Extended School Year, Child Find, Least Restrictive Environment/Mainstreaming/Inclusion, Private Placements, Statewide Assessments Understanding Tests and Measurements, and the Bell Curve, Standard Scores, Scale Scores, % ranks, Grade Equivalent, Age Equivalent
12:00-1:00	Lunch on your own
1:00-2:30	Section 1414 Evaluations and IEPs Section 1415 Prior Written Notice, Procedural Safeguards Notice, Mediation, Due Process Hearing, Appeal, Discipline, Age of Majority Section 504, ADA, FERPA NCLB No Child Left Behind Litigation: Special Ed Caselaw S.M.A.R.T. IEPs Special Ed Advocacy for the Parent, Advocate, and Parent’s Attorney Legal, systemic and “school culture” obstacles to compliance with IDEA-04 The Parent as the Special Ed Manager and Expert Developing the Master Plan Knowing the Rules of the Game Recognizing and Avoiding the Fatal Obstacles How to Deal with Conflict, a Healthy and Normal event Crisis, Emergency, Help Organization of the Child’s File
2:30-2:45	Break
2:45-4:00	Tactics and Strategies Rule of Adverse Assumptions Private Evaluations Paper Trails The Letter to the Stranger 5 Ws + H + E Preparation for Meetings Meeting Strategies
4:00-4:30	Questions and Answers

* Registration is FREE to parents, family members, and individuals who work with children with disabilities and are residents of Oklahoma. Out of state registrants are welcome, but will be charged for the cost of the books ($65).

Registrants will receive three books: Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy, 2nd Edition and Wrightslaw: All About IEP's.

Download the Save-the-Date flyer.

Download the registration form.

Credits: CLE (continuing legal education) credits are pending. LPC's (licensed professional counselors) credits will be available. Certificate of attendence will be available.

Questions? Please call the Oklahoma Disability Law Center at (405) 525-7755.

Wrightslaw programs often fill up early - don't miss out!

Logistics, Directions, Accommodations

Directions

University of Central Oklahoma, 100 N University Drive, Edmond, Oklahoma 73034.

The University of Central Oklahoma is in Edmond, Oklahoma, on the northern edge of Oklahoma City. To get to the University, take Second Street in Edmond to Garland-Godfrey and turn right. Follow the signs to visitor parking.

Click here for a map of the campus.

Click here for directions from MapQuest.

Parking

Free parking will be available in the visitors' parking lot at the University Center.

Airports

Will Rogers Airport
7100 Terminal Drive
Oklahoma City, OK 73159-0937
Approx. 30 minutes from conference location.

Restaurants

There are many wonderful restaurants to choose from in the area.

Accommodations

There are many hotels in the area, here are just a few:

Broadway Suites

1305 South Broadway

Edmond, OK

(405) 341-6068 or (800) 200-3486

1.6 miles to University

Holiday Inn Express
3840 East 2nd Street

Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 844-3700

Hampton Inn

300 Meline

Edmond, OK

(405) 844-3037 or (800) HAMPTON

2.3 miles to University

Best Western
2700 East 2nd Street
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 216-0300

To Top

To Wrightslaw Seminars & Training

Oklahoma Yellow Pages for Kids with Disabilities

We built the Oklahoma Yellow Pages for Kids with Disabilities so people can get reliable information and support.

The State Yellow Pages has many useful resources - evaluators, educational consultants, academic tutors, support groups, grassroots organizations, advocates, attorneys and others who help parents get services for their children.

If you provide a service, sign up to be listed on the Yellow Pages for Kids with Disabilities - this is a free service from Wrightslaw.

To Wrightslaw Seminars & Training

About the Book
To Order

About Book
To Order

About DVD Video
To Order

Texas Tribune on Restraint Abuse in SE

2009-11-04T20:10:00.002-06:00

Disabled students restrained, injured in public schools

http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2009/nov/02/disabled-students-restrained-public-schools/

by Emily Ramshaw

photo by: Photo courtesy of the Howson family

Jennifer Howson was restrained dozens of times in her Kemp public school, often sustaining injuries like these.

Federal restraint report
PDF (316.4 KB) download
Restrained students by disability
PDF (448.1 KB) download

AUSTIN – Texas educators forcibly pinned down students with disabilities more than 18,000 times in the last school year, sometimes injuring them in the process.

A Texas Tribune review of state data shows public school educators used so-called “physical restraints” – a tool to control or discipline students with disabilities – roughly 100 times a day during the 2007-08 school year.

That year, school staff restrained four of every 100 special education students, with some students being restrained dozens of times. More than 40 percent of restrained youth suffered from emotional problems like post-traumatic stress disorder; nearly 20 percent were autistic.

Educators say restraints are sometimes the only way to prevent disasters. They point to the September 2009 case of a 16-year-old Tyler special education student who fatally stabbed his music teacher in a classroom.

But disability rights advocates say the numbers point to a crisis in Texas special education. They say teachers are resorting to physical restraints because they aren’t properly trained to manage their students’ disabilities – posing a threat to vulnerable children and to themselves.

Their concerns were echoed in Washington this spring, where a federal agency exposed thousands of restraints – including several deaths – of special education students in schools nationwide. In many cases, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found restraints were performed on children who weren’t physically aggressive, and by teachers who weren’t trained to use them.

“It’s a dangerous intervention, both for students and for staff,” said Steve Elliot, an attorney forAdvocacy Inc., the state’s federally funded abuse watchdog group. “We’ve had students die in Texas because of restraints, and staff members report injuries. There are less intrusive ways to intervene when inappropriate behavior arises.”

Educators say restraints are only used as a last resort, when all other methods to intervene have failed. When properly used, they immobilize students who are a physical danger to themselves or their classmates without injuring them.

But even with proper training, they’re risky. Restraints can easily lead to scrapes, bruises and broken bones, and too much chest pressure can block air to the lungs.

Between 2002 and 2004, a profoundly disabled teenager was restrained 40 times at her Kemp, Texas high school; in one incident, her family says, educators broke a $100,000 device surgically implanted in the girl to prevent seizures.

In 2004, an emotionally disturbed boy trying to leave the classroom for lunch died of suffocation after his Killeen teacher sat on him to restrain him.

The Texas school districts with the highest restraint rates say there’s no crisis: Some say they’ve been over-reporting the numbers; others say they have tougher special education populations than their peers. But many say they’ve been working in the last year to improve training and provide teachers with alternative strategies, and that their restraint numbers are dropping steadily.

“Our numbers were very high,” acknowledged Austin ISD special education director Janna Lilly. The district saw its restraints drop from 1,007 to 790 in the last two years after it hired a full-time student aggression specialist and started focusing on “positive behavior supports” -- techniques to calm students without getting physical.

“We’re not out of the woods,” Lilly said, “but our numbers are now lower than other districts with fewer special education students.”

Officials with the Texas Education Agency say they started collecting special education restraint data and training teachers in restraint alternatives in 2004, after the Killeen boy’s restraint death. School districts are not required to track restraints of students in the general education population.

“There wouldn’t have been all of this work done if this wasn’t a concern,” said Kathy Clayton, the state director of special education. “There’s a heightened awareness now.”

But she said there’s no way to tell if Texas’ numbers are low or high. Only three other states record restraint data, and they don’t record it the same way Texas does. And she said even Texas’ numbers may be exaggerated because of inconsistencies in the way districts have reported restraints. The state doesn’t keep data on restraint-related injuries.

