Apparently, even a post that is deleted and/or edited, will appear to "followers" of a blog. Therefore, please disregard previous post, as it was sent in the wrong direction in an attempt to show someone how to post something -- supposed to have been a demonstration of how to set up and post to a blogspot. Acutally, turned out to be a rather good example of how not to do it.
In other news, Promise Foundation Board meeting postponed until October 9th.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Helicopter Parents & Kevlar Educators
The following comment is quote in an introduction to the EdJurist website at http://www.edjurist.com
"For educators and their attorneys to have the requisite information and knowledge, there is a need to define a new class of educators and a new class of lawyers, each attuned to the contextual reality of the other's discipline. Such a new class will establish law-informed educators and leaders who can act preventively to avoid or minimize legal entanglements and proactively to influence both litigation strategy and government policy. Such a class will also establish education-informed lawyers, apprised of both school practices and important educational research and policies, who can work collaboratively and preventively with their clients. " Sarah Redfield, The Convergence of Education and Law: A New Class of Educators and Lawyers, 36 Ind. L. Rev. 609 (2003) (Emphasis added.)
"For educators and their attorneys to have the requisite information and knowledge, there is a need to define a new class of educators and a new class of lawyers, each attuned to the contextual reality of the other's discipline. Such a new class will establish law-informed educators and leaders who can act preventively to avoid or minimize legal entanglements and proactively to influence both litigation strategy and government policy. Such a class will also establish education-informed lawyers, apprised of both school practices and important educational research and policies, who can work collaboratively and preventively with their clients. " Sarah Redfield, The Convergence of Education and Law: A New Class of Educators and Lawyers, 36 Ind. L. Rev. 609 (2003) (Emphasis added.)
The Blame Game
Review and a Few Comments on:
Parents, Their Lawyer and an IEP: Teachers Can Survive When Parents Aren't Afraid to Take Legal Action Kellie Hayden 2007.
Kellie Hayden, Ohio educator and freelance journalist, advises teachers about how to cope with "aggressive parents" and/or "helicopter parents", who can make life stressful for teachers by keeping a "lawyer on speed dial".
Hayden's guidelines to assist teachers prepare for a "legal-action-free" school year include (1) being sure to read child's the IEP, (2) contacting the child's former teacher(s) who may be able to "offer tips on how to deal [with] the parents", and (3) becoming familiar with the Individuals w/ Disabilities Act. [Emphasis added]
The Hayden article, published on suite101.com, is no longer available at that website, as it was removed about a day after I posted a response on behalf of the Promise Foundation. Nevertheless, a cached version of the entire column can still be found at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W5nf2Y7bEkYJ:educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/parents_their_lawyer_and_an_iep+special+education+avoid+litigation&cd=31&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Promise Foundation's Response
Good advice, but . . . What about the student without a "helicopter parent" and/or the benefit of legal counsel?
Shouldn't the goal be to provide a free, appropriate, public education...as opposed to simply avoiding litigation?
Why is it necessary to feel sufficiently threatened before becoming motivated to do what needs to be done? All of this is very good advice, e.g. to "read" and understand the IEP "before the school year begins", and then to actually "follow the IEP" and "document, document, document". It is unfortunate when school officials justify a defensive posture as a starting point and necessary response to aggressive parents and the threat of being sued.
I suspect the increase in the number of "helicopter parents" may be due to a corresponding increase in the number of "Kevlar" educators and a siege mentality that has become far too common among school administrators.
Parents, Their Lawyer and an IEP: Teachers Can Survive When Parents Aren't Afraid to Take Legal Action Kellie Hayden 2007.
Kellie Hayden, Ohio educator and freelance journalist, advises teachers about how to cope with "aggressive parents" and/or "helicopter parents", who can make life stressful for teachers by keeping a "lawyer on speed dial".
Hayden's guidelines to assist teachers prepare for a "legal-action-free" school year include (1) being sure to read child's the IEP, (2) contacting the child's former teacher(s) who may be able to "offer tips on how to deal [with] the parents", and (3) becoming familiar with the Individuals w/ Disabilities Act. [Emphasis added]
The Hayden article, published on suite101.com, is no longer available at that website, as it was removed about a day after I posted a response on behalf of the Promise Foundation. Nevertheless, a cached version of the entire column can still be found at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W5nf2Y7bEkYJ:educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/parents_their_lawyer_and_an_iep+special+education+avoid+litigation&cd=31&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Promise Foundation's Response
Good advice, but . . . What about the student without a "helicopter parent" and/or the benefit of legal counsel?
Shouldn't the goal be to provide a free, appropriate, public education...as opposed to simply avoiding litigation?
Why is it necessary to feel sufficiently threatened before becoming motivated to do what needs to be done? All of this is very good advice, e.g. to "read" and understand the IEP "before the school year begins", and then to actually "follow the IEP" and "document, document, document". It is unfortunate when school officials justify a defensive posture as a starting point and necessary response to aggressive parents and the threat of being sued.
