Tag: goals

Posted on

They Already Know: School Refusal After ICE Raids and the Legal Duty to Respond

The recent ICE raids in Ventura County, where we are located, has prompted us to engage with other local community leaders to address the needs of the families that have been impacted. In particular, we are providing technical assistance and guidance to other activists about how public education resources can be leveraged to support the children left traumatized by the ICE raids, many of whom are too afraid to go to school, now.

In 2019, the Ventura County SELPA provided professional development on how to distinguish between disability-related school refusal and truancy. They warned districts that emotional distress, including trauma, can keep children from school, and that school refusal should not be treated as willful defiance.

That training still applies today. In fact, it applies even more urgently in the wake of recent immigration raids that have left many children too afraid to return to school. And under state and federal law, school districts and charter schools are already obligated to act.

I want to share with you a PowerPoint presentation that was shared with me many years ago by a colleague at the time who worked at the Ventura County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA). I’ve converted it to a video with my verbal input as to the contents as they relate to the ICE raids, which I’m not going to transcribe here. If you’re reading this post, you’ll have to watch the video. If you’re listening to the podcast, it’s not going to make much sense without the slides. I’m including a PDF of the presentation for download here, as well, if you’d rather consume its contents that way.

The above video explains the logic behind the strategy I’m sharing with you here. I’ve already shared the relevant documents with local activists who are dealing directly with the affected families.

For families and guardians of children who have been traumatized by the ICE raids in California such that their access to education is now compromised, regardless of whether or not they are already in special education or on 504 plans, it is critical that they be evaluated for mental and emotional health needs that might require services and supports. This could include mental health services across home, school, and community settings, as well as in-home instruction on a temporary or ongoing basis according to their individual needs, as identified by comprehensive assessment in all areas of suspected disability and unique student need.

There are four PDF documents listed here for download:

Parents or guardians and their advocates and activists are encouraged to use these tools to create written correspondence that triggers assessments by local school districts and charter schools of individual children who are showing signs of trauma from the ICE raids that negatively impacts their access to education and/or their ability to benefit from instruction. Assessments are based on suspected disability and trauma is a disability.

The goal with this post/podcast is not to create a long-winded article for reading or listening. This isn’t entertainment; it’s useful information to help people protect the children in their lives who have been harmed by these ICE raids. Please use this information responsibly to protect vulnerable children in need.

#TheyAlreadyKnow #SchoolRefusalIsNotTruancy #ChildFindNow #Protect805Kids #TraumaIsADisability #PublicSchoolsProtect #SupportDontPunishKids #FAPEForEveryChild #TraumaInformedSchools #MentalHealthMatters #ImmigrantJustice #FamiliesBelongTogether #DisabilityJustice #SpecialEdEquity #805Strong #VenturaCountyKids #CamarilloCares 

Posted on

What is “Eugenics” and How Does it Relate to Special Education?

Many people don’t know what the word “eugenics” means, but parents of special education students will recognize the behavior associated with eugenicist thinking. Special education is not an isolated, siloed experience with no bearing on the rest of society, and history shows us that societies don’t just collapse because of a few bad actors or terrible ideas. They collapse because their systems stop evolving with the needs of their people. 

I have spent the last 34 years upholding democracy at the local level through special education compliance, asserting all the while that special education is the “canary in the coalmine” for the rest of our civilization. The degree to which a society is civilized is revealed by the degree to which it takes care of its most vulnerable members.

When societies collapse, systems that once protected people can no longer fulfill their functions and start existing for their own benefit, causing constituent needs to become the means of perpetuating the system rather than the ends served by the system. These systems stop spiraling upward through stages of reflection, accountability, and self-correction and, instead, stagnate and drift into patterns we recognize all too well; patterns that include horrors like eugenics.

What Is Eugenics, and Why Should We Be Worried?

Eugenics is the scientifically discredited and morally indefensible idea that society can be “improved” by encouraging reproduction among people with “desirable” traits while suppressing or eliminating reproduction among those deemed “undesirable.” In the early 20th century this ideology fueled forced sterilizations, segregation, and systemic discrimination against the poor, disabled, mentally ill, and minority populations (NHGRI).

Even after the Holocaust exposed the full horror of where eugenic thinking leads, many of its assumptions remained embedded in law, policy, and cultural attitudes. Today we are seeing a resurgence of these ideas under new guises:

These actions aren’t accidents. They are systematic attempts to decide who deserves to survive and who doesn’t, without ever saying the real intent out loud. One of the things about my tendency to use Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in any attempt to understand behavior is that it really helps identify when actions speak louder than words, which is why I recommend that everyone have a basic understanding of ABA. It’s hard to miss the function of a behavior when it’s this obvious.

Project 2025 Threatens Publicly Funded Special Education

Project 2025 is a published blueprint backed by major political operatives that calls for dismantling federal civil-rights enforcement, including abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Key figures inside the current administration have publicly stated that their job is to “eliminate” the Department.

Project 2025 proposes to:

  • Eliminate or severely weaken the USDOE
  • Roll back enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
  • Shift authority to states without guaranteeing civil-rights compliance
  • Divert public funds to private schools that need not serve disabled students equitably

So, Project 2025 and Eugenics: Here’s the Link

At its core, eugenics builds systems that decide whose lives are worth protecting and whose are expendable. Project 2025 follows this template by removing protections for disabled, poor, and marginalized students, making survival and success conditional on wealth, ability, and conformity.

While supporters frame these moves in language about “freedom” and “efficiency,” the practical effect is to systematically privilege some groups while abandoning others. Selective protection of life, determined by productivity and conformity, is the operational definition of modern eugenics (ACLU analysis).

Understanding this connection matters because it shows that the fight for special education compliance is not merely bureaucratic; it is a defense of human dignity against an organized eugenics campaign.  If the rights of a nonverbal child with autism don’t matter, why should anyone else’s? The eugenicists refer to our most severely impacted special education students as “useless eaters,” just as the Nazi’s did in WWII Germany as they tossed them into concentration camps, experimented on them, and later disposed of them in gas chambers.

This is How Special  Education Compliance Fights Eugenics

Eugenics thrives where human dignity is rationed. Special education compliance, by contrast, mandates recognition of each individual’s inherent worth, no matter what it takes to give them equitable access to everything that everyone else can access. The IDEA requires schools to identify, assess, and individually support every eligible student, with continuous review through the IEP process.

Every compliance cycle, which includes assessment, planning, intervention, and progress review, is a deliberate act of justice scaffolding. It interrupts the slide toward selective harm by making it illegal to “write off” a student as unworthy of investment.

Developmental Science Shows Us the Right Way Forward

Jean Piaget taught that learning happens in stages. Lev Vygotsky emphasized guided support within a child’s zone of proximal development. Erik Erikson described psychosocial milestones that, if skipped, lead to lifelong instability: Trust ➢ Autonomy ➢ Initiative ➢ Competence ➢ Identity

When these stages are supported, society spirals upward toward resilience. When they are abandoned, societies fall into fear, shame, hatred, and authoritarianism, which collectively creates a breeding ground for eugenic thinking.

People who lack the problem-solving skills to overcome life’s hardships look for others to blame for their unhappiness while unscrupulous profiteers exploit their limitations for power and profit and provide them with convenient scapegoats to blame for all their problems. Very often, people targeted for extinction by eugenics will be unwittingly enlisted to facilitate their own demise, not realizing that they are among one of the groups being targeted for extinction when they are being pitted against another.

Spiraling Is an Instructional Strategy that Can Improve Our Chances

In education, the term “spiraling” refers to referring back to previously taught material or concepts and relating it to new material being instructed. For example, a refresher on basic addition before launching into new instruction about subtraction would be an instance of spiraling the addition instruction into the subtraction instruction to help the learner make the mental connection between what is already known and what is being presented as new.

In day-to-day human discourse, spiraling can be used to inform what we understand about the world around us based on what we’ve learned from past experiences relative to new information being presented to us in the news and from the people we know. By weaving in what we’ve already learned and mastered and connecting it to the new information being presented, we can create better outcomes for ourselves.

Compliance Is Not Pointless Red Tape

Sound compliance structures create a lifeline, not just for individual students but for all of us. They remind us that justice is a habit, growth is a cycle, and survival is collective.

Every IEP, every audit, every procedural safeguard is a step upward, away from the abyss. Without spiraling structures of accountability and care, the risk of falling backward into destructive hierarchies grows exponentially.

The measure of a civilization has always been how it treats its most vulnerable. When we protect the rights of students with disabilities, we protect the soul of our nation.

Special education law isn’t about pointless obedience. It’s intended to be a bulwark against eugenics in American society, which is why it is currently being targeted by the Project 2025 eugenicists. Regardless of whether you’re a parent of a child with special education needs, a concerned taxpayer who didn’t volunteer to bankroll eugenics as a function of our government, or both, you have a beef here with how things are currently being operated at the federal level.

The only way to preserve our democracy is to participate in it, including at the local level. Every IEP meeting is an opportunity to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the government serving the needs of the public accordingly. And to make sure our society attends to its most vulnerable members like a civilized society should.

Posted on

Using ABA to Identify and Deal With Misinformation

Special education and disability-related areas of civil rights law are complex systems of law and science that require an understanding of how an individual person is impacted by their unique disabilities within the unique contexts of their unique individual lives. The whole person has to be taken into account in order to determine the degree to which their disabilities impact their Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), which includes learning, employment, and community access.

In special education, the presence of disability alone does not automatically make a student eligible for special education, though it still makes them protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In special education, having a disability satisfies only one prong of a two-pronged line of inquiry that requires, upon evidence of a disability, further evidence that the disability interferes with the student’s access to education in some kind of meaningful way that requires specialized instruction of some form.

In some states, such as California, if a student demonstrates a speech and/or language impairment such that they satisfy the Speech-Language Impaired (SLI) eligibility category pursuant to the regulations, and require speech-language services but not Specialized Academic Instruction (SAI), the speech-language services can be considered SAI for the purposes of finding the student eligible for special education. This is because public school instruction is so heavily weighted on language that having intact language skills is necessary for accessing the instruction.

That said, many students, particularly those found eligible under the Autism (AUT) criteria, experience significant impairments in pragmatic language that many not interfere with their academics in most cases, but greatly interfere with their ability to interact in socially appropriate ways with others. This can impact their peer interactions during unstructured times like lunch and recess or passing periods, participation in group learning activities in the classroom, safe behavior during school drills or actual emergencies, etc.

Addressing these kinds of challenges through special education can be just as educationally necessary as addressing the academic needs of a child with an intellectual disability, profound medical condition, or learning disability. Figuring out who needs what, if anything, in special education requires an expert level of assessment and data analyses.

Furthermore, special education is a regulated process. Local education agencies have to abide by the rules attached to the federal special education dollars in order for their states to receive said dollars. Compliance with 504 is non-optional for any entity receiving federal dollars of any kind, such as public schools, and compliance with the ADA is mandatory, period.

Federal special education law mandates the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education, to the degree doing so is practicable. This means that approaches that have already been proven to work, that is, evidence-based practices, must be used when addressing the individual needs of each special education student pursuant to the applicable regulations. In theory, logic should prevail under the circumstances.

However, as the whole world is now seeing first-hand, the government in America has always been infiltrated by anti-democratic thinkers and morons who have no idea what they are doing. Sometimes these people are one in the same. Not to say, “I told you so,” but back when people kept comparing me to Don Quixote when I’d make a stink about special education violations as a matter of a departure from the rule of law by local government agencies, I kept telling people that special education was the “canary in the coal mine” for democracy in this country.

The measure of how civilized a society is goes to how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members. If the civil rights of children with disabilities means nothing, no one’s rights mean anything. If one of us is denied liberty, all of us are denied liberty. There cannot be any class of humans who are excluded from human rights in a civilized society, but there are many mentally ill people currently in power who regard other people with disabilities as “useless eaters.” The irony that this is the mentally ill calling other people with disabilities unworthy of life doesn’t escape me.

Only broken minds do the kinds of things we’re seeing happen within American government at the federal level, right now. This is what I was up against for the first 25 years of my career at the local and State level. It’s now finally escalated up the food chain to the national level such that it’s now finally affecting everyone and not just marginalized populations. Police are now putting up barricades and blocking off streets so that white people can safely peacefully protest, instead of beating and arresting them like they have when black and brown people have peacefully protested in the streets.

White people aren’t being disappeared to El Salvador, yet, but the writing is on the wall if the American public doesn’t unite against what is happening, right now. It’s a lot to process, but for those of us who have been fighting this affront to democracy through official channels for decades, the narcissistic abuses of power by government officials are all too familiar to us.

Interestingly, at the local level, the energy has shifted in the last 15 to 20 years as more old, crooked cronies retire or move on  and more and more young people fresh out of graduate school come in to inherit the messes left behind by the crooked old cronies they replaced. These science-minded, pro-democracy young public servants are inadequately trained on how to apply the science in the field and the regulatory process that describes how they are supposed to do it. None of the systems they have inherited lend  themselves to complying with the law; they’re broken and fraught with decades of mismanagement.

I’m finding as I go to IEP meetings that I am a welcome member of the team because I’ve been around long enough to know the applicable science and law, and I’ve been trying to prevent the harm done by the old cronies since 1991. At this stage in my career, I’m spending more time helping IEP teams create legally compliant IEPs that deliver meaningful educational and therapeutic results as appropriate to the individual needs of the student, and far less time fighting with school districts over whether or not to assess a student, amend an IEP goal, provide a service, or change a placement.

It appears that the toxic energy that I was up against previously has moved on in the pursuit of power to higher offices where people are less familiar with contending with these types of behaviors. Part of what keeps people like this in power for so long is that they lie, withhold information, spoliate evidence, violate privacy rights, engage in gaslighting, and are often really good at finding someone else to be their scapegoat to take the fall if they get caught doing something wrong. It all catches up with them eventually, but there is a wake of destruction behind them 100 miles wide by the time that happens, and remedial, compensatory strategies that are eventually forthcoming never make the injured parties fully whole.

America is going through something akin to one of my worst-case scenarios in a special education advocacy case, which I’ve not had to deal with since 2005 to 2012. The worst-case scenario is when, despite my best efforts to keep things scientifically valid and procedurally compliant, I was unable to get an appropriate program for a student, at which point I’d pull in an attorney to file for due process to fight for an appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the student pursuant to the regulations and applicable peer-reviewed research.

Worst-case scenario, the losing party in the due process case appeals to the federal District Court in the student’s local area, which can delay some remedies for two to five years. If the District Court matter is appealed, it goes to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If I never have to work on another table of uncontroverted facts again for the rest of my life, it will be too soon. The tedium and detail required is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa on a grain of rice with an eyelash. It can also further delay resolution by another year or two.

In short, litigation blows. I’ll do it if I have to because that’s the only lawful process to resolve violations of the law committed by government officials to the detriment of children with disabilities that I’ve got, but I’ll resent the hell out of everybody who has made it necessary for me to put forth that kind of effort to resolve a problem they created. It’s an act of patriotism and protectiveness of children with disabilities that I do it. It’s out of necessity because I can and most people can’t.

That’s got to change. More people need to know what I know so that they can be better advocates for democracy in their own lives, however it might uniquely manifest. There has to be a way for me to share the knowledge I have about how pro-democratic people can handle anti-democratic people they encounter in their day-to-day lives. A democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people is upheld when all the people work together in a manner that makes them woven together like fabric, to make up the fabric of the community in which they live.

Or, to quote guerilla gardener, Ron Finley, “To change the community, we have to change the composition of the soil. We are the soil!” Community building is a lot like building up soil for planting and growing food. In order for people to weave together into a fabric that creates a healthy society, the people themselves need to be socially-emotionally healthy. If we are all collectively the soil, the soil needs to be amended because not everyone is getting the nutrients they need in order for us to all interact together in a mutually beneficial and healthy way.

To that end, I want to put it out there that I think there needs to be an “every person’s” version of basic Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) taught at the high school level as part of every student’s health curriculum, along with instruction regarding how to discern truth from fiction in media of all forms. Civics classes should also include examinations of propaganda efforts in the past and present around the world that are used to subjugate people and deprive them of their freedoms, and how that compares against the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and our system of three equal branches of government at the federal level for the purpose of checks and balances.