“It makes it very difficult to be able to look at any trends,” she said.

Advocates for people with disabilities say the comparison isn't that tough to make.

California – which has 2 million more public school students than Texas – reported about 14,000 instances of restraint, seclusion, or other emergency interventions during the 2007-08 school year. Texas had 18,000 instances of restraint alone.

Texas’ numbers could also be low. They’re self-reported by the school districts, the advocates say, and don’t account for the many restraints performed by on-campus peace officers and other school district police, who aren’t required to report to the state.

“Because they don’t have to report it, school districts will often call in a police officer to make a restraint, instead of having the teacher do it,” said Deborah Fowler, an attorney with the legal advocacy group Texas Appleseed.

Charter School News

2009-11-04T11:07:00.004-06:00

Charter schools could expand under rule change.

Education commissioner seeks change and apologizes to Austinsuperintendent for the timing on Pearce announcement.

By Laura Heinauer AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF November 04, 2009

State Education Commissioner Robert Scott announced Tuesday that he intends to make it easier for high-performing charter schools to expand in Texas. Scott made the announcement during a round-table discussion on education held by the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. At the event, he also apologized to Austin Superintendent Meria Carstarphen for the timing of the closure of Pearce Middle School and discussed possible changes when dealing with districts about schools that have failed to meet state standards for multiple years.

Lawyers at ARDS- OHIO case

2009-11-04T08:32:00.002-06:00

Attendance by Counsel
Plaintiffs have no legal basis on which to refuse to participate in an IEP session simply because one of TPS's attorneys is present. As recited by TPS in its motion for summary judgment, regulations adopted under IDEA extend broad discretion to the parties to have those in attendance whom they desire to have present. The statute expressly permits attendance of persons "at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(vi). Accord, 34 CFR § 300.321(a)(6). It is left to the parties to determine who has the requisite knowledge and expertise. 34 CFR § 300.321(c).
These are broadly worded provisions, and do not give any party, whether parents or a school board, the authority to veto attendance by persons whom another party wants to have present. The plaintiffs, in any event, certainly have not shown that either TPS or the SLRO erred in their application of these provisions.

During ARD meetings, the playing field is rarely level. When attending an ARD meeting where a lawyer is present, parents not represented by a lawyer should always object to the presence of school counsel at the beginning of the meeting and ask that the objection is noted in the minutes.

Melanie

OSEP says "Enforce IDEA Compliance"

2009-11-04T08:18:00.005-06:00

Letter to Copenhaver

Office of Special Education Programs

October 31,2008

Related Index Numbers 110.020 State Educational Agencies (SEAs) Case Summary States must ensure that LEAs correct both individual and systemic noncompliance with the IDEA, and must do so regardless of whether the noncompliance is procedural, OSEP explained.

Those statements came in response to a question regarding the source of SEAs' authority to require LEAs to correct individual instances of noncompliance. OSEP stated that an SEA's authority derives from the same source as its authority to compel correction of system-wide problems -- its general supervisory responsibility under 20 USC 1416. Pursuant to that responsibility, SEAs have authority and are obligated to, for example, require an LEA to correct an individual IEP or to require the LEA to reconvene an IEP team because the LEA failed to notify the parent of the meeting.

Additionally, the SEA must require the LEA to correct any systemic problem that may have caused an individual failure. The SEA would need to consider the circumstances that gave rise to the noncompliance in designing an appropriate response.

Finally, OSEP noted that SEAs' obligations do not depend on whether the noncompliance amounts to a substantive denial of FAPE. "An SEA's responsibility to ensure that LEA noncompliance is identified and corrected in a timely manner is not altered because the noncompliance is procedural," OSEP wrote. Even if the LEA believes its noncompliance did not deny FAPE to the individual child at present, the error could affect the LEA's ability to ensure the provision of FAPE to students with disabilities in the future.

Judge / Administrative Officer William W. Knudsen, Acting Director Full Text Dear Dr. Copenhaver: This is in response to your questions sent by electronic mail (email) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) on March 19, 2008. You are requesting clarification regarding OSEP's authority to require States to ensure that their local educational agencies (LEAs) correct all identified noncompliance' with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The questions in your email communication are restated below and are followed by OSEP's responses. I. What legal authority under IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] does OSEP have to compel an SEA [State educational agency] to take corrective actions on behalf of an individual student?

OSEP's Response: The IDEA specifies that the Act's monitoring and enforcement responsibilities are applicable to the Secretary as well as to State educational agencies (SEAs).

Section 616(a) of the IDEA provides, in relevant part (Sec 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)): (a) Federal and State monitoring. (I) In general. The Secretary shall -- (A) monitor implementation of this part through -- (i) oversight of the exercise of general supervision by the States, as required in section 1412(a)(11); and (ii) the State performance plans, described in subsection (b); (B) enforce this part in accordance with subsection (e); (C) require States to -- (i) monitor implementation of this part by local educational agencies; and (ii) enforce this part in accordance with paragraph (3) and subsection (e). OSEP is the principal program office in the U.S. Department of Education responsible for administering and carrying out the IDEA and other programs and activities concerning the education of children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. 1402.

Consistent with the above monitoring and oversight responsibilities, OSEP must ensure that an SEA requires its LEAs to correct any noncompliance with Part B that the SEA identifies through LEA monitoring. This includes both individual and systemic noncompliance. An SEA's failure to require its LEAs to correct individual noncompliance could result in denying a child with a disability, and his or her parents, the rights and protections available under Part B of IDEA and its implementing regulations in 34 CFR Part 300.

In addition to SEA monitoring of LEAs, individual noncompliance can be identified through State complaint resolutions under 34 CFR §§ 300.151 through 300.153 or due process hearing decisions under 34 CFR §§ 300.511 through 300.515. It is not OSEP's practice to investigate individual complaints or to review State complaint or due process hearing decisions. However, if noncompliance is identified that requires corrective action, the SEA must ensure that the corrective action is implemented, and OSEP monitors to ensure that this occurs.

If an LEA fails to correct the noncompliance in a timely manner, OSEP's monitoring responsibility includes ensuring that the SEA takes appropriate enforcement action.

2. What is the legal authority under the IDEA for an SEA to require an LEA to correct individual student IEPs [individualized education programs] that the SEA has determined are noncompliant during monitoring activities such as student record reviews or to require that the IEP team for an individual student be reconvened when it is determined that the procedures for convening the IEP were not followed (e.g., failure by the LEA to provide timely written notice of an IEP team meeting)? Assume that the purpose of the SEA's monitoring activities is to determine whether the LEA is in compliance and/or whether the LEA has areas of systemic noncompliance. OSEP's Response: Under Part B of IDEA, each SEA must exercise general supervision over all educational programs for children with disabilities administered within the State, including programs administered by any other State or local agency to ensure that all such programs meet State educational standards and the requirements of 34 CFR Part 300.34 CFR § 300.149(a). The legal authority for an SEA to require its LEAs to correct individual noncompliance is the same as the legal authority for an SEA to require its LEAs to correct systemic noncompliance -- its general supervisory responsibility over all educational programs for children with disabilities administered within the State. Each State and its public agencies must ensure that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is available to all children with disabilities residing in the State in mandatory age ranges. 34 CFR §§ 300.101, 300.201, and 300.17. Each child who is eligible to receive FAPE must have an IEP that meets the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 300.320 through 300.324. 34 CFR § 300.112. Note also that the parents of a child aged three through five may choose to have their child served through an individualized family services plan (IFSP) that is developed under the IEP procedures. 34 CFR § 300.323(b). Based on the example you have provided, if an SEA identifies noncompliance with individual student IEPs when it monitors an LEA, the SEA must require the LEA to correct the individual noncompliance as well as systemic practices that gave rise to the individual noncompliance. Of course, an SEA would need to consider the particular facts and circumstances that gave rise to the noncompliance in framing an appropriate corrective action.

