Most people these days have now heard about Project 2025. It’s now one of the most commonly searched terms on the internet these days. These fascist shysters aren’t even trying to cover up what they are doing anymore, but what I want to emphasize as I start this post/podcast is that none of the Project 2025 agenda is anything new and these are the same exact people we’ve been up against in public education at the local level for the entire time that I’ve worked as a special education lay advocate, paralegal, and educational consultant, starting in 1991.
These individuals now feel even more emboldened by their far-right leaders and they are now done pretending that they work within public education to teach children. They are now openly acknowledging that they want to hijack our government of, for, and by the People so they can, among other horrible things, replace our public education system with programs of extremist indoctrination that promotes white male wealth at the expense of everyone else. They have never been in support of special education because people with disabilities, particularly if they are not white male landowners, are less than human to them.
None of this new. These are the same people who made the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) necessary in the first place. We wouldn’t need laws that protect people with disabilities in our public schools, other government agencies, and the community at large if it weren’t for these same exact people. For the same reasons that honor and ethics alone cannot be expected from Supreme Court justices without regulatory oversight, our public agencies from top to bottom cannot be expected to function in an honorable and ethical manner without controlling regulations and systems of accountability.
It doesn’t help that the people responsible for Project 2025 are almost guaranteed to, themselves, be mentally and/or emotionally impaired in some kind of way such that they are incapable of viewing other people as equal in worth to themselves and have a collective compulsion to identify classes of individuals to target for abuse for being different from themselves. There is no universe in which any of that kind of behavior reflects intact social/emotional development. It appears that nearly 1/3rd of our population is personality disordered or similarly impaired, and the difficult thing about these types of disorders is that those who suffer from them are often incapable of understanding that they are the ones with the problems. This is why they consistently blame everyone else for the consequences of their own behaviors. There is no logic or mental health in any of it.
Personality disorders and conditions with similar features have nothing to do with intelligence or communication abilities. Take, for example, the current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who insists the Earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, thereby making the Flintstones historically accurate. One would think that he is cognitively intact enough to mentally process the facts and evidence to the contrary, and he technically is, but his social/emotional underdevelopment compels him to ignore facts that contradict his worldview, no matter how insane it is. The fact that he is communicatively adept also helps him superficially appear more competent than he really is, which is exactly what makes him and people like him so dangerous.
People like this can “pass” as developmentally intact, at least temporarily, because they can successfully mimic the behaviors of intact people up to a point, but it’s all scripted language and learned behaviors meant to help them navigate a world mostly full of sane people. They are masking to gain access to the things they need to meet their wants and needs, but they lack the social/emotional development to understand the perspectives of others and assume anyone who doesn’t agree with them is automatically in the wrong. They are each the center of their own little personal universes, functioning at an egocentric level that is age-typical in young children, but handicapping at ages beyond early childhood. Other people are simply objects in orbit around them, like furniture and buildings, that are either useful to them in the moment or not, and every decision they make is entirely selfish.
It doesn’t even occur to people like this that other people have their own unique wants and needs that are often very different from their own, which is why they seek to create homogenous rather than diverse communities and target anyone who disagrees with them with abuse. From a social/emotional developmental standpoint, they are like toddlers who don’t want to share. They consider the conflicting needs of others to be an affront to themselves, and use their adult-level knowledge, communication skills, and access to resources to pursue their selfish desires without regard for how their behavior impacts anyone else, other than what they can get other people to do for them.
With that in mind, I want to point out something obvious: Legitimately oppressed people do not have the means to book private jets to go protest their alleged oppression. I say that because individuals of the Project 2025 ilk did exactly that on January 6, 2021. Nobody just wakes up one day that dumb. This is the consequence of failing to grow all the way up, from a social/emotional developmental standpoint.
What this tells us is that privileged childhoods pose great risks of impairing children’s social/emotional development and producing adults who view the world through the eyes of toddlers their entire lives, which is tragic. It’s tragic because they are victims of circumstances that turn them into well-financed perpetrators of harm against the rest of us, carrying out the well-financed social/emotional agendas of toddlers using adult-level cognition and communication skills that allow them to “pass” as intact long enough to cause serious harm to all of us, and entirely lacking in the will or ability to take responsibility for what they’ve done.
In every case that has not been resolved through responsible adult collaborations from my caseload over the years, it has always been because of these types of people who have managed to infiltrate public agency administrations who were/are at the heart of the conflicts. These are the administrators making $200K per year or more to deny children with disabilities the supports and services promised to them by law and funded by the taxpaying public. They will deny services and supports to eligible children because they don’t want to pay for them. They think it’s a waste of money to invest those taxpayer dollars into children with disabilities, while lining their own pockets at taxpayer expense, as though they’ve done a service to the public by refusing to fund appropriate supports and services for children with disabilities.
One of the earliest litigation cases around these issues, which set the stage for what would ultimately become the IDEA, was PARC v. Pennsylvania. In that 1971 case, the public schools in Pennsylvania wouldn’t even enroll students with disabilities, instead sending them home to languish without any kinds of services or education. This case laid the groundwork for what would become the IEP process by mandating the hiring of a psychologist and an attorney to develop a best-practices model for creating Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) for each student based on their individual unique learning needs. Getting the public schools to abide by any of this since then has been a challenge because of the anti-democratic individuals already employed within the public education system at and since that time.
In 1971, public education administration was dominated by white men who wanted to use their positions to build their own personal wealth and become landowners at taxpayer expense. Women were largely limited to the classroom and support administrative staff at school sites and local school district offices. The public education system was created during the Industrial Revolution following the passage of child labor laws intended to prevent children from being maimed and killed working in factories or otherwise running the streets unsupervised. Men ran the schools and harassed their female employees, resulting in teacher’s unions being created around the same issues as those confronted by factory workers who were also unionizing at the time.
Eventually, school district administrations became more visibly “Karen”-dominated than overtly male-dominated, but the “Karens” have always been acting according to the expectations of the men who control their lives, both at work and at home. They have always been willing to throw families under the school bus in exchange for the favor of the men who control how much disposable income and creature comforts they have in their lives. This is similar psychology as that found in women who help male rapists capture their victims, like Ghislaine Maxwell.
The political divide has been present since our public education system was first created, with the “haves” trying to use it as a mechanism to maintain their relative positions of power and oppress the “have nots.” These are the people who insist that our government needs to be run like a business, because businesses generate profits, not constituent outcomes, and they believe in sacrificing constituent outcomes to generate profit for themselves at taxpayer expense. None of these people could possibly make the same money in the private sector because they lack the competence to be successful at private sector-level grift and would be lucky to be trusted with the responsibility of handing out flyers at the front door of a Wal-Mart because they are so inherently self-serving and dishonest.
People who cannot conceptualize the humanity of others will always put their own personal interests and greed before the welfare of others, and see nothing wrong with turning a public service responsibility into a profiteering grift. Like I said before, none of this is new and it’s what I’ve been fighting against since 1991.
The rule of law is our shield and weapon for protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities in our publicly funded education programs and society at large. This is why parents have due process rights in the special education process and can file regulatory complaints with the state departments of education or the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). You can see an example of what we’ve been able to accomplish using OCR complaints by clicking here.
Readers and listeners may recall that, upon being appointed by the 45th President as Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos immediately shut down OCR, even though federal law mandates its existence. Two nationwide nonprofit advocacy organizations banded together to sue DeVos and the U.S. Department of Education for shutting down OCR, but it took approximately 18 months of litigation before the courts ordered DeVos to re-open OCR, at which point it had a mountain of back-due complaints to investigate. OCR has been backlogged ever since and the pandemic only made it a thousand times worse. Investigations that the law requires be done in 180 days generally take over 2 years to get finished.
Betsy DeVos already tried to hobble the U.S. Department of Education during the 45th presidential administration, and was temporarily successful until stopped by the the courts. She openly admitted during her term that her goal was to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and put an end to it. You will note that Project 2025 has that same objective. They’ve already tried to do this and they make no bones about their intent to permanently shut it down if the 45th President becomes the 47th President in November 2024.
Without the U.S. Department of Education, there is no IDEA, no OCR, and no due process. Section 504 would no longer apply to school-aged children because it only applies to federal agencies and entities that receive federal funding, like our public schools currently do. The ADA would theoretically still apply to students in private school programs and whatever kinds of indoctrination camps might be created in place of our public schools, but Project 2025 seeks to replace anyone employed within the public sector not sufficiently loyal to their chosen leader with individuals who put loyalty to their “dear leader” above the rule of law and the rights of others. It cannot be realistically expected that the Project 2025 people would lift a finger to help students with disabilities under such circumstances.
In short, the implementation of Project 2025 spells an immediate end for special education and all of the legal protections currently afforded under law to students with disabilities.
It’s already hard enough now to get a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) according to the applicable science and rule of law because these people have been obstructing the legitimate functions of their government agencies this whole time. If they are allowed to have things their way after November 2024, all of the parents of children with special needs who are reading or listening to what I’m saying right now are going to find themselves stuck at home with their special needs kids with no school, no special needs childcare, and, therefore, no way to hold down a job and take care of their families. It would only be a matter of time before a great many of our parents of special needs kids out there would lose their homes and end up on the street with their special needs kids, in a world in which the Supreme Court has now said homelessness can be regarded as illegal.
Right now, regardless of who the Democrats put on their presidential ticket next November, voting for a Blue bucket of mud would be better for children with disabilities, their families, and all the rest of us than voting for the Republican nominee. Voting for a president is not electing a king, it’s electing an entire administration of people who are supervised by a president. Any president is the chief executive of a whole cabinet of people, and those people are, quite frankly, more important than who sits at the head of the table. The current administration has done more for the American people and the world at large, regardless of its president’s age, because of all the other people working around him. Understand how our government is supposed to work and don’t get it twisted.
If the 45th President becomes the 47th President, Project 2025 tells you the exact kinds of people he’ll have sitting on his cabinet and staffing our government agencies from top to bottom, many of whom are already on the inside just waiting for this moment, and they will all defer to him as their dictatorial leader as they implement their fascist fever dreams as fast as they can. When you’re voting for a president, it’s more about the team that person will bring into the office and less about the individual sitting at the head of the table than I think most people realize. What team do you want making decisions about what happens to your child with special needs and your family? If you are eligible to do so, please vote in November 2024.
For the benefit of the majority of Americans who are capable of understanding what I’m about to say, I appreciate the opportunity to share some insights with you that might help you better frame how you think about current events and other people’s behaviors. For those of you who struggle to understand what I’m about to say, just know that the point is to find a way for you to still be included in the public discourse with as much understanding as can be achieved. We want everyone making thoughtful, informed decisions and not just reacting emotionally to things they don’t understand, which requires patience and understanding on everyone’s part.
Recent events have inspired this post/podcast, and they arose around other online content I’d already published and then promoted through Facebook Ads, which was probably just asking for it. Facebook has become a toxic environment in which conspiracy theories abound as they are passed around among our least informed and/or least emotionally stable members of society and boosted by Facebook’s algorithms.
Even though our content was supposed to be targeted to pro-democracy users, enough people on Facebook are apparently hate-searching the same hashtags as those used by pro-democracy activists and then posting hateful messages full of misinformation, which likely feeds the algorithm information about their user habits that increases their ability to engage with pro-democracy content without regard for how they are actually interacting. The algorithm is looking at the frequency and duration of a user’s involvement with content, not the qualitative nature of what that involvement looks like.
Hateful comments are just comments to the algorithm. Clicks are just clicks, regardless of the beliefs or intentions of the users doing the clicking. These algorithms are configured to increase the exposure of frequently clicked- and commented-on content based on its popularity with users, regardless of why it’s becoming popular.
This is how social media has been weaponized by bad actors to feed lies and misinformation to unsophisticated users who have no idea that their behaviors are being reinforced for all the wrong reasons, which effectively manipulates them into behaving in hateful ways with increasing intensity over time. My working theory about what reinforces trolling behaviors is that it’s automatically reinforcing because there is an internal adrenaline rush that users get when their posts and comments gain popularity and get shared, which gives them emotional validation. It’s a protest behavior that gets reinforced and maintained by attention from others.
It is only people who are starved for emotionally validating attention from others who seek it out online and fall into the deep well of online trolling behaviors to get it. If that’s the only source of validation and feeling “successful” in their lives, they’re going to do it. The solution is to give them a more appropriate functionally equivalent replacement behavior that still allows them to express their wants and needs such that they are validated with attention, but more importantly, that are met with more powerful reinforcers than the ones they receive by trolling. We’ve got to give them something more rewarding than what they get from spewing hatred while still giving a voice to their wants and needs, as well as access to appropriate solutions.
These are not our brightest problem-solvers. These are the people with arrested emotional development and limited coping skills who resort to name-calling and hostile behavior because that’s the best they’ve got. They feel trapped in a life they can’t handle where their wants and needs go unmet and they don’t know how to appropriately advocate for themselves. Emotionally speaking, they are simply very old children.
Thankfully, only a handful of trolls found our online content. All of them were adult males, mostly middle-aged or older and white, based on their Facebook profiles. All of them were triggered by a single word in the title of the program being promoted, which is our Social Justice group on Meetup, in which I conduct live events and share content with group members who are interested in learning how to participate in the advocacy processes of publicly funded programs to enforce their rights as program beneficiaries or the rights of other eligible beneficiaries who need help advocating for themselves.
In our Meetup group, I take my experiences working in special education, regional center, rehabilitation, and other publicly-funded programs for people with disabilities and generalize them to the same processes and procedures that exist within other publicly-funded programs that exist to benefit citizens with other other types of need than disability. Many of these other programs address social welfare issues, like housing, food, and healthcare.
Americans pay into these programs so that they are there for them if and when they need them. If we’re going to pay taxes to pool our resources as the Public to achieve economies of scale and efficiencies that we otherwise wouldn’t have on our own as individuals, then those resources and economies of scale better provide for us when we need them.
There is nothing un-American about expecting the American government to work and being worried and angry when it doesn’t. What is un-American is failing to abide by the rules already in place and making excuses instead of improvements as a public servant or a voter. If the existing rules create more problems than they solve, then responsible leaders in local publicly funded agencies raise these issues with their legislators and don’t stop making noise until the problems get fixed. They don’t go, “Oh, well. That’s just the way it is in the ‘real world,'” and fail to solve the problems.
I’ve made this point before and I’ll make it again, here, that Project 2025, which articulates the literal plan for a white “Christian” nationalist take-over of all the bureaucratic mechanisms of government, is nothing new. It’s what I’ve been up against since I first started working as a lay advocate in 1991. It’s what I was up against when I participated in the most litigation of my career in the mid-2000s through 2012 as a paralegal, supporting attorneys in special education mediations and due process hearings, as well as court trials in venues ranging from state superior courts to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. It’s why I went back and got my master’s degree in educational psychology in 2013; I knew I needed to come at these issues from a more informed, expert position to be more effective.
The anti-everything-not-like-themselves by some of the least competent members of society who, through privilege and cronyism, have managed to acquire power, is nothing new to me. There is nothing more reckless than giving someone with low intelligence and emotional instability access to a whole lot of money. I’d have to go through the whole origin story of the public education system and how other public programs were modeled after its administrative design to explain how we got here, and that’s enough information to create an entire college course titled, “The History of American Public Education.”
Let me just cut to the chase and say it’s been a political shit-show from the beginning and that all of the laws that prohibit discrimination in the public sector are there because these knuckle heads have been in there undermining and sabotaging the system from within all along. They have been doing this so that they and their like-minded collaborators can point to the failures of the system they caused as “proof” that this system of government is a failure and should be replaced with something different, like giving them total control with no accountability.
These are the people who want to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and make it so that only wealthy elites can afford to educate their children, while depriving the general public of access to information and learning that will allow them to participate with understanding in our representative democratic government. There is a reason that the pre-Civil War slave owners didn’t want their slaves to learn how to read; a literate, intelligent, and informed group of slaves was capable of planning and executing an escape or even an overthrow of their masters.
By depriving the American public of a sound, responsible public education system these hostile elites would hoard all the knowledge and only use that of it which would give them an even greater unfair advantage over everyone else, while ignoring anything that potentially highlighted any errors in their thinking. This would prevent the public from knowing how to take back its own power, live freely, and thrive for its own benefit rather than only for the benefit of the elites, while elites choosing to only acknowledge the facts that suit their purposes run everything into the ground by failing to abide by reality.
It is the least educated and/or least emotionally stable among us who become the most useful idiot minions of the anti-American elements in this country, which are fueled by money from self-serving domestic billionaires and foreign enemies, and facilitated by domestic and foreign influencers using online propaganda to exploit social media algorithms, radicalize these people, and turn them loose on the rest of us like ticking timebombs. Our current-day lone shooters are our domestic version of the suicide bombers of the 9/11 era.
Statistically speaking, a certain percentage of the human population has disordered thought to such a marked degree that their participation with social media brings on the worst manifestations of their symptoms possible. In the special education arena, I’ve got one student on my caseload who is so screen-addicted that she engages in property destruction with full-on screaming rages at home if she’s expected to put down her device and go do something with her mother in the real world. I’ve got another student who impulsively, without fail, will immediately gravitate to any social media app that has a chat feature and start trolling strangers because she thinks she’s being funny and she’s cracking herself up, but then they come back at her with equal venom and she has a mental health crisis that can escalate to actual self-harm or attempted suicide.
