One of the issues that I haven’t seen discussed anywhere else, but am seeing first hand every day, is the impact that the shutdown has had on my students with disabilities whose parents also have disabilities. Given that so many learning disabilities, physical impairments, Autism spectrum disorders, and mental health conditions run in families, it’s not surprising to find children on IEPs whose parents also have disabilities. It would be shocking for a professional in this field to not see that phenomenon.
The shutdown negatively impacted students and their families from all walks of life. Students on IEPs were hit more hard only because they were already at a disadvantage and largely under-served before the pandemic hit. All shutdown did was magnify the pre-existing inequality.
To that end, parents with disabilities who were already getting jerked around by their local education agencies have been disadvantaged and exploited even further during school shutdowns. I’ve got two cases on my caseload, right now, that immediately come to mind. One is in California and the other is in Missouri, and in both cases I’ve had to serve as both a reasonable accommodation for the parent with disabilities as well as do my normal job of advocating for the student with disabilities.
In both cases, a bunch of goons from the respective school districts tried to railroad learning disabled parents who struggle to understand the relevant documents, saying one thing verbally, putting something else in writing, and hoping these learning disabled parents didn’t notice. The parents’ federally protected rights as per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process are additionally compromised by violations of the parents’ rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Here’s what I need everybody reading or listening to understand: The states involved here are Missouri, a red state practically overtaken by domestic terrorists bent on sedition, and California, a blue state with mostly progressive leadership. This is a non-partisan issue. There is no political party that seriously cares about people with disabilities, even though disability cuts across every swath of human existence that there is. It’s beyond dysfunctional, but that’s our profoundly sick society, for you.
So, what do we do about this? Well, on an individual basis, the steps of effective advocacy remain the same: get the truth on the record, request remedy, and file complaints if the local education agencies don’t abide. The number one protection parents with disabilities have under the ADA relevant to this issue is their right to communicate via their preferred form of communication. Reasonable accommodation isn’t limited to wheelchair ramps, and honoring a learning disabled person’s communication preferences is just as important as honoring the communication preferences of someone deaf or blind.
For parents with disabilities, it is important going in from the outset that you make clear in writing that you require reasonable accommodations from your local school district, including what your communication preferences are. It doesn’t hurt to add language like, “These accommodations under Section 504 and the ADA are necessary to insure my protected rights to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process pursuant to the IDEA.”
If you have been keeping your need for accommodations to yourself for fear of being judged by the school district members of your child’s IEP team, something is seriously wrong. If you fear that people employed specifically to educate humans with disabilities are going to give you grief because you are a human with disabilities, either you’re insecure, working with a-holes, or both. You do yourself and your child no favors by not putting your local education agency on notice about your need for accommodations; if they treat you poorly, that’s on them for violating your rights as well as those of your child.
It’s stronger to go in asking for reasonable accommodations as your legal right given that you are there to protect your child’s right to reasonable accommodations. If you acquiesce on one, you’re acquiescing on the other. You have to believe that all people with disabilities are equal in power and voice to people without disabilities, including yourself. You are not setting a good example for your child to become a strong self-advocate in spite of disabilities when you fail to advocate for yourself.
Aside from what individual parents with disabilities do on a situation-by-situation basis on the ground, at this point, the only mechanisms available that have any chance of broadly changing anything are judicial and political. Parents need to sue over the civil rights violations that undermine their advocacy for their children so that public education agencies are held to account under every letter of the law that applies. All parents of children with disabilities need to unionize and collectively bargain for improved special education laws and access to special education resources.
In theory, parents with disabilities involved in the IEP process for their children may be able to concurrently file 504/ADA claims in federal court purely on the basis of the discrimination against themselves while filing for due process under the IDEA to assert their children’s claims. However, there’s a kicker that my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar should weigh in on, here.
With respect to informed parental consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, the related civil rights claims may have to toll while due process is being pursued because a special education hearing officer has no jurisdiction with respect to 504/ADA but administrative remedies under the IDEA have to be first exhausted before related civil rights claims can be pursued. Basically, you have to do everything you can with due process before you can go on to federal court on related civil rights claims.
The reason civil rights claims often must toll pending due process is because the hearing officer in the due process case may order something to correct the special education violations that inadvertently cures the civil rights violations at the same time. This makes it unnecessary to get that same outcome from a federal court judge and, thus, a waste of judicial resources to try the same thing in two different venues. However, if the civil rights claims can stand alone on their own with no related due process claims associated with the same body of facts, it’s possible to go forward on civil rights claims while other claims are being adjudicated via due process.
Again, this is a tricky question of law and I defer to my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar to speak to the particulars of 504/ADA claims versus IDEA claims, as well as the order in which issues are tried and by whom. The point is that there is recourse, one way or another.
Parents with disabilities should not feel compromised in the IEP process. No parent should fear that a body of public servants educated, trained, and employed to support the needs of individuals with disabilities in the school setting will use that knowledge to exploit the parent’s disabilities to the detriment of the student. The very idea is reprehensible, but it happens every day.
Institutionalized biases have a lot to do with it. Even people employed to educate students with disabilities will regard a parent’s disabilities as character flaws, more often than not. It’s a learned, knee-jerk reaction that all of us have been raised with to one degree or another our entire lives. It’s why people with disabilities are often also plagued with self-loathing and related mental health disorders. Most people with disabilities aren’t born with self-loathing and mental health disorders; they are acquired from the experiences of being rejected by everyone else and seeing a world that is basically designed to exclude them from participation. Things that can be acquired can also be let go and replaced.
During distance learning, these issues became even more painfully apparent as schools shut down and children with special needs had to stay at home and participate in distance learning. Setting aside the degree of forgiveness due to actual teachers for not being given appropriate tools and support from their respective agencies to handle the situation, something cohesive should have been in place within the first few weeks, but I’ve still got school districts pulling ridiculous stunts and we’ve got partial campus re-openings going on around here, right now.
We’re now more than a year into this thing and, not only have they not gotten their acts together, they’re actively making excuses as to why the broke the law 40 million different ways before now. If they invested half the energy they’ve spent on making excuses and lying to the public into actually solving the problem, it would have been solved by now.
The politics of it all is at the heart of this issue, unfortunately. This is just as serious as domestic terrorism, because it’s actually one of many expressions of that terrorism. When parents with disabilities are terrified of the people to whom they send their children with disabilities every day, often with the threat of criminal prosecution for truancy if they don’t, they are being manipulated through fear to acquiesce on issues that, under the law, require their consent.
It is important for those of us who are working in the civil rights arena to recognize that we will find the students with disabilities we serve also among other marginalized populations that may have a stronger degree of activism already underway. For example, if a child with disabilities and African-American heritage is being jerked around, it may be more effective to bring a representative from the NAACP to an IEP meeting than a disability advocate. Likely, the best solution would to bring both.
This is an issue that child and family advocates need to address because it is vast, pervasive, and significant. When it comes to dumping the instructional responsibilities for a child with disabilities onto a parent with disabilities, the civil rights claims can easily multiply. I have had three cases this year involving parents with disabilities who were getting played by their local school districts until I said something. One case is resolved and the other two, which I mentioned at the beginning, remain active.
In every case, not only were the parents with disabilities being inappropriately burdened like all other parents during shutdown, they were not offered any reasonable accommodations to do so. In my mind, this is an enormous class-action issue that could result in entire state departments of education, which are ultimately responsible to the federal government for complying with the IDEA in exchange for federal special education dollars, getting nailed to the wall for failing to ensure local education agencies provided reasonable accommodations during shutdown to parents with disabilities who were attempting to instruct their children at home or who simply could not, resulting in a deprivation of educational benefits to their children.
I am very curious to get parent, advocate, and attorney input on this issue. If you have experienced anything like this, either as a parent or professional, and have ideas on how to lawfully resolve these issues with the least amount of trauma to the involved children and their families, we’d love to hear from you. For those employed within the system who want to do the right thing but are being prevented by others within the system, your feedback is appreciated as well.
The news is replete with evidence that far too many public servants can’t be trusted to uphold the rules of democracy. Because the IDEA is so dependent upon the application of science to the lawful implementation of special education, it tends to be those who disregard science and law who pose the biggest threat to our children with special needs.
Given how many Far Right conservatives there are employed within public education, the fact that the domestic Far Right is the greatest terrorism threat that our country faces, and that neither science nor the rule of law mean much to the Far Right, it’s not that hard to see why we need to get the Far Right out of our public school system. The Far Right is why civil rights laws are necessary in the first place. They’re not going to do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. They don’t even understand what that means. They’re going to do whatever serves their selfish motivations.
People who follow the extremes at either end of any social spectrum, including politics, tend not to have fully functional prefrontal cortices, based on my observations. They lack the deductive reasoning skills to understand the big picture. They lack the perspective-taking skills to see things from anyone else’s point of view. They are egocentric in thought and grossly emotionally under-developed. They are prone to extreme actions and reactions based almost entirely on their own wants and needs.
In the special education setting, if you and your child’s needs don’t align with the agenda of people with this mindset, you don’t even exist to them. You’re like a person with a numbered ticket at the deli counter. They’re going to interact with you briefly and smile to your face, then forget you exist five minutes later. You’re a thing, not a person, to people like this. They don’t think of anybody as another “person.” Everybody else are just things to conveniently access when they serve a useful purpose to people who think this way. That is why holding them accountable after the fact is more effective than logical or emotional appeals made in an effort to prevent something bad from happening.
All of this is, of course, disordered thought. So, basically, what this comes down to is a bunch of mentally ill, self-serving individuals getting paid six-figure annual incomes at taxpayer expense to manifest their untreated and unaccommodated symptoms at the expense of their constituents. What we’re really looking at is the symptoms of untreated mental health disorders being manifested as public policy to the detriment of individuals who are not in denial about the fact that they have disabilities attempting to advocate for their children with disabilities.
The most apparent difference that I can see between the two sides of the issue is that the people within public education responsible for this situation don’t think there is anything wrong with themselves; they think they are the chosen ones and everyone else exists just to give them an excuse to collect a paycheck. When the special education community finally addresses the degree to which schizoaffective, personality-disordered administrators and the like are behind the egregious abuses of disability-related laws it experiences, and we use our science to heal ourselves, we’ll be able to actually use the science to heal our children and help them build productive futures for themselves.
Christine Priola, OT, on the right in the Vice President’s Office of the Senate during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol in Washington, DC
On January 6, 2021, a group of people, radicalized by false propaganda generated by the 45th President of the United States and his co-conspirators, attacked the United States Capitol with the intent to kidnap and/or murder members of Congress and the Vice President. This is an event that will live in infamy for so long as America remains a nation, and be blamed for it if it does not.
I’ve been working in special education advocacy, helping parents protect their children with disabilities from physical, emotional, and educational abuse/neglect by the public sector, primarily the public school system, since 1991. By now, you would think there’s nothing new for me to see when it comes to all the ways that adults can do wrong by those among us with disabilities. Clearly, I was wrong.
These recent events at the national level have left me with a whole new set of concerns that I believe are important to talk about, right now. Not the least of these concerns is the fact that a profoundly mentally ill president, along with his pathologically self-serving sycophants, exploited the suffering of some Americans with mental illness and the unfounded sense of entitlement experienced by other Americans with mental illness.
In the end, it’s a bunch of people with mental health issues frenzying like piranha at the smell of blood in the water and taking down the rest of us with them. The inmates are literally running the asylum, right now, and the survival of us all rests on the shoulders of those of us intact enough to realize what is happening, and equipped to deal with it.
For the last 30 years, it’s been my observation – and one I’ve repeatedly shared – that there are individuals employed within the public education system who believe children with disabilities are expendable and unimportant. In a sea of deprived students in general, special education students are uniquely further deprived because of their disabilities.
It’s been my observation that these individuals see their constituents – in this case, our children – as a means to their own personal financial ends, and nothing more. When the costs of educating these constituents increases due to disability, they become a hated burden to those looking to profit off them.
It’s not like the public education system is doing that great by any of our kids, right now. It’s just that problems that impact education in general tend to have a magnified effect on our kids with special needs. Public school officials will say things like, “My heart is bleeding for your child. I wish there was something I could do,” when there’s totally something they could do. They just don’t want to pay for it, which is unlawful.
Special education laws would have not become necessary back in the 1970s if it were not for the fact that people who do not believe in science or law were already employed in positions of authority within the public education system and engaging in unconstitutional conduct towards children with disabilities at that time. The public schools would refuse to enroll these students at all or, even if they did, let them languish in general education classes until they dropped out.
In spite of compulsory education laws, back in the day, it was totally okay to drop out of school if you couldn’t keep up with the instruction and nobody would come after you for truancy. This was what happened to a lot of people with relatively mild challenges, like learning disabilities, who ended up reaching adulthood functionally illiterate and unable to find gainful employment except as factory workers, coal miners, and all the other dangerous jobs that don’t require academic skills, in spite of their normal intelligence.
I provided adult literacy instruction to this population at a local vocational/technical college as a young adult in Arkansas. I’ve met these people. I’ve seen this play out, first hand.
This has led to a class of individuals who have increasingly lost the ability to support themselves, as robots take over dangerous jobs that don’t require real thinking. While the laws that passed in the 1970s were the right place to start, it’s foolish to think that enough has changed since then that the system isn’t still biased against kids with special needs. If things had changed, I’d have worked myself out of a job a long time ago.
The public education system is biased against any kid who isn’t white, male, and expected to inherit property upon reaching age of majority. It was created in its present form during the Industrial Revolution and hasn’t changed much since.
For the longest time, public education agency administration was male dominated while the teaching staffs were female dominated, putting men in authoritarian control over women employees. Teachers unions grew out of the very real discrimination and abuse of women in the public education workplace by their male “superiors” around the same time that unions gained popularity among the laborers working ot inher dangerous jobs in factories and mines.
Students, however, have no collective bargaining power. Even though they are the reason the system exists, they are the last individuals served by it. They get whatever leftovers are left after public agency administrators bleed their agencies dry with undeserved six-figure annual salaries while teachers are buying classroom supplies with their own money. Students are just an excuse for politicians to pay themselves.
So, the idea that discrimination and abuse do not manifest in the public education sector is plainly inaccurate. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary, my caseload being only one such mountain. The judicial and legislative history of special education law is not the total point, here, but it’s relevant in that it establishes that bad actors in public education have made it necessary to regulate public education to control for their inappropriate behaviors.
The evidence of bad faith in public education has been documented in the courts long enough that I don’t have argue it, here. That’s a done deal. So, when someone tells me they are worried about child welfare at the hands of government officials, I have to say, “Me too! That’s why I’m a child and family advocate.”
However, now when someone tells me they are worried about pedophiles in public education, I have to do a double-take and ask, “Why?” That’s only because of the whacky Q-Anon and similar conspiracy theories, now going around about Satanic cannibals molesting and trafficking children.
It’s not that human trafficking isn’t real or horrible. It’s that there is zero proof that it’s being perpetrated by the people these conspiracy theorists are targeting.
There is proof, however, that the 45th President was pals with a known, convicted pedophile and wished this pedophile’s co-conspirator well when she, too, got arrested. He’s also been accusing of raping a 13-year-old who was made available to him by this same duo of pedophiles, but these conspiracy theorists are not going after him. They think he is the champion of their cause, which defies logic in every possible way.
Even if the allegations of child rape cannot be sustained against #45, he’s sexually assaulted plenty of women and bragged about it on the record. How he’s become the champion of a human rights cause given his history of sexual assault and his policies regarding the children of lawful asylum-seekers at our borders is beyond me.
We have all seen news stories of the occasional teacher, aide, specialist, or administrator who gets busted for sexual relations with their students. It’s not that pedophiles are not employed within public education; we know some have slipped in and we do a poor job of screening them out, often only finding them after the harm has been done.
The more important point is that a ring of cannibalistic pedophiles do not run public education. The average school district administrator doesn’t come anywhere near actual children. They don’t appear to care for the company of children; they just want to exploit them for public dollars.
While I don’t doubt that there are people employed in public education administration who would gladly traffic in humans if they thought they could turn a profit and get away with it, that’s a whole lot of work to make happen within the public education system and not get exposed. It’s easier to milk the broken system as it is without taking on that risk. They can get rich by lazier means than selling their students into slavery.
As soon as someone gets caught engaging in pedaphilia with students in the public education setting, most school districts are the ones that call the cops. If school district administrators come to an accused educator’s defense, it’s either because the educator was wrongfully accused or because the administrators don’t want to be held accountable for the fact that they let a pedophile come work for their public education agency, so they’re trying to convince everyone that they didn’t.
It’s not that public education isn’t being run by a pack of corrupt jackals. By and large, like local police departments, local school districts get away with as much as they do because they only answer to their local constituents, most of whom don’t know how to monitor and audit a school district on an ongoing basis for compliance issues. Jackals are in gross abundance.
Even the most ethical educators can be corrupted once they are promoted into administration, and I suspect most of that is economics. Once they start getting that six-figure annual salary, they start buying nice houses and cars, putting their kids through college, and going on expensive vacations. That quickly creates debt.
If you have a six-figure income, you can pay that debt, but if you lose that income and can’t replace it fast enough, you’re quickly screwed. This is how good educators get pulled into the Dark Side of the Force when they accept promotions into administration. It’s the rare pure soul that sees what’s really going on and refuses to be manipulated that way before it’s too late.
The overarching problems I see in public school administration are about money, not pedophilia or cannibalism. I’ve yet to encounter cannibalism, actually, but it’s only January 2021, so let’s see if this year tops last year for the most disgusting conduct to be revealed among public servants for the whole world to see.
What prompts me to discuss this, now, is the recent resignation of Christine Priola, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from Cleveland Metropolitan School District, one day before she participated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection against the American government. Ms. Priola occupied the Capitol building with other insurrectionists and was photographed in the Vice President’s office as part of the occupation.
In her resignation letter, Ms. Priola, who is currently out on bail pending trial, stated she was leaving her job as an OT for the District’s special education department for three specific reasons:
She refused to take the Corona virus vaccine before returning to in-person learning;
She disagreed with paying union dues because she believes that money is funding abortions; and
She’s embarking upon a fight against child trafficking by government agencies.
So, I’m going to pick these apart one by one, first, and then get into the rest of it.