3. Are there FERPA [Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] issues when an SEA requires an LEA to correct noncompliance involving particular students, especially when parents object to reconvening the IEP Team or to particular required changes in an IEP, such as those implicated by Indicator 13? OSEP's Response: SEAs are responsible for ensuring compliance with Part B of the IDEA and its implementing regulations in 34 CFR Part 300. This includes SEA monitoring to ensure that LEAs comply with these Federal legal requirements. 34 CFR §§ 300.149 and 300.600. If an LEA determines that it is necessary to convene an IEP Team meeting to address noncompliance that the SEA identified when it monitored the LEA, the LEA must convene the meeting consistent with 34 CFR §§ 300.321 through 300.324. If the parent, who is a member of the IEP Team under 34 CFR § 300.321(a)(1), objects to the public agency's directive to reconvene the IEP Team and the public agency is unable to convince the parent to attend, the public agency may conduct the meeting without the parent in attendance if it documents its attempts to contact parents consistent with 34 CFR § 300.322(d). We are unable to identify any issues regarding Part B's confidentiality of information requirements in 34 CFR §§ 300.611 through 300.626 that would prohibit an LEA from reconvening an IEP Team over the parent's objections. Because this Office does not administer FERPA and cannot address the FERPA question you are raising, you may wish to contact the Department's Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) directly for further clarification of FERPA requirements in this regard. Contact information for FPCO can be found at littp://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/index.html.

4. Do these questions depend on whether the noncompliance is procedural/technical in nature only and, thus, not implicating FAPE for the individual students as compared to noncompliance, which implicates FAPE? OSEP's Response: As explained above, in exercising its general supervisory responsibility, an SEA is required to ensure that all educational programs for children with disabilities administered by public agencies in the State are in compliance with State educational standards and Part B requirements. An SEA's responsibility to ensure that LEA noncompliance is identified and corrected in a timely manner is not altered because the noncompliance is procedural. Even if the LEA believes that procedural noncompliance does not result in the denial of FAPE to an individual child at present, we believe that an SEA must require the LEA to correct the procedural noncompliance because it could affect the LEA's ability to ensure the future provision of FAPE to eligible children.

Of course, the SEA could consider factors such as the nature and extent of the procedural noncompliance in framing an appropriate corrective action. Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the U.S. Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ruth Ryder at 202-245-7629 or Dr. Deborah Marrow at 202-245-7456. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Federal Register- New Regs

2009-11-03T15:00:00.007-06:00

This information about new regs was posted Melanie/written by Jess Butler (posted with permission)

DEPT. OF EDUCATION ISSUES NEW REGS FOR POST-SECONDARY PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES

-- Enables Students to Qualify for Federal Student Financial Aid Under Modified Standards

-- Imposes Specific Requirements for Intellectual Disability

-- Important for High School Students to Meet Specific Requirements and Obtain Documentation

-- Students with Autism, TBI, etc. May Qualify if They Otherwise Meet Standards for Intellectual Disability

===================================================

Dept. of Education Issues New Regs for Post-Secondary Programs For Students with Intellectual Disabilities On October 29, 2009, the Department of Education issued rules for post-secondary education programs and federal financial aid that were published in the Federal Register at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-25373.pdf (PDF) and http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-25373.htm (text).

The regulations affect the ability of students with “intellectual disabilities” to receive federal financial aid if they enroll in comprehensive transition and postsecondary education programs. Intellectual Disability can include students with autism and traumatic brain injury under certain circumstances. The regulations are of importance to high school students with intellectual disabilities who are nearing transition, since the failure to meet the regulations’ requirements may prevent such students from obtaining federal student financial aid.

Parents and attorneys/advocates should be aware of these requirements for all transitioning students, even those not immediately expected to enroll in post-secondary programs, as many people, regardless of disability, choose to return to education later in life. (I use the term "mental retardation" in this article only because the regulations use it to determine qualification for "intellectual disability.")

The Federal Register notice contains both the regulations (which are codified at 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.231-233) and the non-binding Department of Education commentary guidance. Regulations have gone through a notice and comment period and are legally binding unless contrary to law; commentary represents the views of the Department of Education but courts and colleges/schools do give it weight.

A comprehensive transition and postsecondary education program is a degree or nondegree program designed to support students with intellectual disabilities in academic, career, technical, and independent living instruction at an institution of higher education. Both the Higher Education Act and regulations take special care to specify that students with intellectual disabilities must be integrated with non-disabled students in classes, thus continuing the Least Restrictive Environment policies of the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1140, 34 C.F.R. § 668.231. Specific Legal Meaning of “Intellectual Disability.”

Of greatest significance, "intellectual disability" has a particular unique meaning under the Higher Education Act and 34 C.F.R. § 668.231. The following are required for the student to qualify.

(1) The student must have “mental retardation” or a cognitive impairment characterized by “significant limitations” in intellectual and cognitive functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. The commentary provides that under certain circumstances, autism and traumatic brain injury can be considered intellectual disabilities.

(2) He/she must have been found eligible for special education under the IDEA by the Local Education Agency (school district), and this must be reflected in the LEA’s records, 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.231, 668.233.

(3) The LEA’s records must identify him/her as having an intellectual disability or mental retardation, or other specified forms of documentation must do so. 34 C.F.R. § 668.233.

Potential Issues that May Arise Under Regulations. Some specific issues arise under the regulations. * If the LEA’s records do not identify the child as having an intellectual disability or mental retardation, the regulation lists other documentation that may establish the intellectual disability. These can include a comprehensive evaluation and diagnosis of intellectual disability by a psychologist or other professional; or a record documenting an intellectual disability from an LEA, State Education Agency (SEA), or another government agency, such as the Social Security Administration or a vocational rehabilitation agency.

