The recent ICE raids in Ventura County, where we are located, has prompted us to engage with other local community leaders to address the needs of the families that have been impacted. In particular, we are providing technical assistance and guidance to other activists about how public education resources can be leveraged to support the children left traumatized by the ICE raids, many of whom are too afraid to go to school, now.
In 2019, the Ventura County SELPA provided professional development on how to distinguish between disability-related school refusal and truancy. They warned districts that emotional distress, including trauma, can keep children from school, and that school refusal should not be treated as willful defiance.
That training still applies today. In fact, it applies even more urgently in the wake of recent immigration raids that have left many children too afraid to return to school. And under state and federal law, school districts and charter schools are already obligated to act.
I want to share with you a PowerPoint presentation that was shared with me many years ago by a colleague at the time who worked at the Ventura County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA). I’ve converted it to a video with my verbal input as to the contents as they relate to the ICE raids, which I’m not going to transcribe here. If you’re reading this post, you’ll have to watch the video. If you’re listening to the podcast, it’s not going to make much sense without the slides. I’m including a PDF of the presentation for download here, as well, if you’d rather consume its contents that way.
The above video explains the logic behind the strategy I’m sharing with you here. I’ve already shared the relevant documents with local activists who are dealing directly with the affected families.
For families and guardians of children who have been traumatized by the ICE raids in California such that their access to education is now compromised, regardless of whether or not they are already in special education or on 504 plans, it is critical that they be evaluated for mental and emotional health needs that might require services and supports. This could include mental health services across home, school, and community settings, as well as in-home instruction on a temporary or ongoing basis according to their individual needs, as identified by comprehensive assessment in all areas of suspected disability and unique student need.
There are four PDF documents listed here for download:
Parents or guardians and their advocates and activists are encouraged to use these tools to create written correspondence that triggers assessments by local school districts and charter schools of individual children who are showing signs of trauma from the ICE raids that negatively impacts their access to education and/or their ability to benefit from instruction. Assessments are based on suspected disability and trauma is a disability.
The goal with this post/podcast is not to create a long-winded article for reading or listening. This isn’t entertainment; it’s useful information to help people protect the children in their lives who have been harmed by these ICE raids. Please use this information responsibly to protect vulnerable children in need.
Many people don’t know what the word “eugenics” means, but parents of special education students will recognize the behavior associated with eugenicist thinking. Special education is not an isolated, siloed experience with no bearing on the rest of society, and history shows us that societies don’t just collapse because of a few bad actors or terrible ideas. They collapse because their systems stop evolving with the needs of their people.
I have spent the last 34 years upholding democracy at the local level through special education compliance, asserting all the while that special education is the “canary in the coalmine” for the rest of our civilization. The degree to which a society is civilized is revealed by the degree to which it takes care of its most vulnerable members.
When societies collapse, systems that once protected people can no longer fulfill their functions and start existing for their own benefit, causing constituent needs to become the means of perpetuating the system rather than the ends served by the system. These systems stop spiraling upward through stages of reflection, accountability, and self-correction and, instead, stagnate and drift into patterns we recognize all too well; patterns that include horrors like eugenics.
What Is Eugenics, and Why Should We Be Worried?
Eugenics is the scientifically discredited and morally indefensible idea that society can be “improved” by encouraging reproduction among people with “desirable” traits while suppressing or eliminating reproduction among those deemed “undesirable.” In the early 20th century this ideology fueled forced sterilizations, segregation, and systemic discrimination against the poor, disabled, mentally ill, and minority populations (NHGRI).
Even after the Holocaust exposed the full horror of where eugenic thinking leads, many of its assumptions remained embedded in law, policy, and cultural attitudes. Today we are seeing a resurgence of these ideas under new guises:
Erasure of tracking systems for disease, disaster, and civil-rights data, making vulnerable groups less visible and less protected
These actions aren’t accidents. They are systematic attempts to decide who deserves to survive and who doesn’t, without ever saying the real intent out loud. One of the things about my tendency to use Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in any attempt to understand behavior is that it really helps identify when actions speak louder than words, which is why I recommend that everyone have a basic understanding of ABA. It’s hard to miss the function of a behavior when it’s this obvious.
Project 2025 Threatens Publicly Funded Special Education
Project 2025 is a published blueprint backed by major political operatives that calls for dismantling federal civil-rights enforcement, including abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Key figures inside the current administration have publicly stated that their job is to “eliminate” the Department.
Shift authority to states without guaranteeing civil-rights compliance
Divert public funds to private schools that need not serve disabled students equitably
So, Project 2025 and Eugenics: Here’s the Link
At its core, eugenics builds systems that decide whose lives are worth protecting and whose are expendable. Project 2025 follows this template by removing protections for disabled, poor, and marginalized students, making survival and success conditional on wealth, ability, and conformity.
While supporters frame these moves in language about “freedom” and “efficiency,” the practical effect is to systematically privilege some groups while abandoning others. Selective protection of life, determined by productivity and conformity, is the operational definition of modern eugenics (ACLU analysis).
Understanding this connection matters because it shows that the fight for special education compliance is not merely bureaucratic; it is a defense of human dignity against an organized eugenics campaign. If the rights of a nonverbal child with autism don’t matter, why should anyone else’s? The eugenicists refer to our most severely impacted special education students as “useless eaters,” just as the Nazi’s did in WWII Germany as they tossed them into concentration camps, experimented on them, and later disposed of them in gas chambers.
This is How Special Education Compliance Fights Eugenics
Eugenics thrives where human dignity is rationed. Special education compliance, by contrast, mandates recognition of each individual’s inherent worth, no matter what it takes to give them equitable access to everything that everyone else can access. The IDEA requires schools to identify, assess, and individually support every eligible student, with continuous review through the IEP process.
Every compliance cycle, which includes assessment, planning, intervention, and progress review, is a deliberate act of justice scaffolding. It interrupts the slide toward selective harm by making it illegal to “write off” a student as unworthy of investment.
Developmental Science Shows Us the Right Way Forward
Jean Piaget taught that learning happens in stages. Lev Vygotsky emphasized guided support within a child’s zone of proximal development. Erik Erikson described psychosocial milestones that, if skipped, lead to lifelong instability: Trust ➢ Autonomy ➢ Initiative ➢ Competence ➢ Identity
When these stages are supported, society spirals upward toward resilience. When they are abandoned, societies fall into fear, shame, hatred, and authoritarianism, which collectively creates a breeding ground for eugenic thinking.
People who lack the problem-solving skills to overcome life’s hardships look for others to blame for their unhappiness while unscrupulous profiteers exploit their limitations for power and profit and provide them with convenient scapegoats to blame for all their problems. Very often, people targeted for extinction by eugenics will be unwittingly enlisted to facilitate their own demise, not realizing that they are among one of the groups being targeted for extinction when they are being pitted against another.
Spiraling Is an Instructional Strategy that Can Improve Our Chances
In education, the term “spiraling” refers to referring back to previously taught material or concepts and relating it to new material being instructed. For example, a refresher on basic addition before launching into new instruction about subtraction would be an instance of spiraling the addition instruction into the subtraction instruction to help the learner make the mental connection between what is already known and what is being presented as new.
In day-to-day human discourse, spiraling can be used to inform what we understand about the world around us based on what we’ve learned from past experiences relative to new information being presented to us in the news and from the people we know. By weaving in what we’ve already learned and mastered and connecting it to the new information being presented, we can create better outcomes for ourselves.
Compliance Is Not Pointless Red Tape
Sound compliance structures create a lifeline, not just for individual students but for all of us. They remind us that justice is a habit, growth is a cycle, and survival is collective.
Every IEP, every audit, every procedural safeguard is a step upward, away from the abyss. Without spiraling structures of accountability and care, the risk of falling backward into destructive hierarchies grows exponentially.
The measure of a civilization has always been how it treats its most vulnerable. When we protect the rights of students with disabilities, we protect the soul of our nation.
Special education law isn’t about pointless obedience. It’s intended to be a bulwark against eugenics in American society, which is why it is currently being targeted by the Project 2025 eugenicists. Regardless of whether you’re a parent of a child with special education needs, a concerned taxpayer who didn’t volunteer to bankroll eugenics as a function of our government, or both, you have a beef here with how things are currently being operated at the federal level.
The only way to preserve our democracy is to participate in it, including at the local level. Every IEP meeting is an opportunity to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the government serving the needs of the public accordingly. And to make sure our society attends to its most vulnerable members like a civilized society should.
On Friday, February 7, 2025, I participated in an Instagram Live event with Ege Cakaloz of Talkido to discuss how I’m using their screen-free technology to teach emotional vocabulary and social/emotional concepts to a young man with a seizure disorder, intellectual disability, autism, and vision loss. Learn how I am using Talkido’s technology to increase my client’s functional communication skills and independence by watching the recorded event, here.
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.
As much as the work we do at KPS4Parents focuses on social justice issues that include parents’ legal rights in the special education process and related areas of public agency regulation, I’ve been hesitant until now to say anything about what has been charading as a parents’ advocacy movement, lately. This is mainly because of the most recent developments involving the leadership of one such faux parent advocacy organization, Moms for Liberty, which pretty much speak for themselves and eliminate the need for me to work that hard at supporting my arguments with evidence.
I’m busy. I don’t have time for deep dives into the world of politics when I’m already doing deep dives into the peer-reviewed research and case law during the regular school year. I see every bit of stupidity and ineptitude in local government as we see in Congress on the daily. Idiot politicians are the reason why lay advocates and civil rights attorneys are needed in a democracy. Mark Twain is quoted as saying, “In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made school boards.” It’s not like any of this is new.
