On January 13, 2022, after staying up late to finish my last post/podcast, I woke up to find a message in my inbox from the CAPCAA listserv that included a very comprehensive-looking report published by a group referring to itself as “The Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force,” with the email address of oahspecialedreport@gmail.com. The members of this task force are not identified in the report. The report identifies its authors as follows:
Authors/Contributors: This accountability report is provided by the Office for Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force, a coalition of concerned attorneys, advocates and parents. Many of these contributors conducted research, collected and organized the information, and assisted in the writing of this report.
Bias, Noncompliance and Misconduct In Special Education Due Process: An Accountability Report on the California Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Division, January 2022
Given the degree of retaliation that anybody calling out the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could easily face in the current anti-democratic climate of American politics, these days, I can’t say I’m entirely surprised that the individuals responsible for this report have not named themselves in it. That could be really a good way to find some “good ol’ boys” burning crosses in their yards and planting pipe bombs in their hedges on behalf of some tax-fattened, suit-wearing carpetbaggers.
So, I can’t discount the report for lack of identified authors. That leaves nothing but the content of the report with which to judge its legitimacy, but that’s almost better. It’s like a blind audition on The Voice; it doesn’t matter what you look like if you have a good voice. What you have to say and how you say it matters more than what your name is or what you look like. So, that’s how I’m looking at this report.
In these troubling times, I’m willing to accept verifiable facts from anonymous authors truly fearing for their own safety if they dare to speak the truth. I will not accept unverifiable assertions being openly spewed by people saying whatever will get them attention. So, let’s examine the assertions being made by this report.
This Task Force’s report follows a professional format for organization and presentation of its information, but it’s not a legal brief or scientific paper. Not every assertion is supported by black-and-white evidence, but the assertions not supported by evidence are nonetheless consistent with those assertions that are supported by evidence.
Additionally, because I work extensively in the very areas of concern targeted by this report, all of it rings true with the experiences that I’ve lived as a professional over the period of time discussed in this report. That which is not outright supported by evidence in this report is nonetheless credible to me given the evidence that is presented and what I already know to be true from real-life experience.
While anecdotal accounts were added to the report to bolster the authors’ positions, the identity of those offering these accounts are unknown, so verifying them is impossible. Again, concerns about retaliation and privacy are legitimate, so I don’t want to discount the privacy concerns of the authors, but one of the first rules of proving the veracity of a document is authenticating its content with its authors. That’s just a basic rule of evidence. At some point, for this document to be taken seriously by regulators and/or legislators, its authors will have to reveal themselves.
Putting aside the authorship issues for the moment and delving into the actual content of this report, what this report is basically asserting is that OAH, which is a division of the California Department of General Services (DGS), is organizationally compromised relative to its obligations to try special education cases pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The report supports these arguments with references to a collection of publicly available documents.
The Task Force’s assertions in its report are also consistent with my experiences dealing with OAH since it took over the hearings in 2005. In fact, I first became a paralegal in 2005 and witnessed the very shenanigans reported by the Task Force with the change-over from the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO) to OAH that same year. It was a dumpster fire inside of a clown car that had crashed into a train wreck, to put it mildly.
OAH underbid SEHO in terms of the costs of conducting special education mediations and hearings by failing to include the costs of administrative support and sending mediators and judges around the State to handle each case in its local community, which allowed OAH to come under SEHO’s bid by several million dollars, as memory serves. The moment it opened its doors for business, it was already millions of dollars over-budget from what it had bid to get the business from SEHO.
The quality of the judges from OAH was atrocious out of the gate. One then-new judge went down in California special education parent/student legal history for the angrily and stupidly stated words, “Ms. [Attorney], what does autism have to do with behavior!?!”
When you have people who have no idea what anybody is talking about deciding the futures of children who have no voice of their own in the process, those of us who are trying to protect these children become almost as powerless as the children we’re trying to protect. We were, and continue to be, faced with people entrusted with responsibilities that are clearly light years beyond their actual skills and knowledge, and the authorities and powers that go with those responsibilities.
What is the point of having the rule of law if the people responsible for enforcing it are personally incentivized to break it or are otherwise too dumb to know how to enforce it? We’re paying these people to implement the regulations, not to invent excuses as to why they don’t have to and bully the rest of us if we dare to question them.
I’ve been saying for the last 30+ years that special education issues are civil rights issues, and if our babies aren’t truly protected, then none of us really are. The national political landscape appears to support my conclusions, not that I’m happy to be right about that. Marginalized groups with specifically identified protected rights are always the first ones targeted by fascists, so special education is really a “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to American democracy. Clearly, we’re not doing that well and this Task Force is seeing a lot of the same things I’m seeing.
Regardless of the authorship issue, which I suspect will be resolved in due time, the evidence cited in this report and the consistency of what it describes with what I live and breathe everyday inclines me to treat it as credible, though if anyone can find an inaccurate assertion in it, please post a comment and let me know. At minimum, another federal investigation is warranted based on this report, but I don’t know that going to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the right way to go, now.
As the report discloses, there was already an OCR investigation in 2014 of the California Department of Education (CDE) as it pertains to making its hearings accessible to individuals with disabilities. I won’t repeat the anecdotal account of what that was all about, here; you can read it yourself in the report. But, I warn you, it’s upsetting. I wish I could say it was too outlandish to be true, but it sounds just about right for OAH and CDE, based on my own experiences.
Last year, just to give you an example from my own caseload, I filed a compliance complaint with CDE against a local school district for failing to implement all of a student’s IEP during the pandemic-related shutdown. The most critical element of the complaint was the district’s failure to provide in-person 1:1 aide services, as required by the child’s IEP.
Instead, the district put the aide for this non-verbal, inattentive, prompt-dependent child with autism on Zoom, requiring the child’s mother to be the in-person aide helping her child access Zoom, constantly cueing him attend to the online instruction, and prompting him through all of his work tasks to completion. The aide could only sit there, staring at them through the screen, completely useless … at taxpayer expense.
The aide was willing to provide in-person support and the non-public agency (NPA) that employed the aide was ready to send her to the student’s house in a mask for in-person services during distance learning, but the district wouldn’t permit any in-person services during shutdown. This single parent ended up selling her condo and moving, with her children, in with family friends, in no small part because she couldn’t work a paid job while sitting at home serving as the free aide for her child with special needs throughout each school day while the paid aide sat in her own home on Zoom, unable to do her actual job.
This was a blatant violation of State and federal law that the district kept blaming on the county’s health department. I challenge anybody to find a legal authority that gives a county health department the authority to tell a school district that it doesn’t have to abide by the IDEA. After attempting to get the district to do the right thing by way of written correspondence and the IEP process to no avail, I filed a regulatory complaint with CDE.
CDE opened an investigation based on what I alleged through its complaint intake unit, but then the investigator subsequently assigned to the complaint materially altered the nature of the investigation and cited the district for a different violation of the law than what I had originally alleged, and failed to issue a finding regarding the original allegation I’d made about the aide. The investigator’s findings then went to yet another unit within CDE that developed the order for corrective actions, which included compensatory special education instruction for lost service minutes, but it was silent regarding aide support during those compensatory services.
Think about this for a minute. I alleged in my complaint that the district failed to provide aide support during distance learning. The intake unit opened an investigation in response to my complaint based on the allegation of the district’s failure to implement the IEP as written, specifically with regard to 1:1 aide support. The investigator found that the district failed to implement all of the instructional minutes in the IEP, but issued no finding regarding the 1:1 aide support. The corrective actions unit ordered compensatory instruction to make up for lost service minutes, but there was no mention of aide support.
Once corrective actions have been ordered by CDE and its findings are sent out to the parties, the offending education agency has to provide proof of corrective actions to yet another unit of CDE. When I called that unit to get clarification as to whether the compensatory service minutes were supposed to include the 1:1 aide support called for by the IEP, that unit’s response was, “Yes.”
The offending district’s attorneys (definitely of the Rudy Guilliani/Syndey Powell variety), however, said, “No.” They then tried to fight with CDE over whether or not the compensatory service minutes had to include the same 1:1 aide support the student required throughout the school day in every other instructional setting, as per his IEP, likely billing the district by the hour the whole time.
What ensued turned into an internal feud within CDE. The unit at CDE responsible for collecting proof of corrective action from the district insisted that, because the IEP called for 1:1 aide support during any and all instruction, it was understood that 1:1 aide support also had to be provided during the compensatory services ordered. But, not everybody involved with the investigation at CDE agreed.
What I came to suspect was that the investigator and legal department at CDE had deliberately steered my complaint away from its original allegations for presumably fiscal and/or political reasons. It certainly had nothing to do with CDE abiding by its obligations or making the district comply with the law. It had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the educational and civil rights of a little boy with autism who can barely talk and needs an aide to access his education.
Reading through this Task Force’s report, I’m now seeing that experience again through new eyes. The argument the CDE is fiscally motivated to find it does nothing wrong and neither do its districts, regardless of the facts, as asserted by the Task Force, resonates with me as true.
Another compelling argument asserted by this report that also rings true for me is that DGS exists for the purpose of cutting costs, not ensuring the State’s compliance with federal mandates or protecting the rights of citizens. The report further argues that, as an integral part of DGS, OAH also exists for no reason other than to control costs and not to protect the rights of California’s citizens. As such, the Special Education division of OAH is not organized in a manner consistent with the requirements of the IDEA that special education hearings and mediations be conducted by impartial parties whose only function is to protect the educational and civil rights of students with disabilities.
A State employee who is being told their primary function is to save money should not be in charge of making sure the State abides by the IDEA. It’s an outright conflict of interest, which this Task Force asserts in its report. This isn’t just a philosophical assertion; it’s a regulatory requirement. The IDEA requires education agencies to design and implement individualized programs of instruction that confer appropriately ambitious educational benefits upon each student according to his/her/their unique circumstances, regardless of cost.
A State agency that exists to cut costs should not be making programming decisions in situations in which it is unlawful for cost considerations to be used to determine who will get what. That, to me, explains a lot of the hyper-Republicanism (in the present-day fascist sense of the term, not the former “Party of Lincoln” sense of it) going on in California’s special education system.
And, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that, back in 2005, right-wing grifters were responsible for giving the special education due process business back to OAH. One of the sleaziest special ed law firms there ever was, which happened to be the largest special ed law firm representing school districts in California at the time, was Lozano Smith. It was instrumentally involved in getting the due process hearings switched to OAH in 2005. All of this came on the heels of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2004, which resulted in changes to the IDEA. Those changes created an opportunity for anti-student and anti-parent forces to lobby for changes to how California handled its special education matters, from changes toState law, to changing who enforced the laws from SEHO to OAH.
However, in 2005, something else big happened involving Lozano Smith, right after OAH took the special education hearings back over. Lozano Smith will live on in infamy, at least in my mind, for decades to come following two public displays of anti-democratic behavior.
If special education advocacy has been the “canary in the coal mine” of American democracy, Lozano Smith has been one of the Mitch McConnell-esque specters of obstructive fascism that has been trying to snuff the voices of “canaries” like me for decades. I’m convinced that every single unrepentant person who had a hand in the Bret Harte mess and anything else like it will have a special place waiting for them in Trump Tower Hell, when they die; perhaps it will be named the Lozano Smith Suite.
In the present, all of the concerns raised by this Task Force’s report are grounded in the realities I deal with every day. The fact that the authors fear to reveal their identities is also grounded in the harsh reality that the fascists aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they are coming for us, anymore. Anybody who stands up for civil rights, these days, is a target, and I realize that includes me just by saying so.
Here’s the thing, though. Those of us accustomed to dealing with special education issues who understand Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) also know an Extinction Burst when we see one. So long as those of us who see this Extinction Burst for what it is continue to abide by our professional ethics, stand our ground, and stick to the applicable science and rule of law, none of the self-serving histrionics of those with anti-democratic tendencies within our government will overcome our fact-based arguments. We have to keep acting like we live in a democracy or it stops being one.
We may lose battles on occasion, particularly in those States currently permeated by maskless, unvaccinated seditionists spreading COVID as readily as their lies, but the only way we lose the overall initiative is if democracy fully collapses in the United States. All of us “canaries” need to start beating our wings and squawking loudly as the voices of experience when it comes to fighting fascism within America’s government, or it’s curtains for all of us.
It’s not shocking news to any of us that the fascists are targeting local government, including school boards, as a means of seizing control of the country. That’s nothing new! That’s what all of us working in special education advocacy have been up against since the original laws that protect our children were passed in the 1970s. To the rest of the Country, it’s unfortunate that it’s now happening to you, too, but we welcome you to the front lines and look forward to working with you to win this soft civil war currently being fought over basic rights and the rule of law in America.
To our colleagues fighting similar battles on behalf of other marginalized groups, we look to unify with you. When it comes right down to it, those of us who exist in marginalized groups collectively outnumber the few individuals at the center who put us in their margins.
In a democracy, majority rules. The minority of individuals who want to rob the rest of us of our rights cannot oppress a unified majority. Special education rights are human rights, just like ethnic rights, gender rights, sexual orientation rights, relationship rights, etc. If all of us whose rights are being infringed upon join forces instead of competing for the crumbs that fall from the would-be oligarchs’ tables, we can be sitting at the table eating meals full of freedom with everybody else, instead.
The following is the written transcript of the audio recording of my interview of Zafer Elcik of Otsimo, which you can listen to in the podcast version of this post. This transcription was aided by Otter.
Thank you so much for being in this podcast with me today. I really, truly appreciate you making the time, especially since we’re having to accommodate international time zones, and I’m here in the United States and you’re in Turkey. If you don’t mind, could you just go ahead and give us just a brief introduction of yourself and your product?
Zafer Elcik
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. My name is Zafer. I am co-founder of Otsimo. At Otsimo, we are developing apps for kids with special needs, mostly for autism, Down Syndrome, and mental challenge. What we are trying to do is to provide early intensive education to the mobile devices and the speech therapy, as well. I have a brother with autism. He has been vulnerable for a long time. And I realized that he has special interest in smart devices one day, but I couldn’t find any suites or apps for my brother. The typical apps have a lot of advertisements, as well as, like, they have a lot of sounds, animations, and so on, and my brother actually liked to play with them, but he ended up with a bad situation. I decided to create app companies just helping kids on the spectrum. Well, right now we have kids all across the US, UK, as well as Turkey. We have already met the Minister of Education of Turkey. We reach education and speech therapy all across the world through the mobile device.
Anne Zachry
That is so cool. That’s such a powerful outcome to make happen. That’s such an accomplishment. That’s so cool.
Zafer Elcik
Thank you.
Anne Zachry
Oh, thank you. So well, one of the things that because we’re here in the United States, and we’re constantly advocating for kids with special needs to get the services they’re supposed to be getting and the supports that they need. And, very definitely, the whole issue of alternative communication methods and kids who have language impairments who can’t get their words out, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have words … I mean, I’ve worked for over 30 years with kids with every kind of disability you can imagine, and lots and lots of kids on the autism spectrum with language challenges, but also across all age groups. And, so one of the things I wanted to ask you about – because I did download and install your app and mess around with it, so I could become familiar with it – the graphics and the imagery, and the age ranges that look like on the app max out at like seven and older. And, for my kids on the spectrum who are middle school and high school age or young adult age, they don’t see themselves necessarily in the apps, and the tools that are are out there for children who are younger. And, the accommodations they need evolve over time as they get older, and they may still have the language skills of a very young child, but they are still a teenager on the inside. And, so, my question to you was, “Is there … are there plans to expand the app to have a version that is more grown up and more adult looking and more age appropriate for teens and young adults that will follow them into college?” Because I’m seeing kids who everybody thought they would never go to college. But once they get the help was like “Oh, hey! That’s a possibility for you, now …”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… but these tools can’t follow them necessarily. And so my question to you is, “Are you looking to expand it to for to make the tool something that will support older users, especially as your kids get older … your child users?”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, actually, it’s a great question, because my brother is getting older and older. And, we try to test with my brother as well to what the level will be of the new content in the app. Like, at Otsimo, we approach early and intensive education, because, like, you heard a lot of the time that you know it, like, if the kids can get early and intensive education, it affects our …
Anne Zachry
Right, right. Those are my kids who are now growing up and going to college, who, when we first started when they were four and five years old, that wasn’t even a thought. But, now that they’re 18, it’s like, “Oh my gosh! Look what you can do!”, because we got all those services when they were little.
Zafer Elcik
That’s because, like, I realized that, in the US, as well as in Turkey – I mean – a lot of countries in the world, because, like, we have a lot of users all across the world, and we realized that, like, getting a diagnosis and, then after that, getting the first education is a really big hassle. Like, in the US, as well, like, you need to go to IEP meetings …
Anne Zachry
Yep.
Zafer Elcik
… to get what you need, and it’s a big hassle and you lose a lot of precious months, sometimes a year, to just getting the education. That’s because we, at first, we focused on the, like, really early and intensive skills, like, small hand gestures, or social skills, and so on. But, after that, we really found out that we need to create content for a really diverse community. That’s because, like, right now we have more than 100 games, some of them is really easy, some of them is kind of middle school-ish. But we haven’t, like, created, like … I can set it up, like, we … our apps are at pre-K to K-2, but after K-2, right now, we don’t have real content. That’s because, right now, we are developing new content every month, just to keep updated. I don’t think so we will create content for university or high school and so on, but I believe it’s so go we can go to like pre-K to K-8, and so on, in the near future. We will have a lot of content for that.