These are real issues that I’m dealing with right now in the real world, and these two students are hardly the only ones. These are just the only two cases on my caseload right now with these issues, but this has become an ever-increasing issue for a lot of students who I’ve represented over the last 15 years as internet use has become more ubiquitous throughout public education. For the student with the chat app issues, the school district hired a cyber security expert to figure out how to block any of the kinds of content that she might misuse on her district-issued devices, while still giving her access to the online content necessary for her classes and without a human being having to actively monitor her device usage throughout each school day.
All of that is great for understanding the nature of the behaviors and the challenges faced by those who engage in them, but what does one do about it? For me, that’s still a work in progress, but I can tell you how I’ve handled it so far and whether I think it’s working or not. It’s early days with me and the fascist trolls, and there have only been a handful, but I’m already seeing trends in the data emerging, not the least of which is the older white male observation I mentioned previously.
I’m totally using Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) to inform my responses to the trolls, as well as legal strategies I’ve learned from lawyers and judges over the years that can be generalized to other situations and contexts that align with the principles of ABA. One of those strategies is what I like to call “Jedi Mind-Trick Jujitsu,” in which I take control of the narrative by using their own language to defeat their own points, then redirect everyone’s attention to what my originally posted content is actually about and encourage people to join our group and participate in our live events.
In Jujitsu, there is a move whereby the enemy throws a punch, but you lean to one side, grab their arm at the wrist just below their fist, and pull them forward and down to the ground, using the inertia of their own punch and their own momentum against them while side-stepping the punch altogether. In “Jedi Mind-Trick Jujitsu,” with these trolls, I’m taking the energy of the insult or slur, mocking the ridiculousness of it as politely as possible by pointing out the truth in a friendly manner, providing immediate forgiveness to the offending party, following it with an analysis of why this person is engaging in this behavior and why everyone else should feel bad for the offending party rather than revengeful, and promising to pray for the offending party’s poor tortured soul or otherwise blessing their heart.
None of the trolls have replied back and no new hate posts have come in since I replied to the last one, though that could change. I’ve posted my replies to each troll’s posts almost immediately after they were made. None of my replies took their bait. They were looking to pick a fight with people who are just as emotionally dysfunctional as they are, and they’re not going to find that here. Engage in maladaptive behavior like that in front of us, much less in writing with a hot link to your profile, and we’re going to offer personalized forgiveness and explain why, then redirect readers back to the original point of our posted content.
We work with mental and emotional health issues and challenging behaviors every day. Trolls aren’t scary to us; they’re pitiful. They are victims of our country’s mental health crisis. They warrant our pity because they are so terribly troubled and broken and they deserve our effort because we need to keep them from becoming unsafe to themselves or others.
Trolls are mean to strangers online because that’s the best they’ve got. That’s a tragic way to live, and it’s not hard to see how people from this segment of society are easily radicalized into acts of violence over things that make no sense, particularly when the information they receive is manipulated to limit their understanding and provoke their anger through their strongest connection to the world: the internet.
The other data point that emerged from how the trolls responded to our posted content about our Social Justice group on Meetup, was, as I stated above, a single word. That word was “Social.” The tiniest minds think that this automatically means “socialism,” which they then equate with “communism,” the definitions of neither being known to them, which explains why one of them referred to me as “comrade” in his disparagement of our post.
Here’s the thing: The point of the post was to promote our pro-democracy group and teach people how to participate in the mechanisms of democracy at the local level, all in the pursuit of a just society in conformity with the Constitution of the United States. None of them actually read about what we were doing. They saw the word “Social” in the title and were immediately triggered. The irony was totally lost on them that they were using “social” media to spew their moronic hatred towards our use of the word “social” in the title of our online events.
For people who think anything that uses the word “social” automatically means “socialism,” and you oppose socialism, then you need to get off of “social” media! And, God forbid you attend the Sunday Ice Cream “Social” at church after service, or the commies will start kicking in the front door of your house before you even get home. It’s a freakin’ word with multiple uses, depending on context. The title of our group is also a play on words with a “social” justice education initiative being carried out using “social” media and online meetings to interact in a “social” way to talk about how to uphold democracy at the local level. Tinier, fragile minds didn’t get the pun or the point.
Those of us who are not so badly compromised as that have a responsibility to take care of those of us who are, not ignore or exploit them. We are our brothers’ keepers and it takes a village. Humans are social animals by nature, so we need to figure out better ways to socialize with each other than what we’ve got going on right now. We have plenty of existing psychological, sociological, anthropological, and historical information to make wise, informed decisions as a populous, but that information is not equally available to everyone and educational equity is necessary for the survival of our species.
We can’t figure out how to work together if we’re too busy being pitted against each other by those in leadership for their own selfish purposes. Looking out for each other and collaborating for the mutual benefit of everyone is consistent with the teachings of every great religious leader the world has ever remembered, and none of them preached hatred or violence. These same values are also consistent with the rules of our democracy.
One piece of advice that I can give to sane, rational people dealing with trolls is to not look at what they post as an overture to start an actual conversation and engage in any kind of legitimate debate. Don’t take their bait; they’re just looking for someone to disagree with them and call them names back. That’s their idea of two-way conversation and social engagement, but it’s all one-sided and they’re too impaired to see it for what it really is. They approximate and mimic conversational behavior, but they can’t actually hold a real conversation, at least not while they are triggered and escalated. The adrenaline rush of a heated exchange is often as close to getting emotionally engaged with other people as they can get.
Troll posting is a ritualized behavior that includes scripted speech, which is not the same thing as a two-way conversation. Two-way conversations require both parties to listen with comprehension and think about how what each person says relates to what the other person says, and negotiate in some kind of way to reach a mutually agreed-to conclusion about whatever is being discussed. Troll posts are nothing like that. Troll posts are one-sided cries for help from mentally and emotionally anguishing people.
What has made all the difference for me when I encounter these kinds of behaviors in any social context is to recognize that this isn’t a conversation, it’s a ritualized behavior that includes words, at which point I can’t take whatever is being said seriously because it’s only function is to get an emotional rise out of me and engage me in a dispute. I’m only interested in a real conversation. I have no reason to reinforce that behavior by giving the person what they were looking for and engaging in a heated dispute with them.
That would give them my sustained attention in the form of an attempt to convince them they are wrong, which they would never do, which would make them feel powerful and leave me drained and exhausted with time I’ll never get back wasted on the whole endeavor. If I took the bait and wasted time I can’t spare to argue with a troll, then I’d be kicking myself afterwards for letting myself go there, and the troll is still living rent-free in my head. Hell, no!
By understanding that the function of the behavior is automatic reinforcement by way of making the troll feel powerful when they bully someone into submission, you can redirect them to a more functionally appropriate way to feel powerful without acting like an asshole. If I took the bait, it would be an open invitation for them to visit their wrath upon me, so I’m not taking the bait. However, I will take the opportunity to reclaim the narrative and redirect other people’s attention back to what actually matters. I can turn a troll post into a marketing opportunity for my event by using their drama to get other reader’s eyes on the back and forth, and further pique their curiosity about our live online Meetup events.
One of the motivating ideas behind trolling behavior is to come on strong so as to presumably present as a strong person. But, truly strong people don’t actually act like that. Truly strong people don’t give a shit whether people are impressed by them or not; it takes too much energy to care and there are far too many other more important things to worry about in life than that. Truly strong people just take care of their business and don’t have a need to come on strong when they disagree with other people.
These trolls are weak people acting how they think strong people act, as seen through their eyes as people who are regularly ignored or exploited by others who are stronger than them. They can’t actually conceptualize what stronger people must be thinking or feeling; they can only observe the outward presentations made by stronger people and attempt to emulate what they think they are seeing.
People who are lacking in competencies have historically found themselves on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing more than once in their lives for making mistakes that a more competent person would never make. From their perspective, it may seem that yelling at people and accusing them of being deficient is what being in charge is all about. Therefore, according to their logic, if they go around yelling at people and accusing them of doing bad things, they should be put in charge.
This strategy sometimes actually works for them in the short-term, but their actual lack of skills dooms them to ultimate failure. They can’t actually handle the responsibilities that come with the power they manage to acquire and their efforts to fake it until they make it blow up in their faces because they are literally faking it and have no idea what they are doing. Dressing for success is pointless if you don’t have actual job skills.
A good public-facing example of this is Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is being investigated for financial improprieties with public funds and who, with each new investigation or investigative finding being reported in the media, passes new statewide executive orders that violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by banning the use of certain “woke” terms like “Latinx” or “pregnant people” in State documents. She’s apparently getting all the “mam-maws” and “pap-paws” riled up over nothing so they don’t notice her robbing them blind.
It has been alleged that some of the taxpayers’ money in Arkansas was used to send Governor Huckabee Sanders to Paris, France with her girlfriends to party and charged off to the State as a credit card purchase in an amount just shy of the $20K reporting limit on State employee credit card purchases as an allegedly fraudulent purchase of a customized speaker’s lectern that has yet to make a public appearance or ever be used to anyone’s knowledge. This alleged “Lectern-gate” matter is still being investigated, given that over $19K was spent by the Governor on a lectern with no actual lectern to show for it, the Governor allegedly bought it from a company owned by one of her girlfriends who went with her on the Paris trip, and said friend’s business does not sell lecterns as part of its normal course of business.
The abuses of authority alongside Arkansas’ long-standing low performance statistics as a state, such as with poverty, healthcare, crime, and education, reveal an entirely dysfunctional state government that is dependent upon other, better managed states that produce more tax revenues than they need to supplement Arkansas’ own tax revenues in order for Arkansas to function in any capacity at all. By contrast, for example, California has the 5th largest economy in the world and could function as a self-funded nation-state, if it had to. If Arkansas were cut off from the tax revenue it gets from states like California, there wouldn’t be enough money in the till for the Governor to steal.
Broken people may briefly attain power, but they usually don’t have the skills to hold onto it for very long. It takes a fleet of broken people working together from positions of power to do serious harm over extended periods. We generally regard these kinds of folks as being part of a conspiracy when they collaborate with each other to achieve dysfunctional ends on a large scale. But, as with “Lectern-gate,” these folks really aren’t all that good at covering their tracks and tend to leave a wake of destruction that serves as a mile-wide evidence trail. We’re seeing it happen right now with all kinds of folks from what’s left of the Republican Party, a great many of them being attorneys.
They’re banking on the rest of us being too exhausted to deal with their bullshit and just letting them go do whatever so we can stop and rest for a minute. Those are the moments they seize to do real harm. They wear us down to create exactly those kinds of exploitable moments. It’s like an emotionally abusive partner who always picks a fight right before bedtime that goes on for hours into the night, night after night, leaving the other person too exhausted from sleep deprivation to make rational decisions. A sleep-deprived person is inclined to cave in on everything just to keep the peace and impaired beyond thinking clearly about getting out of the relationship. This is also how unethical employers trap people in high-stress, physically demanding, low-paying jobs for decades on end.
Abusive people tend to do poorly in unstructured situations. The more the environment is configured to discourage abusive behavior by imposing structure, the easier it is to keep people busy doing things that are productive and healthy. One doesn’t have the time or motivation to go rob a bank if one is happily employed and well paid, for example. Not everyone handles unstructured time well and, when given too much freedom and left to their own devices, some people use their employer’s credit cards to go party in foreign cities with their friends.
The bottom-line take-away from this post/podcast is that everyone deserves to live in a just society that treats them fairly, no matter who they are, and not everybody is healthy enough to appreciate what that means. We can’t take it personally when someone else doesn’t have the ability to get it, and we serve ourselves by looking out for that person and helping them meet their needs instead of shunning them and cutting them off. We need to take a serious look at the wants and needs of the people who pose the biggest threats to our democracy and then figure out the most appropriate ways to see their needs met so that they aren’t feeling “othered,” ostracized, and vindictive towards the rest of us.
Trolls’ behaviors seek attention for a reason and we’ve got to give them more appropriate ways of calling attention to their wants and needs without causing harm. I suggest we start by responding to the hateful comments left by trolls in the most loving ways possible, without being afraid to poke fun at how silly they are making themselves look with their hateful comments. React the same way you would to a 4-year-old who didn’t get what they wanted for lunch, and now they’re packing a bag in their bedroom while crying and threatening to run away.
Acknowledge their suffering because they’re upset, but be willing to chuckle at how silly it is to be running away from home over cucumber slices. You’re laughing at the behavior, not the underlying reason why it happened. It’s okay to hate the behavior, but try not to hate the person. You need to mentally separate the person from the behavior because they are two different things. They’re totally related to each other, but they aren’t one in the same. If trolls were better equipped to deal with life, their behavior wouldn’t be so bad. Nobody is awful on purpose just to inconvenience you. No matter how much Hell they visit upon you, it’s infinitely worse for them living in their skin. You can get away from them, but they are stuck with themselves forever.
Trolls only come on strongly because they are lacking the amount of strength they are attempting to project; it’s a lie and they are actually cowards. Standing up to them with logic and facts generally shuts them down. Your alternatives are either ignoring their comments and leaving them to poison your posts, or getting baited into a heated, emotional exchange intended to exhaust you and wear you down. Shutting them down quickly with logic and facts appears to achieve a respectable degree of damage control and refocuses other people on the actual messages that you’re trying to convey.
That isn’t to say that an entirely deranged hothead won’t resort to stalking someone who dares to shut them down online, but these kind of people aren’t the majority of the people spewing hatred online and even the stalkers usually leave an evidence trail a mile wide. Most of the online haters are cowards who will never show themselves offline to the same degree they expose themselves online. Name-calling and profanities are the best they’ve got.
I’ll save my name-calling and profanities for my private conversations with clients and colleagues, as well as occasional comedic bits in my online content, about the characters in public office we encounter who are obstructing the legitimate functions of our democratic government every day. We all need to vent and there is a time and a place for everything, including venting.
What you will never see us do is go out on the internet and post hateful comments on other people’s content. We may disagree and provide our reasons for disagreeing if we come across something that jumps out at us, and we may point out the potential adverse consequences of acting according to another party’s online advice if we think that advice is bad, but that’s not the same thing as name-calling and hate speech. There’s polite, informed dissent and there’s raving like a lunatic.
I hope this has helped you organize your own thoughts around how to work with people who don’t quite get it with a little more compassion, which has greater chances of helping you achieve healthy outcomes for everyone involved than ignoring them or attempting to argue with them about the flaws in their logic. Proactively, going forward, I encourage you to frame things with “I-statements” when presenting an opposing point of view, such as, “I hear what you’re saying, but I’ve always understood it to be the case that XYZ, and what you’re telling me doesn’t really explain that. Why do you think that is? What am I not understanding?”
When you put a single unaccounted-for variable in front of them and ask them to account for it, whatever faulty logic they were trying to assert falls apart and they realize they’ve left something out of the equation. When you see that they’ve realized they don’t know how to resolve what you’ve pointed out, that’s your chance to continue with your logical explanation for XYZ with language like, “Aw man! So, what I’ve been thinking this whole time is that, because ABC and 123, XYZ happens. Does that make sense? Am I missing something? I thought I had it figured out, but maybe I’m wrong. Am I wrong?”
At that point, you take ownership of the doubt they are unwilling to let themselves feel about their own perceptions of things, and the troubled troll starts to put things together logically in their own mind based on the simple explanation you’ve given in an effort to remain the voice of authority by giving you an answer. This allows them to arrive at the correct conclusion on their own by thinking it through without being told they are wrong and getting emotionally triggered.
If you impose structure on the thought process by identifying only the variables that matter and leaving out the extraneous fluff in an emotionally neutral way that shifts the element of doubt onto you, then ask for their opinion of what you’ve just said, you’re just asking for feedback on what you understand to be the case and correction where you’re wrong. There’s no reason for them to feel threatened by that and a lot of times it actually buys trust because then they’re able to say, “Well, when you put it that way, you’ve got a point,” or “I hadn’t thought about that, but now that you mention it …” and a rational conversation is more likely to happen.
One of the trolls who posted on my content asserted that it isn’t justice if it’s prefaced by an adjective like “social,” there’s only justice. That made absolutely no sense, but I was willing to entertain the idea, so I replied with, “Fascinating perspective! What evidence supports that argument?” and never heard back. That’s not a hostile response, but I’m also pretty sure there’s no actual evidence to support that argument. I’m willing to be wrong on that, but I guess only time will tell if he’s going to come back and educate me with some real evidence that proves me wrong.
In the meantime, I hope you are able to cope with trolls better after reading this, whether they show up in your life online or in person. All of this can be generalized to dealing with nasty people everywhere, but for our families who rely on us for advice about special education and disability resources, generalize it to every nasty person who stood in your way when you tried to get appropriate services and supports for your loved-one with special needs.
Ronald Reagan is given credit for saying, “Trust, but verify,” when it came to dealing with other heads of state and government officials. I think using that approach whenever anyone attempts to convince you of something. particularly if they are emotionally passionate about it, is always a best-practices way of dealing with them.
Ask for evidence in support of arguments that seem unlikely. Ask for their advice as to how to weigh contradictory information against what they’ve just told you. Don’t accuse them of anything or call them names. Treat your exchanges like dignified conversations, set the behavioral example, ask pointed questions about their assertions, and sincerely express interest in understanding their point of view. They do have a communicative intent to express an unmet want or need, but it can be difficult getting to the actual underlying message through all the behavioral chaos and word salad.