I suspect the increase in the number of "helicopter parents" may be due to a corresponding increase in the number of "Kevlar" educators and a siege mentality that has become far too common among school administrators.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Patchwork Project
August 2010
As The School Year Approaches
The Patchwork Project plans to follow a number of children with disabilities throughout the 2010 – 2011 school year, with a focus on the experience of special education for the child with a disability from the perspective of families and family systems.
What is the state of special education today in northwest Ohio? How do things stand now, thirty-five years after federal law first afforded disabled children the right to attend public school at all, and twenty years after the 1990 passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.).
Our focus of attention with each of the families participating in the Patchwork Project is twofold. First, how are special education services being provided in various local school districts, particularly in terms of developing and implementing individual educational plans (IEP’s) for children with disabilities. Equally important, we are interested in assessing the degree to which parents are being afforded meaningful participation in the educational planning and decision making for their children.
Real names and personal identifiers of individuals and school districts will either be redacted or changed in all of the posted Patchwork Project narratives, reports, or exhibits. No actual names of individuals or entities will be identified until an as yet undetermined time following the end of the 2010 – 2011 school year.
August 2010
As The School Year Approaches
The Patchwork Project plans to follow a number of children with disabilities throughout the 2010 – 2011 school year, with a focus on the experience of special education for the child with a disability from the perspective of families and family systems.
What is the state of special education today in northwest Ohio? How do things stand now, thirty-five years after federal law first afforded disabled children the right to attend public school at all, and twenty years after the 1990 passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.).
Our focus of attention with each of the families participating in the Patchwork Project is twofold. First, how are special education services being provided in various local school districts, particularly in terms of developing and implementing individual educational plans (IEP’s) for children with disabilities. Equally important, we are interested in assessing the degree to which parents are being afforded meaningful participation in the educational planning and decision making for their children.
Real names and personal identifiers of individuals and school districts will either be redacted or changed in all of the posted Patchwork Project narratives, reports, or exhibits. No actual names of individuals or entities will be identified until an as yet undetermined time following the end of the 2010 – 2011 school year.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
2010 Perspective on the Anniversary of the ADA and the I.D.E.A.
Since the first American public school was founded in Boston in 1663, this nation has recognized and respected the educational rights of children.
Nevertheless, it took well over three hundred (300) years before American law extended similar educational rights to children with disabilities.
Within our own generation, various state laws designed to exclude disabled children from public schools were abrogated by federal courts in 1972. Then, in 1975, the Education for Handicapped Children Act (EHCA) established the right of all children with disabilities to receive a free public school education in an integrated environment.
In 1990, the same year the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law, the EHCA was amended and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
On the 35th Anniversary of the EHCA and 20th Anniversary of the IDEA, I celebrate the gains made. I must also observe, however, that the battle continues and remains an almost a day-by-day struggle to enforce the law and protect the educational rights promised to children with disabilities.
Nevertheless, it took well over three hundred (300) years before American law extended similar educational rights to children with disabilities.
Within our own generation, various state laws designed to exclude disabled children from public schools were abrogated by federal courts in 1972. Then, in 1975, the Education for Handicapped Children Act (EHCA) established the right of all children with disabilities to receive a free public school education in an integrated environment.
In 1990, the same year the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law, the EHCA was amended and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
On the 35th Anniversary of the EHCA and 20th Anniversary of the IDEA, I celebrate the gains made. I must also observe, however, that the battle continues and remains an almost a day-by-day struggle to enforce the law and protect the educational rights promised to children with disabilities.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Broken Promises
FACT: Ohio has 1,839,683 public school students, of whom 246,605 receive special education services (13.4%) and
FACT: Ohio will receive $437,736,052 in IDEA Part B funds under the Recovery Act. These funds are in addition to the $435,055,616 the state will also receive as its regular FY09 IDEA Part B federal allotment. All Recovery Act funds must be spent by Sept. 30, 2011.
http://ideamoneywatch.com/states/oh/?page_id=2
Changes made to Ohio law in 2009, purportedly to provide school districts with more “flexibility”, now permit districts to divert money intended for the education of children with disabilities into other general education and district purposes. As Jennifer Smith Richard, Columbus Dispatch (January 2010), observed:
Ohio school districts are spending money meant for disabled students to stabilize their shaky budgets, and the state has made it easier for them to do so. Statewide, schools are receiving an extra $438 million in federal stimulus money just for special education. For most districts, the influx has doubled the federal dollars they received for special education.. . . vulnerable students are being cheated as the money is redirected, and . . . Ohio has taken the most extreme approach of any state that has paved the way for schools to use the money elsewhere. [Now] Districts don't have to meet the federal progress goal to divert funds anymore, nor do they have to prove that special-needs students are being educated in the "least restrictive environment," which often means in regular classrooms. (Emphasis added)
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/24/specialmoney.html?sid=101
For years we have heard perennial complaints about special education being a drain on resources needed to educate typical students. Now it seems, with stimulus funds dramatically increasing special education funding, the Department of Education and school districts in Ohio have discovered and/or devised a way to tap into the resources intended to fulfill the promise of the IDEA to children with disabilities. Economic stimulus funding, in most cases, practically doubles the regular FY 2010 allocation of IDEA Part-B funds for special education. It is no accident that recent legal maneuvering and tweaking of the ODE rules and regulations has now opened the door for practically every school district in the state of Ohio to redirect at least half of their stimulus funds from special education to meet other needs in regular education or the general fund.