Anne Zachry
Right. Well, definitely the early intervention is a huge part of it. I mean, that’s certainly important. And, you know, my background is also in educational psychology. That’s what my master’s degree is in. And I can tell you from an instructional design standpoint … but, also I’ve worked in IT. I’ve worked it … I can do some coding, it’s not my greatest skill, but it’s not like I don’t have any coding skills at all. I understand what it takes to build something from scratch in code. And you want to start with the simpler skills and move into the … progress into the more complex skills, anyway. You know, that those simpler younger skills are foundational, not only for human beings, but also for technology. So, you build on that not only with the kid, but with the tech over time, I would imagine. So, that totally makes sense.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah. Right now, we are developing these apps for more than five years, and still, I believe that we are in the, like, really beginning.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
We have more than 20 people. Like, we have psychologist on team. We have educators, developers, designers, testers. A lot of people lately, designers working with us, and so on. And it takes a lot of …
Anne Zachry
I can only imagine. I mean, I’m just trying to envision what all the logistics are of making something happen, you know, like what you’re doing. And, it’s just … you know, what you’re doing is moving the earth. That’s huge. And you said something a moment ago that …
Zafer Elcik
Thank you.
Anne Zachry
Thank you … that really caught my ear, and that was, you know, the diversity within the autism community. And, we have a saying over here that, “When you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
Because, no two people with autism are alike, you know. Just like everybody else, that no two brains are alike, even if they have a common disorder. And so, how it manifests … and I’ve got, you know … and this goes to my next question is, you know … I’ve got situations out here where we have students with IEPs that will say in the IEP that they’re supposed to have an AAC device, with hardware and software loaded on it, but they won’t specify what they’re using. They won’t name the device and they won’t name the software in the IEP, as though all AAC tech is interchangeable. And, it’s not! Each technology is different and nuanced, and every student has to learn that piece of technology as a way to learn language. Like, if you start a kid out on ProLoQuo2Go, and then you move that kid to another school, and they see that, “Oh, well. You’ve got an an AAC device with some kind of software in your IEP. We have to implement your IEP that you came in with, but we don’t know what you were using.” And they’ll go off and get, you know, a Samsung smart pad with some kind of who-knows-what software installed on it. And it’s not the iPad with the ProLoQuo2Go the kid knew how to use from the last school. And so, what happens is their language gets taken away. And so, I guess my question to you then becomes, “If there’s other technologies that are going to be used as these children get older, like ProLoQuo2Go, going into the adult world, do you think that it’s wise to start them off on something different and then switch them, or does it make more sense to get them accustomed to one piece of technology and have it carry them through, or does it make sense to teach them more than one type of AAC tech so that if one goes out of business, the other one’s still around?” I mean, that’s my concern. It’s about the people in the public schools who tend to think that AAC technology, if they’re not specifically trained in it, they think it’s plug-and-play, and you can pull one out and push another one in. And, I wonder what your feedback on that what would be.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, my feedback on that, like, is, we have also AAC solution in our special education app.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
We are targeting mostly young children instead of, like, ProLoQuo2Go or other AAC devices as well. And I believe in … so, like, we need to introduce the AAC to the people and individuals on the spectrum as soon as possible, because, like, we have a lot of research also going on there. AAC actually doesn’t have any disadvantages to learning a language. It also have advantages to learning language or concepts of vocabulary, and so on. I believe … so, we need to, we need to show the AAC in really early stages, because it’s helpful for them. And the second thing I need to say: We need to find a way to, like, a different kind of solution. Like, sometimes you need Tobii Dynavox with a eye-tracker device on it …
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
… and so on, and sometimes you need also some AT with a light reading cue and open source system with you. I think that, like, the schools doesn’t … like, schools must not mandate an AAC over others. They need to accommodate the diversity, the diversity of different assistive technology. That’s because, like, I also came across some schools, like, they’re using just one tech and they don’t want to change, but it doesn’t help anyone. Like, it just helped the teachers, maybe the managers there. It doesn’t help the kids and the family. Because I think that, like, teachers also have a lot of goals, as well, because of the … I don’t want to say that, but, like, teachers need to accommodate the diverse kids …
Anne Zachry
Yeah. Right.
Zafer Elcik
… diverse problems or … the diverse solutions of the kid, and find a way to use the … what the kids like, what the individuals like. Because, like, communication is essential, and when you are changing a device, you’re actually changing the whole communication system. And, you force them maybe to voiceless.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
And that’s a huge drawback for diverse communities. That’s because, I believe it. So they don’t need to see a lot of different AAC, but they need to stick with what they feel comfortable.
Anne Zachry
Right. It’s doesn’t do any good to teach a kid how to speak using the tool and then take the tool away from them. And…
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… and that’s our concern. And that, again, goes back to how special education is legally regulated here, because you can’t just go and change things up once it’s written into the IEP. That’s a legally binding contract that the parents can hold the school to that says, “Hey, these are the things you’re supposed to do for my kid.” But if the contract itself is flawed, if the what it describes in writing is not appropriate, then that’s what’s enforceable. And, what we run into is … Yes, I agree with you that you have way too many school districts that will standardize on a particular technology, because they get bulk discounts. If they buy in bulk from the vendor, they get it less per unit.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
And so, it’s cheaper to get multiple licenses of a particular AAC and a particular device because they can buy those in bulk, because all of these vendors have realized that they can sell more in quantity to the schools if they can convince them that their technology will solve all these problems. And, for a lot of kids it will, but you have to specify what it is in the IEP. Because, if a kid has started out, say, on your technology and it’s part of what’s being done in the classroom, if it’s not written into the IEP, and that child moves to another area, and that IEP has to follow them to the new school, but it doesn’t say in there … that they were using your technology, the new schools not going to know to put that in. And so, what we run into is sort of a mixture of too vague of a description of the accommodation, as well as what you were talking about, what is sometimes is over-specified to the point where there’s no flexibility to try anything new.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah … Yeah.
Anne Zachry
So, you don’t … you have to strike a balance where there’s enough flexibility with the way the document is constructed that trying out new technologies is not prohibited, but what the child is familiar with is also not taken away. And so, it comes down to the wording of the document. And I think that that’s something that a lot of solution developers find frustrating when they enter into the American special education system because they’re thinking, “Oh, America loves special ed! They actually have laws and they make it free and they do all this stuff!” But, when you actually try to participate in it, it looks a lot different to live through it than it looks like on paper. Yes, there’s an embracing of it. But there’s also all of these rules that get in the way of actually doing something about it, sometimes. And so, sometimes the rules are there to help, and sometimes they get in the way. And I think that, especially as an international developer, for you coming in to try and insert your product into that kind of situation and have been successful, that’s enormous. Because that’s not an easy thing for anybody to do. And for you to come from outside of the country, and insert yourself into such a heavily regulated situation, with a solution that people are actually adapting and accepting and using, I think that’s huge. So that’s … congratulations on that. That’s enormous.
Zafer Elcik
Actually, like, the system in the U.S. is changing by state-by-state. And that’s because like, maybe it’s district-by-district.
Anne Zachry
Yeah.
Zafer Elcik
You are right. They’re involved in that kind of stuff. We here are actually trying to be a company like family-friendly, or special individual-friendly. What we try to provide is an additional value. Like, they can pick what they want. Mostly … most of the other companies, like there are big corporations in the U.S., like, they are selling bulk, but they don’t update the software for a long time or doing anything like that, specifically.
Anne Zachry
That’s true. Right.
Zafer Elcik
That’s because, like … and also, some states and district doesn’t … they need to cover by IEP by law, but they have a lot of that system. That’s because kids couldn’t reach out for, like, the AAC they need.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
That’s because we try to find a way to be an affordable and accessible solution for all families, instead of, like, binding the districts or states to just forcing them into one single product. But, you are also right. On the other side, if the kids started some sort of specific AAC, I think, I believe it, so they need to follow the same system in the other schools or other districts because, like, they learn how to communicate through that. Like, it’s something like you learn in English in one nursery; while you carry on your school, you need to … you’re forced to talk in French and …
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
… it’s impossible for you to actually … it’s something like that.
Anne Zachry
I agree.
Zafer Elcik
… take a special tech from their hand just because of the bulk discount or so, but it doesn’t help anyone.
Anne Zachry
Right.
Zafer Elcik
It’s helping the … maybe the district managers and so on.
Anne Zachry
Exactly. And that’s a lot of what we run into is … we run into administrators who spend zero time in the classroom, who are business office people making decisions that affect the classroom based on finances, which is illegal, but it happens all the time, because they don’t know any better. They don’t realize their decisions are going to have that big of an impact on a kid. They’re not even thinking about that because their business office people. And so, that’s I think it’s … we’re running into an issue over here with respect to how the bureaucracy is organized. It was created during the Industrial Revolution and emulates a factory. And, even though modern business technology has evolved well beyond that, public education technology has not. Public agency technology has not. The public sector, our government agencies, are decades behind technologically speaking, which I’m sure you’ve encountered with all of their different business systems …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, yeah.
Anne Zachry
… and things and accounting systems and was like, none of them are running the same operating system. None of them are running the same software. So, it’s a highly disparate situation. And it kind of reminds me when I was working in IT years ago, around the, like, the late 1990s, early 2000s. I went through that whole Y2K thing … and … when I was working in IT. And, at the time, the customers that I had for the company I worked with were mostly in the freight forwarding business. And, it was when U.S. Customs was switching to paperless. And, my goodness! The pandemonium and chaos that broke out amongst all of the people who handle paperwork for shipping goods back and forth overseas. I mean, this was all a paper driven processing, and now Customs wanted to go paperless, and it was something. And, nobody had the same operating system. Nobody had the same software. But, everybody’s stuff was somehow supposed to magically talk to U.S. Customs electronically. And, making that all come together over the span of like five to seven years was outrageous. But at the same time, I see that now happening in public education where we’re finally starting to reach that place where we’re just going to have to deal with it in do the upgrades. And, I think that once the upgrades get done, and we get to a more cohesive modern system, that it’ll be a lot easier because … we have better technology being implemented in the classrooms than we having implemented in the business offices. And, I think that that’s a lot of the problem is that we have this antiquated bureaucracy responsible for teaching modern children. And so, we have all these innovators like you bringing technology in, but what’s it supposed to integrate with? It’s like a green cursor on a black screen or an amber cursor on a black screen. I mean, some of the tech is so old. And so, I know that you’re having to go in and blaze a trail in a place where, you know, in a space in an industry where technology is not as easily as embraced as it is in other places. So that’s another thing that you have to be proud of yourself for, because it’s another accomplishment, to be able not only to come into the American market, with all of the regulations involved, but also just all of the backwards technology that you’re going to have to overcome. And so you’ve really taken on something that’s enormous. You know, I have one last question. I have a young man on my caseload that I’ve been with for a very, very, very long time, and he’s severely, severely, severely autistic. But he’s even more severely intellectually disabled. I think the intellectual disability gets in his way more than the autism does. But, when he was much younger, he was very self-injurious. And he would hit his head against very hard surfaces, like floors, and roads, and walls and …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… and so he was a head-banger. And, he would hit himself and he would hurt other people. And, it was because he couldn’t get his words out. And, when he would speak, people wouldn’t take him seriously, because he did a lot of scripting. So they didn’t listen to anything he said, even when he was trying to speak for real. And so, it got to the point where the behavior became his method of communication. And it took a long, long time; he had to be institutionalized to break him of that habit, and teach him to use his words again, and to get him to, you know, where he could be more functionally communicative without engaging in these violent behaviors. Unfortunately, in the course of all of this before I, you know … by the time I got involved with him, a whole lot of harm had already been done. And he had managed to, as best as we can tell, detach his own retinas from head-banging. So, now, he’s permanently blind.
Zafer Elcik
Oh, wow!
Anne Zachry
He hit his head so hard that he blinded himself, or at least that’s what the doctors are saying, because he just … all of a sudden, his retinas peeled off the backsides of his eyeballs and he couldn’t see anymore, and, so, you know, and it was after years and years of head-banging against really hard surfaces. And, his school would … they didn’t know what to do with him, so they would just put them in a seclusion room and leave them in there to whack his head on the wall for 45 minutes at a time. And, needless to say, there was a lawsuit. And, you know, we got compensatory services for him. But what we can’t do with him, now, is teach him to use a traditional AAC or any kind of device-based technologies where, you know, all these wonderful things like what you created, because he doesn’t have eyesight anymore. He can’t see the screen.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
And so, you know, we’ve had him evaluated by experts to help figure out what we can do for this guy, you know. And, he’s now my friend. I love him to death. He’s my sweet little lamb. He … I mean, I don’t have any behavior problems with him. But, here he is now, you know, as a young adult finally starting to say, “Okay, well, I think I want to have a life and do something with myself,” and the tools and the resources are so now limited for him because of the eyesight loss, because everything for autism was all about visual schedules and visual cues.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
And, you know … and I can’t do that with him. And so, what we’ve had to do is, I create tactile schedules for him where I take dollhouse miniatures, and I glue them on a great big piece of foam board. And, I make like a visual schedule, but instead of looking at it, he’s got to touch each item, and it moves through a progression so that he can, you know, follow the flow of what it is we’re going to do. And once he learns the routine – once he gets that ritual down – he knows the order of events, I don’t have to use the schedule with him anymore, because he already knows what’s coming. Now he knows the routine. But, to teach him new schedules, I would have to glue together $200 worth of dollhouse miniatures off of Amazon onto a piece of board to give him an idea of what was about to happen. And, what I’m not seeing … and so, I’m kind of putting it out there, hopefully you’ll … this is something you can think about … are tools for individuals with autism who are also blind or are deaf and have these sensory impairments on top of the autism that makes the typical solutions inaccessible to them. And just your your thoughts maybe of what you think might be a good way to go in terms of adapting a device for use with someone. Like, I can see if someone has hearing loss … hearing loss, you could do vibration. You could make the device vibrate …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… in the absence of sound. But when for someone with vision loss, I don’t know how you replicate a visual schedule, other than to just audio record yourself, like in the voice recorder, you know, just speaking your way through it. I’ve done that, too. But it doesn’t seem to be as powerful as a tactile schedule. And I’m curious as to, you know, when I talk to developers, what do you think about that? What do you think could be done for someone who’s got multiple disabilitiees and the autism is just one of many?
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, it’s a nice question. Like, we also came across like, people with hearing disorders with autism, and so on. We try to make our product as much as accessible for that. I don’t know, literally, like, because we are not doing visual schedules. I don’t know, in specific people region schedule basis. But for the Apple devices, there is, like, assistive disability techniques. And I know that, for example, ProLoQuo2Go has a system. You can actually use the switches or you can … they will actually scan the screen with them. But, you need to teach them this assistive tech on the Apple devices to the kid. And, I believe it, we are also … there will be our apps right now. I can’t say we are 100% accessible for vision problems, or hearing problems and so on, but you can use that assistive settings in the settings in Apple devices. And, combined with that assistive settings with the apps like us or ProLoQuo2Go, or if you’re using a visual schedule app, you should reaching out to developers and saying them, like, “Could you implement assistive settings to our device on your app, because we are using it for for this, this this?” And, that’s the only chance I can see from my point of view …
Anne Zachry
That stands to reason.
Zafer Elcik
Apple has a great assistive settings for people with vision problems, as well as hearing problems. That’s because, if he or she can use them assistive techniques while using the device, apps also can be a part of it and you can use that settings in the specific apps, and you can just scan the screen instead of picking seeing regionally, and so on. You will see here what you, like, the device actually loudly saying that what they’re clicking, and they can actually talk thanks to that, while just memorizing what they were seeing. That’s doable and a lot of companies are doing but, yeah, it’s a one more additional step of teaching.
Anne Zachry
Is it like an API where you if you’re a developer, you could reach out to Apple and say, “Hey, we want to link in with your accessibility tools. What’s the code?”
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
Okay.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, it’s kind of an accessibility feature. You use that kind of specific codes in your app. At times, too, the Apple accessibility feature actually can be used in the app as well. The name is … or … you can use voice over, or you can use in the voice over settings. You have, like, Braille alphabet, as well as, like, the others. And also hearing devices can be connected to the Apple devices and you can use for specifically hearing disorders and so on. That’s because like, the settings if the app using that specific API or SDK, for just specific assistive technology settings, you can use it in the app as well. And Facebook, Google, using these APIs a lot. You can test it out there. You can see how they … how it’s working. And if you’re using one, we just schedule it out. You just reach out to developers and say what you want. That I believe in, so they will implement it in near future.