One of the parents I used to represent called the scripted speech from her daughter’s emotional outbursts “throw-up words” because they were just verbal barf that came with all the other out-of-control behaviors, not a real conversation. In the moment, she didn’t know what the Hell she was saying, and she usually felt terrible about it afterwards. The moment you can discern “throw-up words” from real conversation and stop caring about what is being said and then focus on why it’s being said, that is the moment you regain control of the conversation. The words are the symptoms and you need to treat the underlying disease, metaphorically speaking.
Express caring for their welfare and forgiveness for their crude behaviors. Forgiveness means they aren’t living rent-free in your head once you’re done responding to them; it’s for your benefit, not theirs. Let them stew in their own juices if that’s what they really want to do, but that shouldn’t affect the quality of your life.
Sometimes, all you can do is say, “Bless your heart, you poor tragic creature,” and move on to your own bliss without carrying the dead weight of their opinions or the living with the consequences of their behaviors. There’s no reason to feel bad about that. Love is doing what’s in the best interests of everyone involved, including yourself. And, so, on that note, thank you for hearing me out and, until next time, peace be with you.
I watch the news and read up on a lot of court cases and pending legislation these days because all of it is related in some way with the work I do in special education as an advocate, paralegal, consultant, and direct services provider. Congressional spending, public policy changes, new litigation, and all kinds of other world events have direct bearing on special education and the individuals I assist and protect. Similarly, how the powers that be respond to the legally protected needs of the individuals I serve speaks volumes to the state of our democracy at the local level and the degree to which State and federal oversight is effective or not.
The concept of locus of control is not widely known or understood, but it should be. It’s a fairly simple developmental concept to understand for adult-level problem-solvers. It’s one of those things that, if the majority of intact adults understood it, it would contribute to what could effectively be psychological herd immunity against the fringe ass-hattery that is taking up way too much political and cultural space right now in our modern day societies, and help us restore and repair things to a more equitable equilibrium.
Locus of control describes a person’s understanding of the degree to which they have agency over their own lives. A person with mostly an external locus of control believes that life is something that happens to them and some other external force beyond their control is responsible. Having an external locus of control is normal for babies, but dangerous for adults. Conversely, a person with mostly an internal locus of control will assume responsibility for everything that happens around them, engaging in controlling behaviors as well as delusional thought, often to a narcissistic degree.
Living at either extreme of the locus of control spectrum is unhealthy. At one extreme is the willing victim and the other is the predator. As with most of these kinds of things in psychology, what is considered “normal” when it comes to locus of control can be expressed through statistics using normal distributions. Here, “normal” means the majority of people who fall along the locus of control spectrum between the two far extremes, with some mix of both internal and external loci of control depending on the unique circumstances relative to the individual developmental maturity of each person.
I don’t want to focus on the statistical outliers on that spectrum here. I want to focus on the majority of us who fall along the locus of control spectrum between those two extremes and how the relative ratio of internal versus external plays out in each of us such that it affects our behavior and how we raise our children to become intelligent, empathetic, responsible independent thinkers or not.
In order for us to apply the science successfully to the classroom and beyond, we have to first apply it to ourselves. We need to understand our own perceptions of locus of control before we can start thinking about other people’s individual perceptions of it and how that affects their behaviors and relationships.
A healthy concept of locus of control is somewhere in the middle between fully external and fully internal. The reality is that some parts of life are beyond our immediate control and other parts of life are entirely within our control. Rather than applying the concept of the locus of control spectrum to the person as a uniform monolith, one’s standing is better understood by applying this spectrum to a specific situation and asking, “How much of this immediate situation is actually within my control?”, and “How many things are actually within my control that can change this situation for the better?”
There is a commonly used prayer among Christians called the Serenity Prayer, which goes: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” This is the essence of the locus of control self-assessment in day-to-day life. I can think of no better tradition that captures how reality works with such scientific simplicity than this. Science doesn’t compete with religion, it measures the truth of Creation. When used responsibly, it reveals miracles that can teach us a great deal.
Sometimes the miracles are more magnificent than previously realized and only known once more data comes in, such as when Galileo asserted that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than vice versa, which contradicted the teachings of the Church at the time. Unfortunately for him, he was found guilty of heresy and had to choose between 1) pleading innocent totally knowing that he would be found guilty and would have to spend the rest of his life in prison, or 2) taking a plea deal and spending the rest of his life on house arrest, even though he was totally right. The miracle is actually greater than what the Church was teaching, but it was afraid of losing the trust of its followers if it admitted that it had been wrong about the Earth being the center of Creation with everything in the Heavens revolving around it, so Galileo died a convicted criminal for asserting the truth of God’s actual Creation.
We’re seeing the same kind of thinking right now when it comes to climate change. The miracle is bigger and more magnificent than previously realized. Sadly, our abuse of the knowledge we’ve gathered as a species thus far has been to the detriment of the environment all around us. The harm we’ve done is now proving to us how things are supposed to work and what we’ve misunderstood in the past. The Creator speaks to us through our errors and lets us know when we’re failing to abide by the terms of Creation. We have invited harm upon ourselves through our own behaviors and now we have to change our behaviors to save ourselves. This goes directly to every person’s unique concept of their own respective individual locus of control.
There are now corporations whose very existence depend on us believing we need them. They don’t want to lose our dollars, so they can’t afford for us to lose faith in their businesses and they’re attempting to conceal the fact that what they are doing contradicts the larger miracles that have been revealed by science. I’m thinking of processed foods, farming-related dust bowls, and fossil fuels, here, and the amount of money spent on marketing and lobbying by these industries to influence how they are perceived by the public versus what they are actually doing.
These industries abuse the science to manipulate the masses with specific messages targeted to specific audiences, using algorithms to spread their messages online, and relying on normal human word-of-mouth discourse to take it from there. These are the same tactics used by political propogandists, and there can be a blurry line between corporate marketers and political propogandists. An informed public recognizes the attempts at manipulation for what they are and rejects them outright; an uniformed public becomes more easily radicalized and brand-loyal.
All of that goes to how locus of control operates on the larger scale. Understanding that, the next question here is, “How can that knowledge be applied in the classroom?” My response is that it depends on the ages and developmental levels of the students involved.
If you’re talking about young children or older students with developmental delays, these concepts need to be explicitly taught and the students need to be given clear, succinct, easy-to-understand descriptions of what they have the power to do for themselves and what requires the authority of others. Visuals, including classroom artwork and graphics, should be placed where students can see them during the school day to reinforce the messaging from the explicit instruction.
Honestly, if School House Rock were to make a new video teaching kids about locus of control, that would be amazing. Until then, it’s up to parents and teachers to learn about it and incorporate it into their parenting and classroom management practices, respectively.
With our older kids, my go-to is always Project-Based Learning (PBL). If the project is to assemble an Ikea cabinet using the instructions as a small group of three or four students, then it’s a great way to teach locus of control concepts. The students can’t change the physical features of the cabinet being built, the parts that come with it, or the instructions provided. That’s beyond their control. What they can control is their own behavior in response to these uncontrollable facts. How they go about putting together the cabinet is a choice. What they are putting together is not. This is a balance of external and internal locus of control to fit the situation.
It doesn’t have to be Ikea furniture. It could be anything. In our sister program, the Learn & Grow Educational Series, I’ve embedded this locus of control instruction into PBL lesson plans that require students to create self-watering gardening containers from 5-gallon buckets and use them to grow food. Anything that is project-based will come with fixed parameters that go to an external locus of control, and students will have to make choices and act upon them, which goes to internal locus of control, to achieve the intended outcome. For most people, having at least a little bit of external imposed structure helps them organize their thoughts and get things done.
Products that provide at least part of the solution by their very nature will impose some structure on the situation that limits the number of choices a person has to make to get the job finished. For example, simply having shopping carts available by the front door of the supermarket immediately solves a problem for shoppers that makes gathering what they need to buy without a huge hassle more accessible to them than if they had to figure out how to carry around their stuff while shopping on their own.
This can be equally applied in the classroom. A teacher can use a desktop office tray for papers and folders, perhaps several stacked upon each other. Each tray could serve a specific purposes, such as one for turning in completed work, one turning in notes from home and permission slips, and one for suggestions for making the classroom better, for example. The system could be designed to support the teacher’s classroom management strategy and impose some external structure on students’ classroom behaviors.
Simple organizational strategies that set the stage are often enough externally imposed features for our typically developing learners to develop effective and efficient learning practices, particularly if these practices are modeled by the teacher in the beginning and by other students once they adopt these practices as the school year progresses and these strategies are being regularly used. These strategies eventually become part of the routine because they work, freeing up mental energy that can then be invested in troubleshooting more complex concerns.
Routines are convenient because they relieve us from having to think too hard about what we need to do in the moment, which allows us to then think ahead about what else we can take on now. When we have a lot of actual thinking to do about other things, reducing the things we always have to do in the moment to simple, thoughtless routines is an efficient use of time. Routines that can be memorized using music can become some of the most relied upon routines in a person’s life, because music seems to amplify the strength of the routine -for most people when they are paired together. This has implications for day-to-day life, as well as classroom practices. It’s just a good strategy for life for most people, though everyone processes information differently and not all strategies will work for all people.
It appears that, generally speaking, it is normal for humans to strive for some kind of equilibrium that strikes a balance between external and internal locus of control. In general, we want enough external controls to limit the number of choices we have to make in a given situation, but not so many limits that the only options for us to choose from are bad ones. Too many choices and we can’t decide what to do. With somewhat limited choices, even if its the lesser of all evils, at least you can make the best of what you’re given to work with. With extremely limited choices, it really doesn’t matter what you decide because you’re screwed no matter what.
Creating a safe and nurturing classroom that fosters functional independence among its students requires the same kind of thought and planning as does creating a safe and nurturing society that encourages individual freedoms. An understanding of locus of control can go a long way towards improving both, and I’m encouraging you to invest the time to learn more about it, contemplate your own perceptions regarding your own locus of control, and consider how other people’s choices are influenced by their own perceptions of locus of control. It gives you a new dimension by which to consider other people’s behaviors, but it only makes sense once you’ve learned to understand it about yourself.
From there, you can begin to think about what someone else’s concept of locus of control might be. You must have a relatively healthy self-concept of your own locus of control in order to be able to conceptualize and empathize with someone else’s. You basically have to walk a thousand miles in your own moccasins before you’re able to walk a mile in someone else’s with understanding.
All of this goes, then, into a larger analysis of the function of a person’s behavior, which requires a behavior analytic approach. When you’re trying to figure out where another person is coming from, whether as a parent trying to understand your child or as an IEP team member trying to understand another member of the team, having a fairly accurate understanding of that person’s sense of locus of control about whatever is being discussed goes a long way towards understanding whether that person is going to seek solutions or make excuses for a problem you need solved.
In applied behavioral analysis, the function of the behavior is ascertained by determining what antecedents triggered the behavior and what consequences rewarded its use. Ecological factors are examined to further determine if anything specific in the environment, such as a specific noise or person, and/or any other specific circumstantial factors, such as time of day or disruption in routine, increased the likelihood of the behavior occurring in the presence of the antecedent. These exacerbating factors are referred to as “setting events” or “motivating operations.” Many professionals use the term “M.O.s” to refer to these exacerbating factors.
Some antecedents arise from internal body and/or mental states experienced by the individual that no one else can observe, which are referred to as “private events.” In other instances, the antecedent may be an externally observable factor, but there are private event M.O.s involved. Locus of control is an internal, private event, that often influences how a person responds to antecedents in their immediate environments, and it can often be deduced by observing the person’s behaviors. How someone reacts to external stimuli can reveal a great deal about how much control that person believes they have in a given situation.
Whether you’re talking about working with learners or participating in important meetings, understanding where another person is coming from in that regard can be an eye-opening experience that better informs how you need to respond to their efforts to work with or against you. It also tells you just how much of the situation is within your control and how much of it isn’t, so you can choose your actions wisely. It helps you discern that which you can control from that which you can’t so that you can exercise the courage necessary to achieve what is actually realistically within your reach, making as much positive progress as you are able and creating opportunities to create even greater improvements later on in time.
As much as I hope you are able to use this information to create and implement good IEPs, I equally hope you can incorporate it into your understanding of yourself and others and you progress along your own journey of self-discovery and growth as a person. The more we understand each other, the easier it becomes to relate with each other and work more collaboratively than competitively. I believe it is the responsibility of those of us who study these sciences to explain what we know about healthy human development so as to help humanity develop in healthy ways as time goes on. We need to be getting better as these kinds of things over time, and that can’t be achieved by withholding the professional knowledge from the general public.
I’m happy to democratize that knowledge to the degree that I am able, and I encourage you to do your own additional research into the science around locus of control and related psychological concepts. I hope this helps you develop a healthier understanding of yourself and others, and contributes towards your successful efforts to make the world a better place. I think this is critical knowledge for any and all parents participating in the IEP or 504 process for their children in the public schools. It’s relevant to understanding your child’s individual needs, as well as where everyone else on the team with you is coming from and how to respond to them in ways that are most likely to protect your child.
From an advocacy standpoint, it is important as a parent in one of these meetings to know if you’re being shut down by a bureaucrat agency loyalist enforcing an internal policy that violates the law because they believe they lack the authority to buck the unlawful policy, and are thus acting according to an external locus of control. Someone like this is incapable of legitimate problem-solving and it’s a waste of time arguing with them. This is when you, as a parent, may find it necessary to file a compliance complaint with your state’s education department, a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a due process complaint with your state’s special education hearing office, or some other legal action.
In a situation like this, once they’ve said, “No,” and blamed agency policy in spite of the language of the law, go straight to accountability. You’re wasting time trying to convince them they are breaking the law once you’ve made the record about it the first time. You may still end up resolving things through a confidential settlement agreement, but the offending agency may not be willing to make things right by you until you file something that gives it the opportunity to settle with you in secret. Sometimes, a governing board of a public agency will not authorize the costs of resolution unless it gets rid of a legal action; as a policy, they will not do the right thing unless/until they are forced to by a legal action of some kind taken by the parents.
When you’re talking about locus of control, such “leadership” starts out by laying heavy on the internal locus of control by choosing not to comply with the law, but shifts to external locus of control once a parent actually takes some kind of formal, legal action to resolve the matter. The only way the agency can regain and restore internal locus of control to the point of functional equilibrium at that point is usually to settle the matter by way of some kind of confidential agreement by which it gives up all kinds of considerations to the family but admits no fault on the part of the offending agency.
When you can understand the power dynamics that revolve around locus of control, it makes you a more savvy and practical negotiator. It makes you better at assessing other people’s credibility, as well. Most importantly, as a parent, it makes you a more compassionate teacher and cheerleader for your children as you help them navigate all of the situations and relationships they will experience throughout childhood in your care. You are better to yourself and everyone else being as whole as you can be. I wish you nothing but the best as you become increasingly healthy and whole throughout your journey through this life, and thank you for the support you provide to my efforts to bring this kind of information to you. Peace be with you, my friends.
Attention is finally being given to the effects of childhood trauma on childhood development and learning, but it’s still not fully incorporated into the mainstream as common knowledge. Only when trauma-informed education becomes the norm can childhood trauma be prevented and responded-to with greater efficacy.
Because trauma often begets mental health issues, not the least of which being Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and can also result in permanent physical disabilities, depending on the nature of the trauma, individuals with such impairments can become eligible for protections under disability-related laws. This includes Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (504), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
For this reason, one would think that the special education community is conducting trauma-informed assessments and considering the trauma-related needs of its students with IEPs. One would be thinking incorrectly, however. I’ve lost count of the number of special education assessments I’ve seen that are entirely silent regarding the unique traumatizing events of a student’s past, like they just didn’t happen or are entirely irrelevant to the assessment process, including in mental health evaluations.
I’m dealing with one of those, right now, as a matter of fact. The very signs of trauma and the historical events that likely contributed to them were described in detail to the mental health assessor, and none of those details appeared anywhere in her report. So, basically, what I took from the situation was that some ding-dong baby doll who fell out of the lap of luxury and into a master’s degree in social work was dispatched to assess a student with some pretty significant symptoms who had previously lived for 11 months with her mother in their car and who had also witnessed her mother getting mowed down in the street by a car while they were crossing the street together at a protected cross-walk, leaving this student as a young child to scream for help in the middle of the street. None of these past traumatic events were discussed in the assessment report, nor were any of the symptoms that had been brought to the assessor’s attention. She interviewed the student once via Zoom and noted that the student wasn’t very forthcoming, and relied on classroom observations conducted by a school psychologist, who is not a mental health clinician.
Thankfully, once it was brought to his attention, the involved school district’s special education director was just as taken aback as I was and immediately agreed to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in mental health at public expense, which is basically a second opinion conducted by an outside, uninvolved provider, that is funded by the District. We’re in the process of finding an outside assessor to conduct it, but we expect the situation for this student to be resolved once it’s done. However, this was just the latest of several cases we’ve worked in this same District over the last 15 years in which trauma and mental health issues are not being properly considered, and it’s a problem that is not unique to this particular district. It seems to be a fairly systemic problem in cases we encounter from around the country.
I think this article does a good job of explaining what it means to incorporate Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) into special education, so I’m not going to do a lot of rehashing, here. One of the things I like about this article is that it doesn’t just speak to special education as a stand-alone entity; it discusses the application of trauma-informed care within an evidence-based Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), such as that found with Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), which are meant to catch students before they fall too far behind and provide them with whatever types of supports they need to be successful, whether through special or general education. This naturally lends it to speak to the related “child find” issues.