The decision about whether a student meets the definition of intellectual disability is made by the post-secondary institution. There is a great deal of focus on the Regulation Commentary on this issue, so it should not be brushed off if parents/advocates are unsure about the high school student's documentation. If a high school student is not likely to have the listed documentation and the intellectual disability (or mental retardation) has not been previously noted in the child's LEA records, parents and attorneys/advocates should give consideration to including the designation “intellectual disability” in his/her LEA records if it appropriately describes his/her intellectual functioning. One example would be a child classified with another primary disability (e.g., autism or traumatic brain injury) who otherwise meets the requirements for intellectual disability. Another example is a situation where the SEA/LEA uses a different term and the term also includes children who do not have intellectual disabilities. (Obviously, if the term is limited only to children with intellectual disabilities and incorporates the same elements as 34 C.F.R. § 668.231, there should not be a problem. But parents may wish to have proof in the form of an SEA or LEA regulation, directive, or policy showing that the term is equivalent to intellectual disability or mental retardation.) * The child must have been evaluated and found eligible for special education under the IDEA by the LEA. A private professional's opinion that the child should be eligible for special education does not count. Parents may wish to obtain such an evaluation and eligibility statement from the LEA if a child was not previously evaluated by the LEA and found eligible for special education (often because of parental placement in a private program or homeschool program and a decision not to seek IDEA services). * The regulation requires only an LEA record, indicating that it need not be the IEP. Some parents and school personnel may naturally gravitate toward the IDEA’s Summary of Academic and Functional Performance for transitioning students. But, the Department of Education, in the regulation commentary, opined that the transition summary is not sufficient alone to establish an intellectual disability, although it can be a useful supplement. (Commentary, while nonbinding, is given weight by colleges and LEAs/SEAs and courts, and can be used in later guidance by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).) Thus, it is important to ensure that the intellectual disability is also documented elsewhere in the child's school records (or other qualifying records). Transition summaries are described in more detail in the IDEA regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.305(e)(3). * Students can enroll in the post-secondary programs and receive student financial aid without having graduated from high school, passing an "ability to benefit" test, or being enrolled in degree-seeking programs. The regulations modify the federal student financial aid requirements in this regard. * If parents expect an issue to develop about whether the child has an intellectual disabiltiy, and the child's evaluation was older, parents may contemplate obtaining a newer one. The commentary state that older evaluations can be used, but the entity making the decision is the post-secondary institution. For most students with intellectual disabilities, this will not be an issue of concern. But conceivably, there are a small number where the issue may be disputed. Issues Impacting Student and Other Financial Aid. The new regulations also have a financial impact. These can include the following. * If a legal guardian has been appointed for an adult student with an intellectual disability, the student’s ability to receive federal student aid may be impacted because the guardianship may affect dependency status. Hence, the guardian’s income and assets may be considered in determining calculating financial need, according to the Commentary. This is particularly an issue for the older, returning student but may be an issue for others as well. * Parents and advocates/attorneys should be aware that receipt of Medicaid and other aid can impact the student's access to student financial aid. Conversely, the commentary warns that receipt of student financial aid may impact eligibility for Medicaid and other forms of aid. This is something to look into further as appropriate. * The Department of Education declined to exercise waiver authority to allow students with intellectual disabilities to receive Pell Grants for more than the maximum amount of time (as they may need more time in school), but will consider readdressing the issue if problems arise. Educational Program Requirements. The regulations set a number of educational requirements. These include relaxing current requirements to receive federal student financial aid. The student must make satisfactory progress in the post-secondary program under its published standards. The student must participate at least “half time” in classes with students without disabilities, although the commentary observes that “half-time” may be flexibly defined. There is a strong emphasis on integration. The Commentary states that the remaining time should be spent in participation with non-disabled students in non-academic settings like clubs, service projects, and university life. Finally, the Department of Education declined to categorically remove children with intellectual disabilities from calculations of academic progress and job placement that colleges and universities must do. Students Dually Enrolled in High School and the Post-Secondary Program. There are special rules for students dually enrolled in high school and a comprehensive transition and post-secondary educational program. Some include the following. States that provide dual enrollment programs for children without disabilities must provide them for children with disabilities, see IDEA, sec. 612(a)(2). Financial issues may develop. The commentary states that dually-enrolled students are not eligible for federal student financial aid, but the Deparmtent of Education will monitor to determine if it is appropriate to waive this in the future. The LEA is not normally responsible for paying for the post-secondary program. But, the LEA may use Part B funds if the post-secondary program is considered secondary school education under State law and the program is in the child's IEP, according to the commentary. Furthermore, LEAs have certain obligations to monitor academic and functional progress if the post-secondary program is considered special education and included in the child's IEP. Hence, the LEA is not relieved of its FAPE responsibilities. Conclusion. Comprehensive transition and post-secondary education programs are an excellent way for children with intellectual disabilities to receive a post-secondary education and the benefits that this has for employment, just like anyone else. Care should be taken to ensure that high school students have their documentation in order, so that they qualify for federal student financial aid if they enroll in these programs.

For more information: --

Federal Register Notice Containing Final Regulation and Commentary, 74 Federal Register 55902 (Oct. 29, 2009), available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-25373.pdf and http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-25373.htm -- Higher Education Opportunity Act, Part D, Public Law 110-315, 20 U.S.C. §1140 et. seq. (Aug. 14, 2008), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ315.110.pdf

If link is too long to work, simply type "Public Law 110-315" into your favorite search engine Permission to Forward Permission to forward or reprint this post/article is granted as long as credit is given to me as the author. (A few people have taken my articles and passed them off as their own, so sadly, I have to add this.) Please feel free to ask me any questions about forwarding, etc.

Thank you, Jessica Butler email for article purposes is: jessicabutler@ymail.com (that's "y" not "g")

More Wisdom from Jen Laviano

2009-10-28T06:51:00.000-05:00

Sour Grapes

Published on October 15, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano

Hey, nobody likes having to admit they were wrong. I don’t like it, and I’m sure you don’t either. But it never ceases to amaze me how much time and money is spent litigating special education matters, simply because somebody is unwilling to acknowledge that they made a mistake.

As a Special Education attorney who represents students in IDEA disputes, I am often asked why I think there are so many parents of children with disabilities who are angry or frustrated with their school districts. It would be simple to boil the disagreements down to school districts wanting to save money. Money significantly influences these decisions, without question. But it is not the only obstacle to special education harmony. Power struggles, ideological differences, and turf wars are also prevalent, and add to the dynamics.

If you ask me, the sheer unwillingness to admit fault ranks up there with cost as a causative factor in breakdowns between parents and school districts. I see it every day: a parent has suspected a particular disability, the school team has insisted it doesn’t exist, and when the Independent Educational Evaluation results in the diagnosis suspected by the parents, we get hostility from the administration. Or, when a service or program has been resisted by an IEP Team, and through litigation (or the threat of it) it is provided, and the child’s progress with the new program is obvious, instead of being thrilled that an effective method of teaching the student has been identified, either the educators downplay the progress, or attribute it to something else.

Sure, parents can be stubborn too, and have a hard time accepting that they were wrong. But somehow, when a school district takes a position, it takes on the hardened tone of an institutional policy. And we all know how easy THOSE are to change.

When it comes to making educational decisions about students with disabilities, the adults really need to be regularly reminded that it really, truly isn’t about them. It’s about the child. So I say to all IEP Team Members: check your ego at the IEP door.

new place?

2009-10-26T22:46:00.003-05:00

http://parentpress.wordpress.com

2009-10-26T19:05:00.004-05:00

Jennifer.....you speak the truth!