Anne Zachry
That’s a really good point. I know that one of the colleagues that I work with who I’ve actually have involved with this student in the past to teach independent living skills, she herself is blind. And she … her whole house is an Apple smart house at this point, because she’s become so dependent upon the Apple technologies to … as her accommodations …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… but it’s interesting you would say that because the first time I introduced the two of them to each other, we met at a restaurant in the community that is entirely staffed by individuals with mental disabilities. And, we were there to meet each other – for him to meet her – and I went inside to go get the menu. And, there was a line! And, I had to wade through a sea of people before I could even get the menu to bring it back out to him and read it to him and ask him what he wanted. And my colleague had already looked up the menu on their website, and had her phone read it out loud to the both of them so that, by the time …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… I got back outside with the menu, he already knew what he wanted.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah. Like, Apple devices are expensive, but Apple as a company, really pro assistive technology. That’s because, like, they devices are best in case for using that kind of technology.
Anne Zachry
Right, they’ve got the most experience working with this kind of stuff; they’ve been doing it longer. And well, it just for the for the benefit of our listeners who are hearing this conversation, I mean, here in the United States, if you if you’re on the autism spectrum, especially if you have other disabling conditions, other developmental disabilities, you’re also going to be eligible for services from Department of Developmental Services. And every state has a Department of Developmental Services. Now, again, federal regulations that come down from the top, just like special education law, but then how each state …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… implements the federal regs varies from state to state. And so with Developmental Services, some states, the DDS is its own thing, and you just go to the DDS office and that’s who you deal with. It’s the state agency, and they have offices in different communities around the state. But in California, and in other states, it’s a little bit different, where you have what’s called regional centers. And, regional centers are non- … here in California, are non-profit organizations that contract with California’s Department of Developmental Services. And, their function is to provide anything that someone with a developmental disability needs above and beyond what any of the other generic agencies have to do. So, for example, for a child who’s in, you know, K-12 age, the school district is going to have the primary responsibility for meeting their needs in terms of publicly funded programming for people with disabilities. But if there’s anything that doesn’t have to do with school, like afterschool childcare, or social skills in a non-school setting, like a Boy Scout troop, or something like that, there’s services above and beyond what the school is obligated to do, those things fall to regional center. So, if a child gets an iPad with your technology – with Otsimo – loaded on it, for example, at school, that’s only for school. If they need to be able to use it to communicate with people outside of the school day, they need a second separate iPad that they keep at home and take out into the community, and that’s regional center. Because the school’s …
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
… only responsible for what happens at school, or anything to do with homework, you know, anything that’s school related. But, if it’s beyond that, if it’s just life in general, now, you’re talking about regional center. And, for our individuals who have graduated from high school with a diploma or aged out of special ed, and now they’re young adults and they’re going out into the world, regional centers and the Department of Developmental Services are obligated to serve these people their entire lives, not just when they’re children. So, if someone is using an iPad with your technology, or ProLoQuo2Go or anything else, and then they’re no longer a public school student – they’ve grown up, they’ve gone on – but they still need that iPad with that technology on it to communicate with people, then they have to go back to DDS, or regional center, depending on how its configured in their state and say, “Okay, well, this is a life functional skill thing for me. This is an activity of daily living. If I don’t have this device, I don’t have a means of communicating with people.” And so, the laws very definitely protect their communication rights. And so, it falls on a different agency to purchase that equipment. It doesn’t automatically fall on the shoulders of the families to come up with all this money to buy all of this tech. There’s public dollars out there for it. Just, people need to know which agency to go to for which circumstance. If you’re talking about someone who is an adult who’s looking to get a job and needs to have this technology to communicate in order to be employed, well, now you’re talking about the Department of Rehabilitation, which is also federally funded and also regulated under the same bodies of law as special education law on a federal level. But again, every state does it different. Some states will roll their Department of Developmental Services and their Department of Rehab together as one solid agency that takes care of both of those responsibilities. Where others, like in California, DDS it’s its own thing and it’s got its regional centers, and the Department of Rehabilitation is a completely separate entity that you have to go to separate from everybody else and go ask for their help. And so, getting all of these different agencies that each may have an individual responsibility to one person can be a lot, but any one of these agencies could end up having to finance the technology, the communication device and software, that these individuals would need. And so, I’m just putting it out there not only for you, but for our listeners, that there’s more than one way to get the job done, and if one avenue is not appropriate for an individual, there may be another avenue that is, and that could still make your technology accessible to people outside of just the schools, even if they can’t afford to buy it personally. And so, I just, you know … Yes, I want my families who can afford it, they can just go straight there and get it. It could even be something they could get reimbursed on by the schools, if they buy it themselves because the schools haven’t given them anything appropriate, and that ends up working for them. And so, there’s a lot of different ways here in the United States where families can access these tools, including your technology, even if it’s not through the public schools.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
There might be another way to do it. So I just wanted to put that out there. Have you worked with any other agencies other than the school districts out here?
Zafer Elcik
Not yet. But we will like to working with agencies and so on. Right now, we are on track to complement …
Anne Zachry
I think what I’m going to do is I’m going to share your information with, here in California, we have First5, which is an early childhood intervention program, separate from the schools, but it works with them, sort of, but it’s separate. And, it is all early intervention. And, very often they’re the ones making the referrals.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah, that would be awesome.
Anne Zachry
Yeah, they’re the ones often finding out, especially when you’re talking about children from low-income, non-English-speaking families, immigrant families … they don’t know what to look for necessarily, or, even if they see something’s up, they don’t know what to do.
Zafer Elcik
Yeah.
Anne Zachry
Very often, First5 will be the one that catches it and makes the referrals and gets these kids into the appropriate supports and services. And so, this is the kind of stuff that they’re going to want to know about. So I’m very definitely going to share it with them. And, then I’ll also have it on our website and everything and I’ll put it out there on our social media.
Zafer Elcik
So, I forgot to mention we have also a Spanish version, as well.
Anne Zachry
Ooooh!
Zafer Elcik
Many families are using our apps in U.S., is reaching out to special education.
Anne Zachry
Oh, that’s huge. That’s enormous to know. I’m excited to see what your project is going to be doing as it expands use through here in the United States, and as it evolves over time. I’m going to be putting links to it on our … on this … the post for this podcast. Wanted to ask me about anything?
Zafer Elcik
No, thank you for your time. Like, it was a nice coffee talk with you. Like, I haven’t imagined that, like, we are going to talk in this prophetic situations, and how I am thinking about it. It was nice questions. It was the one of the best questions I ever ask. Thank you for that and thank you …
Anne Zachry
Oh, of course! Thank you!
Zafer Elcik
… for your time and showcasing our product, as well as me. Happy to see you in two years, three years after this podcast, out with the new products focusing on adults on spectrum. That will be really awesome!
See how disability rights advocacy and smart device-based interventions can put evidence-based practices into the hands of the people, regardless of whatever rules and regulations may apply (or not) where they live.
Go into the video settings on YouTube to turn on English or other language auto-translation.
Ask Anne is a patron-supported program on Patreon in which KPS4Parents’ CEO and lead advocate and paralegal, Anne M. Zachry, M.A. Ed Psych, answers questions submitted by parents of children with special needs, professionals who work with special education students, advocates and attorneys for children with special needs, and others with questions about how publicly funded special education is supposed to work.
With more than 30 years of field experience advocating for children with special needs, designing and evaluating individualized educational programs, supporting attorneys in special education and disability-related complaints and litigation, and filing complaints with state and federal regulators, Anne has insight into the technical requirements, evidence-based practices, and public education agency politics.
Give us a good question for an upcoming episode of Ask Anne by midnight Pacific Time on March 30, 2022, and you could win the $10 Amazon eGift card.
Only serious special education-related questions will result in contest entry. The winner will be chosen at random from valid entries and announced on March 31, 2022 at 5pm Pacific Time. Selection of questions are at the sole discretion of KPS4Parents.
All questions actually used in upcoming episodes of Ask Anne will include a shout-out to those who asked them plusHonorable Mention shout-outs to up to 10 people who asked great questions that didn’t quite make it into each episode.
The winner, the individuals whose questions are used in our upcoming episodes, and our Honorable Mentions will all also receive a handwritten note of thanks from Anne. We hope you find this an engaging way to get answers to your special education-related questions and look forward to answering your questions in upcoming episodes of Ask Anne.
Submit your valid special education-related question to us for consideration and entry into this Amazon eGift Card Giveaway. There is no limit on the number of entries per participant, so long as each entry is a unique, legitimate question specific to special education appropriate for Ask Anne.
I have a million other things I need to be doing right now, but this is one of those moments where if I don’t stop and purge these thoughts from my mind into print, they will torment and distract me until I do, so the sooner I finish this post, the sooner I can get back to work without continued torment and distraction. I wasn’t intending to post, right now, because my caseload is blowing up and my other endeavor, The Learn & Grow Educational Series, is starting to require more of my attention lately as it continues to experience its own growth and expansion. My plate is full, but it’s the reasons why it’s full that prompt me to stop what I’m doing and post this today.
In the course of analyzing the incoming bombardment of data that is my life, I’m seeing the connections between the specific issues I’ve chosen to take on with my professional skills and the turmoil being experienced by the world at large, right now. I’m seeing common allies and culprits across issues, and recurring themes and trends that can be generalized from the work I specifically do to the work that needs to be done overall to cure the defects of reparable systems, and overhaul and replace systems that no longer serve us.
Today’s post is an appeal to my colleagues to think beyond the bubbles and silos in which you may exist as professionals and recognize the need for your respective skills to contribute to much larger solutions on a much simpler scale. Capable, ethical, and responsible people each making what contributions they can along they way, just in the course of doing what they were already going to do, can reshape society into a healthier version of itself. We need to see our everyday activities as substantial contributions to the world that exists around us and appreciate that every little decision we make really does matter. If enough of us are thinking right and making the smart, ethical, and responsible decisions, we can help influence those around us who are less capable, thereby loving our neighbors as ourselves and being our brothers’ keepers when necessary.
We each help make the world we live in be what it is through our individual actions with each other. Those actions and their outcomes become woven together into complex relationships that evolve into established systems supported by nothing but learned behaviors. We don’t do them because that’s the way things work; the reason why that’s the way things work is because that’s the way we do them. That being the case, we have every reason in the world to believe that enough smart, ethical, altruistic people can facilitate healing throughout society to a more powerful degree than a minority of fear-based thinking, hate-mongering cowards can try to destroy it. It comes down to mindfulness and living a life of purpose that serves the common good while also serving oneself and one’s immediate loved ones in healthy and constructive ways.
One of my favorite theorists from human development research is Urie Bronfenbrenner. The lame graphic below is one I created in graduate school so as to avoid a copyright infringement by grabbing someone’s more professional graphic off the internet, but it illustrates the model. Follow the above link for more information about Bronfenbrenner’s model, if you’re not already familiar with it or need to brush up on it. It’s quite sobering in light of current world events.
Bronfenbrenner realized that, while nature had a certain degree of influence on the raw materials with which each person started out in life, it was the environment in which that person was raised relative to those raw materials that dictated the unique development of that individual person. No two people who have ever existed, exist now, or will exist in the future will ever be entirely identical to each other because, regardless of genetics, actual life experiences that shape people through learning are never identical from one person to the next.
Genetics provide for a whole lot of variability, but they’re still technically finite in spite of their vastness. Environments are ever-changing; they must be adapted-to in the moment via individuals’ behaviors and over time via genetic mutation of the species.
For those of you among my colleagues in special education and related fields who are expected to individualize programming according to the unique needs of each constituent served, this shouldn’t be a leap of logic for you. For people unfamiliar with what it takes to truly individualize something for another person, particularly another person with diminished capacity to communicate their needs, it might as well be alchemy or voodoo.
The bottom line is that everybody thinks differently and has relative strengths and weaknesses. You can’t assume that just because it’s obvious to you, it’s obvious to everyone else. But, you also can’t assume that just because it doesn’t make sense to you, it doesn’t make sense to anyone else, either. The sword of understanding cuts both ways for each of us.
We’re each good at some things and not so good at others; that’s normal. Some people, however, are not so good at recognizing when they’re not so good at something. This goes to another body of psychological science, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but that’s a whole discussion unto itself that I’ll link to but not delve into, right now. One lay person’s less-than-kind distillation of it, once it was explained to them, was, “So, basically, dumb people are too dumb to know that they’re dumb.”
The point is that those of us who get it have to carry the weight of those who don’t and/or can’t. It’s the opposite of authoritarianism, which demands the compliance of coerced individuals; what is called for, here, is the responsible stewardship of public service agencies to actually serve the public according to their mandates in conformity with the professional ethical standards of their involved professional disciplines.
For those of us supporting the needs of individuals with disabilities, we understand that the situation sometimes requires helping people exercise their informed choices as independently as possible. Other times, our responsibilities require us to protect the rights of those who are incapable of making fully informed choices without our help and are otherwise helpless and vulnerable to exploitation. We understand this better than most people and we need to recognize that we are collectively unique as a result. It’s not that big of a stretch between the issues of conservatorship abuse and voter suppression and nullification laws.
A whole lot of science in the areas of psychology, sociology, communication, behavior, instruction, organizational planning, leadership, and related disciplines has been conducted over the last 100 years. Many of us have access to that research but don’t make the time to follow it. I encourage every one of my professional colleagues to create a saved search for a specific body of peer-reviewed research and, whenever you are able to grab a free moment, take the time to run the search and read something new from the science that tells you something you didn’t already know, then think about ways to incorporate it into what you are doing in your work and follow through on applying them.
What small change in a routine task can you make that applies the knowledge you’ve gained for the better? Over time, how much better will things incrementally get with each little new thing you tweak after reading from your saved search? Is it a relevant authority to something you are currently writing? Does it help you better understand how to individualize a particular constituent’s goals and services? Is there another colleague who you think might benefit from the information with whom you can share it? Can you share your thoughts about it on LinkedIn and/or other professional online platforms in a constructive way?
Nothing exists in a vacuum. The more we recognize and honor the logical connections among our respective professions and how the science applies to out constituents and their service needs, the more we realize that Bronfenbrenner was right.
J. V. Wertsch, who worked with Bronfenbrenner, states in his 2005 review of Bronfenbrenner’s book, Making Human Beings Human,”Starting with the assumption that ‘to a greater extent than for any other species, human beings create the environments that shape the course of human development’ (p. xxvii), Urie has argued that it is incumbent on all of us to create decent, nurturing environments for human development.” [Emphasis added.] In my opinion, that’s something we have yet as a species to do; ants do a far better job of this than we do.
Unfortunately, because we still are not proactively applying Bronfenbrenner’s science as an ongoing element of how our society functions, we still do not love our neighbors just as we love ourselves and we are not our brothers’ keepers when our brothers go astray. We blame and punish people for having weak minds rather than remediate the effects of their shortcomings. As a species, humans generally treat their abilities as unfair advantages and use them to exploit others. They should be humbled by the responsibilities that come with their gifts and use them prudently with good intent, but in the absence of informed, deliberate planning, what has naturally been allowed to come to fruition is a society that rewards abuses of the rules more richly than compliance with them.
Those of us trying to facilitate functional independence among our most vulnerable children and adults know all too well that there aren’t enough of us with the necessary expertise to change the maladaptive behaviors in every bad situation that is collectively poisoning society, right now. The most we can do is the most we can do in our respective situations. We have to hope people will start copying our strategies that work when they see our successes. We need to start generalizing our successes into other areas where the same degree of expertise is not available, just as a matter of making sure our democracy thrives and functions as it should according to what can be proven true and responsibly effective for everybody.
Further, we as a society have historically regarded those individuals on the cusp between “can’t” and “could with learning” as an acceptable shade of gray on the spectrum of social involvement, but now they have become an outspoken and increasingly violent minority of individuals who cannot successfully function with independence in the quickly evolving world. They don’t know how to adapt but they can still wreak havoc on their way down the tubes.
The only difference between “can’t” and “could with learning” is the provision of instruction. The outcomes of both are the same if no instruction is made available; there has to be the “with learning” part in order for the choices of the person who can learn to differ from the choices of the person who can’t.
The problems we are seeing in the world today from misinformation being spread on the internet goes to the degree to which many internet users have no idea how search engines and social media algorithms indulge subjective biases and feed them whatever will increase their engagement without regard for how those choices impact the individual user or society on the whole. When all of our individual choices put together collectively shape the fabric of society, an artificial intelligence that only reinforces user engagement with neutral disregard for the quality or nature of that engagement will, by design, radicalize the most violent of the weakest minds into acts of terrorism. It weaponizes a previously harmless sub-population by turning them against us in irrational, violent ways and selling them the products to do it.
At the end of the day, humans are again proven to be part of nature and not something separate from it. The natural consequences of poor choices eventually catch up to people, one way or another. Sometimes other, innocent people become collateral damage along the way, and its in the interest of minimizing those numbers now and ultimately eliminating them as soon as possible that those of us who already work in professions helping people with disabilities need to generalize our skills into other aspects of human need where possible. What those of us working with individuals challenged by mental health issues already know can be imperative to addressing domestic terrorism.