This article cites other researchers by saying: “… adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; Felitti et al., 1998) … are all common experiences for students with emotional/behavioral disorders (Cavanaugh, 2016).” Certainly, one way to identify children who may need special education as per “child find” is to look at those already known to have experienced ACEs to determine if they are showing any signs of emotional and/or behavioral disorders. The moment it is known that a general education student has survived a traumatic event, a special education assessment referral should be made and it should include sufficiently comprehensive mental health evaluations to accurately capture any impact the traumatic event has had on the child’s ability to access and participate in education. Even if the child ultimately does not qualify for special education, Section 504 relies on the special education process to gather its own assessment data to inform appropriate 504/ADA accommodations for children with disabilities who do not require special education.
If the child is unavailable for learning due to extreme trauma, then the interventions have to restore the child to the point of being available for learning again, unless the child is medically incapacitated. If medical interventions are first necessary, those obviously come before any special education or 504/ADA accommodations. A child has to be physically medically stabilized before they are available to participate in education and anyone can know what to do for them at school. New assessments will have to be done to determine the student’s new baselines once physical medical stability is achieved.
If the child is psychiatrically incapacitated, it may be necessary for that child to be placed in a residential psychiatric treatment facility with an onsite school in order for the child to become available for learning. I’m not a huge fan of residential placement, but there’s a time and a place for everything. I’ve had a number of students benefit tremendously from a special education residential placement for these kinds of severe mental health needs, though I’ve also had students on my caseload molested and assaulted in some of the residential programs, so this model of intervention is hardly a monolith or panacea.
The above-cited article makes the following recommendations: “Considerations for special education professional development includes teachers undergoing an extensive training that addresses the following components:
Understanding Trauma and ACEs: School site staff who do not have a professional understanding of what trauma is, what ACEs are, and how they affect student performance are at a gross disadvantage when it comes to actually serving the public good. The pervasiveness of trauma in everyday life, anymore, is something we all have to consider when dealing with each other. We should certainly be able to expect our professionals who encounter it in the field daily to have an intelligent plan of action for how to respond to it appropriately in their professional capacities. We shouldn’t be ending up with privileged ding-dongs with fancy degrees who can’t recognize what they’re looking at when they encounter childhood trauma in the field.
Challenging current thought processes vs. TIC attributions: Long-entrenched policies and practices that fail to meet the needs of certain populations are effectively institutionalized biases against them. In professional settings in which no policies and procedures exist to appropriately respond to the needs of students who have experienced ACEs and trauma, there is no institutionalized response to proactively address the situation, which becomes an institutionalized proactive effort to ignore it. When people feel powerless to help someone being hurt by something, it’s a natural psychological defense mechanism for them to blame the victim for deserving mistreatment rather than live with feelings of helplessness, powerlessness, cowardice, or whatever else feels bad that goes along with not helping. Victim-blaming is meant to offset feelings of guilt for not helping.
Too often, adults in the public school setting become angry at children for manifesting the symptoms of trauma and ACEs, punishing them instead of helping them and making a bad situation worse. There is no excuse for this kind of conduct in a professional educational setting, and certainly not in this day and age when there is plenty of peer-reviewed research capturing strategies and approaches that actually work. As I’ve said in other posts, however, there are no real mechanisms in place in public education at this time for the consistent promulgation of the peer-reviewed research among the educators to equip them with the resources to translate the research into actual, practical classroom applications.
Where parents really need to get vocal at their school board meetings is in advocating for the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of public education. It’s not like we don’t have evidence of what works. Education research continues to compile and accrue over time into an ever-enriching body of knowledge that can be used to solve so many of the world’s ills that it should be a crime that it’s not already being actively applied by competent professionals throughout the public education system on the regular.
You can look at this logic model more closely by clicking on the images or the link in this post. What you can see once you look at it is that the District’s MTSS incorporates TIC into its design. I can’t speak to the fidelity with which The School District of Philadelphia actually abides by this design or the degree to which it works. I can only show it to you as an example of how to create this kind of a design, which requires staff to be trained on how to implement it in order for it to actually work. By creating this kind of operational framework and training everyone within the school site on how to carry it out, staff become informed on what to look for and what to do when they see it, when it comes to trauma and its potential for undermining student learning.
Direct overview of MTSS: The above example shows how TICs are woven into an existing MTSS. Very often, special education personnel don’t understand where they fit into the overall tiers of intervention, and usually because the rest of their co-workers and superiors have no idea, either. None of these MTSS designs will work if staff don’t recognize themselves in all of the pieces of the design for which they are each actually responsible. It’s not enough to create a pretty logic model on paper. The logic model has to actually be executed according to its design or it’s worthless. To that end, it is imperative that both general and special education staff understand where the lines are drawn between their two universes and a child needs to be referred for special education assessment.
I actually have a case from my past that I can refer to as an example. In this case, the district had some kind of MTSS but it had failed to work in special education and the “child find” process in any kind of meaningful way. As such, staff didn’t know their roles when it came to “child find” and made mistakes all over the place. This was a case of multiple ding-dongs who had no idea what they were doing, trying to fake their ways through the MTSS design process and botching it royally. What’s worse is that the involved student in this example was being raised by his grandmother, who had been a teacher for this same school district for over 30 years at the time of this hearing, and her daughter, the student’s mother, had gone on to become a teacher of the same district, as well. The employees of this district were doing this to each other’s families, and purely out of ignorance and a grotesque leadership failure.
When done correctly, a school- or district-wide MTSS that incorporates TIC will naturally lend itself to helping those children who need special education mental health supports for any reason. Investing in developing a high-quality MTSS that incorporates TIC will appropriately funnel the children who need special education mental health services into the appropriate levels of intervention relative to their unique, individual needs.
That said, it’s not enough to simply refer children suffering from mental health issues related to trauma for assessment. The quality of the assessments conducted matter and leaving out critical information about the trauma a child has already experienced and how it is affecting that child’s learning is a fatal flaw that compromises the validity of the assessment and gives the parents a legitimate reason to disagree and request IEEs at public expense.
Administrators looking to cut corners will often try to minimize costs by having school psychologists do some basic social/emotional assessments instead of having proper mental health evaluations done by licensed mental health providers. This is no place to be cutting corners. First, it saves no money in the long run. Pretending the problem isn’t as bad as it actually is will blow up in your face, eventually. The longer the problem goes untreated, the harder and more costly it will become to address later on. Secondly, it’s heinously unethical. What kind of a person do you have to be to deny necessary mental health services because you don’t want to spend the money? Any school district administrators who think their budgets are more important than the lives of their students shouldn’t be employed in public education. The budget exists for the benefit of the students, not the administration. For that matter, school district administrators exist for the benefit of students; students do not exist for the purpose of lining administrators’ pockets with unearned tax dollars.
I know the technical issues of how to integrate TIC into a schoolwide system of successful interventions is a topic worthy of a full-day workshop and I’m not doing justice to the entire issue, here. But, I’m hoping that I’ve given you enough to think about TIC in special education and some pointers towards some resources that can help you as a parent, educator, and/or concerned taxpayer to address these kinds of challenges. We need to appreciate the degree to which special education can be a tool to protect our local communities and national security from unstable individuals responding to their personal traumas in ways that can hurt many other people in addition to themselves. In this day and age of mass shootings by people suffering from significant mental health issues, we can’t neglect to preempt these behaviors where we can by intervening in the lives of children who experience trauma and/or have mental and emotional health needs that affect their access to learning and behaviors. It takes a village to raise a child, and this is how it’s done when the child has experienced trauma.
Based on the professional peer-reviewed research, intersectionality can be understood as the phenomenon in which an individual person’s social position relative to more than one socially defining characteristic, such as race, language, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, etc., come together to simultaneously impact a person’s status in and access to society at large. Where a person fits into the world is a matter of multidimensional considerations.
When looking at the question of whether the current mechanisms of our system of government, and the behavioral rewards inherently built into them, truly serve the good of the people according to the will of the people and the rule of law, the importance of intersectionality to the accuracy of our analyses cannot be overstated. There is no “silver bullet” that will eliminate all of our social challenges with a single shot. Solving our complex, interconnected problems takes complex planning and execution.
Society is a complex system of inextricably intertwined considerations that all have to be accounted for in order for everyone’s needs and rights to be equally met. There are no cutting corners, and we now have the computing power to stitch together effective systems of equity for all into the ways our government functions, if the technology is just used the right way. The fail-safes that can be built in and the audit trails that would be automatically created would prevent and capture any attempts at abuse just as a matter of normal functioning.
We aren’t there yet, but the application of enterprise-class computing technologies to the delivery of publicly funded services is inevitable, and it will streamline a lot of inter- and intra-agency operations, trimming the administrative fat within a lot of State and local publicly funded programs. Eliminating human error and dishonesty from a public agency’s administrative processes prevents episodes of noncompliance that puts the agency in legal jeopardy.
I’ve told the story in past posts of the case in which one of my students went for months without a needed piece of equipment ordered by his Occupational Therapist (OT) as an accommodation for his sensory needs in the classroom, which meant he was up and out of his seat disrupting the instruction, because of an interpersonal feud between two mean old ladies who hated each other in administration. One of the mean old ladies worked at the student’s local school site in the office, processing purchase requisitions and submitting them to the school district’s main office to be processed into purchase orders.
Now, this was back in the day and all of this was done using paper and the district’s own internal courier service, commonly referred to as “brown mail,” because most things came in those big brown manila envelopes. There was no email. If things needed to move faster than brown mail, it was done via fax. So, context.
The other mean old lady in this situation worked in the accounting office at the district offices. I’m not exactly clear on the details of why they hated each other so much, but I do recall that it had something to do with either a green bean casserole or a three-bean salad – I can’t remember which – at some kind of district holiday party. Like, maybe both of them brought the same thing and it turned into a feud over whose was better, or something? I don’t entirely recall the details, I just remember it was something to do with beans and a holiday party and that it was totally dumb.
The mean old lady at the district offices would sit on the purchase requisitions submitted by the mean old lady at the school site just out of spite, without any regard for the people who had submitted the requisitions to the mean old lady at the school site or any students who may have been impacted by her behaviors. The mean old lady at the school site wasn’t willing to call over to the mean old lady at the district offices to find out what had happened to her requisitions, so she’d become hostile with the school site staff who would ask her where their stuff was. They became afraid to ask her where their stuff was, and just took it as a given that the average purchase would take at least 60 to 90 days before it came in.
Computers don’t do any of that! As many concerns as we have about computers processing things correctly, that comes down to how they are coded. They aren’t going to fight with each other over three-bean salads at a Christmas party and then undermine each other professionally to the detriment of the constituents they are being paid by the taxpayers to serve.
So, knowing that the implementation of the technology is inevitable, our job as informed voters and taxpayers is to understand what that technology needs to be able to do in order to truly perform according to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. That technology must account for how intersectionality impacts every person, whether staff, vendor, or constituent, who must participate in the execution of the government’s responsibilities to the people.
This brings me to a very specific issue within special education in the State of California that has affected way too many families in a detrimental way, which is the intersectionality of the African-American experience with special education in the public schools. This is an under-researched and poorly regulated aspect of our current modern society, here in California, and as the State seeks to shore up democracy in spite of the many forces presently working to undermine it, I believe this specific instance of intersectionality particularly deserves the State’s attention.
I’m speaking specifically of the long-outdated and now inappropriate Larry P. requirement. To quote the State:
“The Larry P. Case“
In 1972 in the Larry P. case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that African American students in the San Francisco Unified School District were being placed into classes for “Educably Mentally Retarded (EMR)” students in disproportionate numbers, based on criteria that relied primarily on the results of intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that were racially and/or culturally discriminatory and not validated for the purposes for which they were being used1. In 1979, the court permanently enjoined LEAs throughout California from using standardized intelligence tests2 for (1) the identification of African American students as EMR or its substantial equivalent or (2) placement of African American students into EMR classes or classes serving substantially the same functions3.
The court held that court approval would be required for the use of any standardized intelligence tests for African American students for the above purposes. The court laid out a state process for this.
The EMR category no longer exists. The court has never held hearings to determine the “substantial equivalent” of the EMR identification or placement, or whether IQ tests are appropriate for assessing African American students for identifications or placements other than the substantial equivalent of EMR. The state process to seek approval has not been invoked.
Although the law on assessment has evolved, as described above, the Larry P. injunction remains in place, and the court retains jurisdiction over its enforcement. The Larry P. injunction does not apply to tests that are not considered standardized intelligence tests.
Footnotes 1Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306, 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1972). 2 The court defined a standardized intelligence test as one that result in a score purporting to measure intelligence, often described as “general intellectual functioning.” Larry P., 495 F. Supp. 926, 931 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1979), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1986). 3Larry P., 495 F. Supp. at 989.
Here’s what everybody needs to get, and which way too many school psychologists and other special education assessors in California’s school districts do not: Larry P.only applies to norm-referenced intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that result in a full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score. It doesn’t apply to the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD) Cognition subtest. It doesn’t apply to any standardized speech/language assessment measures. It has nothing to do with OT. It has nothing to do with measuring academic achievement using standardized assessment tools.
Unless the assessment measure is designed to produce an IQ score, Larry P. does not apply. But, I’ve now handled a half-dozen cases in the last couple of years in which the whole reason why the students’ IEPs were poorly developed was because they’d been poorly assessed by people who didn’t score any standardized measures for fear of violating Larry P. because they didn’t actually understand the Larry P. rules. The professional development on this issue throughout the State is atrocious.
More to the point, the State needs to invoke its process to seek approval to now use the current, modern, unbiased IQ tests in the special education process, because the assessment failures caused by poorly trained cowards who don’t have the sense to go onto Google and look up the rules themselves and/or push back against administrative supervisors steering them in a non-compliant direction are causing a cataclysm of disastrous consequences at the intersection of the African-American experience and childhood disability in the State’s public schools. This just feeds these kids into the gaping maw of the School-to-Prison Pipeline.
I want to take it one more step further than that, though. I want to encourage more representation of the African-American community in special education assessment. I want to see more college students of color going into school psychology, speech/language pathology, OT, assistive technology, etc., so that they can be there to advocate from an informed, expert perspective within the system for the children from their own community who are at risk of being otherwise misunderstood by people who lack the perspective necessary to appreciate the long-lasting impacts of their assessment errors.
People who don’t actually understand the rules can over-interpret them in an over-abundance of caution. They will not do more than what’s actually been prohibited for fear of doing something they aren’t supposed to, to the point that they’re not doing what they are supposed to be doing. They go from one extreme to the other. In an effort to avoid committing a State-level Larry P. violation, they commit a violation of federal law by failing to appropriately assess in all areas of suspected disability according to the applicable professional standards and the instructions of the producers of the standardized measures used.
It’s currently a “from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire” situation for the State that is wrecking lives and creating special education violations left and right. The State is setting up its public schools to fail at this particularly significant intersection of social factors, at the same time that the State is seriously considering reparations to the African-American community here in the State.
I promise you that none of the assessors I’ve encountered in the last few years who have been committing these Larry P. violations are actually trying to be hurtful. None of them know what they’re supposed to be doing and they’re making dumb errors in judgment, often under pressure from authoritarian administrators who don’t know an IQ test from a roll of toilet paper.
I’m advocating, here, for both the development and implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies that will automate as much of the public sector’s administrative functions as possible according to the applicable regulations, including mandated timelines, as well as for the State to request the court to reverse Larry P. so that schools are no longer enjoined against using current, valid, appropriately normed IQ tests in the assessment of African-American children in California for special education purposes. These two things matter to each other.
Larry P. is no longer a solution, it’s a problem. It’s not that assessors couldn’t work around it; it’s that they don’t know how to work around it and they commit more errors trying to than anything that could possibly go wrong actually using an IQ test on an African-American student in this modern day and age. Further, the specific ecological factors that contribute to the success of students who are impacted by the intersectionality of their disabilities with other traits that can affect their social standing, such as ethnicity, need to be understood as specific data points worthy of intense administrative and policy-making examination.
As a matter of civil rights and monitoring its own internal compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, one would hope that a public education agency would want to know if particular classes of students are somehow being under-served and need more attention from the adult decision-makers involved in their educational experiences. Who is monitoring each school district’s compliance with Larry P., right now? Is that the job of each district’s 504 Coordinator? How is Larry P. compliance in the field such an issue, still, after all of these years and, more to the point, why is it even still a requirement after all of these years?
Analyzing data from an enterprise-class computing solution regarding intersectionality among special education students would help public education agencies recognize trends of noncompliance and programming failures. This would include rampant Larry P. violations producing shoddy assessments that result in poorly crafted Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) that fail to deliver appropriately ambitious educational benefits according to the current Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) standard pursuant to the 2017 Endrew F. Supreme Court decision.
Issues of intersectionality can be captured by competent data analysis, which can be greatly facilitated by properly coded enterprise-class computing technologies, and used to ensure that all students, pursuant to Endrew F., receive an IEP appropriately ambitious in light of their unique, individual circumstances. A properly configured system would be spitting out reports detailing the instances of noncompliance to the inboxes of the key decision-makers so they could respond as quickly as possible.
Had such a system already been implemented, the Larry P. violations I’ve encountered all over the State over the last couple of years would have been caught among all the others I haven’t encountered and either rectified or prevented altogether by the State realizing what a colossal disaster Larry P. has become in the field and executing the process outlined by the Court to put an end to it. Were the State monitoring the right data points, it would have realized that Larry P. needed to be ended a long time ago and that it causes infinitely more problems than it solves because it forces assessors to assess African-American students differently than everyone else, which is not equal access.