The Sudden Blossoming of the Represented ChildPublished on July 31, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano

When parents of children with disabilities have reached the point that they have called me, they are incredibly frustrated and overwhelmed with their school district. Yes, sometimes they are angry, but far more often than that, they are worried, upset, and fearful about their child’s future. In addition, they are often conflicted about whether to hire a special education attorney at all. Prospective clients will routinely ask me about possible retaliation, and whether they can ever expect to have a good relationship with their school district again if they retain counsel.When I am hired, it is because the parents are absolutely convinced that their child is not making progress in the current program.This is why I am just amazed at how many of the students I represent will suddenly show dramatic gains in the weeks and months following my letter notifying the school district of my involvement. I mean, forget all those programs promising you a whole grade level improvement on your child’s report card; just hire a special education attorney and you will be astounded by how much progress the school staff will note!No matter how dismal the student’s performance at the time I was retained, it is inevitable that at the first IEP meeting I attend with the parents, there will have been a recent “blossoming.”Yes, I know I am dripping with sarcasm here, but it is getting a little ridiculous. When I write my letters of representation, I am typically indicating that the family is gravely concerned, the student is struggling in any number of ways, and often there has been a recent comment made to the family by the school that the child is failing or about to. And yet, fast forward several weeks after I’ve been hired, and what should the parents see but flow charts and graphs at the IEP meeting, demonstrating how much their child has “taken off” in the last few weeks.Do school districts really believe that parents would go to the trouble and expense of hiring a lawyer if they felt their child was succeeding in school?I’m sorry, but when this happens my right eyebrow naturally raises and I can’t help but be suspicious. Perhaps it’s because it happens more often than not. Kids who were getting Ds and Fs are now getting C pluses and Bs, and the narratives on the report cards go from “Billy is uncooperative and disruptive in class” to “while Billy is sometimes off-task, he can usually be redirected.”How does a kid go from hanging by a thread to “model student” in the span of weeks?
[Photo]If it were the case that kids whose parents just happened to have secured representation for their child actually made this kind of progress after years of stagnation, it would be worthy of publication! So, since that is really not likely, what does this pattern mean? Does it mean that when a child’s parents hire a special education attorney or advocate, the educators start giving him or her more instruction or attention? Or worse, does it mean that they are misrepresenting the child’s performance in school?Most parents I know would rather their child have good skills than good grades.I would prefer an honest dispute with a school district about why a child isn’t making progress, than these belated attempts to transform a struggling student into a wunderkind. But more importantly, when school districts employ this strategy in response to getting notice of representation, they usually erode what little trust in them the parents had left.

Labels: special education lawyer attorney

Hot off the LRP press

2009-10-26T18:54:00.001-05:00

STIMULUS:

Stand firm on LEA special ed ratings, Duncan tells states --- ED Secretary Arne Duncan 'strongly' advises states not to adjust their criteria for districts' IDEA compliance grades so they can reduce special ed spending.

ASSESSMENT ROUNDUP: OCR: Software glitch no excuse for failure to provide testing accommodations --- Ensure staff is familiar with the accommodations students require during testing. Follow these steps to avoid IEP implementation errors. Access a roundup of assessment stories here

CASE FILE: Student's classroom performance supports exit from special education --- Because a child with reading and writing difficulties did not require specialized instruction to receive an educational benefit, a Colorado district could exit the student from special education.

Halloween Fun Stuff c/o squidoo.com

2009-09-27T09:50:00.006-05:00

15 FUN THINGS You Can Do With Your PUMPKIN
Look at all the things you can do with a pumpkin! Ever wonder what else you can do with a pumpkin besides the usual carving? This lens gives you 15 great ideas of things you can do with your pumpkin like us them for props, play slip and slide, make a bird feeder, decorate a table and more!
#1 Bird Feeder
Turn it upside down and you've got a helmet :)
Bird Feed
Click on any product to purchase from Amazon
#2 Platter
Turn your pumpkin into a hamburger bun platter!
Fun idea for BBQ's! Why serve your food from an ordinary platter when you can turn your pumpkin into a serving platter bun and serve food from it! Looks great on a buffet table!
Pumpkin Platters

#3 Gift
Make gifts out of your pumpkins.
They make great gifts for teachers, mothers and grandmothers, co-workers, boss, neighbor....
#4 Fireplace Decorations
#5 Smashing Pumpkins
How about some good ol' fashion pumpkin smashing.
#6 Slip and Slide
Play slip and slide with your pumpkins!
After you do all that smashing...break out the slip and slip and have some more fun!
#7 Photo Props
Use your pumpkins for photo props. Look at how cute it can be! Small dogs can be used instead of the kids too.
Pumpkin Costumes

Rubies Costume Co. Baby B...

Dog Halloween Costume - P...

Infant Plush Pumpkin Cost...

Pumpkin Patch Infant Hall...

Li'l Pumpkin Pie Infant/T...
#8 Vase
Use your pumpkin as a vase and turn it into a beautiful floral arrangement.
#9 Pumpkin Wagon
Make a pumpkin wagon!
# 10 Candles
Make candles out of your pumpkins!
#11 Plant And Grow
Start a pumpkin patch!
#12 Paint
Paint your pumpkins and then dress them up with fun things like hats, wigs, ribbon and straw.
#13 Let Everyone Know Where To Sit With These Cute Little Pumpkins.
Great idea for weddings, dinner parties, and Thanksgiving dinner. Everyone gets to go home with a gift too.
Oh Nooo!
#14 Bake
Bake pumpkin bread, pumpkin pie or pumpkin soup. Yum!
#15 Silly Lawn Decorations
Surprise your neighbors!

More from Jennifer Laviano- CT parent attorney

2009-09-20T11:25:00.000-05:00

Not What the Doctor Ordered

Published on September 13, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano

One of the most important, and complicated, things for parents of children with special education needs to understand is that there is a big difference between the educational and the medical models of treatment and intervention. Often, parents of children with disabilities get caught right in the middle of these two systems. The procedures and protocols are different; the funding mechanisms are different; even the terminology can be different for the very same disability. It’s no wonder there is so much confusion!

In my experience, when a parent brings recommendations from medical personnel to the school district’s attention, they typically expect them to be honored. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work that way.

Virtually every time I speak with parents who have obtained documentation from their child’s medical providers which prescribe various services or accommodations which should be provided in school, they will sound shocked when I tell them that having such a prescription does not, necessarily, guarantee educational implementation. “But this is her DOCTOR!” they’ll often say. It’s around this time that I typically have to inform parents that, while school districts are absolutely obligated to “consider” any information brought by the parents to the Team, they do not necessarily have to follow the doctors’ recommendations.

The kinds of decisions that a child’s medical team may make can, and does, differ dramatically from the types of recommendations that come out of a special education IEP Team Meeting.

As just one very common example, medical “diagnosis” is not the same thing as identification for eligibility under the IDEA. So, if your son’s pediatrician has diagnosed him with ADHD, this does not mean necessarily that the school district’s IEP Team will agree that he is eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA. Perhaps the only people more shocked than the parents that the recommendations of the medical professionals are not being accepted are the doctors themselves!

It is usually not helpful to have medical professionals send outraged letters to the school demanding to know why their medical judgment is being disregarded.

While it can be incredibly satisfying to read a letter that rips apart the school’s decision not to follow medical advice, it very rarely changes the outcome at the IEP Team level. If you’ve reached the point where the administration is disregarding the determination of a psychiatrist from Yale in favor of the opinion of the school’s speech pathologist, as an example, you’re really past the point where reasonable minds are prevailing. You have probably reached the stage where you’re going to have to get more aggressive by requesting a Mediation or Due Process Hearing. In my experience, if you’ve gotten that far, the illogical actions of the school district in dismissing the recommendations of the medical team are, in and of themselves, far more convincing than a huffy letter from the doctor accusing the school district of incompetence.

The tension between the medical and educational models is even more reason why it’s important to select outside professionals who are familiar with the special education process.

It’s hard to sit idly by when school districts completely dismiss the input and recommendations of medical professionals simply because they aren’t “educators.” Believe me, there have been times when it was all I could do not to yell, in the middle of an IEP Team, “really? You’re saying that THE premier doctor at THE premier university in the country, whose entire Department focuses exclusively on THIS VERY DISABILITY is wrong about whether this child has the disability, but your staff is right? Really?” And while it might feel good, it won’t feel as good as posing the same question when they’re under oath.