As an example of generalizing one’s skills beyond one’s professional area of focus, while I still represent students with disabilities and consult with their parents as a lay advocate, provide paralegal support to attorneys representing students with disabilities in various legal proceedings, and design and implement compensatory programs for individuals with disabilities who were wrongfully denied services by publicly funded agencies, I also created something else using my knowledge and skills.
I created the Learn & Grow Educational Series to address food insecurity and sustainable living issues. The science of instruction is also the science of marketing, and social media can be used just as effectively to push learning as it can be used to push sales. In many cases, content creators push both, with the sales funding the instructional content and the instructional content driving the sales in a synergistic way; if it were organic, it would be considered symbiotic. The science I rely upon to determine appropriate educational goals and services for my learners with special needs is the same science I rely upon each time I create a new Learn & Grow learning experience for my online and in-person learners.
Through Learn & Grow, I’m able to teach people everywhere how to grow their own fresh fruits and vegetables anywhere using free and/or inexpensive materials, even if they have no open ground for growing. I use evidence-based instructional practices to teach them how to make self-watering containers from buckets for patio, balcony, fire escape, and rooftop gardening.
These containers are water conservative, using as little as one-tenth the amount of water of in-ground growing, and self-regulating, meaning the soil is never too wet or too dry so long as the reservoir beneath it doesn’t run dry. These containers are portable, meaning renters can take their gardens with them when they move. I’ve moved my own garden five times since I first started it in June of 2013, and the goji berry thicket I started from seeds when I first started the garden is still going strong in its original container, giving me two crops of berries per year.
The design of these containers is totally open-source, public domain knowledge. What is unique to Learn & Grow is the body of evidence-based instruction and project ideas using this gardening method that I provide in person and which lives online through Learn & Grow’s website, Facebook page, Instagram account, and video channels on YouTube: Food for Thought and Learn & Grow with Emmalyn. This is where I was able to apply my skills normally used in special education and disability resources to address other types of challenges the world is currently facing, specifically food insecurity and climate change. In October 2020, I expanded the Learn & Grow curriculum to include sustainable living methods, starting with alternative energy sources and gray water recapturing.
I’ve most recently started conducting online Meetups using Zoom and Prezi for urban gardeners in the greater Los Angeles area who can benefit from Learn & Grow’s instruction regarding self-watering bucket gardens. Without any marketing, my online classes are getting bookings and my Meetup group continues to grow in membership. Once I start marketing it, I expect to reach a larger number of learners who want to be able to grow their own food in their apartments, condos, mobile home parks, and other limited growing environments. This is an adaptation to their environments I can help them make, a lá Bronfenbrenner, to create a greater quality of life using sustainable means in a very healthy way. If they get their buckets used from local restaurants or bakeries, they keep that plastic out of landfills and reuse it for something entirely purposeful.
For me, achieving increased food security, recycling, water conservation, and portability with a single solution is too good of a thing not to share. It’s not directly related to publicly funded services for individuals with disabilities, but it relies upon the same sciences to be successful. I can generalize what I already know from what I’ve been doing professionally for the last 30 years to tackle an entirely different area of need, and it’s not that hard. It’s not any harder than representing a child with special needs in a federal complaint or supporting a child’s attorney in due process, and I can do those things.
Plus, I’m taking advantage of online tools to automate as much of my Learn & Grow content as possible, so the planning phase is followed by the scheduling phase which is then followed by an automated implementation stage that frees me up for months to years at a time to focus on other things, like the individuals on my caseload. I can drip instruction just as easily as I can drip marketing messages using the same online tools.
I also recently rejoined my local Kiwanis club, which is a community service organization. I’m helping the club use Learn & Grow to provide self-watering bucket gardens to community-based programs, like adult day cares and preschools, as well food insecure individuals through local food pantries, hunger relief programs, and shelters. I’m able to address food insecurity through a more direct means by partnering with my local Kiwanis club, which has ample volunteers and existing trusted business partners willing to invest in the right community service projects with their donations. This is a win-win-win for all involved, and it only happened because I went outside of my normal professional duties to tackle another social issue in ways that only someone with my unique skill set could.
All of us have skills and expertise that can be generalized to another problem in the world other than the one about which you spend most of your time thinking. I promise you that finding some other way to express yourself and apply your skills to something hugely constructive towards making the world a better place will open your mind in ways that makes you a better thinker back on your regular job and give you a healthier outlook on life.
Food shortages and economic collapse were the unknowns I most feared back when I started Learn & Grow in 2013. That was only made more real when Learn & Grow was discovered by panicked Venezuelans in 2016 when their country’s economy collapsed and their government subsidized food supply collapsed along with it, leaving them with no food in their stores and no more coming any time soon. I’m not afraid of that, now. My garden has grown to sixty-one self-watering containers and I have four laying hens who give me eggs throughout the year. Come what may, I’ll be okay for food.
The shortages in the stores at the start of the pandemic and the supply chain shortages happening right now have only been slight inconveniences compared to what could happen if the whole supply chain were to collapse altogether. Most people have become dependent upon it, and that’s dangerously unhealthy. If the commercialized food supply collapsed tomorrow, what situation would you be in?
As much as I live and breath special education and disability resource science and law, I can’t have figured out a way to dodge the bullet of a collapse of our commercialized food supply, have the ability to teach people according to their individual capacities to learn, and not use my skills to teach other people what I’ve figured out to survive a very dire time of food insecurity in this country. And, I know I can’t be the only one.
I know there are others of you out there who see issues with social justice, public health, climate change, domestic terrorism, and/or the ongoing threats to our democracy that would benefit from your unique perspectives and skills. Something horrible happening in the world today has factors in common with a problem you’ve already solved. Your solution translates into something that can be generalized to solve other serious world problems. Don’t keep it to yourself.
I’m not special; I’m just specialized in my knowledge and skills, and they can be applied to more than one context. That doesn’t make me unique; it makes me a member of a unique sub-population of individuals with relevant skills.
You, my professional colleagues, can do something about society’s ills today without it being political. Helping people everywhere grow their own food doesn’t take sides in anything. Everybody needs to eat. Food is a basic survival need no matter what somebody chooses to believe. Individual food security is a highly personal and universal topic with which every person can relate. So is access to clean drinking water, safety from violence, affordable housing, and a host of other issues begging for your expertise.
Most cultural disputes are about access to resources, and the United States is experiencing a cultural civil war, right now. It is fueled by misinformation meant to tear our country apart being published online by bad actors exploiting the capable hands of people with weaknesses of the mind who fear losing what they have to imaginary threats they believe to be real. People who can’t or won’t face their real problems will imagine things to be their absolute worst without confirming whether they actually are. They catastrophize things. It’s a symptom; it’s not healthy. It’s a feature of anxiety, which is always about lacking predictability. They cling to the familiar because they can’t predict anything else and their fear of the unknown is greater than any discomfort they may feel, if any, in their predictable routines.
People who can’t actually understand what is really going on have no sense of predictability about what is about to come. They will pin their expectations to what they want to happen next as opposed to what the facts dictate will happen next. They can’t follow an evidence-based thought process, so they substitute it with wishful thinking, but unrealistic expectations are just preconceived resentments. When things don’t turn out according to their wishes, they get mad at reality and insist that it bend to fit their fantasies rather than adjust their expectations according to what actually is. They don’t understand everything going on, so they can’t adjust their thinking according to all the relevant facts.
How can you, as a professional, interact with people who exist in this state without demeaning or condescending to them? Can you interact with them fully understanding that, like many of the individuals with disabilities we serve, these people are doing the best they can with what they have and they need our loving, responsible guidance to find their ways to the right side of things? If we just help them address their needs in more pro-social ways, they won’t feel compelled to attempt to meet them in anti-social ways. It’s basic ABA.
I’m asking my professional colleagues to please strongly consider using your knowledge and skills to address any of the many nonpartisan issues that are currently challenging the human species, right now, that are outside of your normal area of practice. See if there is a Kiwanis club in your local area that could use your help. Identify an unmet need in your local community and find out what is needed to address it, then find other people who have the necessary skills that you lack and start your own thing. Just find a way to contribute, even in a small way, to a nonpartisan issue in your community that isn’t currently getting enough attention.
The technology available to us today is a tool, but, like a hammer, it can build or kill depending on how it is used. I’m with Urie Bronfenbrenner on this one; we should use our knowledge and resources to make the world a place that meets everyone’s needs, rather than a place that meets the needs and wants of those who know how to exploit and take advantage of those who don’t. The tools now available for people to collaborate and get things done remotely, thanks in no small part to the necessities that arose with the pandemic, are phenomenally powerful and easy to use. The tools to create online content decrease in cost and become increasingly rich in features over time, and most people only need a few good features to make stellar content. Learn more about the ways you can participate in your citizenship in nonpartisan ways by studying the research on servant leadership.
If you find yourself in an environment in which acting in the short-term for immediate gain comes at the cost of considering the long-term consequences, and you can’t be a positive influence for more responsible thinking and planning, get out. You’re wasting your precious gifts on people who will never appreciate them and would use them to harmful ends if you let them. There are other places you can go where your gifts will be appreciated and put to proper use, where you can earn a decent living and live with yourself in peace. You just have to take the time to find it or create it. That’s not always easy, but it’s always worth it.
There is no way to memorize a script for every possible thing that could happen in the future in order to be prepared for if/when it happens. Nobody can remember that many scripts, much less predict every possible future in advance and develop a script for it before everything changes and new scripts are needed. Living a life that follows the same specific script in order to keep it predictable is a symptom, not an adaptive strategy. That’s not participation; it’s approximation. It’s parallel play.
The only way a collective of people can work together towards a common goal is to act according to common guiding principles. For example, if everyone helping with Learn & Grow agrees with and abides by the guiding principle of, “Make sure everyone can grow enough healthy food to survive, come what may,” whatever decisions they face along the way will come down to whether or not their choices facilitate everyone growing enough food for themselves, come what may. If you have a fixed outcome in mind, it’s the next best thing to having a script for every possible contingency. Having that fixed outcome limits the number of actions you can take, so it whittles down your choices to a more manageable list of alternatives. The more ethical conditions that have to be satisfied by the solution, the narrower the options, meaning the easier it is to decide.
What makes leadership and decision-making so overwhelming for most people is the sheer number of possibilities and figuring out which one makes the most sense. By using a consistent, agreed-to guiding principle as a “North Star” for decision-making, team members can be consistent among each other with their choices and actions towards achieving the common good. We don’t need a savior to swoop in and save us. We just need to be mindful of how our actions throughout the day shape the world around us and consciously choose actions that promote the things in the world we want to see based on what we’ve learned from all of our life experiences, including those most commonly associated with work, even if at only the tiniest level. It all adds up in the end, and every little positive contribution matters.
This is mindfulness meeting purposeful action, and I hope you’re inspired use your gifts to help in impactful, constructive ways that remind everyone you touch that we only get through these terrible times by working together. Because of your professional skills, you’re in a unique position to help humanity survive this time of upheaval and transition and thrive once the worst of it has passed. I look forward to seeing what truths each of you end up speaking to power over the next few years and appreciate the efforts of all of you who choose to contribute in ways you can towards a better tomorrow for everyone.
Download a PDF of the written transcript of the audio from this video by clicking here.
In this video, Anne summarizes how the IEP process is supposed to work in the first place, then how that process applies to students with special needs in preparation for returning to school in the Fall 2021 semester following pandemic-related school closures.
Parents can get the information they need to successfully advocate on their own in many situations. If you are dealing with complex violations of the law and need extra help, Anne explains the types of services and referrals we provide to parents and colleagues to help solve these kinds of problems.
Don’t start next school year without a strategy! We’re here to help.
On July 22, 2021, The Lancet published an article by Adam Hampshire, et. al., in which the findings reported that COVID-19 causes long-term cognitive impairments among many of those who have been ill with it, particularly those who have been hospitalized with severe forms of the illness and those diagnosed with COVID-19 but not hospitalized. I won’t rehash the entire article here. Follow the link to read it for the details.
In today’s post/podcast, I’m summarizing the findings of this body of research and discussing their implications for the special education community. First, let’s look at what the cognitive impairments caused by COVID-19 can look like, and then we’ll talk about what this means for the special education community.
This research by Hampshire and his team specifically found: “[The] results [of this study] accord with reports of ‘Long Covid’ cognitive symptoms that persist into the early-chronic phase. They should act as a clarion call for further research with longitudinal and neuroimaging cohorts to plot recovery trajectories and identify the biological basis of cognitive deficits in SARS-COV-2 survivors.”
So, basically, there is evidence to support that if a person gets sick with COVID-19, they can experience cognitive impairments that last a long time, perhaps permanently, and further research is needed to understand the long-term consequences of millions of Americans having their cognitive functioning reduced by COVID-19. For our kids about to go back to in-person learning, the questions become about whether they will end up subjects in that research after getting COVID-19 and experiencing cognitive impairments, and what will be done to benefit them if they are affected in such a way.
The symptoms, specifically, were reported by Hampshire and his team as: “… colloquial reports of ‘brain fog,’ … low energy, problems concentrating, disorientation, and difficulty finding the right words.” Further, there is evidence that “… COVID-19 patients can develop a range of neurological complications including those arising from stroke, encephalopathies, inflammatory syndrome, microbleeds, and autoimmune responses,” any of which can cause brain damage or impairment.
As children face returning to school as the Delta Variant of COVID-19 rages through unvaccinated populations, including children under 12 who are not eligible for vaccination, all parents in their right mind are worried about their children getting sick. The risk of long-term cognitive impairment during the critical learning years of child development and/or permanent brain damage are now yet more reasons for parents to want to keep COVID-19 far, far away from their children.
The sad reality is that a lot of children in areas of the country with low vaccination rates, many of which are communities compromised by poverty and reduced access to resources in the first place, are going to get COVID-19, and a fair number of those that survive are going to experience cognitive impairments as a result. This means a whole new cohort of children entering special education who otherwise would not have required it, thereby increasing the special education burden of every local, state, and federal education agency.
For those children already on IEPs who get sick with COVID-19 only to be further cognitively impaired by it, we’re going to see changes in their present levels of performance that make their current IEPs no longer appropriate to all of their needs. They are likely to experience regression and an increased need for supports and services in their IEPs, meaning yet another increase in the burden on local, state, and federal education agencies.
This is, of course, preventable with appropriate safety measures. The problem is that we have some local and state leaders doing everything they can to spread the disease, banning mask mandates in our public schools, for Christ’s sake! We have millions of unvaccinated children expected to co-mingle in crowded spaces that will become super-spreader sites that induce cognitive impairments among the students who are there for the purpose of enhancing their cognitive abilities.
And, it’s the same conservative leaders who are pushing to ban mask mandates in schools who will refuse to fund their students’ special education services when they come back to school with cognitive impairments later on. Parents can fight together now to prevent their children from becoming cognitively impaired, or at least more impaired than they already are, by pushing for appropriate safety measures in our public schools, or a smaller but significant number of them can fight later on for special education services for their children who experience “Long COVID” and resulting neurological impairments.
Aside from the obvious lingering health problems that children who experience and survive COVID-19 can have, which will require ongoing care that parents previously weren’t having to provide, there are the added complications of learning problems that will require parents to exhaust themselves further to pursue. Special education was already falling grossly short of the mark, but we’re now in the process of creating the next large population to blaze a litigation trail across the judiciary with special education cases: COVID-related impairments.
As it stands, regardless of the symptoms, if a student who survives COVID-19 ends up with long-lasting health and/or cognitive problems that interfere with access to learning, the fact that it’s the result of COVID-19 could cause that student to meet criteria for “Other Health Impairment (OHI),” under special education law [34 CFR Sec. 300.8(a)(1)]. It’s not like a new eligibility category would need to be created.
The special education world went through similar chaos during the 1990s when Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHDs) first became understood and widely recognized as an actual set of conditions. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) ran a great big study on ADHDs. I remember attending a panel discussion by individuals who had participated in the study back in the day.
Back then, ChADD (Children with Attention Deficit Disorders, as it was known back then), was big on the advocacy scene while litigation went forward in the courts to determine if kids with ADHDs were eligible for special education. The ultimate outcome was that there didn’t need to be a separate eligibility category for ADHDs because they were captured by either the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) or OHI categories, depending on how each affected child experienced it.
Back in the early 1990s, I went to a speaking engagement at which the founder of ChADD, who was also one of the parents taking this landmark litigation forward, described the favorable outcomes the litigation had achieved, but also how awful it was to have to go through all of that and how vindicated his family felt in the end, particularly his child with ADHD.
I see the same thing happening here with kids who will be disabled by COVID-19 to such a marked degree that they require special education and related services in order to access education, and kids who already needed special education who will now become even more greatly compromised than they already were after surviving COVID-19. Plus, I see this happening the most in the states and locales least likely to protect their children against COVID-19, which are also the states and locales least likely to comply with special education law.
Far right politics have undermined the success of special education at the local and state levels since special education law was created. In fact, the laws that protect our children with special needs were created in response to these far right political efforts to deny them access to education. The situation has literally become life with permanent disability or death for far too many of our children, and still the public scrutiny on the right wing fuckery that goes on in public education has not become intense enough to change the broken system.