With respect to ABA, this is something the general public should really understand and it honestly isn’t that complicated. For the purpose of educating the public and helping people equip themselves with a way of thinking about behavior that will serve them for the rest of their lives, I’m offering a basic breakdown of the applicable science, here.

The first thing to understand about ABA is that there is no trying to figure out what someone is thinking or feeling involved. You can’t observe what’s going on in someone’s mind or how their body feels inside, and you can’t make any informed decisions in ABA about things you can’t observe and measure. As such, only objective, observable behaviors can be used to inform an ABA analysis of any kind. Internal thoughts and feelings are referred to as “private events” in ABA.

This actually helps you be more methodical and less emotionally biased about your data, because you’re purely working from what anyone can observe and measuring it in meaningful ways. For example, what is the frequency, intensity, and duration of an inappropriate behavior that you are witnessing? All of those things can be quantified in some kind of way.

Another important data collection tool in ABA is called “ABC data collection.” Here, “A” stands for “antecedent,” “B” stands  for “behavior,” and “C” stands for “consequence.”

An antecedent is whatever happened just before the behavior that triggered it. The behavior is the behavior you’re analyzing. The consequence is the outcome naturally produced by the behavior.

ABC data is taken to determine the function of a behavior. The function of a behavior is indicated by the degree to which the consequence rewards the behavior and thus encourages it to happen again under similar circumstances in the future. The more often a behavior is rewarded, the more likely it is to occur again.

This rewarding of a specific behavior is called “reinforcement,” and can come in various forms. Many people misuse the terms “positive” and “negative’ with respect to “reinforcement,” and that really undermines their ability to accurately apply the science.

“Positive” and “negative” no more mean “good” and “bad” with respect to reinforcement as they do to the poles on a magnet or a battery. This is science. “Positive” and “negative” are neutral terms that have nothing to do with emotions or judgment.

In ABA, “positive” means “to present” and “negative” means “to withdraw.” Therefore, “positive reinforcement” occurs when something desired by the individual is received in response to a specific behavior, and “negative reinforcement” occurs when something aversive to the individual is taken away in response to a specific behavior.

One of the best research examples of that was B.F. Skinner’s experiments with rats. He created what came to be known as “Skinner Boxes” in which different tests were conducted with rats to study positive and negative reinforcement.

In one box, a rat would have a lever built into the cage that, if pulled by the rat, would dispense a food pellet, thereby positively reinforcing the behavior of lever-pulling. In another box, the floor of the cage would carry a mild electrical current that was unpleasant but not painful to the rat, which it could turn off by pulling a lever, which thereby negatively reinforced the behavior of lever-pulling.

In both instances, the rats learned to pull a lever, but in each trial in which this experiment was conducted, the rat who had been positively reinforced seemed to be better off at the end of the experiment than the rat that had been negatively reinforced. The conclusion was that reinforcing a behavior increases its likelihood of occurring again in the future under similar circumstances, but positive reinforcement is usually the more ethical form of reinforcement, and it’s highly effective.

In some instances, negative reinforcement can be a good thing. Removing something non-preferred in exchange for specific behaviors is negative reinforcement, and that isn’t always bad.

Reducing the amount of time a teenager is grounded for being behind in their homework according to how much of it they complete can reinforce the behavior of completing their incomplete homework. Reducing the number of math problems they have to complete if they can show mastery with just a few reinforces the behavior of diligent application of math knowledge.

I’ll gladly vacuum the living room if someone else scrubs the toilet. Let me escape the aversive task of scrubbing the toilet and I will engage in the behavior of vacuuming the living room. But, the science shows that working for rewards is a more powerful and emotionally healthy motivator than working to escape punishment.

The whole “positive” and “negative” thing applies to punishment, as well. “Positive punishment” is the presentation of something aversive in response to a specific behavior. “Negative punishment” is the withdrawal of something preferred in response to a specific behavior.

The effectiveness and ethics of punishment are a mirror image of reinforcement. Negative punishment can be far less harsh and more effective than positive punishment. In ABA, punishment is also referred to as a “response cost.” The intent of punishment is to serve up a consequence that is unlikely to reinforce the behavior from happening again under similar circumstances.

Negative punishment can be taking away the wi-fi by changing the password until all the clean dishes in the dishwasher have been put away and the dirty dishes have been loaded into it like some young person’s chores list says they’re supposed to do. Giving them the new wi-fi password once the dishes are done positively reinforces doing the dishes. There’s a time and a place for everything.

Positive punishment in its ugliest form is abuse. It is usually the least effective and ethical approach to use. However, as I said, there is a time and place for everything. Sometimes consequences have to hurt badly before the lesson is learned, as a lot of pro-47 investors are starting to realize these days.

Another ABA concept that people need to understand and master is that of the “Extinction Burst.” There is misinformation about what this term means floating around out there and it doesn’t simply refer to the death throes of a behavior on its way out. That grossly oversimplifies the whole situation.

An extinction burst occurs when a behavior that was previously reinforced is no longer being reinforced. The individual escalates their behavior in an effort to force the reinforcer to nonetheless come.

For example, if you put money in a vending machine and a candy bar comes out every time, the candy bar consistently reinforces the behavior of putting money in the machine. If, however, the candy bar gets stuck in the machine and won’t come out one day, we don’t walk away sad never to use the machine again; we kick the crap out of the machine until the candy bar falls out.

We only give up on the machine if kicking it doesn’t work. After that, we’ll stop using the machine, and the machine-using behavior will become extinct. We might replace that behavior with another behavior, like using a different vending machine or buying snacks at the store, but we won’t go back to the machine that stole our money and candy again.

A lot of the insane behaviors we’re seeing at the federal level are an extinction burst of a sort on behalf of old, rich, white men who have gotten away with horrible things their entire lives and are just trying to maintain until they die. They are pulling every last desperate stunt they can think of to hold onto the power they managed to acquire over time through unscrupulous means in what was never an indefinitely sustainable plan due to its inherent flaws and departure from morality as their house of cards finally starts to fall. And, they don’t care who they hurt in the process, least of all children with disabilities who they regard as “useless eaters.”

What we cannot do is reinforce their behaviors. We have to starve their behaviors of rewards and mete out response costs where appropriate, which seems to be in a whole lot of cases. This is going to burden our judiciary for a long time to come, but it will also likely make the careers of up-and-coming attorneys and judges who come down on the right side of the rule of law, save democracy, and make history. Our system of checks and balances are being put to the test and our judiciary is largely standing up to the assault on our democracy that the executive branch is leading.

In our day-to-day lives, when we encounter the kinds of people who are swayed by the influence of 47 and his minions, we need to go in understanding that logic will not serve us and understanding the functions of their behaviors will get us much further. What is the thing that happened right before they did whatever they did that has us concerned? That’s our antecedent. What was the consequence they received immediately after engaging in the behavior? Did the consequence reward or punish their behavior, or did it have a neutral effect?

If you can learn to read the room according to the basic principles of ABA, it’s like Neo seeing “The Matrix” in code rather than as it renders. Once you learn how to see the world that way, you can’t turn it off and is so helpful!

At the end of the day, any behavior happens for only one of two reasons: to attain/acquire something or to escape/avoid something. This renders the function of a behavior down to binary code. Attaining/acquiring something is a 1 and escaping/avoiding something is a 0.

In every scientific and mathematical sense, behavior can be reduced down to 1s and 0s. If you can figure out what someone is trying to attain/acquire or escape/avoid, you’ve identified the function of their behavior. Once you know that, you can affect what types of consequences meet them when they engage in the behavior, as well as prevent antecedents from presenting themselves that would set them off in the first place. Proactive strategies seek to prevent the behavior where reactive strategies plan for what to do if the behavior still happens. Proactive prevention is more effective and healthier than allowing the behavior to happen and then having to react to it.

The best behavioral intervention strategies proactively teach a socially appropriate replacement behavior that serves the individual better than the maladaptive behavior being replaced. Extinguishing the maladaptive behavior without replacing it with a learned skill leaves the individual to their own devices to cook up a new way to address the same want/need that drove the maladaptive behavior in the first place. If you don’t give them a replacement behavior, they’ll come up with one on their own that has a high likelihood of being as maladaptive as the behavior that was extinguished.

Basically, it’s not enough to make them stop. We have to reward them for doing something more appropriate, instead. For example, one hypothetical solution to our current, modern-day problems with 47 and his administration could be that he negates all of his executive orders, voids all of his pardons of the J6 offenders, terminates his tariffs, resigns, and retires, and in exchange, upon assuming the Presidency, J.D. Vance pardons him of all federal crimes. At that point, 47 could go live out the brief remainder of his life at his resort in Florida surrounded by sycophants as the president who saved the economy by sacrificing his elected office, “a hero of the people forever.”

This hypothetical scenario would still leave 47 vulnerable to prosecutions at the State level, but I’m willing to believe he would die of old age before he ever saw the inside of a jail cell. At this point, the world is so broken that it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to do much to hold him accountable. He’s basically holding us hostage in exchange for a literal “get out of jail” card. He’d likely gladly give up the presidency in exchange for simply being let off the hook.

On a more personal level, that one crazy uncle, neighbor, sister-in-law, etc., who just doesn’t get it cannot be responded to with logic, but you can change what kinds of consequences they receive when they engage in certain behaviors. Ignoring minor behaviors and being overly thankful and attentive when they behavior appropriately goes a long way towards shaping their behaviors without them knowing it.

Suggesting alternatives to conspiracy theories as questions rather than assertions allows them to arrive at the sensible conclusion on their own. You just need to plant seeds. If they say something crazy, you can say, “That’s really interesting. I’m just wondering how they account for XYZ?” and describe some logical aspect of the situation they hadn’t considered. Follow it with, “Did they say anything about that?”

Once you plant that seed of doubt in their minds, they’re more likely to Google it later when you’re not around to see if it means anything. If your logic blows their conspiracy theory apart, they may not come back and say anything to you about it. In fact, you may never hear about that particular conspiracy theory again.

The more you pique their curiosity with innocent questions that don’t imply you doubt them at all, the more they will figure it out on their own. They are far more likely to own it if it was their conclusion rather than someone else correcting them directly. If they do come back and say something about it, it’s to say they looked into and it turned out to be crap.

The question you asked got to bugging them and they had to look It up. When they did, they realized the whole thing was a bunch of BS. They may be chagrined, but nonetheless wiser. If you have a good relationship with them, they may even laugh with you about it and appreciate that you didn’t make them feel stupid by correcting them and let them figure it out for themselves.

You want to positively reinforce their curiosity, not positively punish their uninformed opinions. You want to positively reinforce their self-discovery of the truth. You want to ignore their misstatements of facts and/or inaccurate conclusions and redirect them towards the truth with an innocent curious question.

Shift the blame for not understanding onto yourself when posing innocent curious questions. Say things like, “I guess I’m just not getting it. Why do they do XYZ when ABC is happening?” or “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand why they don’t just do XYZ and call it good. Am I missing something?”

End with comments like, “Wouldn’t that be interesting to know?” or “Let me know if you ever find out anything about that.” Keep it friendly and cordial, knowing that you are guiding them towards the truth in the kindest way possible, maintaining their dignity, and not humiliating them when they finally own the truth.

Punishing them for finally getting it defeats the whole purpose of trying to get them to get it. When they finally have their “Come to Jesus moment,” it has to be rewarding for them to “come to Jesus.” There has to be forgiveness and mercy on the other side of that experience once they finally get it, or we’ll lose them and we need them as allies to oppose the forces that would otherwise oppress us all.

Conscripting them into the fight would not earn their devotion to the cause. They need to understand what is really going on so that they are invested in fighting for democracy with the rest of us according to a shared understanding of the facts. We need to earn their partnership by graciously helping them overcome their knowledge and skill deficits through reinforcing their appropriate behaviors and discouraging their inappropriate ones on a person-by-person, day-by-day basis, and only a public informed about ABA is going to be able to do that, hence this post/podcast.

All of this further translates to what I’ve been building up to this whole time, which is discerning truth in media. When you can apply ABA principles in your day-to-day interactions with people without having to think about it, you will find yourself picking apart things in the media that don’t add up. The functions of some people’s behaviors will be suspect based on what consequences have rewarded them and won’t match how they’re being reported.

With peer-reviewed research and other technical reports, the true test of validity is when other people can replicate the same study or practices and obtain the same or similar results. The more times different people come up with the same results doing the same things, the more reliable the science becomes; this is what we called an “evidence-based practice.”

When people attempt to assert that something has been scientifically proven, a quick trip to scholar.google.com and a search on the topic will provide you with whatever science has been published on the topic. Some of it may be behind a paywall, but you can at least read the abstracts and see what their conclusions were. In any event, if something is legitimately supported by science, you can verify it this way.

Similarly, when people say that something is “the law,” ask them “Which law?” If they can’t identify the actual law, or at least the section of law (i.e., “state vehicle code, “ or “state education code,” etc.), then ask them where they learned it was the law and search the internet for trustworthy information about whatever they say in response.

If it’s case law from a court case, then they should know the name of at least one of the parties and where the case was tried. They may not know if it was state or federal, but they know what state it was in. Or, they may not know the state, but they know it was a state case and not federal. They should have some details about which case it is if they’re citing anything even possibly legitimate, in which case you can look it up through one of the many state or federal case look-up sites or just Google it.

PACER is the site I use for federal cases, but just a Google search can often turn up the cases I’m looking for, state or federal, if I have enough information about them to feed into the search engine.  PACER is cheap, but it’s not free like Google. The beauty of PACER is that it will give you all the publicly available records on a federal case once you’ve pulled it up, so you can see exactly what the court documents say and reach your own conclusions. Every state has its own unique system of case look-up portals that work in a similar fashion.

Because most of the arguments that need to be won are between fact and fiction, graciously steering misinformed people to discover the facts for themselves from reliable sources of information allows them to come to more accurate conclusions on their own, become more educated voters, preserves their dignity, and allows them to become part of the pro-democracy community with forgiveness and caring.

Making sure you don’t become one of the misled means looking to where the reliable data comes from and keeping things as simple as 1s and 0s as possible. When you can reduce things down to their simplest expression, it’s easier to figure out what to do. You have to eliminate all the noise of the pieces of data that aren’t the most important and focus on the few that are critical in order to create working system. You can tweak the details and make it pretty later, but you first need a functioning construct.

Please do your own personal research into ABA and how it can be applied in your day-to-day life. I promise it will change your perspective on the whole world and equip you with skills to navigate the world around you better than anything else you could learn.

What I’ve included herein is very basic, but I hope for our lay readers and listeners out there who were not already familiar with this science that I’ve given you a lot to think about and a new way to do it. I hope this information borrowed from my work in special education lay advocacy, paralegal support to attorneys, and educational psychology has translated well into information you can apply in your own unique life situations and that it serves you now and forever.

 #ABA #specialeducation #504 #ADA #IEP #students #parents #democracy #civilrights #disabilityrights #handsoff 

Posted on

See Our Instagram Live Video with Talkido

On Friday, February 7, 2025, I participated in an Instagram Live event with Ege Cakaloz of Talkido to discuss how I’m using their screen-free technology to teach emotional vocabulary and social/emotional concepts to a young man with a seizure disorder, intellectual disability, autism, and vision loss. Learn how I am using Talkido’s technology to increase my client’s functional communication skills and independence by watching the recorded event, here.

Posted on

Using AI-Generated Music to Teach Social Scripts

I have to say from the start that this is not a paid endorsement, and endorsing specific products is not something I normally do, but I’ve discovered a tool that has been a game-changer for how I work with one of my direct services clients as his counselor. That solution is using AI to create songs that are individualized to a specific person with lyrics based on therapeutically appropriate social scripts tailored to the person.

I discovered this solution in the course of looking for ways to embed peer-reviewed music therapy elements into my counseling sessions with this client because he is highly responsive to music, and seems to remember lyrics set to music better than spoken words. Given that he’s lost his eyesight, we’ve got to rely on his other senses.