I’ve got over 20 students on my lay advocacy caseload, at least two of those cases are going to due process, several of those cases have outstanding remedies due to them from a federal investigation of their local school district that have not yet been negotiated, and others are requiring me to work with families at the local agency level to hopefully resolve their concerns, all the while also making the record just in case formal complaints or litigation become unavoidable. I’m not going to stop all of that to write a blog post/podcast episode unless the moment is right, and it’s now right.
I’m won’t rehash the Moms for Liberty scandal, here. You can read up on that on your own time, if you don’t already know about it. What I’m focusing on here are the social and psychological sciences as they interact with the rule of law in our democratic republic, and what that means for this country to have a government that is “of the people, for the people, and by the people” with respect to legitimate parent advocacy.
We’re meant to have a representative government and it isn’t representative of most of “the people” when a tiny minority of whack-job conspiracy theorists and con artists with prefrontal cortices made of cottage cheese or something close to it, are put into positions of authority, or otherwise have influence over those with authority, and have access to taxpayer resources with no effective systems of oversight or accountability. Once in power, people like these then attempt to bend reality to fit their whacko notions of how things should be, regardless of what the majority of their constituents want or need or the actual facts of the situation, usually for their own financial gain and without regard for any harm done to others. Berkeley Breathed referred to such an individual as a “tax-fattened hyena,” in one of his old Bloom County cartoons. I find the term eternally apt.
I find that these are “the people” employed within the public sector who are the most opposed to any kind of data collection that could be used as an audit trail and enforcement tool, which is why the backend business automation of most publicly funded agencies at the local level is such garbage. It’s really hard to misappropriate public funds when you’re leaving digital footprints right back to yourself in the process. Effective office automation on par with what has been happening in the private sector for decades has been limited in the public sector for supposed budgetary reasons, but the reality is that the ROI on a good system would make the upgrade pay for itself in no time. It’s not costs that are being avoided, it’s audit trails.
Because “the people” are expected to hold their government accountable according to the rule of law, it is necessary for “the people” to know how to do so and be given access to public agency information through various client’s rights, freedom of information, and public records laws. Because of our laws regarding public access to public agency information and the mechanisms of accountability that are built into the regulations that describe how our public agencies are supposed to operate, our democracy equips us with powerful tools that allow us to advocate for appropriate outcomes as regular members of society, including as parents for our children in programs for which we pay taxes to serve their needs as a matter of law.
Keeping parents in the dark about their rights and the proper paths for recourse and distracting them with pointless displays of anger and hostility are all parts of a strategy to undermine legitimate parent advocacy, not support it. It drains parents’ energy, time, and resources to pursue legitimate remedies by wasting it all on displays of emotion that rarely change policies and create more problems than they solve. The actual processes and procedures afforded to parents as per their lawful parent rights in the public education setting are the only mechanisms of democracy that are designed to address meritorious parental concerns.
No matter how many fits at a school board meeting a parent may throw, until they file a formal complaint of some kind, there’s not much anyone can do. When parents bring their legitimate concerns to a school board meeting, the proper response is for someone from the school board to help the parent exercise their rights, including helping them file a formal complaint. When parents attempt to argue for things outside the scope of what their public schools can legally do, the schools are obligated to explain how the rules actually apply and what can legitimately be done to address such parental concerns.
In the case of special education, this is specifically regulated at 34 CFR Sec. 300.503, which mandates the provision of Prior Written Notice (PWN) to parents whenever a change to a child’s special education program is proposed or denied by the public education agency. If the public education agency’s explanation doesn’t make sense for why it is proposing changes or refusing changes requested by parents, parents have a right to use whatever cockamamie excuse they’ve been given in their PWNs as evidence against their public education agencies in regulatory complaints or legal proceedings. Our democracy protects parents with rules like these, but knowing how to use them and enforce them isn’t something most parents know how to do.
One of the methods of depriving people of their rights is to deprive them of any knowledge of past successful efforts to secure the rights of citizens, such as with the litigation and legislative history of special education law, and the processes and procedures by which everyday people can now assert their rights under the law because of how past cases were successfully argued and won and how legislators have responded to the relevant scientific and legal developments over time. This is why these organizations are so strongly opposed to any curriculum that accurately describe the effects of slavery on American society and governance, and don’t want to acknowledge the growing body of science that better explains gender and sexual orientation than what the science of the past was able to tell us because it challenges behaviors that have been learned and practiced over generations according to religious and political beliefs that don’t always abide by observable reality.
For example, during the 1600s, the astronomer Galileo died under house arrest for heresy after daring to assert that the Earth rotates around the sun based on his observations using telescopes and calculating the movements of the stars and planets, because this contradicted the Church’s position at that time that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything in the skies rotated around the Earth. Galileo was right, of course. He witnessed the actuality of God’s miracle, but rather than revel in its realization, the Church rejected it because it contradicted a long-standing myth that was being knowingly perpetuated by the Church so that it was not contradicted in the eyes of the people, lest it lose their trust and obedience. The Church did not acknowledge that Galileo was right and absolve him of heresy until more than 300 years later during the 20th century.
A fact-based discovery that contradicted the Church in such a significant way would have cost the Church a great deal of credibility among its believers if acknowledged as true, or at least that’s what the Church apparently feared, so it tried Galileo for heresy and gave him the choice of being found guilty and thrown in prison for the rest of his life or accepting a plea deal and spending the rest of his life under house arrest. He took the plea deal.
Whether you’re religious or not, the Universe functions according to set rules that can be measured, analyzed, and understood with enough time and resources. There may be a difference of opinion as to why that is and who or what caused it to happen, but what has actually happened with respect to Creation is an observable fact that simply has to be studied in order for the design’s function and purpose to be understood.
For example, humankind just spent seven years flying a space craft to an asteroid that is due to smack into the Earth in about 150 years so that we can start figuring out now a way to prevent it from hitting us by the time it gets here. We just flew this thing over millions of miles of space, right up to this asteroid, punched the asteroid using a mechanical arm, captured chunks of debris and dust that flew up off the surface of the asteroid from getting punched, then flew the debris and dust all the way back to Earth so we can analyze it and figure out what the asteroid is made of, which will help us figure out how to prevent it from hitting us. You cannot tell me that our species is capable of doing that and yet we can’t apply science to improve the quality of life for every human on our planet without destroying the world around us.
I help everyday families of learners with disabilities acquire the necessary knowledge about the processes and procedures that apply to their disability-related needs and rights so they can successfully advocate for their loved ones according to the applicable science and the rule of law. I understand the regulated processes and procedures that give my clients access to what the law promises them. I use the applicable sciences to identify each learner’s unique needs so as to inform the requests I make of publicly funded agencies and programs on their behalf. I understand what it means to facilitate “the people’s” participation in democracy at the local level, including participation in state and federal investigations, as well as due process hearings and disability-related litigation in local, state, and federal courts.
I understand that the only way to uphold democracy is to participate in it according to its rules and regulations. Anything that undermines the democratic process by violating a student’s constitutional rights, down to a shoddy triennial evaluation or a garbage IEP, is fair game for citizens knowledgeable enough to understand what they are looking at and the remedies available to them to fix anything wrong. Keeping people ignorant of what has worked in the past is a deliberate attempt to undermine people’s advocacy for themselves, their loved ones, and their communities in the present. People who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it, thus learning their lessons the hard way from trial-and-error rather than from the example set by those who came before them, which wastes time and slows down the rate at which society becomes smarter.
The first step of preventing people from advocating for themselves is preventing them from knowing about past efforts of advocacy that were successful, hence the book bans, altering curriculum standards to promote misinformation and omit important accurate information, protesting community-based pro-literacy and historical accuracy efforts spearheaded by minority groups, and attempting to control any other literary outlet that could expose children to facts that make these individuals uncomfortable. Keeping people ignorant is a powerful tool of oppression. That’s why American slaves generally weren’t taught to read. A literate oppressed class can communicate and collaborate more effectively to rise up against their oppressors.
People forget that America went through upheavals similar to what we are experiencing right now, back in the 1980s and 90s with some people freaking out over mandatory seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws and “no smoking” laws in restaurants and bars the same way some people freaked out about vaccines and masks during the worst of COVID. Back then, the Cold War had all the doomsayers expecting everyone to die in an unavoidable nuclear holocaust. Tipper Gore was coming for everybody’s rock music lyrics and Larry Flint, who once ran for president on the Republican ticket, was defending his first amendment right to show exploitative photos of consenting models to consenting purchasers of his published works, thereby effectively defending the first amendment rights of all pornography publishers.
Ironically, many of the men who I remember from back then supporting Larry Flint’s first amendment rights have since taken considerable issue with Colin Kaepernick’s first amendment rights when he peacefully protested murderous police violence against people of color and other minorities, as well as racial inequalities in America in general, by silently kneeling during the national anthem before the start of professional football games. Games! Grown men running around in matching outfits chasing balls and each other, like that’s somehow more important that the fact that we have a national epidemic of people on our local police forces terrorizing and murdering certain groups of people at will and getting away with it. It rather makes clear that they were willing to defend democracy when it meant they could look at pictures of sexually exploited models, but when it comes to protesting homicidal abuses of police authority against people of color and other minorities, as well as racial inequality in general, that is “a horse of another color,” which is disgusting.
My point is that the whacko minority has always been around, hypocritically asserting itself when it sees the opportunity to cite the law in support of its own agenda while denying the same protections to others with whom they disagree, before retreating into the corners and staying silent for a while until circumstances provoke them into coming out of the woodwork again. With each periodic re-entry into the mainstream, the whackos, at least temporarily, recruit others to their cause until their actual motives and sheer stupidity become evident to their recruits, who then abandon them as they begin to recede back into the woodwork. It’s a predictable cycle and now people are living long enough to see it repeat in their lifetimes.