First, it’s unclear if Ms. Priola is an anti-vaxer opposed to vaccines in general, is against the current Corona virus vaccine because it was rushed to market so quickly and she questions its safety and efficacy, or just resents being told she has to take a shot before she can go back to work. Maybe it’s a combination of those things.
We don’t know why she was opposed to the vaccine, so I can’t automatically lump her onto the science-denying anti-vaxer wagon with this limited amount of information, though her overall behaviors incline me to suspect that she could be an anti-vaxer. Because she’s an OT, which is a scientific discipline that functions within the medical and educational realms, I don’t want to assume too much, here. However, science is a fact-based discipline and Ms. Priola has not be operating according to facts.
When we look at her second objection, the total absence of logic casts an unfavorable light on the first objection, even further. How union dues, which pay for the administrative overhead of each union’s operations, somehow funds abortions makes no sense.
The district may withhold those dues from educators’ paychecks, but there is an audit trail that shows where that money goes. If you’re worried about where the money is going, you do a request for public records asking for the accounting details and turn them over to a grand jury if you find that the money is being misappropriated.
The rule of law already provides a remedy for the misuse of public funds. You don’t raid the Capitol with the intent of hanging the Vice President to death to resolve issues such as these.
The idea that the rule of law had collapsed to the point that it was ineffective cannot be argued, here. Ms. Priola did nothing on record to resolve the issue with where her union dues were going before resorting to the violent overthrow of the government and an effort to assassinate the Vice President.
The government already had a legal remedy that she chose not to access and the “remedy” she opted for instead did not fit the situation. This strongly suggests disordered thought. It also, however, goes to the degree to which legitimate remedies to harm done are often inaccessible to everyday Americans because they can’t afford to lawyer up every time the government shirks its responsibilities and hurts people. When the appropriate options are closed off to people, they are only left with the inappropriate ones.
This is where peaceful protests for changes to the rules become such an important part of democracy, none of which involves insurrection or execution. Insurrection as a more expedient option to litigation speaks to the degree to which the legal system is often unavailable to most people because of the associated costs, but it’s not a valid excuse for what Ms. Priola has done. Ease of access to remedy may have made it less likely that she wouldn’t have done something literally insane, but that’s speculative at this point.
The third justification for resigning given by Ms. Priola was that she’s embarking upon a fight to protect children from abuses by government employees. On it’s face, I can’t take issue with that because I’ve been fighting to protect children with disabilities – the same students Ms. Priola served as an OT – from abuses within the public education system for the last 30 years.
Very often, though, I’m protecting them against people like Ms. Priola who are so divorced from science and, therefore, reality that they engage in violations that require me to file complaints with regulators. Again, the rule of law provides a remedy. The difference between Ms. Priola’s efforts to protect children and mine is that I use science and law to protect my babies. She’s trying to kill the members of Congress most likely to help her protect children from the real predators.
I’ve never had to violently overthrow a government agency or hang anybody to protect a child from government employees. Has the rule of law let my babies down, before? Yes, in hugely significant ways. Has the rule of law protected my babies when I’ve pursued enforcement of it? Yes, more often than it has not. It’s not a perfect system, but insurrection on behalf of the people responsible for undermining it is not going to fix anything.
And, it’s not like I haven’t seen evidence of child trafficking in government agencies. I have, just not in public education. Specifically, I’ve been working on a separate justice project with our organization’s founder, Nyanza, to address the egregious over-incarceration of African-Americans in Oklahoma that dovetails with what may be State-sponsored child trafficking.
Based on the publicly available research data we’ve gathered to date, it appears there may be an orchestrated mechanism in place in which officials in the State of Oklahoma incarcerates people of color and remove their children from their homes through the Child Protective Services (CPS) system, only to place these children in privately owned foster care facilities and/or adoption agencies that operate for profit.
It appears that at least some of the foster care and adoption agencies in Oklahoma that participate in this dynamic are owned, at least in part, by State officials responsible for passing and enforcing the laws of Oklahoma, from which they profit. It should be noted that Oklahoma’s CPS system was found to have been responsible for the death, rape, and maiming of many children processed through this system via a federal class action lawsuit that resulted in a consent decree that is not being properly enforced.
CPS employees have come out as whistleblowers to advise that the “proof” of compliance with the consent decree is falsified information and Oklahoma isn’t taking this federal court consent decree as anything other than one more thing to lie about. It should also be noted that all of the individuals involved in these behaviors appear to be Republicans, or they were at the time the data we collected were gathered.
From what we’ve seen so far in our data, it appears that Oklahoma lawmakers and judges are incarcerating people so they can steal their children and sell them for profit. If true, that’s a legitimate State-sponsored human trafficking ring that needs to be shut down immediately. But, it isn’t a Satanic group of Hollywood actors and Democrats eating and raping children.
While this possible human trafficking ring has not been investigated as such to my knowledge, thus far, it’s one of those things that can’t last forever without someone getting caught. Nyanza and I are working to get enough evidence together to get the situation investigated, and she’s been filing documents this whole time, but that’s how you address these things. We are availing ourselves of the mechanisms of our imperfect, but better than anarchy, democracy to fix this heinous problem. Whatever is responsible for Oklahoma’s ridiculous incarceration and CPS numbers is a problem that needs to be fixed, regardless of what it is.
This is painful because we know of families suffering horribly because of what is currently happening until this gets resolved, but justice can take time. I’ve learned that lesson from 30 years of working cases from IEP meetings all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and you don’t always win. But, you always make a difference, even when you lose on some technicality. I’ve had cases where we lost on an issue, but just barely. The involved districts knew the next time they pulled the same stunt, they wouldn’t necessarily get lucky again, and have changed their practices as a result.
What I’ve learned from relying on the rule of law to address failures of the system is that you have to look at things in the aggregate. It becomes a measure of how many things I’ve prevailed on versus how many things I have not, and I’ve prevailed on more things than I haven’t. Overall, my work is highly effective. On a day-by-day basis, it’s a mixture of resolution and being obstructed by law-breaking public servants.
You have to get to the point where you can identify when it’s time to negotiate and when it’s time to collect evidence and file a complaint of some kind. We have processes and procedures already to address all of the concerns raised by Ms. Priola’s resignation letter, none of which involve insurrection and execution of elected officials.
So, having said all that, now I have to turn to the issue of people who think like Ms. Priola who are still employed in public education. I first have to say that she may be in the minority, but we don’t know how large or small that minority is because they have not been outspoken within the public education context, thus far.
Further, because I have been dealing with disordered thought on the part of school district personnel that results in harm to children for the last 30 years, I’m willing to believe that people whose thinking is as impaired as Ms. Priola’s appears to be are still deeply rooted in special education, right now. Whether their disordered thought makes them vulnerable to Q-Anon and similar propaganda or not isn’t anything I can answer. But, Ms. Priola’s departure from science in spite of her scientific training is consistent with much of what I see in special education when things go wrong.
What this really comes down to is a concern that I’ve had for years and have spoken about with colleagues, but we haven’t really figured out the most appropriate way to address it. What is happening now and the national dialogue around it may have finally opened a door to deal with this issue, and that issue is the societal impact of having so many members of our population who are apparently incapable of logical thought when it comes to abstract concepts like justice, democracy, and fascism. And, it circles back around to the quality, or lack thereof, of our public education system.
One of the tools I regularly use, or request that it be used, in special education is a standardized assessment called the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD). The history of what led to the SCOSD’s creation is a story unto itself, but suffice it to say that it is a scientific way of measuring all the different domains of development according to Piaget’s stages of development.
The SCOSD breaks development down by subtest into cognition, communication, adaptive abilities, social-affective functioning, and motor skills. It is possible for an individual to function at a higher developmental level in one area than other areas. Each person’s outcome on the measure paints a picture of their relative strengths and weaknesses across the developmental domains. When working with children and young adults with developmental disabilities, this becomes important to designing effective programs for each of them.
What I’ve come to realize from the data I’ve seen produced by the SCOSD over the years is that it is possible for someone to have age-typical cognitive and communication skills, but then have below age-typical social/emotional functioning. What this means is that their emotional development is delayed while their abilities to acquire academic and job skills are intact. They can emulate adult behavior, but their motivations are child-like because of their delayed social/emotional functioning.
When otherwise intelligent people get whipped up into an emotional frenzy over things not supported by any credible evidence, this disconnect between intelligence and social/emotional functioning is apparent. When otherwise intelligent people argue against evidence that they did something incorrectly, this same disconnect is again apparent.
This disconnect is what I’ve been fighting over the years more than anything else. Any reasonably intelligent and socially/emotionally intact person would not engage in the kinds of crap I encounter in the public education system. Most of what I encounter in the public education system is the consequence of ineptitude, not a cabal of cannibals.
If any kind of cabal exists in public education, it’s the same one currently running the American Presidency into the ground. All of this makes me think of the right-wing folks in Orange County, California, who started a non-profit membership organization, self-described as a “brotherhood,” of school district officials who would all pay membership dues and then use that money to finance legal battles against parents of children with disabilities.
It also makes me think of Lozano Smith, a law firm that infamously (within special education circles) got eviscerated by a federal court judge after trying to lie, cheat, and steal in a special education due process appeal. The firm, the responsible attorneys, and the district it was representing all got sanctioned for jerking everybody, especially the court, around with their lies.
All of the firm’s attorneys were ordered to participate in additional ethics training, in addition to the reprimand and sanctions meted out by the court. At the time, Lozano Smith had over 200 attorneys on staff statewide throughout California. Shortly thereafter, most of them jumped ship and went to different firms or started their own firms. It’s quite reminiscent of what we are seeing in Washington, DC, right now, as cabinet members and other high-ranking personnel turn their backs on the outgoing President in the wake of all the destruction and death he has caused.
Lozano Smith is still around, but I haven’t encountered them in the field in several years. The last big thing I saw from them was in 2013 when my colleague, David Grey, prevailed on a case at the 9th Circuit against two school districts engaging in the same violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At least one of the involved districts filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was shot down; the Supreme Court declined to try the case.
When the Supreme Court appeal was first filed, Lozano Smith, which had been uninvolved at that point, wrote an amicus brief that looked like something that could have been produced by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. It made nearly hysterical arguments about how the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the ADA would undo decades of precedent within the public education system, as though decades of an established practice of discrimination should be maintained.
The point is that the conservative “fringe” has never been the “fringe.” To quote Stephen Colbert, “Lunatic fringe? There were tens of thousands of people in that murderous mob. The day after the riot, a poll found that 45% of Republican voters backed the attack on the capitol building. That’s not a fringe! That’s almost half the outfit! If you wore a suit that was 45% fringe, you’d be arrested for public indecency! But at least we’d be able to see through your pants to know you don’t have any balls!“
Based on how scholars look at the political spectrum, conservatives have gone further and further to the right towards radicalization as the left has remained predominantly centrist. The far right looks at centrist politics and mischaracterizes them as the “radical left.” Democracy is not the radical left.
Conservatism is no longer part of democracy in this country; it’s become a movement towards dictatorship in which 45% of the population believes it needs to be led by the nose by a demagogue. When left to think for themselves, these individuals run towards authoritarianism, thinking these leaders understand their needs and will fight for them, rather than exploit them to help take over and then kick them to the curb when they no longer serve a useful purpose.
It’s my suspicion that, once the people who participated in the insurrection realize that the 45th President will let them rot in jail for taking up his cause while he claims to have nothing to do with any of them, his base will finally get the backstabbing that has been coming their way this entire time and will realize he’s not in their corner like they thought. We can at least hope getting stabbed in the back will have this effect.
We’re going to have to watch the prosecuted go through this epiphany over time as we try each of their cases one by one. The stories we’re going to hear from these people are going to reveal legitimate unmet needs, impaired problem-solving skills, and exploitation of those factors by Republican terrorists looking to radicalize them.
Those of these defendants with the mental wherewithal to realize they’ve been played and the emotional stability to own it will turn on those who exploited them, as have many former allies of #45, such as Michael Cohen. Those who don’t have the emotional stability to own the fact that they made a mistake in judgment will continue to assert they’ve done nothing wrong and describe themselves as political prisoners rather than criminal insurrectionists and traitors.
In the minds of the insurrectionists, as they’ve reported themselves, they were responding to the call of their President to defend democracy. If that’s what you’re really doing, defending democracy isn’t bad. But democracy relies on the rule of law. You defend democracy by participating in it and putting its mechanisms into constructive use, not trying to overthrow it.
If our democracy is not working for all of the people – and people of color, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ people, women of all stripes, and people challenged by disability can attest that it has not for a very long time – we need to fix it. What boggles the mind is that now that groups made up mostly of white males in this country are finally beginning to experience the lack of undemocratic entitlement and advantage they’ve historically known, their response to advocate for themselves is to engage in insurrection. This means that what they want is nothing a true democracy would ever give them, and that tells you all you really need to know about them.
There is absolutely a silver lining in all of this, and I rely on Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) to inform that determination. In ABA, there is a term that I’ve discussed in previous posts called “Extinction Burst,” and that’s part of what we are looking at with the current state of things. In an Extinction Burst, a behavior that had previously been reinforced is no longer being reinforced, and the organism tries to force reinforcement to come by escalating its behavior.
Think of it this way: If, every day, you put money in a vending machine and a candy bar comes out, the candy bar reinforces the behavior of putting money into the machine. But if, one day, the candy bar gets stuck and won’t come out of the machine, what do we do? Walk away sad? No! We beat on the machine in an effort to make the candy bar dislodge and come out.
That’s an Extinction Burst. If the candy bar dislodges and comes out, it reinforces the behavior of beating up the machine. If beating the machine doesn’t work, then you walk away sad. After than, you’re less likely to use the machine again. If you stop using the machine altogether, the behavior of putting money into it becomes extinct.
What is happening in this country with the radicalized right is an Extinction Burst. Behaviors engaged in by the right wing that were previously reinforced are no longer being reinforced. The behaviors of the 45th President, his co-conspirators, and his followers over the last five years, leading up to January 6, 2021, and what may still yet happen as the 46th elected President takes office, have been an extended Extinction Burst.
The most important thing about an Extinction Burst when you’re trying to extinguish an inappropriate behavior is that you cannot allow it to produce the reinforcement being sought. If you want someone to give up on the candy machine, there can be no way to beat the machine until candy comes out.
We want the radical right to give up on trying to destroy democracy, so we cannot allow their behaviors to result in the reinforcement they are seeking, which, here, is to remain in power regardless of the will of the people. This includes holding them accountable according to the letter of the law. That’s what I’ve been doing in my niche of governmental accountability for the last 30 years and it’s the only way to preserve democracy going forward.
The other silver lining, here, is that in spite of all their efforts to overthrow democracy, it’s our democracy that will ultimately prevail. When we apply the rule of law to what they have done, democracy will have the opportunity to defend itself.
What saddens and scares me the most is the number of people whose developmental weaknesses and mental health conditions are being exploited by the right wing to radicalize them into becoming domestic terrorists while convincing them they are upholding American principles through their terrorism. When we talk about the mental health problems in this country, we tend to point to homelessness and addiction issues, like this is the only way they can hurt us.
As an advocate for people with disabilities, I am torn between being sad for and fearful of these individuals. On the one hand, we absolutely need to hold them accountable under the law. But, we prove the point that the system is skewed towards specific demographics when mentally ill right wing radicals suddenly get criminal consequences and nothing to address the real-world problems that they couldn’t solve that propelled them into radicalism.
In the end, once again, it’s people with disabilities being used as political pawns by self-serving, undeserving, overpaid public officials looking to line their own pockets with taxpayer dollars as part of a grift. This is something I know all too well in special education.
I’m willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that decades of special education failures have produced an entire class of emotionally disturbed adults who are still vulnerable to the manipulations of public officials and that Ms. Priola and many of her compatriots are among them. I’m also willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that the people manipulating them are just as mentally ill; they just have money and power.
I will never pretend to have all the answers, here, but I do know a thing or two that can help. All of us do. We need to weave our efforts together to repair the fabric of our country and make it stronger than it was in the first place. It’s not impossible. This country’s founding was far more difficult than its current preservation and we can do this.
On November 4, 2020, I interviewed attorney and author, Catherine Michael, of Connell, Michael, Kerr, LLP, a special education law practice with offices in Indiana and Texas (https://cmklawfirm.com). Catherine’s book, The Exceptional Parent’s Guide to Special Education, will become available on December 1, 2020 and can be pre-ordered at https://amzn.to/38euWaD.
The following is the transcript from the interview (transcribed using Otter):
Anne Zachry 00:00
First of all, thank you so much for being on this podcast with me, I don’t get to interview folks very often, and it’s always fun when I get to. And it’s always very informative, because I think having all of us who do this kind of work, you know, talking these things through out loud, and just speaking to what’s going on and how we think that’s going to affect the the students that we work for, and the families that depend on us, I just think it’s a really constructive use of time. So I really appreciate you being here. If you could, just introduce yourself and give us just your background, your history of how you’ve come into this line of work and what it is that you do now.
Catherine Michael 00:33
Oh, yeah, absolutely. So, my name is Catherine Michael. I’m the managing partner of a law firm called Connell Michael Kerr. And we work in a multitude of states and have attorneys licensed in in several states as well. And what I do is, and for the past 20 years, I’ve worked in education, law or representation of children. And, and a lot of that involves filing educational due process cases against schools, personal injury, tort actions against schools, and sometimes group homes, residential facilities, and also advocating for children with special needs, for instance, the legislatures in several states, and at a national level. And, you know, I got into this line of work. My background had been in hospital risk management. And I got into this, because we were seeing a lot of children who had really substantial issues, whether they had a diagnosis of cancer, and we’re now getting cranial radiation or having a tumor removed. And we saw how uncooperative schools were. And back then it was really quite shocking to me that we would find a school district who wouldn’t want to provide a child a homebound program or a school district that would claim that cancer is not a disability, and this child doesn’t need to be eligible.
Anne Zachry 01:51
Oh, my gosh!
Catherine Michael 01:52
That was really – Right! That was really fascinating to me, because as someone who had not worked in education, at that point, and was working with hospital systems, that was really shocking, because I think all of us believe that our procedures, tools are supposed to be very pro child, they are there to ensure educational services for children. And, you know, the first case I took was a child who had cancer, and was just really, really surprised how hard it was to get that young man a program. And thereafter started taking cases involving children who had learning disabilities, and really finding how substantial a need this was. And it had a snowball effect and has kept me in it to this day.