I was looking for an easy way to generate songs he would take seriously as legitimate musical productions that contained the social scripts, such as “safe hands,” “inside voice,” and “be patient,” with which he was already familiar in order to expand his understanding and application of these concepts in his day-to-day life. I’m still shocked at how easy it was with the AI.

These individualized songs are also serving as a stepping-off point to teach my client new, more sophisticated social/emotional skills and scripts, going forward, once he’s incorporated them into his music listening routines and we work with them in our sessions. As time goes on, I’ll be adding new songs that tackle more sophisticated concerns than those that I’ve initially created to get him started.

My counseling client is in his late 20s and lives in a group home with 2 other men who have developmental disabilities. My client is blind, autistic, and intellectually disabled. He struggles to produce spontaneous speech and relies largely on scripted speech to communicate verbally with others.

Since 2010, I’ve been this young man’s lay advocate, his attorney’s paralegal, his compensatory education services provider. He and I have gotten to know each other well and have instant rapport with each other, even after not seeing each other in person for a couple of years.

Given the friendship and rapport I share with my client, I guess I shouldn’t have been as surprised as I was at how quickly he took to the songs I created for him using AI, but I was actually flabbergasted. It was during my last session with him, in which I was collecting the last of the baseline data I needed to inform my program goals for him over the next 10 months, when I introduced the songs to him.

The moment I started playing the songs, the stimming decreased to nearly none and he sat listening, turning his head so his ears faced the music, and orienting to me as if looking me in the face to repeat familiar scripts he was hearing in the lyrics with a grin on his face. He was fully engaged and it took next to no effort from me. I was floored. I was sure that I was going to have to work to sell him on the idea, but he took to it like a fish to water.

This has left me inspired, because I know he can’t be the only one who would benefit from this. I was in an online IEP meeting for one of my other students a few days ago, and mentioned this experience to the other professionals who were already logged into the meeting, while we were waiting for the parent and a few other professionals to log in. When I told my colleagues about what I’d done using the AI with social scripts to create highly individualized music for therapeutic purposes, they got all excited about it.

So, based on the feedback I’ve gotten so far, I’m stopping what I’m doing right now to bust out this short post/podcast to share this information with anyone else who might benefit from it so that I can let it go and move on with the rest of my day. This is going to keep bugging me until I share it, and it’s preventing me from finishing anything else until it’s off my plate. Call me perseverative if you want; it is what it is. Thankfully, this can be fairly brief.

The music-generating AI website I stumbled upon after 30 whole seconds of Googling is MakeBestMusic (https://makebestmusic.com/app/create-music). Again, this is not a paid endorsement.

I didn’t compare this AI against any other. It was the first one I tried and it instantly gave me what I was looking for in just the free demo. I copied and pasted the list of social scripts that I wanted incorporated into a song, selected some genre-specific tags, and hit the “go” button, then a minute or so later, I had two new songs using the words I’d provided as lyrics and one of them was absolutely perfect. I repeated the process for three more sets of social scripts and ended up with a total of four songs.

For the sake of illustrating my point, I’m playing one of them, titled “Ask for Help,” here:

Listen to the lyrics and you’ll hear that they are clearly about social behaviors, but it’s sounds like a real song and not lame like something I’d make up if I had to do it myself. The robots do it better than me, and for these limited purposes, that’s okay.

I’m not trying to earn an award for high quality music. I’m trying to teach my client how to act right around other people and still live a happy life for himself. For those of us who could never afford to outsource this kind of work to a professional songwriter, AI is a sufficient tool for this type of job.

Given that a less than professional job can serve a valid therapeutic purpose using AI at a much lower cost, using AI-generated music to embed music therapy elements into a program of social/emotional counseling with individuals who have developmental disabilities can be an affordable and powerful tool in a counselor’s arsenal of solutions. I encourage my colleagues who work with individuals with needs similar to those of my counseling client to play around with this type of technology and see what kinds of solutions you can create.

If you’re the parent, you probably have even more ideas about how you could use this around your home with your own family members. Seriously think about setting the step-by-step instructions on how to perform certain chores to music to play when you have your kids helping you around the house. Once the song gets stuck in their heads, so are the instructions on how to perform those chores.

I think AI-generated music holds a lot of currently untapped potential for parenting, teaching, and therapeutic interventions, and I’m curious to see how other people use it in these kinds of ways as time goes on. What instructional, parental, and/or therapeutic outcomes can you pursue using AI-generated music?

Posted on

Project 2025 and Special Education

Most people these days have now heard about Project 2025. It’s now one of the most commonly searched terms on the internet these days. These fascist shysters aren’t even trying to cover up what they are doing anymore, but what I want to emphasize as I start this post/podcast is that none of the Project 2025 agenda is anything new and these are the same exact people we’ve been up against in public education at the local level for the entire time that I’ve worked as a special education lay advocate, paralegal, and educational consultant, starting in 1991.

These individuals now feel even more emboldened by their far-right leaders and they are now done pretending that they work within public education to teach children. They are now openly acknowledging that they want to hijack our government of, for, and by the People so they can, among other horrible things, replace our public education system with programs of extremist indoctrination that promotes white male wealth at the expense of everyone else. They have never been in support of special education because people with disabilities, particularly if they are not white male landowners, are less than human to them.

None of this new. These are the same people who made the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) necessary in the first place. We wouldn’t need laws that protect people with disabilities in our public schools, other government agencies, and the community at large if it weren’t for these same exact people. For the same reasons that honor and ethics alone cannot be expected from Supreme Court justices without regulatory oversight, our public agencies from top to bottom cannot be expected to function in an honorable and ethical manner without controlling regulations and systems of accountability.

It doesn’t help that the people responsible for Project 2025 are almost guaranteed to, themselves, be mentally and/or emotionally impaired in some kind of way such that they are incapable of viewing other people as equal in worth to themselves and have a collective compulsion to identify classes of individuals to target for abuse for being different from themselves. There is no universe in which any of that kind of behavior reflects intact social/emotional development. It appears that nearly 1/3rd of our population is personality disordered or similarly impaired, and the difficult thing about these types of disorders is that those who suffer from them are often incapable of understanding that they are the ones with the problems. This is why they consistently blame everyone else for the consequences of their own behaviors. There is no logic or mental health in any of it.

Personality disorders and conditions with similar features have nothing to do with intelligence or communication abilities. Take, for example, the current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who insists the Earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, thereby making the Flintstones historically accurate. One would think that he is cognitively intact enough to mentally process the facts and evidence to the contrary, and he technically is, but his social/emotional underdevelopment compels him to ignore facts that contradict his worldview, no matter how insane it is. The fact that he is communicatively adept also helps him superficially appear more competent than he really is, which is exactly what makes him and people like him so dangerous.

People like this can “pass” as developmentally intact, at least temporarily, because they can successfully mimic the behaviors of intact people up to a point, but it’s all scripted language and learned behaviors meant to help them navigate a world mostly full of sane people. They are masking to gain access to the things they need to meet their wants and needs, but they lack the social/emotional development to understand the perspectives of others and assume anyone who doesn’t agree with them is automatically in the wrong. They are each the center of their own little personal universes, functioning at an egocentric level that is age-typical in young children, but handicapping at ages beyond early childhood. Other people are simply objects in orbit around them, like furniture and buildings, that are either useful to them in the moment or not, and every decision they make is entirely selfish.

It doesn’t even occur to people like this that other people have their own unique wants and needs that are often very different from their own, which is why they seek to create homogenous rather than diverse communities and target anyone who disagrees with them with abuse. From a social/emotional developmental standpoint, they are like toddlers who don’t want to share. They consider the conflicting needs of others to be an affront to themselves, and use their adult-level knowledge, communication skills, and access to resources to pursue their selfish desires without regard for how their behavior impacts anyone else, other than what they can get other people to do for them.

With that in mind, I want to point out something obvious: Legitimately oppressed people do not have the means to book private jets to go protest their alleged oppression. I say that because individuals of the Project 2025 ilk did exactly that on January 6, 2021. Nobody just wakes up one day that dumb. This is the consequence of failing to grow all the way up, from a social/emotional developmental standpoint.

What this tells us is that privileged childhoods pose great risks of impairing children’s social/emotional development and producing adults who view the world through the eyes of toddlers their entire lives, which is tragic. It’s tragic because they are victims of circumstances that turn them into well-financed perpetrators of harm against the rest of us, carrying out the well-financed social/emotional agendas of toddlers using adult-level cognition and communication skills that allow them to “pass” as intact long enough to cause serious harm to all of us, and entirely lacking in the will or ability to take responsibility for what they’ve done.

In every case that has not been resolved through responsible adult collaborations from my caseload over the years, it has always been because of these types of people who have managed to infiltrate public agency administrations who were/are at the heart of the conflicts. These are the administrators making $200K per year or more to deny children with disabilities the supports and services promised to them by law and funded by the taxpaying public. They will deny services and supports to eligible children because they don’t want to pay for them. They think it’s a waste of money to invest those taxpayer dollars into children with disabilities, while lining their own pockets at taxpayer expense, as though they’ve done a service to the public by refusing to fund appropriate supports and services for children with disabilities.

One of the earliest litigation cases around these issues, which set the stage for what would ultimately become the IDEA, was PARC v. Pennsylvania. In that 1971 case, the public schools in Pennsylvania wouldn’t even enroll students with disabilities, instead sending them home to languish without any kinds of services or education. This case laid the groundwork for what would become the IEP process by mandating the hiring of a psychologist and an attorney to develop a best-practices model for creating Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) for each student based on their individual unique learning needs. Getting the public schools to abide by any of this since then has been a challenge because of the anti-democratic individuals already employed within the public education system at and since that time.

In 1971, public education administration was dominated by white men who wanted to use their positions to build their own personal wealth and become landowners at taxpayer expense. Women were largely limited to the classroom and support administrative staff at school sites and local school district offices. The public education system was created during the Industrial Revolution following the passage of child labor laws intended to prevent children from being maimed and killed working in factories or otherwise running the streets unsupervised. Men ran the schools and harassed their female employees, resulting in teacher’s unions being created around the same issues as those confronted by factory workers who were also unionizing at the time.

Eventually, school district administrations became more visibly “Karen”-dominated than overtly male-dominated, but the “Karens” have always been acting according to the expectations of the men who control their lives, both at work and at home. They have always been willing to throw families under the school bus in exchange for the favor of the men who control how much disposable income and creature comforts they have in their lives. This is similar psychology as that found in women who help male rapists capture their victims, like Ghislaine Maxwell.

The political divide has been present since our public education system was first created, with the “haves” trying to use it as a mechanism to maintain their relative positions of power and oppress the “have nots.” These are the people who insist that our government needs to be run like a business, because businesses generate profits, not constituent outcomes, and they believe in sacrificing constituent outcomes to generate profit for themselves at taxpayer expense. None of these people could possibly make the same money in the private sector because they lack the competence to be successful at private sector-level grift and would be lucky to be trusted with the responsibility of handing out flyers at the front door of a Wal-Mart because they are so inherently self-serving and dishonest.

People who cannot conceptualize the humanity of others will always put their own personal interests and greed before the welfare of others, and see nothing wrong with turning a public service responsibility into a profiteering grift. Like I said before, none of this is new and it’s what I’ve been fighting against since 1991.

The rule of law is our shield and weapon for protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities in our publicly funded education programs and society at large. This is why parents have due process rights in the special education process and can file regulatory complaints with the state departments of education or the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). You can see an example of what we’ve been able to accomplish using OCR complaints by clicking here.

Readers and listeners may recall that, upon being appointed by the 45th President as Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos immediately shut down OCR, even though federal law mandates its existence. Two nationwide nonprofit advocacy organizations banded together to sue DeVos and the U.S. Department of Education for shutting down OCR, but it took approximately 18 months of litigation before the courts ordered DeVos to re-open OCR, at which point it had a mountain of back-due complaints to investigate. OCR has been backlogged ever since and the pandemic only made it a thousand times worse. Investigations that the law requires be done in 180 days generally take over 2 years to get finished.

Betsy DeVos already tried to hobble the U.S. Department of Education during the 45th presidential administration, and was temporarily successful until stopped by the the courts. She openly admitted during her term that her goal was to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and put an end to it. You will note that Project 2025 has that same objective. They’ve already tried to do this and they make no bones about their intent to permanently shut it down if the 45th President becomes the 47th President in November 2024.

Without the U.S. Department of Education, there is no IDEA, no OCR, and no due process. Section 504 would no longer apply to school-aged children because it only applies to federal agencies and entities that receive federal funding, like our public schools currently do. The ADA would theoretically still apply to students in private school programs and whatever kinds of indoctrination camps might be created in place of our public schools, but Project 2025 seeks to replace anyone employed within the public sector not sufficiently loyal to their chosen leader with individuals who put loyalty to their “dear leader” above the rule of law and the rights of others. It cannot be realistically expected that the Project 2025 people would lift a finger to help students with disabilities under such circumstances.

In short, the implementation of Project 2025 spells an immediate end for special education and all of the legal protections currently afforded under law to students with disabilities.

It’s already hard enough now to get a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) according to the applicable science and rule of law because these people have been obstructing the legitimate functions of their government agencies this whole time. If they are allowed to have things their way after November 2024, all of the parents of children with special needs who are reading or listening to what I’m saying right now are going to find themselves stuck at home with their special needs kids with no school, no special needs childcare, and, therefore, no way to hold down a job and take care of their families. It would only be a matter of time before a great many of our parents of special needs kids out there would lose their homes and end up on the street with their special needs kids, in a world in which the Supreme Court has now said homelessness can be regarded as illegal.

Right now, regardless of who the Democrats put on their presidential ticket next November, voting for a Blue bucket of mud would be better for children with disabilities, their families, and all the rest of us than voting for the Republican nominee. Voting for a president is not electing a king, it’s electing an entire administration of people who are supervised by a president. Any president is the chief executive of a whole cabinet of people, and those people are, quite frankly, more important than who sits at the head of the table. The current administration has done more for the American people and the world at large, regardless of its president’s age, because of all the other people working around him. Understand how our government is supposed to work and don’t get it twisted.

If the 45th President becomes the 47th President, Project 2025 tells you the exact kinds of people he’ll have sitting on his cabinet and staffing our government agencies from top to bottom, many of whom are already on the inside just waiting for this moment, and they will all defer to him as their dictatorial leader as they implement their fascist fever dreams as fast as they can. When you’re voting for a president, it’s more about the team that person will bring into the office and less about the individual sitting at the head of the table than I think most people realize. What team do you want making decisions about what happens to your child with special needs and your family? If you are eligible to do so, please vote in November 2024.

Posted on

Trauma-Informed Special Education Evaluations & Programming

Photo credit Kelly Short (colorized photo from circa 1936)

Attention is finally being given to the effects of childhood trauma on childhood development and learning, but it’s still not fully incorporated into the mainstream as common knowledge. Only when trauma-informed education becomes the norm can childhood trauma be prevented and responded-to with greater efficacy.

Because trauma often begets mental health issues, not the least of which being Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and can also result in permanent physical disabilities, depending on the nature of the trauma, individuals with such impairments can become eligible for protections under disability-related laws. This includes Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (504), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

For this reason, one would think that the special education community is conducting trauma-informed assessments and considering the trauma-related needs of its students with IEPs. One would be thinking incorrectly, however. I’ve lost count of the number of special education assessments I’ve seen that are entirely silent regarding the unique traumatizing events of a student’s past, like they just didn’t happen or are entirely irrelevant to the assessment process, including in mental health evaluations.

I’m dealing with one of those, right now, as a matter of fact. The very signs of trauma and the historical events that likely contributed to them were described in detail to the mental health assessor, and none of those details appeared anywhere in her report. So, basically, what I took from the situation was that some ding-dong baby doll who fell out of the lap of luxury and into a master’s degree in social work was dispatched to assess a student with some pretty significant symptoms who had previously lived for 11 months with her mother in their car and who had also witnessed her mother getting mowed down in the street by a car while they were crossing the street together at a protected cross-walk, leaving this student as a young child to scream for help in the middle of the street. None of these past traumatic events were discussed in the assessment report, nor were any of the symptoms that had been brought to the assessor’s attention. She interviewed the student once via Zoom and noted that the student wasn’t very forthcoming, and relied on classroom observations conducted by a school psychologist, who is not a mental health clinician.