When you realize it’s a predictable cycle, each new “Groundhog Day” moment leaves you better prepared for when the cycle repeats itself again. The benefit of learning from history is not having to waste time repeating past mistakes through trial and error to eventually arrive at the same conclusions. It’s Vygotskian scaffolding realness. It allows you to step into the problem-solving at a much later stage in the process, building upon the knowledge that was gathered by those who came before you, instead of starting from the beginning with nothing.
Here’s what I can tell you about having to interact with the crackpots that have infiltrated the public sector or otherwise raise pointless hell that interferes with the legitimate functions of government at the local level, as well as my childhood growing up in the middle of the still butt-hurt losers of the Civil War who have just been waiting for as long as I can remember for Dixie to rise again so they can get a re-do of the Civil War: I’m not kidding when I say their prefrontal cortices are made of cottage cheese, or the neurological equivalent thereto.
I’m entirely willing to believe that this is due to environmental deprivation of developmental learning opportunities throughout childhood and being raised by uneducated, usually deeply religious, authoritarian parents who supported slavery or descended from people who did, remained bitter and deeply chagrined about losing the Civil War, and relied on corporal punishment as their primary parenting method. I don’t think most of them were necessarily born without intact cognitive hardware to begin with. I think an awful lot of perfectly normal humans born into that culture have been deprived of developmentally appropriate environments during childhood that prevented the full development of their brains due to cultural beliefs that strictly controlled their lifestyles and environments.
There is a famous case study of a poor woman named Genie who was grotesquely neglected and abused by her family, and then subsequently exploited by the scientific community to study the effects on her development of spending the first 13 years of her life either strapped to her bed on her back or strapped into a toilet chair, always alone in her room with almost no human interactions. She spent most of the first 13 years of her life alone in that bare room with no toys, no language, and no intellectual stimulation. As a result, her brain failed to develop and she will always be intellectually, communicatively, and physically disabled and require constant care.
There were a lot of ethical concerns around how the research community handled Genie once she was rescued from her family. That said, her situation provided tremendous insight into what can happen to the brain of a developing child when necessary environmental stimuli are not present to trigger the brain to grow and develop. Play is learning, and formal education only adds to the learning that a child is naturally inclined to pursue independently in a developmentally appropriate environment. When children are deprived of developmentally appropriate environmental stimuli, the parts of their brains that are most ripe for learning are given nothing to learn and will atrophy from lack of use.
Genie’s uniquely terrible situation made clear that, once developmental milestones were lost due to environmental deprivations during childhood, they could not be recovered. This has since informed a great deal of science designed to understand how environments that contain some developmentally appropriate stimuli but not others affect human development across the lifespan, starting in childhood. In attempting to understand why the whackos are acting so whacky, it helps to understand that a fair number of them can’t help it.
This is how we’ve come to understand how It is entirely possible for a person to get just enough input from their childhood and adult environments to learn how to do accounting, cook dinner, and fly a plane, but still have failed to developed in other areas necessary to functioning as a fully capable member of society. Intellectually capable people with under-developed social/emotional functioning can pose a danger to themselves or others, particularly with respect to domestic violence and disgruntled employees.
What we are now starting to understand about the effects of children being raised in environmentally deprived environments explains a lot in hindsight, but creates a whole new set of challenges about how to ethically address this as a threat to domestic tranquility going forward. Our current societal problems with mass shootings are strikingly similar to the suicide bombers of the 9/11 era. Radicalization is a lot easier to achieve with people who have “holes” in their development from inborn disabilities and/or being raised in developmentally deprived environments. Parents who were raised as children in developmentally deprived environments are more likely to perpetuate the deprivation with their own children because they don’t know that something is missing, much less what it is, so they don’t know to add it to their children’s environments.
Education that includes developing critical thinking skills, such as those promoted by the Common Core, is necessary to create a public that is educated enough to participate in our government “of the people, for the people, and by the people,” with any success. So, when these groups start coming for our public education system to remove content and control what facts our students are allowed to be taught and which facts will be withheld from them, that’s censorship, not first amendment freedom of speech or evidence-based instruction. It’s entirely unconstitutional, and it violates best practices.
That is not legitimate parent advocacy. That is an organized effort to undermine our democracy by groups of radicals looking to cloak themselves in the language and superficial appearance of a cause people can support – here, parents’ rights in the public schools – so they can infiltrate, undermine, and profit from running our public systems in a broken way. As someone who does the job for real, I resent getting lumped in with these kooks by public education agency officials and their representatives when I attempt to help a family avail itself of the actual rules and regulations as a legitimate function of democracy. I deal with enough “Karens” employed within the public schools; I don’t need to also be associated with the “Karens” high-jacking the legitimate cause of parents’ rights and using it as a dishonest cover to pursue undemocratic ends.
In the special education context, which serves as a good example of the kinds of regulated mechanisms of democracy that exist at the local level, parents have federally protected rights to, 1) informed consent, meaning they fully understand any special education-related documents to which they are asked to sign their consent, and 2) meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, including a voice in educational placement decisions. This means that a parent’s input has to be seriously considered by all the other members of the IEP team, and it’s understood that the parent is automatically a member of the IEP team as a matter of federal law. The public schools are not permitted to unilaterally decide what goes into a student’s IEP without parental input and parents have recourse if they ever disagree with the public schools about what their students with disabilities require.
There are all kinds of rules and regulations that describe how parents of children with disabilities can avail themselves of the rule of law and enforce their children’s educational and civil rights. The problem is that the rules and regulations are complicated, the science that applies to their children’s unique educational needs is complicated, the processes and procedures take way too long for comfort, and there are usually at least some unrecoverable economic costs to the families that take time to pursue appropriate remedies from the public sector for their loved ones with disabilities. It’s not fair to the person with the disabilities when the people responsible for advocating for them, usually family members, know less than the people from whom they must make these requests.
The power imbalance is significant and is only further complicated by the reality that the public sector employees have millions of taxpayer dollars to tap into to pay lawyers to keep them out of trouble. Think: “pre-conviction Michael Cohen.” These are often high-priced fixers paid by tax-fattened would-be oligarchs who view their publicly funded agencies as their own little personal fiefdoms, and their consumers as just a means to their own personal financial ends, as though public program beneficiaries solely exist to justify the publicly funded paychecks of public agency administrators.
Every state has adopted standards by which all of its public schools must abide for the purposes of providing America’s K-12 students with what each state considers appropriate for students to have learned by each grade level across all core subject areas. These whacko book-banning conspiracy theorists and their dog-and-pony road shows at school board meetings, public libraries, and community-based literary events are taking their arguments to the wrong venues if they don’t like what is being taught in their states.
Most of these folks tend to favor the idea of reduced federal government and increased state rights, so I don’t understand what their argument is, here. They have an existing state right to establish their curriculum standards at the state level, and if they don’t like those standards, they can put forth proposed state legislation or a bring a lawsuit against their state that proposes to change their state’s standards, but their local school districts are still responsible for satisfying their state’s then-current standards until such time as they are changed, as a matter of law because this is a democracy, and that’s how you change the rules if you don’t like them in a democracy. If attempts to change the curriculum at the state level fail, one’s recourse could include filing a lawsuit or running for public office to effect policies directly, not book bans and death threats.
This brings me to the actual strategy that is at play here, which is something I call the “Anger & Fear Engine.” This goes to something that most people understand, which is the fight/flight/freeze mechanism. For many years, people only thought of the fight and flight aspects of it, and I suspect that’s because they rhyme and it’s easy to remember, but in all actuality, when an organism is threatened, it will actually either run away, fight to defend itself, or freeze and get either ignored or attacked. Plenty of people know what it’s like to automatically freeze in a moment of surprise, especially if it’s scary. The fight/flight/freeze mechanism is a very primitive neurological response that is normal in human development, and something humans share in common with almost all other living creatures.
Anger is generally a secondary response that puts one on the offensive after something has initially put one on the defensive. One gets mad when made to feel afraid, vulnerable, betrayed, insulted, offended, disrespected, rejected, inferior, etc. All of those things instantly make people feel bad about themselves, at least until they’re done processing what is going on, at which point the fight/flight/freeze mechanism kicks in. Anger occurs along with the adrenaline rush that hits when that “switch” is “flipped” from feeling compromised to going on the offensive.
If you opt for fight, you’ve taken that defensiveness and flipped it to going on the offensive. If you opt to flee or freeze, the problem is likely to remain unresolved, at least temporarily. Sometimes you need to retreat and regroup before you know how to most effectively go on the offensive and fight back. Flight can serve a constructive purpose if it buys you the time to figure out what you need to do and what tools you will need to fight back and win. This is the primary reason why most of my clients do not sign agreement to any important documents when they are presented; we take our time to review them outside of any meetings when we have time to sit and focus on what they actually say before responding to them in writing with any signatures. Freezing may buy time if it doesn’t result in getting attacked; if anything, it can buy time until an opportunity to either fight or retreat presents itself.
Dr. Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Those words entirely capture the amount of time it takes to do a good job of gathering the necessary data and documents to inform an appropriate program of instruction for a student with disabilities, much less engage in any enforcement mechanisms that might also be necessary to make that happen.