Frankly, this lack of equal access is more discriminatory than using an IQ test could ever possibly be and becomes even more so when the quality of the assessments are compromised because the assessors don’t know how to comply with Larry P. and they jack up their entire evaluations in the process. Jacked up evaluations lead to jacked up IEPs, which lead to the denial of educational benefits and all the consequences that these children will experience over their lifetimes as a result of being deprived of a FAPE.
The people who make these kinds of errors will be among the first to engage in victim-blaming once these students end up in the justice system, acting like it was unavoidable and inevitable, because they can’t recognize or accept the degree to which they had a hand in making it happen. The people who do it on purpose hide among the people who don’t know what else to do, fueling the victim-blaming, which becomes part of our current, exhausting, ridiculous, ongoing culture wars.
I would rather see Larry P. ended so that it’s no longer creating confusion among assessors in the field and technology implemented that will identify when things like this are going on so they can be stopped early on. I would much rather monitor digital data as a compliance watchdog as I get older than have to go in, one kid at a time, to hold the public education system accountable to its mandates under our democracy’s rule of law. So long as there is transparency in how the system operates and all the real-time data, other than anything personally identifying, is accessible to the public to be analyzed for compliance failures, technology stands to enhance the functions of democracy. But, it all comes down to how its coded.
I expect that watchdogs and advocates in the future will spend more time analyzing system-generated data than necessarily representing individual students, and that a healthier partnership between the public sector and the citizenry can evolve in which the user feedback shared with system developers and operators can be used to enhance its functions and allow each agency to serve its mandated purposes in a compliant manner that is both cost-effective and substantively effective.
The more that social and behavioral science is integrated into the policies, procedures, and applied technologies in the public sector, the more effective and efficient they will be. The more integrated the technologies among all of the public agency stakeholders, the more cohesive the communications and execution of time-sensitive tasks. I see a future in which systemic violations, such as rampant Larry P. failures, will trigger an examination of the intersectionality of disability and other social factors, such as ethnicity, on compliance and help identify when something like getting rid of Larry P. needs to happen sooner rather than later.
I see this Larry P. mess as yet another compelling argument for the implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies within public education administration. I hope the State is listening.
I’m long overdue to post new content to the KPS4Parents blog, podcast, and social media, but it’s been a busy school year. The continuing fallout from COVID-related school closures that disrupted the educations of most children, and had even more profound effects on our learners with disabilities, has kept me busy.
It’s one of these COVID-related cases that brings me back to the blog and podcast today, because after over two years of waiting for a complaint investigation to get done that was only supposed to take 180 days, the United States Department of Education (USDOE), through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), finally concluded an investigation of Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD) and how it handled its students with disabilities during COVID-related school closures. To say I and the student’s family now feel vindicated is an understatement.
You can read OCR’s findings and the resolution agreement that OUHSD entered into with OCR to resolve its violations by clicking here. I’m not going to belabor every little thing in those documents because they speak for themselves and you can read them at your own convenience, but I will summarize them, here. In short, not only did OCR find that the District violated my client’s civil rights, it likely violated the rights of its other students with special needs by refusing, as policy, to provide any in-person disability-related supports and services during campus closures, even if they were necessary in order for the student to access learning.
At the beginning of the pandemic, when the schools were first closed down here in California, the Governor’s office understood immediately that our special needs students were going to be disproportionately affected by the school closures. With the new budget during the summer of 2020, the Governor committed $1B to cover compensatory education costs for students with disabilities who lost educational benefits during the school closures because they couldn’t access the disability-related supports they needed in order to learn.
Back in the Spring of 2020, right after the pandemic hit and the schools shut down, both the Governor and USDOE reminded the public education system that its legal obligations to its students with special needs had not changed in spite of the pandemic and that local education agencies should do everything possible to continue implementing services and supports to students with disabilities during campus closures. But, there was also that extra money set aside by the Governor to compensate students for learning they lost due to unavoidable losses of educational benefits and, presumably, if their local education agencies otherwise botched their pandemic response to the detriment of their kids with special needs.
I’ve been negotiating Informal Dispute Resolutions (IDRs) to claims like these ever since in-person learning resumed, and I’m still dealing with the residual effects of the school closures across my caseload. Which brings me back to this most recent OCR investigation outcome.
What OCR and OUHSD are now doing is working together to repair the harm done to all of the OUHSD students with disabilities at the time of the COVID-related school closures who did not get the services and supports they needed such that they are now owed compensatory education. This is a very big deal!
According to the Resolution Agreement entered into by the District with OCR, OUHSD must send letters to every potentially impacted student and offer a meeting to determine if any compensatory education is owed to them and, if so, document how it will be provided. OUHSD is not being left to its own devices to determine whether it has met each affected student’s needs; OCR will be overseeing OUHSD’s implementation of these remedies to make sure they’re done correctly. OCR will provide the technical assistance to OUHSD to help it clean up this mess and set things straight.
In theory, my work here is done, other than to work with the family of the student for whom I’d filed the complaint to make sure she gets the compensatory education that she is now due. But, for all of the other OUHSD students and former students impacted by this outcome, I still have concerns.
None of the other affected students and their families knew about this complaint. They’re going to get a letter in the mail that they weren’t expecting with an offer to meet with the District to determine if their kids are owed any back-due educational services and not necessarily understand what it is, why they are getting it, or how important it is.
Today’s post is about making sure that the other students who are impacted by this outcome get what they need and are due. I know that OCR will be working with the District to make sure that the families who avail themselves of the offer to meet regarding their possible compensatory education claims have a fair shot at getting the right stuff. I’m not as worried about those families.
The families I’m most worried about are the ones who don’t understand English and/or their rights. We have a fair number of households in the District in which the parents may not be educated sufficiently to understand what any of this is about. Unless they actually take the meeting with the District to learn more, OCR is not in a position to help make sure their kids actually get what they need.
So, my goal with today’s post is to make sure that all the affected OUHSD families are fully aware of what that letter inviting them to meet with the District to discuss compensatory education really means and that they take those meetings and get the remedies that are due to their children. We have to remember that we already paid taxes so these kids could get these services, and then that money was never spent on serving them appropriately during campus closures.
This is about belatedly delivering the services that had been previously purchased by the taxpayers but never actually delivered to their intended recipients. The only part of this that brings new costs into the picture is all of the extra work that will now have to be done to help these kids recoup lost learning and catch back up after having been deprived of what had already been paid for in the first place.
After all of the OUHSD students who were impacted by this outcome, my next concern after that is all of the other students throughout the County whose school districts also refused to provide in-person services during the COVID-related campus closures who were not similarly held accountable by their regulators. The California Department of Education (CDE) has done a shoddy job, in my experience, of addressing these exact same concerns in other area school districts.
None of the school districts in Ventura County, to my knowledge, provided in-person services to any students with disabilities during the campus closures. In fact, I fought tooth-and-nail throughout the period of campus closures with a number of school districts throughout the State to address these same concerns. This instant OCR complaint was just one of many efforts I made to protect my kiddos during campus closures.
One family was able to use their health insurance to get in-home ABA services so their child had 1:1 behavioral supports during distance learning, which was the only reason he was successful, but that was an isolated incident. Another family was able to negotiate a settlement agreement with their district to reimburse the parents for paying for a private aide to come to their house to support their child during distance learning, but that was, again, an isolated incident. Most of my students sat at home with their moms as their 1:1 aides, which either worked or didn’t, depending on the student.
If you look back through the content I created for KPS4Parents during the COVID-related campus closures, you’ll see a lot of what I published back then had to do with the mandates that special education and other disability-related services were required to continue without reductions in services and supports. It’s nice to know that the United States of America has our students’ backs on that point, but they can’t investigate the case of every student with disabilities in America. It took over two years to investigate just this one, although systemic violations were uncovered in the course of it doing so.
I sincerely hope that the outcome of this investigation benefits not only the students of OUHSD who failed to receive appropriately ambitious educational benefits because of the COVID-related campus closures, but also similarly impacted students in all the other school districts that used the pandemic as an excuse to cut corners and not pay for services that were so seriously needed by so many students with disabilities. This outcome needs to impact more students with special needs than just those within the OUHSD attendance area. It needs to set an example.
I find myself frequently telling people that the measure of whether a society is civilized or not goes to how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, and that special education law is the canary in the coalmine of American democracy. If we can’t respect the civil rights of our children with disabilities, what does that say for the civil rights of the rest of us?
School districts are not for-profit private businesses; they are government agencies funded to execute the functions of our society for the benefit of the public. We should be able to trust our local government agencies, including our local school districts, to abide by the rule of law.
KPS4Parents is currently reaching out to various stakeholders in Ventura County to make sure that the other families affected by this outcome understand exactly what this is, how they are affected, and how to make sure their kids get what they actually need. If you are part of an affected family and need assistance with this process, KPS4Parents will do everything we can to support you, including putting you in touch with other advocates and attorneys if necessary to handle the sheer volume of families who may need this level of assistance.
If you are part of another organization or agency that also serves students with special needs in Ventura County and/or their families, and would like to help area families navigate this process, please contact us and we’ll get back to you as soon as we possibly can. It’s exciting to be part of the solution, but the work is just getting started and our agency can’t do it all alone.
We’re part of the larger community of loving, democracy-minded people who advocate for social justice issues. We need the help of our social justice partners to make sure all of these affected families are properly supported and served, and to help us generalize these remedies to benefit other similarly affected students in other communities. It takes a village, so I’m asking for the rest of the village to step up and help me help all of these other affected families, and for the families who are already experienced with this kind of stuff to help other families who might not be so savvy.
This is an exciting time for systemic change, and I want families of children with special needs to feel empowered by this and set the example on how to participate in our democracy at the local level in a meaningful and impactful way. Bottom line, screaming at school board meetings about their personal beliefs and feelings gets parents nowhere, but regulatory complaints filed to enforce the rule of law can be everything.
Hi, it’s Anne with KPS4Parents. And I’m here again with one of our Quick-Fix videos, and today’s topic is consequences don’t mean punishment in ABA. And, what I want to focus on is a problem that I keep encountering in the field. And even though I’m able to successfully deal with it on a child-by-child basis, the systemic issue doesn’t seem to be going away. And so I think it’s something that all of us collectively need to be working on, just to make sure that the legal and scientific principles that apply are actually being applied in that our children are benefiting from the application of both.
And so I want to just get into this today. And hopefully, if you have any questions, of course, post comments, direct messaged us, send us an email, whatever, to ask your questions of us. And we’ll be happy to answer them to the degree that we can and refer you to other resources. But let’s go ahead and get into this.
So there’s two key considerations here that we really need to think about. And one of it is the legal side of it. The other side is the science side of it. And in terms of the legalities of it, it really I want to talk about what the law requires in terms of applying the science. And because that’s something that doesn’t get enough attention, I think in special education, but it’s at the heart of what the issues [are] that I encounter regularly.
So I know I brought up this particular piece of regulation in our other videos and in other posts and things we’ve done, but it’s because it’s so important. And it certainly is applicable here. And so I want to just recap it, and it’s Title 34, Code of the Federal Regulations, Section 300.320(a)(4). And specifically, what we want to look at, is this is the the part of the regulations that describe what’s supposed to go into an IEP. And, by no means is this everything that’s supposed to be going into an IEP. This is the part I want to focus on with respect to the issue I’m raising right now.
Basically, what this particular regulations requires, is that, in the IEP, you’ve got a statement of the services that the child is going to get; the specialized academic instruction, as well as the related services like speech and language, transportation, whatever. All of it has to be delivered according to the peer-reviewed research to the degree that is practicable.
And I don’t want to belabor the point of what “practicable” is supposed to mean, because honestly, there is no legal or professional standard. You can basically take the word to mean that you know that it can actually be done; you know that it’s achievable within the school setting. And so, when you’re talking about services that a child might need that are scientifically based, it’s specific to what’s going to give them equal access to education as that given to their peers who do not have disabilities, and so that’s what we’re focusing on here.
There has to be a scientific basis for the interventions being given. It has to be an evidence-based program. You just can’t have people in there making stuff up and saying, “Oh, yeah, this will work.” No! You need to be able to use stuff that has been proven to work, and is supported by evidence. That’s basically what 34 CFR, Sec. 300.320(a)(4) means; it’s that you’re applying the known science of what has been proven to work in order to teach children.
And that that shouldn’t be that complicated, but in this day and age of science denial and an abandonment of the rule of law, usually by the same individuals, it becomes a problem, especially if they’re employed within the education system. That’s why I keep, I think, running into this is because we definitely do have those folks who are deeply entrenched, and part of, you know, reforming public education is to get those people out of there.
So let’s talk about the applicable science, now that we know the law requires the science to be applied, and we actually know which law requires the science to be applied. Let’s talk about what the science actually is, when you’re talking about this terminology.
And so in this instance, we’re talking about Applied Behavioral Analysis now. ABA has become somewhat controversial in special education, because a lot of people don’t really understand what it is, least of all judges who try these cases.
And so let’s be clear on what ABA is. ABA is not a behavior program. ABA is not a intervention for children with autism. ABA is a science that applies to anything that behaves. That could be sea slugs; that could be computer programs; that could be your mother in law; t could be anything. It’s anything that behaves. You can use Applied Behavioral Analysis to figure out why a behavior has happened and the function that it serves. It renders behavior down to ones and zeros.
And so, the “one” is to get something and the “zero” is to get away from something or to escape something. And so, there’s only two sides to any behavior: acquire/attain or escape/avoid. That having been said, how do we figure out what’s happening, whether it’s an escape of behavior or an attainment behavior?
And so, one of the methods that’s commonly used in ABA is called ABC data collection. And this, in special education, is usually where I see things go immediately off the rails, when you’re talking about behavioral interventions for kids with special needs; that this ABC data collection is skewed because people are not properly using the terms as they’re meant to be used.
According to the peer reviewed research … according to the applicable science … everybody seems to get the “A” and the “B” of ABC, right, because there’s nothing that might contradict it or conflict with it. There’s not alternative definitions of these terms otherwise being bandied about in public education.
But when you get to the word “consequence,” in the public education setting, this is where people get really super confused. Because when you’re looking at the traditional punitive disciplinary model of how school districts have historically dealt with behaviors among students; it’s all very punishment-oriented. And so, a consequence is something that gets meted out by staff. It’s something that gets delivered by the personnel in response to the student’s behaviors. Like, “If you don’t do that, the consequence is going to be detention … or suspension … or you’re going to have to write 100 sentences … or there’s always some consequence delivered by some other person, and that’s a punishment.
That’s not what ABA is talking about at all. In an ABA, you have to remember, as a science, it’s using terms in a very neutral kind of way. And so, for example, “positive reinforcement” and “negative reinforcement” do not mean what most people think it means when you’re talking about ABA.
It’s like batteries; “positive” and “negative” don’t mean “good” and “bad,” when you’re talking about a battery. When you’re talking about the poles of the earth, you have a positive pole and a negative pole. That’s not good or bad; it’s just that they’re opposites of each other.
In ABA, when you’re talking about positive reinforcement, what you’re talking about is the presentation of something that’s going to encourage a behavior to happen, again; a reward of some kind for the behavior. And when you’re talking about negative reinforcement, you’re talking about taking away something unpleasant that increases the likelihood of a behavior happening.
So, for example, let’s say that you’re a child sitting in a classroom and there’s an alarm going off of some kind, and that alarm is very distressful to you. The moment that alarm gets turned off, that aversive stimuli is eliminated, and now the environment has become much more rewarding for you to be in, because that bad thing has gone away.
So negative reinforcement is taking away something you don’t want … a zero … escaping/avoidance. And, positive reinforcement is giving you something you do want … a reward of some kind … so, that’s the one. Again, either you’re getting something or you’re getting away from something; there’s the one or a zero.
And so bearing that in mind, “consequence” also does not mean what most people think it means in ABA. It’s not what other people do in response to the behavior. What other people choose to do in response to a behavior is called a “reactive strategy.” Now, whether it’s effective or not is a-whole-nother conversation, but someone else’s reaction is not automatically what the behavior seeks.
So, the consequence is what the individual is trying to make happen with that behavior; whatever it is that reinforces the behavior is the consequence they’re seeking.
So, for example, if you have a toddler climbing on the kitchen counter trying to get to the top of the refrigerator to the cookie jar, the function of that behavior is to acquire a cookie inside that cookie jar. And, they’re engaging in this dangerous behavior to get something that they want, without even realizing they could be risking their own safety, because they’re little and they don’t know any better. They’re just trying to get what they want; that’s all they’re thinking about.
So, the function of the behavior, the consequence that reinforces the behavior, is the acquisition of a cookie. “I’m going to climb among counter and I’m going to acquire a cookie. And that cookie is my reinforcement for having climbed on the counter.” Climbing on the counter is the behavior.
So, what triggered the behavior? What caused the child to say, “Hey, I could climb on this counter and get to this cookie jar and get a cookie out of it, if I really wanted to”? Well, usually, it’s being able to see the cookie jar; knowing that it’s up there. And so, the antecedent is witnessing the presence of the cookie jar, or proximity to the cookie jar, or observation of the cookie jar. It’s something that exists in the environment that when they see it, they’re like, “Oh! I want a cookie,” and then that behavior of counter-climbing starts. And if they get a cookie, that’s the consequence they were seeking that reinforces the behavior.