Thankfully, once it was brought to his attention, the involved school district’s special education director was just as taken aback as I was and immediately agreed to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in mental health at public expense, which is basically a second opinion conducted by an outside, uninvolved provider, that is funded by the District. We’re in the process of finding an outside assessor to conduct it, but we expect the situation for this student to be resolved once it’s done. However, this was just the latest of several cases we’ve worked in this same District over the last 15 years in which trauma and mental health issues are not being properly considered, and it’s a problem that is not unique to this particular district. It seems to be a fairly systemic problem in cases we encounter from around the country.

So, I want to focus on what trauma-informed special education assessments and programming look like in actual practice, and how the applicable science and law come together around trauma-related special needs that require 504/ADA accommodations and/or IEPs. I first want to direct you to the peer-reviewed research, starting with the article, “Considerations for Incorporating Trauma-Informed Care Content within Special Education Teacher Preparation and Professional Development Programs,” which appeared in Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021) of the Journal of Special Education Preparation, the full text of which is available for free online.

I think this article does a good job of explaining what it means to incorporate Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) into special education, so I’m not going to do a lot of rehashing, here. One of the things I like about this article is that it doesn’t just speak to special education as a stand-alone entity; it discusses the application of trauma-informed care within an evidence-based Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), such as that found with Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), which are meant to catch students before they fall too far behind and provide them with whatever types of supports they need to be successful, whether through special or general education. This naturally lends it to speak to the related “child find” issues.

This article cites other researchers by saying: “… adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; Felitti et al., 1998) … are all common experiences for students with emotional/behavioral disorders (Cavanaugh, 2016).” Certainly, one way to identify children who may need special education as per “child find” is to look at those already known to have experienced ACEs to determine if they are showing any signs of emotional and/or behavioral disorders. The moment it is known that a general education student has survived a traumatic event, a special education assessment referral should be made and it should include sufficiently comprehensive mental health evaluations to accurately capture any impact the traumatic event has had on the child’s ability to access and participate in education. Even if the child ultimately does not qualify for special education, Section 504 relies on the special education process to gather its own assessment data to inform appropriate 504/ADA accommodations for children with disabilities who do not require special education.

If the child is unavailable for learning due to extreme trauma, then the interventions have to restore the child to the point of being available for learning again, unless the child is medically incapacitated. If medical interventions are first necessary, those obviously come before any special education or 504/ADA accommodations. A child has to be physically medically stabilized before they are available to participate in education and anyone can know what to do for them at school. New assessments will have to be done to determine the student’s new baselines once physical medical stability is achieved.

If the child is psychiatrically incapacitated, it may be necessary for that child to be placed in a residential psychiatric treatment facility with an onsite school in order for the child to become available for learning. I’m not a huge fan of residential placement, but there’s a time and a place for everything. I’ve had a number of students benefit tremendously from a special education residential placement for these kinds of severe mental health needs, though I’ve also had students on my caseload molested and assaulted in some of the residential programs, so this model of intervention is hardly a monolith or panacea.

The above-cited article makes the following recommendations: “Considerations for special education professional development includes teachers undergoing an extensive training that addresses the following components:

Understanding Trauma and ACEs: School site staff who do not have a professional understanding of what trauma is, what ACEs are, and how they affect student performance are at a gross disadvantage when it comes to actually serving the public good. The pervasiveness of trauma in everyday life, anymore, is something we all have to consider when dealing with each other. We should certainly be able to expect our professionals who encounter it in the field daily to have an intelligent plan of action for how to respond to it appropriately in their professional capacities. We shouldn’t be ending up with privileged ding-dongs with fancy degrees who can’t recognize what they’re looking at when they encounter childhood trauma in the field.

Challenging current thought processes vs. TIC attributions: Long-entrenched policies and practices that fail to meet the needs of certain populations are effectively institutionalized biases against them. In professional settings in which no policies and procedures exist to appropriately respond to the needs of students who have experienced ACEs and trauma, there is no institutionalized response to proactively address the situation, which becomes an institutionalized proactive effort to ignore it. When people feel powerless to help someone being hurt by something, it’s a natural psychological defense mechanism for them to blame the victim for deserving mistreatment rather than live with feelings of helplessness, powerlessness, cowardice, or whatever else feels bad that goes along with not helping. Victim-blaming is meant to offset feelings of guilt for not helping.

Too often, adults in the public school setting become angry at children for manifesting the symptoms of trauma and ACEs, punishing them instead of helping them and making a bad situation worse. There is no excuse for this kind of conduct in a professional educational setting, and certainly not in this day and age when there is plenty of peer-reviewed research capturing strategies and approaches that actually work. As I’ve said in other posts, however, there are no real mechanisms in place in public education at this time for the consistent promulgation of the peer-reviewed research among the educators to equip them with the resources to translate the research into actual, practical classroom applications.

Where parents really need to get vocal at their school board meetings is in advocating for the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of public education. It’s not like we don’t have evidence of what works. Education research continues to compile and accrue over time into an ever-enriching body of knowledge that can be used to solve so many of the world’s ills that it should be a crime that it’s not already being actively applied by competent professionals throughout the public education system on the regular.

Identifying ways educators may be trauma-informed: It seems that using logic models has been the most effective way to communicate concepts around identifying ways that educators can become trauma-informed. The School District of Philadelphia has created a logic model that serves as a useful example, which is illustrated below.

You can look at this logic model more closely by clicking on the images or the link in this post. What you can see once you look at it is that the District’s MTSS incorporates TIC into its design. I can’t speak to the fidelity with which The School District of Philadelphia actually abides by this design or the degree to which it works. I can only show it to you as an example of how to create this kind of a design, which requires staff to be trained on how to implement it in order for it to actually work. By creating this kind of operational framework and training everyone within the school site on how to carry it out, staff become informed on what to look for and what to do when they see it, when it comes to trauma and its potential for undermining student learning.

Direct overview of MTSS: The above example shows how TICs are woven into an existing MTSS. Very often, special education personnel don’t understand where they fit into the overall tiers of intervention, and usually because the rest of their co-workers and superiors have no idea, either. None of these MTSS designs will work if staff don’t recognize themselves in all of the pieces of the design for which they are each actually responsible. It’s not enough to create a pretty logic model on paper. The logic model has to actually be executed according to its design or it’s worthless. To that end, it is imperative that both general and special education staff understand where the lines are drawn between their two universes and a child needs to be referred for special education assessment.

I actually have a case from my past that I can refer to as an example. In this case, the district had some kind of MTSS but it had failed to work in special education and the “child find” process in any kind of meaningful way. As such, staff didn’t know their roles when it came to “child find” and made mistakes all over the place. This was a case of multiple ding-dongs who had no idea what they were doing, trying to fake their ways through the MTSS design process and botching it royally. What’s worse is that the involved student in this example was being raised by his grandmother, who had been a teacher for this same school district for over 30 years at the time of this hearing, and her daughter, the student’s mother, had gone on to become a teacher of the same district, as well. The employees of this district were doing this to each other’s families, and purely out of ignorance and a grotesque leadership failure.

When done correctly, a school- or district-wide MTSS that incorporates TIC will naturally lend itself to helping those children who need special education mental health supports for any reason. Investing in developing a high-quality MTSS that incorporates TIC will appropriately funnel the children who need special education mental health services into the appropriate levels of intervention relative to their unique, individual needs.

That said, it’s not enough to simply refer children suffering from mental health issues related to trauma for assessment. The quality of the assessments conducted matter and leaving out critical information about the trauma a child has already experienced and how it is affecting that child’s learning is a fatal flaw that compromises the validity of the assessment and gives the parents a legitimate reason to disagree and request IEEs at public expense.

Administrators looking to cut corners will often try to minimize costs by having school psychologists do some basic social/emotional assessments instead of having proper mental health evaluations done by licensed mental health providers. This is no place to be cutting corners. First, it saves no money in the long run. Pretending the problem isn’t as bad as it actually is will blow up in your face, eventually. The longer the problem goes untreated, the harder and more costly it will become to address later on. Secondly, it’s heinously unethical. What kind of a person do you have to be to deny necessary mental health services because you don’t want to spend the money? Any school district administrators who think their budgets are more important than the lives of their students shouldn’t be employed in public education. The budget exists for the benefit of the students, not the administration. For that matter, school district administrators exist for the benefit of students; students do not exist for the purpose of lining administrators’ pockets with unearned tax dollars.

I know the technical issues of how to integrate TIC into a schoolwide system of successful interventions is a topic worthy of a full-day workshop and I’m not doing justice to the entire issue, here. But, I’m hoping that I’ve given you enough to think about TIC in special education and some pointers towards some resources that can help you as a parent, educator, and/or concerned taxpayer to address these kinds of challenges. We need to appreciate the degree to which special education can be a tool to protect our local communities and national security from unstable individuals responding to their personal traumas in ways that can hurt many other people in addition to themselves. In this day and age of mass shootings by people suffering from significant mental health issues, we can’t neglect to preempt these behaviors where we can by intervening in the lives of children who experience trauma and/or have mental and emotional health needs that affect their access to learning and behaviors. It takes a village to raise a child, and this is how it’s done when the child has experienced trauma.

Posted on

Interview of George Bailey, President of ZPods

https://zpodsforsleep.com

Transcript of Interview:

Anne Zachry 0:00
Welcome to “Making Special Education Actually Work,” an online publication presented in blog in podcast form by KPS4Parents. As an added benefit to our subscribers and visitors to our site, we’re making podcast versions of our text-only blog articles so that you can get the information you need on the go by downloading and listening at your convenience. We also occasionally conduct discussions with guest speakers via our podcast and transcribe the audio into text for our followers who prefer to read the content on our blog. Where the use of visual aids legal citations and references to other websites are used to better illustrate our points and help you understand the information, these tools appear in the text-only portion of the blog post of which this podcast is a part. You will hear a distinctive sound [bell sound] during this podcast whenever reference is made to content that includes a link to another article, website, or download. Please refer back to the original blog article to access these resources.

Anne Zachry 0:58
Today is March 31 2022. This post in podcast is titled, “Interview of George Bailey, president of ZPods.” In this podcast, which was originally recorded on March 23 2022, George and I discuss the impact of sleep disorders and related conditions that interfere with children’s access to education and the research being done into his company’s sleep solutions for children with autism, sensory integration disorders, insomnia, anxiety, and other disorders that can negatively impact their sleep quality.

George Bailey 1:29
Hi, I’m George Bailey, and I’m president of ZPods. We’re a startup in St. Louis, and we are developing sensory-friendly beds for autistic children and others who have severe sleep problems that are caused by sensory issues. So, our goal is to help out as many of these kids as possible. We enjoy it … and, uh, yeah.

Anne Zachry 1:54
That’s very cool. And I know that when I was emailing with you guys back and forth, when we were coordinating all of this, you know, my first question was what kind of peer reviewed research do you have behind what you’re doing? Are you doing any kind of studies? And, I understand that, not only are you … because you were just telling me that you’ve got a regional center here in California that’s already funded your product for one of its consumers, and they’re not going to just jump on something unless there’s evidence to back it up. But I know that you guys are also participating in some evidence … some studies and whatnot to collect the hard data that speaks to not just whether or not it’s effective, but what makes it effective. How is it effective? And what is the science that underpins what it is that you’re doing? And so I was hoping to get more information about that from you guys, in terms of what’s … what’s the research currently being done on the efficacy of your solution?

George Bailey 2:44
It’s such a good question. And, you know, I was just telling somebody earlier that one of the reasons why it took us a while to get around to really focusing on autism … we were thinking about, like, you know, “Where we should go?” … is because when people would tell us, you know, look at autism, early on, as we were trying to find an application for sleep pods that were great. We were bringing it from China, I balked at it. I’m a father of five. And I have two kids on the spectrum. And I thought like, “Ah, come on guys,” … like, parents of autistic children get all sorts of stuff.

Anne Zachry 3:19
Oh, yeah, for sure.

George Bailey 3:20
… business. Yeah. I don’t want business on playing on people’s hopes and stuff like that. And so I, initially when I approached him, and said, “Okay, I want to take this serious, because we’re getting that feedback that says we should do this.” But I started talking to experts, and with parents of autistic children, and interacting with autistic children of my own. And the feedback was a resounding, “Please try it.” And I think that … so, I’m going to answer your question two parts: I think that there’s an intuitive evidence and I think that there’s going to be actual evidence and the intuitive of evidence is kind of based on all of our collective experience.

Anne Zachry 3:59
Right, the anecdotal data. Yeah.

George Bailey 4:00
Yeah, yeah. There’s some heavy anecdotal evidence that’s seems to say, like, these children really value … they have the same needs as if … in that there’s, kind of, like, one type.

Anne Zachry 4:11
Right. There’s no monoliths, but, yeah, kids with similar needs. Yeah.

George Bailey 4:15
Yeah. These kids tend to love sleeping in the closet, under the bed, up against the wall, and … there’s something that’s like it. And there was enough there for us to see, so there was something there. But, all of the things that, kind of, come together out of this bed, it was not built for kid’s processing, initially. It was just, like, an enclosure with some LED lights and some fans and a mirror, and all of those elements, when combined together, seemed to form this really fantastic environment. And if you were to take any one of those things, separately … study this out and find some interesting things. Like for example, when you enclose somebody, then you give them darkness … well, darkness is heavily prescribed for good sleep hygiene.

Anne Zachry 5:06
Right.

George Bailey 5:06
… darker or something like that. It’s separate, but the enclosure itself provides almost like a sensory …

Anne Zachry 5:12
Right.

George Bailey 5:13
And, then, LED lights, you know, again, heavily used in the sensory, or special needs community …

Anne Zachry 5:22
Right.

George Bailey 5:22
Heavily used. And so all of these things … Now, where we’re at with clinical trials is that we’ve been in touch with the folks at the Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders.

Anne Zachry 5:27
Um-hmm.

George Bailey 5:37
The lead clinician for this project is going to be Dr. Christina McCrae, who is published widely on autism and sleep, and that was a must. We needed somebody to do … to ask the right questions …

Anne Zachry 5:48
Right.

George Bailey 5:49
… not do what we say. I am trying my best to remove myself from the academic questions as much as possible to just, kind of, stand back and let them do their work.

Anne Zachry 6:01
Right.

George Bailey 6:01
Because, it needs an honest assessment. That was my stance from the beginning, is that, if were going to go into this, here’s how we’re going to look at it: We’re going to find out what’s true. And what’s true may not be as flattering as what we’d like, or maybe it’ll be moreso. Maybe it will be better than, you know … maybe we’re not being optimistic enough? I don’t know.

Anne Zachry 6:20
Right.

George Bailey 6:21
… but if we learned that “X” works … and we will continue to do facts …

Anne Zachry 6:25
Exactly!

George Bailey 6:26
… if we can say, if we learned that, “Y” doesn’t, then we will also chalk that up to success and say we’re going to stop doing “Y.” And if we learned that we should probably … there’s an implication here that we should be trying “Z,” then we’re going to start pursuing that. We’re not …

Anne Zachry 6:43
Right.

George Bailey 6:43
… because I think that it requires that kind of mentality to really test this out. So …

Anne Zachry 6:49
Well, yeah. I mean, any kind of solution requires that kind of mentality. That’s just common sense. Which, you know, we also call scientific method.

George Bailey 6:59
It’s hard to do this in our community. When you’re an entrepreneur, you’re hustling and you’re getting out there. You’re constantly … you just gotta, you know, sell, sell, sell, and you got to pitch your brand, bla bla bla. But you got to break out of that sometimes and just listen to what is being told to you.

Anne Zachry 7:19
Right.

George Bailey 7:19
And sometimes even … sometimes that’s hard, but you put your heart and your mind to it and your … and your money, as well. It’s very difficult, but at the same time, if you listen, then the rewards in terms of, kind of, like, personal satisfaction that you are doing right by the people that you’re trying to serve … Pretty tremendous!

Anne Zachry 7:40
Yeah, and I have to agree with that. Well, and what you’re making me think of is that the psychology of sales and marketing is the exact same science as the psychology of good instruction. It’s … it’s all the same thing.