Unsafe at school-goes private- shouldn't the basic standard be Safety First?

2009-09-13T22:27:00.002-05:00

How can it be that Texas public schools go to great lengths to ensure a students fundamental safety, yet when a disabled child needs safety in a way that the school district could not provide, shouldn't the private school's safety standard begin at that benchmark of whether the placement is worthy? A student cannot be educated if they are being assaulted on a regular basis, or if the student runs away from campus and roams around. In that case, the child's safety in the private setting v the public setting should show the educational benefit. In the private placement she was "available" and "safe" for learning, which are fundamentally available to non-disabled peers.

Melanie

Comments 12 |

	Print
	RSS

Yahoo! Buzz

Ruling in Richardson ISD case alters standards for reimbursement when services unavailable to disabled students

11:11 PM CDT on Saturday, September 12, 2009

By JEFFREY WEISS / The Dallas Morning News
jweiss@dallasnews.com

A recent federal appeals court decision is the latest attempt by judges to define the level of public education that disabled students are entitled to receive.

The ruling, in a case involving a girl from Richardson, imposes new standards for parents in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi who seek reimbursement from school districts for some special education services not available from public schools.

Also Online

Blog: Richardson

The case focused on the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which requires public schools to offer "free and appropriate public education" for disabled children. More than 450,000 students in Texas receive services under IDEA.

If a local public school cannot supply that education, the district is obligated to pay for some services considered necessary for a legally appropriate education.

But court cases in several federal districts have struggled to define exactly what that obligation means. The Richardson decision, handed down Aug. 21, is the latest.

"It's this big, gushy concept," said Angela Lello, public policy director for the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, a state agency. "What's 'appropriate'?"

Problems in school

The case involves a Richardson girl referred to in court documents only as "Leah Z." She entered the Richardson public schools in 1999, in fifth grade, and was pulled out by her parents in 2004.

During her time in Richardson ISD, according to court documents, she was caught frequently leaving campus, disrupting classes and engaging in inappropriate behavior with boys in the school restroom.

Leah was found to be autistic and bipolar with a constellation of other personality disorders, all of which qualified her as disabled.

After deciding that Richardson schools could not serve their daughter's needs, Leah's parents put her in the Texas NeuroRehab Center in Austin, a psychiatric hospital that has a charter school on its campus. While there, Leah was treated with medication and counseling and eventually attended classes at the school.

Her parents later asked the Richardson district to reimburse them for some of the costs. The district refused, saying that it had offered an appropriate education for Leah. The matter went to court.

In 2007, a Dallas judge agreed with the parents that the school district's plan for Leah "was inappropriate and not reasonably calculated to confer any educational benefit upon Leah."

The parents were awarded more than $91,000. The district appealed.

Richardson school officials declined to comment on the court's assessment of Leah's care or any other aspect of the case, citing a policy not to comment on active litigation.

New legal test

The appeal was decided last month by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges said that Leah's parents had met every legal standard that had been in place at the time – but that those standards were inadequate for this case. The panel created a new legal test:

"In order for a residential placement to be appropriate under IDEA, the placement must be 1) essential in order for the disabled child to receive a meaningful educational benefit, and 2) primarily oriented toward enabling the child to obtain an education."

And while the panel agreed that the parents had proved that it had been essential to place Leah in the Austin facility, there had been no finding as to whether the services received there had been "primarily oriented" toward her education, as opposed to medical or psychological issues.

The court vacated the payment order and sent the case back to the district court to assess that second new legal test.

Myrna Silver, the attorney for Leah's parents, said she could meet that second test. After Leah was treated in Austin, her parents tried to get the Richardson district to approve her placement in a private school. But at that point, a hearing officer determined that Leah could be educated appropriately in public school.

"So if that was true, then the facility [in Austin] did its job and made her available to participate in a public school," Silver said, which means it provided services primarily oriented toward Leah's education.

Subjective process

Lello said it's difficult to assess the impact this case could have on any other student in Texas receiving services under IDEA. That's because figuring out the difference between services that are primarily educational and primarily medical is not an objective process.

"It's totally subjective, based in the needs of the individual student," she said.

But the new legal standard actually could be a benefit for some parents, said T.K. Floyd, a lawyer who filed a friend of the court brief in Leah's case on behalf of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, an organization of special education advocates.

"It is easier on some level because now there's a standard in place for reimbursement for private placements – now parents know what to expect," she said. "However, for each case, the parents will have to meet both prongs of the new test. And depending on the particular facts, meeting both prongs may not be easy."

Leah Z. is now an adult, so the case will not affect her education, however it eventually is decided.

"She is living with her parents," Silver said, "and still needs a lot of care and intervention."

RSS

Yahoo! Buzz

Send a news tip

Welcome to Holland

2009-09-13T18:15:00.002-05:00

c1987 by Emily Perl Kingsley. All rights reserved
I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this......

When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make your wonderful plans. The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may learn some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.

After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack your bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."

"Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy! I'm supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."

But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland and there you must stay.

The important thing is that they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting, filthy place, full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different place.

So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you would never have met.

It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy than Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your breath, you look around.... and you begin to notice that Holland has windmills....and Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.

But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy... and they're all bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of your life, you will say "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's what I had planned."

And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away... because the loss of that dream is a very very significant loss.

But... if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely things ... about Holland.

Wikipedia - LONESTARMOM.COM

2009-09-09T19:44:00.013-05:00

Special Education Advocate [1]

Children with disabilities and their parents often face obstacles in the pursuit of public education. For years children with disabilities would progress only through Social promotion. Often times children would be placed in institutions, or the parents of those who sought the child's participation in public schools, would be required to pay for additional services in order for the child to access public schools. Through various United States federal laws like Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, access to public schools opened up to children with disabilities. TheEducation for All Handicapped Children Act was revised and renamed as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 1997 Congress required that public schools provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to all children with disabilities providing a provision of individualized services in the least restrictive environment. Special education law is complex, structured upon a cooperative federalism so parents are left to navigate both state and Federal law to understand how special education works. Application of these statutes and regulations occurs at the local level by local school districts under supervision of their State government. Disputes over the application of the law begins at the local school district and travels through an administrative procedure subject to judicial review.

Sometimes obstacles to education are identified. For example, when planning for one's individual needs and determination of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) public educators who might be unfamiliar with those interventions and methodologies that differ from commonly used educational practices. Educators might not understand the need for a specific appreciate the benefit of certain accesses that aide in the child's ability to benefit from education. As a result of many factors, sometimes including unfamiliarity, the parents experience of the special education processes can seem like it's an entirely legal one. At increasing times, parents have found the need to hire a special education attorney to represent the family because of the complex nature of the legal process of special education. Because of industry scarcity, special education lawyers can be in short supply in some states, like Texas. Another deterrent for parents who need a specialized lawyer can be a financial one. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides for parents to be assisted by a non-attorney child advocate during most of special education legal process exercises.

Special education advocates tend to have a wide spectrum of experience and/or knowledge regarding the special education process. Some advocates receive training through organizations like [2]Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates/COPAA. Some special education advocates are trained by special education attorneys, and others learn by reading manuals, seeking advice, and/or by their own personal experiences as the parent of a disabled child. Multiple books and publications have been written to assist parents of children with disabilities navigate the process, and can be found at [3]Wright's Law Website.