British film producer Peter Brook is quoted as saying, “Violence is the ultimate laziness.” His point was that negotiations and adult-level problem-solving require a lot of serious thought that is based on a comprehensive-enough understanding of the underlying facts, which can take a long time, but bashing people over the head can take just a few seconds and you don’t have to think that hard to do it. Violence is lazy because it doesn’t include all the hard thought and collaboration that is required for peace. Have you noticed that the people who do the most complaining rarely have a workable plan to fix whatever they’re complaining about? They exist to grieve, not resolve.
Fear can become anger very quickly, and becoming angry can instill fear in others, which can prompt them to become angry as well, hence the “Anger & Fear Engine.” It’s a common psychological response to threats, but uncontained anger and violence towards societies or specific members of society are the methods of barbarians. They are the methods of the lazy or incapable. Successful strategists can manipulate environmental factors according to best practices and the rule of law such that other people’s behaviors are shaped and changed into something more conducive to a healthy, thriving community without any fighting at all, such as when policies and practices actually meet the needs of the people. Sun Tzu asserted in The Art of War that the most successful war is the war you prevent and never have to fight.
The problem, however, is that the dangerously large minority of people whose prefrontal cortices are something akin to cottage cheese literally lack the neurological hardware to understand how to participate in the adult-level problem-solving necessary to seriously address society’s challenges. Legitimate parent advocacy requires a lot of research and writing according to science and law, not screaming in school board meetings, blocking the entrances of public libraries, or disrupting community-based literacy programs. Any organization that purports to engage in standing up for parents’ rights should be actually participating in activities that involve the actual mechanisms of democracy, or they are just fundraising off the backs of people in need without offering real solutions and telling them the only solutions are harassment and/or violence. They are selling the lazy alternative to people who don’t know how to engage in the real solution.
Moms for Liberty and organizations like it are not legitimate parent advocacy organizations. They do not assist parents in participating in the legitimate democratic processes and procedures that already exist to help parents uphold and enforce their rights. If anything, there is an effort by these groups to obstruct and/or subvert democracy at the local level by passing bigoted, unconstitutional local school board policies and aggressively attempting to uphold and enforce them, even if they are unlawful and unethical. The legitimate complaint and due process mechanisms available to parents are not utilized by groups like these, very often because they would not be successful on their merits for the types of undemocratic culture-war claims they want to assert.
It is so very important for parents to make sure that any outside providers they turn to for support are acting according to best practices and the rule of law, and are legitimately taking the needs of client families into account. Parents should be asking a lot of “how” and “why” questions as they learn how to exercise their rights under the law. The first question any parent should ask when embarking upon an effort to exercise their rights is, “May I please have a copy of my parent rights?” Start there and keep digging for more information if something doesn’t make sense. Call your state’s department of education and ask for explanations of things you don’t understand about the rules and how you can legitimately participate.
If you think your local education agency needs better board leadership, run for school board yourself or support candidates who agree with you about compliance issues that affect your children and local community. The only way to preserve democracy is to participate in it, which means voting, running for office, and availing yourself of complaint and due process procedures as appropriate to each circumstance to create the changes in the world you want to see. Throwing a fit and demanding that everybody else force reality to bend to your will isn’t democracy at all.
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.
Anne Zachry Welcome to Making Special Education Actually Work, an online publication presented in blog and podcast form by KPS4Parents. As an added benefit to our subscribers and visitors to our site, we’re making podcasts versions of our text only blog articles so that you can get the information you need on the go by downloading and listening at your convenience. We also occasionally conduct discussions with guest speakers via our podcast and transcribe the audio into text for our followers who prefer to read the content on our blog. Where the use of visual aids legal citations and references to other websites are used to better illustrate our points and help you understand the information, these tools appear in the text only portion of the blog post of which this podcast is a part. You will hear a distinctive sound [*] during this podcast whenever reference is made to content that includes a link to another article, website, or download. Please refer back to the original blog article to access these resources.
Today is September 27, 2022. This post and podcast is titled, “Interview of Rose Griffin, SLP & BCBA,” which was originally recorded on August 29, 2022. In this podcast, I interview Rose Griffin about her past work in the public education system and the work she is doing now to educate professionals and parents to support children with special needs to address their challenges at the intersection of communication and behavior.
We’re here with Rose Griffin, who’s a speech language pathologist as well as a board certified behavior analyst. Correct?
Rose Griffin That’s right, yes, less than 500 of us in the world. So …
Anne Zachry Yeah, you’re a … you’re a rare species, and you’re very valuable. The crossover between your disciplines is really very valuable. I have another colleague, relatively local to me, who’s an OT and a BCBA. And …
Rose Griffin … oh, yeah, that’s very rare. I probably know them. There’s not many of those at all.
Anne Zachry Yeah … and, and so you know, her whole thing is, you know, kids, especially on the autism spectrum, that have sensory integration issues. And the degree to which that interferes with behavior, or it creates sensory-seeking behaviors that interfere with learning in the school setting, or whatever the case may be, but that sensory-behavior connection is where, you know, she really knows her stuff. And that’s very rare that I run into people who have, you know, those dual disciplines and understand the connections. And I think when you and I first started communicating about doing this podcast together, you know, my mind immediately went to functional communication. Because …
Rose Griffin Yeah!
Anne Zachry … because we have a lot of kids who … they have the speech and language services to teach them, you know, often in a small group or an individual one-on-one situation, sometimes pushed into a classroom situation, but most often not in my experience, and then somehow they’re supposed to generalize that to the world at large. And …
Rose Griffin Right! It’s supposed to miraculously happen. Yeah.
Anne Zachry Yeah, it’s just gonna be osmosis or something. And so, you know, there needs to be that explicit reinforcement of the behavior in the in vivo context, in order for them to make the connection between what you’re talking about in a therapeutic situation and real life. And that’s where the the behavioral supports come in, where functional communication skills are used as behavior strategies in an ABA based program. And so that in my mind, that’s that was where everything immediately went when I saw your qualifications, because I’m like, “Oh, she’s in that nexus of, you know …”
Rose Griffin Heh, heh – yeah.
Anne Zachry … where the … because all, all communi-, what is, what is the saying? “All behavior is communication”?
Rose Griffin Right. There’s that saying. They say that a lot. Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry And all language is a learned behavior. So you know that the language-behavior, there really is no divide. And …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … it’s just … it’s more as … it’s different nuances of the same thing parsed out and, and so what have been your experiences? Because, I’m assuming you go into the schools or you do work with the schools as well.
Rose Griffin Yeah, so, for 20 years, I worked as a school based speech language pathologist …
Anne Zachry Okay.
Rose Griffin … and I started my own business called ABA Speech five years ago. And I actually just decided in May to step away from the schools to focus on my business where I offer courses, and I have a podcast called Autism Outreach, and we have products, but I still love to be in touch with the schools. So it looks a little bit different now. Now, I’m just kind of seeing a handful of a private clients. But yeah, for 20 years, I worked as a school-based SLP. And I really loved being able to provide therapy in that natural setting. And I really did a lot of push-in therapy into the classroom and some students that I needed to see in my office, but you know, I worked in middle school/high school, so maybe I had kids with selective mutism. Or maybe I had a kid who was stuttering or maybe the classroom was really loud and I needed to pull a student …
Anne Zachry Right.
Rose Griffin … into my office to give them a break from the classroom.
Anne Zachry Right!
Rose Griffin But I’ve definitely tried to push in and do like a group so I can model therapy strategies for the teacher and one on one staff and things like that. Yeah.
Anne Zachry Well, and the push-in model is so much more supportive of generalizing those skills from a pull-out situation to real life that gives you the opportunity to go into the real life classroom and say, “Okay, here’s where you need to do this, bro,” you know?
Rose Griffin Yeah! No, absolutely!
Anne Zachry You’re coaching people on the pragmatics, you know, people who have a hard time reading the room?
Rose Griffin Yeah, that’s always … Yeah, that’s what … that’s hard. That’s ever-changing for everybody. I had some students that had more direct instruction, more traditional type ABA services, and I would go into the classroom and see them in their teaching area. And every student was just so individualized.
Anne Zachry Exactly!
Rose Griffin But, I tried to do whatever works for the student.
Anne Zachry That makes sense. That totally makes sense. And that’s really how it should be done. It is supposed to be individualized.
Rose Griffin Yeah!
Anne Zachry I just … I think it’s a, it’s a fascinating overlap that a lot of people fail to appreciate … that, that connection between language and behavior, and how much …
Rose Griffin Oh yeah.
Anne Zachry … how much, you know, how often do we say, “No hitting; use your words,” and yet, that connection still doesn’t get made in people’s minds? You know, it’s like, well, after they’re toddlers, that doesn’t count anymore. It’s like, “No, it always counts! …”
Rose Griffin Right!
Anne Zachry “… That never goes away!”
Rose Griffin That’s my own kids. Yeah, they’re like, you know, in upper elementary school and middle school …
Anne Zachry Right. Well, and I have to say, you know, I mean, I use these skills just as much to navigate the politics of the IEP process, as …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry I’m using the same skills to deal with the adults in the situation, and to try …
Rose Griffin Yeah. Yeah.
Anne Zachry … and get an IEP to say what it needs to say,
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … without ruffling feathers, and without people getting their feelings hurt …
Rose Griffin Oh, yeah!
Anne Zachry … and taking things personally, when it’s about the construction of a legally binding document and not anybody’s personality, and …
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, yeah.
Anne Zachry … and so it’s, you know, having to dance around all of that, I find that … I mean, that my … I have my master’s in educational psychology. I’m qualified to go in and do school-based …
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry … you know, behavior assessments, but I don’t go in as an outside assessor. I’m there as the lay advocate. And so I keep that hat on.
Rose Griffin Oh, okay. Yeah.