Anne Zachry 02:36
Well, yeah. And a lot of us come into this, who are professionals from these paths where we encounter these challenges. And we’re like, “Wait a minute, what?” And then we see how the system is constructed, how it’s been designed, and what the rules actually are. And so I would imagine coming from a medical scenario, I mean, in the medical realm, you bought insurance billing rules, and all those kinds of things until there’s somewhat of a similarity in that you’ve got this compliance standard that has to be met, in order for things to happen. And when you look at what those rules are in special education, and, you know, and you understand what the intent may have been. But then, and you and I spoke briefly of this before we started the interview, that enforcement is really the question here. So if you could speak about that, that would be …
Catherine Michael 03:29
Yeah, enforcement is a huge issue. And I think that because there is so little enforcement of the laws on the books, we’ve have found that basically schools have run amok. And so for parents who are listening, the main law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and that is a federal law, which means that every state has to follow it. They can’t have a state law that restricts any of the rights under a federal law. And every state in the United States has basically what we call “codified” that law into their own state laws, the only thing that they can do is add additional rights for parents. For instance, the state of Michigan actually extended how long the student can be in special ed. So it is age 22 under the federal law. Michigan made it 26. Other states change, for instance, when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation. California, basically has that if a parent request an independent educational evaluation, that the school gets a reasonable time to respond. Other states like Indiana say a school has to respond within 10 days. So there’s some of these minor changes in the law that are that are supposed to in some states like Indiana or Michigan, give those parents additional rights. But also the way these laws are designed, is that the only enforcers of them are parents. That means the parents are basically their own private attorneys general; that parents are the equivalent of the cops on the road with the radar to catch the speeding cars. Your State Department of Education is not going to be looking over your child’s IEP and saying, “Wow, your child has a lot of issues and they only have one goal,” or “They’re not receiving any direct speech services,” or “They’re not receiving any direct special educational services,” or “Your child shouldn’t be in a special education room all day long; that there’s something called the ‘least restrictive environment,’ which says we need, to the maximum extent we can, have them with their general education peers.’ So what I think a lot of parents don’t realize is, your State Department of Education isn’t doing that. Your federal Department of Education isn’t doing that. No one has that obligation to enforce these laws, other than the parent bringing a private action called an educational due process complaint. So schools have all of these laws under IDEA. And just to give, you know, for parent, I’m sure if if you’re listening to this podcast, you probably have a basic overview of it. But IDEA has requirements for what’s called a free appropriate education. And that basically encompasses that your child is going to have an IEP, that has challenging ambitious goals, in light of their circumstances, that has related services. Related services would be counseling, social work services, parent training, speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy. The least restrictive environment: That if your child needs a one on one aide in order to be in a general education environment, they’re supposed to do that versus moving your child to a resource room. If your child needs a therapeutic day placement or residential placement, that’s also to be provided by the school. There are all sorts of procedural safeguards. If a school refuses your request, let’s say for a one on one aide, or a specialized program for dyslexia, they actually have to provide you written notice saying what data they’re relying upon to deny this, everything they’ve considered, and they have to provide this to you in writing. So there are all these laws on the books, okay. And regardless of where you live, when we say IDEA, it’s that federal law, this applies to you, and it applies to your child in a public school. And as you know, going back again, but the only enforcer of this law, the only enforcer who can actually call a school to tap on it is you as a parent and that mechanism, as I said a second ago, it’s what’s called an educational due process complaint. And that’s a complaint that is filed with your State Department of Education, a state appoints a hearing officer to determine if that program is in place. And you know, something we discussed before we started as well is that most parents have no idea that they have these rights. And that most of these laws are right now not being enforced. There are some states where there is less than one due process case a year. So when schools are developing these IEPs, being that there’s no real enforcement mechanism, other than in some states like the timeline, they have to have it a yearly meeting, we’re seeing really horrible consequences of that, I think across the states.
Anne Zachry 08:27
Well and then now that with school closures and shutdowns, that certainly hasn’t improved things at all. And so what are you seeing?
Catherine Michael 08:36
It hasn’t.
Anne Zachry 08:36
What are you seeing now, that’s different than before the shutdown started?
Catherine Michael 08:40
I think the biggest problem I’m seeing is a complete lack of services. And that is where school districts, for instance, that have gone entirely virtual, have students who are just not able to access the services, they may be so cognitively impaired, they’re not able to do a computer program
Anne Zachry 09:01
Right.
Catherine Michael 09:01
In some of those cases, I’m seeing schools basically just throw up their hands and say, “Well, you know, when we come up with a program, we’ll let you know.” And that’s really contrary to law. And there are a lot of things that parents need to be doing right now. That is one of the biggest problems. The other one is where parents whose children are getting, for instance, speech therapy. The school’s saying, “Sorry, we can’t provide that right now.” And in fact, they really can. I mean, virtual speech therapy has been done for years and it’s something that should be being done.
Anne Zachry 09:35
Right.
Catherine Michael 09:36
And then lastly, I mean, we’re seeing schools where kids are coming back to school, but we’ll have a school that that, you know, I think for good reason has a mask mandate, but they don’t understand that there are clearly going to be children who cannot wear masks, right?
Anne Zachry 09:52
Right.
Catherine Michael 09:52
They are too cognitively impaired or they have really significant health issues. And I’ve definitely seen a lot of those issues crop up, which is really quite shocking to me. Because some of these situations, you know, quite honestly, when we look at a child who for instance, has a tube down their throat, the fact that a school would even argue with a parent as to whether they’re going to try and put a mask on this child is shocking.
Anne Zachry 10:21
Right.
Catherine Michael 10:21
They’ll tell a parent that a child can’t come to school. So that I think has been another one of the really big issues.
Anne Zachry 10:28
Yeah. And we’ve what we’ve run into out here in California is it’s hit or miss, it depends on the school district as to whether they’re going to do the right thing or not. And but we have some school districts that are just flat out refusing to do any in-person services at all, under any circumstances, even though we have the governor’s order that came out in April that said that any student that required in-person services in order to continue to learn and to receive educational benefits, just as a matter of FAPE, that those in-person services still had to be provided and the people who would do it would be considered essential infrastructure workers. But we have districts saying that, “Oh, no, there’s something else that came out in July that says we don’t have to do that.” And it doesn’t say that at all. And so they’re just waiting until they get court ordered to actually do it before they’ll comply. They’re waiting for somebody to pull that trigger. They’re not willing to assume the risk. It’s a risk management decision. They don’t want to assume the liability of choosing to do it, and then have somebody gets sick and say, “You made me go to work, and then then I got COVID.” And then they’re going to turn around and sue the school district as the employer. And so what we’re seeing is that a lot of it has to do with human resources issues, and unionized employees and, you know, rightfully insisting on safe ways of getting things done, and satisfaction not being achieved at that level, which then impairs the system’s ability to carry out its mandate, because the workers it relies upon, there’s no agreement as to how they’re going to do it. Until they get court ordered, they’re just not gonna. And so that’s what we’re seeing out here. And it’s weird. And I’ve also got OCR complaints and state compliance complaints as well pending because the due process system is now so flooded that, you know, the attorneys I work with can’t file anything new until March. And so it’s like, Okay, well, we got to find other avenues to still somehow enforce all of this and a compliance investigation, or an OCR investigation has a 60 day timeline. So at least that’s something.
Catherine Michael 12:27
Yeah, well, and I think that is, again, part of the big problem, here. It’s just when we have schools that they know that the consequences to them are going to be really minimal, that’s why we’ll often see them wait for court orders versus getting creative. So when I say getting creative, we’re seeing two are not able to serve, for instance, cognitively impaired kids, they have problems where they are not able to get the personnel in and not keep them safe. They can actually pay for a private therapeutic day placement, they can offer a parent sort of what we would call a continuum of services and placements …
Anne Zachry 13:02
Right.
Catherine Michael 13:03
… which is one of the requirements of federal law. And they can actually say to a parent, look, we do not have the infrastructure right now, or we don’t have the ability to serve this child, here are four or five private placements that we can contract with, if that’s something you’re interested in. So and we see that happen in some places, and we don’t see it happen in others.
Anne Zachry 13:22
We’re seeing that also with non-public agencies being able to provide in-home services like behavioral services.
Catherine Michael 13:28
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 13:28
Yeah, same thing.
Catherine Michael 13:30
Yeah, I’m actually a big fan of that happening. When I see school districts that are really willing to think outside of the box to say, “Well, we have an absolute obligation to serve these kids. How do we do it?” Right? Where they’re actually looking at it more along the lines of: “This is our job, this is our role, how do we perform it, even if we don’t have the personnel right now?”
Anne Zachry 13:52
Right.
Catherine Michael 13:52
And so when I, certainly when I see school districts going above and beyond like that, and situations where, you know, you can see how difficult it is. I mean, I’m looking at those districts and saying, you know, at least they’re making these attempts, but, you know, the, the problem we see over much of the country is school districts basically saying if a parent, if, after all this is done, brings a due process, our worst case scenario is we’re just going to have to provide compensatory education. So I’m seeing some school districts, really, you know, as I said a moment ago, not provide anything.
Anne Zachry 14:29
Right.
Catherine Michael 14:29
And so, you know, if you’re a parent who’s listening to this, and you’re saying, you know, my school district may be providing part of the program, or not any of it. I mean, the thing you need to be doing right now is documenting it.
Anne Zachry 14:41
Yes!
Catherine Michael 14:42
Because you are absolutely going to have a claim for those compensatory hours that your child should have been getting. So if your IEP had your child receiving 124 minutes a week of what we would call sort of direct special educational services like we would expect to see it you’re talking about a child with a specific learning disability, who is getting some of that one on one reading intervention or math intervention, those are the minutes that are going to be ordered. If you have a situation where your child’s not receiving that, or they were in a resource room, and we’re talking about full time special ed placement, they’re not able to access a computer, what you’re going to want to do is just really document those hours that you’re missing. Email the school, your child’s school, and ask, you know, again, if your child’s not receiving anything, what options are available? You know, if they don’t have the infrastructure, are they going to offer a private therapeutic day placement or a home based placement at this point? And that’s, you know, sending it for instance, a registered behavior technician, or if your child has autism, a BCBA, or you know, another individual who’s trained in that, you know, behavior modification into the home to work on the child’s behavioral goals, social skills goals, academic goals. What is the school able to do at this point? And you’re certainly going to want to ask those questions. And you’re going to want to push because, again, it’s their absolute duty to be providing this right now. To the extent that they are unable, there are rural areas where, you know, there are no ABA centers are out there …
Anne Zachry 16:14
Right.
Catherine Michael 16:15
… no spec ial day placements, there are no private placements, quite honestly. And we have schools that are saying, you know, “We don’t have enough staff,” you know? It’s really a very, very problematic situation for families in those places. And that’s where the parent just really needs to be documenting to the best extent they can you know, what skills their child is losing how many minutes that their child isn’t receiving, what they’re doing, any costs that they are right now incurring. Like for instance, for parents who are having to go out and buy educational items, these are all things that you’re going to want to keep track of as a parent so that as things return to normal, you can sit down initially with your school at an IEP meeting and say, we need to plan for the compensatory services, number one. Number two, here are the costs that I had to privately pay that I’m asking to be reimbursed for,
Anne Zachry 17:05
Right! Well, and I don’t know how other states are doing it, but in California, one of the things that we had a Senate bill pass over the summer, that now requires all IEPs to have a contingency plan and emergency plan for his schools shut down for emergency reasons for 10 or more days. And so now, and hindsight being 2020, obviously, that should something else ever arise, like another pandemic, or whatever that would, or, you know, a natural disaster that would require a school closure for 10 or more days, that there is already a backup plan of what to do for each kid …
Catherine Michael 17:40
Yes.
Anne Zachry 17:40
… on IEP. And so I don’t know that other states have codified anything like that. But California has. And I think that’s very valuable. And the same body of law that produced that I believe, also produced a requirement that there’s going to have to be an analysis of how much compensatory education every special ed kid in California is due, because it’s assumed that everybody will have suffered in some kind of way, and that everybody will have …
Catherine Michael 18:04
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 18:04
… lost services. And so it’s, the IEP teams are now legally beholden to calculate that, once things, you know, once the shutdown is over. That …
Catherine Michael 18:12
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 18:12
… varies from community to community. And I, we now have like, I’m in Ventura County, where districts are not intending to open until January, at the soonest. And then you know, you go down into other counties, and they’ve already got campuses partially opened down in Orange County. And so and some campuses are reopening for their most severely impacted students who desperately need that in-person support. And so the families have to sign all kinds of waivers and everything, but then they can go back and they’ve got all of these empty classrooms that they can spread everybody out. Because not it’s just a small number of students. And then those kids can get that individualized support. But that is like, you know, how much of this was working on social skills? And if they’re all spread apart, can we really do that? You know, and so it’s, it’s still the challenge of how do we work on the goals. And what I’ve seen too, is some kind of distance learning program where, you know, the parents are expected to be the one-on-one aide and help their students login. And they do some kind of something on the internet, but it doesn’t have anything to do with anybody’s goals. It’s just something to do. It’s just to give them a sense of routine in the absence of, you know, an actual plan, and then they get very confused. And then eventually, the goals get worked in because enough people you know, make a fuss about it, then it starts to happen. And now you switched everything up on them again. Now, the instruction is a whole new novel experience, and you’re transitioning them again, into something new that is unfamiliar. And so it just seems to me that it’s very disruptive. And it’s disheartening to see that there’s this little coordination. I mean, as many milestones have been achieved, and as many things that have been accomplished with making some of the system work, this piece of it falling down is a real disappointment, you know? And …
Catherine Michael 19:53
Yeah!
Anne Zachry 19:53
… and it’s disheartening, but I think that parents need to know that there are people like you and me out there who understand it, and we’re trying to fight it, we’re trying to help them. And it’s not a lost cause; that there is help out there. If you could share about your practice, once again, that would be very helpful.
Catherine Michael 20:12
Yeah, so my law firm is Connell, Michael, Kerr, and I am licensed in Michigan, Indiana, and Texas. And our website is www.cmklawfirm.com, and I also have recently, and I believe it’s due out either in December or January, I’m not sure on the date. But I do know that we’re having pre-orders. That’s the Exceptional Parent’s Guide to Special Education, where I basically have, you know, put all of my advice on how parents should navigate this system in one place. Everything that I go over with parents in consultations, how the process works, I’ve put that together and created that as a book. And so that will be due out, again, it’s either in December or January, but parents can get it through Amazon, Kindle, I believe Barnes and Noble, a couple of the others. But I know that should be available shortly. And I’ll send a link for that as well. (Note: It will become available on December 1, 2020, at https://amzn.to/38euWaD.)
Anne Zachry 21:08
Very cool. Yeah, we’ll include the link with our post so that people can access that. That’s a good thing to know.
Catherine Michael 21:14
Yeah. Because I, you know, I think the thing that parents need to remember is that they actually have power. When, you know, when I use the term, private attorney general, that parents are basically acting as though, you know, that is the main message I want to impart to families is that most accountability is going to come from families standing up together and saying,”No, we are entitled to appropriate services for our children,” and doing their research and coming to unders tand the system and asking for the things they’re supposed to be getting.
Anne Zachry 21:47
Right.
Catherine Michael 21:47
And it’s only by asking for it, and schools really being held accountable that we’re going going to see the system change. And I think a lot of parents, right, and this is all of us, right? It’s difficult to challenge people that we want to like us and parents often want the teachers to like them, they want school staff to like them. And most people who go into teaching are very, very good people, but they’re not taught the education laws, they’re not …
Anne Zachry 22:11
Exactly.
Catherine Michael 22:12
… in a lot of situations, we find, you know, teachers don’t know how to design the school for an IEP, they don’t … You know, I had a teacher in a due process hearing last week, they they didn’t know that parent training, or counseling could even be part of an IEP. So it’s really important for parents to take the horse by the reins, and learn how to navigate the system and start asking these things in a way that’s diplomatic and kind. But at the same time is assertive enough that your child is going to get what they need, because quite honestly, you are your child’s only advocate in the system.
Anne Zachry 22:48
Right.
Catherine Michael 22:48
And unless you’re asking for these things, the schools simply aren’t going to provide them. And in many, many situations,
Anne Zachry 22:55
it’s just a sad reality of it. But I mean, this also goes to the fact that in a democracy, we’re of the people, for the people, and by the people, and the parents are the people, the students are the people and we shouldn’t be afraid to take ownership of that responsibility. It’s what we all agreed we wanted to live under. That’s …
Catherine Michael 23:13
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 23:13
… the model we’ve chosen. And so I think, for me, what makes me upset most about the way it’s designed, it’s not just that it forces parents into litigation, because that’s what the rules require, in order to resolve the dispute. It’s the attitude that parents get from the school district personnel when they actually exercise that right. And the “How dare you?” and “Oh, you think you’re …” you know, whatever. And all of a sudden, the parent becomes the bad guy for simply exercising a right and following the rules, because that’s the only mechanism available to them, not because they want to. Nobody wants to do that. But if they do, you know, as someone who works with families, if somebody comes to me and says, “I cannot wait to go to court,” I’m like, “Well, okay, I hope you find somebody to help you with that, because it’s not going to be me,” You know, it’s that you shouldn’t be eager to go to court. It should be the last resort. And so when parents are forced into that corner, and that’s the only option they have left, and they exercise that right, and then they catch grief for it, like somehow they’re the bad guy, I think that’s what bothers me the most. Because it’s like you …
Catherine Michael 24:18
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 24:18
… said, you know, that the parents can be made out as, “Oh, they’re just this this disgruntled person and they just aren’t happy with anything. They’re sad about being the parent of a special needs child.” I’ve heard that one a lot. “They’re having a hard time coping and they they’re angry and they need someone to take it out on, so they’re suing the school district.” No, you broke the law and you harmed their child. That’s why they’re suing you. You know, it’s frustrating.
Catherine Michael 24:46
Yeah, and, to that end, like, I want, you know, schools as well as parents to I you know, I would so love if we could even stop thinking of due process as litigation or suing or something like that, because these parents cannot get damages under IDEA claims.