How much more broken will the system become when it has killed a percentage of its students and permanently disabled yet another percentage who will now require special education when they didn’t before or who will now need more intensive special education above and beyond what they were previously getting? At what point in the future will all of the associated costs created by neglecting our kids now finally matter enough for the tax-fattened hyenas that are undermining public education from within to realize it’s in their best political interests to actually protect and educate their students?
Political extremism in any form will derail the most sensibly created system, but public education was not sensibly created for the present times and the political extremism has always been part of it. Many have the misconception that public education stopped serving as an arm of the Patriarchy once it became a female-dominated profession. But, there is nothing professional about a bunch of “Karens” sitting around a table passing judgment over a single, low-income mom of color with a kid who has a mental health disorder and related behavior problems instead of helping her and her child.
Thankfully, the field is changing and we have more scientifically-minded people entering special education, but there are still a lot of the old cronies hanging in there for as long as they can before grabbing their pensions and running off into the sunset, leaving all kinds of poorly educated, if not traumatized, children in their wake. This country is going to through a reckoning in which ethics and the rule of law are at the heart and soul of it all. Ethics and the rule of law have always been the heart and soul of special education disputes, and I can only see what is happening on the national level as an expansion of what I’ve been fighting for the last 30 years.
The thing that also is getting lost in this debate is the impact of “Long COVID” on teachers, specialists, and administrators. How does inducing cognitive impairment among a public education agency’s personnel serve the public good? How is that an appropriate employment practice for any employer? Why are we willing to impair the minds meant to sharpen the minds of our children? How is this self-preservation as a species?
As a tough old broad who has already seen the kinds of bullshit these people can pull, and given how much bullshit the American public is starting to realize can happen within our supposedly democratic government based on what is now coming out about the 45th President’s attempted soft coup d’etat following the 2020 election, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic or alarmist when I point out the travesty we’re creating for ourselves in increased special education expenditures by failing to prevent childhood cognitive impairments as a result of “Long COVID.” I’m hoping this message isn’t falling on deaf ears.
One of the things I’ve been trying to get across to people for years is the understanding that Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is a science, not a special education service, much less a service specifically for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). The confusion arises from the fact that instructional strategies and behavioral interventions based on the principles of ABA, which work with all learners, just so happen to also work for students with ASDs and often it’s the only approach that does.
As such, the demand for ABA-based programs for students with ASDs, and the peer-reviewed research around its efficacy with this particular population, has resulted in confusion among the lay public as to what ABA actually is. Because so many people in public education and the families that rely on it only see ABA used with respect to ASDs, they think that’s all it’s for, and this is a gross failure on the part of the professionals who know otherwise to set things straight.
This is why I’ve been trying to get this point across for so long. Knowledge powers solutions for parents, which is the whole reason our organization exists. The absence of relevant knowledge on behalf of any of the stakeholders in the IEP process can prevent students with disabilities from getting the kinds of help they actually need, so a failure to appreciate that ABA applies to anyone or anything that behaves can have dire consequences for students who would benefit from ABA-based interventions, even if they have conditions other than ASDs that create these needs.
That’s a whole conversation unto itself, but that’s not the focus of this post. Because ABA applies to anyone and anything that behaves, it therefore applies to all the members of a student’s IEP team. For parents, the science of ABA can be not only constructive with respect to developing an appropriate IEP for their children, but also in navigating the behaviors of the other IEP team members during IEP meetings and related exchanges with public education agency personnel, which is what I’m focusing on in this post.
To be clear, ABA is not a method or strategy. It is a way of describing behaviors according to how they naturally occur. When it is used to make something happen, it’s all about how to interact with others in a way that promotes the behaviors we want to see from them. Used ethically in a team context, it keeps conversations productive and collaborative. However, the proverbial snake oil salesman “selling ice cubes to Eskimos” abuses ABA as part of a con to manipulate people’s behaviors for personal gain at other people’s expense.
The thing to understand is that ABA is a reality-based approach to understanding what is going on and planning what to do about it. It isn’t an invention; it’s simply a tool that measures what already is. That data can then be used to change how things are. So, it’s not like I can give you a checklist of things to do, whether you understand them or not, and you’re off and running. You need to understand the underlying science, which I’m going to grossly oversimplify here to make the concepts as digestible as possible.
Before I launch into what ABA is, I first have to back up and explain the three key tenets of science. Science relies on:
Determinism – an understanding that there is a logical, evidence-based explanation for everything in existence.
Empiricism – an understanding that every evidence-based explanation can be described in quantifiable terms using fixed increments of measure.
Parsimony – the understanding that the simplest explanation that fits the measured evidence is the correct explanation.
That’s not an ABA-specific thing. That’s how all science works, and ABA is a science.
Like a financial audit, science renders reality down into measurable bits that can be analyzed for black-and-white, yes/no answers, regardless of what is being discussed. There is a reason that “accounting” and “accountability” share a common root word. Financial audits examine accounting records for accuracy because those records are supposed to account for where money has gone or will go. For this reason, accounting is actually a science.
All other forms of science account for things the same way, measuring what is according to fixed increments of measure and giving us an accounting of what is really going on. Such is the case with ABA.
Science is all about explaining reality using numbers, which requires the application of mathematics. There’s only one right answer to a math calculation. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who grasp this concept when it comes to money, but not with anything else.
When you understand science as a form of accounting for anything that exists in numerical terms, just as with money, it isn’t possible to take it as an affront to your belief system, unless you believe things – or are trying to convince other people to believe things – that are not true. There is no rule that says we have to like the truth.
An intact person will acknowledge an undesired truth and deal with it. A person engaging in disordered thought will attempt to argue against it and assert beliefs unsupported by evidence as fact, thereby confusing opinion with fact and arguing against what they don’t want to be true as though it really isn’t.
As a parent going into the IEP process, you need to stick to the facts. An IEP is all about measurable annual goals that describe what your child is supposed to be taught and how to measure the degree to which your child learns from that instruction. Services are determined on what is necessary to achieve the degree of success targeted by the goals and placement is determined according to what setting(s) are the least segregated from the general education setting in which the services can be delivered such that the goals are met. The entire process hinges on the appropriate application of the relevant sciences.
As a parent, know going into the IEP process that it is scientifically driven and, therefore, relies on measurable facts to inform your child’s educational planning, plus it must do so according to the rule of law. The whole system was designed with the education agency’s accountability to the individual student and the student’s family in mind, which is why it boggles my mind every time I encounter anything but that in the IEP process.
Specifically with respect to using ABA to navigate the behaviors of the other team members as a parent attempting to exercise your federally protected right to meaningful participation in the IEP process, there are some ABA-specific concepts you first need to understand. The first concept is that of ABC data collection and the second concept is that of reinforcement.
ABC data collection is a process used to determine the function(s) of a specific behavior. The “A” stands for “antecedent,” the “B” stands for “behavior,” and the “C” stands for “consequence.” Each of these has a specific operational definition in ABA, and any deviation from their respective definitions means whoever is taking the data is not actually practicing ABA.
An antecedent in ABA is whatever happened right before the behavior that triggered it. When you’re talking about students, the presentation of a task demand can be the antecedent to a challenging behavior being addressed by an IEP, for example. When you’re talking about corrupt and/or incompetent public agency officials in an IEP meeting, the presentation of a parent request could be the antecedent to some kind of challenging behavior displayed by educational agency personnel, as another example.
The behavior in the ABC data collection process is the actual observable behavior being addressed. In the example involving a student just given, let’s say the challenging student behavior upon the presentation of a task demand involving a worksheet, is verbal aggression while tearing up the worksheet. In the example of a difficult IEP team member, let’s say the challenging behavior upon the presentation of a parent request is a bunch of hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject.
The consequence in ABA data collection is the immediate outcome produced by the behavior, specifically the pay-off the individual gets by engaging in it. This is an important distinction because it is often inaccurately reported in school-based behavior assessments, where the previous century of relying on a punishment model of behavioral intervention regards “consequence” as something meted out by staff. That is wholly inaccurate. Anything the staff does in response to the behavior, whether it works or not, is a “reactive strategy,” not a “consequence” within the meaning of ABA.
The point of identifying the actual consequence achieved by engaging in the behavior is to determine the function served by the behavior for the individual engaging in it. Once the function of the behavior is understood, you can choose how you want to respond to it in a constructive way. When you don’t know the actual function of someone else’s behavior, you can respond to it in a way that hurts more than helps the situation. Identifying the function of an inappropriate behavior is entirely necessary before an evidence-based approach can be developed to address it.
So, using the examples I just gave, let’s say that the consequence of the student engaging in verbal aggression and tearing up the worksheet upon the task demand being presented is to escape/avoid the task demand. With respect to an IEP team member engaging in hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject when a parent makes a request, the function of the behavior is to escape/avoid addressing, much less honoring, the parent’s request.
In both of these examples, the function of each of the hypothetical behaviors described were both escape/avoidance, but this is not the only function a behavior can serve. Behaviors happen for only one of two reasons: to get something or get away from something.
As such, behaviors can be reduced to a one or a zero, depending on whether its function was to get something (1) or escape something (0). Even the most complex behaviors can thus be reduced down to simple binary code as the most parsimonious way to describe what is happening.
In ABA, the functions of a behavior are typically described as access/attainment, escape/avoidance, and automatic. Automatic reinforcement speaks to behaviors that address internal drive states, such as physical wellness and emotionality, but even those are based on access/attainment or escape/avoidance. Sensory-seeking and/or sensory-avoidant behaviors are based on automatic reinforcement for someone with sensory processing issues based on their unique neurology, for example.
That leads us to the second key concept of ABA that you need to understand, which is that of reinforcement. A reinforcer is anything that increases the likelihood of an individual engaging in a specific behavior in response to a specific antecedent. If the consequence of the behavior is reinforcing, the individual will continue to engage in it whenever that specific antecedent is presented in order to achieve the reinforcer.
For example, if you get hungry (antecedent) and go put money in a vending machine and push the right buttons (behavior), you will get food (consequence). The function of the behavior is access/attainment of food to satisfy your hunger. It’s pretty simple.
Reinforcement can be positive or negative, but these are not judgments of “good” or “bad.” Just as with magnets, the poles of the Earth, and batteries, the terms “positive” and “negative” have specific meanings within ABA that are also frequently misunderstood in special education behavioral interventions. In reality, when it comes to ABA, “positive” means “to present” and “negative” means “to withdraw.”
Positive reinforcement, therefore, is the presentation of something that is likely to reinforce a specific behavior. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unwanted in order to reinforce a particular behavior. The aforementioned vending machine scenario gives an example of positive reinforcement because food is presented in response to the behavior of putting money into the vending machine and pushing its buttons. Both forms of reinforcement were best explained scientifically back in the early days of behaviorism by B.F. Skinner using what came to be referred to as a “Skinner Box.”
In Skinner’s positive reinforcement experiments, rats in a cage were taught to pull a lever in order to access food pellets. At first, pulling on the lever was accidental, but as soon as food came out, the rats quickly learned that engaging in the behavior of pulling the lever resulted in the presentation of a food pellet. The presentation of the food pellet reinforced the pulling of the lever.
In Skinner’s negative reinforcement experiments, rats in a cage with an electrified floor that delivered mild shocks to their feet learned to pull a lever in order to turn off the electrification of the floor. Again, at first, pulling the lever was accidental, but as soon as their feet were no longer getting zapped, the rats quickly learned that engaging in the behavior of pulling the lever resulted in the termination of discomfort caused by the electrified floor of the cage. The removal of the electrification reinforced the pulling of the lever.
In both cases, the behavior of pulling the lever was reinforced. It’s just that one form of reinforcement provided access to something preferred and the other removed something aversive. Again, this can all be reduced to getting something (1) or getting away from something (0).
In the IEP process, you’re either getting what you want for your child or you are not. The public education agency personnel are either satisfying their agency’s agenda or they are not. The whole situation is riddled with ones and zeros depending on what you are talking about and who is involved.
Again, this is all a gross over-simplification of these basic ABA concepts. There are other considerations that have to be taken into account, such as setting events, otherwise known as Motivating Operations (MOs). MOs increase the likelihood of a specific antecedent triggering a specific behavior.
In our previous example regarding the student becoming verbally aggressive and tearing up a worksheet upon the task demand being presented, it could be the case that the student normally complied with task demands but, that particular day, the student had a stomach ache and didn’t have the concentration and stamina to engage in the task when it was presented. As such, the antecedent was still the presentation of a task demand, but that antecedent occurred in the presence of the MO of a stomach ache, and the consequence was still to escape/avoid the task demand.
Similarly, in our example previously regarding education agency personnel engaging in hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject in response to a parent request for something, it could be the case that said personnel would have normally agreed to honor the parent’s request, but that morning there had been an agency budget meeting in which personnel were told they would be subject to disciplinary action from the agency if they committed the agency to services for students that cost more than a certain amount, which is illegal but nonetheless happens all the time. As such, the antecedent was still the parent request, but it occurred in the presence of the MO of a threat of disciplinary action against agency personnel for committing the agency to costs it didn’t want to have to bear, and the consequence was still to escape/avoid honoring the parent’s request.
Sometimes you don’t know what all the MOs are because the education agency personnel won’t make them known to you. In many instances, the only way you know something is wrong is because the presentation of an antecedent results in a behavior that produces a consequence that doesn’t fit what should be happening. In that case, you know something is wrong because the behavior doesn’t fit the situation, at which point you have to ask yourself, “What is the function of this behavior?” It’s pretty obvious that any “no” response you receive is an escape/avoidance behavior; it’s just sometimes hard to know whether what is being avoided is cost, accountability, or both.
For example, data collection practices in special education throughout the country are generally pretty unscientific and shoddy in spite of a federal mandate that special education be delivered according to the peer-reviewed research, which is all scientific, according to measurable annual goals. As black-and-white as the process is supposed to be, it often isn’t because school personnel 1) have no idea how to do it correctly, and/or 2) are attempting to avoid accountability.
In most cases, it’s been my observation that the initial inappropriate behaviors are a consequence of incompetence, which creates a need to pursue accountability, at which point they engage in cover-ups to try to avoid getting into trouble for the errors of their ineptitude. You have to assume as a parent going in that not everybody on your IEP team knows everything they should and that they may respond unethically when they get called out on their errors. In other situations, public education agency personnel are just grifting the system for a government paycheck at taxpayer expense from the outset and see students as a means to their own financial ends, engaging in cover-ups when their self-serving behaviors become exposed.
As a parent going into the IEP process, you have to be a shrewd negotiator. If you don’t understand the functions of the behaviors of the other IEP team members, you are at risk of being robbed blind by unethical public servants and/or otherwise getting a poorly developed IEP from inept public servants.
It’s not on you to know all of the science and law that applies to your child’s situation, but if you can develop your skills at reading the behaviors of the other IEP team members, you can often figure out whether they are acting according to your child’s actual needs or not. At that point, how you respond becomes the next hurdle to clear.
Every situation requires its own analysis and there is no way I can give you a one-size-fits-all solution, here. What I can tell you to do is pay attention, try to get a sense of the function of someone’s inappropriate behavior as best as possible, and offer reinforcers in order to achieve the behaviors you want to see.
For example, send a thank-you card to the school psychologist who actually threw down on an excellent report and you will positively reinforce legally compliant behavior. Or, withdraw a compliance complaint if the agency remedies the problem that compelled you to file it and you will negatively reinforce legally compliant behavior. They can earn a food pellet or stop their feet from getting zapped, metaphorically speaking, but, either way, they’re going to have to pull the lever. If you can keep these concepts straight, you will be in a much better position to effectively participate in the IEP process.
One of the issues that I haven’t seen discussed anywhere else, but am seeing first hand every day, is the impact that the shutdown has had on my students with disabilities whose parents also have disabilities. Given that so many learning disabilities, physical impairments, Autism spectrum disorders, and mental health conditions run in families, it’s not surprising to find children on IEPs whose parents also have disabilities. It would be shocking for a professional in this field to not see that phenomenon.
The shutdown negatively impacted students and their families from all walks of life. Students on IEPs were hit more hard only because they were already at a disadvantage and largely under-served before the pandemic hit. All shutdown did was magnify the pre-existing inequality.
To that end, parents with disabilities who were already getting jerked around by their local education agencies have been disadvantaged and exploited even further during school shutdowns. I’ve got two cases on my caseload, right now, that immediately come to mind. One is in California and the other is in Missouri, and in both cases I’ve had to serve as both a reasonable accommodation for the parent with disabilities as well as do my normal job of advocating for the student with disabilities.
In both cases, a bunch of goons from the respective school districts tried to railroad learning disabled parents who struggle to understand the relevant documents, saying one thing verbally, putting something else in writing, and hoping these learning disabled parents didn’t notice. The parents’ federally protected rights as per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process are additionally compromised by violations of the parents’ rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Here’s what I need everybody reading or listening to understand: The states involved here are Missouri, a red state practically overtaken by domestic terrorists bent on sedition, and California, a blue state with mostly progressive leadership. This is a non-partisan issue. There is no political party that seriously cares about people with disabilities, even though disability cuts across every swath of human existence that there is. It’s beyond dysfunctional, but that’s our profoundly sick society, for you.