Anne Zachry But I’m going in as an informed lay advocate, and I’ve also paralegaled all the way up to the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals. So the only place I haven’t gone yet is the US Supreme Court. And so, so I … I’m coming at this from both a compliance standpoint, and from a science standpoint …
Anne Zachry But we don’t have any mechanisms in place to really truly facilitate that. And so when I find people who have extraordinary qualifications, who have worked in the school setting, who have like, “Okay, I found my work-around.” You know, it’s you’re having to drag the science into a setting that really isn’t designed for it …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and, and trying to implement it in a situation where you’re having to sell everybody on the inside of the legitimacy of what you’re trying to do …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … because it’s not how it’s always been done.
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry And so, there’s a lot of politics and culture, you know, internal district culture issues that have to be overcome before … you know, sometimes … the science will be legitimately applied. And so I see varying degrees of success with kids who have IEPs that call for certain things, but they jump from one school district to another. And what that looks like in one place to a different place are two totally different things. And the child does better in one setting versus the other with things that say they’re … identically described on paper.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry And it really does come down to quality control at the individual school sites. And what I one of the questions I wanted to ask you was about fidelity and data collection …
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry … because one of the biggest issues that I’ve run into in any aspect of special ed is the validity of how the data is being collected, basically going to the measurability of the goals, whether or not they’re legitimately measurable.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry Because, back in the 90s, to backtrack a little bit, there was some kind of workshop for teachers somewhere, and I’m not sure who the entity was that put it on, I have my suspicions. There’s organizations out there that tend to disfavor special ed …
Rose Griffin Oh, okay.
Anne Zachry … as something no government should be doing.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry And there’s a number of those individuals, certainly not the majority of people in public education, but there are a number of them who are employed within public education, who truly do not believe that this is how government resources should be expended. And they’re in the camp of Betsy DeVos, who wants to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry So, they’re there to undermine it from within and prove that somehow government doesn’t really work. “Well, yeah, not when you’re there, doing that kind of stuff!”
Rose Griffin Uh-huh.
Anne Zachry And so there’s people of that ilk who are peppered throughout the system, who are trying to prevent anything that’s going to produce a system of accountability, anything that’s going to create an audit trail. This is why you haven’t seen all of the business automation technologies that were perfected in the private industry over the last 30-40 years. They still have not been deployed throughout all of our public agencies …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … because then you … the people who are misappropriating funds and doing illicit things, they have no shadows to hide in anymore.
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry And similarly, when ABA showed up in the special ed arena with all of the data collection and doing it according to a scientifically valid method …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … well, that meant that you were going to take data on everybody blowing it …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and you were gonna … you were gonna create evidence that families could use to hold their school districts accountable if you actually took data on what was really going on. And you know, as … as a BCBA, I know you know this, that it’s not just … when you’re doing a truly scientifically rigorous ABA program, you’re not just taking data on how the individual responds to the intervention, you’re also taking data on how the implementers are implementing the plan with fidelity. You’re taking fidelity data on how well the plan is implemented, because it can only fail for one of two reasons: either a design flaw or an implementation failure. So you’ve got to have data on “Is the design working?”, which you only know, if you’re trying to implement the plan, according to its design. We have seen a huge, huge push against taking fidelity data as part of any child’s behavior intervention plan in an IEP because of the audit trail it will create, and the fact that it will capture people not doing the job rather than you know, using it as a quality control measure. And so it seems to … in my experience, what I’ve run into it, you know … and bearing in mind that I only get contacted by people whose kids IEPs are just gone off the rails, and it’s a horrible situation.
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry Nobody calls me up to tell me how great is going. So I’m only coming into the worst of the worst. But stepping into the worst of the worst, what I find are concerted efforts to cover things up when things have gone wrong, and then try to create a some sort of legal defense that shifts the blame away from the school district. And, you know, one of the preemptive legal defense strategies that their lawyers will, will have them do is like take as little data as possible. And, and so you have this … this energy against valid data collection and fidelity measurement that undermines the integrity of the process, even though the law mandates the application of the science. And that’s not the science, you know. And so, families … but families are the enforcement arm of the law, because you know, we’re a government of the people. So if … there’s no, you know, special ed police running around to make sure everybody’s doing it the way it’s supposed to be done. The only way the law gets enforced is when somebody breaks it and a parent reports them.
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry And so, we have parents having to bear the burden of understanding what the science is to even be able to know that it hasn’t been applied. And we have people in the schools who don’t know the science, much less how to apply it. And so we’ve got a lot of changes coming up on the horizon that we see are inevitable in that regard, but having worked for 20 years in the public schools having tried to apply the science to the benefit of children, what have your experiences been of trying to stick to the … to the fidelity of the science that’s behind what you’re doing? Has that been a challenge for you?
Rose Griffin Yeah, I’ve had great experiences. Yeah, I’ve been a school-based speech therapist and have worked really hard to build rapport with families and teams, and, yeah, we really help students and support them in that natural environment of a public school. So yeah, on my end, it’s been really, it’s been really positive for my students to get those services within public school. It’s been great.
Anne Zachry Have you had a hard time, though, with respect to the peer-reviewed research and being able to bring in the current research into the school setting and implement the new stuff?
Rose Griffin No, and it might just be where I live, you know, I live in Cleveland, Ohio, a suburb of that. And we have a lot of really great providers here. And, yeah, I’ve just had really great experiences. And haven’t really had …
Anne Zachry That’s fabulous to hear, because I’m telling you this, this is my uphill battle all the time. And I’m in California, which is one of the most progressive and heavily regulated states in the country for special ed.
Rose Griffin Oh yeah. Wow!
Anne Zachry I mean, we kind of set the tone for because we have more special ed due process cases every year …
Rose Griffin Oh, I’m sure.
Anne Zachry … that I mean …
Rose Griffin It’s so big.
Anne Zachry Yeah, some states go for years without having any at all.
Rose Griffin Right! Lucky them!
Anne Zachry And, and so it goes to the degree that the parents don’t know their rights …
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry … or things are going successfully and you don’t have the kinds of challenges that you know, that other districts run into. And I think it goes to quality of leadership. So it sounds to me like you’ve been in a very blessed situation where you haven’t had to contend with those kinds of situations, which are just, you know …
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry … more, more common …
Rose Griffin Yeah!
Anne Zachry … than people would like to think. I mean, you know, we have…
Rose Griffin Right. Um-umm.
Anne Zachry … our organization was actually founded in 2003, following the death of a classmate of our founder’s nephew, who was …
Rose Griffin Awww!
Anne Zachry … was smothered to death by his teacher in front of everybody in the classroom during an unlawful prone restraint. And …
Rose Griffin Oh dear!
Anne Zachry Yeah, and …
Rose Griffin No wonder!
Anne Zachry … and it was horrible and … and he never went back to school after that. It was a class for emotionally disturbed children, and this teacher was …
Rose Griffin Oh dear!
Anne Zachry … supposed to be there to help all these children with these mental and emotional health needs get better. And, instead …
Rose Griffin Umm, oh dear!
Anne Zachry … she was this authoritarian monster who just bullied them. And … and so, you know, these things do happen. And it’s not as rare as people would like. That case actually ended up being included in … and I’ve got written in the blog post that goes with this podcast, I’ll include links for it …
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry … we have an article about this from a while back, but that just explained our history and how this all happened. But this particular child’s family, he was a foster child. And so the moment his life was terminated, so was his foster mother’s parental authority. And so she couldn’t do anything to hold anybody accountable, because she no longer had parental rights at that point. She had no authority and no standing.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry But, a few years after that, Congress had commissioned a study on the use of seclusion and restraints and special ed in the public schools. And, it was public schools in general, but it turned out that special ed kids were the ones who are most commonly restrained and secluded. And, this young man’s case was in part of the that federal investigation.
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry We were shocked to see it, because it’s the reason why we founded our organization. It was the, you know, the final straw …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … that made us pull that plug. But, to see that in the federal report, and it was actually, like, one of the feature cases, and they actually had the foster mother go to Washington, DC, and testify before Congress about what had happened.
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry And, what they determined was the teacher had never been held accountable, that she had never received any kind of negative consequence for any of this, and was able to leave the state of Texas and go to Virginia. And, at the time of the hearing, when this foster mother was testifying, this teacher was only 45 minutes away running a special ed classroom in Virginia from where Congress …
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry … was hearing testimony about how she had murdered this child and got away with it. It’s a failure of multiple systems. But this goes to our whole thing that special ed is really … the work that we do in advocacy to address these kinds of problems is really part of a larger social justice issue. Because …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … it wasn’t just the special ed system that failed.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry It was the foster care system, it was the criminal justice system, it was the teacher credentialing system, it was … there was all kinds of parts of the system that broke down that allowed this to happen. And a lot of it goes to the bureaucracy and the lack of communication. And if all of these agencies were actually interconnected in a wide area network, enterprise-class computing environment, the way that, like Walmart, or Sanyo, or UPS Freight, or any of these big global organizations that have these huge computing environments … they overcame these obstacles decades ago, but we don’t have the same consistency of flow of information. And because of that, we’ve got consumers having to go to 15 different agencies and applying for 15 different types of service, you know, and maybe you’re talking about somebody in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank, who has to go trucking around all over the place, instead of the money following the consumer, the consumer has to go chasing after the money. And so we’ve got a lot of organizational defects, you know, when you start looking at … you talk to … start talking about a plan and looking at a behavior plan versus a plan for the operation of an entity, it really isn’t that remarkably different. And does this plan actually support the functions of the behaviors that you know … do these behaviors support the function of the organization? Are we rewarding …
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry … are we reinforcing the right behaviors in this organization? And so for me, I think that there’s also a carryover of what you do into the organizational structure of, you know, in the organizational cultures. I know that ABA is used very much in an industrial sense, by private industry, but to create …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … you know, positive workplace environments. And do you see a value of your profession and people in your profession, you know … crossover between both, really … of going in and doing professional development and positive culture building and in help healing the cultures of some of these environments where people are not invested in their constituents?