[4] http://www.Lonestarmom.com was designed by Texas Special Education Advocate- Melanie Watson, and the site remains an informational website designed for parents of disabled children. Watson received specialized legal training through a variety of sources, including direct professional involvement and employment with a variety of special education attorneys. The Lonestarmom [5] informational website is organized in a way that parents can locate information and resources about special education law processes or find resources regarding a specific disability and parent support networks. Helpful topics include: response to intervention, inclusion, as well as information about learning disabilities, speech impairment, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, traumatic brain injury , emotional and behavioral disorders , developmental disabilities and physical disabilities. Other topics include: IEP / ARD meeting suggestions, related services information such as occupational therapy, and manifestation determination hearing discipline procedures.

Through out the Lonestarmom [6] website, a parent will become aware of Watson’s personal struggles as a fellow parent in the process, and through further exploration, find effective resources utilized during Watson’s journey through helping hundred’s of families navigate the IEP processes. [7] Lonestarmom includes links for families to contact independent evaluators, parent support groups, and/or contact Watson herself when parents need direct assistance in the special education "'IEP'" process.

--Melanie Watson/Lonestarmom.com 21:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)-

Aspergers Child Sues School District- Bullying

2009-09-04T08:35:00.005-05:00

by RANDY
WALLACE

Levi Lunsford, 16, says torture is the one word that best describes his last
five school years at Tarkington ISD.

"I was constantly looking over my shoulder in the hall to make sure somebody
wasn't about to do something to me," Lunsford said.

Lunsford has Asperger's Syndrome which according to a federal lawsuit made
him a target for bullies.

"He's got his little quirks," Ronnie Lunsford, Levi's father said.

Like being hypersensitive to physical contact. That led some students to
flick his ears, sending him into an immediate panic, the lawsuit alleges.

"The kid went through his daily life over the course of frankly many years
in peril," Marty Cirkiel, Levi's attorney said.

The lawsuit claims the school district did nothing to stop the bullying.

"The school district showed deliberate indifference," special needs advocate
Lou Geigerman said.

The only action the district ever took according to the lawsuit was against
Levi.

"People picked on him he'd sometimes react which would be normal and then
he'd be the one getting punished," Cirkiel said.

The lawsuit claims other students called Levi names like "fat" "idiot" and
"retard", threw things at him and stole his possessions. The lawsuit also
alleges Levi was pushed under a parked bus that was loading students.

"Ribbing students is one thing," Geigerman said, "This is constant. it''s
deliberate, it's everyday"

The most troubling allegation accuses the district of destroying evidence.

"Five boys cornered him and filmed with their phones while one boy jumped
him" Ronnie Lunsford said.

The lawsuit claims a coach was aware of the cell phone video.

"And it's our understanding that one of the school officals asked them to
destroy the video." Cirkiel said.

In his response Tarkington ISD, Superintendent John Kirchner told FOX 26
investigates, "Our purpose is to take care of the kids any way we can and as
time goes on we learn more about the best way to meet the needs of our
students. We're very proud of the way we take care of our kids here."

But as far as Levi, his parents and his attorney are concerned the district
should be ashamed.

"They just turned a deaf ear," Cirkiel said.

Video of the story at:

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/investigates/090903_special_needs_student_sues_school_district

AUTISM POEM

2009-09-02T12:25:00.001-05:00

I. Blessed are those who stop and listen to my chatter. You may not understand me; but I love when people talk to me, for I long for companionship, too.

II. Blessed are those who take my hand and walk with me when the path is rough, for I easily stumble and grow weary. But thank you, too, for letting me walk alone when the path is smooth, for I must learn independence.

III. Blessed are those who take the time to tell me about special happenings, for unless you make special effort to inform me, I remain ignorant.

IV. Blessed are those who wait for me. I may be slow, but I appreciate your patience.

V. Blessed are those who are not ashamed to be seen in public with me, for I did not choose to be born thus. It could have been you as well.

VI. Blessed are those who do not pity me, for I don't want pity. All I want is understanding and respect for what I have learned as well.

VII. Blessed are those who notice my accomplishments, small as they may seem to you. I must work long and hard to learn many of the things you take for granted.

VIII. Blessed are those who include me in their games, even though I may not understand the rules, I still like to be included in your activities.

IX. Blessed are those who think of me as a person who loves, and hurts, and feels joy and pain just like you do, for in that respect I am normal.

Author Unknown

A Texas Success Story!

2009-08-09T10:16:00.002-05:00

Autistic valedictorian looks forward to college

Bradwell Institute valedictorian Thomas Baker poses with his pal, Midnight the cat.
Photo by Lauren Hunsberger

1 of 1 View Larger

Truer words were never spoken!

2009-08-01T07:08:00.003-05:00

Jennifer.....you speak the truth!

The Sudden Blossoming of the Represented Child

Published on July 31, 2009 by Jennifer Laviano

When I am hired, it is because the parents are absolutely convinced that their child is not making progress in the current program.

This is why I am just amazed at how many of the students I represent will suddenly show dramatic gains in the weeks and months following my letter notifying the school district of my involvement. I mean, forget all those programs promising you a whole grade level improvement on your child’s report card; just hire a special education attorney and you will be astounded by how much progress the school staff will note!

No matter how dismal the student’s performance at the time I was retained, it is inevitable that at the first IEP meeting I attend with the parents, there will have been a recent “blossoming.”

Yes, I know I am dripping with sarcasm here, but it is getting a little ridiculous. When I write my letters of representation, I am typically indicating that the family is gravely concerned, the student is struggling in any number of ways, and often there has been a recent comment made to the family by the school that the child is failing or about to. And yet, fast forward several weeks after I’ve been hired, and what should the parents see but flow charts and graphs at the IEP meeting, demonstrating how much their child has “taken off” in the last few weeks.

Do school districts really believe that parents would go to the trouble and expense of hiring a lawyer if they felt their child was succeeding in school?

I’m sorry, but when this happens my right eyebrow naturally raises and I can’t help but be suspicious. Perhaps it’s because it happens more often than not. Kids who were getting Ds and Fs are now getting C pluses and Bs, and the narratives on the report cards go from “Billy is uncooperative and disruptive in class” to “while Billy is sometimes off-task, he can usually be redirected.”

How does a kid go from hanging by a thread to “model student” in the span of weeks?

If it were the case that kids whose parents just happened to have secured representation for their child actually made this kind of progress after years of stagnation, it would be worthy of publication! So, since that is really not likely, what does this pattern mean? Does it mean that when a child’s parents hire a special education attorney or advocate, the educators start giving him or her more instruction or attention? Or worse, does it mean that they are misrepresenting the child’s performance in school?

Most parents I know would rather their child have good skills than good grades.

I would prefer an honest dispute with a school district about why a child isn’t making progress, than these belated attempts to transform a struggling student into a wunderkind. But more importantly, when school districts employ this strategy in response to getting notice of representation, they usually erode what little trust in them the parents had left.

Religious Leaders Affirm Disability Rights

2009-07-31T17:35:00.001-05:00

Religious Leaders Affirm Disability Rights

By Ginny Thornburgh

Director, AAPD Interfaith Initiative

Sometimes what seems impossible is actually possible.

When our president, Andy Imparato, asked me to bring the “powerful and prophetic voice of the faith community to the 21^st Century disability agenda,” I was stunned. Through almost twenty years of work at the intersection of religion and disability, I had learned that disability rights issues were not generally high on the agendas of most denominations and faith groups.