So, what do we do about this? Well, on an individual basis, the steps of effective advocacy remain the same: get the truth on the record, request remedy, and file complaints if the local education agencies don’t abide. The number one protection parents with disabilities have under the ADA relevant to this issue is their right to communicate via their preferred form of communication. Reasonable accommodation isn’t limited to wheelchair ramps, and honoring a learning disabled person’s communication preferences is just as important as honoring the communication preferences of someone deaf or blind.
For parents with disabilities, it is important going in from the outset that you make clear in writing that you require reasonable accommodations from your local school district, including what your communication preferences are. It doesn’t hurt to add language like, “These accommodations under Section 504 and the ADA are necessary to insure my protected rights to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process pursuant to the IDEA.”
If you have been keeping your need for accommodations to yourself for fear of being judged by the school district members of your child’s IEP team, something is seriously wrong. If you fear that people employed specifically to educate humans with disabilities are going to give you grief because you are a human with disabilities, either you’re insecure, working with a-holes, or both. You do yourself and your child no favors by not putting your local education agency on notice about your need for accommodations; if they treat you poorly, that’s on them for violating your rights as well as those of your child.
It’s stronger to go in asking for reasonable accommodations as your legal right given that you are there to protect your child’s right to reasonable accommodations. If you acquiesce on one, you’re acquiescing on the other. You have to believe that all people with disabilities are equal in power and voice to people without disabilities, including yourself. You are not setting a good example for your child to become a strong self-advocate in spite of disabilities when you fail to advocate for yourself.
Aside from what individual parents with disabilities do on a situation-by-situation basis on the ground, at this point, the only mechanisms available that have any chance of broadly changing anything are judicial and political. Parents need to sue over the civil rights violations that undermine their advocacy for their children so that public education agencies are held to account under every letter of the law that applies. All parents of children with disabilities need to unionize and collectively bargain for improved special education laws and access to special education resources.
In theory, parents with disabilities involved in the IEP process for their children may be able to concurrently file 504/ADA claims in federal court purely on the basis of the discrimination against themselves while filing for due process under the IDEA to assert their children’s claims. However, there’s a kicker that my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar should weigh in on, here.
With respect to informed parental consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, the related civil rights claims may have to toll while due process is being pursued because a special education hearing officer has no jurisdiction with respect to 504/ADA but administrative remedies under the IDEA have to be first exhausted before related civil rights claims can be pursued. Basically, you have to do everything you can with due process before you can go on to federal court on related civil rights claims.
The reason civil rights claims often must toll pending due process is because the hearing officer in the due process case may order something to correct the special education violations that inadvertently cures the civil rights violations at the same time. This makes it unnecessary to get that same outcome from a federal court judge and, thus, a waste of judicial resources to try the same thing in two different venues. However, if the civil rights claims can stand alone on their own with no related due process claims associated with the same body of facts, it’s possible to go forward on civil rights claims while other claims are being adjudicated via due process.
Again, this is a tricky question of law and I defer to my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar to speak to the particulars of 504/ADA claims versus IDEA claims, as well as the order in which issues are tried and by whom. The point is that there is recourse, one way or another.
Parents with disabilities should not feel compromised in the IEP process. No parent should fear that a body of public servants educated, trained, and employed to support the needs of individuals with disabilities in the school setting will use that knowledge to exploit the parent’s disabilities to the detriment of the student. The very idea is reprehensible, but it happens every day.
Institutionalized biases have a lot to do with it. Even people employed to educate students with disabilities will regard a parent’s disabilities as character flaws, more often than not. It’s a learned, knee-jerk reaction that all of us have been raised with to one degree or another our entire lives. It’s why people with disabilities are often also plagued with self-loathing and related mental health disorders. Most people with disabilities aren’t born with self-loathing and mental health disorders; they are acquired from the experiences of being rejected by everyone else and seeing a world that is basically designed to exclude them from participation. Things that can be acquired can also be let go and replaced.
During distance learning, these issues became even more painfully apparent as schools shut down and children with special needs had to stay at home and participate in distance learning. Setting aside the degree of forgiveness due to actual teachers for not being given appropriate tools and support from their respective agencies to handle the situation, something cohesive should have been in place within the first few weeks, but I’ve still got school districts pulling ridiculous stunts and we’ve got partial campus re-openings going on around here, right now.
We’re now more than a year into this thing and, not only have they not gotten their acts together, they’re actively making excuses as to why the broke the law 40 million different ways before now. If they invested half the energy they’ve spent on making excuses and lying to the public into actually solving the problem, it would have been solved by now.
The politics of it all is at the heart of this issue, unfortunately. This is just as serious as domestic terrorism, because it’s actually one of many expressions of that terrorism. When parents with disabilities are terrified of the people to whom they send their children with disabilities every day, often with the threat of criminal prosecution for truancy if they don’t, they are being manipulated through fear to acquiesce on issues that, under the law, require their consent.
It is important for those of us who are working in the civil rights arena to recognize that we will find the students with disabilities we serve also among other marginalized populations that may have a stronger degree of activism already underway. For example, if a child with disabilities and African-American heritage is being jerked around, it may be more effective to bring a representative from the NAACP to an IEP meeting than a disability advocate. Likely, the best solution would to bring both.
This is an issue that child and family advocates need to address because it is vast, pervasive, and significant. When it comes to dumping the instructional responsibilities for a child with disabilities onto a parent with disabilities, the civil rights claims can easily multiply. I have had three cases this year involving parents with disabilities who were getting played by their local school districts until I said something. One case is resolved and the other two, which I mentioned at the beginning, remain active.
In every case, not only were the parents with disabilities being inappropriately burdened like all other parents during shutdown, they were not offered any reasonable accommodations to do so. In my mind, this is an enormous class-action issue that could result in entire state departments of education, which are ultimately responsible to the federal government for complying with the IDEA in exchange for federal special education dollars, getting nailed to the wall for failing to ensure local education agencies provided reasonable accommodations during shutdown to parents with disabilities who were attempting to instruct their children at home or who simply could not, resulting in a deprivation of educational benefits to their children.
I am very curious to get parent, advocate, and attorney input on this issue. If you have experienced anything like this, either as a parent or professional, and have ideas on how to lawfully resolve these issues with the least amount of trauma to the involved children and their families, we’d love to hear from you. For those employed within the system who want to do the right thing but are being prevented by others within the system, your feedback is appreciated as well.
The news is replete with evidence that far too many public servants can’t be trusted to uphold the rules of democracy. Because the IDEA is so dependent upon the application of science to the lawful implementation of special education, it tends to be those who disregard science and law who pose the biggest threat to our children with special needs.
Given how many Far Right conservatives there are employed within public education, the fact that the domestic Far Right is the greatest terrorism threat that our country faces, and that neither science nor the rule of law mean much to the Far Right, it’s not that hard to see why we need to get the Far Right out of our public school system. The Far Right is why civil rights laws are necessary in the first place. They’re not going to do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. They don’t even understand what that means. They’re going to do whatever serves their selfish motivations.
People who follow the extremes at either end of any social spectrum, including politics, tend not to have fully functional prefrontal cortices, based on my observations. They lack the deductive reasoning skills to understand the big picture. They lack the perspective-taking skills to see things from anyone else’s point of view. They are egocentric in thought and grossly emotionally under-developed. They are prone to extreme actions and reactions based almost entirely on their own wants and needs.
In the special education setting, if you and your child’s needs don’t align with the agenda of people with this mindset, you don’t even exist to them. You’re like a person with a numbered ticket at the deli counter. They’re going to interact with you briefly and smile to your face, then forget you exist five minutes later. You’re a thing, not a person, to people like this. They don’t think of anybody as another “person.” Everybody else are just things to conveniently access when they serve a useful purpose to people who think this way. That is why holding them accountable after the fact is more effective than logical or emotional appeals made in an effort to prevent something bad from happening.
All of this is, of course, disordered thought. So, basically, what this comes down to is a bunch of mentally ill, self-serving individuals getting paid six-figure annual incomes at taxpayer expense to manifest their untreated and unaccommodated symptoms at the expense of their constituents. What we’re really looking at is the symptoms of untreated mental health disorders being manifested as public policy to the detriment of individuals who are not in denial about the fact that they have disabilities attempting to advocate for their children with disabilities.
The most apparent difference that I can see between the two sides of the issue is that the people within public education responsible for this situation don’t think there is anything wrong with themselves; they think they are the chosen ones and everyone else exists just to give them an excuse to collect a paycheck. When the special education community finally addresses the degree to which schizoaffective, personality-disordered administrators and the like are behind the egregious abuses of disability-related laws it experiences, and we use our science to heal ourselves, we’ll be able to actually use the science to heal our children and help them build productive futures for themselves.
Christine Priola, OT, on the right in the Vice President’s Office of the Senate during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol in Washington, DC
On January 6, 2021, a group of people, radicalized by false propaganda generated by the 45th President of the United States and his co-conspirators, attacked the United States Capitol with the intent to kidnap and/or murder members of Congress and the Vice President. This is an event that will live in infamy for so long as America remains a nation, and be blamed for it if it does not.
I’ve been working in special education advocacy, helping parents protect their children with disabilities from physical, emotional, and educational abuse/neglect by the public sector, primarily the public school system, since 1991. By now, you would think there’s nothing new for me to see when it comes to all the ways that adults can do wrong by those among us with disabilities. Clearly, I was wrong.
These recent events at the national level have left me with a whole new set of concerns that I believe are important to talk about, right now. Not the least of these concerns is the fact that a profoundly mentally ill president, along with his pathologically self-serving sycophants, exploited the suffering of some Americans with mental illness and the unfounded sense of entitlement experienced by other Americans with mental illness.
In the end, it’s a bunch of people with mental health issues frenzying like piranha at the smell of blood in the water and taking down the rest of us with them. The inmates are literally running the asylum, right now, and the survival of us all rests on the shoulders of those of us intact enough to realize what is happening, and equipped to deal with it.
For the last 30 years, it’s been my observation – and one I’ve repeatedly shared – that there are individuals employed within the public education system who believe children with disabilities are expendable and unimportant. In a sea of deprived students in general, special education students are uniquely further deprived because of their disabilities.
It’s been my observation that these individuals see their constituents – in this case, our children – as a means to their own personal financial ends, and nothing more. When the costs of educating these constituents increases due to disability, they become a hated burden to those looking to profit off them.
It’s not like the public education system is doing that great by any of our kids, right now. It’s just that problems that impact education in general tend to have a magnified effect on our kids with special needs. Public school officials will say things like, “My heart is bleeding for your child. I wish there was something I could do,” when there’s totally something they could do. They just don’t want to pay for it, which is unlawful.
Special education laws would have not become necessary back in the 1970s if it were not for the fact that people who do not believe in science or law were already employed in positions of authority within the public education system and engaging in unconstitutional conduct towards children with disabilities at that time. The public schools would refuse to enroll these students at all or, even if they did, let them languish in general education classes until they dropped out.
In spite of compulsory education laws, back in the day, it was totally okay to drop out of school if you couldn’t keep up with the instruction and nobody would come after you for truancy. This was what happened to a lot of people with relatively mild challenges, like learning disabilities, who ended up reaching adulthood functionally illiterate and unable to find gainful employment except as factory workers, coal miners, and all the other dangerous jobs that don’t require academic skills, in spite of their normal intelligence.
I provided adult literacy instruction to this population at a local vocational/technical college as a young adult in Arkansas. I’ve met these people. I’ve seen this play out, first hand.
This has led to a class of individuals who have increasingly lost the ability to support themselves, as robots take over dangerous jobs that don’t require real thinking. While the laws that passed in the 1970s were the right place to start, it’s foolish to think that enough has changed since then that the system isn’t still biased against kids with special needs. If things had changed, I’d have worked myself out of a job a long time ago.
The public education system is biased against any kid who isn’t white, male, and expected to inherit property upon reaching age of majority. It was created in its present form during the Industrial Revolution and hasn’t changed much since.
For the longest time, public education agency administration was male dominated while the teaching staffs were female dominated, putting men in authoritarian control over women employees. Teachers unions grew out of the very real discrimination and abuse of women in the public education workplace by their male “superiors” around the same time that unions gained popularity among the laborers working ot inher dangerous jobs in factories and mines.
Students, however, have no collective bargaining power. Even though they are the reason the system exists, they are the last individuals served by it. They get whatever leftovers are left after public agency administrators bleed their agencies dry with undeserved six-figure annual salaries while teachers are buying classroom supplies with their own money. Students are just an excuse for politicians to pay themselves.
So, the idea that discrimination and abuse do not manifest in the public education sector is plainly inaccurate. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary, my caseload being only one such mountain. The judicial and legislative history of special education law is not the total point, here, but it’s relevant in that it establishes that bad actors in public education have made it necessary to regulate public education to control for their inappropriate behaviors.
The evidence of bad faith in public education has been documented in the courts long enough that I don’t have argue it, here. That’s a done deal. So, when someone tells me they are worried about child welfare at the hands of government officials, I have to say, “Me too! That’s why I’m a child and family advocate.”
However, now when someone tells me they are worried about pedophiles in public education, I have to do a double-take and ask, “Why?” That’s only because of the whacky Q-Anon and similar conspiracy theories, now going around about Satanic cannibals molesting and trafficking children.
It’s not that human trafficking isn’t real or horrible. It’s that there is zero proof that it’s being perpetrated by the people these conspiracy theorists are targeting.
There is proof, however, that the 45th President was pals with a known, convicted pedophile and wished this pedophile’s co-conspirator well when she, too, got arrested. He’s also been accusing of raping a 13-year-old who was made available to him by this same duo of pedophiles, but these conspiracy theorists are not going after him. They think he is the champion of their cause, which defies logic in every possible way.
Even if the allegations of child rape cannot be sustained against #45, he’s sexually assaulted plenty of women and bragged about it on the record. How he’s become the champion of a human rights cause given his history of sexual assault and his policies regarding the children of lawful asylum-seekers at our borders is beyond me.
We have all seen news stories of the occasional teacher, aide, specialist, or administrator who gets busted for sexual relations with their students. It’s not that pedophiles are not employed within public education; we know some have slipped in and we do a poor job of screening them out, often only finding them after the harm has been done.
The more important point is that a ring of cannibalistic pedophiles do not run public education. The average school district administrator doesn’t come anywhere near actual children. They don’t appear to care for the company of children; they just want to exploit them for public dollars.
While I don’t doubt that there are people employed in public education administration who would gladly traffic in humans if they thought they could turn a profit and get away with it, that’s a whole lot of work to make happen within the public education system and not get exposed. It’s easier to milk the broken system as it is without taking on that risk. They can get rich by lazier means than selling their students into slavery.
As soon as someone gets caught engaging in pedaphilia with students in the public education setting, most school districts are the ones that call the cops. If school district administrators come to an accused educator’s defense, it’s either because the educator was wrongfully accused or because the administrators don’t want to be held accountable for the fact that they let a pedophile come work for their public education agency, so they’re trying to convince everyone that they didn’t.
It’s not that public education isn’t being run by a pack of corrupt jackals. By and large, like local police departments, local school districts get away with as much as they do because they only answer to their local constituents, most of whom don’t know how to monitor and audit a school district on an ongoing basis for compliance issues. Jackals are in gross abundance.
Even the most ethical educators can be corrupted once they are promoted into administration, and I suspect most of that is economics. Once they start getting that six-figure annual salary, they start buying nice houses and cars, putting their kids through college, and going on expensive vacations. That quickly creates debt.
If you have a six-figure income, you can pay that debt, but if you lose that income and can’t replace it fast enough, you’re quickly screwed. This is how good educators get pulled into the Dark Side of the Force when they accept promotions into administration. It’s the rare pure soul that sees what’s really going on and refuses to be manipulated that way before it’s too late.
The overarching problems I see in public school administration are about money, not pedophilia or cannibalism. I’ve yet to encounter cannibalism, actually, but it’s only January 2021, so let’s see if this year tops last year for the most disgusting conduct to be revealed among public servants for the whole world to see.
What prompts me to discuss this, now, is the recent resignation of Christine Priola, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from Cleveland Metropolitan School District, one day before she participated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection against the American government. Ms. Priola occupied the Capitol building with other insurrectionists and was photographed in the Vice President’s office as part of the occupation.
In her resignation letter, Ms. Priola, who is currently out on bail pending trial, stated she was leaving her job as an OT for the District’s special education department for three specific reasons:
She refused to take the Corona virus vaccine before returning to in-person learning;
She disagreed with paying union dues because she believes that money is funding abortions; and
She’s embarking upon a fight against child trafficking by government agencies.
So, I’m going to pick these apart one by one, first, and then get into the rest of it.
First, it’s unclear if Ms. Priola is an anti-vaxer opposed to vaccines in general, is against the current Corona virus vaccine because it was rushed to market so quickly and she questions its safety and efficacy, or just resents being told she has to take a shot before she can go back to work. Maybe it’s a combination of those things.