Anne Zachry 25:04
Exactly.
Catherine Michael 25:05
What you can get, right? You can recover your attorneys fees. But in these cases, I mean, if we look at them in their most simplistic nature, it’s simply the parents asking their state Department of Education to appoint an independent hearing officer to make a decision as to the appropriateness of their child’s program.
Anne Zachry 25:23
Right.
Catherine Michael 25:23
A parent doesn’t need, although I certainly wouldn’t recommend it, but a parent doesn’t need an attorney. So, you know, I will often hear from schools that, you know, this is the litigious parent who filed a suit. And I’m thinking, number one, this person hasn’t filed a suit against you. Right? A suit, you know, traditionally is a claim we would file in civil or federal court.
Anne Zachry 25:46
Right.
Catherine Michael 25:47
This is an administrative action that they filed with an administrative agency. It’s not even … so, and then we hear, you know, “a litigious parent.” Parent’s not asking for money, you know. They may be asking for what we call an “in lieu of FAPE” type of agreement where they can actually get the funds to place their child in an appropriate program.
Anne Zachry 26:05
Right.
Catherine Michael 26:06
But I think that is a mindset that we really need to have get schools over and also get parents again, thinking that if you have a problem with Social Security, or you had a problem with your child’s Medicaid, you file an administrative action to get that corrected. Right? You file with, you know, your federal Social Security office, “Here, I need to get this adjudicated,” or somebody who’s disabled. We don’t think about it the same way.
Anne Zachry 26:31
No, not at all.
Catherine Michael 26:32
I think if we could … right? And so to me, that has always been fascinating as somebody who does this, when, you know, I have one that’s in a hearing right now, where the, you know, the parents, quite honestly only asking for an appropriate IEP, and then assorted related services for her child. And now, you know, when the school’s attorney is speaking to us, they’re saying, you know, this is simply a litigious parent. And I’m thinking, you know, she’s not asking for a dollar.
Anne Zachry 27:00
Right.
Catherine Michael 27:00
Just write an appropriate program. So I really want to even reframe how parents think about these things. Again, schools are basically performing a government function.
Anne Zachry 27:14
Yep.
Catherine Michael 27:14
When we ask for the enforcement of these laws, it’s an administrative action. And you’re asking, you know, someone from your state simply to make that decision. Certainly, they can be appealed to federal court. And there’s all you know, all of the things that you and I often see.
Anne Zachry 27:31
Yeah. Which Yeah, I’ve gone all the way to the Ninth Circuit on some of these things and it’s just like, “Are you kidding me?” And something that you had said before we got started, as well as that how much money school districts are sometimes willing to throw in attorneys that they would never throw at services, I mean, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight over a $7500 education service.
Catherine Michael 27:50
Yeah. And you know, I’ve even seen that when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation. In most states, those can go for around $3500. Some states that we’re looking at California and New York, it can be higher. So I’ve seen schools go through an entire due process, arguing that their evaluation is appropriate, where they spent triple, quadruple, what it would have cost them to provide the parents the evaluation. And when you look at that, you’re really what you’re seeing is a school district saying, “We want to make this process so hard on parents that they don’t even bother to ask.” And they talk to their friends and they’re like, “Yeah, this is what happened.” And that’s not the role of a government entity, right? We shouldn’t have government entities making it so difficult for individuals to get their, you know, their legal rights met.
Anne Zachry 28:23
Right. Right.
Catherine Michael 28:38
They don’t even want to start that process. And that’s why I think it’s really important for parents to feel empowered, and to realize that what they’re asking for is supposed to already be being provided to their child. And again, it becomes their job to enforce that. And you can do so in a diplomatic way.
Anne Zachry 28:55
Exactly.
Catherine Michael 28:56
There are a lot of you know, yeah. And there are a lot of things you can do even outside of due process. But I don’t want parents to be afraid of due process.
Anne Zachry 29:03
Right.
Catherine Michael 29:03
And, I want to reframe their thinking on that topic.
Anne Zachry 29:07
I think that’s a really healthy perspective. I wish we could reframe the thinking of the folks from the school district who come in and deliberately try to make it toxic in those instances where they do. And you know, when it isn’t always that case, you’re right. I have been in situations where we’ve had to file for due process. And it’s almost one of these things where everybody in the IEP team knows that it was coming, and nobody’s surprised by it. And they’re waiting to see what happens. And it’s almost like the administration is hoping the parent will file because then they can go to the school board and say, “Look, now will you listen to me?” And because, sometimes it’s not that the department doesn’t want to do it, it’s that their hands are tied by, you know, whoever holds the purse strings, who’s not part of the IEP process, even though the team is the one vested with the authority to make those decisions. So, the politics that are going on behind the scenes become a toxifying effect. And …
Catherine Michael 29:59
Right.
Anne Zachry 29:59
… then you Have the attorneys that these individuals will hire and certain individuals, you know, birds of a feather flock together, and you’ll find people who are like minded in their view of these things. And I know that for from what I’ve seen the socioeconomic status of the community where the school district is, can have an influence over whether they will comply or not. In a school district where they don’t have the money to throw at lawyers, they’ll go ahead and pay for the service, they’re not going to fight over it …
Catherine Michael 30:27
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 30:27
… because they can’t afford to. But you get into an affluent community, especially when you’re talking Southern California where you got these little pockets of nouveau riche and their big McMansions. And they’re feeling all special because they have money and the school district people will tell them, “Oh, well, you don’t want to go through public special education services. That’s like a welfare service. You would do much better if you pay privately for the services yourself. You’ll get much better results than what we can give you because ours is publicly funded.” And so they play that …
Catherine Michael 30:58
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 30:58
… that mind trip on these wealthy parents whose identities are all wrapped up in their their newly accomplished wealth, and they play on that and these parents are taken for a ride, because then these parents are paying out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars for all of these specialists who were hovering, like vultures just waiting because they know it’s coming. So you’ve got, you know, you’ve got all of these parties that are financially invested in enabling that mechanism to play out the way that it does. And then you have parents who suddenly realize after, you know, they’ve broken the bank, and they don’t have all that money anymore, because it went all to private school and residential placement costs and things and to come to find out that they could have gotten all of that from the school district. But there’s …
Catherine Michael 31:40
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 31:40
… only a two year statute of limitations and they’ve been paying out of pocket for the last 10 years. And so not until they’re bankrupted by it that they realize the error in their judgment, and then they can’t go back and fully recover. And it just there’s all of these different games being played by people who seem to be similarly motivated to not serve, while taking public dollars to hold a public service position. And I think that this is as much a taxpayer issue as it is a parent issue, because like you said, we’ve already paid for these services to be provided. Those are our tax dollars. And in those are the laws that our Representatives passed in order to provide for these children. And yet, this is what we have instead. And so I think …
Catherine Michael 32:22
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 32:22
… that one of the parent advocates that I met a few years ago said she went up to Sacramento with a group of parents and sat down with state assembly members or state Senate, I’m not sure who all she met with. It was state officials, representatives. And said, you know, “When you take into account all of the people in California who have disabilities, and their immediate family members, like their parents, or you know, a spouse, do you consider them a constituency?” And he said, “No, the number is too small.” And she said, “Well, okay, what about all the people who are employed to support all of these people with disabilities and their families and their extended families? When you add all those people in, does that become a constituency to you?” And he said, “Yes …”
Catherine Michael 33:08
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 33:08
“… at that point, now you’re talking about a significant number of people.” And so what that really communicates is all of this divisiveness that we’ve been seeing in our culture where, you know, we’ve got people being pitted against each other for different ways of thinking about things and the things that make them unique from each other. And disability is no stranger to that experience. And what we’re starting to realize is that the people who are trying to divide us are a minority. And they’re easily identified, we all have a common group of individuals who are all trying to pit us against each other and turn us into special interest groups, when really we’re just the majority. And if we all …
Catherine Michael 33:49
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 33:49
… weave ourselves together and collectively advocate for each other, then we’re a constituency. And I think that …
Catherine Michael 33:57
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 33:57
… that is where we have to start thinking about these things now that it’s not, “Oh, my disability rights versus your LGBTQ+ rights.” It’s not my “My race rights versus your gender rights.” You know, it’s not a “versus.” It’s no, everybody. Everybody has equal rights. And that’s the whole point.
Catherine Michael 34:16
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 34:16
And so I think that our dialogue needs to shift in that direction. I know that I had this conversation in an IEP meeting the other day with a team, I had to file an OCR complaint. I’m like, “Look, this pandemic is not the apocalypse, you know? Zombies are not at the door.”
Catherine Michael 34:32
Right.
Anne Zachry 34:32
“Democracy has not fallen, the rule of law still applies. And at no point did public health usurp civil rights, they are equally important. So what are you guys gonna do?” And they’re just like “Uhhh!” because they don’t know. I mean, but they understood why I filed a complaint. They weren’t mad at me. They’re probably … they’re actually they’re like waiting to see what comes of it because maybe now they’ll be given permission to do their jobs. You know?
Catherine Michael 34:56
Right.
Anne Zachry 34:56
Nobody was angry about it. It was like “Okay, well, yeah,. That logically makes sense. We’ll just have to see what happens.” And so I’m not necessarily, in my situations … and of course, I have relationships with a lot of these people, because I see the same people in IEP meetings for different kids over the span of decades. So we all know each other. So it’s not like …
Catherine Michael 35:17
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 35:17
… you know, I’m going into a novel situation, and then some stranger coming in and telling them what to do. Because that can be, you know, people can become defensive and adversarial when that happens. So I have rapport, but, you know, even still, you know, the fact that I can say something like that, and everybody’s like, “Yeah, you know what, you’re right. We still are not empowered to do what you’re asking us to do.” And so that that, to me, is very frustrating, because I know that there’s people who want to do the right thing, and they can’t; they’re not being allowed to.
Catherine Michael 35:45
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 35:46
And I think that parents need to understand that too, that, you know, not everybody’s the enemy, but you got to be paying real close attention these days. I mean, would you agree, I mean, the parents just need to be …
Catherine Michael 35:56
I would.
Anne Zachry 35:56
… very discerning about who they can trust?
Catherine Michael 35:58
Well, absolutely. I think it’s, again, it’s being discerning. And it’s also it’s being educated as to what your child needs are, what you’re asking for. And then also, you know, again, understanding that you are going to be the only one who really has your child’s true best interests at heart. That’s not to say that there aren’t, you know, within school systems there are really dedicated teachers, dedicated administrators who are doing their very, very best to ensure children are being educated appropriately. But at the end of the day, and I don’t necessarily like that expression, but it really does come down to, you are always going to know your child best. And it is going to be up to you to enforce these laws.
Anne Zachry 36:43
Right.
Catherine Michael 36:43
You know, you may have a great teacher one year and not another. And again, the school’s interest isn’t going to be the same as yours, right? Theirs is going to be on their budgeting, the union, you know, everything going on, your interest is going to be on “Is my child getting an appropriate program?”
Anne Zachry 36:51
Exactly. Right. And, I mean, in terms of checks and balances, that’s why the parents are such an important part of the team, and are afforded so many rights and the protected right to meaningful parent participation and …
Catherine Michael 37:11
Right!
Anne Zachry 37:12
… informed consent. I mean, all of those privileges and rights are there, because that’s meant to be a check and balance against the rest of the system. And so, you know, if they if the parents are being bamboozled, and they are signing documents that they don’t actually understand, then those enforceable rights are not being honored. And, you know, it’s parents have to understand that they have recourse and they need to educate themselves as to what what that is.
Catherine Michael 37:36
Right.
Anne Zachry 37:36
And ask! I mean, my favorite thing is when parents say, “Okay, well, what are my rights under this circumstance?” and put it back on the school people … … to explain what their rights are, you know? And I think that that’s a good strategy, because it is the burden of the school district to explain to parents what their rights are. They’re supposed to be able to do that. And so you know, if they’ve put you the parent on the spot, the parents should feel comfortable saying, “Well, you know, what, I need to turn this around to put you on the spot for a minute, because I don’t understand my right. And I’m not sure what I can do here.” If you’re savvy enough to know, in some states, you know, how the rules play out are different. In California, all you have to do is give 24 hour written notice, minimum, and you can audio record your child’s IEP as a parent. You can’t video record, but you can audio record, and the school district can’t say no, but they also have to record as well so that there’s a backup copy. And you know …
Catherine Michael 37:42
Yes!
Anne Zachry 38:23
… just for authenticity reasons. So different states have different rules about audio recording, but, you know, I audio record every IEP meeting. One, because I have ADHD myself, and I don’t want to miss anything. And so it’s just a … it’s more of a safety net, because I very rarely have to go back and listen for …
Catherine Michael 38:23
Yeah. Yeah.
Anne Zachry 38:38
… my own account. But just to know that I can make me less anxious during the meeting, but also because, you know … … it ends up getting introduced into evidence if we do have to go to a due process hearing. And it’s been a very powerful tool.
Catherine Michael 38:44
Well, yeah. Right. And you can be clear as to what you asked for, why you asked for it, what the school’s response was.
Anne Zachry 38:58
Exactly,
Catherine Michael 38:59
I think that can be extremely helpful.
Anne Zachry 39:01
And if, you know, when you go into an IEP meeting and you do have the, you know, you’ve legally made it okay to audio record – given written notice or whatever is required – and you’re doing it lawfully, and then you go in and say, “I don’t understand my rights under the circumstance, please explain them to me,” and then the explanation they give you is either going to be a good one, or it’s going to be a bad one. And if it’s a bad one … … you know, the backup, you know, it’s like, “Okay, well, I didn’t get the right answer, but I got proof that they don’t know what they’re talking about. And I’m not crazy.” And so it becomes evidence and I think the parents and, certainly as an advocate, when I go into the to the IEP process, I’m trying to solve the problem for real in the moment but I’m also making the record along the way in case it doesn’t get resolved …
Catherine Michael 39:24
Yeah. Right.
Anne Zachry 39:28
… and so that by the time we arrive at due process, the trail … the evidence trail is clear. If when they say no their explanations are, you know, are whatever they are. And, going back to what you had said earlier about prior written notice one of the things that I’ve noticed out here is that I would say, a good third of the time when I get a prior written notice, in response to something I’ve submitted for a family, it won’t make a lick of sense. It will say prior written notice according to 300.503, blah, blah, blah …
Catherine Michael 40:14
Right.
Anne Zachry 40:14
… and have all that legalese at the top of it, and then they … it’s like a form and they’ll populate the form with a bunch of gibberish that’s just nonsense. It doesn’t even explain why they said, “No.” There’s no real explanation. I’m like, “Okay, well go ahead and make the record that this is what you’re sending out on a PWN form, and this is what you’re going to represent as PWN,” … because substantively, it is embarrassing. And just because you put “PWN” at the top, and you cite the code that you’re supposed to be following, the fact that you didn’t is reflected the document itself. And it just, it blows my mind what people will put into writing because they think they’re so clever. And it’s like, “Okay.” And so one of the things that I think is really valuable, that’s helpful for parents to know, too, is that the regulations, it’s 34 CFR section 300.320(a)(4) mandates the application of the peer reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education. When you have a bad IEP, you can say, “I want to understand the science that underpins this IEP. What peer reviewed research did you rely on to inform …”
Catherine Michael 40:34
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 41:20
… you know, and of course, they don’t have anything. And then when I ask for something specific, and I know, I can reasonably anticipate that they’re going to balk at it, because it’s something they’ve not done before. And it’s going to require them to create something new. I will cite the science that backs up the request that I am making and say specifically, the regulations require you to apply the peer reviewed research to the degree that it’s practicable. So if you’re not going to do this, when you send your prior written notice, please explain what it is about the science that is not practicable.
Catherine Michael 41:20
Yeah. Yeah.
Anne Zachry 41:23
And then they’re, they’re stumped, because they don’t know how to reply to that. And again, it goes back to the fact that they don’t actually have access to the peer reviewed research. I’ll go ahead and …
Catherine Michael 42:02
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 42:02
… spend $70 on an article just to make my point, because I can …
Catherine Michael 42:06
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 42:06
… you know, but I shouldn’t have to do that. And that’s the problem, is that we have this paywall between our educators and the science that would tell them what to do. And what is the politics behind that? Why is there a paywall between our educators and the research that will tell them how to teach our kids right? How is that not part of the public domain? Why do teachers not have access to that? And then, especially when you have a legal mandate that requires it, you know?
Catherine Michael 42:31
Oh yeah, and …
Anne Zachry 42:32
It blows my mind.
Catherine Michael 42:34
It goes to the fact that, yeah, that because the laws are not enforced, right? We’re just not seeing, for instance, when we look at health care, right, we have, you know, standards of care, best practices, we see checklists for everything with the doctors getting weekly reports on different new procedures, medications, right? We don’t see that in education, because, again, there’s so little penalty. We’re not seeing teachers, sort of, you know, given a weekly mailer, you know, here are some of the programs that we’re seeing coming out. Here are some of the best practices for working with a specific learning disability, you know, can you update off on how you’re implementing this in your classroom? We don’t see that because, again, there’s so little importance level. Yeah, I really haven’t felt the need to do that.
Anne Zachry 43:23
Yeah, well, and I’m thinking we’re overdue for a reauthorization of the IDEA. And one of the things that I would like to see in there is beefing up of that enforcement arm because they’re supposed to be what 10 year audits or something like that? That we have some kind of audit procedure in California that every once in a while somebody pulls the short straw and ends up getting audited. And of course, every time they go through there and examine all the IEPs, it’s just a disaster, but then nothing ever gets fixed.
Catherine Michael 43:48
Right.