So, in ABA, “consequence” means the payoff that the behavior is intended to make happen, whether it’s escape/avoidance, or its acquisition/attainment.
And so, when you’re looking at a behavior intervention plan in an IEP, and they’re talking about, “What are the consequences of this behavior?” and it starts listing all the things that the personnel on the school do in response to that behavior, that’s not right. That’s not what “consequence” means in that context. That’s not the application of the science.
What they’re describing are the reactive strategies. “This is what we do when we see this behavior.”
Now, ideally, when you’re doing a behavioral intervention, the consequence the person is trying to engage in … the student … is not being delivered. It’s being met with a reactive strategy, instead, to redirect them to something else … to have them use a more appropriate behavior, like asking for a cookie instead of climbing on the counter.
You’re trying to replace that behavior. You try to teach a replacement behavior so that the need is fulfilled, or whatever that function is that they’re trying to meet, they’re using a more appropriate behavior to make that happen than the one that you’re trying to mitigate, if they’re, especially if they’re engaging in something that’s dangerous, or, you know, ii could compromise their safety. You want to teach them an appropriate replacement behavior.
Or, if they’re being disruptive in the classroom, because they’re getting up and running around. And, maybe what they really need to do is request a sensory break; they hold up a little break card, and they tiptoe over to the sensory area, or the sensory room, or they have some kind of, you know, fidget at their desk or something, that they can get their wiggles out without running around the room and disrupting everybody else.
First of all, you just want to make sure the consequence they’re seeking isn’t delivered. Because if the reinforcement they’re seeking is not forthcoming, then that behavior is not going to work for them anymore, and they’re gonna have to replace it with something else. But if you don’t teach them what to do, instead, whatever they come up with, and stuff, on their own, instead of what was is no longer working for them, if all you do is withhold reinforcement, there’s a really good chance, they’re going to find some other maladaptive behavior to replace the one you were trying to get rid of in order to still gain that outcome. And so you need to teach them a replacement behavior that’s more socially acceptable in that setting, to meet whatever want or need it is that they’re trying to … you know, to address.
And if, for some reason, the behavior is seeking something that’s inappropriate during that time, then it’s about teaching them how to delay gratification and wait until later, and they can work towards it. They can earn it, like, if what they really want is to play a game on their iPad, then that’s something they have to earn by doing something you want them to do. And then you use what’s called a Premack Principle, which is a first-then strategy where, “first you do this, and then you can have what you want.”
And so, you get them to wait until later to acquire that reinforcer that they’re seeking and the only way they can actually obtain it is by doing what you want them to do, rather than running around, you know. You don’t want them acting up in the classroom, what you want them to do is to engage in this replacement behavior and earn whatever it is they’re looking for that they find reinforcing. If it’s something like, you know, a tangible, like a food item, or a toy, or a game, or if they need a break, if their sensory system is overwhelmed, and they truly need a break, you want them to ask for it appropriately and not just get up and run around the room.
And so, it’s about teaching them skills to still see their needs met. It’s not about leaving them hanging and say, “You know that behavior is inappropriate. I don’t care why it’s happening. Whatever your needs are that you’re trying to address, just stop it.”
Well, how would you like it if somebody told you to stop meeting your needs? And why would you do that to a child and who’s doing the best they can with what they have to work with, especially if they’re disabled, and they’re struggling even harder to figure out what the right thing to do is? That’s why you’re there. You’re there to teach them that.
This is how “consequence” gets misused in the special education context, when you’re talking about assessing behaviors, because you can’t figure out the function of the behavior unless you understand what is trying to make happen. What is the outcome the individual is trying to achieve by acting that way? That’s going to tell you what the replacement behavior should be. So if a behavior … if a child is rolling around on the floor holding his stomach because he’s in stomach pain, then the replacement behavior is a verbal request of some kind, or some kind of request that’s not rolling around the floor and screaming and yelling, and asking to go to the nurse’s office.
But, if they’re rolling around on the floor, because they just don’t want to do the work, well, how you react to that is going to be very different from the kid who really does have a stomach problem and needs to go to the nurse’s office. And so, it depends on what they’re trying to make happen. If they’re calling attention to the fact that they’re in pain, that’s quite a different thing than if they’re just throwing a fit because they don’t want to do the work. And so your reactive strategies are going to vary depending on the function of the behavior.
And you can’t determine the function of the behavior until you ascertain the consequence they’re trying to achieve by engaging in it in the first place. What you’ll find are individuals in the public education system who are used to using the term “consequences” to talk about what they’re going to do to you if you don’t act right. That is a punishment model; it’s very punitive; it’s very authoritarian. And it’s not about teaching anybody anything. It’s just about throwing your weight around and showing them who’s boss, which, you know, do we really need one more asshole in the public schools?
That’s not how that’s supposed to be used. And if anybody’s doing that, then it’s highly inappropriate and it does not conform with the science and, therefore, does not conform with the law. So explaining those distinctions, I think, is really important here. “Consequence” does not mean “reactive strategy.” It’s not what you do as a staff person in response to the behavior; it’s the outcome the individual is trying to achieve.
So based on that, I mean, have you seen this in your child’s IEP, if your child has a behavior intervention plan, or has had one in the past? Does this sound familiar at all to you?
So let’s look at an example, because I think that that actually can be really helpful.
Okay, so here’s what I want you to look at. In this document at the very, very top, it says, “[Student] is [sic] very compliant and pleasant young man. [Student] is not currently displaying behaviors that are interfering with others [sic] learning.” So here we are with this behavior plan and, first of all that, you know, when we’re talking about an operational definition, why would you have a positive behavior intervention plan for a student who is not currently displaying behaviors that are interfering with others learning? That’s not the point.
The point of any behavior intervention plan is to address behaviors that interfere with anybody’s learning, and here the student’s behaviors are being off task and not engaging in the instruction. How that doesn’t interfere with learning is beyond me. And, while it’s true that other people’s learning may not have been disrupted by him staring off into space, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t because that can be distracting when you got a neighbor who’s, you know, rubbernecking as he’s sitting right next to you, and you’re trying to focus. But, more to the point, it was his learning that was being disrupted. And that was the whole point of all of this.
So here we have, you know, some really vague descriptions of what exactly is going on with him and how it affects him. And the reality is his behaviors didn’t disrupt other people because he has a 1:1 aide who’s sitting in there making sure they don’t. And so again, they’re trying to treat the reactive strategies … the ameliorating effects of the mitigating strategies they’re using to somehow negate the fact that he has behavior challenges. He does have behaviors; that’s why he has an aide. What is this person doing with him that makes learning accessible to him, and prevents him from being disruptive to other people? And this document didn’t capture that.
The thing to notice here, too, is that there’s nothing listed with respect to consequences. The box there says, “Describe: Include antecedent/consequences as appropriate.” We have some information that describes when the behavior happens, or the conditions that sort of gives us a clue as to antecedents, but there’s nothing here listed with respect to consequences. And we had to fight tooth and nail to get the district’s BCBA to apply Applied Behavioral Analysis, and, even still, this was’t it. This was just a terrible document.
And so what you see here is not just the document itself, but also our feedback on behalf of the parent as to what it was going to take to fix it and make it right. We ultimately did get that resolved, but when you are being given IEP content as a parent, and they’re requesting your signature to authorize it, and, you know, you’re supposed to be signing off on this as somehow was beneficial to your child, and you consent to it, if what they’re giving you isn’t even sensible, it doesn’t make a lick of sense, and it’s not scientific, you shouldn’t be agreeing to it.
And, in California, which is one of a number of consent states where parent parental consent is required to even so much has change an IEP, much less, you know, authorize it for implementation, this is something where a parent can come back and say, like, “I’m not going to agree to this. This doesn’t even make any sense. Here’s what’s wrong with it, and here’s what you need to do to fix it.”
And so, this goes just to the point that you can’t automatically trust that the documents being prepared say what they need to say, even if the people who are preparing them have all these fancy degrees and credentials that supposedly make them experts. Again, this piece of garbage was written by someone with a BCBA. This person was board certified to apply the science of Applied Behavioral Analysis to the design and delivery of IEPs for special education students in conformity with 34 CFR Section 300.320(a)(4), and this is the crap we got.
Knowing that, you can’t just automatically go in and trust that these people are going to give you expert advice or guidance, or conform with the science that their expertise supposedly makes them experts in. You have to be very critical as a parent, that, you know, if you’re going to … if they’re going to do this, they need to be doing it in conformity with the law, which requires them to do it in conformity with the science. And so it’s as simple as that.
And yet, if you as a parent don’t know what the science is, much less what the laws are … and you’re the one responsible for enforcing the law, unfortunately, because that’s the way the law is written … it becomes your burden as a parent to learn these things so you can protect your child, as unfair as that is. This is a circumstance we currently find ourselves in and until the IDEA gets reauthorized in a way that makes parents not the only entity responsible for enforcement, this is the boat we’re in.
So, it’s not enough that they use the right form. That may be procedurally compliant, up to a point, ut it’s not substantively compliant because it doesn’t give the child what the child actually needs. As a parent, just because you see things coming across on official forms and letterhead, don’t automatically assume that they say what they need to say. That … you need to be able to go in and actually dig into the document … the language of the document … and make sure that it actually gives your child what it’s supposed to.
And so hopefully, that helps you understand this issue and what “consequence” means in terms of Applied Behavioral Analysis versus a disciplinary model of behavioral intervention. As you’re pushing for your child to get appropriate interventions in school through the IEP process, you make sure that you’re using the right language and you’re asking for the right things. And, you know, when somebody is blowing smoke, and you’re able to call them on it … in, of course, as dignified and respectful way as possible. But, you know, you’re not obligated to take a bunch of guff off of these people either.
So, hopefully that’s been helpful and we look forward to seeing you in our next Quick-Fix video. If this was helpful, please like, share … if you haven’t already, subscribe to our videos here on YouTube. And, if you want to be able to access this video after it expires off of YouTube, it will live on forever ad-free on our Patreon channel, which I’ll have links to everything below. So again, thanks so much for watching, and we look forward to seeing you again in a future video.
On January 13, 2022, after staying up late to finish my last post/podcast, I woke up to find a message in my inbox from the CAPCAA listserv that included a very comprehensive-looking report published by a group referring to itself as “The Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force,” with the email address of oahspecialedreport@gmail.com. The members of this task force are not identified in the report. The report identifies its authors as follows:
Authors/Contributors: This accountability report is provided by the Office for Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force, a coalition of concerned attorneys, advocates and parents. Many of these contributors conducted research, collected and organized the information, and assisted in the writing of this report.
Bias, Noncompliance and Misconduct In Special Education Due Process: An Accountability Report on the California Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Division, January 2022
Given the degree of retaliation that anybody calling out the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could easily face in the current anti-democratic climate of American politics, these days, I can’t say I’m entirely surprised that the individuals responsible for this report have not named themselves in it. That could be really a good way to find some “good ol’ boys” burning crosses in their yards and planting pipe bombs in their hedges on behalf of some tax-fattened, suit-wearing carpetbaggers.
So, I can’t discount the report for lack of identified authors. That leaves nothing but the content of the report with which to judge its legitimacy, but that’s almost better. It’s like a blind audition on The Voice; it doesn’t matter what you look like if you have a good voice. What you have to say and how you say it matters more than what your name is or what you look like. So, that’s how I’m looking at this report.
In these troubling times, I’m willing to accept verifiable facts from anonymous authors truly fearing for their own safety if they dare to speak the truth. I will not accept unverifiable assertions being openly spewed by people saying whatever will get them attention. So, let’s examine the assertions being made by this report.
This Task Force’s report follows a professional format for organization and presentation of its information, but it’s not a legal brief or scientific paper. Not every assertion is supported by black-and-white evidence, but the assertions not supported by evidence are nonetheless consistent with those assertions that are supported by evidence.
Additionally, because I work extensively in the very areas of concern targeted by this report, all of it rings true with the experiences that I’ve lived as a professional over the period of time discussed in this report. That which is not outright supported by evidence in this report is nonetheless credible to me given the evidence that is presented and what I already know to be true from real-life experience.
While anecdotal accounts were added to the report to bolster the authors’ positions, the identity of those offering these accounts are unknown, so verifying them is impossible. Again, concerns about retaliation and privacy are legitimate, so I don’t want to discount the privacy concerns of the authors, but one of the first rules of proving the veracity of a document is authenticating its content with its authors. That’s just a basic rule of evidence. At some point, for this document to be taken seriously by regulators and/or legislators, its authors will have to reveal themselves.
Putting aside the authorship issues for the moment and delving into the actual content of this report, what this report is basically asserting is that OAH, which is a division of the California Department of General Services (DGS), is organizationally compromised relative to its obligations to try special education cases pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The report supports these arguments with references to a collection of publicly available documents.
The Task Force’s assertions in its report are also consistent with my experiences dealing with OAH since it took over the hearings in 2005. In fact, I first became a paralegal in 2005 and witnessed the very shenanigans reported by the Task Force with the change-over from the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO) to OAH that same year. It was a dumpster fire inside of a clown car that had crashed into a train wreck, to put it mildly.
OAH underbid SEHO in terms of the costs of conducting special education mediations and hearings by failing to include the costs of administrative support and sending mediators and judges around the State to handle each case in its local community, which allowed OAH to come under SEHO’s bid by several million dollars, as memory serves. The moment it opened its doors for business, it was already millions of dollars over-budget from what it had bid to get the business from SEHO.
The quality of the judges from OAH was atrocious out of the gate. One then-new judge went down in California special education parent/student legal history for the angrily and stupidly stated words, “Ms. [Attorney], what does autism have to do with behavior!?!”
When you have people who have no idea what anybody is talking about deciding the futures of children who have no voice of their own in the process, those of us who are trying to protect these children become almost as powerless as the children we’re trying to protect. We were, and continue to be, faced with people entrusted with responsibilities that are clearly light years beyond their actual skills and knowledge, and the authorities and powers that go with those responsibilities.
What is the point of having the rule of law if the people responsible for enforcing it are personally incentivized to break it or are otherwise too dumb to know how to enforce it? We’re paying these people to implement the regulations, not to invent excuses as to why they don’t have to and bully the rest of us if we dare to question them.
I’ve been saying for the last 30+ years that special education issues are civil rights issues, and if our babies aren’t truly protected, then none of us really are. The national political landscape appears to support my conclusions, not that I’m happy to be right about that. Marginalized groups with specifically identified protected rights are always the first ones targeted by fascists, so special education is really a “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to American democracy. Clearly, we’re not doing that well and this Task Force is seeing a lot of the same things I’m seeing.
Regardless of the authorship issue, which I suspect will be resolved in due time, the evidence cited in this report and the consistency of what it describes with what I live and breathe everyday inclines me to treat it as credible, though if anyone can find an inaccurate assertion in it, please post a comment and let me know. At minimum, another federal investigation is warranted based on this report, but I don’t know that going to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the right way to go, now.
As the report discloses, there was already an OCR investigation in 2014 of the California Department of Education (CDE) as it pertains to making its hearings accessible to individuals with disabilities. I won’t repeat the anecdotal account of what that was all about, here; you can read it yourself in the report. But, I warn you, it’s upsetting. I wish I could say it was too outlandish to be true, but it sounds just about right for OAH and CDE, based on my own experiences.
Last year, just to give you an example from my own caseload, I filed a compliance complaint with CDE against a local school district for failing to implement all of a student’s IEP during the pandemic-related shutdown. The most critical element of the complaint was the district’s failure to provide in-person 1:1 aide services, as required by the child’s IEP.
Instead, the district put the aide for this non-verbal, inattentive, prompt-dependent child with autism on Zoom, requiring the child’s mother to be the in-person aide helping her child access Zoom, constantly cueing him attend to the online instruction, and prompting him through all of his work tasks to completion. The aide could only sit there, staring at them through the screen, completely useless … at taxpayer expense.
The aide was willing to provide in-person support and the non-public agency (NPA) that employed the aide was ready to send her to the student’s house in a mask for in-person services during distance learning, but the district wouldn’t permit any in-person services during shutdown. This single parent ended up selling her condo and moving, with her children, in with family friends, in no small part because she couldn’t work a paid job while sitting at home serving as the free aide for her child with special needs throughout each school day while the paid aide sat in her own home on Zoom, unable to do her actual job.
This was a blatant violation of State and federal law that the district kept blaming on the county’s health department. I challenge anybody to find a legal authority that gives a county health department the authority to tell a school district that it doesn’t have to abide by the IDEA. After attempting to get the district to do the right thing by way of written correspondence and the IEP process to no avail, I filed a regulatory complaint with CDE.
CDE opened an investigation based on what I alleged through its complaint intake unit, but then the investigator subsequently assigned to the complaint materially altered the nature of the investigation and cited the district for a different violation of the law than what I had originally alleged, and failed to issue a finding regarding the original allegation I’d made about the aide. The investigator’s findings then went to yet another unit within CDE that developed the order for corrective actions, which included compensatory special education instruction for lost service minutes, but it was silent regarding aide support during those compensatory services.
Think about this for a minute. I alleged in my complaint that the district failed to provide aide support during distance learning. The intake unit opened an investigation in response to my complaint based on the allegation of the district’s failure to implement the IEP as written, specifically with regard to 1:1 aide support. The investigator found that the district failed to implement all of the instructional minutes in the IEP, but issued no finding regarding the 1:1 aide support. The corrective actions unit ordered compensatory instruction to make up for lost service minutes, but there was no mention of aide support.