How in the world does one bring the “powerful and prophetic voice of the faith community to the 21^st Century disability agenda?” Through AAPD’s newest effort – the Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalition (IDAC). That’s how.

IDAC is a diverse, nonpartisan coalition of religious and religiously-affiliated organizations whose core spiritual values affirm the rights and dignity of people with disabilities. The mission of IDAC is to mobilize the religious community to speak out and take action on disability policy issues with Congress, the President and Administration, and society at large.

The IDAC Steering Committee consists of both lay and ordained interfaith leaders who care deeply about issues of disability. At our initial meeting in October 2008, we hammered out our goals, our procedures and our membership requirements. Finding common ground and common cause across faith lines and across disability experiences was hard but very rewarding work.

Our first public policy effort was to draft an IDAC letter for House and Senateleaders in support of the Community Choice Act (indicate information on the AAPD website), legislation which promotes independence with dignity and allows individuals who receive long-term services through Medicaid to have a choice in where, how and from whom they receive personal assistance. By allowing older adults and people with disabilities to receive care in their homes and communities, passage of this legislation will ensure that they can remain active participants in their families, neighborhoods and religious communities.

When the IDAC CCA letter went to the hill on June 22, 2009, twenty two respected organizations from a wide range of national religious groups had signed on and lent their moral support to the Community Choice Act.Sometimes what seems impossible is actually possible.

Our next step was to invite these twenty two very respected religious organizations and others who care about disability public policy issues to become Members of the Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalition. Organizations seeking membership in IDAC must be a national religious or religiously- affiliated organization with the capacity to take action on national public policy issues; must agree to support IDAC’s mission and follow IDAC’s procedures; and must have a grassroots constituency and the authority to take positions on their behalf.

The variety of the first ten organizations completing IDAC membership applications was impressive: Lutheran Services in America, Union for Reform Judaism, National Catholic Partnership on Disability, Islamic Society of North America, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Episcopal Church, The American Baptist Home Mission Societies, National Apostolate for Inclusion Ministry, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, and United Jewish Communities/Jewish Federations of North America.

On Monday, July 27, 2009 we held the first IDAC Membership Information Meeting with featured speaker, the Honorable Tony Coelho, AAPD Board Chairman and Former Majority Whip, U.S. House of Representatives. A key author of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tony spoke with passion about the need for more and better employment opportunities for people with disabilities and he described the discrimination he had encountered as a person with epilepsy. His remarks were gratefully received.

Also during that first IDAC meeting, AAPD president Andy Imparato, a self described “disability policy wonk,” outlined the landscape of the disability rights movement and drew particular attention to the Community Choice Act and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which will be at the forefront of IDAC’s agenda. Following Andy, Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, Senior Advisor on Disability Issues, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, spoke of her personal experience with brain injury and her strong belief that disability is a social justice issue which deserves the fullest attention of the religious community.

All in attendance at the July 27^th meeting offered enthusiastic support for IDAC. The meeting made us realize that once members of the religious community became aware of the pain of discrimination, exclusion and isolation which people with disabilities and older adults often experience, their support for disability rights issues is likely to be sure and swift. So that which seemed impossible is now very possible. Stay tuned as we gather new IDAC Members and begin to use the moral authority of the Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalitionfor the good of our nation.

2009-07-29T20:15:00.005-05:00

Welcome To Holland
by
Emily Perl Kingsley

I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this......

When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make your wonderful plans. The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may learn some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.

After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack your bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."

"Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy! I'm supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."

But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland and there you must stay.

The important thing is that they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting, filthy place, full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different place.

So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you would never have met.

It’s just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy than Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your breath, you look around.... and you begin to notice that Holland has windmills....and Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.

But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy... and they're all bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of your life, you will say "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's what I had planned."

And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away... because the loss of that dream is a very very significant loss.

But... if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely things ... about Holland.

* * *

Melanie Watson's Blog

How does an Advocate help?

From Parents SF and SF

From Parents CP & TP

from a favorite client.....

NAT'L RISE in SE Litigation- story from CEC

School districts spend thousands on litigation over special education

By KARI ANDREN, The Patriot-News

January 27, 2010, 12:00AM

Jennifer Laviano hit another out of the park with her blogged words

Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities

Of course, I didn’t think it was controversial when I wrote it; I thought it was common sense.

I caught a lot of flack for that piece, both “on the record” and off, by those who were offended by it.

School district employees who work with children with disabilities face these tough choices every day.

What did Ms. Barker do to invoke the wrath of her bosses?

The conditions became so extreme that Ms. Barker was forced to leave her job entirely.

ove that language: “empathetic people who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are those most likely to recognize their mistreatment and to advocate on their behalf.”

One Response to Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities

Of course, I didn’t think it was controversial when I wrote it; I thought it was common sense.

I caught a lot of flack for that piece, both “on the record” and off, by those who were offended by it.

School district employees who work with children with disabilities face these tough choices every day.

What did Ms. Barker do to invoke the wrath of her bosses?

The conditions became so extreme that Ms. Barker was forced to leave her job entirely.

I love that language: “empathetic people who teach and interact frequently with the disabled are those most likely to recognize their mistreatment and to advocate on their behalf.”

One Response to Court Rules to Protect Teacher Who Protected Kids with Disabilities

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Trackback URL

FREE RECORDINGS FOR BLIND and DYSLEXIC

Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic - Individual Membership is now Free

Teacher Protection under 504

November 07, 2009

CA: Victory! Court Protects Teacher-Advocate-Whistleblower from Retaliation

Conference w/ Wrights! It's worth the drive, Texas Parents!

Texas Tribune on Restraint Abuse in SE

Disabled students restrained, injured in public schools

Federal restraint report

Restrained students by disability

Charter School News

Lawyers at ARDS- OHIO case

OSEP says "Enforce IDEA Compliance"

Federal Register- New Regs

More Wisdom from Jen Laviano

Sour Grapes

new place?

Hot off the LRP press

Halloween Fun Stuff c/o squidoo.com

#1 Bird Feeder

Turn it upside down and you've got a helmet :)

Bird Feed

Click on any product to purchase from Amazon

#2 Platter

Turn your pumpkin into a hamburger bun platter!

Pumpkin Platters

#3 Gift

#4 Fireplace Decorations

#5 Smashing Pumpkins

#6 Slip and Slide

Play slip and slide with your pumpkins!

#7 Photo Props

Use your pumpkins for photo props. Look at how cute it can be! Small dogs can be used instead of the kids too.

Pumpkin Costumes

#8 Vase

Use your pumpkin as a vase and turn it into a beautiful floral arrangement.

#9 Pumpkin Wagon

# 10 Candles

Make candles out of your pumpkins!

#11 Plant And Grow

Start a pumpkin patch!

#12 Paint

#13 Let Everyone Know Where To Sit With These Cute Little Pumpkins.

#14 Bake

#15 Silly Lawn Decorations

More from Jennifer Laviano- CT parent attorney

Not What the Doctor Ordered

In my experience, when a parent brings recommendations from medical personnel to the school district’s attention, they typically expect them to be honored. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work that way.

The kinds of decisions that a child’s medical team may make can, and does, differ dramatically from the types of recommendations that come out of a special education IEP Team Meeting.

It is usually not helpful to have medical professionals send outraged letters to the school demanding to know why their medical judgment is being disregarded.

The tension between the medical and educational models is even more reason why it’s important to select outside professionals who are familiar with the special education process.