Rose Griffin You know, yeah! There’s a whole branch of ABA called OBM. Organizational Behavior Management, I think it’s what it’s called.
Anne Zachry Yep.
Rose Griffin I don’t have any experience with that. But I think it makes a lot of sense to use the science and there are people that specialize in just doing that. And they’re doing … going into organizations helping with the culture, helping streamline workflows, and I think that is definitely something that’s positive. There’s so many different things that you can do with the science of applied behavioral analysis …
Anne Zachry Oh, I know!
Rose Griffin … autism is just one very small area. So …
Anne Zachry That’s what I tell people!
Rose Griffin People make mistakes about that, as well.
Anne Zachry I tell people that. I’m, like, look! ABA is a science; it is not an autism service.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm!
Anne Zachry It’s the science behind certain autism services that address behavior, but it is not an autism service, per se. And a lot of people don’t realize that I’m like, no ABA applies to crustaceans and computer code …
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, yeah!
Anne Zachry … you can analyze anything that behaves and there’s always a cause for everything, you know, and everything serves a function, and so that’s something that I think that there needs to be more discussion around and more research done into of how that organizational aspect of ABA can be used as part of the healing process of all of these things that we’re dealing with in our culture right now. I mean, all of the conflicts and the dividedness, and the fights and, you know, it just I think that ABA sort of takes the temperature down because you’re doing nothing but black and white neutral statements of fact …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and only things that are objectively observable, like this is what we know to be true. And I think that bringing the conversation back to … I mean … getting away from the hysteria and coming back to the rule of law and back to scientific method, both of which are evidence-based, you know … you have to use logic statements … they are very similar in to how you execute both … that calmer heads can sit there and do that kind of black and white analysis and like, “Okay, let’s get to the to the bottom line of what is, and then we can decide how we’re going to emotionally react to it.” But right now …
Rose Griffin Hmm! Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … we’ve got everybody reacting to the data rather than to the outcome of the analysis.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … that, you know, people are pre-judging what a piece of data might actually mean rather than putting it all together and reaching a logical conclusion, “Okay, here’s the story is told by the evidence.” And I think that we do our young people a huge disservice by not teaching them to think that way, as just simply part of curriculum. I think that there’s a huge value in teaching people about ABA as part of like a high school psychology class, I think that it’s a skill that is …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … all it is, is the ability to see what is without cluttering it up with a bunch of other superfluous details. It’s about how to prioritize your data and focus on what’s the most important thing …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and engage in that neutral fact-based decision-making. And I think that if that were taught as a skill just in, in general, for all kids, I think that would help develop them, especially in high school, when that prefrontal cortex is starting to come online, and they’re starting to think more abstractly, and they’re looking for that kind of structure to structure their thoughts. I think that that’s something that we need to start really thinking about, as we we try to … to develop tomorrow’s leaders and problem solvers. That ABA, just as a skill, as a science …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … is valuable, just as much as it is to learn about the law of gravity.
Rose Griffin Heh, he, um-hmm.
Anne Zachry You know, I think that we focus on the physical aspects, and we consider the hard sciences more legit than the soft sciences. And I’m like, I don’t see how you think that ABA is not hard science …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry And so I’m, I mean, what are your thoughts about making the science just more part of a mainstream part of the human experience and making it more part of the … of just common knowledge? How valuable do you think that is?
Rose Griffin Yeah, I mean, you know, with my business at ABA Speech, I disseminate information daily. And I don’t always even say that it’s ABA. But I just talk about the way that I use the science of applied behavior analysis is by helping autistic learners find their voice and increase their communication skills. And so everybody that is a BCBA definitely has the opportunity to disseminate and to share how they’re using the science to help support students or whatever facet, they are included in. So I think that being able to share that is important. And that’s what I do through my online business. So it’s important to me to share that.
Anne Zachry Yeah, I think the more that the folks I work with understand the science that is being applied to their kids, the more comfortable they are with it, and it logically makes sense to them. And I have moms who will … are like Goddesses at coming up with goals and how to track the data …
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, ha!
Anne Zachry …. and how you know which method, you know, “I’m gonna do DRI or a DRA.” And I’m like, “Okay.”
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, ha!
Anne Zachry And they’re like, you know, honorary BCBAs after a while, and I …
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry … it’s because all it really does is measure what already is.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry It’s not like you made up something new. you’re just trying … it’s a way of documenting what’s happening in the environment, and then what to make of that data once you’ve collected it. So it’s not like you’re making something new out of what is or, you know, inventing a new chemical or something. It’s looking at, “Okay, here’s what’s going on in this actual real world environment,” you know, and then to the degree that language plays into it, which is always, you know, usually part of it.
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry And so to circle back around to the school and the speech and language and the ABA overlaps, do you find that it is more efficient for you to be able to wear both of those hats? Or do you find that it can be equally effective to have a team where you’ve got a BCBA and a speech-language pathologist working together? I mean, what do you … how do you see, you know, all the different ways to still come up with the same information that a team might need with respect to behavior and communication?
Rose Griffin Yeah, in a school setting, you’re typically going to have one person that’s a speech therapist, and one person that’s the BCBA, and they can work collaboratively together with the students, the family, the teacher. Even though I’m dually certified, my role on the team in this particular job setting was as a speech-language pathologist …
Anne Zachry Got it.
Rose Griffin … so we actually had an outside consultant that we would work with. And it’s so much easier for me to work with outside consultants, because I’m a BCBA, so I understand all the different things that they’re talking about. So is it easier for me to work with consultants, and to make that a cohesive team? It absolutely is. But you know, being dually certified, allows me to work with ABA providers that want to offer speech therapy or offer consultations, or I help different ABA providers with professional development about communication. And so being dually certified is a very special niche area. And I can help businesses and families and individuals in a very specific way. But if you have a team and you have a few therapists, and you have a BCBA, and they’re able to collaborate, that’s just as impactful.
Anne Zachry Yeah, it does … I mean, it’s sort of like, well, you have all your eggs in one basket on the one hand …
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, ha.
Anne Zachry … but at the same time, you’re also got a more efficient a … you know, a faster machine and in a manner of speaking, because you’re not having to do the … everybody on the team coming together and collaborating. It’s all in one brain and they can just, “Blech, there it is.”
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, ha.
Anne Zachry So, I mean, I, you know, and I totally get that. And I mean, I’m in a similar situation in that I’m in the nexus between the legal side of it as a paralegal and a lay advocate …
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry … but also coming from the scientific side of it with my master’s in educational psychology and all the work that I’ve done in that regard …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and so I’m straddling that nexus between where normally you would have to have an attorney who brings in an expert to tell them …
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry … the science part of it. So you’ve got the expert who knows the science, and you’ve got the lawyer who knows the law, but sometimes there’s things they miss, because they’re talking apples and oranges. And they don’t, you know … and it’s not quite the same, because I think the connection between speech and language pathology and behavior is like way closer. I mean, it’s really just, you know, two sides of the same coin.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry Whereas, what I’m doing, I’m really having to straddle two different universes and trying to get these people to understand each other’s professional lingo, because, you know …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm. Yeah!
Anne Zachry … you know the educators have their their jargon. And, the lawyers have their jargon. And, a lawyer may be able to identify that, you know, a timeline was violated, or, you know, “Well, this kid’s nonverbal and you didn’t do a speech and language assessment at all. How is this possibly a comprehensive triennial evaluation?” You know, it’s like … when it’s really over the top egregious stuff like that, a lawyer will recognize the failure.
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry But, when you’re talking about, “Well, this child has the potential to make X amount of growth in reading ability over the next year, but you’re not targeting an outcome that’s that aggressive; you’re low-balling this kid on his IEP goals,” a lawyer is not going to look at an IEP and be able to recognize that.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry You’ve got to have somebody who’s an expert in the data and the assessment stuff to be able to look at, “Okay, well, what did the assessment data say about this child’s capacity to learn? And how …” you know, “… and where their baselines were at the time everything was written, and how aggressive is this goal relative to their baselines based on what we know about their capacity to learn?” So you’ve got a scientific analysis that has to happen that a lawyer is not going to be able to do, but then you have educators who come into it and don’t know the legal side of it. And so they’ll see that discrepancy, but they don’t know how to advocate for the right thing. And a lot of times, if they’re going to a school district administrator who doesn’t know that, either, they’ll just “Oh, I guess that’s just the way it is.” It doesn’t occur to them that there’s something that can be done, or that the law requires more …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and they … and it comes down to professional development. It’s not because anybody has ill intent. It’s not because somebody is trying to hurt a kid. More often than not, what I run into, when I run into the challenges that I run into, it’s not because somebody’s mean and they want to hurt somebody. It’s because they don’t know …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and they don’t have the resources, and nobody told them. You know, I think it’s exciting for me to hear from professionals who come from schools where that’s not so much the case. That you’re … you’re in a situation where you’ve got a really progressive team. And I’ve talked to other educators who come from really progressive public schools and school districts where, you know, everything is evidence-based, and you’ve got a really amazing people who are pushing forward, really progressive and collaborative types of projects that include the families and don’t vilify them. But, you still got some really weird, old, cronyistic, “Boss Hogg/Roscoe P. Coltrane” kind of stuff going on out there, too.