Once corrective actions have been ordered by CDE and its findings are sent out to the parties, the offending education agency has to provide proof of corrective actions to yet another unit of CDE. When I called that unit to get clarification as to whether the compensatory service minutes were supposed to include the 1:1 aide support called for by the IEP, that unit’s response was, “Yes.”
The offending district’s attorneys (definitely of the Rudy Guilliani/Syndey Powell variety), however, said, “No.” They then tried to fight with CDE over whether or not the compensatory service minutes had to include the same 1:1 aide support the student required throughout the school day in every other instructional setting, as per his IEP, likely billing the district by the hour the whole time.
What ensued turned into an internal feud within CDE. The unit at CDE responsible for collecting proof of corrective action from the district insisted that, because the IEP called for 1:1 aide support during any and all instruction, it was understood that 1:1 aide support also had to be provided during the compensatory services ordered. But, not everybody involved with the investigation at CDE agreed.
What I came to suspect was that the investigator and legal department at CDE had deliberately steered my complaint away from its original allegations for presumably fiscal and/or political reasons. It certainly had nothing to do with CDE abiding by its obligations or making the district comply with the law. It had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the educational and civil rights of a little boy with autism who can barely talk and needs an aide to access his education.
Reading through this Task Force’s report, I’m now seeing that experience again through new eyes. The argument the CDE is fiscally motivated to find it does nothing wrong and neither do its districts, regardless of the facts, as asserted by the Task Force, resonates with me as true.
Another compelling argument asserted by this report that also rings true for me is that DGS exists for the purpose of cutting costs, not ensuring the State’s compliance with federal mandates or protecting the rights of citizens. The report further argues that, as an integral part of DGS, OAH also exists for no reason other than to control costs and not to protect the rights of California’s citizens. As such, the Special Education division of OAH is not organized in a manner consistent with the requirements of the IDEA that special education hearings and mediations be conducted by impartial parties whose only function is to protect the educational and civil rights of students with disabilities.
A State employee who is being told their primary function is to save money should not be in charge of making sure the State abides by the IDEA. It’s an outright conflict of interest, which this Task Force asserts in its report. This isn’t just a philosophical assertion; it’s a regulatory requirement. The IDEA requires education agencies to design and implement individualized programs of instruction that confer appropriately ambitious educational benefits upon each student according to his/her/their unique circumstances, regardless of cost.
A State agency that exists to cut costs should not be making programming decisions in situations in which it is unlawful for cost considerations to be used to determine who will get what. That, to me, explains a lot of the hyper-Republicanism (in the present-day fascist sense of the term, not the former “Party of Lincoln” sense of it) going on in California’s special education system.
And, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that, back in 2005, right-wing grifters were responsible for giving the special education due process business back to OAH. One of the sleaziest special ed law firms there ever was, which happened to be the largest special ed law firm representing school districts in California at the time, was Lozano Smith. It was instrumentally involved in getting the due process hearings switched to OAH in 2005. All of this came on the heels of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2004, which resulted in changes to the IDEA. Those changes created an opportunity for anti-student and anti-parent forces to lobby for changes to how California handled its special education matters, from changes toState law, to changing who enforced the laws from SEHO to OAH.
However, in 2005, something else big happened involving Lozano Smith, right after OAH took the special education hearings back over. Lozano Smith will live on in infamy, at least in my mind, for decades to come following two public displays of anti-democratic behavior.
If special education advocacy has been the “canary in the coal mine” of American democracy, Lozano Smith has been one of the Mitch McConnell-esque specters of obstructive fascism that has been trying to snuff the voices of “canaries” like me for decades. I’m convinced that every single unrepentant person who had a hand in the Bret Harte mess and anything else like it will have a special place waiting for them in Trump Tower Hell, when they die; perhaps it will be named the Lozano Smith Suite.
In the present, all of the concerns raised by this Task Force’s report are grounded in the realities I deal with every day. The fact that the authors fear to reveal their identities is also grounded in the harsh reality that the fascists aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they are coming for us, anymore. Anybody who stands up for civil rights, these days, is a target, and I realize that includes me just by saying so.
Here’s the thing, though. Those of us accustomed to dealing with special education issues who understand Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) also know an Extinction Burst when we see one. So long as those of us who see this Extinction Burst for what it is continue to abide by our professional ethics, stand our ground, and stick to the applicable science and rule of law, none of the self-serving histrionics of those with anti-democratic tendencies within our government will overcome our fact-based arguments. We have to keep acting like we live in a democracy or it stops being one.
We may lose battles on occasion, particularly in those States currently permeated by maskless, unvaccinated seditionists spreading COVID as readily as their lies, but the only way we lose the overall initiative is if democracy fully collapses in the United States. All of us “canaries” need to start beating our wings and squawking loudly as the voices of experience when it comes to fighting fascism within America’s government, or it’s curtains for all of us.
It’s not shocking news to any of us that the fascists are targeting local government, including school boards, as a means of seizing control of the country. That’s nothing new! That’s what all of us working in special education advocacy have been up against since the original laws that protect our children were passed in the 1970s. To the rest of the Country, it’s unfortunate that it’s now happening to you, too, but we welcome you to the front lines and look forward to working with you to win this soft civil war currently being fought over basic rights and the rule of law in America.
To our colleagues fighting similar battles on behalf of other marginalized groups, we look to unify with you. When it comes right down to it, those of us who exist in marginalized groups collectively outnumber the few individuals at the center who put us in their margins.
In a democracy, majority rules. The minority of individuals who want to rob the rest of us of our rights cannot oppress a unified majority. Special education rights are human rights, just like ethnic rights, gender rights, sexual orientation rights, relationship rights, etc. If all of us whose rights are being infringed upon join forces instead of competing for the crumbs that fall from the would-be oligarchs’ tables, we can be sitting at the table eating meals full of freedom with everybody else, instead.
The following is the written transcript of the audio recording of my interview of Zafer Elcik of Otsimo, which you can listen to in the podcast version of this post. This transcription was aided by Otter.
Thank you so much for being in this podcast with me today. I really, truly appreciate you making the time, especially since we’re having to accommodate international time zones, and I’m here in the United States and you’re in Turkey. If you don’t mind, could you just go ahead and give us just a brief introduction of yourself and your product?
Zafer Elcik
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. My name is Zafer. I am co-founder of Otsimo. At Otsimo, we are developing apps for kids with special needs, mostly for autism, Down Syndrome, and mental challenge. What we are trying to do is to provide early intensive education to the mobile devices and the speech therapy, as well. I have a brother with autism. He has been vulnerable for a long time. And I realized that he has special interest in smart devices one day, but I couldn’t find any suites or apps for my brother. The typical apps have a lot of advertisements, as well as, like, they have a lot of sounds, animations, and so on, and my brother actually liked to play with them, but he ended up with a bad situation. I decided to create app companies just helping kids on the spectrum. Well, right now we have kids all across the US, UK, as well as Turkey. We have already met the Minister of Education of Turkey. We reach education and speech therapy all across the world through the mobile device.
Anne Zachry
That is so cool. That’s such a powerful outcome to make happen. That’s such an accomplishment. That’s so cool.
Zafer Elcik
Thank you.
Anne Zachry
Oh, thank you. So well, one of the things that because we’re here in the United States, and we’re constantly advocating for kids with special needs to get the services they’re supposed to be getting and the supports that they need. And, very definitely, the whole issue of alternative communication methods and kids who have language impairments who can’t get their words out, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have words … I mean, I’ve worked for over 30 years with kids with every kind of disability you can imagine, and lots and lots of kids on the autism spectrum with language challenges, but also across all age groups. And, so one of the things I wanted to ask you about – because I did download and install your app and mess around with it, so I could become familiar with it – the graphics and the imagery, and the age ranges that look like on the app max out at like seven and older. And, for my kids on the spectrum who are middle school and high school age or young adult age, they don’t see themselves necessarily in the apps, and the tools that are are out there for children who are younger. And, the accommodations they need evolve over time as they get older, and they may still have the language skills of a very young child, but they are still a teenager on the inside. And, so, my question to you was, “Is there … are there plans to expand the app to have a version that is more grown up and more adult looking and more age appropriate for teens and young adults that will follow them into college?” Because I’m seeing kids who everybody thought they would never go to college. But once they get the help was like “Oh, hey! That’s a possibility for you, now …”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… but these tools can’t follow them necessarily. And so my question to you is, “Are you looking to expand it to for to make the tool something that will support older users, especially as your kids get older … your child users?”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, actually, it’s a great question, because my brother is getting older and older. And, we try to test with my brother as well to what the level will be of the new content in the app. Like, at Otsimo, we approach early and intensive education, because, like, you heard a lot of the time that you know it, like, if the kids can get early and intensive education, it affects our …
Anne Zachry
Right, right. Those are my kids who are now growing up and going to college, who, when we first started when they were four and five years old, that wasn’t even a thought. But, now that they’re 18, it’s like, “Oh my gosh! Look what you can do!”, because we got all those services when they were little.
Zafer Elcik
That’s because, like, I realized that, in the US, as well as in Turkey – I mean – a lot of countries in the world, because, like, we have a lot of users all across the world, and we realized that, like, getting a diagnosis and, then after that, getting the first education is a really big hassle. Like, in the US, as well, like, you need to go to IEP meetings …
Anne Zachry
Yep.
Zafer Elcik
… to get what you need, and it’s a big hassle and you lose a lot of precious months, sometimes a year, to just getting the education. That’s because we, at first, we focused on the, like, really early and intensive skills, like, small hand gestures, or social skills, and so on. But, after that, we really found out that we need to create content for a really diverse community. That’s because, like, right now we have more than 100 games, some of them is really easy, some of them is kind of middle school-ish. But we haven’t, like, created, like … I can set it up, like, we … our apps are at pre-K to K-2, but after K-2, right now, we don’t have real content. That’s because, right now, we are developing new content every month, just to keep updated. I don’t think so we will create content for university or high school and so on, but I believe it’s so go we can go to like pre-K to K-8, and so on, in the near future. We will have a lot of content for that.
Anne Zachry
Right. Well, definitely the early intervention is a huge part of it. I mean, that’s certainly important. And, you know, my background is also in educational psychology. That’s what my master’s degree is in. And I can tell you from an instructional design standpoint … but, also I’ve worked in IT. I’ve worked it … I can do some coding, it’s not my greatest skill, but it’s not like I don’t have any coding skills at all. I understand what it takes to build something from scratch in code. And you want to start with the simpler skills and move into the … progress into the more complex skills, anyway. You know, that those simpler younger skills are foundational, not only for human beings, but also for technology. So, you build on that not only with the kid, but with the tech over time, I would imagine. So, that totally makes sense.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah. Right now, we are developing these apps for more than five years, and still, I believe that we are in the, like, really beginning.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
We have more than 20 people. Like, we have psychologist on team. We have educators, developers, designers, testers. A lot of people lately, designers working with us, and so on. And it takes a lot of …
Anne Zachry
I can only imagine. I mean, I’m just trying to envision what all the logistics are of making something happen, you know, like what you’re doing. And, it’s just … you know, what you’re doing is moving the earth. That’s huge. And you said something a moment ago that …
Zafer Elcik
Thank you.
Anne Zachry
Thank you … that really caught my ear, and that was, you know, the diversity within the autism community. And, we have a saying over here that, “When you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
Because, no two people with autism are alike, you know. Just like everybody else, that no two brains are alike, even if they have a common disorder. And so, how it manifests … and I’ve got, you know … and this goes to my next question is, you know … I’ve got situations out here where we have students with IEPs that will say in the IEP that they’re supposed to have an AAC device, with hardware and software loaded on it, but they won’t specify what they’re using. They won’t name the device and they won’t name the software in the IEP, as though all AAC tech is interchangeable. And, it’s not! Each technology is different and nuanced, and every student has to learn that piece of technology as a way to learn language. Like, if you start a kid out on ProLoQuo2Go, and then you move that kid to another school, and they see that, “Oh, well. You’ve got an an AAC device with some kind of software in your IEP. We have to implement your IEP that you came in with, but we don’t know what you were using.” And they’ll go off and get, you know, a Samsung smart pad with some kind of who-knows-what software installed on it. And it’s not the iPad with the ProLoQuo2Go the kid knew how to use from the last school. And so, what happens is their language gets taken away. And so, I guess my question to you then becomes, “If there’s other technologies that are going to be used as these children get older, like ProLoQuo2Go, going into the adult world, do you think that it’s wise to start them off on something different and then switch them, or does it make more sense to get them accustomed to one piece of technology and have it carry them through, or does it make sense to teach them more than one type of AAC tech so that if one goes out of business, the other one’s still around?” I mean, that’s my concern. It’s about the people in the public schools who tend to think that AAC technology, if they’re not specifically trained in it, they think it’s plug-and-play, and you can pull one out and push another one in. And, I wonder what your feedback on that what would be.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, my feedback on that, like, is, we have also AAC solution in our special education app.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
We are targeting mostly young children instead of, like, ProLoQuo2Go or other AAC devices as well. And I believe in … so, like, we need to introduce the AAC to the people and individuals on the spectrum as soon as possible, because, like, we have a lot of research also going on there. AAC actually doesn’t have any disadvantages to learning a language. It also have advantages to learning language or concepts of vocabulary, and so on. I believe … so, we need to, we need to show the AAC in really early stages, because it’s helpful for them. And the second thing I need to say: We need to find a way to, like, a different kind of solution. Like, sometimes you need Tobii Dynavox with a eye-tracker device on it …
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
… and so on, and sometimes you need also some AT with a light reading cue and open source system with you. I think that, like, the schools doesn’t … like, schools must not mandate an AAC over others. They need to accommodate the diversity, the diversity of different assistive technology. That’s because, like, I also came across some schools, like, they’re using just one tech and they don’t want to change, but it doesn’t help anyone. Like, it just helped the teachers, maybe the managers there. It doesn’t help the kids and the family. Because I think that, like, teachers also have a lot of goals, as well, because of the … I don’t want to say that, but, like, teachers need to accommodate the diverse kids …
Anne Zachry
Yeah. Right.
Zafer Elcik
… diverse problems or … the diverse solutions of the kid, and find a way to use the … what the kids like, what the individuals like. Because, like, communication is essential, and when you are changing a device, you’re actually changing the whole communication system. And, you force them maybe to voiceless.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
And that’s a huge drawback for diverse communities. That’s because, I believe it. So they don’t need to see a lot of different AAC, but they need to stick with what they feel comfortable.
Anne Zachry
Right. It’s doesn’t do any good to teach a kid how to speak using the tool and then take the tool away from them. And…
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… and that’s our concern. And that, again, goes back to how special education is legally regulated here, because you can’t just go and change things up once it’s written into the IEP. That’s a legally binding contract that the parents can hold the school to that says, “Hey, these are the things you’re supposed to do for my kid.” But if the contract itself is flawed, if the what it describes in writing is not appropriate, then that’s what’s enforceable. And, what we run into is … Yes, I agree with you that you have way too many school districts that will standardize on a particular technology, because they get bulk discounts. If they buy in bulk from the vendor, they get it less per unit.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
And so, it’s cheaper to get multiple licenses of a particular AAC and a particular device because they can buy those in bulk, because all of these vendors have realized that they can sell more in quantity to the schools if they can convince them that their technology will solve all these problems. And, for a lot of kids it will, but you have to specify what it is in the IEP. Because, if a kid has started out, say, on your technology and it’s part of what’s being done in the classroom, if it’s not written into the IEP, and that child moves to another area, and that IEP has to follow them to the new school, but it doesn’t say in there … that they were using your technology, the new schools not going to know to put that in. And so, what we run into is sort of a mixture of too vague of a description of the accommodation, as well as what you were talking about, what is sometimes is over-specified to the point where there’s no flexibility to try anything new.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah … Yeah.
Anne Zachry
So, you don’t … you have to strike a balance where there’s enough flexibility with the way the document is constructed that trying out new technologies is not prohibited, but what the child is familiar with is also not taken away. And so, it comes down to the wording of the document. And I think that that’s something that a lot of solution developers find frustrating when they enter into the American special education system because they’re thinking, “Oh, America loves special ed! They actually have laws and they make it free and they do all this stuff!” But, when you actually try to participate in it, it looks a lot different to live through it than it looks like on paper. Yes, there’s an embracing of it. But there’s also all of these rules that get in the way of actually doing something about it, sometimes. And so, sometimes the rules are there to help, and sometimes they get in the way. And I think that, especially as an international developer, for you coming in to try and insert your product into that kind of situation and have been successful, that’s enormous. Because that’s not an easy thing for anybody to do. And for you to come from outside of the country, and insert yourself into such a heavily regulated situation, with a solution that people are actually adapting and accepting and using, I think that’s huge. So that’s … congratulations on that. That’s enormous.
Zafer Elcik
Actually, like, the system in the U.S. is changing by state-by-state. And that’s because like, maybe it’s district-by-district.
Anne Zachry
Yeah.
Zafer Elcik
You are right. They’re involved in that kind of stuff. We here are actually trying to be a company like family-friendly, or special individual-friendly. What we try to provide is an additional value. Like, they can pick what they want. Mostly … most of the other companies, like there are big corporations in the U.S., like, they are selling bulk, but they don’t update the software for a long time or doing anything like that, specifically.
Anne Zachry
That’s true. Right.