Anne Zachry 43:48
And so it doesn’t change anything. It’s like, Oh, they just documented that it’s a disaster and moved on to the next one. And nothing got rectified. And we need to speak to that. I mean, is we’re looking at all of these broken systems that are just cracked open and expose raw and wide for the whole world to see now that there’s no covering up that our social programs are flawed, and that we need to overhaul them. And we need to bring them kicking and screaming into the 21st century with best practices and not just best practices in teaching, but in best practices in operational standards, and efficiency, and … … and security and privacy. And I know I worked in IT for a few years in these huge enterprise class computing environments like Walmart and Sanyo, and Volkswagen and all of these big huge computing environments, where you have these global wide area networks in these supply chain automated pieces. Back in the day, I’m talking like 25-30 years ago, this technology has been around for a long time. And if you look at the degrees of efficiency, and the cost savings and the reduction in overhead that is experienced by the industries that adopt all of this ISO standards and these automated supply chain things and and the internal and the way they automate their internal business operations, that California is starting to head in that direction with respect to individualized person centered planning. That there is a pilot program that’s being developed. And I don’t know when exactly it’s going to be deployed. But I know Ventura County as part of it, where, whether you’re Department of Rehab, or you’re special ed, or you’re county mental health, or you’re welfare, or you’re food stamps, or you’re Medicaid, or whatever, it’s one individualized plan, one caseworker, and your plan calls out to all the different funding sources. So the consumer is not having to chase after the funding, the funding is following the consumer through a single individualized plan, which is only common sense. But it was only achievable by marrying all of these computer systems together, that all of these disparate agencies were working autonomously with, and making them able to talk to each other. And so now we’re getting to the point where we can stitch all of our our computing resources together to create this inter woven supply chain so that we can streamline how we deliver public services and do it more cost effectively. But then what that also means is that there are no there are no dark shadows to hide in where funds can be misappropriated. There will be such a stringent degree of accountability that the cronyism and the back scratching that has gone on will no longer be enabled. It won’t be possible. And so that also will free up a lot of resources. And that is another aspect of increasing the efficiency and the fiscal responsibility of the system and the fiscal management of it. And so there are people who financially benefit from the system being antiquated and broken right now. And they don’t want those kinds of changes coming in. Because there goes all of their opportunities to exploit. We’re starting to see that public service is going through this transformation that private industry went through when this happened decades ago, as these technologies come in. And as the public pushes for a greater accountability. And as we repair and we overhaul our systems, we’re going to be using the most modern tools we have. And so I think that we can be encouraged that the future does hold a lot of potential for a lot of corrective action, and a lot of prevention of things like this happening again in the future. But we are not there yet. And I think it takes … it’s going to take all of us pushing for those reforms. Because as much as each parent needs to advocate for their child on a child by child basis, and not be afraid of the due process mechanisms, if that’s what it takes, you know, but not think that it’s like, you know, the panacea, like it’s going solve every problem, we also need to be pushing collectively as a community of people for reforms that will fix the system in a way where these are no longer the problems we have to deal with. And that we have to repair the broken system, not only on a kid by kid basis, but we also have to make it better than it was in the first place. And so that the next time catastrophe comes, we’re better prepared to roll with it. I mean, sadly enough, this was long overdue, where the system needed to be confronted on its failures. But I think that parents can take hope that we’re part of history right now we’re part of fixing it, we’re part of making this better for our kids with special needs, because all of its going to have to be reformed, we can’t just tape it back together and go back to the way it was. So I think that …
Catherine Michael 44:23
Yeah. Right.
Anne Zachry 44:54
… you know, there’s, there’s a lot of encouragement in what’s going on here, there’s a lot of opportunity, and we don’t need to be so terrified of the changes that are coming. And we need to really embrace them, because it’s our opportunity to make it better, I think. And it’s going to take people like you and me going in there and one kid at a time, you know, saying, “No, this is … these are the rules, and this is how they apply to this one child. And this is …” ” … the individualized program, and and the individual person matters. You know, it’s like every vote matters, every child matters. And whether that child has a disability or not, should not be a defining criteria of whether that individual matters or not, it shouldn’t even be a question.
Catherine Michael 48:39
Right! Yeah.
Anne Zachry 48:55
And so I think that what we’re doing is a very powerful thing. This is a very prescient area of civil rights law right now. And, you know, I think that, you know, regardless of how things play out with what other people do, what people like you and I are doing, we’re on the right side of history with this, you know? We’re enforcing civil rights. We’re …
Catherine Michael 49:13
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 49:13
… we’re enforcing democracy. It’s we are of the people, for the people by the people doing the work to make sure the people are protected. And I think that families need to understand that they’re not alone, that there are folks like that, like us out there. And we’re not that rare, you know, and the fact that you’re licensed in multiple states goes to the fact that you recognize the degree to which there’s not enough representation in some places, and that you’re making it …
Catherine Michael 49:36
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 49:36
… happen anyway. And so that’s really powerful. I think the parents need to … and I know that there are other attorneys who are licensed in multiple states as well. One of the attorneys I work with here in California is also licensed in Alaska. And let me tell you, going out into the middle of Alaska in the middle of nowhere … … and enforcing special ad law is not an easy thing to do. You’re coming in on a like a bush plane and landing in, you know, somebody field, you know, and going to a one room …
Catherine Michael 49:53
Yeah! Right.
Anne Zachry 50:04
… school house to say,” Okay, this kid needs speech and language. How are you gonna make it happen?” and they still got to do it. And so, you know …
Catherine Michael 50:09
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 50:09
… parents need to understand that even under the most bizarre and difficult circumstances it can be made to happen. There’s always a way.
Catherine Michael 50:17
Right.
Anne Zachry 50:17
You know, and that it’s not a hopeless situation. So I think that talking about this with you has been very enlightening and very encouraging. And I think that you’ve given us a lot of really good information. I do want to remind everybody that I’m going to include a link to your book with all of our, you know, the stuff below on the … because what we’ll do is we we do the podcast, but we also do a corresponding text only post …
Catherine Michael 50:39
Great!
Anne Zachry 50:40
That way, all the links for everything are embedded in the transcript …
Catherine Michael 50:44
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 50:44
… so we’ll have all of that and then …
Catherine Michael 50:47
Oh, that would be fantastic!
Anne Zachry 50:49
Yeah, and that way folks know how to get ahold of you. And this has been a really good discussion, I really appreciate you doing this with me.
Catherine Michael 50:56
You know, you’ve done a great job, as well, at trying to keep parents aware of their rights and helping them feel empowered. And I think that’s the biggest thing that they need to know is that they have a lot of power in their hands. They just need to know that there are lots of us on their side trying to help them along the way.
Anne Zachry 51:13
Right. And it means the world to us to be able to do it. It’s such an honor to be able to be part of making somebody’s life something that you know that they’re they’re happy and they’re fulfilled and they’re not living in misery …
Catherine Michael 51:26
Yes!
Anne Zachry 51:27
… or in crisis, you know, that that we can help people turn those kinds of corners with the kind of work that we do. I mean, it’s an honorable thing that we do and I’m proud of what we do. So thank you, and thank you for doing this and for sharing your information with us and hopefully we’ll get to do something like this with you again soon.
Catherine Michael 51:44
Yeah, I would love it. And thank you again, so much and for all that you do.
“Fascism” is a scary word that is far too often slung as an insult by people actively engaging in it who don’t understand what it actually is. In today’s post/podcast, I want to talk about what fascism actually is and how it shows up in all aspects of public agency functioning, but particularly how to recognize it in special education.
Unfortunately, these days, there are no better angels to appeal to within many public agencies, including public education agencies. It’s not that the entire barrel of apples is spoiled, but enough of it is that the good apples either leave or go bad, too.
Bureaucrats accustomed to gaming the system for their own financial gain at the expense of children with special needs have historically engaged in some pretty unscrupulous behaviors over the years, but they just could not resist the opportunity to exploit the pandemic to advance their self-serving agendas. They’ve become experts at seizing upon opportunities to escape/avoid their job responsibilities while still collecting their government paychecks.
For far too many individuals, employment in public service has become a form of welfare fraud, only public agency employees get more free government money and perks in exchange for nothing than actual welfare recipients, who have to perform for the pennies on the dollar they receive by comparison. In California, for example, the average special education director is paid around $125K per year plus benefits with support administrators each being paid around $100K per year at taxpayer expense, regardless of whether their students receive educational benefits or not.
So, how does that relate to fascism? And why is it such an inflammatory word when it simply describes a frame of thought?
My theory is that either the people who find the terms “fascist” and “fascism” inflammatory are engaging in fascist behaviors and don’t want to be called out on them, or they don’t actually understand what fascism is and that they are actively engaged in it, thereby simply taking it as an insult. So, before we start talking about the fascists that have been employed in local government over the last 100 years, lets first arrive at an understanding of what these terms actually mean.
Before we can talk about what fascism is, we first need to talk about what our democracy is supposed to be. The most basic summary of American democracy is that it is a system governed by the rule of law, which is created by legislators elected to represent the interests of their constituents wherein the majority rules. Being ruled by laws of which no one is above, rather than a dictator or an authoritarian regime, is an essential element of a democracy.
Another essential element of a democracy is the belief that every person, regardless of what makes them unique, is afforded equal rights under the law. The fact that we need laws like the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA make clear that, if left to their own devices, our public schools cannot be trusted to afford equal rights to their students with special needs. They have to be regulated or they can devolve into little fascist regimes of their own, depending on the communities in which they are located.
The last 29+ years of working in this field has convinced me that even those laws are not enough. Fascists who have been within the system since before these laws were passed made these laws necessary in the first place to ensure that democracy is afforded to every child in the public education system. One of the most historically significant pieces of litigation in IDEA history is PARC v. Pennsylvania, in which it was determined that denying children with disabilities equal access to education is unconstitutional.
The fact that our federal government has been kidnapping and locking up babies coming to our borders through the the legal asylum-seeking process with their parents speaks to the degree to which the rights of any child in this country are not honored in general, much less when children have disabilities. Recent feedback from the American Association of Pediatrics has described this conduct as institutionalized “child abuse.” The American Federation of Teachers has called this conduct “crimes against humanity” (see https://youtu.be/3lMhuv3EXLI).
A government that disregards child welfare at all, much less to this degree is monstrous, hence today’s discussion of fascism.
fascism
[ˈfaSHˌizəm]
NOUN
fascism (noun)
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
So, basically, anything undemocratic is fascism. Denying children with disabilities equal access to education has already been determined to be unconstitutional. If it’s unconstitutional, is undemocratic. If it’s undemocratic, it’s fascist. Ergo, denying children with disabilities equal access to education is fascist.
Nazis are fascists. They do not believe that all people have equal rights and individuals with disabilities top their list of people who don’t deserve to live, much less be given equal access to anything. All fascism includes biases against other humans on the bases of observable physical traits and/or behaviors.
In Hitler’s Germany, it was the medical community that turned its back on individuals with disabilities, using science without ethics to justify mass killings and inhumane experimentation that were legitimized as “medical procedures.” After Hitler purged the country of somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 Jewish doctors, more than 7% of all remaining German medical doctors joined the Nazi party, a much higher percentage than in the general population at that time. By 1942, more than half of Germany’s medical doctors and professionals with PhDs in related fields had joined the Nazi party.
Doctors working for Hitler’s Nazi State rather than patient welfare then embarked upon many of the most unethical human experiments conducted in modern history. Using Mendelian genetics to guide their decision-making processes, they saw extermination as the correct solution for developmental disabilities like Autism and Down’s Syndrome, which they regarded as genetic defects. This abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm facilitated the Holocaust.
Murder and dismemberment in the name of science were visited upon every class of individuals captured by the Nazis, including people with disabilities, during the Holocaust. At the time, there were no international laws governing the behaviors of doctors. After the war, following the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Code was created in 1947, which established a set of research ethics for human experimentation.
In the early 1970s, when the special education and related civil rights laws were created, these ethical standards had long been established as a matter of law, but not necessarily common practice. The concept clearly did not generalize from the medical community to the education community, and much hell has been raised by school district officials and their lawyers about public education agencies not being liable for educational malpractice.
In my opinion, educational malpractice should be a criminal offense, complete with jail time and fines. Acts of unconstitutional conduct carried out under the color of public office cannot be tolerated in our democracy, whether we’re talking about extrajudicial killings by police or denials of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as a result of malice and/or neglect.
These laws only became necessary, and were finally enacted in the 1970s, because the intrinsic educational and civil rights of children with disabilities were being denied all over the United States. Professional ethical standards alone were not enough to protect students with special needs. Just as with the Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code, laws had to be created after the fact to hold people accountable for their unethical treatment of individuals with disabilities, including school-aged children, here in the United States.
The laws that protect students with disabilities have always been difficult to enforce. In no small part, this is because the fascists already employed within the public education system who viewed children with disabilities as second class citizens continued to undermine these laws from within their public education agencies after these laws passed.
As a more visible example of what I’m talking about, consider one of the most famous “Karens” in our social awareness, Kim Davis of Broward County, Kentucky. While she got elected to serve the public, taking an oath to abide by the rule of law and fully knowing that the Constitution requires a separation of church and state, she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the landmark federal lawsuit Obergefell v. Hodges, because her religious beliefs require her to engage in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
This is fascism. She denied equal Constitutional rights under the law, refused to abide by the rule of law, and abandoned the separation of church and state in favor of her religious beliefs, which clearly do not align with the Constitution or democracy in general. She then claimed that she was being persecuted for her religion when she was put in jail for refusing to do her government job according to the rule of law.
This kind of behavior has been going on since the laws that protect children with disabilities were passed in the 1970s through to today. And, now, we have the consequences of this pandemic impacting an already unconstitutionally dysfunctional system and exposing all of its flaws for the whole world to see.
The thing about hard times is it quickly reveals who the fascists are. They are the ones advocating for a return to the previous status quo in which they were the beneficiaries of inequities while actively denying the existence of the obvious inequities in our publicly funded systems.
It has become the norm that agencies created by our democratic rule of law and funded with taxpayer dollars routinely violate those laws and misappropriate those dollars at the expense of the very constituents these agencies were created and funded by the taxpayers to serve. This has to stop or democracy is truly dead in this country.
Such is often the case in special education, just as a matter of routine. But, now this pandemic has really shown everyone’s true colors and there is little that is beautiful to behold. Just as peaceful protests against police brutality are being met with more police brutality, parents advocating for remedies to address their children’s special needs are being met with more frequent and egregious violations now that the circumstances have changed in response to the pandemic.
Clearly, public safety is of paramount importance and I will never dispute that plain fact. But, public safety does not require the end of democracy, and I’m not talking about masks. Don’t be an idiot; wash your hands, wear a damn mask, and socially distance yourself from other people.
Public safety is equal in importance to the constitutional rights of children with disabilities, not greater. These children have a protected legal right to equal access to public education. Further, special education students have a protected right to individualized educational programs designed and delivered according to the peer-reviewed research (34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4)).
Local government agencies performing according to their legal mandates is democracy in action. This pandemic is not so apocalyptical that certain classes of individuals suddenly cease to have legally protected rights. Fascism denies their rights, not a virus. Local education agencies refusing to perform according to their legal mandates is fascism in action.
Further, as I’ve previously reported here, none of the applicable federal laws have been waived as a result of the pandemic. States and local governments do not have the legal authority to waive the federal requirements; they can only describe with State law how the federal laws will be implemented within the State, and local education agencies can, at most, create policies about how they will individually comply with the State’s implementation requirements of the federal regulations.
No local school district has the legal authority to refuse to abide by the laws, particularly those that regulate its purpose and existence. Nothing could be more undemocratic – more fascist – than that.
And, yet, here we are with our most vulnerable children languishing and regressing developmentally with every passing moment because a bunch of “tax-fattened hyenas,” to quote the great Berke Breathed, saw fit to use the pandemic as an excuse to not expend public dollars on the members of the public for whom those dollars were intended, while continuing to collect six-figure annual salaries in exchange for nothing. This isn’t just a civil rights issue. Just like police reform, it’s a taxpayer issue.
What this pandemic has done, among other things, is expose every crack in every system throughout all our systems of governance. And, those cracks are the consequences of systemic non-compliance with regulatory mandates, as well as failures of those mandates to adequately describe courses of action that prevent non-compliance.
There is no proactive oversight of local education agency compliance with special education and related civil rights law; the burden falls to the shoulders of largely uninformed and/or unempowered parents to file complaints or litigate in order for the law to be enforced, which means it usually is not. It’s a matter of “When the cat is away, the mice will play.”
Without proactive oversight and enforcement, public agencies are adrift at sea, inventing their own ways of doing things while often unaware of their legal obligations. There is no real quality control in special education. There’s just school district lawyers who jump in after the train has already wrecked to argue that it really didn’t for ridiculous dollars per hour at taxpayer expense.
It’s one thing to point this stuff out. It’s another thing to do something about it. My thought process is that the IDEA is overdue for reauthorization. Presuming democracy is preserved with the upcoming election and we haven’t descended into dictatorship, there is going to be a lot of public agency and legal reform coming down the pike for the next 10 years, at least.
Historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists will all be looking at the last four years and what led up to the current state of affairs in our nation under a microscope for the next 100 years, at least. The data they will be generating will inform vast improvements to our social systems and create systems for ongoing improvement as our society evolves and encounters new challenges, so long as the rest of us make sure that happens.
Right now, one of the most powerful things that parents of children with special needs can do is vote for the candidates they believe will take action to make sure that our publicly funded government agencies actually perform according to the regulatory requirements and achieve the purposes for which they exist, including the application of valid science to the delivery of services intended to benefit the public good. Maybe then we can finally become the democracy we’re supposed to be.
This video is not a regular part of any of our YouTube or Patreon programming. It’s something that we just needed to put out there because there are a lot of parents looking for answers, right now, and we have at least some answers that can benefit many families of children with disabilities and an ethical obligation to share that knowledge.
This isn’t a short video, but that’s what the pause button is for. You can always save it and come back to it later to finish, if you need to. You can watch it once and save it in case you need to refresh your memory later on about something. It’s a tool to help parents still dealing with shutdown and distance learning involving their children with special needs.
We’re going to leave this up on our YouTube and Patreon channels, our Facebook page, and our blog for so long as it remains relevant because we expect a whole lot of families will be going online searching for answers throughout this current new school year as the pandemic continues to rage throughout the country. No one really knows how long it will be before the pandemic is brought under control, and we all have to be prepared for shutdowns to come and go periodically as flare-ups happen until it is finally reigned in. Right now, many areas are currently on shutdown, including many parts of California.