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, ha.
Anne Zachry And so it’s a mix, you know? Iit’s a mixed bag. And I think that where you are has a lot to do with it. So it’s exciting to hear. And you said, you’re in Ohio.
Rose Griffin Yes, I’m in Ohio. So yeah, I’ve had really positive experiences. It’s been … it’s been really wonderful. I was sad to step away from the schools after 20 years, but I just … my business has grown so much at ABA Speech that, you know, it’s just what I needed to do. So …
Anne Zachry That’s exciting to hear too. Because you know, all growth is just part of life. You have to grow and evolve into something else.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry And whatever skills you acquire in one situation, and the benefit you serve to people while you were there just equips you to serve other people in a different kind of way better, stronger, you know. And so it sounds like that’s what you’re doing. So with your practice, now, you’re mostly working with private families, and then consulting with organizations?
Rose Griffin Yeah, so I divide my time. My podcast, Autism Outreach, is a big part of what I do. Yesterday, I batched three episodes. And so we have monetized my podcast. And so we offer it for continuing education units for … geared towards speech-language pathologists.
Anne Zachry Nice!
Rose Griffin And then I do some therapy. I see a couple clients privately, and then I do some telehealth. I’m actually licensed in Washington State.
Anne Zachry Nice!
Rose Griffin And so I act in the capacity of helping ABA centers sometimes provide speech therapy. And then sometimes I just do consultations for complex communication cases. And I do a lot of presenting. I do a lot of speaking about working on autism and communication and how to help students at various levels along their communication journey. And we offer courses. That’s the biggest thing that we do is we offer courses about autism that are geared towards professionals and parents that are a little familiar with the science of applied behavior analysis, would probably be the best way to describe it. And we’ve just had a great chance and opportunity to be able to reach people through our courses. That’s been really something that’s been very rewarding.
Anne Zachry That speaks to the concern I was having before about, you know, just how difficult it is to get the science pushed into the schools.
Rose Griffin Really?
Anne Zachry So, people who are doing the kind of work that you’re doing …
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry … and be able to reach through to them through the internet and nonetheless get the information out to these people. So they have access, I think that is so incredibly important. And that’s going to be such a huge part of what makes things better is people like you doing the kind of work that you’re doing, because you found a workaround.
Rose Griffin Right!
Anne Zachry It’s like, “Okay, well, maybe I’m not gonna go down to the local school district and hold a workshop today. But I don’t have to,” you know? “I can do it myself …
Rose Griffin Right!
Anne Zachry … and put it out there, and people can get their continuing ed units.” And then, you know, Bob’s your uncle, there it is.
Rose Griffin Yeah! Yeah!
Anne Zachry And so I think that that’s very encouraging,
Rose Griffin Because our courses are offered for speech language-pathologists for their CEUs. Also, for board certified behavior analysts, they’re called ACEUs. And then also, we do general certificates for teachers and parents. And that’s been really great. So it’s really just a mix of I do live presentations. But then I also have these courses that are usually on Evergreen. And we have a new course coming out in September, that is called The Advanced Language Learner. And that is going to be about students who are using two to three words on their own, and how to help them go beyond basic communication skills. So I’m very, very excited and have been working diligently on that launch. So that will happen mid-September.
Anne Zachry That sounds really exciting! All of that sounds amazing and wonderful. So, well, I’m excited to be able to share that with our audience, because I know there’s gonna be a lot of families out there who will benefit from it. I mean, by no means are our entire caseload, you know, kids with autism. That’s some, you know … a good fair percentage of our caseload.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm. Yeah.
Anne Zachry But, you know, and that’s … they’re not the only kids who would benefit from something like that either. And then I have lots of kids with other types of issues …
Rose Griffin Yep. Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … that that would really speak to their needs as well, and that knowledge being out there for the professionals in their lives, as well as their parents. The parent education piece is really important. And I … so here’s a thought …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm?
Anne Zachry The implementing regulations of the IDEA include in its description of all the different things that can be related services … like speech and language, or transportation, or OT, or whatever …
Anne Zachry … and so some … and the purpose of that being as a related service is so that parents can understand their children’s disability better and be more effective participants in the IEP process and understand the IEP process … because they have federally protected rights to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, and they can’t participate meaningfully if they don’t understand.
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry So, the parent counseling and training component is to help the parents get up to speed on what’s going on with their kid based on what the assessment … help them understand the disability, and also, you know, how to support and be part of the IEP team.
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry And, be able to be a collaborative member of the whole process …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and have that meaningful parent participation where they’re not in there, just you know, having hysterical fits, because they don’t understand and nobody can get anything done, you know? Because that can happen. And so, I’m wondering how easy it would be for a parent to be able to get the cost of doing training through your program covered as an IEP cost?
Rose Griffin Yeah, you know, I actually did have somebody reached out from California …
Anne Zachry Where I’m at.
Rose Griffin … where they wanted to sign their parent up for this parent training. That they wanted to know if I was a provider, which I think is something that’s very specific to California and the region.
Anne Zachry Right, you have to be …
Rose Griffin I have a friend that is an SLP.
Anne Zachry Um-hmm. Yeah.
Rose Griffin And I was, like, “Oh, I’m not covered on that.” So, I mean, if there’s any way that I could be covered on things like with that, she said that I would have to have a physical location in California …
Anne Zachry No, no, no, no!
Rose Griffin … which I’m not going to do from Ohio.
Anne Zachry Here’s what you do. You do it as a reimbursement model. The parent pays you directly …
Rose Griffin Oh!
Anne Zachry … and the parents simply gets reimbursed.
Rose Griffin Yeah!
Anne Zachry That’s how you work around that requirement.
Rose Griffin Okay!
Anne Zachry Because, what you’re talking about is in California, in order for an agency to contract with the school district to provide anything special ed-related …
Anne Zachry And you have to have all this, like, this behemoth of a red tape process. It’s almost not even worth it for a lot of people …
Rose Griffin Okay. Right.
Anne Zachry … and which is why it’s so hard to find people to do it.
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry The workaround is if you have someone in private practice, and the parent simply pays and then gets reimbursed. If they have the means to do that, then a reimbursement model is the workaround for those kinds of things in special ed and that’s … you can write it into the IEP that way, or sometimes it will come up as part of a settlement agreement. And …
Rose Griffin Okay, because I’ve had some people reach out to me that way, from California, but I’m just I’m not there. I’m not licensed in California. And …
Anne Zachry You could do it remotely. And yeah, I mean, there’s your answer. So, if that helps you, you know, serve families in my state, that would be great! Ha, ha, ha!
Rose Griffin Okay, good to know.
Anne Zachry Yeah, no! There’s absolutely a work-around.
Rose Griffin We definitely have courses that parents really, you know, enjoy, so … and just helps them feel like they have a better understanding of what’s going on in therapy, even if they’re not going to be the therapy provider themselves …
Anne Zachry Right.
Rose Griffin It just gives them more of an overall …
Anne Zachry Well, yeah. That’s the whole point of understanding what’s really going on and why these things are important …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … and why it’s important for them to …
Rose Griffin Yeah.
Anne Zachry … you know, facilitate it and, you know, be part of the team to make it happen. You know, I would say to any parents who may have already paid for your services, especially if it’s been within the last year or two, you know, and a lot of people coming off the pandemic have had to go out and privately fund a lot of stuff that they wouldn’t have otherwise expected to have to do …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … that, they might want to save those receipts and their proofs of payment. And if they are …
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry … in any kind of dispute with their school districts trying to get services that they’ve otherwise had to get from you, that …
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry … if they were out of pocket for that, that that could be a reimbursable expense. And if they are going down that route, they do have an attorney or someone helping them with that process to have that person to look at the situation, the facts of their case, and how much they’ve had to spend on that, to see if it’s recoverable. Because you know, in very … a lot of instances, I would think that not just the speech and language or the ABA or any of this … that stuff you’re doing, but also the parent training could be a recoverable expense, because of that provision under the IDEA a that provides for parent training and counseling. So, just something to keep in mind. It could get get written into a kid’s IEP, and then, you know …
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry … if it’s not California, the district could potentially contract with you directly. Yeah, because we’re regulated …
Rose Griffin Right.
Anne Zachry … we’re so regulated. And you know, it offers a lot of good protections that the federal law doesn’t offer. But it sometimes …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … also creates additional bureaucracy. It’s like “Really?” Yeah, in other states, that wouldn’t necessarily be the case. And you could actually get your product and your services written directly into a kid’s IEP …
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry … and get funded by the district for that. Another …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … thing that I’ve seen with people doing similar kinds of programs like yours is that sometimes they will be able to get a contract with a school district to use the product, like on a licensed basis, where …
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry … you train the speech and language pathologist
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … to replicate your content in their setting.
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry And, you know, any therapies or anything that you’ve developed or any strategies you develop that are branded to you then becomes …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … it’s like … it makes me think of, for pragmatic language assessments you have was Michelle Winner-Garcia, Michelle Garcia-Winner, I never can remember …
Rose Griffin We really don’t use her that much anymore. I mean, I think …
Anne Zachry Yeah, but back in the day, I remember that was…
Rose Griffin … the test for pragmatic language is the CASL. Yeah.
Anne Zachry Well, but the CASL is a standardized measure. So a …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … norm-reference test is not …
Rose Griffin … not observation …
Anne Zachry going to get you …Yeah, it’s not going to give you the exact same kind of a thing as an …
Rose Griffin Right, right.
Anne Zachry … in vivo, authentic language sample.
Rose Griffin We always do an observation.