George Bailey 7:52
Yes!

Anne Zachry 7:53
It’s all the same thing. And so, what you’re doing is … when you’re doing … there’s the, you know, the snake oil salesman, kind of, “I’m going to sell ice cubes to Eskimos and get people to part with their money for things they don’t need.” But then you also have consultative sales, which is responsible sales, where you’re actually … you’re not out there selling, you know, product features, you’re out there selling solutions to people’s problems. And you’re … you’re approaching it from the standpoint of, “What is your situation and do I have something that will help you?” And if you do, then what you’re really doing is you’re not selling the product, you’re selling the solution, and the product just happens to be the means to that end. And that’s a more authentic thing. And you build relationships with people. And it requires you to listen to what their needs actually are. And this is what they’ve been, you know, all these sales classes, they have people take, this as the message, and this is what you’re doing. But it’s also exactly the same thing as when you’re trying to identify an IEP solution for a kid. You’ve got to pay attention to what’s going on with the kid as a unique individual and match the solution to the actual need. And so there really is no difference between consultative selling and IEP development when you’re talking about matching solution to need. And …

George Bailey 9:11
I love that perspective. And, you know, it’s interesting, because I found myself in a few situations where I’ve actually explicitly told the parent, “I don’t think we’re a good fit for you.” And I feel like … it may feel like a, kind of, short-term security to be able to say, like, “Yay!” You know, “We sold another bed.”

Anne Zachry 9:30
Right.

George Bailey 9:31
But, it’s a long term hurt on the brand. If you really are trying to establish yourself, it’s like, we don’t make scientific claims. No matter what, here’s the crazy thing. It’s like no matter how many times I say that we are not making medical claims …

Anne Zachry 9:48
Right.

George Bailey 9:48
… there will be parents who read onto what we’re our saying medical claims …

George Bailey 9:53
Right.

George Bailey 9:53
… because hope springs eternal and they’re looking for a solution and this sleeplessness … sleeplessness of their child is causing them genuine distress.

Anne Zachry 10:05
Right.

George Bailey 10:06
When a child’s not sleeping with the entire family has suffered.

Anne Zachry 10:09
Exactly!

George Bailey 10:11
And so you have to be really careful to kind of repeat that again and again. But at the same time, there’s the kind of the other interest … is that you also want to make sure that you get it out there, because you rely on those early adopters who are like, really like, they’ll take a risk.

Anne Zachry 10:28
Right.

George Bailey 10:28
I love those people. I am not an early adopter, okay, I wasn’t on Facebook until 2011. I’m the last kid on the block buy the new thing. But the early adopters, one of the things whether they succeed or fail with your solution, they give you information, that it’s very valuable, you have to respect that …

Anne Zachry 10:52
Absolutely!

George Bailey 10:53
… going back to your sales mentality, I think you’re right, I don’t think that it’s always true. I’ve seen salespeople, huge tricks of the trade that I personally find to be manipulative …

Anne Zachry 11:07
Right.

George Bailey 11:07
… but I used to be a foreign language instructor …

Anne Zachry 11:12
Hmmm.

George Bailey 11:12
… for nine years. And it was really fun. I loved that time in my life, where I got to teach, and there was always, kind of, the part of explanation.

Anne Zachry 11:24
Yep.

George Bailey 11:25
You know, where you had to learn to, kind of … and a lot of the explanation that I did was kind of fun, it’s a little bit off topic, but you know, I taught Mandarin Chinese, first year. And that was very fun. And, the way that we would explain things … we were told by the teacher that we worked with, I was a teacher’s assistant that also taught courses, you’re not going to use English to teach Chinese, you’re going to use Chinese to teach Chinese.

Anne Zachry 11:49
Right.

George Bailey 11:50
So, there was a lot of need to be able to be empathetic with my audience. When I was looking at 20 of my students saying, “Wǒ” (我) which is the Chinese word for “I” or “me,” that I’d have to see, are they really getting it? And I think that with the art of sales, you have to really listen to people.

Anne Zachry 12:10
Yeah.

George Bailey 12:11
And the better you are at listening to people and their needs, I think the better you’re going to convey, like, that … that you really care and that you’re ready to solve a problem and not just, like, you know, get … sell snake oil.

Anne Zachry 12:24
Right. Well, again, I relate it back to … everything back to IEPs, because if you think about the IEP process, it’s the same thing. You can’t write an IEP, an individualized program of instruction for somebody, unless you listen to what their needs actually are. There’s not a one size fits all. That’s called Gen Ed.

George Bailey 12:45
Yes, yes.

Anne Zachry 12:46
You know, and, and so, you know, general education is the assembly line. And special ed is the custom shop.

George Bailey 12:55
You know, I really agree. We’ve worked with some IEP experts with my oldest son, Joseph. And I was always really touched. When I felt like they were taking the time to listen to me. And when they were really looking at my son and his specific needs, and so that’s, you know, it’s a labor of love. And it’s really critical to look at each child as an individual.

Anne Zachry 13:20
And, it’s required by law for that reason.

George Bailey 13:23
Yeah.

Anne Zachry 13:26
So yeah, so I mean, I realize there’s overlap, you know, all these processes and procedures that everybody’s using … it’s interesting that no matter what outcome you’re trying to achieve, very often there’s a similar formula to how you make it happen. And there’s always a needs assessment. And then there’s a matching of solutions and need.

George Bailey 13:44
A situational analysis.

Anne Zachry 13:45
Yeah. And so, I mean, it’s, again, you know, it’s common sense, otherwise known as scientific method. But, well, this is very interesting. So what, what kinds of … what kinds of responses have you gotten from the families who are using the ZPods?

George Bailey 14:02
So, we’ve got both the responses that have been highly favorable, and some that have been like, “Meh,” you know, but even with that, what we’ve never gotten .. what we’ve never heard from a single parent is, “My child does not like your bed.” We may have gotten responses like, “Your assembly instructions need some real clarity and they’re very inconvenient,” like, you know, we’ve gotten that …

Anne Zachry 14:25
Right. Technical stuff.

George Bailey 14:27
… from the parents, but the one universal is, “Our kids love, love your bed.” And then we’ve had another set of children where it’s like, minimalist a fact that they love it; they use it as a chill space. Right?

Anne Zachry 14:40
Right.

George Bailey 14:41
And then we’ve had a very large number of parents and again, I hesitate to get the numbers. I’ll give you what numbers I can, to be as, kind of, precise as possible. And we’ve worked between … with between 60 and 70 families, okay. And that number is always increasing and that there’s been a very high degree of customer satisfaction and a consistent feedback from families like, “Wow, my kid’s doing things that I’ve never seen the kid do before,” We’ve had, for example, one of my favorites was Dawson, a six-year-old boy, who, after a week of sleeping in our bed, the … first of all, the immediate result was that his sleep jumped from roughly two or three hours a night to about eight hours at the very least.

Anne Zachry 15:28
Praise God! That by itself is worth it.

George Bailey 15:30
Yes, that by itself is already worth it. But then, the, kind of, double validation came a week later, when the school teacher for Dawson pinned down the mother and said, “What are you guys doing different?” Because that was unsolicited.

Anne Zachry 15:49
Right.

George Bailey 15:50
One of the things we have to be really careful about as we study this is that parents who take the time and the trouble to purchase one of our beds have a bias towards believing that they made a good decision.

Anne Zachry 16:03
Right.

George Bailey 16:05
And, I don’t want to manipulate that. We want them to be happy, naturally. We want them to feel like they made a good decision. But I also acknowledge that bias that they have. So, when it comes to the third parties that come in and say, “Wow, I’ve seen some really, really great improvement,” … but we’ve seen that a fairly large number of cases where we’ll have like an OT say to parents, “This bed has been a game-changer,” things like that.

Anne Zachry 16:32
Right.

George Bailey 16:33
And, in Dawson’s case for the teacher to come up without knowing that there was a change in his sleep, but just saying, “This kid is more alert, more focused.” And, incidentally, in his particular case, there was talked amongst the parents about the possibility of institutionalizing him.

Anne Zachry 16:50
Right.

George Bailey 16:50
Because it was that bad.

Anne Zachry 16:52
Yeah.

George Bailey 16:53
And, Dawson’s not a bad kid. We know that. But, anybody who is under-slept so severely is going to have severe behavioral problems.

Anne Zachry 17:05
Right.

George Bailey 17:06
Sleep has incredible value for for the brain, for the body, you know, for cognition. it’s just …

Anne Zachry 17:14
… it’s neurologically necessary.

George Bailey 17:17
Yeah.

Anne Zachry 17:17
And it’s a … it’s part of human survival. You have to go through that or you will … it will make you literally ill. And …

George Bailey 17:25
And it sounds kind of funny, like trying to sell sleep. We’re not selling sleep, per se; it’s that we’re selling something that we hope will cause more sleep. But it’s almost a little bit kind of funny to hear myself, like, “Aww, now I’ve become one of those sleep preachers!” I keep reading these books about sleep, and I’m, like, these guys are all … dealing with sleep and saying the same thing. It’s almost like talking about water.

Anne Zachry 17:48
Right.

George Bailey 17:49
“Did you ever see the rejuvenative powers of water? It’s incredible!”

Anne Zachry 17:56
I know you … you really have hit on a very fundamental, visceral, survival-level kind of need that sadly enough in our society is neglected. And, you know, and you’re … you’re looking at, “Okay, how do we address this fundamental survival need, and these individuals who are struggling with this who … and are compromised?” And so I think that … I mean, I’m always excited to see new stuff. And anecdotal evidence is always a sign that, okay, we need to look into this a little bit more deeply to see, you know, what makes us you know, for real, so I’m always happy to hear that, you know, with stuff like this, the early adopters are like, “Oh, no, this seems to be doing a thing.” And all of it makes sense. I mean, logically, and intuitively, you’re right, it all logically makes sense. But it’s still going to be interesting to see what kind of research data comes from it and you know, … maybe some grad school student will latch on to it and want to write a paper or something. You just never know, and so …

George Bailey 18:54
And, that’s what we’re encouraging constantly. It’s that we want it to be subjected to scrutiny, empirical data, empirical study and and we also want to urge all companies out there that are trying to provide a solution for the autism community to find ways to get at third parties that are impartial to come in, because you only stand to gain …

Anne Zachry 19:19
Right.

George Bailey 19:20
… you may not hear what you think you hear; you may not hear what you want to hear, but you are going to hear what is going to be beneficial.

Anne Zachry 19:28
Right. Once you know what you’re working with, you can say, “Okay, well this is what I know I can do and I’m gonna stay in my lane and do only that,” you know? “I’m not gonna try and be everything to everybody,” and there’s … there’s a lot of value in that …

George Bailey 19:49
And, we don’t want that, either. You know, there’s this temptation to kind of overplay it, like, “Hey, you know this is going to do “X” and “Y” for the kid’s autism,” but you don’t know, it’s gonna be different for every kid, and it’s going to … whatever your child needs is going to be a very large combination of things. We are one part of a very, very complex puzzle of sleep …

Anne Zachry 20:03
Right.

George Bailey 20:04
There are physiological components to it, you know, some people can’t sleep because like internal parts of how they function.

Anne Zachry 20:13
Right.

George Bailey 20:13
Others that they’re … it’s just a matter of really good sleep hygiene. Some have a more selective sleep hygiene, which is kind of where we play …

Anne Zachry 20:20
Um-hmm.

George Bailey 20:22
… where they really need the aspect of enclosure, I don’t need to be enclosed in something to feel safe.

Anne Zachry 20:30
Right.

George Bailey 20:31
You know? Then again, I like being enclosed in my home, in my bedroom. You know? And then in my wife’s there. Those are some of the things that add to my own personal satisfaction …

Anne Zachry 20:42
Right.

George Bailey 20:43
… where I can calm down and initiate sleep. But some kids, they just thrive on …

George Bailey 20:50
And, you’re making me … the word “proximity” pops into my head, where … proximity to the wall, you know? How close are the walls to me? As … you know, if you’re … if you feel safe within your house, you’re still within a structure. But if that feels too spacious, and you need to have the walls closer to your physical presence to really feel that … that enclosed feeling, then I … then, yeah, that would, to me, say that some individuals need the walls in closer proximity to their physical beings than others. And, it again goes to everybody falls on a spectrum of some kind in every aspect of development one way or another. And that’s … this is just the one that you happen to be dealing with. And …

George Bailey 21:37
Yeah, some kids, actually … so our bed, it fits a twin size mattress; it’s about three feet tall on the inside. It’s pretty big I can I can sit up, I can kneel down and I’m barely touching my head.

Anne Zachry 21:51
Right.

George Bailey 21:52
So some kids feel comfortable in that, and they feel it. And I’m wondering, this is now I’m, kind of, theorizing that I wonder if this would fall under the proprioceptive sense. You know, where you can kind of sense that closeness to something without it being a touch sensation.

Anne Zachry 22:10
Yeah, because proprioception is like your the sensation of your body moving through space. And, yeah, and pressure and those kinds of things. Well, and I’m wondering if you’re enclosed inside of the pod, how much of it is air pressure? And if there’s an inner ear vestibular piece to it as well?

George Bailey 22:29
Yes, yes.

Anne Zachry 22:30
That’s curious.

George Bailey 22:31
… really comfortable, that other people feel like all they need around them are the warehouse walls of a Costco.

Anne Zachry 22:37
Right.

George Bailey 22:38
You know, something very large, they’re fine with that, you know? So …

Anne Zachry 22:43
Well, and it makes you think of our kids on the spectrum that struggle with personal space, and getting all up in people’s faces, and they don’t understand that other people have a personal bubble, and you need to step back a few.

George Bailey 22:54
Oh, that’s a great comparison!

Anne Zachry 22:55
And I’m wondering how much of that is inter played with what you’re dealing with? That’d be an interesting line of inquiry to explore.

George Bailey 23:01
Yeah.

Anne Zachry 23:03
Yeah. Well, you know what I’m thinking of to is here in California, which I know is unique, because not most states don’t have anything if any other states do. I’ve not heard of any other states that have it. But here in California, the Department of Education operates what they call Diagnostic Centers. And there’s three of them. There’s one up in Northern California in Fremont. There’s one in the central part of the state in Fresno. And then there’s another one down in LA for … that covers Southern California. And what they do is they’re … they’re funded out of the State’s federal special ed dollars and state special ed dollars, skimmed off the top, and then all the rest goes to the public schools. And so what Diagnostic Center does is they conduct evaluations of students who their local education agencies are having a heck of a time, even going through all the normal assessment procedures, trying to figure out what to do for these kids. And what they do, it’s an on-site thing where they … the family will go and the State will put them up in a hotel and give them coupons to, like, Soup Plantation, you’ll never want to eat there again by the time you’re done … and, and you stay there for like three or four days while your child is being evaluated by all of these “ologists” in this facility, while you as a parent are sitting on the other side of the one way glass watching the whole thing. And you’re getting interviewed and they’re just like turning, you know, your whole world inside out to get a handle on what’s going on with this kid. And I’m wondering if Diagnostic Centers wouldn’t benefit from having something like this to test with those kids who have those kinds of issues.

George Bailey 24:34
That is such a great question. Well, first of all, let me say that California has a fond place in my heart. I was born and raised in Hayward …

Anne Zachry 24:42
Oh, right on.

George Bailey 24:51
… so not too far from your Fremont Diagnostic Center. And, you know, In-and-Out Burger, I don’t know if you’ve ever been there …

Anne Zachry 24:51
Oh yeah.

George Bailey 24:52
Best hamburgers in the West. Great place. But to your point, that’s actually … I don’t know if we’ve toyed with that specific idea. I love that a lot. One of the things we have toyed with that we’re working on right now, it’s hard to get started to get … we’re very … we were three years old as a company,

Anne Zachry 25:11
Oh, you’re babies. Yeah.

George Bailey 25:12
Yeah, we’re babies. We’re two years old working within the autism community.

Anne Zachry 25:16
Got it.

George Bailey 25:18
But one of the things we’d love to see happen is we would like to get more Airbnbs to use these …

Anne Zachry 25:25
Ohhh!