Mentioned in this video, are two reference items:
New California legislation and California Department of Education (CDE) guidance as to school districts’ duties under the law, as supplemented by the new legislation, including the provision of in-home, in-person special education services if they are necessary for students to receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) during shutdown: https://bit.ly/3jInffh
A recent stay-put order issued by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) requiring in-person, in-home services to implement a student’s IEP during shutdown: https://bit.ly/3hZfnFA
Additionally, in the video, the procedures adopted by one school district to provide in-person, on-campus special education assessments during shutdown using appropriate safety protocols were referenced. They can be viewed here: https://bit.ly/3jOkycf
Also, the book, From Emotions to Advocacy, by Wrightslaw, was referenced during the video as an excellent resource for parents trying to keep their cool and work strategically as they advocate for their children with special needs. You can find it here: https://amzn.to/31WH0JV *
If you have questions about special education, including school closure-related concerns, please post a comment or email us at info@kps4parents.org. Find us online at https://kps4parents.org.
Anne’s t-shirt reads, “Science. Because figuring things out is better than making stuff up.” While we couldn’t find the exact same design, we found this great design with the same statement at: https://amzn.to/3i1d7xC *
* Note: Fundraising affiliate links are included in this post. KPS4Parents is a non-profit organization and funds raised are applied towards our costs of providing low cost and pro bono lay advocacy services to children with special needs and their parents who are unable to pay our regular hourly rate, which is billed at cost.
If you’ve read or listened to our past posts and podcasts, or have otherwise been educating yourself on the special education process, hopefully by now you understand that special education is supposed to follow a particular procedural flow. This is not only the method supported by best practices, but also the method required by federal law.
To recap, assessment data provides the present levels of performance and baselines necessary to formulate educationally appropriate IEP goals for an individual learner. The goals describe what the IEP is supposed to make happen. Once the enormous milestone of developing the IEP goals has been achieved, then it’s time to figure out what services are going to be necessary and where they can be delivered in order for each goal to be met. This is where things can suddenly go off the rails.
It does no good to articulate sensible outcomes in measurable terms if effective services aren’t put into place to actually work on them and make them happen. Goals are just hopes if you don’t have a plan for the services you will need to meet them, and hope is not a strategy. But, this is often where things can get tricky in developing an IEP.
There are two common reasons for why things can go wrong at this stage: 1) everybody means well, but they don’t know what they’re doing; or, 2) something fishy is going on. In the first instance, it’s usually a matter of training. In the second instance, somebody is gaming the system in pursuit of an agenda in which the student is ancillary, but not the point.
In many instances, where this process gets tripped up actually starts with the development of the IEP goals. When the IEP goals are improperly written and/or necessary goals are excluded altogether, determining what services are necessary to deliver appropriately ambitious educational benefits to each student becomes compromised.
I’ve had many parents come to me over the years saying things like, “My kid needs more speech and language. He doesn’t know word meanings, can’t follow instructions, and can’t express himself, but he’s only getting 20 minutes of speech per week.” They look at increasing the service minutes in speech as though that’s going to somehow magically translate into working on all areas of his speech/language needs, when the real issue is that there is only one speech goal in the IEP for articulation and the rest of their child’s speech/language needs have no goals.
Because there are no goals for anything else, the number of speech/language service minutes is limited to how much time is reasonable to pursue the one goal that is there for articulation. 20 minutes per week to work on nothing but articulation isn’t automatically off-base.
What these parents really mean, when they say their kids need more speech and language services, is that the IEP is not targeting all of their speech/language needs. If that’s true, then the IEP team has to go back and look at the data to determine what other areas of speech and/or language should also be targeted by explicit intervention, then write goals to those specific areas of intervention need.
Once those new goals are written, the IEP team can then look at how many service minutes will be necessary to meet each goal. In addition to service minutes, which are expressed in terms of frequency and duration, the location of where the services will be delivered has to be determined.
It isn’t automatic that related services, like speech/language or occupational therapy (OT), get delivered in a pull-out setting. The location of services, like all other parts of an IEP, must be individualized to the unique needs of the student.
Pull-out services require the student to be removed from the classroom, often during instruction, and can interfere with learning. It’s a balancing act to find the right time to pull a student out of the regular class routine to go participate in direct pull-out services.
Push-in services bring the intervention into the student’s classroom and make it part of the classroom experience. Sometimes, this can be small group instruction with a reading specialist when the general education class is broken into small reading groups as a normal matter of instruction. This weaves the special education into the general education situation so that students with reading challenges are facilitated in participating with everyone else.
Embedded services are much like push-in, but they are intertwined with the instruction throughout the entire school day as a matter of instructional design for the classroom. An example of this would be embedded speech/language instruction and Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in the program design of a school specifically for students with autism who cannot successfully function and learn on an integrated campus.
In this example, because it can be reasonably expected that all of the students in such a special school will need these supports according to the research and evidence-based practices, they are woven into the instructional design of the program. They are part of how the instruction is delivered on a continual basis.
In such cases, the integration of speech/language and ABA have to be used to describe the placement rather than parsed out as individual related service minutes, because they are part of the placement design that makes that particular placement appropriate for certain students. In this instance, they are not discrete services provided outside of or in addition to what is otherwise happening in the classroom.
Which leads into the next phase of the process, which is placement. Placement is the last decision to be made by the IEP team. There’s a really good reason for this. Placement is supposed to be determined by what is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in which the services can be delivered such that the goals are met.
Special education is a service, not a place. The whole point of the IEP is to meet the IEP goals, but it is discrimination on the basis of handicapping condition to automatically remove kids from the general education setting for instruction just because they have disabilities. Unless removal to a more restrictive setting is the only way for the goals to get met, it’s not the LRE.
LRE is relative; what is restrictive for one student may be empowering for another. A student with autism who can nonetheless function in the general education setting with push-in ABA supports, for example, would be inappropriately placed in a school for students with autism.
Sometimes parents mistakenly think a special school is better because it’s focused on the specific types of needs their child has. But, it’s only better if the student cannot otherwise be successful in a less restrictive setting. Restrictiveness of setting is directly related to the severity of the student’s needs and the intensity of instruction necessary to meet the IEP goals.
Sometimes, creating an appropriately hybridized placement offer for a student who needs some pull-out services, but can otherwise participate in general education the rest of the school day, is such a difficult thing to coordinate in a particular school’s pre-existing culture that special ed staffs find it more convenient to put kids in more restrictive settings. This gives special ed staffs more control over the quality of the instruction and allows them to prevent their kids from being harmed by discriminatory general education practices, but it segregates their students on the basis of handicapping condition.
Sheltering students with disabilities from abuse by sequestering them from bigots inadvertently reinforces discriminatory practices that keep people with disabilities from equally accessing the world at large. Preventing the abuse of students with disabilities through diversity appreciation instruction, as well as proactive, research-based Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on a schoolwide basis, makes far more sense.
The LRE laws exist for this reason. Rather than sequester students with traits in common to prevent them from being bullied by the rest of the students, it is more appropriate to teach all of the students how to get along with each other. Appropriate programming results in general education students looking out for their peers with special needs rather than picking on them and mocking them. It facilitates unity in the school community.
Because LRE is relative to each student, no parent should go into the IEP process demanding a placement because somebody else’s kid got it and they’re doing great there. Somebody else’s kid is not your kid. You don’t base IEP placement decisions for your child off of what somebody else needs or gets; you base it on your own child’s unique, individual learning needs as targeted by the IEP goals.
Most school districts will tell you that the “continuum of placement” for special education is whatever they already have. That’s only partly accurate. What the school district already has is part of the continuum of placement, but if the placement the student needs doesn’t already exist within the district, the placement has to be outsourced or created.
It’s appropriate for the school district to describe the types of placements it already has. These can include, but are not limited to: general education placement with push-in supports; pull-out to a special education class and/or therapies for part of the school day for targeted specialized support, with placement in general education for the rest of the school day; full-time placement in a special education class; and placement for all or part of the day in a non-public school.
But students are not limited to the types of placements already put in place within a school district. Sometimes, the closest appropriate school is so far away that the child and a family member live in a nearby apartment or other local housing arrangement during the week and go home on weekends, with their local school district funding the housing and travel expenses as related transportation services in the student’s IEP. There’s caselaw around this issue in favor of students (see, for example, Ojai vs. Jackson).
There is no master list of all the “types” of placements that can be offered to a special education student. Like every other part of an IEP, placement is supposed to be tailored to the student, only with the LRE requirements relative to what services it will take to meet the goals in mind. Sometimes, IEP teams have to get creative to meet highly unique individual student needs.
Other times, the types of supports a student needs are relatively common such that there are entire classrooms that provide those kinds of supports to all of their students. Resource Specialist Program (RSP) services are the most commonly delivered special education services. These are the least intensive forms of special education services provided.
Most students on IEPs have relatively mild learning disabilities that make RSP support a useful tool in helping them maintain grade-level performance. They are usually mostly in the general education setting with some special education supports and plenty of them go on to college and successful careers.
Many of these students glide through the K-12 system with an IEP that no one knows about but their families and teachers. Most of their peers have no idea and their closest friends realize it’s no big deal and don’t care.
Further, it is becoming less stigmatizing to be on an IEP than it used to be, so students are being more forthcoming with their peers about their special education statuses, just as matters of fact, without judgment entering the picture. If only the adults could follow their lead.
I wasn’t going to write on this topic quite yet, but I’m working on a case right now that has me upset over public agency mismanagement and misconduct that has resulted in the physical abuse of our nonverbal student with severe special needs and God only knows how many other students within this public education agency. It reminded me of a lot of things, including our organization’s founding and the protective purpose KPS4Parents has always served as student and family advocates.
I maintain my list of topics to write about as draft posts on the backend of our site, sometimes just as a title, sometimes with a brief description, as the ideas come to me and, when I go to write, I have them more or less organized in my head in the order I want to write them. But, sometimes, like now, something happens that makes one of the topics leap up to the top of the list.
I am currently providing paralegal support to an attorney on a case in which our student has gone for years without behavioral interventions in her IEPs after previous years of successfully benefitting from such IEP interventions. She has regressed to the point where she was behaviorally 10 years ago, before receiving any appropriate behavioral interventions at all.
The educational neglect in this case rises to the level of physical abuse. The school district’s bumbling ineptitude at the expense of our student’s welfare has been nothing short of galling. Our student is now sitting safely at home waiting for her case to be either adjudicated or settled but without the benefit of any instruction or related services until it’s resolved.
Which takes me back to the founding of KPS4Parents and the event that was the last straw that compelled our founder, Nyanza Cook, to start KPS4Parents. In 2002, I was a lay advocate in private practice helping families of students with special needs, and Nyanza hired me to help her with her step-son’s case, which is a story unto itself for another day. It’s how we met and these were the early days. It was the context we were in at the time.
Nyanza hails from Killeen, Texas near Fort Hood, the largest U.S. Army base in the continental United States. While diversity has been tolerated, if not embraced, within the U.S. military in many instances, outside of the military base in the rural areas of Texas, diversity is not so much appreciated. Killeen Independent School District (KISD) has historically operated separate schools for students with “behavioral problems,” most of whom have been African-American or Latino. The quality of special education in KISD has been historically abysmal, particularly for students of color, which is how it’s misconduct led to our organization’s founding.
In 2002, a young man named Cedric Napoleon was attending a Special Day Class (SDC) at one of KISD’s special schools for students with “behavioral problems.” Cedric was a foster child living with his foster mother, Toni Price. He had experienced severe trauma in early childhood, including deprivation of food for days that led to a food hoarding behavior and other behavioral challenges. He was in special education under the Emotional Disturbance (ED) category and his SDC was supposed to be configured specifically for students with ED issues.
Also in the classroom at the time was Nyanza’s nephew. On one fateful day in March 2002, Cedric was suffocated to death by his classroom teacher during a prone restraint. He was not being violent towards others, trying to run out of the classroom, or hurting himself when she restrained him. He was being non-compliant and she took it as an affront to her authority. She pinned him face down on the floor out of hostile rage and when he said, “I can’t breathe,” she replied, “If you can speak, you can breathe.” He expired shortly thereafter as Nyanza’s nephew and his classmates watched on in horror.
That night, Nyanza got a hysterical phone call from family members gathered at her parents’ house in Killeen. They knew she was talking about starting a special education advocacy organization and had been advocating for her step-son in California. They put her nephew on the phone with her and all he could say in a dazed voice was, “They killed him, Auntie. They killed him.” He was terrified to return to school after that, and never did. His life has been one of despair and tragedy ever since.
The day Nyanza’s nephew witnessed Cedric’s murder in his classroom by his teacher, he was already there because he had his own ED issues. To add the trauma of witnessing Cedric’s murder to his own pre-existing special education needs, in the place that was supposed to help him overcome his pre-existing special education needs and at the hands of the person who was supposed to help him, was just too much.
More than one life was destroyed that day. Cedric’s classmates witnessed his murder in that ED SDC and were affected for life in ways that could only lead to more suffering for them. The District’s students most vulnerable to trauma were severely traumatized by one of the most grotesque abuses of their trust possible. They witnessed their teacher kill a classmate for daring to defy her authority.
Nyanza called me that night as soon as she got off the phone with her family and told me what they had told her. She and I agreed that when teachers were murdering our babies in plain sight of our other babies (we have an it-takes-a-village mentality, which makes all babies our babies), we couldn’t stand idly by. The death of Cedric Napoleon was the final straw that compelled Nyanza to go through with starting our organization, she asked for my help, I said “Yes!” without hesitation, and we had our paperwork in order by June of 2003.
In Cedric’s case, to make matters worse, once his life had ended, so had his foster mother’s legal authority to act on his behalf as a parent. She could not pursue justice for him because she lacked the legal authority and the foster care system did little to nothing about it. Cedric’s killer was never tried for murder. She was never subject to any disciplinary action by the public education system in Texas.
On May 19, 2009, Toni Price finally got her chance to do something about what had happened to Cedric. The Education and Labor Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives was being presented with a report of the findings of an investigation the Committee had previously ordered to have done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the use of seclusion and restraints in public schools. There had been a fairly recent similar study conducted of private schools that produced shocking and horrifying disclosures as bad as Cedric’s or worse, and the Committee had wanted to know if these problems were also pervasive in our nation’s public schools.
The GAO report started circulating among those in my professional circle online shortly after the hearings and ultimately found its way to me. I remember reading through it and getting to the section describing what happened to Cedric and going, “Wait a minute. I’ve heard this story before … OMG! This is the kid from Nyanza’s nephew’s class!” I immediately forwarded the report to Nyanza and either called or texted her to follow up. At some point we ended up on the phone and she was flabbergasted to see Cedric’s story spelled out in the report. It was the same student she had told me about back in 2002.
In the course of conducting its investigation, out of all of the cases of problems with seclusions and restraints that GAO examined, Cedric’s stood out as particularly horrifying, in no small part due to the fact that his killer had never faced any serious consequences for killing him at the time of the investigation. The investigators searched for this teacher when their investigation revealed that she had faced no consequences and, shortly before the date of their presentation to the Committee, found that she had relocated to Virginia and was running an SDC on a public school campus that was only a 45-minute drive away from where the Committee was convening to hear the presentation of their report.
There was no effort to conceal the outrage that several Committee members expressed over the fact that this woman had not only killed an ED student in the ED SDC where she was supposed to be helping him get better, but that she faced no consequences and was able to get credentialed in at least one other state because the fact that she had killed a student didn’t follow her on her record. They openly referred to Cedric’s death as a murder.
The Committee’s disgust is exposed during the hearing (click here for video of the full 2-hour hearing), and I share that disgust. It is disgusting; disgust is the only healthy response to what this woman did. Rep. Rob Andrews (1:22:22 – 1:28:16 of the hearing video), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (1:53:02 – 1:54:18 of the hearing video), and Rep. George Miller, Committee Chair (1:55:21 – 1:57:44 of the hearing video) had particularly candid things to say and there was bipartisan heartsickness over the whole thing.
The only reason Cedric’s killer was found was because of the GAO’s investigation. Had it not conducted it, a known killer would have been allowed to remain as a fox in a henhouse, circulating among the same types of individuals upon whom she had preyed before. Their parents had no idea they were sending their vulnerable children off to a child killer each school day. Even now, almost 11 years later, the thought still makes me shudder with horror.
The Committee’s take on the situation was influenced in no small part by the testimony of various witnesses produced by the investigators in support of its findings. Among those asked to testify was Toni Price, Cedric’s foster mother. Her testimony was compelling; even now, it still makes me cry.
Toni argued for a national, if not global, directory of teachers found guilty of child abuse for education agencies to use for screening teaching applicants, and she did so from the most informed position possible. She spoke as the primary caregiver of a child with mental health needs killed by the person entrusted to address them every day at school, but with no legal recourse to do anything about it, leaving advocating for that child and protecting others like him to no one. Only the fluke of a Congressional investigation at the right time on the right topic exposed what happened, and Toni took the opportunity to say what needed to be said.
Which brings me back to the topic of this post and podcast, which is the use of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in special education. Subsequent to the May 2009 hearing, GAO began gathering additional information and the U.S. Department of Education began promulgating guidance and technical information regarding PBIS. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education produced the Restraint and Seclusion Resource Document.
In February 2019, after 10 years of collecting data on the use of seclusion and restraints in our public schools, GAO produced another report and another hearing was held during which the last 10 years’ worth of data collected and analyzed were presented to the Committee. Witnesses gave testimony, provided additional evidence, and answered questions. You now can look up the CRDC data for your own school district on the CRDC site.
Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Department of Education announced an initiative to address the inappropriate use of seclusions and restraints in our public schools. Just this last December, four members of the U.S. House of Representatives proposed a bill, HR 5325, referred to as the “Ending Punitive, Unfair, School-based Harm that is Overt and Unresponsive to Trauma Act of 2019” or the “Ending PUSHOUT Act of 2019,” which seems like way too poor of a word choice for a name just to create an acronym, but the body of the bill still nonetheless prohibits seclusions and restraints and includes other regulations pertaining to behavioral interventions.
HR 5325 is still a bill pending before the Education and Labor Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. It was introduced just last month, so obviously nothing has happened with it, yet. Congress has been a little busy lately and the last time the Committee tried to pass legislation to address seclusion and restraints in 2009, it passed in the House only to never see the light of day in the Senate. That’s likely to happen again, now, with our current configuration of Congress, but the effort still needs to be made.