We don’t know why she was opposed to the vaccine, so I can’t automatically lump her onto the science-denying anti-vaxer wagon with this limited amount of information, though her overall behaviors incline me to suspect that she could be an anti-vaxer. Because she’s an OT, which is a scientific discipline that functions within the medical and educational realms, I don’t want to assume too much, here. However, science is a fact-based discipline and Ms. Priola has not be operating according to facts.
When we look at her second objection, the total absence of logic casts an unfavorable light on the first objection, even further. How union dues, which pay for the administrative overhead of each union’s operations, somehow funds abortions makes no sense.
The district may withhold those dues from educators’ paychecks, but there is an audit trail that shows where that money goes. If you’re worried about where the money is going, you do a request for public records asking for the accounting details and turn them over to a grand jury if you find that the money is being misappropriated.
The rule of law already provides a remedy for the misuse of public funds. You don’t raid the Capitol with the intent of hanging the Vice President to death to resolve issues such as these.
The idea that the rule of law had collapsed to the point that it was ineffective cannot be argued, here. Ms. Priola did nothing on record to resolve the issue with where her union dues were going before resorting to the violent overthrow of the government and an effort to assassinate the Vice President.
The government already had a legal remedy that she chose not to access and the “remedy” she opted for instead did not fit the situation. This strongly suggests disordered thought. It also, however, goes to the degree to which legitimate remedies to harm done are often inaccessible to everyday Americans because they can’t afford to lawyer up every time the government shirks its responsibilities and hurts people. When the appropriate options are closed off to people, they are only left with the inappropriate ones.
This is where peaceful protests for changes to the rules become such an important part of democracy, none of which involves insurrection or execution. Insurrection as a more expedient option to litigation speaks to the degree to which the legal system is often unavailable to most people because of the associated costs, but it’s not a valid excuse for what Ms. Priola has done. Ease of access to remedy may have made it less likely that she wouldn’t have done something literally insane, but that’s speculative at this point.
The third justification for resigning given by Ms. Priola was that she’s embarking upon a fight to protect children from abuses by government employees. On it’s face, I can’t take issue with that because I’ve been fighting to protect children with disabilities – the same students Ms. Priola served as an OT – from abuses within the public education system for the last 30 years.
Very often, though, I’m protecting them against people like Ms. Priola who are so divorced from science and, therefore, reality that they engage in violations that require me to file complaints with regulators. Again, the rule of law provides a remedy. The difference between Ms. Priola’s efforts to protect children and mine is that I use science and law to protect my babies. She’s trying to kill the members of Congress most likely to help her protect children from the real predators.
I’ve never had to violently overthrow a government agency or hang anybody to protect a child from government employees. Has the rule of law let my babies down, before? Yes, in hugely significant ways. Has the rule of law protected my babies when I’ve pursued enforcement of it? Yes, more often than it has not. It’s not a perfect system, but insurrection on behalf of the people responsible for undermining it is not going to fix anything.
And, it’s not like I haven’t seen evidence of child trafficking in government agencies. I have, just not in public education. Specifically, I’ve been working on a separate justice project with our organization’s founder, Nyanza, to address the egregious over-incarceration of African-Americans in Oklahoma that dovetails with what may be State-sponsored child trafficking.
Based on the publicly available research data we’ve gathered to date, it appears there may be an orchestrated mechanism in place in which officials in the State of Oklahoma incarcerates people of color and remove their children from their homes through the Child Protective Services (CPS) system, only to place these children in privately owned foster care facilities and/or adoption agencies that operate for profit.
It appears that at least some of the foster care and adoption agencies in Oklahoma that participate in this dynamic are owned, at least in part, by State officials responsible for passing and enforcing the laws of Oklahoma, from which they profit. It should be noted that Oklahoma’s CPS system was found to have been responsible for the death, rape, and maiming of many children processed through this system via a federal class action lawsuit that resulted in a consent decree that is not being properly enforced.
CPS employees have come out as whistleblowers to advise that the “proof” of compliance with the consent decree is falsified information and Oklahoma isn’t taking this federal court consent decree as anything other than one more thing to lie about. It should also be noted that all of the individuals involved in these behaviors appear to be Republicans, or they were at the time the data we collected were gathered.
From what we’ve seen so far in our data, it appears that Oklahoma lawmakers and judges are incarcerating people so they can steal their children and sell them for profit. If true, that’s a legitimate State-sponsored human trafficking ring that needs to be shut down immediately. But, it isn’t a Satanic group of Hollywood actors and Democrats eating and raping children.
While this possible human trafficking ring has not been investigated as such to my knowledge, thus far, it’s one of those things that can’t last forever without someone getting caught. Nyanza and I are working to get enough evidence together to get the situation investigated, and she’s been filing documents this whole time, but that’s how you address these things. We are availing ourselves of the mechanisms of our imperfect, but better than anarchy, democracy to fix this heinous problem. Whatever is responsible for Oklahoma’s ridiculous incarceration and CPS numbers is a problem that needs to be fixed, regardless of what it is.
This is painful because we know of families suffering horribly because of what is currently happening until this gets resolved, but justice can take time. I’ve learned that lesson from 30 years of working cases from IEP meetings all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and you don’t always win. But, you always make a difference, even when you lose on some technicality. I’ve had cases where we lost on an issue, but just barely. The involved districts knew the next time they pulled the same stunt, they wouldn’t necessarily get lucky again, and have changed their practices as a result.
What I’ve learned from relying on the rule of law to address failures of the system is that you have to look at things in the aggregate. It becomes a measure of how many things I’ve prevailed on versus how many things I have not, and I’ve prevailed on more things than I haven’t. Overall, my work is highly effective. On a day-by-day basis, it’s a mixture of resolution and being obstructed by law-breaking public servants.
You have to get to the point where you can identify when it’s time to negotiate and when it’s time to collect evidence and file a complaint of some kind. We have processes and procedures already to address all of the concerns raised by Ms. Priola’s resignation letter, none of which involve insurrection and execution of elected officials.
So, having said all that, now I have to turn to the issue of people who think like Ms. Priola who are still employed in public education. I first have to say that she may be in the minority, but we don’t know how large or small that minority is because they have not been outspoken within the public education context, thus far.
Further, because I have been dealing with disordered thought on the part of school district personnel that results in harm to children for the last 30 years, I’m willing to believe that people whose thinking is as impaired as Ms. Priola’s appears to be are still deeply rooted in special education, right now. Whether their disordered thought makes them vulnerable to Q-Anon and similar propaganda or not isn’t anything I can answer. But, Ms. Priola’s departure from science in spite of her scientific training is consistent with much of what I see in special education when things go wrong.
What this really comes down to is a concern that I’ve had for years and have spoken about with colleagues, but we haven’t really figured out the most appropriate way to address it. What is happening now and the national dialogue around it may have finally opened a door to deal with this issue, and that issue is the societal impact of having so many members of our population who are apparently incapable of logical thought when it comes to abstract concepts like justice, democracy, and fascism. And, it circles back around to the quality, or lack thereof, of our public education system.
One of the tools I regularly use, or request that it be used, in special education is a standardized assessment called the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD). The history of what led to the SCOSD’s creation is a story unto itself, but suffice it to say that it is a scientific way of measuring all the different domains of development according to Piaget’s stages of development.
The SCOSD breaks development down by subtest into cognition, communication, adaptive abilities, social-affective functioning, and motor skills. It is possible for an individual to function at a higher developmental level in one area than other areas. Each person’s outcome on the measure paints a picture of their relative strengths and weaknesses across the developmental domains. When working with children and young adults with developmental disabilities, this becomes important to designing effective programs for each of them.
What I’ve come to realize from the data I’ve seen produced by the SCOSD over the years is that it is possible for someone to have age-typical cognitive and communication skills, but then have below age-typical social/emotional functioning. What this means is that their emotional development is delayed while their abilities to acquire academic and job skills are intact. They can emulate adult behavior, but their motivations are child-like because of their delayed social/emotional functioning.
When otherwise intelligent people get whipped up into an emotional frenzy over things not supported by any credible evidence, this disconnect between intelligence and social/emotional functioning is apparent. When otherwise intelligent people argue against evidence that they did something incorrectly, this same disconnect is again apparent.
This disconnect is what I’ve been fighting over the years more than anything else. Any reasonably intelligent and socially/emotionally intact person would not engage in the kinds of crap I encounter in the public education system. Most of what I encounter in the public education system is the consequence of ineptitude, not a cabal of cannibals.
If any kind of cabal exists in public education, it’s the same one currently running the American Presidency into the ground. All of this makes me think of the right-wing folks in Orange County, California, who started a non-profit membership organization, self-described as a “brotherhood,” of school district officials who would all pay membership dues and then use that money to finance legal battles against parents of children with disabilities.
It also makes me think of Lozano Smith, a law firm that infamously (within special education circles) got eviscerated by a federal court judge after trying to lie, cheat, and steal in a special education due process appeal. The firm, the responsible attorneys, and the district it was representing all got sanctioned for jerking everybody, especially the court, around with their lies.
All of the firm’s attorneys were ordered to participate in additional ethics training, in addition to the reprimand and sanctions meted out by the court. At the time, Lozano Smith had over 200 attorneys on staff statewide throughout California. Shortly thereafter, most of them jumped ship and went to different firms or started their own firms. It’s quite reminiscent of what we are seeing in Washington, DC, right now, as cabinet members and other high-ranking personnel turn their backs on the outgoing President in the wake of all the destruction and death he has caused.
Lozano Smith is still around, but I haven’t encountered them in the field in several years. The last big thing I saw from them was in 2013 when my colleague, David Grey, prevailed on a case at the 9th Circuit against two school districts engaging in the same violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At least one of the involved districts filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was shot down; the Supreme Court declined to try the case.
When the Supreme Court appeal was first filed, Lozano Smith, which had been uninvolved at that point, wrote an amicus brief that looked like something that could have been produced by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. It made nearly hysterical arguments about how the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the ADA would undo decades of precedent within the public education system, as though decades of an established practice of discrimination should be maintained.
The point is that the conservative “fringe” has never been the “fringe.” To quote Stephen Colbert, “Lunatic fringe? There were tens of thousands of people in that murderous mob. The day after the riot, a poll found that 45% of Republican voters backed the attack on the capitol building. That’s not a fringe! That’s almost half the outfit! If you wore a suit that was 45% fringe, you’d be arrested for public indecency! But at least we’d be able to see through your pants to know you don’t have any balls!“
Based on how scholars look at the political spectrum, conservatives have gone further and further to the right towards radicalization as the left has remained predominantly centrist. The far right looks at centrist politics and mischaracterizes them as the “radical left.” Democracy is not the radical left.
Conservatism is no longer part of democracy in this country; it’s become a movement towards dictatorship in which 45% of the population believes it needs to be led by the nose by a demagogue. When left to think for themselves, these individuals run towards authoritarianism, thinking these leaders understand their needs and will fight for them, rather than exploit them to help take over and then kick them to the curb when they no longer serve a useful purpose.
It’s my suspicion that, once the people who participated in the insurrection realize that the 45th President will let them rot in jail for taking up his cause while he claims to have nothing to do with any of them, his base will finally get the backstabbing that has been coming their way this entire time and will realize he’s not in their corner like they thought. We can at least hope getting stabbed in the back will have this effect.
We’re going to have to watch the prosecuted go through this epiphany over time as we try each of their cases one by one. The stories we’re going to hear from these people are going to reveal legitimate unmet needs, impaired problem-solving skills, and exploitation of those factors by Republican terrorists looking to radicalize them.
Those of these defendants with the mental wherewithal to realize they’ve been played and the emotional stability to own it will turn on those who exploited them, as have many former allies of #45, such as Michael Cohen. Those who don’t have the emotional stability to own the fact that they made a mistake in judgment will continue to assert they’ve done nothing wrong and describe themselves as political prisoners rather than criminal insurrectionists and traitors.
In the minds of the insurrectionists, as they’ve reported themselves, they were responding to the call of their President to defend democracy. If that’s what you’re really doing, defending democracy isn’t bad. But democracy relies on the rule of law. You defend democracy by participating in it and putting its mechanisms into constructive use, not trying to overthrow it.
If our democracy is not working for all of the people – and people of color, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ people, women of all stripes, and people challenged by disability can attest that it has not for a very long time – we need to fix it. What boggles the mind is that now that groups made up mostly of white males in this country are finally beginning to experience the lack of undemocratic entitlement and advantage they’ve historically known, their response to advocate for themselves is to engage in insurrection. This means that what they want is nothing a true democracy would ever give them, and that tells you all you really need to know about them.
There is absolutely a silver lining in all of this, and I rely on Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) to inform that determination. In ABA, there is a term that I’ve discussed in previous posts called “Extinction Burst,” and that’s part of what we are looking at with the current state of things. In an Extinction Burst, a behavior that had previously been reinforced is no longer being reinforced, and the organism tries to force reinforcement to come by escalating its behavior.
Think of it this way: If, every day, you put money in a vending machine and a candy bar comes out, the candy bar reinforces the behavior of putting money into the machine. But if, one day, the candy bar gets stuck and won’t come out of the machine, what do we do? Walk away sad? No! We beat on the machine in an effort to make the candy bar dislodge and come out.
That’s an Extinction Burst. If the candy bar dislodges and comes out, it reinforces the behavior of beating up the machine. If beating the machine doesn’t work, then you walk away sad. After than, you’re less likely to use the machine again. If you stop using the machine altogether, the behavior of putting money into it becomes extinct.
What is happening in this country with the radicalized right is an Extinction Burst. Behaviors engaged in by the right wing that were previously reinforced are no longer being reinforced. The behaviors of the 45th President, his co-conspirators, and his followers over the last five years, leading up to January 6, 2021, and what may still yet happen as the 46th elected President takes office, have been an extended Extinction Burst.
The most important thing about an Extinction Burst when you’re trying to extinguish an inappropriate behavior is that you cannot allow it to produce the reinforcement being sought. If you want someone to give up on the candy machine, there can be no way to beat the machine until candy comes out.
We want the radical right to give up on trying to destroy democracy, so we cannot allow their behaviors to result in the reinforcement they are seeking, which, here, is to remain in power regardless of the will of the people. This includes holding them accountable according to the letter of the law. That’s what I’ve been doing in my niche of governmental accountability for the last 30 years and it’s the only way to preserve democracy going forward.
The other silver lining, here, is that in spite of all their efforts to overthrow democracy, it’s our democracy that will ultimately prevail. When we apply the rule of law to what they have done, democracy will have the opportunity to defend itself.
What saddens and scares me the most is the number of people whose developmental weaknesses and mental health conditions are being exploited by the right wing to radicalize them into becoming domestic terrorists while convincing them they are upholding American principles through their terrorism. When we talk about the mental health problems in this country, we tend to point to homelessness and addiction issues, like this is the only way they can hurt us.
As an advocate for people with disabilities, I am torn between being sad for and fearful of these individuals. On the one hand, we absolutely need to hold them accountable under the law. But, we prove the point that the system is skewed towards specific demographics when mentally ill right wing radicals suddenly get criminal consequences and nothing to address the real-world problems that they couldn’t solve that propelled them into radicalism.
In the end, once again, it’s people with disabilities being used as political pawns by self-serving, undeserving, overpaid public officials looking to line their own pockets with taxpayer dollars as part of a grift. This is something I know all too well in special education.
I’m willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that decades of special education failures have produced an entire class of emotionally disturbed adults who are still vulnerable to the manipulations of public officials and that Ms. Priola and many of her compatriots are among them. I’m also willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that the people manipulating them are just as mentally ill; they just have money and power.
I will never pretend to have all the answers, here, but I do know a thing or two that can help. All of us do. We need to weave our efforts together to repair the fabric of our country and make it stronger than it was in the first place. It’s not impossible. This country’s founding was far more difficult than its current preservation and we can do this.
On November 4, 2020, I interviewed attorney and author, Catherine Michael, of Connell, Michael, Kerr, LLP, a special education law practice with offices in Indiana and Texas (https://cmklawfirm.com). Catherine’s book, The Exceptional Parent’s Guide to Special Education, will become available on December 1, 2020 and can be pre-ordered at https://amzn.to/38euWaD.
The following is the transcript from the interview (transcribed using Otter):
Anne Zachry 00:00
First of all, thank you so much for being on this podcast with me, I don’t get to interview folks very often, and it’s always fun when I get to. And it’s always very informative, because I think having all of us who do this kind of work, you know, talking these things through out loud, and just speaking to what’s going on and how we think that’s going to affect the the students that we work for, and the families that depend on us, I just think it’s a really constructive use of time. So I really appreciate you being here. If you could, just introduce yourself and give us just your background, your history of how you’ve come into this line of work and what it is that you do now.