George Bailey 25:25
… just depending on what kind of family it is. Well, then the point is that it’s kind of like if you go to the mattress store, and the guy says, “Well, try the mattress out, see how you like it.” Well, you’re gonna sit on the end, and kind of push it down with your hands. You don’t know what you’re doing. It’s kind of like, “How do I know if this is good?” And then he’ll tell you, “You gotta lie down.”

Anne Zachry 25:46
Yeah.

George Bailey 25:47
So we’re trying to take it to the next level with our idea of putting these in Airbnbs because then it’s like getting inside the bed. We’re pretty good at assessing, we’ve had a number of kids come by St. Louis, just to try it out, get inside, and they love it. It’s pretty automatic. And they’ll close themselves in without being asked to do so. It was actually my son, when he did that. And then lie down. And I didn’t know what he was doing in there. I gave him five minutes alone, just kind of waiting. And then I was just like losing my patience. And I opened the door. And there he is on his back with his hands behind his head. Very chill, very relaxed. And that led me to like, “Okay.” That was one of my earlier signals were onto something. The point is that I could observe that for five or 10 minutes. Or I could do it overnight…

Anne Zachry 26:36
Right.

George Bailey 26:37
… with a lot more confidence.

Anne Zachry 26:40
It’s like an opportunity to try it out. You know, that’s interesting that you would say that, because separate from what we do in special education, I have a whole other program that we run that’s devoted to sustainable living and food security.

George Bailey 26:53
Yeah? Oh, that’s great!

Anne Zachry 26:53
And yeah, and so it’s all evidence based instruction. It’s the Learn & Grow Educational Series. But what we’re looking to do is build these Learning Centers where people can come and stay in a sustainably built structure, with grey-water recapturing and composting toilets, and all these things that sounds scary, but really aren’t and try it out for a few days …

George Bailey 27:00
… would love this, what you’re doing by the way!

Anne Zachry 27:15
Yeah, and …

George Bailey 27:15
… very much into this!

Anne Zachry 27:17
… our ultimate goal is to at some point in time … what’s the point of convincing people to live this way, if there’s no place where they can go live this way?

George Bailey 27:25
Yes!

Anne Zachry 27:25
… is we also want to be able to do affordable housing that’s sustainably built with all of these same technologies. And so that if they go and they … they do a trial through Airbnb, at one of our Learning Centers that we are looking to build in the future, that they go, “Oh, I can deal with this. This isn’t gross. This is still really bougie. I can handle this,” you know, then they … they can … there’s a place for them to go buy into a home that has all of those things. Because right now, it’s all the DIYers who are doing that, and not everybody wants to build their own sustainable house. Lots of people just want to go buy a house and move in and be done with it. And but there’s no sustainably built homes in neighborhoods like that. And so it’s the same concept of, if you go and try it out first, and then realize, “Hey, this is cool,” and you see benefits from it, then you’re, like, ready to approach it for real and incorporate it into your actual lifestyle. And so I think that that’s something you are doing that’s in common with what I’m doing in this other program I have. And that there, there’s a lot of value of having that Airbnb Experience out there for people to try things that are new. It’s something that I don’t think Airbnb realized when they first started that they were going to create.

George Bailey 28:34
Yes.

Anne Zachry 28:35
But it’s you know, there’s now all of these places, and now they have Experiences. In fact, our Learn & Grow Educational Series, we actually do classes (and tours) through Airbnb Experiences. For one thing, it’s a lot more affordable to do it that way for us because Airbnb will insure all of the events that we conduct for up to a million dollars per event.

George Bailey 28:55
Oh wow, yeah!

Anne Zachry 28:56
And so that means I’m not having to go down and get a certificate of insurance every time I’m conducting a class. And the owner of the property where I’m doing my classes is like, “Oh, thank God, I’m not going to have to file a homeowner’s claim if somebody trips and,” you know, “sprains an ankle while they’re walking through the driveway or something.” There’s all of these advantages to using Airbnb to create these novel experiences that people can test out for just a few days without having to change their whole living experience. And then if they decide, “Oh, this was worth it,” okay. It is like a living test. And I think that’s … that’s huge. I think there’s a lot of value in that. So that’s exciting. I think that that’s a smart way to go.

George Bailey 29:36
And it’s something … it’s something that we hope to get started as soon as possible. I know that maybe some of your listeners are thinking, “Oh, where can I do this?” It’s still in process. I mean, we’re still looking for people to kind of try it out. We may have something in Indiana, but not … certainly not in California right now. But what’s interesting to me about it is that on a broader topical discussion rather than just autism, it goes to show that we have shifted our purchasing behavior dramatically since the advent of the Internet, and Amazon has really changed.

Anne Zachry 30:07
Huge. Yeah.

George Bailey 30:08
It’s big because, like, we think, for example … we used to think, “Well, what would the brick and mortar store look like for our operation?” And pretty soon after that, we concluded that there is no brick and mortar store for us.

Anne Zachry 30:22
Right.

George Bailey 30:22
That’s not to say that brick and mortar is dead. I’m actually a big fan of brick and mortar. I love getting out there. I love being around people. I love walking around. I don’t want to buy everything I have on online and then cloister myself.

Anne Zachry 30:35
Right.

George Bailey 30:37
But, that being said, this specifically, it’s just, it’s a big product. And it has … you’re going to consider it more like a buy like a car…

Anne Zachry 30:48
Right.

George Bailey 30:48
… which can be which can’t be bought at the store.

Anne Zachry 30:51
Right. Yeah, it’s not an impulse buy. Yeah.

George Bailey 30:54
Yeah, it’s not an impulse … Thank you. That’s basically it. Nice, Anne. Yes!

Anne Zachry 30:59
… that, and, yeah. So, because it takes that consultation planning and forethought and thinking, yeah, it’s not really a retail-oriented kind of thing where you would just have like, the ZPod Store. I can see like, if you had a ZPod section of a mattress store or something. But I can also see, you know, literature in developmental centers and regional center offices, you know, and things like that, where it would be something that, like you said, you’re not doing a medical model. So it’s not necessarily something that would be prescribed. But, you know, like an assistive technology evaluation, when you have kids who are in a special ed, who you’re trying to find out what technologies will give them access to education. Well, what if the issue is sleep? Could that be part of an assistive technology evaluation? And if that’s the case …

George Bailey 31:51
Now that being said, I’m really excited you brought that one up because I was I was just about to bring it up. Assistive technology programs … if you have an assistive technology program nearby, like, ask them about us. And the reason why is because we’re actually currently I mean, literally currently reaching out to all of them. Because we didn’t really even know they existed. I was not sophisticated enough with special needs community that really understand what these things were …

Anne Zachry 32:20
Right.

George Bailey 32:20
… but it’s a program that’s been around since the 80s …

Anne Zachry 32:24
Um-hmmm.

George Bailey 32:24
… and every state has one. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, last year, the director for the Assistive Technology program for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, reached out to us. And these guys, they set the standard.

Anne Zachry 32:40
Yeah.

George Bailey 32:41
They’re actually the best in the United States. And this guy, the director, really wonderful gentleman, Tom Mercier reached out to me, I think he’s retired now, but Tom said, it’s, like, you know, “Some parents are really trying to get me to look at this, and I just want to take a look.” And we were like, “Sure!” you know. We set them up with one of our beds, they tried it out with the family. It was really amazing success for this family, to the point where Tom and his team approved for their field operators to be able to recommend the bed.

Anne Zachry 33:13
See in this … yeah?

George Bailey 33:14
I’ll end with saying, now we’re reaching out to every single one of them, just to educate them. And they are a great place where, if they do keep these products in stock, and then allow people to try them out to find if it’s suitable.

Anne Zachry 33:31
Right. Well, and you’re making me think of so many things. So, when you’re talking about an assistive technology evaluation, trial and error is the only way to know if the tech is going to meet the individual’s needs. So it doesn’t matter how much peer reviewed research you have about, you know, this group of subjects in a study. How does that relate to Bob over here who needs this particular problem solved? Is it going to work for Bob, you know? And so … so you have, you know, you … you end up with a study where, you know, N=1, you’ve only got one subject, and … when you’re doing an evaluation … And you’re doing individualized planning, and whether you’re talking about special education, or developmental services, whether it’s through a state DDS or they outsource it to regional centers, it varies from state to state, or you’re talking about the Department of Rehabilitation, which is to employment what special ed is to education. And you’re talking about 18 and older now and adults with disabilities and if sleep deprivation is an issue that prevents them from holding down a job, is this an accommodation that department of rehab might have to buy somebody to keep them employable? And so there’s all and it’s, it’s all individualized planning, everybody gets an individualized plan of something, some kind. So if it’s Regional Center, it’s an individualized program plan – an IPP. If it’s special ed, it’s an Individualized Educational Program – IEP. If it’s Department of Rehab, it has an Individualized Plan for Employment – IPE. But they all start with that “I.” And it’s always coming down to the assessment of that individual person of, “What are your unique needs, and how can we meet them?” And when you’re doing AT evaluations, again, it’s trial and error of, “Let’s try this tech with you and see if you benefit from it.” Then, really the bottom line, that’s the only thing that works in an AT eval. And that’s just as scientifically valid as a-million-and-one research studies about a bunch of random people that doesn’t have anything to do with the one person you’re trying to serve. So I think that if you connect with all of these publicly funded agencies and have to do individualized programming, then your support data is going to come from the instance-by-instance individual assessments of, you know, how many of these individuals benefited from this tech? And what was it about them that made it useful for them? What do they share in common in terms of needs? And what do they share in common in terms of effects? And, then you get your aggregate data from that, but you got to have enough individuals served that way. But I think that might be an interesting way to go. Because you don’t already have to have the published research to necessarily back you up. If you’ve got, I mean, where you’re at right now is sufficient, and the fact that you’ve already got a regional center here in California funding this for someone, and you’ve got these AT assessors from … from, you know, around the country, taking a serious hard look at this from a developmental standpoint. I think that’s huge. And that’s very compelling.

George Bailey 36:35
Oh, I feel very, very fortunate. And the thing, I know, a couple of points to hit number one, our parents are the secret sauce.

Anne Zachry 36:43
Yep.

George Bailey 36:43
They work so hard.

Anne Zachry 36:45
Yep.

George Bailey 36:45
And they make it happen. Like, we’re where we’ve had successes, really, primarily, because the parents pushed for this, they see what we’re doing, they see the value, they have to do the sales, you know, to these institutions.

Anne Zachry 36:58
And they have to enforce the laws with these institutions. I mean, all of these …

George Bailey 37:03
Yes, enforce the law. I love that.

Anne Zachry 37:04
… all of these … the parents are the enforcement arm of all of these civil rights laws that protect individuals with disabilities. It’s usually the family that has to go to bat for an individual who can’t go to bat for themselves. And, and so you, you’ve got the way the laws are written, is that, you know, and this is democracy: Of the people, for the people, by the people. So the way the laws are written is the people are supposed to be able to … you know, advocate for themselves using these systems. Now, how effective that is, is a whole nother conversation. But the way the system is created, it’s … it’s on … the burden is on the family …

George Bailey 37:39
Yes, absolutely.

Anne Zachry 37:41
… to drive the process. And these, these programs exist for their benefit, but they’re supposed to go seek them out and avail themselves of these programs and say here are their needs that need to be met, what do you got, and then when they come to … come with a unique issue that the system doesn’t already have a, you know, a canned solution for, and they’re required to innovate, these institutions are not built for innovation. They’re built for bureaucracy. And so if the burden then falls on the parents shoulders, they go, “Well, wait a minute,” you know? “You’re here to serve us,” you know? “That’s we pay taxes, and we’ve already paid for this stuff. So what are you gonna do with the money you’ve already been given?” And so, you know, it really is … it does fall on the shoulders of the parents, and not just because they’re the secret sauce. It’s because they have to be. You know, it’s how the system is set up.

George Bailey 38:31
As much as I know that there are people out there … my son’s, you know … people who teach him and mentor him and stuff like that. Love him. Take care of him.

Anne Zachry 38:43
Right.

George Bailey 38:43
But none of them … none of them love him like I love him.

Anne Zachry 38:46
Right.

George Bailey 38:48
So you have to fight to be that advocate, but you bring up another interesting point earlier, that just really jumped out to me that is that, on the one hand, you’re totally right, that, you know, what is right for one individual may not be another and yet, we still have a big need for clinical trials …

Anne Zachry 39:06
Yep.

George Bailey 39:06
… for these broader statements. So that we can at least know what could be predicted to work. In other words, those individual assessments if you have to start from scratch every single time, because you don’t have any big picture data …

Anne Zachry 39:19
Right.

George Bailey 39:20
… and it’s very hard for you to be able to say, “Okay, this is what’s gonna work,” or, “We should even try this.” Because every single time that you revisit … you visit an individual, you have to start from scratch …

Anne Zachry 39:32
Right.

George Bailey 39:32
So, big picture, you know, clinical Data, allows us to be able to predict.

Anne Zachry 39:37
Right.

George Bailey 39:38
This study says that 80%, 70%, 90% of people with this condition are going to respond positively to this.

Anne Zachry 39:47
Exactly, it helps you narrow down the field of what to try. Yeah.

George Bailey 39:51
Yeah. At the same time, on the individual level, if your child … turns out that your child gets a full 10 hours of sleep, which is probably what they should be getting at the age of five to 18, or whatever the number is, right?

Anne Zachry 40:08
Um-hmmm.

George Bailey 40:08
Ten hours of sleep, they get that because they bounce the ball 10 times before they go to bed. They’re good. Guess what? if that works for your kid, rock on.

Anne Zachry 40:16
Right.

George Bailey 40:17
I love that. And I love the individualized approach. So there really is value in both sides of that.

Anne Zachry 40:23
Absolutely.

George Bailey 40:25
And then on the other side, one thing that I wanted to add is that, you know, we have these individual customers. Our goal right now as a startup is, how do we early on establish a pattern of gathering data that can tell us more about each of these individuals, and then the aggregate, so that we know with greater certainty, what is still … what is going on what is helping, what is not helping? And I think that it’s very important, you know, I would really urge all startups, anybody in this space, do clinical trials.

Anne Zachry 41:00
Yeah.

George Bailey 41:01
Expose yourself to that. And also do everything you can to get constant customer feedback, because they’re always going to tell you ways that you can improve …

Anne Zachry 41:11
Right.

George Bailey 41:12
… and some can be more shy about it than others but you’ve got plenty who are just, like, “I’m going to tell you my mind. I don’t like this part of your product, but I do like this,” and you will improve.

Anne Zachry 41:21
Right.

George Bailey 41:21
Some of our best improvements came because, you know, I got told by a very frank parent, “I don’t like this.”

Anne Zachry 41:28
Right.

George Bailey 41:29
And, I was really grateful, because then we took those things and immediately said, “We have some changes to make.”

Anne Zachry 41:34
Well, in your … I was gonna say you’re making me think of how it could be done, because how you could get that data, because if you do the individual assessments where you’re matching product to unique individual need, and now you’ve got 50 individuals who have this in their IEP, or their IPP, or their IPE, whatever. All of those documents are goal-driven. So, whenever you do any kind of individualized planning, first, you have to figure out what it is you’re trying to make happen. And then you write a measurable annual goal to that need. So if the goal is is we want Bobby to sleep at least eight hours a night for a full month straight, then that’s your annual goal, that by the end of this year, Bobby is going to be able to sleep the, you know, at least eight hours a night for a month straight. And the progress … being made towards that goal is going to automatically generate data if the goal has been legitimately written … if it really has been written in a measurable manner. And so you’ve got all of these individuals with all of these goals that speak to sleep, and this is the solution that they’re attempting to meet that goal, the data collection is naturally going to speak to the degree to which the device is helping or not. And then when you get enough people who have these devices as part of their individualized plans, and you’ve got this progress towards goal data being collected in terms of how efficacious it is, then you can take all of these multiple individualized reports, and then turn it into a report of aggregate data where you say, “Okay, well, out of the 50 people where we had on these individualized plans, 25% of them have this issue and responded this way versus this or …” you know what I’m saying? So you’re taking the individualized data, and piling it all together to create a body of aggregate data that can then be analyzed. And so you’re taking advantage of both sides of that coin to get valid data. And … and it’s performance based. It’s not hypothetical. So that’s what I was thinking …

George Bailey 43:37
That’s one thing that really, I love. And that is, I want to emphasize to you on the terms that what, folks in the IEP, what I would love is that, I’m going to speak a little bit, because I’m not the IEP expert, okay?