What GAO reported in the most recent hearing was that there wasn’t enough data in, yet, regarding the efficacy of Education’s efforts to promulgate PBIS technical information and guidance among the public schools or the degree to which the schools that availed themselves of it found it beneficial. In controlled research situations in which implementation fidelity was maintained, PBIS was proven to work, but how well public schools actually implement it with success in the absence of researcher oversight and fidelity checking remains to be seen.
What seems to be the case, and the whole reason this issue is before the House Education and Labor Committee, again, is that there is an obvious need for federal oversight and regulation, here. There is a lack of consistency from state to state as to how behavioral interventions are to be implemented in schools. Some states have regulations regarding seclusions and restraints in schools and others do not. Even those states that have laws in place don’t provide for adequate enforcement of those laws.
The lack of built-in accountability has made it possible for horrible situations to happen. And, they continue to happen. The only way the public school system is held accountable in situations like these is when individual families take legal action. Hence, the case I’m now working on that has made these issues spring to life for me, once again, much to my deep disappointment.
Educator and support staff training, or a gross lack thereof, more specifically, is often at the heart of these cases. But, so is the lack of teacher accountability and the degree to which educators tend to cover up each other’s tracks, even if it means a child dies in the process.
The fear of talking usually goes to fear of losing their jobs, fear of reprisals from their co-workers, fear of being held accountable for the actions of others, fear of getting in trouble for the same thing for which someone else is getting in trouble because they’ve done it, too, and has to come with a tremendous amount of internal conflict. Only sociopaths could smoothly walk that rocky landscape without being troubled by the experience.
The willingness of school administrators to let something as horrible as student traumatization, physical injury, and/or death by the hands of teaching staff and aides in the learning environment get swept under the rug and hope nobody notices, if not actively seek to conceal it, is repugnant. There is a lack of professional integrity in the public education system that can reach sickening proportions, and these cases are examples.
So, I really don’t have an upbeat ending for this post and podcast. I’m pretty not okay with what I’m still seeing going on with respect to seclusion and restraints in public schools in California, which is supposed to be the most progressive state in the country. It’s particularly bad in rural communities far away from specialists and adequate facilities, particularly when those communities are mostly made up of low-income households.
In some cases, like the one I’m working on now, the student has experienced nothing short of absolute barbarism. It shouldn’t take people like me helping to hold the public education system accountable after the fact. The answer is prevention. In the absence of any guidance in the student’s IEPs as to how to address her behaviors, she was repeatedly secluded and restrained by teachers and aides who didn’t know what else to do.
This was all just up until a few weeks ago, which is why she’s now safely at home but without any instruction or related services until her attorney, in collaboration with me as his paralegal and the experts we’re bringing onto the team, can get this mess cleaned up. It just sickens my heart that after all the years that I’ve been doing this work – 29 years this coming June, mind you – this is where things are still at. In the most progressive state in the Union, we’re still secluding and restraining non-verbal students who are struggling to communicate their wants and needs. It puts bile in the back of my throat.
Trying to piece together the actual special education process from the implementing federal regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a lot like trying to create origami from paper shredder cuttings. However, it’s been done and, when laid out in proper order, the special education process totally makes sense.
When followed as intended, the special education regulations are a marriage of law and science. It is further assumed that procedural compliance with the regulations is likely to result in the provision of the Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to each special education student by the IDEA. The specific language comes from what is known in special education circles as “The Rowley Decision,” which specifically states, “the Act’s emphasis on procedural safeguards demonstrates the legislative conviction that adequate compliance with prescribed procedures will in most cases assure much, if not all, of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP. “
In order to understand why the regulations require the things in special education they do, it helps to first understand the history of the language in the regulations. Prior to Congress enacting the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, which ultimately became the IDEA during a later reauthorization, there were no laws that specifically promised any kind of education to children with special needs.
Prior to the EAHCA, children with disabilities were routinely denied enrollment into the public schools. In the beginning, it was an accomplishment just to get a public school to open its doors to a child with special needs, and there was nothing that made it mandatory to educate the child according to any particular standards once the doors had been opened.
Then, in 1971, disability advocates took the matter of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniato the U.S. District Court. The settlement and resulting consent decree produced much of the language that is now found in the implementing regulations of the IDEA, particularly with respect to FAPE and individualized educational program development.
In PARC v. Pennsylvania,a class of individuals who all had intellectual disabilities (IDs), which at the time were described as “mental retardation,” were being denied access to public school on the basis of their diagnosed “mental retardation.” They were either languishing without any education or receiving privately funded education at their parents’ personal expense. PARC filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of itself and the child members of the class, sued for injunctive relief, settled with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and obtained a consent decree overseen by the U.S. District Court, which it later enforced through the Courts to compel Pennsylvania to enroll children with IDs into its public schools and provide them with appropriate programs.
Quoting page 8 of the May 5, 1972 Opinion, Order and Injunction from PARC v. Pennsylvania, “The lengthy Consent Agreement concludes by stating that ‘[every] retarded person between the ages of six and twenty-one shall be provided access toa free public program of education and training appropriate to his capacities as soon as possible but in no event later than September 1, 1972 …’ To implement the agreed upon relief and assure that it would be extended to all members of this class, Dennis E. Haggerty, Esq., a distinguished member of the Pennsylvania Bar who has devoted much of his energy to the welfare of retarded children, and Dr. Herbert Goldstein, an eminent expert in the education of retarded children who is Professor and Director of the Curriculum Research and Development Center in Mental Retardation at the Ferkaus Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Yeshiva University, were appointed Masters at the expense of the Commonwealth … Next, the Consent Agreement charges defendants with the duty within 30 days, to formulate and submit to the Masters a plan to locate, evaluate and give notice to all members of the plaintiff class … Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Agreement states that: ‘The defendants shall formulate and submit to the Masters for their approval a plan to be effectuated by September 1, 1972, to commence or recommence a free public program of education and training for all mentally retarded persons . . . aged between four and twenty-one years as of the date of this Order, and for all mentally retarded persons of such ages hereafter.The plan shall specify the range of programs of education and training, there [sic] kind and number, necessary to provide an appropriate program of education and training to all mentally retarded children, where they shall be conducted, arrangements for their financing, and, if additional teachers are found to be necessary, the plan shall specify recruitment, hiring, and training arrangements.'” [emphasis added; internal citations omitted]
Here, we see the language of FAPE (34 CFR Sec. 300.17), the marriage of law and science in the creation of the program design, the precursor to the federal “child find” requirements (34 CFR Sec. 300.111), and language that effectively describes creating what amounts to an IEP. PARC v. Pennsylvania laid the foundation for what ultimately became the IDEA, which specifically mandates that the peer-reviewed research be applied to the delivery of special education to the degree it’s practicable to do so (34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4)).
The appointment of the masters in PARC v. Pennsylvania is important to note because it marks from the outset the need to combine the efforts of legal professionals and psychologists to come up with evidence-based approaches to special education instruction that conform with the regulations. While there have been many efforts over the years by those of a particular ilk within the public education system to minimize the science and place undue emphasis on legal maneuvering, they have never been successful at eliminating the science.
Now, we are seeing the courts rely more and more on the dry, neutral facts of science rather than the hysterical budget shielding that typically goes on in special education. As more and more people become more fluent with using math and science in everyday life, the public is increasingly expecting to see science rather than politics in the delivery of public instruction.
It has always been the intent of the applicable law to use the applicable science in the delivery of special education. The arguments for relying on facts and evidence in designing and implementing IEPs are too compelling to be overcome by cronyistic politics altogether. Politically speaking, the science has never carried as much weight in special education as it does now, which is tragic in that it’s taken this long but it’s also inevitable. The truth is the truth and no amount of political spinning changes what a child’s unique learning needs actually are or what research has proven actually works.
So, that being the case, when we look at the logical flow of how an IEP is supposed to go together, it’s important to understand how the law and science become inextricably intertwined as the IEP process goes forward. To start, a child cannot be found eligible for special education without first being assessed. Assessment determines if the child has a qualifying disability and, if so, what to do about it.
Competent special education assessment is a highly scientific process. People with special credentials and licenses are brought in to collect expert data, analyze it, and provide expert opinions to the IEP team as to why a child is struggling in school and what can be done about it. This process can become compromised by internal public education agency politics, however. See our previous blog post, “The Basics of Special Education Assessments,” for more information about this step of the process.
In an ideal world, a child’s initial assessment for special education is thorough and competent. It measures all of the student’s unique learning needs and assesses in all areas of suspected disability. The data it produces is then used with input from teachers and parents to create an IEP, presuming the child is eligible for an IEP. This is where things can get really messy.
There are two ways things can go badly at this stage:
The assessments were poorly done and now there isn’t good data to inform the development of the IEP, or
The assessment data is fine but the IEP offered to the student doesn’t match what the assessment data says the student needs
Parents need to understand what is supposed to happen at this stage of the process or they can be quickly bamboozled by seasoned bureaucrats with their own agendas. The information gathered by the IEP team about the student’s learning strengths and needs is supposed to result in measurable annual goals that describe what the IEP is supposed to make happen in each area of unique learning need.
Where things often break down is in translating all of the baseline data into measurable annual goals that target appropriate learning outcomes in every single area of unique learning need. That’s a tall order. It’s one thing to measure what already is, but it’s another thing to use that data to project where things should be in a year.
IEP teams often struggle to identify all the areas in which goals are needed, much less write the goals they come up with in a measurable manner. In my experience, the average special education professional would fail the 4th grade under the Common Core if their IEP goal-writing skills were used to measure their abilities to apply math and science to solving everyday problems.
A lot of the guidance given to special education professionals during the 1980s and 1990s about IEP goal-writing was a bunch of preemptive legal defense hooey that was utterly devoid of any kind of valid science or math. These approaches provided teachers with formulas and supposed hacks that they usually didn’t understand and usually used incorrectly in the field.
There was no sincere effort that I ever observed back in the day to teach special education professionals the technical nuts and bolts of goal-writing, and I still assert now that the training being done is grossly inadequate. A half-day workshop for continuing education units is usually about it for most special ed staffs, and most of what such a workshop instructs is usually garbage.
These are the workshops that taught teachers to write the measurement for every goal as “… with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials …” even if it makes no sense. For example, it’s highly inappropriate when used here: “By [annual due date], [Student] will cross the street safely with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials as measured by observation.”
First, try to make the math work, which you can’t. Then ask yourself what an 80% accuracy rate of crossing the street safely must look like, however it might be calculated, and whether it could possibly be educationally appropriate. It’s supposed to be a free and appropriate public education and there’s nothing appropriate about being run over in the street like a bug as a result of participating in publicly funded instruction.
My brief advice to school district administrators is to not let your attorneys develop your employee training for any aspect of special education that requires scientific rigor. And, unless you are qualified yourself in the applicable sciences, if you are an administrator, don’t think of developing that training yourself, either. Use actual experts; don’t be a chump.
Doing sound assessments only to toss the science and math out the window when it comes time to write the IEP makes no sense whatsoever. But, there is a political game that sometimes get played with parents in which public education agencies will deliver a decent assessment, but then offer a garbage IEP and act like the garbage IEP is what the data and law say the agency can do for the student. It’s a lie.
In reality, the IEP is based on how much the education agency is willing to spend on the student, but the agency’s administrators can’t admit that, so they try to run a con on the parents in which they use valid assessment data to argue for a garbage IEP. They’re effectively gaslighting the parents because the data doesn’t support the IEP at all, but the parents are usually too confused to understand what is really happening and just let it go, thereby allowing the education agency to get away with shortchanging a kid.
The parents get an assessment report that describes their kid, but then they get offered an IEP that is weak relative to the kid’s actual needs and they figure that’s the most the schools must be able to do for them. In truth, their kid is getting robbed. If the IEP doesn’t match the assessment data, something is really wrong. This can be particularly the case with IEP goals.
The data can make clear what the areas are in which goals are needed, but then only a few goals get put into the IEP by school personnel. This is a problem because the services that are offered to a special education student are supposed to be driven by what is necessary to meet the goals. If you don’t have goals in each area of need, there’s nothing to compel all of the services that are needed. Missing goals mean missing services. Schools that want to prevent spending on services can accomplish this by leaving goals out of IEPs.
Goals describe what the IEP is supposed to make happen. Services describe what it takes to meet the goals. This includes service frequency, duration, and location. For example, a student may receive 30 minutes per week of individual speech/language services to address their communication goals.
Accommodations are tools and strategies that make access to the grade-level content possible for a child with special needs. They are not the same things as modifications. Modifications actually change the learning expectations for the student to something less rigorous than the grade-level standards so that the instruction is accessible to the student.
For example, the accommodation of being able to dictate one’s answers rather than write them down doesn’t change the nature of the material being studied or the questions that have to be answered. The only thing that changes is how the response is produced, but a grade-level response is still expected.
In another example by contrast, a student with developmental delays may participate part of the time in general education math where students are calculating the hypotenuses of triangles, but the work is modified to cutting out different sized triangles for the student with developmental delays. In this example, the instruction has been scaffolded towards the grade-level expectations by modifying it to the student’s level of learning.
Before one can understand what a hypotenuse is, one must first understand what a triangle is, so instruction on triangles in general lays a foundation for the eventual instruction of the calculation of hypotenuses. Scaffolding towards the grade level standards and developmental norms is a critical method used in special education as per the peer-reviewed research to adapt the instruction to learners who cannot perform at grade level because of their disabilities. There still has to be a way to measure their learning and push them as close to grade level as possible.
Once goals, services, and accommodations are identified, the IEP team then determines the student’s educational placement. This is usually not a specific classroom or campus; it’s the type of classroom and/or campus required. Placement is decided at the end of the process because it is impossible to know where is the best place to deliver the services and accommodations such that the goals are met if the goals haven’t been written and services and accommodations haven’t yet been determined.
In addition to these critical steps, an IEP can also include an Individualized Transition Plan (ITP), which is basically a plan within a plan that describes what will be done for a teenager or young adult with an IEP to prepare them for life after high school. Students exit special education either by graduating with a regular diploma or aging out, usually at age 21 or 22, The ITP is supposed to be the driving force of their IEPs from at least age 16 forward, though nothing prevents IEP teams from starting younger.
Another component that an IEP may include is some kind of Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). They can go by a variety of names, but they’re all basically the same thing, and usually loosely based on Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). This is another science that gets grossly watered down in special education, sometimes to the point of becoming ineffective if not harmful.
Good ABA is a wonderful thing, but there are way too many programs operating these days that are “ABA-based,” meaning they aren’t fully adhering to the science and only have borrowed those parts from it that they find most easy to use. They take a fluid science, try to turn it into something formulaic, and ruin the whole damn thing. It’s right up there with crossing the street safely with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials.
To be clear, when I talk about ABA in this blog/podcast, I’m talking about the actual science, not some hokey fly-by-night scam trying to take advantage of the autism community. I have plenty of colleagues who operate completely legitimate, scientifically rigorous ABA programs that save and change lives for the better, and they are just as disgusted as I am by the charlatans ruining the good name of a credible science for the sake of making a buck off of autism. These charlatans who have corrupted the legitimate science are the ones with whom the autism community takes such issue when they complain about ABA.
There is no way to have a conversation about the IEP process and the degree to which science plays a role in it without discussing ABA. ABA is the most reliable method of data collection currently used in special education, even when not done that well. This is because the field is dominated with people teaching their students to cross the street safely with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials as measured by observation. Even shoddily done ABA-type data collection is usually better than that.
It’s my argument that, if the science has to be applied to the degree it’s practicable to do so, and ABA-type data collection is the most reliable, then IEP goals should be based on ABA-type data collection methods. If IEP goals were actually written according to scientific method like they were supposed to have been from the start, we would naturally default to ABA-type methods of data collection because that’s the only thing that will work.
This becomes particularly important for IEPs with BIPs. Real ABA, not the half-baked version that is peddled by some agencies, should be used to develop measurable annual goals and any BIP in an IEP. This will allow for legitimate measurement of actual progress. Here, it’s not exactly about the instructional approaches of ABA so much as how to accurately measure learning. By using ABA-based teaching and measuring approaches, it’s a lot easier to tell if a student is actually learning anything or not, which is the whole point of measurable annual goals and measurable BIP criteria.
When you understand that there is a logical order to the sequence of the special education process that the law describes from what it has taken from science, the parts of an IEP start to make more sense. An IEP is not an arbitrary document. It’s an enforceable contract that describes what a public education agency is supposed to do to tailor the instruction to a student with special needs. It includes what it includes for logical reasons.
Congress organized how IEPs are supposed to go together based on the advice of attorneys and psychologists who worked very hard to come with with a marriage of law and science that will work so long as the public education system pays equal attention to both the science and the law. There needs to be more training for professionals in the special education community as to the scientific origins of IEP design and the scientific rigor actually necessary to deliver special education according to Congress’ intent.
Parents need to understand the importance of the science, as well. They are the most important members of any IEP team and if they don’t understand what the data means, they can’t give informed consent to anything.
Parent education is a related service that can be added to an IEP to help the parents understand their child’s special needs as well as help them better participate in the IEP process (34 CFR Sec. 300.34(a)). If you feel as a parent like you don’t have enough information to be an equal member of the IEP team, it’s your right to request parent training as a related service so that your rights to meaningful parent participation in the IEP process and informed consent are honored.
Most people new to special education are quickly blindsided by the processes and procedures that have to be followed. Many parents new to the process don’t exactly understand that customizing school for their children with special needs is what special education is supposed to do. Often they will say that they don’t know what special education will be able to do for their children, in large part because they don’t understand what special education actually is or how it works.
There is a huge need to demystify the special education process for those who don’t fully understand it. The process starts at the very beginning with a referral for assessment, but before I launch into a discussion of special education assessments, I first want to map out the special education process in general so the role that assessments play in that process becomes clear.
Because special education can only be given to students who meet specific eligibility criteria, a process had to be developed to determine who meets those criteria. The basis for a referral for a special education assessment is “suspected disability.” If the parents, teachers, or other involved professionals have a reason to suspect that a disability might be responsible for why a student is struggling in school academically, communicatively, socially, physically, and/or behaviorally, it’s enough to trigger the assessment process.
Sometimes, special education assessments end up ruling out disabilities and identifying other challenges that are interfering with student learning that require solutions other than special education. It is never a bad thing when a child who is struggling in school gets help, regardless of what types of help may be needed.