Zafer Elcik
That’s because, like … and also, some states and district doesn’t … they need to cover by IEP by law, but they have a lot of that system. That’s because kids couldn’t reach out for, like, the AAC they need.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
That’s because we try to find a way to be an affordable and accessible solution for all families, instead of, like, binding the districts or states to just forcing them into one single product. But, you are also right. On the other side, if the kids started some sort of specific AAC, I think, I believe it, so they need to follow the same system in the other schools or other districts because, like, they learn how to communicate through that. Like, it’s something like you learn in English in one nursery; while you carry on your school, you need to … you’re forced to talk in French and …
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
… it’s impossible for you to actually … it’s something like that.
Anne Zachry
I agree.
Zafer Elcik
… take a special tech from their hand just because of the bulk discount or so, but it doesn’t help anyone.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
It’s helping the … maybe the district managers and so on.
Anne Zachry
Exactly. And that’s a lot of what we run into is … we run into administrators who spend zero time in the classroom, who are business office people making decisions that affect the classroom based on finances, which is illegal, but it happens all the time, because they don’t know any better. They don’t realize their decisions are going to have that big of an impact on a kid. They’re not even thinking about that because their business office people. And so, that’s I think it’s … we’re running into an issue over here with respect to how the bureaucracy is organized. It was created during the Industrial Revolution and emulates a factory. And, even though modern business technology has evolved well beyond that, public education technology has not. Public agency technology has not. The public sector, our government agencies, are decades behind technologically speaking, which I’m sure you’ve encountered with all of their different business systems …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, yeah.
Anne Zachry
… and things and accounting systems and was like, none of them are running the same operating system. None of them are running the same software. So, it’s a highly disparate situation. And it kind of reminds me when I was working in IT years ago, around the, like, the late 1990s, early 2000s. I went through that whole Y2K thing … and … when I was working in IT. And, at the time, the customers that I had for the company I worked with were mostly in the freight forwarding business. And, it was when U.S. Customs was switching to paperless. And, my goodness! The pandemonium and chaos that broke out amongst all of the people who handle paperwork for shipping goods back and forth overseas. I mean, this was all a paper driven processing, and now Customs wanted to go paperless, and it was something. And, nobody had the same operating system. Nobody had the same software. But, everybody’s stuff was somehow supposed to magically talk to U.S. Customs electronically. And, making that all come together over the span of like five to seven years was outrageous. But at the same time, I see that now happening in public education where we’re finally starting to reach that place where we’re just going to have to deal with it in do the upgrades. And, I think that once the upgrades get done, and we get to a more cohesive modern system, that it’ll be a lot easier because … we have better technology being implemented in the classrooms than we having implemented in the business offices. And, I think that that’s a lot of the problem is that we have this antiquated bureaucracy responsible for teaching modern children. And so, we have all these innovators like you bringing technology in, but what’s it supposed to integrate with? It’s like a green cursor on a black screen or an amber cursor on a black screen. I mean, some of the tech is so old. And so, I know that you’re having to go in and blaze a trail in a place where, you know, in a space in an industry where technology is not as easily as embraced as it is in other places. So that’s another thing that you have to be proud of yourself for, because it’s another accomplishment, to be able not only to come into the American market, with all of the regulations involved, but also just all of the backwards technology that you’re going to have to overcome. And so you’ve really taken on something that’s enormous. You know, I have one last question. I have a young man on my caseload that I’ve been with for a very, very, very long time, and he’s severely, severely, severely autistic. But he’s even more severely intellectually disabled. I think the intellectual disability gets in his way more than the autism does. But, when he was much younger, he was very self-injurious. And he would hit his head against very hard surfaces, like floors, and roads, and walls and …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… and so he was a head-banger. And, he would hit himself and he would hurt other people. And, it was because he couldn’t get his words out. And, when he would speak, people wouldn’t take him seriously, because he did a lot of scripting. So they didn’t listen to anything he said, even when he was trying to speak for real. And so, it got to the point where the behavior became his method of communication. And it took a long, long time; he had to be institutionalized to break him of that habit, and teach him to use his words again, and to get him to, you know, where he could be more functionally communicative without engaging in these violent behaviors. Unfortunately, in the course of all of this before I, you know … by the time I got involved with him, a whole lot of harm had already been done. And he had managed to, as best as we can tell, detach his own retinas from head-banging. So, now, he’s permanently blind.
Zafer Elcik
Oh, wow!
Anne Zachry
He hit his head so hard that he blinded himself, or at least that’s what the doctors are saying, because he just … all of a sudden, his retinas peeled off the backsides of his eyeballs and he couldn’t see anymore, and, so, you know, and it was after years and years of head-banging against really hard surfaces. And, his school would … they didn’t know what to do with him, so they would just put them in a seclusion room and leave them in there to whack his head on the wall for 45 minutes at a time. And, needless to say, there was a lawsuit. And, you know, we got compensatory services for him. But what we can’t do with him, now, is teach him to use a traditional AAC or any kind of device-based technologies where, you know, all these wonderful things like what you created, because he doesn’t have eyesight anymore. He can’t see the screen.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
And so, you know, we’ve had him evaluated by experts to help figure out what we can do for this guy, you know. And, he’s now my friend. I love him to death. He’s my sweet little lamb. He … I mean, I don’t have any behavior problems with him. But, here he is now, you know, as a young adult finally starting to say, “Okay, well, I think I want to have a life and do something with myself,” and the tools and the resources are so now limited for him because of the eyesight loss, because everything for autism was all about visual schedules and visual cues.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
And, you know … and I can’t do that with him. And so, what we’ve had to do is, I create tactile schedules for him where I take dollhouse miniatures, and I glue them on a great big piece of foam board. And, I make like a visual schedule, but instead of looking at it, he’s got to touch each item, and it moves through a progression so that he can, you know, follow the flow of what it is we’re going to do. And once he learns the routine – once he gets that ritual down – he knows the order of events, I don’t have to use the schedule with him anymore, because he already knows what’s coming. Now he knows the routine. But, to teach him new schedules, I would have to glue together $200 worth of dollhouse miniatures off of Amazon onto a piece of board to give him an idea of what was about to happen. And, what I’m not seeing … and so, I’m kind of putting it out there, hopefully you’ll … this is something you can think about … are tools for individuals with autism who are also blind or are deaf and have these sensory impairments on top of the autism that makes the typical solutions inaccessible to them. And just your your thoughts maybe of what you think might be a good way to go in terms of adapting a device for use with someone. Like, I can see if someone has hearing loss … hearing loss, you could do vibration. You could make the device vibrate …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… in the absence of sound. But when for someone with vision loss, I don’t know how you replicate a visual schedule, other than to just audio record yourself, like in the voice recorder, you know, just speaking your way through it. I’ve done that, too. But it doesn’t seem to be as powerful as a tactile schedule. And I’m curious as to, you know, when I talk to developers, what do you think about that? What do you think could be done for someone who’s got multiple disabilitiees and the autism is just one of many?
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, it’s a nice question. Like, we also came across like, people with hearing disorders with autism, and so on. We try to make our product as much as accessible for that. I don’t know, literally, like, because we are not doing visual schedules. I don’t know, in specific people region schedule basis. But for the Apple devices, there is, like, assistive disability techniques. And I know that, for example, ProLoQuo2Go has a system. You can actually use the switches or you can … they will actually scan the screen with them. But, you need to teach them this assistive tech on the Apple devices to the kid. And, I believe it, we are also … there will be our apps right now. I can’t say we are 100% accessible for vision problems, or hearing problems and so on, but you can use that assistive settings in the settings in Apple devices. And, combined with that assistive settings with the apps like us or ProLoQuo2Go, or if you’re using a visual schedule app, you should reaching out to developers and saying them, like, “Could you implement assistive settings to our device on your app, because we are using it for for this, this this?” And, that’s the only chance I can see from my point of view …
Anne Zachry
That stands to reason.
Zafer Elcik
Apple has a great assistive settings for people with vision problems, as well as hearing problems. That’s because, if he or she can use them assistive techniques while using the device, apps also can be a part of it and you can use that settings in the specific apps, and you can just scan the screen instead of picking seeing regionally, and so on. You will see here what you, like, the device actually loudly saying that what they’re clicking, and they can actually talk thanks to that, while just memorizing what they were seeing. That’s doable and a lot of companies are doing but, yeah, it’s a one more additional step of teaching.
Anne Zachry
Is it like an API where you if you’re a developer, you could reach out to Apple and say, “Hey, we want to link in with your accessibility tools. What’s the code?”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
Okay.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, it’s kind of an accessibility feature. You use that kind of specific codes in your app. At times, too, the Apple accessibility feature actually can be used in the app as well. The name is … or … you can use voice over, or you can use in the voice over settings. You have, like, Braille alphabet, as well as, like, the others. And also hearing devices can be connected to the Apple devices and you can use for specifically hearing disorders and so on. That’s because like, the settings if the app using that specific API or SDK, for just specific assistive technology settings, you can use it in the app as well. And Facebook, Google, using these APIs a lot. You can test it out there. You can see how they … how it’s working. And if you’re using one, we just schedule it out. You just reach out to developers and say what you want. That I believe in, so they will implement it in near future.
Anne Zachry
That’s a really good point. I know that one of the colleagues that I work with who I’ve actually have involved with this student in the past to teach independent living skills, she herself is blind. And she … her whole house is an Apple smart house at this point, because she’s become so dependent upon the Apple technologies to … as her accommodations …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… but it’s interesting you would say that because the first time I introduced the two of them to each other, we met at a restaurant in the community that is entirely staffed by individuals with mental disabilities. And, we were there to meet each other – for him to meet her – and I went inside to go get the menu. And, there was a line! And, I had to wade through a sea of people before I could even get the menu to bring it back out to him and read it to him and ask him what he wanted. And my colleague had already looked up the menu on their website, and had her phone read it out loud to the both of them so that, by the time …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… I got back outside with the menu, he already knew what he wanted.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah. Like, Apple devices are expensive, but Apple as a company, really pro assistive technology. That’s because, like, they devices are best in case for using that kind of technology.
Anne Zachry
Right, they’ve got the most experience working with this kind of stuff; they’ve been doing it longer. And well, it just for the for the benefit of our listeners who are hearing this conversation, I mean, here in the United States, if you if you’re on the autism spectrum, especially if you have other disabling conditions, other developmental disabilities, you’re also going to be eligible for services from Department of Developmental Services. And every state has a Department of Developmental Services. Now, again, federal regulations that come down from the top, just like special education law, but then how each state …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… implements the federal regs varies from state to state. And so with Developmental Services, some states, the DDS is its own thing, and you just go to the DDS office and that’s who you deal with. It’s the state agency, and they have offices in different communities around the state. But in California, and in other states, it’s a little bit different, where you have what’s called regional centers. And, regional centers are non- … here in California, are non-profit organizations that contract with California’s Department of Developmental Services. And, their function is to provide anything that someone with a developmental disability needs above and beyond what any of the other generic agencies have to do. So, for example, for a child who’s in, you know, K-12 age, the school district is going to have the primary responsibility for meeting their needs in terms of publicly funded programming for people with disabilities. But if there’s anything that doesn’t have to do with school, like afterschool childcare, or social skills in a non-school setting, like a Boy Scout troop, or something like that, there’s services above and beyond what the school is obligated to do, those things fall to regional center. So, if a child gets an iPad with your technology – with Otsimo – loaded on it, for example, at school, that’s only for school. If they need to be able to use it to communicate with people outside of the school day, they need a second separate iPad that they keep at home and take out into the community, and that’s regional center. Because the school’s …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… only responsible for what happens at school, or anything to do with homework, you know, anything that’s school related. But, if it’s beyond that, if it’s just life in general, now, you’re talking about regional center. And, for our individuals who have graduated from high school with a diploma or aged out of special ed, and now they’re young adults and they’re going out into the world, regional centers and the Department of Developmental Services are obligated to serve these people their entire lives, not just when they’re children. So, if someone is using an iPad with your technology, or ProLoQuo2Go or anything else, and then they’re no longer a public school student – they’ve grown up, they’ve gone on – but they still need that iPad with that technology on it to communicate with people, then they have to go back to DDS, or regional center, depending on how its configured in their state and say, “Okay, well, this is a life functional skill thing for me. This is an activity of daily living. If I don’t have this device, I don’t have a means of communicating with people.” And so, the laws very definitely protect their communication rights. And so, it falls on a different agency to purchase that equipment. It doesn’t automatically fall on the shoulders of the families to come up with all this money to buy all of this tech. There’s public dollars out there for it. Just, people need to know which agency to go to for which circumstance. If you’re talking about someone who is an adult who’s looking to get a job and needs to have this technology to communicate in order to be employed, well, now you’re talking about the Department of Rehabilitation, which is also federally funded and also regulated under the same bodies of law as special education law on a federal level. But again, every state does it different. Some states will roll their Department of Developmental Services and their Department of Rehab together as one solid agency that takes care of both of those responsibilities. Where others, like in California, DDS it’s its own thing and it’s got its regional centers, and the Department of Rehabilitation is a completely separate entity that you have to go to separate from everybody else and go ask for their help. And so, getting all of these different agencies that each may have an individual responsibility to one person can be a lot, but any one of these agencies could end up having to finance the technology, the communication device and software, that these individuals would need. And so, I’m just putting it out there not only for you, but for our listeners, that there’s more than one way to get the job done, and if one avenue is not appropriate for an individual, there may be another avenue that is, and that could still make your technology accessible to people outside of just the schools, even if they can’t afford to buy it personally. And so, I just, you know … Yes, I want my families who can afford it, they can just go straight there and get it. It could even be something they could get reimbursed on by the schools, if they buy it themselves because the schools haven’t given them anything appropriate, and that ends up working for them. And so, there’s a lot of different ways here in the United States where families can access these tools, including your technology, even if it’s not through the public schools.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
There might be another way to do it. So I just wanted to put that out there. Have you worked with any other agencies other than the school districts out here?
Zafer Elcik
Not yet. But we will like to working with agencies and so on. Right now, we are on track to complement …
Anne Zachry
I think what I’m going to do is I’m going to share your information with, here in California, we have First5, which is an early childhood intervention program, separate from the schools, but it works with them, sort of, but it’s separate. And, it is all early intervention. And, very often they’re the ones making the referrals.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, that would be awesome.
Anne Zachry
Yeah, they’re the ones often finding out, especially when you’re talking about children from low-income, non-English-speaking families, immigrant families … they don’t know what to look for necessarily, or, even if they see something’s up, they don’t know what to do.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
Very often, First5 will be the one that catches it and makes the referrals and gets these kids into the appropriate supports and services. And so, this is the kind of stuff that they’re going to want to know about. So I’m very definitely going to share it with them. And, then I’ll also have it on our website and everything and I’ll put it out there on our social media.
Zafer Elcik
So, I forgot to mention we have also a Spanish version, as well.
Anne Zachry
Ooooh!
Zafer Elcik
Many families are using our apps in U.S., is reaching out to special education.
Anne Zachry
Oh, that’s huge. That’s enormous to know. I’m excited to see what your project is going to be doing as it expands use through here in the United States, and as it evolves over time. I’m going to be putting links to it on our … on this … the post for this podcast. Wanted to ask me about anything?
Zafer Elcik
No, thank you for your time. Like, it was a nice coffee talk with you. Like, I haven’t imagined that, like, we are going to talk in this prophetic situations, and how I am thinking about it. It was nice questions. It was the one of the best questions I ever ask. Thank you for that and thank you …
Anne Zachry
Oh, of course! Thank you!
Zafer Elcik
… for your time and showcasing our product, as well as me. Happy to see you in two years, three years after this podcast, out with the new products focusing on adults on spectrum. That will be really awesome!
See how disability rights advocacy and smart device-based interventions can put evidence-based practices into the hands of the people, regardless of whatever rules and regulations may apply (or not) where they live.
Go into the video settings on YouTube to turn on English or other language auto-translation.
Ask Anne is a patron-supported program on Patreon in which KPS4Parents’ CEO and lead advocate and paralegal, Anne M. Zachry, M.A. Ed Psych, answers questions submitted by parents of children with special needs, professionals who work with special education students, advocates and attorneys for children with special needs, and others with questions about how publicly funded special education is supposed to work.
With more than 30 years of field experience advocating for children with special needs, designing and evaluating individualized educational programs, supporting attorneys in special education and disability-related complaints and litigation, and filing complaints with state and federal regulators, Anne has insight into the technical requirements, evidence-based practices, and public education agency politics.
Give us a good question for an upcoming episode of Ask Anne by midnight Pacific Time on March 30, 2022, and you could win the $10 Amazon eGift card.
Only serious special education-related questions will result in contest entry. The winner will be chosen at random from valid entries and announced on March 31, 2022 at 5pm Pacific Time. Selection of questions are at the sole discretion of KPS4Parents.
All questions actually used in upcoming episodes of Ask Anne will include a shout-out to those who asked them plusHonorable Mention shout-outs to up to 10 people who asked great questions that didn’t quite make it into each episode.
The winner, the individuals whose questions are used in our upcoming episodes, and our Honorable Mentions will all also receive a handwritten note of thanks from Anne. We hope you find this an engaging way to get answers to your special education-related questions and look forward to answering your questions in upcoming episodes of Ask Anne.
Submit your valid special education-related question to us for consideration and entry into this Amazon eGift Card Giveaway. There is no limit on the number of entries per participant, so long as each entry is a unique, legitimate question specific to special education appropriate for Ask Anne.