Anne Zachry Yeah.
Rose Griffin Make sure that we’re observing in the natural environment. Yeah.
Anne Zachry You want the language sample and … But her … the thing that I liked that she did was the “Double Interview.”
Rose Griffin … and she talked about the double interview and asking questions. And, yes.
Anne Zachry I think that’s really important, too. I mean, I think that there’s value in norm referenced standardized tests, but to us … especially when you’re talking about school psychology, because that’s more my domain, you could be a psychometrician and paint by numbers, and not understand what any of those tests do. You can go through the motions of administering and scoring that test, and that doesn’t mean that you appreciate what the data means. I actually had a case a few years ago, where we had an audiologist supposedly doing an assessment for an auditory processing disorder.
Rose Griffin Hmm!
Anne Zachry She was with … the district had the choice of who was going to do it. They didn’t have an audiologist on staff. And so they outsourced it to a non-public agency. And the young woman who was the licensed audiologist who administered the test, none of it made any sense. And she had transposed percentile rankings and standard scores on her scoring charts and whatnot. And I was like, I don’t think she understands what these numbers mean.
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry And her report made no sense. And so we asked for a second opinion at public expense, an IEE … for the district to fund an outside second opinion. And they said, “No.” And so we had to go to due process to argue over whether or not they had done a good job, and we needed a second opinion. And she gets on the witness stand, and we asked her, “Well, what’s the difference between a standard score and a percentile ranking?” And she was like, I don’t know. I’m not a statis-, statis-” (she couldn’t say “statistician”). She goes, “I’m not a statistics person.”
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry And I could just feel the attorney for the school district die inside right next to me …
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry …. because this was his case. You know, he was the one arguing that she knew what she was doing. He was a lawyer. He had no way of knowing that she didn’t know what those things were because he didn’t know what those things were.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry So, he was just … she would say, “Well, of course I know what I’m doing!” So, he had her back. And, then we get in front of the judge and she just tanks! She couldn’t explain any of her data. And, then we had our own audiologist who came and testified who was an expert witness on how it should have been done, and, it was just night and day. And so, there are people out there who are going through the motions, who can administer and score a standardized assessment, but they don’t necessarily understand how to interpret the data. And they may not have even chosen the right test. In this particular case, she just used a boilerplate list of assessments that the owner of the company she worked for, who was also an audiologist, said, “This is what you do when you test for this.” And, so everybody was getting identical measures. None of it was individualized. And … I mean, for a large part, for that kind of testing, there’s only so many things you can do, but still. And so, she was just going through this list of tests that her boss had said, “This is what you do,” and listing the scores, but not explaining what any of it meant, and, in fact, she had her scores were all transposed and she had them jumbled up, and it didn’t mean anything. It made no sense whatsoever. And, so how can you trust that she even administered and scored them correctly? That does happen. For people who are thinking, “Oh, well standardized measures for pragmatic language …” If you know what you’re doing, you can go do an authentic language sample and the CASL, and that’s going to get you there. But, for people who are paint-by-numbers folks who really don’t understand, thinking they can do pragmatic language in a paint-by-numbers manner, you have to be able to engage in the act of pragmatic language of reading the person yourself in order to take the data necessary to read whether that person has intact pragmatic language skills. And, if you don’t know how to do that type of analysis, then you’re going to have … what I see is people falling more and more back on the standardized norm-referenced stuff and getting away from the observations … getting away from things like the double-interview, where they have to actually use judgment and there’s a professional level of skill that … and understanding and higher-level thinking and critical thinking skills that are required, that a paint-by-numbers, “Let’s just do a norm-referenced test and it will tell us what’s going on” … Up to a point, yes. But, that shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all. I think there’s a lot of value in some of these other, maybe standardized but not norm-referenced, maybe more criterion-referenced kinds of measures. One of the tools that I’ve seen used out here is called the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development …
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry … and, it’s broken into a cognition, a communication, an adaptive behavior, a motor skills, and one other that I’m not remembering, but all these different aspects of development that you have these subtests in.
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry And, it’s based on a Piagetian model …
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry … where you’re trying to figure out what stage of Piagetian development the individual is in each of the different domains. Because, when you’re talking about someone with a developmental disability, in particular, there’s going to be scatter. That, they may be higher in cognition but lower in communication, if they have apraxia. They may be higher in cognition and communication, but lower in adaptive skills. It’s just, everybody’s different, right? And so, what it looks at, is it’s criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced, and you’re coming at, “Can this person do this thing in any kind of way, yes or no?” And, so, like, when you’re testing for whether they’ve mastered the concept of conservation, the idea that mass doesn’t change even if the way that the mass is arranged is different. So, like, if you have … or volume. So, if you pour water … a cup of water … you’re talking about, like, if you have a tall skinny beaker or a short fat beaker, and you pour a cup of water into each, and you ask the kid, “Which has more?” Well, neither, because it’s both a cup of water.
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry But, a kid who has not mastered conservation is gonna say the tall skinny one has more water because it goes up higher, and the short fat beaker has less because it’s shorter, relatively. And so, they’re only looking at it from one dimension. And someone who has mastered conservation knows it’s still the same amount of water. Or, you take a ball of clay and roll it out into a snake and you say, “Is it still the same amount of clay, or is it more or less?” And, a kid who hasn’t mastered conservation will say it’s more because it’s longer, but the kid who has will say, “It’s the same amount; I just changed the shape.” And so …
Rose Griffin Hmm.
Anne Zachry … when you’re doing things like that, sometimes what can happen is … when you’re talking about doing those kinds of things … sometimes, the example in the test … in the Ordinal Scales … will say, “Here are some ways you can test for this,” but it doesn’t obligate you to do it exactly that way, the way a norm-referenced test would … where you’ve got to administer and score it exactly the same way for everybody … well, the scoring is the same, but the administration is not the same on a criterion-referenced … because you’re trying to whether a kid has a skill or not, not how they display it. So, if you have to do something different, like if the ball of clay doesn’t work but the beakers of water gets you there, and they can still demonstrate they have at least, you know, emerging conservation skills. But, you only do one thing with the ball of clay and that’s where you leave it, and you don’t experiment with it, it’s like when you’re testing your hypotheses when you’re doing ABA. You’ve got to fool around with it to see if you’re actually … your hypothesis is right. So, for that kind of measure, what are the various different types of measures do you think are really the most reliable for giving you the broad, full picture of how someone … someone’s communication and behavior plays into each other?
Rose Griffin Yeah, I think what’s most important is to … whatever you’re doing, it’s going to be dependent on your work setting. So if you’re in a public school, there might be a certain expectation of what type of evaluation tests you’re going to use versus being in a practice that is either private pay or is insurance led. Every work setting is going to have an expectation of what is going to be an assessment. But I think what’s most important with an assessment is to make sure that you talk to the student, you talk to the family, and that you observe the student in different settings. So observing the student in a classroom lesson; observing the student in a less structured environment, like gym or recess or lunch, to try to get a snapshot of the student’s skills. But I really think assessment is an ongoing process and that every time that you see a student, and you work with a student, you’re going to be assessing, “How is the student doing?”, “Are they generalizing their skills?”, and “How can I help support my students?
Anne Zachry And that makes a lot of sense. I agree with you. I think … that’s music to my ears, because I think that that’s something that’s really important is the observation of students across various different settings, because you’re going to see different presentations …
Rose Griffin Um-hmm.
Anne Zachry … based on different environmental stimuli, and different social demands. So I think that that’s hugely important. I think that’s where a lot of the pragmatic stuff really comes out. I think that you coming at it from the perspective of both a BCBA and a speech and language pathologist … that your ability to see the function of the behavior and a moment where pragmatics are not working for someone has to be so much more informed and enlightened than, you know, different brains having to come together to piece together the same story. So I really, truly appreciate, you know, what you’re bringing to the table and your insights into this. This whole realm of how to, you know, help people who are struggling with these kinds of issues and all the different ways that can be done. And I’m excited to share your information with our audience as well so they can go to your site and your podcast and …
Rose Griffin Ha, ha, ha! Well, it was really nice to connect. And yes, definitely feel free to reach out to me during the podcast, my free resources, and also the courses that I discussed today.
Anne Zachry Absolutely! And I’ll be sure to include links to everything because a lot of my families are in, like, parents support groups and stuff they’ll benefit from it.
Rose Griffin Yeah! That’s awesome! Yeah. so it was great to connect today. Thanks for having me on.
Anne Zachry Thank you for listening to the podcast version of interview of Rose Griffin, SLP and BCBA. KPS4Parents reminds its listeners that Knowledge Powers Solutions for Parents, and all eligible children, regardless of disability are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. If you are a parent, education professional or concerned taxpayer, and have questions or comments about special education-related matters, please email us at info@kps4parents.org or post a comment to our blog. That’s “info” at “K” as in “knowledge,” “P” as in “Powers,” “S” as in “Solutions,” the number “4,” “Parents,” (“p,” “a,” “r,” “e,” “n,” “t,” “s,”) dot, “o,” “r,” “g.” We hope you found our information useful and look forward to bringing more useful information to you. Subscribe to our feed to make sure that you receive the latest information from making special education actually work, an online publication of KPS4Parents. Find us online at KPS4Parents.org. KPS4Parents is a nonprofit lay advocacy organization. The information provided by KPS4Parents in Making Special Education Actually Work is based on the professional experiences and opinions of KPS4Parents’ lay advocates, and should not be construed as formal legal advice. If you require formal legal advice, please seek the counsel of a qualified attorney. All the content here is copyrighted by KPS4Parents, which reserves all rights.