Federal law mandates that public education agencies conduct a process called “child find” in which they actively seek out and identify those students who can be suspected of possibly needing special education (34 CFR Sec. 300.111). A great many special education lawsuits have been filed over the years on behalf of students who were never identified through “child find,” but should have been.
I have worked as a paralegal on several cases in which there was enough evidence to suspect a disability was responsible for a student’s struggles but it failed to trigger the “child find” process. When students who are eligible for special education are denied eligibility, including from a failure to conduct “child find” that denies them the chance to be found eligible in the first place, they are usually due compensatory education to make up for the education they should have gotten but didn’t. “Child find” failures are no small things, but they occur systematically everywhere.
Very often, children of color, children from households with low incomes, children in single-parent families, and children who have immigrated here from other countries are the ones most often missed by “child find.” In many instances, they are instead blamed for their challenges and end up funneled into the juvenile justice system, thereby greasing the wheels of the School-to-Prison Pipeline.
It often takes a parent referral to see a student properly identified for special education. Struggles over homework, tears shed over grades, disciplinary problems at school, and other obvious signs of trouble will prompt many parents to look into their options for help from their local schools and some will stumble upon some basic information about special education and the referral process. If it makes enough sense to them, they will write a letter requesting that their child be tested for learning problems that might require special education, which triggers the assessment process.
Depending on what State parents are in, the laws vary as to whether their local education agencies are legally obligated to act on their referrals for special education assessment. Some States give parent referrals equal weight to those made by school personnel and other States do not. The federal laws leave it up to the States to decide, by default making it such that education agencies can decline parent referrals for assessment with Prior Written Notice (PWN) explaining why the referral is being declined (34 CFR Sec. 300.503).
California law, however, gives parent referrals equal weight to those made by education agency personnel (EDC 56029) and mandates that an assessment plan be provided to parents for their consent within 15 calendar days of any referral for assessment being made (EDC 56043(a)). States can add protections to the IDEA, they just can’t reduce them to anything below the minimum standards of the IDEA. Not all States provide the same kind of protection of parent referrals that California provides.
Even when a parent referral is accepted, many school districts will still limit assessment in a way the parents don’t realize is happening in order to prevent students from being found eligible for special education and thereby prevent special education expenditures and a host of additional legal obligations. For far too many families, just getting that initial evaluation can become a legal battle, but then the question becomes whether the assessment they got was any good.
I want to focus on what happens once the assessment process actually gets going, though. Eventually, most families of eligible children who are pushing for appropriate services will get an initial assessment that is used by the IEP team to determine whether the student is eligible for special education or not. If the student is found eligible, re-assessments will then occur at least once every three years, or triennially, to update the data available to the IEP team for ongoing IEP development.
The purpose of special education assessment is to determine 1) if the student is eligible for special education and, if so, 2) what the content of the student’s IEP should be. Needless to say that if the data gathered by the assessment is inaccurate, incomplete, or incompetently interpreted, things can go horribly wrong. And, they do. A lot of special education litigation arises over education agency failures to competently assess in all areas of suspected disability.
For example, if a child is verbal but can’t read people’s facial expressions or tone of voice, there still needs to be a speech-language evaluation that looks at not only articulation, receptive language, and expressive language, but also at pragmatic (social) language. Pragmatic language includes the ability to read nonverbal body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice.
Children with autism tend to be very literal with words and miss the nuances that tone of voice, facial expression, and body language can contribute to conveying someone else’s communicative intent, so they may misunderstand sarcasm or idioms and cliches. They can similarly struggle to make their own faces match what they are trying to say in a way that makes sense to most other people. Students with other types of handicapping conditions can also have similar challenges for various reasons related to their disabilities.
This isn’t all people with autism, of course, but pragmatic language deficits are commonly occurring features of autism. It stands to reason that any child assessed for autism should also have a comprehensive speech-language evaluation that includes pragmatics. I’ve lost count of the number of students on the autism spectrum I’ve represented over the last 28+ years who have had huge problems with interpersonal communication but had never had their pragmatic language tested until I asked for it. It’s one of those obvious things that shouldn’t have to be specifically requested, but I often end up having to request it, anyway.
And, this example goes to why it’s important that parents understand the critical nature of assessments and getting them done correctly the first time around, if at all possible. What happens if assessments are bad is that whatever IEPs are produced from them will also be bad. This can include an inappropriate denial of special education eligibility altogether at the initial IEP, as well as students being found eligible but then given weak IEPs that don’t actually address their needs.
Simply giving a student a document that says “IEP” on it does not magically bestow educational benefits upon that student. The contents of the document matter and they should be informed by scientifically valid data in all areas of suspected disability and unique learning need. The IEP is supposed to be the blueprint by which the special education student’s education is delivered according to that student’s unique learning profile, which can only be ascertained through valid and sufficiently rigorous assessments that include teacher and parent input.
What tests should be administered to a given student depends on the student. Just as the special education program developed for each student must be individualized, so must the assessments conducted to inform that program. If a student doesn’t present with any evidence of hearing loss, it makes no sense to test in the area of hearing. However, if a student reports that the words swim on the page when the student attempts to read, an assessment of visual processing is entirely in order.
Similarly, if the primary areas of concern are social and classroom participation but the student’s grades are otherwise fine, you can conduct all the IQ and academic achievement tests in the world, but they will fail to give you relevant data about the actual source of the problem. At best, academic achievement testing may tell you the degree to which the social/behavioral challenges are interfering with classroom participation and work completion, but social/emotional and behavioral assessments are necessary to get to the bottom of social and classroom behavioral challenges, including lack of participation.
It is not uncommon for individuals with autism and/or anxiety disorders who are otherwise verbally and intellectually intact to do well in their academics, at least in the lower grades, but have a truly difficult time being a member of a classroom and/or being socially integrated with the rest of the students. School is supposed to teach more than academics; it’s also supposed to give students the opportunity to learn and rehearse social skills that will ultimately allow them to become gainfully employed and fully functional within society in adulthood.
The thing to understand, here, is that a student does not automatically have to be struggling academically to need special education. A student needs to be struggling in any aspect of school as a result of a disability to such a marked degree that individualizing the student’s educational experiences is necessary in order for the student to have opportunities to learn that are equal to the opportunities given to same-grade peers who do not have disabilities.
Our students with anxiety and depression will often miss a lot of school due to psychosomatic illnesses. This prevents them from accessing education altogether, but is not directly reflective of a specific challenge with academics. Very often, these kids can handle the academics okay, but they can’t handle all the other people at school. That’s a different special education problem to solve than accommodating dyslexia or an auditory processing disorder.
I can tell you that, as an educational psychologist and behavior analyst, there are student-specific lines of inquiry that an individualized assessment of each student should pursue. No two assessments should look exactly alike from one student to the next. The federally mandated requirement placed on schools is to assess in all areas of suspected disability and unique student need on an individualized basis (34 CFR Sec. 300.304).
That means social/emotional functioning, pragmatic language, and behavior are probably going to feature more prominently in an assessment of a student suspected of autism or certain types of social/emotional disorders. Measures of cognition and academic achievement, analysis of classroom work samples, parent and teacher interviews, and classroom observations are going to be more useful in troubleshooting a potential learning disability. Physical therapy, occupational therapy, and adaptive physical education evaluations are going to be important for a student with an orthopedic impairment that impacts how the student navigates the school campus.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” assessment procedure in special education. There should be no “one-size-fits-all” anything in special education. The whole point of it is individualized instruction, which can only be individualized to the student if the IEP is informed by individualized assessment data.
The importance of individualizing assessment cannot be overemphasized, and I have an example from my past to drive that point home: Many years ago, a couple of years or so after I first became a paralegal, I was working a due process case in which, between the testimony of the school psychologist and the district’s director of special education, it became clear that the only reason the school psychologist had used a particular verbal IQ test on our 7-year-old language delayed client with Down’s Syndrome was because the district kept those tests in bulk in the supply closet, and it would take longer than the 60-day assessment timeline to order a more appropriate test through the district’s purchase order process, as overseen by the special education director.
It is my recollection that the administrative law judge who tried the case had his own blistering line of questioning after those facts made it onto the record. He basically eviscerated the special education director for sneaky, underhanded abuses of the system to save a buck at the expense of assessment accuracy. The judge ended up ordering the school district to fund an outside assessment done by an expert who used the right kinds of tests.
The dad had already paid to have the outside expert assessment done, so we had it as evidence of how to do it right in hearing, plus the outside expert testified credibly as to his methods and findings. The district ended up having to reimburse the dad for the outside assessment and there was a huge training initiative throughout that district’s special education department shortly after that hearing decision was published. Heads rolled and policies changed for the better, but it took exposing what was really going on in a hearing to effect significant changes.
The function that assessments serve in the special education process is to set it all in motion and inform all the other steps that will follow. An IEP must include a statement of a student’s present levels of performance at the time the IEP was written, thereby establishing baselines. An IEP must also include annual, measurable goals that target learning outcomes to be achieved in one year’s time from the date the IEP is written that move the student forward from those baseline positions in each area of unique learning need.
There is no way to realistically identify the target outcomes to be met with one year’s worth of work in each area of unique student need without valid assessment data to inform that analysis. How much is realistic for an individual student to learn in a year’s time comes down to a combination of variables that should have all been measured and described by the assessment data.
Goals target the outcomes intended by a student’s IEP. What services are included in an IEP, including the frequency, duration, and location of those services, are determined on the basis of what will be necessary to meet the IEP goals. Placement is the last decision made by an IEP team and is determined by what is the least restrictive setting or combination of settings that allows the services to be delivered such that the goals are met without unnecessarily segregating the student away from the general education population.
You can’t decide where a special education student can be most appropriately educated until you first determine what you’re going to have to do in that setting or combination of settings. What needs to be done is determined by what you want to make happen. You don’t know what to make happen until you understand where things already stand and what you are still missing. You don’t know what is already intact and available, or what is missing, without first doing an assessment.
So, everything in the IEP process depends on the assessments being done right in the first place, or the entire IEP process falls apart from the outset. If an assessment is done badly, there aren’t adequate baseline data to inform an IEP’s present levels of performance or inform decisions about how aggressive each measurable annual goal should be in terms of its targeted outcomes. Further, if it’s done badly, there’s no guarantee there’s enough data to identify all the areas in which goals are actually needed.
“What can the student already do in a given area of need?” and “What is realistic to expect from this student after one year’s worth of work in this given area of need?” are the two key questions that have to be answered by special education assessment reports. That’s because those two very questions have to be answered when crafting a new IEP.
If you can’t get that far with the data from the assessments, you’re off to a really, really bad start. If you can’t lay a proper foundation, your whole construct will fall down. Competent, reasonably thorough assessment is the very foundation of a sound IEP, so it is important for parents to take this step of the IEP process very seriously and hold everyone else on the team to their respective professional standards.
Federal law mandates the application of the peer-reviewed research and the professional standards of any experts involved to the delivery of special education (34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4)). That includes during the special education assessment process. Any standardized tests used must be administered and scored according to the instructions provided by the producers of each test, which must be scientifically valid for the purposes for which they are used (34 CFR Sec. 300.304(c)(1)). The enforceable law does not skirt the applicable science, and there is no legally justifiable reason why any publicly funded education agency and/or any of its contractors should be skirting it.
This can be difficult for many parents who have no background in science or law. However, an interesting phenomenon is starting to occur on a societal level that is worth noting.
Millennials are becoming an increasingly represented generational cohort among parents of children with special needs. They use their smartphones ubiquitously to call BS on a host of issues by looking up the truth, and collaborate with each other to address shared concerns. Special education advocacy today is becoming something entirely different than what it was when I started 28 years ago.
When I was a young, beginning advocate, I represented a number of housewives who could bake some mean cupcakes but would nearly faint at the presentation of a bell curve graph and deferred to their husbands on any big decisions. Now, I’ve got young moms and dads taking their own behavior data, charting it, and presenting it to their kids’ IEP teams with a written list of questions, concerns, and requests, all based on their own common sense with no formal prior exposure to the applicable sciences or law.
Where things get interesting is how school district administrations are currently configured. Many of the old-timers that I’ve been dealing with over the last two decades or more have retired and run off with their pension money before there isn’t any pension money to be had, anymore. Millennials are now starting to take the retired old-timers’ vacant job positions and, where that has happened, I’ve found that I don’t have such an uphill battle when making scientifically research-based requests in conformity with the regulations on behalf of my students and their families.
When knowledgeable parents go up against cronyistic old-timers, the old-timers resort to their familiar bag of power-mongering tricks. But, trying to intimidate a mom who was educated under the Common Core to use math and science to solve real-life problems is a world apart from trying to intimidate a housewife whose science and math skills are limited to following recipes in a cookbook and balancing a checkbook.
I’m watching old-timers retire in droves nowadays because their weapons of choice against parents aren’t effective anymore and the courts are increasingly relying on the applicable science to inform how the law applies to each special education student on an individual basis. Law is supposed to be evidence-based, as is science. Education science allows special education law to be as black-and-white as possible. Everything else, particularly in a cronyistic system, is subjective opinion and hearsay. The environment no longer reinforces the old-timers’ behaviors like it used to, and their behaviors are starting to become extinct.
So, parents going forth into special education, especially those of you who know how to use your smartphones to look things up and fact-check, fall back on the science and lean on it hard, starting with the assessment process. When you are first given that assessment plan to sign, don’t sign anything until you understand what it means and the language of it is clear.
Very often, assessment plans will say vague things like “social/emotional evaluation by psychologist,” which can sound a whole lot like a mental health evaluation by a clinician to a lay person. In reality, what it usually means is rating scales filled out by parents, teachers, and sometimes the student that are scored and interpreted by a credentialed school psychologist, not a licensed clinician. Rating scales scored and interpreted by a school psychologist is not the same thing as a mental health evaluation by a licensed clinician.
But, how is a parent unfamiliar with the process supposed to know that? Would any reasonable layperson just assume this language meant a mental health evaluation by a clinician? I’ve seen this happen more than once involving youth with significant mental health issues for which consideration was being requested by the parent of the rest of the IEP team of residential placement via the student’s IEP. The parents would be given an assessment plan that said “social/emotional evaluation by psychologist,” think they were getting an evaluation to explore residential placement, and only find out 60 days later that they had been given the run-around while their child continued to fall apart. Residential placement is the most restrictive placement possible through the special education system, but it is possible for those students whose needs are that dire.
In these cases, the students’ needs were absolutely that dire and the responsible school districts attempted to delay the costs of residential placement by first doing rating scales by their school psychologist as part of a 60-day evaluation process, who then recommended a mental health evaluation, sometimes including a residential placement evaluation but sometimes not, thereby triggering a new 60-day assessment timeline. If a residential placement evaluation was not included with the mental health evaluation, the mental health evaluation could then conclude that the student should be considered for residential placement, triggering yet another new 60-day evaluation timeline.
Or, worse, the mental health evaluation could be silent on the issue of residential placement, leaving it to the parents to know to keep asking for such an evaluation; but, by this point, most parents erroneously conclude that residential placement isn’t an option so they drop it. There are youth in immediate crises who need instant mental health services, and their school districts are stalling the process by adding an unnecessary layer of assessment that gives it another 60 to 120 days before it has to act on the data (i.e., foot the tab for services).
Each of the students from my caseload who have shared this experience, in different school districts mind you, ended up either hospitalized and/or incarcerated at some point before finally getting the help that they needed. In most of those cases, the issue had to be forced with lawsuits that ultimately resulted in confidential settlement agreements. In each instance, the unnecessary delays in receiving immediate help contributed to self-injurious behavior, attempted suicide, and unlawful conduct that could have otherwise been avoided.
In my first case like this, I actually took it to due process myself back in the day when advocates could do that in California, and prevailed. In that case’ decision, the hearing officer made it clear that it defies the entire purpose of the IDEA, which requires that children with qualifying disabilities be identified and served via IEPs in all areas of need as quickly as possible, to subject our most vulnerable children to double or triple the amount of assessment time of a normal special education evaluation before getting the help they need.
I don’t know of any authority that has come out since then that contradicts this interpretation, though it was a long time ago and I’m not an attorney, but I think most people will agree, that it was not likely Congress’ intent to make our most severely impacted students suffer without appropriate supports and services for months longer than it takes other special education students to get what they need. These include, but are not exclusively, students with tendencies towards violence, running away, property destruction, self-injurious behaviors, and other non-social behaviors that require a great deal of expert intervention. These are not the students who should be waiting twice to triple the time to get the services they need to keep themselves and everyone else safe and focused on learning at school.
If it looks like a critical area of need is being excluded from your child’s assessment, don’t sign the assessment plan until the public education agency adds what is missing. If the agency refuses to add it, note on the assessment plan that you are consenting to what is offered, but you still think the assessment is deficient based on what they are excluding, which you should list in your note. That way, the record is clear that you aren’t delaying the other testing by withholding your consent, but you’re also not agreeing it was appropriate to leave out what you requested.
If the matter ever goes to hearing, the fact that you documented your disagreement with the exclusions on the actual assessment plan will become part of the evidence and the agency will have to explain its refusals of your requests to a judge or hearing officer. I’ve seen agencies change their minds after parents have written such feedback on assessment plans because the agencies don’t want to have to explain those documents to judges or hearing officers down the line.
Often, the best way to prevent litigation is to prepare for it. The parents who understand the value of making the record in the right way are the most successful self-advocates out there. But, there are still enough cronyistic old-timers still entrenched in the system who think they can still get away with intimidation tactics, lies, and subterfuge. It’s getting harder and harder for them to get away with these behaviors, and parents who push for the truth from the very beginning, starting with the assessment process, have a greater chance of getting appropriate services for their children than not.
On December 7, 2008, we originally published “Understanding Who Is and Who Is Not Eligible for Special Education.” As we move through the beginning of the new school year, KPS4Parents is recording many of our past text-only articles as podcasts so that busy parents, educators, and interested taxpayers can download them and listen to them at their convenience.
As always, feel free to comment on our content. We appreciate the input of our readers and listeners to bring you the information you seek. You can either comment below or email us at info@kps4parents.org.
Click here to download the podcast, “Understanding Who Is and Who Is Not Eligible for Special Education.”