What kind of money are we talking about? In Northwest Ohio, for example, the numbers look like this:
District IRN District Name Total IDEA Part-B ARRA Allocation + Non-public Proportionate Share + Regular FY10 IDEA Allocation
048207 Anthony Wayne Local SD $ 882,340.46 $751,451.15
047589 Liberty Center Local SD $ 235,254.78 $205,026.16
044909 Toledo City SD $ 8,694,671.86 $ 40,366.87 $7,660,222.48
044602 Oregon City SD $ 828,082.06 $724,726.60
046813 Perkins Local SD $ 490,877.19 $433,936.16
045583 Perrysburg Ex.Village SD $ 889,435.66 $ 15,535.99 $765,851.49
044743 Sandusky City SD $ 1,066,085.11 $ 65,700.59 $947,359.09
050690 Lake Local SD $351,040.46 $3,250.37 $303,712.09
048215 Ottawa Hills Local SD $ 248,460.08 $ 91,058.21 $212,894.52
048231 Washington Local SD $ 1,684,576.88 $ 276,014.23 $1,465,072.83
049577 Woodmore Local Local SD $ 276,014.23 $241,417.32
044875 Sylvania City SD $ 1,829,924.43 $ 121,759.68 $1,610,744.77
FACT: Ohio will receive $437,736,052 in IDEA Part B funds under the Recovery Act. These funds are in addition to the $435,055,616 the state will also receive as its regular FY09 IDEA Part B federal allotment. All Recovery Act funds must be spent by Sept. 30, 2011.
http://ideamoneywatch.com/states/oh/?page_id=2
Changes made to Ohio law in 2009, purportedly to provide school districts with more “flexibility”, now permit districts to divert money intended for the education of children with disabilities into other general education and district purposes. As Jennifer Smith Richard, Columbus Dispatch (January 2010), observed:
Ohio school districts are spending money meant for disabled students to stabilize their shaky budgets, and the state has made it easier for them to do so. Statewide, schools are receiving an extra $438 million in federal stimulus money just for special education. For most districts, the influx has doubled the federal dollars they received for special education.. . . vulnerable students are being cheated as the money is redirected, and . . . Ohio has taken the most extreme approach of any state that has paved the way for schools to use the money elsewhere. [Now] Districts don't have to meet the federal progress goal to divert funds anymore, nor do they have to prove that special-needs students are being educated in the "least restrictive environment," which often means in regular classrooms. (Emphasis added)
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/24/specialmoney.html?sid=101
For years we have heard perennial complaints about special education being a drain on resources needed to educate typical students. Now it seems, with stimulus funds dramatically increasing special education funding, the Department of Education and school districts in Ohio have discovered and/or devised a way to tap into the resources intended to fulfill the promise of the IDEA to children with disabilities. Economic stimulus funding, in most cases, practically doubles the regular FY 2010 allocation of IDEA Part-B funds for special education. It is no accident that recent legal maneuvering and tweaking of the ODE rules and regulations has now opened the door for practically every school district in the state of Ohio to redirect at least half of their stimulus funds from special education to meet other needs in regular education or the general fund.
What kind of money are we talking about? In Northwest Ohio, for example, the numbers look like this:
District IRN District Name Total IDEA Part-B ARRA Allocation + Non-public Proportionate Share + Regular FY10 IDEA Allocation
048207 Anthony Wayne Local SD $ 882,340.46 $751,451.15
047589 Liberty Center Local SD $ 235,254.78 $205,026.16
044909 Toledo City SD $ 8,694,671.86 $ 40,366.87 $7,660,222.48
044602 Oregon City SD $ 828,082.06 $724,726.60
046813 Perkins Local SD $ 490,877.19 $433,936.16
045583 Perrysburg Ex.Village SD $ 889,435.66 $ 15,535.99 $765,851.49
044743 Sandusky City SD $ 1,066,085.11 $ 65,700.59 $947,359.09
050690 Lake Local SD $351,040.46 $3,250.37 $303,712.09
048215 Ottawa Hills Local SD $ 248,460.08 $ 91,058.21 $212,894.52
048231 Washington Local SD $ 1,684,576.88 $ 276,014.23 $1,465,072.83
049577 Woodmore Local Local SD $ 276,014.23 $241,417.32
044875 Sylvania City SD $ 1,829,924.43 $ 121,759.68 $1,610,744.77
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)