Anne Zachry 43:56
Right.

George Bailey 43:57
But, the thing that I hope that a lot of IEPs take away from this is that, of all of the aspects of a child’s life we’re talking about, this is a pretty critical one.

Anne Zachry 44:08
Yep.

George Bailey 44:08
I’m not saying it’s the most important because I think that each of us in our specialties, we’re all vying for attention, we’re all trying to, “Well, we’re the most important because we’re sleep and that’s 1/3 of your life,” and “We’re the most important because we’re broccoli, and if you don’t eat broccoli, you’ll get cancer!” All of us are competing, but I am here to say that sleep is a critical component of your IEP.

Anne Zachry 44:33
Yeah.

George Bailey 44:33
And, if it’s going great, that’s wonderful, but it should be visited. And that … that’s a hard to find in a professional, in the sense that they at least have to have some fundamental understanding both of its benefits, and maybe some kind of surface recommendations that they can make, at least getting out the gate to, kind of, let’s … let’s take care of some of the things that could be the problem. Let’s find out, for example, your child … Is it dark enough when they’re sleeping? Is it too noisy? Are you watching television until 11 o’clock at night with your child exposed to screens? These types of questions help us to eliminate as factors, possible causes …

Anne Zachry 45:17
Right.

George Bailey 45:18
… what is driving the loss of sleep, and you need to have at least a fundamental, basic understanding of what could be getting in the way of sleep. Now, of course, at that point, you always want to have a good “sleep go-to”; somebody that you go to, “Okay, you know, I’m out of it, I’m out of my depth, I recommend targeting this institution with sleep centers,” …

Anne Zachry 45:40
Right.

George Bailey 45:39
… or something like that. And even then, though, I’ll tell you that I get a lot, a lot of phone calls from parents who said, the sleep center’s, like, given up.

Anne Zachry 45:48
Yeah.

George Bailey 45:49
They just don’t know what to do with this kid. Because this kid defies their kind of expectations for what should be helping the child to get better sleep.

Anne Zachry 45:59
Well, and I would think the sleep centers would want to test your product as well to see if … especially when they’re running into a situation like that. That that should be part of the testing milleu.

George Bailey 46:07
Yeah. Well, this is all the more reason for in-depth clinical trials, to be able to put in front of them, because they will correctly come to us and say, “We expect you to have data.”

Anne Zachry 46:19
Right.

George Bailey 46:20
And I expect that from them. I think that that is good. Now, if they’re so inflexible as to not be helping at all, especially when we already have the pretty heavy anecdotal evidence …

Anne Zachry 46:32
Right.

George Bailey 46:33
… that this is something that should be taken seriously, the aspect of that concept of enclosure, that I think would be kind of negative. But I do expect them to have an academic interest in what it is we’re doing.

Anne Zachry 46:47
I would think they’d be wanting to … helping you do the studies. That they would want to get in on and get published. I mean …

George Bailey 46:52
Oh, yeah. The reality, though, behind studies that we should all here bear in mind is that no matter what you do, you’re going to be spending money.

Anne Zachry 46:54
Right.

George Bailey 47:02
And so, for example, investors and startups, they don’t actually like to spend money on stuff. If you go to investors and say, “I want to raise capital, this amount of capital, $200,000, or whatever it is, is going to go towards a clinical trial.”

Anne Zachry 47:18
Right.

George Bailey 47:18
They’ll say, “Come back to us, once you’ve done the clinical trial.”

Anne Zachry 47:21
Yeah, it’s the same way with nonprofits. It’s like, “We’ll give you a grant, if you can show what you’ve done with the grants you’ve gotten in the past.” I’m like, “Well, now, somebody’s got to be the first one, here.”

George Bailey 47:33
Yeah, so you have to look for people who are very invested, not just financial returns, that you may be able to provide, but the outcome that they actually love the story that you have …

Anne Zachry 47:47
Right.

George Bailey 47:48
… what you’re trying to create. And so that’s where, you know, I agree with you that I would love to have more sleep centers, try our beds to figure out how effective they are. And not just that the tried numerous aspects. It’s not like, the bed’s are effective or ineffective. That’s not really …

Anne Zachry 48:05
Right. It’s like, how are they effective? And what areas? Yeah.

George Bailey 48:09
Yeah, yeah. Or, what about the scent? Is the smell of the space affecting anything? What about the temperature? And so there’s so many variables. We do have the, kind of, virtue of being able to isolate those variables and create some constants that are not really, as easily achieved in normal experimentation. I actually had a really good conversation with Temple Grandin about this, an the thing that she said, that just blew my mind, I would not have been the one to think of this, she’s very …

Anne Zachry 48:43
Oh, her brain is just something else. Yeah.

George Bailey 48:45
It’s really amazing. The thing that she told me … she says, “Every kid who sleeps in your bed, the same sheets, the same mattress …” and then she laid it out, like, “This is what it’s gonna look like,” It’s just like, “Oh, my gosh!” I immediately ran to my pencil and I’m just writing stuff down, going “Thank you! Thank you!” She’s so …

Anne Zachry 49:12
Yeah, the trial is … it’s not comparable if everybody’s not experiencing it under the exact same conditions. You can’t compare one person’s experience to another unless it’s all identical. Yeah, that’s the thing about clinical trials.

George Bailey 49:24
And it was really refreshing to get her perspective on that. I feel she’s very generous with her time.

Anne Zachry 49:31
She is.

George Bailey 49:33
And so that’s one of the things that I like about events is that we can isolate a lot of factors like, look at, okay, so this is one of the things we’re trying to get people to think about as we look at this as a solution is that, imagine every autistic child in the United States and adult. Now, imagine all of their different living situations. Some of them have big rooms, small rooms, most of them probably small rooms, you know, because we’re not all wealthy…

Anne Zachry 50:03
Right.

George Bailey 50:05
… you know? Even the room, the shape of the room, the lighting in the room, the proximity to the city, some sleep right next to the train tracks …

Anne Zachry 50:12
Right.

George Bailey 50:12
… and so to be able to isolate, their kind of like, the … the ideal is really hard to do. And I like the idea that we’re working towards that. And that we … were kind of, let’s give a consistent and predictable environment in which to control for other variables. And then we can start really isolating different variables in a quantifiable way that may be causing some of the more serious issues that we’re seeing.

Anne Zachry 50:44
Totally makes sense. Well, so we’re coming up now on … it looks like almost 50 minutes

George Bailey 50:51
It’s been … every bit, it’s been fun.

Anne Zachry 50:57
I know, this has all been, like, enthralling. So um, but I know that not everybody’s gonna want to listen for like, hours and hours. So I think the big question that people are gonna have after listening to all of this and going, “Well, that sounds really cool. How much does it cost?” So what is the price point that … that parents if they’re interested in looking into this, what are they looking at, you know, in terms of cost? I mean, even if a parent were to lay out money for this, there’s a possibility it could be reimbursed by any of these agencies that have an obligation to their kids. So … but it’s going to require, you know, proof of purchase and all that kind of stuff. I mean, what kind of price tag?

George Bailey 51:33
So we’ve got the bed, as I’ve said, covered in states like Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, California, and Kansas, and we’re gonna keep on working on that.

Anne Zachry 51:42
Good.

George Bailey 51:43
We’re happy to kind of advise parents on how we think that can be best accomplished. They come out in June, the new version, because we sold out all of … all of our China inventory.

Anne Zachry 51:55
Wow.

George Bailey 51:55
We have a new Made-in-the-USA version that has upgrades all based on what we heard from parents.

Anne Zachry 52:01
That’s so cool.

George Bailey 52:02
So the new one will cost $5,000, retail. That being said, the first 288, that we’re going to be selling are going to be $2,800 each, and that shipping included on those 288.

Anne Zachry 52:14
Okay.

George Bailey 52:16
So we’re going to cover the shipping on that. The reason why we want to get these out and want to get people experienced … I was gonna say that, we do have financing and such, but the fact of the matter is that if you are invested in trying this for your child, we are invested in finding a solution. We have been very fortunate to get some really great guidance on how to get these things funded, we really want to share that with people. Our website is zpodsforsleep.com.

Anne Zachry 52:48
Right on.

George Bailey 52:50
Feel free to reach out to us because we are so invested in these kids, and we just want to help in any way that we can.

Anne Zachry 52:58
Well, that’s really exciting. And all that being said, I mean, for me as a … as an advocate, someone who goes in and helps families advocate for these kinds of solutions for their children, you know, this is something that we regularly do. It’s like, “This is cost-prohibitive for this family. It’s not like we’re asking for a $2.99 app, you know. This is this is an outlay of cash that is a necessary accommodation for this particular individual.” Then, you know, I know that I can go … these are the kinds of things that I go to agencies for and say, “Look, you know, if it was something easy and out of pocket that this family could do, but this is this is an expenditure. And this is what these public resources are for.” I’m really excited. I’m going to be looking on your website to see what you’ve already got up there in that regard … of how parents can go advocate for themselves to get these things. But I would also want our listeners to know that if you already have an advocate or an attorney that you’re working with, and this is something you think might be appropriate, you would want to involve that person in the conversation as well. Because, they may know, you know, how the system works a little bit better in terms of rules and regulations to help you navigate those sharky waters and overcome whatever objections people might have. Because the agencies don’t want to spend that kind of money either. And they’re going to come back and say, “Oh,” you know, “… you just want us to fly your kid to Hawaii and swim with the dolphins.” And you know, it’s like, “Look, dolphin therapy might be effective, but does it … does my kid needed to learn how to read? No.” And so, you know, there’s, you know, … I’m not, you know, I’m not the person who’s going to go there and try and pitch some, you know, crazy, ridiculously expensive solution just because, you know. We’re not trying to help people milk the system for things that are not what the system was designed for. But in an instance like this where, like you were talking about the one child who was on the verge of institutionalization, well, now you’re talking about least …

George Bailey 54:48
Yeah.

Anne Zachry 54:48
… least restrictive environment, that in all of these programs, the … the commitment is to try and keep people in as non-segregated of a setting as possible, and to keep them as integrated with the rest of society as much as you can. And, you know … and also, when you’re looking at it from a budgetary standpoint, which costs less? A one-time expenditure of five grand, or $8500 a month for a residential treatment facility, and to accomplish the same outcome? And so for those kids who are in that unique boat, I think that this is a serious conversation to be had. Because how many residential placements could be prevented by making the home environment more suitable? When you’re talking about … it’s really about ecological control. And all if for the … in the absence of ecological control, you’re going to pack this kid off someplace and separate them from their support system and their family. You know that … that’s never the best idea. And that’s always the last resort. So if there’s another layer of intervention that can come before that, that can prevent it, that’s always important for everybody in the … in these lines of work to understand and know about … that this could be something that the agencies understand this is far less expensive than what the alternative is for some of these individuals. And it certainly is far more compliant and less segregationist. And so for everybody involved it’s a better solution, if that’s the case. And so I think that this is something that other advocates and attorneys need to be paying attention to as well, that this is something they could potentially be asking for if it suits the need. And if so, only an individualized assessments going to answer that question. And …

George Bailey 55:03
And I would be happy to talk with any of those attorneys formulating strategy sessions. It’s kind of our joy, to be able to help. It is funny, but I’ll leave you with one last story. I know that we’ve talked a long time … about two months ago, I was helping a mother and I was in a hearing. I was not allowed to speak. They were asking about, kind of, like … they’re looking for any sort of other low-cost, you know, a solution and this mom had tried everything.

Anne Zachry 56:52
Right.

George Bailey 56:54
Finally, the, kind of, opposing counsel, or whatever you want to call him there, was saying, “Well, this is … it’s just changing their environment. That’s all that they’re doing. Why not change the room?” Like, “You can get … the room doesn’t need to be that …” Something like that. I was just thunderstruck …

Anne Zachry 57:11
Yeah.

George Bailey 57:12
… by what I was hearing. I was like, “You’re literally advocating that this woman move rather than just paying for the cost of the bed?”

Anne Zachry 57:19
Right. Oh, yeah. It’s like, “How can …” All the things I see. The stories I could tell, trust me. I mean, that’s like the tip of the iceberg. And, and it always comes back down to, “We don’t want to …” It’s a “not out of my budget” mentality.

George Bailey 57:36
Yes!

Anne Zachry 57:37
It’s not out of my budget mentality. You’re …

George Bailey 57:39
Very short sighted.

Anne Zachry 57:41
… very short sighted. I mean, these are the same kinds of people who would rather criminalize a behavior and stick a kid in juvenile hall than pay for a BCBA to come in and provide a behavior program. And it’s like, well, you know, “Even though it’s going to cost the taxpaying public 10 times as much with, like, far more abysmal results to put them in the juvenile justice system, at least that’s like coming out of my budget.” And it’s like, “What? You’re gonna go home and pay taxes for that? Do you not understand this coming out of your personal budget?” And it’s just the lack of wisdom. And so it’s like, how did you get this job? You and I are encountering some similar issues just coming at it from a different perspective. And it this has been a very enlightening conversation, this has given me a lot of things to think about. I’m going to have an ADHD spin-off in a minute, and, you know, a-million-and-one ideas are going to pop in my head. But well, thank you very much for doing this with me today, I think we’ve covered a lot of ground. And this is a lot of information for people to digest, I will very, definitely make sure that I’ve got links to all of your stuff, you know, it’s going to be something going to be sharing with the other professionals that I work with as well, so that they are aware that this is even an option. And as we encounter these kinds of things in the field, we now know, we have got this potential tool in our toolbox that we can at least attempt to see if it’s going to work. I mean, again, trial and error when you’re talking about technology.

George Bailey 58:57
You never know, but when it does, it really rocks. And, seeing the changes that we see, like, we’re talking about four hours of sleep a night; all of a sudden, ten hours of sleep.

Anne Zachry 59:06
Oh yeah, any kind of … any kind of change you can make with respect to sleep problems is always usually pretty noticeable pretty quickly. And so, you know that part of it, that’s the proven science is that improving sleep quality improves a whole bunch of other stuff. So really, it comes down to, you know, where does your product fit into improving sleep quality? Not, you know, so you don’t have to prove the sleep quality issue. It’s just you … it’s about, you know, showing how your product fits in with it. So I’m excited to see this and if you get some Airbnbs and stuff like that they’re willing to take these on, yeah, share us the links for those guys, too, because we’ll put that out there for people to go and check it out and try it and see what they think.

George Bailey 59:45
Absolutely. Thank you …

Anne Zachry 59:46
Thank you.

George Bailey 59:48
… so much! More than anything, it’s been fun.

Anne Zachry 59:50
Well, thank you! It has been. It has been. Well, much appreciated.

George Bailey 59:55
Thank you.

Anne Zachry 59:55
You’re so welcome.

Anne Zachry 59:57
Thank you for listening to the podcast version of, “Interview of George Bailey, President of ZPods. KPS4Parents reminds its listeners that knowledge powers solutions for parents and all eligible children, regardless of disability are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. If you’re a parent, education professional or concerned taxpayer and have questions or comments about special education related matters, please email us at info@kps4parents.org or post a comment to our blog. That’s info at K as in “knowledge,” P as in “powers,” S as in “solutions,” the number 4, parents P-A-R-E-N-T-S dot O-R-G. We hope you found our information useful and look forward to bringing more useful information to you. Subscribe to our feed to make sure that you receive the latest information from Making Special Education Actually Work, an online publication of KPS4Parents. Find us online at KPS4Parents.org. KPS4Parents is a nonprofit lay advocacy organization. The information provided by KPS4Parents in Making Special Education Actually Work is based on the professional experiences and opinions of KPS4Parents’ lay advocates and should not be construed as formal legal advice. If you require formal legal advice, please seek the counsel of a qualified attorney. All the content here is copyrighted by KPS4Parents, which reserves all rights.

Posted on

Mysterious Special Ed Accountability Report Published in California

On January 13, 2022, after staying up late to finish my last post/podcast, I woke up to find a message in my inbox from the CAPCAA listserv that included a very comprehensive-looking report published by a group referring to itself as “The Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force,” with the email address of oahspecialedreport@gmail.com. The members of this task force are not identified in the report. The report identifies its authors as follows:

Authors/Contributors: This accountability report is provided by the Office for Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force, a coalition of concerned attorneys, advocates and parents. Many of these contributors conducted research, collected and organized the information, and assisted in the writing of this report.

Bias, Noncompliance and Misconduct In Special Education Due Process: An Accountability Report on the California Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Division, January 2022

Given the degree of retaliation that anybody calling out the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could easily face in the current anti-democratic climate of American politics, these days, I can’t say I’m entirely surprised that the individuals responsible for this report have not named themselves in it. That could be really a good way to find some “good ol’ boys” burning crosses in their yards and planting pipe bombs in their hedges on behalf of some tax-fattened, suit-wearing carpetbaggers.

So, I can’t discount the report for lack of identified authors. That leaves nothing but the content of the report with which to judge its legitimacy, but that’s almost better. It’s like a blind audition on The Voice; it doesn’t matter what you look like if you have a good voice. What you have to say and how you say it matters more than what your name is or what you look like. So, that’s how I’m looking at this report.

In these troubling times, I’m willing to accept verifiable facts from anonymous authors truly fearing for their own safety if they dare to speak the truth. I will not accept unverifiable assertions being openly spewed by people saying whatever will get them attention. So, let’s examine the assertions being made by this report.

This Task Force’s report follows a professional format for organization and presentation of its information, but it’s not a legal brief or scientific paper. Not every assertion is supported by black-and-white evidence, but the assertions not supported by evidence are nonetheless consistent with those assertions that are supported by evidence.

Additionally, because I work extensively in the very areas of concern targeted by this report, all of it rings true with the experiences that I’ve lived as a professional over the period of time discussed in this report. That which is not outright supported by evidence in this report is nonetheless credible to me given the evidence that is presented and what I already know to be true from real-life experience.

While anecdotal accounts were added to the report to bolster the authors’ positions, the identity of those offering these accounts are unknown, so verifying them is impossible. Again, concerns about retaliation and privacy are legitimate, so I don’t want to discount the privacy concerns of the authors, but one of the first rules of proving the veracity of a document is authenticating its content with its authors. That’s just a basic rule of evidence. At some point, for this document to be taken seriously by regulators and/or legislators, its authors will have to reveal themselves.

Putting aside the authorship issues for the moment and delving into the actual content of this report, what this report is basically asserting is that OAH, which is a division of the California Department of General Services (DGS), is organizationally compromised relative to its obligations to try special education cases pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The report supports these arguments with references to a collection of publicly available documents.

These arguments appear sound and supported by credible evidence, in my opinion. Of particular note to me were its references to the November 15, 2021 study conducted by CDE titled, California Special Education Governance and Accountability Study, as well as news that the courts finally resolved the issue of continued distance learning for medically vulnerable children on IEPs. This latter issue affects one of our families and I’ve been waiting to hear about this situation.

The Task Force’s assertions in its report are also consistent with my experiences dealing with OAH since it took over the hearings in 2005. In fact, I first became a paralegal in 2005 and witnessed the very shenanigans reported by the Task Force with the change-over from the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO) to OAH that same year. It was a dumpster fire inside of a clown car that had crashed into a train wreck, to put it mildly.

OAH underbid SEHO in terms of the costs of conducting special education mediations and hearings by failing to include the costs of administrative support and sending mediators and judges around the State to handle each case in its local community, which allowed OAH to come under SEHO’s bid by several million dollars, as memory serves. The moment it opened its doors for business, it was already millions of dollars over-budget from what it had bid to get the business from SEHO.

The quality of the judges from OAH was atrocious out of the gate. One then-new judge went down in California special education parent/student legal history for the angrily and stupidly stated words, “Ms. [Attorney], what does autism have to do with behavior!?!”

When you have people who have no idea what anybody is talking about deciding the futures of children who have no voice of their own in the process, those of us who are trying to protect these children become almost as powerless as the children we’re trying to protect. We were, and continue to be, faced with people entrusted with responsibilities that are clearly light years beyond their actual skills and knowledge, and the authorities and powers that go with those responsibilities.

What is the point of having the rule of law if the people responsible for enforcing it are personally incentivized to break it or are otherwise too dumb to know how to enforce it? We’re paying these people to implement the regulations, not to invent excuses as to why they don’t have to and bully the rest of us if we dare to question them.

I’ve been saying for the last 30+ years that special education issues are civil rights issues, and if our babies aren’t truly protected, then none of us really are. The national political landscape appears to support my conclusions, not that I’m happy to be right about that. Marginalized groups with specifically identified protected rights are always the first ones targeted by fascists, so special education is really a “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to American democracy. Clearly, we’re not doing that well and this Task Force is seeing a lot of the same things I’m seeing.

Regardless of the authorship issue, which I suspect will be resolved in due time, the evidence cited in this report and the consistency of what it describes with what I live and breathe everyday inclines me to treat it as credible, though if anyone can find an inaccurate assertion in it, please post a comment and let me know. At minimum, another federal investigation is warranted based on this report, but I don’t know that going to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the right way to go, now.

As the report discloses, there was already an OCR investigation in 2014 of the California Department of Education (CDE) as it pertains to making its hearings accessible to individuals with disabilities. I won’t repeat the anecdotal account of what that was all about, here; you can read it yourself in the report. But, I warn you, it’s upsetting. I wish I could say it was too outlandish to be true, but it sounds just about right for OAH and CDE, based on my own experiences.

Last year, just to give you an example from my own caseload, I filed a compliance complaint with CDE against a local school district for failing to implement all of a student’s IEP during the pandemic-related shutdown. The most critical element of the complaint was the district’s failure to provide in-person 1:1 aide services, as required by the child’s IEP.

Instead, the district put the aide for this non-verbal, inattentive, prompt-dependent child with autism on Zoom, requiring the child’s mother to be the in-person aide helping her child access Zoom, constantly cueing him attend to the online instruction, and prompting him through all of his work tasks to completion. The aide could only sit there, staring at them through the screen, completely useless … at taxpayer expense.

The aide was willing to provide in-person support and the non-public agency (NPA) that employed the aide was ready to send her to the student’s house in a mask for in-person services during distance learning, but the district wouldn’t permit any in-person services during shutdown. This single parent ended up selling her condo and moving, with her children, in with family friends, in no small part because she couldn’t work a paid job while sitting at home serving as the free aide for her child with special needs throughout each school day while the paid aide sat in her own home on Zoom, unable to do her actual job.

This was a blatant violation of State and federal law that the district kept blaming on the county’s health department. I challenge anybody to find a legal authority that gives a county health department the authority to tell a school district that it doesn’t have to abide by the IDEA. After attempting to get the district to do the right thing by way of written correspondence and the IEP process to no avail, I filed a regulatory complaint with CDE.

CDE opened an investigation based on what I alleged through its complaint intake unit, but then the investigator subsequently assigned to the complaint materially altered the nature of the investigation and cited the district for a different violation of the law than what I had originally alleged, and failed to issue a finding regarding the original allegation I’d made about the aide. The investigator’s findings then went to yet another unit within CDE that developed the order for corrective actions, which included compensatory special education instruction for lost service minutes, but it was silent regarding aide support during those compensatory services.

Think about this for a minute. I alleged in my complaint that the district failed to provide aide support during distance learning. The intake unit opened an investigation in response to my complaint based on the allegation of the district’s failure to implement the IEP as written, specifically with regard to 1:1 aide support. The investigator found that the district failed to implement all of the instructional minutes in the IEP, but issued no finding regarding the 1:1 aide support. The corrective actions unit ordered compensatory instruction to make up for lost service minutes, but there was no mention of aide support.

Once corrective actions have been ordered by CDE and its findings are sent out to the parties, the offending education agency has to provide proof of corrective actions to yet another unit of CDE. When I called that unit to get clarification as to whether the compensatory service minutes were supposed to include the 1:1 aide support called for by the IEP, that unit’s response was, “Yes.”

The offending district’s attorneys (definitely of the Rudy Guilliani/Syndey Powell variety), however, said, “No.” They then tried to fight with CDE over whether or not the compensatory service minutes had to include the same 1:1 aide support the student required throughout the school day in every other instructional setting, as per his IEP, likely billing the district by the hour the whole time.

What ensued turned into an internal feud within CDE. The unit at CDE responsible for collecting proof of corrective action from the district insisted that, because the IEP called for 1:1 aide support during any and all instruction, it was understood that 1:1 aide support also had to be provided during the compensatory services ordered. But, not everybody involved with the investigation at CDE agreed.

What I came to suspect was that the investigator and legal department at CDE had deliberately steered my complaint away from its original allegations for presumably fiscal and/or political reasons. It certainly had nothing to do with CDE abiding by its obligations or making the district comply with the law. It had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the educational and civil rights of a little boy with autism who can barely talk and needs an aide to access his education.

Reading through this Task Force’s report, I’m now seeing that experience again through new eyes. The argument the CDE is fiscally motivated to find it does nothing wrong and neither do its districts, regardless of the facts, as asserted by the Task Force, resonates with me as true.

Another compelling argument asserted by this report that also rings true for me is that DGS exists for the purpose of cutting costs, not ensuring the State’s compliance with federal mandates or protecting the rights of citizens. The report further argues that, as an integral part of DGS, OAH also exists for no reason other than to control costs and not to protect the rights of California’s citizens. As such, the Special Education division of OAH is not organized in a manner consistent with the requirements of the IDEA that special education hearings and mediations be conducted by impartial parties whose only function is to protect the educational and civil rights of students with disabilities.

A State employee who is being told their primary function is to save money should not be in charge of making sure the State abides by the IDEA. It’s an outright conflict of interest, which this Task Force asserts in its report. This isn’t just a philosophical assertion; it’s a regulatory requirement. The IDEA requires education agencies to design and implement individualized programs of instruction that confer appropriately ambitious educational benefits upon each student according to his/her/their unique circumstances, regardless of cost.

A State agency that exists to cut costs should not be making programming decisions in situations in which it is unlawful for cost considerations to be used to determine who will get what. That, to me, explains a lot of the hyper-Republicanism (in the present-day fascist sense of the term, not the former “Party of Lincoln” sense of it) going on in California’s special education system.

And, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that, back in 2005, right-wing grifters were responsible for giving the special education due process business back to OAH. One of the sleaziest special ed law firms there ever was, which happened to be the largest special ed law firm representing school districts in California at the time, was Lozano Smith. It was instrumentally involved in getting the due process hearings switched to OAH in 2005. All of this came on the heels of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2004, which resulted in changes to the IDEA. Those changes created an opportunity for anti-student and anti-parent forces to lobby for changes to how California handled its special education matters, from changes to State law, to changing who enforced the laws from SEHO to OAH.

However, in 2005, something else big happened involving Lozano Smith, right after OAH took the special education hearings back over. Lozano Smith will live on in infamy, at least in my mind, for decades to come following two public displays of anti-democratic behavior.

The first was its epic 2005 faceplant in the matter of Moser v. Bret Harte Union High Sch. Dist. (366 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Cal. 2005)), which made the news. The second public example that stands out in my mind was its 2014 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing protections for special education students under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the matter of K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (C.D. Cal. 2015). This second example didn’t steal headlines, but the actual outcome of the case was huge for students with special needs regarding their disability-related communication needs.

If special education advocacy has been the “canary in the coal mine” of American democracy, Lozano Smith has been one of the Mitch McConnell-esque specters of obstructive fascism that has been trying to snuff the voices of “canaries” like me for decades. I’m convinced that every single unrepentant person who had a hand in the Bret Harte mess and anything else like it will have a special place waiting for them in Trump Tower Hell, when they die; perhaps it will be named the Lozano Smith Suite.

In the present, all of the concerns raised by this Task Force’s report are grounded in the realities I deal with every day. The fact that the authors fear to reveal their identities is also grounded in the harsh reality that the fascists aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they are coming for us, anymore. Anybody who stands up for civil rights, these days, is a target, and I realize that includes me just by saying so.

Here’s the thing, though. Those of us accustomed to dealing with special education issues who understand Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) also know an Extinction Burst when we see one. So long as those of us who see this Extinction Burst for what it is continue to abide by our professional ethics, stand our ground, and stick to the applicable science and rule of law, none of the self-serving histrionics of those with anti-democratic tendencies within our government will overcome our fact-based arguments. We have to keep acting like we live in a democracy or it stops being one.

We may lose battles on occasion, particularly in those States currently permeated by maskless, unvaccinated seditionists spreading COVID as readily as their lies, but the only way we lose the overall initiative is if democracy fully collapses in the United States. All of us “canaries” need to start beating our wings and squawking loudly as the voices of experience when it comes to fighting fascism within America’s government, or it’s curtains for all of us.

It’s not shocking news to any of us that the fascists are targeting local government, including school boards, as a means of seizing control of the country. That’s nothing new! That’s what all of us working in special education advocacy have been up against since the original laws that protect our children were passed in the 1970s. To the rest of the Country, it’s unfortunate that it’s now happening to you, too, but we welcome you to the front lines and look forward to working with you to win this soft civil war currently being fought over basic rights and the rule of law in America.

To our colleagues fighting similar battles on behalf of other marginalized groups, we look to unify with you. When it comes right down to it, those of us who exist in marginalized groups collectively outnumber the few individuals at the center who put us in their margins.

In a democracy, majority rules. The minority of individuals who want to rob the rest of us of our rights cannot oppress a unified majority. Special education rights are human rights, just like ethnic rights, gender rights, sexual orientation rights, relationship rights, etc. If all of us whose rights are being infringed upon join forces instead of competing for the crumbs that fall from the would-be oligarchs’ tables, we can be sitting at the table eating meals full of freedom with everybody else, instead.

Posted on

Amazon Gift Card Contest

Win an Amazon Gift Card from KPS4Parents

KPS4Parents will be giving away a $10 Amazon eGift card on March 31, 2022!

It’s easy to enter to win.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/ask-anne-episode-56535240

Just watch this introductory video for Ask Anne and post a special education-related question below or on this video’s post on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/posts/ask-anne-episode-56535240.

You can also submit your questions for Ask Anne at https://kps4parents.org/home/anne-m-zachry-m-a-ed-psych/submit-your-questions-to-ask-anne/.

Ask Anne is a patron-supported program on Patreon in which KPS4Parents’ CEO and lead advocate and paralegal, Anne M. Zachry, M.A. Ed Psych, answers questions submitted by parents of children with special needs, professionals who work with special education students, advocates and attorneys for children with special needs, and others with questions about how publicly funded special education is supposed to work.

With more than 30 years of field experience advocating for children with special needs, designing and evaluating individualized educational programs, supporting attorneys in special education and disability-related complaints and litigation, and filing complaints with state and federal regulators, Anne has insight into the technical requirements, evidence-based practices, and public education agency politics.

Give us a good question for an upcoming episode of Ask Anne by midnight Pacific Time on March 30, 2022, and you could win the $10 Amazon eGift card.

Only serious special education-related questions will result in contest entry. The winner will be chosen at random from valid entries and announced on March 31, 2022 at 5pm Pacific Time. Selection of questions are at the sole discretion of KPS4Parents.

All questions actually used in upcoming episodes of Ask Anne will include a shout-out to those who asked them plusHonorable Mention shout-outs to up to 10 people who asked great questions that didn’t quite make it into each episode.

The winner, the individuals whose questions are used in our upcoming episodes, and our Honorable Mentions will all also receive a handwritten note of thanks from Anne. We hope you find this an engaging way to get answers to your special education-related questions and look forward to answering your questions in upcoming episodes of Ask Anne.

Submit your valid special education-related question to us for consideration and entry into this Amazon eGift Card Giveaway. There is no limit on the number of entries per participant, so long as each entry is a unique, legitimate question specific to special education appropriate for Ask Anne.

To view past, present, and future episodes of Ask Anne, subscribe on Patreon.