Catherine Michael 00:33
Oh, yeah, absolutely. So, my name is Catherine Michael. I’m the managing partner of a law firm called Connell Michael Kerr. And we work in a multitude of states and have attorneys licensed in in several states as well. And what I do is, and for the past 20 years, I’ve worked in education, law or representation of children. And, and a lot of that involves filing educational due process cases against schools, personal injury, tort actions against schools, and sometimes group homes, residential facilities, and also advocating for children with special needs, for instance, the legislatures in several states, and at a national level. And, you know, I got into this line of work. My background had been in hospital risk management. And I got into this, because we were seeing a lot of children who had really substantial issues, whether they had a diagnosis of cancer, and we’re now getting cranial radiation or having a tumor removed. And we saw how uncooperative schools were. And back then it was really quite shocking to me that we would find a school district who wouldn’t want to provide a child a homebound program or a school district that would claim that cancer is not a disability, and this child doesn’t need to be eligible.
Anne Zachry 01:51
Oh, my gosh!
Catherine Michael 01:52
That was really – Right! That was really fascinating to me, because as someone who had not worked in education, at that point, and was working with hospital systems, that was really shocking, because I think all of us believe that our procedures, tools are supposed to be very pro child, they are there to ensure educational services for children. And, you know, the first case I took was a child who had cancer, and was just really, really surprised how hard it was to get that young man a program. And thereafter started taking cases involving children who had learning disabilities, and really finding how substantial a need this was. And it had a snowball effect and has kept me in it to this day.
Anne Zachry 02:36
Well, yeah. And a lot of us come into this, who are professionals from these paths where we encounter these challenges. And we’re like, “Wait a minute, what?” And then we see how the system is constructed, how it’s been designed, and what the rules actually are. And so I would imagine coming from a medical scenario, I mean, in the medical realm, you bought insurance billing rules, and all those kinds of things until there’s somewhat of a similarity in that you’ve got this compliance standard that has to be met, in order for things to happen. And when you look at what those rules are in special education, and, you know, and you understand what the intent may have been. But then, and you and I spoke briefly of this before we started the interview, that enforcement is really the question here. So if you could speak about that, that would be …
Catherine Michael 03:29
Yeah, enforcement is a huge issue. And I think that because there is so little enforcement of the laws on the books, we’ve have found that basically schools have run amok. And so for parents who are listening, the main law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and that is a federal law, which means that every state has to follow it. They can’t have a state law that restricts any of the rights under a federal law. And every state in the United States has basically what we call “codified” that law into their own state laws, the only thing that they can do is add additional rights for parents. For instance, the state of Michigan actually extended how long the student can be in special ed. So it is age 22 under the federal law. Michigan made it 26. Other states change, for instance, when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation. California, basically has that if a parent request an independent educational evaluation, that the school gets a reasonable time to respond. Other states like Indiana say a school has to respond within 10 days. So there’s some of these minor changes in the law that are that are supposed to in some states like Indiana or Michigan, give those parents additional rights. But also the way these laws are designed, is that the only enforcers of them are parents. That means the parents are basically their own private attorneys general; that parents are the equivalent of the cops on the road with the radar to catch the speeding cars. Your State Department of Education is not going to be looking over your child’s IEP and saying, “Wow, your child has a lot of issues and they only have one goal,” or “They’re not receiving any direct speech services,” or “They’re not receiving any direct special educational services,” or “Your child shouldn’t be in a special education room all day long; that there’s something called the ‘least restrictive environment,’ which says we need, to the maximum extent we can, have them with their general education peers.’ So what I think a lot of parents don’t realize is, your State Department of Education isn’t doing that. Your federal Department of Education isn’t doing that. No one has that obligation to enforce these laws, other than the parent bringing a private action called an educational due process complaint. So schools have all of these laws under IDEA. And just to give, you know, for parent, I’m sure if if you’re listening to this podcast, you probably have a basic overview of it. But IDEA has requirements for what’s called a free appropriate education. And that basically encompasses that your child is going to have an IEP, that has challenging ambitious goals, in light of their circumstances, that has related services. Related services would be counseling, social work services, parent training, speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy. The least restrictive environment: That if your child needs a one on one aide in order to be in a general education environment, they’re supposed to do that versus moving your child to a resource room. If your child needs a therapeutic day placement or residential placement, that’s also to be provided by the school. There are all sorts of procedural safeguards. If a school refuses your request, let’s say for a one on one aide, or a specialized program for dyslexia, they actually have to provide you written notice saying what data they’re relying upon to deny this, everything they’ve considered, and they have to provide this to you in writing. So there are all these laws on the books, okay. And regardless of where you live, when we say IDEA, it’s that federal law, this applies to you, and it applies to your child in a public school. And as you know, going back again, but the only enforcer of this law, the only enforcer who can actually call a school to tap on it is you as a parent and that mechanism, as I said a second ago, it’s what’s called an educational due process complaint. And that’s a complaint that is filed with your State Department of Education, a state appoints a hearing officer to determine if that program is in place. And you know, something we discussed before we started as well is that most parents have no idea that they have these rights. And that most of these laws are right now not being enforced. There are some states where there is less than one due process case a year. So when schools are developing these IEPs, being that there’s no real enforcement mechanism, other than in some states like the timeline, they have to have it a yearly meeting, we’re seeing really horrible consequences of that, I think across the states.
Anne Zachry 08:27
Well and then now that with school closures and shutdowns, that certainly hasn’t improved things at all. And so what are you seeing?
Catherine Michael 08:36
It hasn’t.
Anne Zachry 08:36
What are you seeing now, that’s different than before the shutdown started?
Catherine Michael 08:40
I think the biggest problem I’m seeing is a complete lack of services. And that is where school districts, for instance, that have gone entirely virtual, have students who are just not able to access the services, they may be so cognitively impaired, they’re not able to do a computer program
Anne Zachry 09:01
Right.
Catherine Michael 09:01
In some of those cases, I’m seeing schools basically just throw up their hands and say, “Well, you know, when we come up with a program, we’ll let you know.” And that’s really contrary to law. And there are a lot of things that parents need to be doing right now. That is one of the biggest problems. The other one is where parents whose children are getting, for instance, speech therapy. The school’s saying, “Sorry, we can’t provide that right now.” And in fact, they really can. I mean, virtual speech therapy has been done for years and it’s something that should be being done.
Anne Zachry 09:35
Right.
Catherine Michael 09:36
And then lastly, I mean, we’re seeing schools where kids are coming back to school, but we’ll have a school that that, you know, I think for good reason has a mask mandate, but they don’t understand that there are clearly going to be children who cannot wear masks, right?
Anne Zachry 09:52
Right.
Catherine Michael 09:52
They are too cognitively impaired or they have really significant health issues. And I’ve definitely seen a lot of those issues crop up, which is really quite shocking to me. Because some of these situations, you know, quite honestly, when we look at a child who for instance, has a tube down their throat, the fact that a school would even argue with a parent as to whether they’re going to try and put a mask on this child is shocking.
Anne Zachry 10:21
Right.
Catherine Michael 10:21
They’ll tell a parent that a child can’t come to school. So that I think has been another one of the really big issues.
Anne Zachry 10:28
Yeah. And we’ve what we’ve run into out here in California is it’s hit or miss, it depends on the school district as to whether they’re going to do the right thing or not. And but we have some school districts that are just flat out refusing to do any in-person services at all, under any circumstances, even though we have the governor’s order that came out in April that said that any student that required in-person services in order to continue to learn and to receive educational benefits, just as a matter of FAPE, that those in-person services still had to be provided and the people who would do it would be considered essential infrastructure workers. But we have districts saying that, “Oh, no, there’s something else that came out in July that says we don’t have to do that.” And it doesn’t say that at all. And so they’re just waiting until they get court ordered to actually do it before they’ll comply. They’re waiting for somebody to pull that trigger. They’re not willing to assume the risk. It’s a risk management decision. They don’t want to assume the liability of choosing to do it, and then have somebody gets sick and say, “You made me go to work, and then then I got COVID.” And then they’re going to turn around and sue the school district as the employer. And so what we’re seeing is that a lot of it has to do with human resources issues, and unionized employees and, you know, rightfully insisting on safe ways of getting things done, and satisfaction not being achieved at that level, which then impairs the system’s ability to carry out its mandate, because the workers it relies upon, there’s no agreement as to how they’re going to do it. Until they get court ordered, they’re just not gonna. And so that’s what we’re seeing out here. And it’s weird. And I’ve also got OCR complaints and state compliance complaints as well pending because the due process system is now so flooded that, you know, the attorneys I work with can’t file anything new until March. And so it’s like, Okay, well, we got to find other avenues to still somehow enforce all of this and a compliance investigation, or an OCR investigation has a 60 day timeline. So at least that’s something.
Catherine Michael 12:27
Yeah, well, and I think that is, again, part of the big problem, here. It’s just when we have schools that they know that the consequences to them are going to be really minimal, that’s why we’ll often see them wait for court orders versus getting creative. So when I say getting creative, we’re seeing two are not able to serve, for instance, cognitively impaired kids, they have problems where they are not able to get the personnel in and not keep them safe. They can actually pay for a private therapeutic day placement, they can offer a parent sort of what we would call a continuum of services and placements …
Anne Zachry 13:02
Right.
Catherine Michael 13:03
… which is one of the requirements of federal law. And they can actually say to a parent, look, we do not have the infrastructure right now, or we don’t have the ability to serve this child, here are four or five private placements that we can contract with, if that’s something you’re interested in. So and we see that happen in some places, and we don’t see it happen in others.
Anne Zachry 13:22
We’re seeing that also with non-public agencies being able to provide in-home services like behavioral services.
Catherine Michael 13:28
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 13:28
Yeah, same thing.
Catherine Michael 13:30
Yeah, I’m actually a big fan of that happening. When I see school districts that are really willing to think outside of the box to say, “Well, we have an absolute obligation to serve these kids. How do we do it?” Right? Where they’re actually looking at it more along the lines of: “This is our job, this is our role, how do we perform it, even if we don’t have the personnel right now?”
Anne Zachry 13:52
Right.
Catherine Michael 13:52
And so when I, certainly when I see school districts going above and beyond like that, and situations where, you know, you can see how difficult it is. I mean, I’m looking at those districts and saying, you know, at least they’re making these attempts, but, you know, the, the problem we see over much of the country is school districts basically saying if a parent, if, after all this is done, brings a due process, our worst case scenario is we’re just going to have to provide compensatory education. So I’m seeing some school districts, really, you know, as I said a moment ago, not provide anything.
Anne Zachry 14:29
Right.
Catherine Michael 14:29
And so, you know, if you’re a parent who’s listening to this, and you’re saying, you know, my school district may be providing part of the program, or not any of it. I mean, the thing you need to be doing right now is documenting it.
Anne Zachry 14:41
Yes!
Catherine Michael 14:42
Because you are absolutely going to have a claim for those compensatory hours that your child should have been getting. So if your IEP had your child receiving 124 minutes a week of what we would call sort of direct special educational services like we would expect to see it you’re talking about a child with a specific learning disability, who is getting some of that one on one reading intervention or math intervention, those are the minutes that are going to be ordered. If you have a situation where your child’s not receiving that, or they were in a resource room, and we’re talking about full time special ed placement, they’re not able to access a computer, what you’re going to want to do is just really document those hours that you’re missing. Email the school, your child’s school, and ask, you know, again, if your child’s not receiving anything, what options are available? You know, if they don’t have the infrastructure, are they going to offer a private therapeutic day placement or a home based placement at this point? And that’s, you know, sending it for instance, a registered behavior technician, or if your child has autism, a BCBA, or you know, another individual who’s trained in that, you know, behavior modification into the home to work on the child’s behavioral goals, social skills goals, academic goals. What is the school able to do at this point? And you’re certainly going to want to ask those questions. And you’re going to want to push because, again, it’s their absolute duty to be providing this right now. To the extent that they are unable, there are rural areas where, you know, there are no ABA centers are out there …
Anne Zachry 16:14
Right.
Catherine Michael 16:15
… no spec ial day placements, there are no private placements, quite honestly. And we have schools that are saying, you know, “We don’t have enough staff,” you know? It’s really a very, very problematic situation for families in those places. And that’s where the parent just really needs to be documenting to the best extent they can you know, what skills their child is losing how many minutes that their child isn’t receiving, what they’re doing, any costs that they are right now incurring. Like for instance, for parents who are having to go out and buy educational items, these are all things that you’re going to want to keep track of as a parent so that as things return to normal, you can sit down initially with your school at an IEP meeting and say, we need to plan for the compensatory services, number one. Number two, here are the costs that I had to privately pay that I’m asking to be reimbursed for,
Anne Zachry 17:05
Right! Well, and I don’t know how other states are doing it, but in California, one of the things that we had a Senate bill pass over the summer, that now requires all IEPs to have a contingency plan and emergency plan for his schools shut down for emergency reasons for 10 or more days. And so now, and hindsight being 2020, obviously, that should something else ever arise, like another pandemic, or whatever that would, or, you know, a natural disaster that would require a school closure for 10 or more days, that there is already a backup plan of what to do for each kid …
Catherine Michael 17:40
Yes.
Anne Zachry 17:40
… on IEP. And so I don’t know that other states have codified anything like that. But California has. And I think that’s very valuable. And the same body of law that produced that I believe, also produced a requirement that there’s going to have to be an analysis of how much compensatory education every special ed kid in California is due, because it’s assumed that everybody will have suffered in some kind of way, and that everybody will have …
Catherine Michael 18:04
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 18:04
… lost services. And so it’s, the IEP teams are now legally beholden to calculate that, once things, you know, once the shutdown is over. That …
Catherine Michael 18:12
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 18:12
… varies from community to community. And I, we now have like, I’m in Ventura County, where districts are not intending to open until January, at the soonest. And then you know, you go down into other counties, and they’ve already got campuses partially opened down in Orange County. And so and some campuses are reopening for their most severely impacted students who desperately need that in-person support. And so the families have to sign all kinds of waivers and everything, but then they can go back and they’ve got all of these empty classrooms that they can spread everybody out. Because not it’s just a small number of students. And then those kids can get that individualized support. But that is like, you know, how much of this was working on social skills? And if they’re all spread apart, can we really do that? You know, and so it’s, it’s still the challenge of how do we work on the goals. And what I’ve seen too, is some kind of distance learning program where, you know, the parents are expected to be the one-on-one aide and help their students login. And they do some kind of something on the internet, but it doesn’t have anything to do with anybody’s goals. It’s just something to do. It’s just to give them a sense of routine in the absence of, you know, an actual plan, and then they get very confused. And then eventually, the goals get worked in because enough people you know, make a fuss about it, then it starts to happen. And now you switched everything up on them again. Now, the instruction is a whole new novel experience, and you’re transitioning them again, into something new that is unfamiliar. And so it just seems to me that it’s very disruptive. And it’s disheartening to see that there’s this little coordination. I mean, as many milestones have been achieved, and as many things that have been accomplished with making some of the system work, this piece of it falling down is a real disappointment, you know? And …
Catherine Michael 19:53
Yeah!
Anne Zachry 19:53
… and it’s disheartening, but I think that parents need to know that there are people like you and me out there who understand it, and we’re trying to fight it, we’re trying to help them. And it’s not a lost cause; that there is help out there. If you could share about your practice, once again, that would be very helpful.
Catherine Michael 20:12
Yeah, so my law firm is Connell, Michael, Kerr, and I am licensed in Michigan, Indiana, and Texas. And our website is www.cmklawfirm.com, and I also have recently, and I believe it’s due out either in December or January, I’m not sure on the date. But I do know that we’re having pre-orders. That’s the Exceptional Parent’s Guide to Special Education, where I basically have, you know, put all of my advice on how parents should navigate this system in one place. Everything that I go over with parents in consultations, how the process works, I’ve put that together and created that as a book. And so that will be due out, again, it’s either in December or January, but parents can get it through Amazon, Kindle, I believe Barnes and Noble, a couple of the others. But I know that should be available shortly. And I’ll send a link for that as well. (Note: It will become available on December 1, 2020, at https://amzn.to/38euWaD.)
Anne Zachry 21:08
Very cool. Yeah, we’ll include the link with our post so that people can access that. That’s a good thing to know.
Catherine Michael 21:14
Yeah. Because I, you know, I think the thing that parents need to remember is that they actually have power. When, you know, when I use the term, private attorney general, that parents are basically acting as though, you know, that is the main message I want to impart to families is that most accountability is going to come from families standing up together and saying,”No, we are entitled to appropriate services for our children,” and doing their research and coming to unders tand the system and asking for the things they’re supposed to be getting.
Anne Zachry 21:47
Right.
Catherine Michael 21:47
And it’s only by asking for it, and schools really being held accountable that we’re going going to see the system change. And I think a lot of parents, right, and this is all of us, right? It’s difficult to challenge people that we want to like us and parents often want the teachers to like them, they want school staff to like them. And most people who go into teaching are very, very good people, but they’re not taught the education laws, they’re not …
Anne Zachry 22:11
Exactly.
Catherine Michael 22:12
… in a lot of situations, we find, you know, teachers don’t know how to design the school for an IEP, they don’t … You know, I had a teacher in a due process hearing last week, they they didn’t know that parent training, or counseling could even be part of an IEP. So it’s really important for parents to take the horse by the reins, and learn how to navigate the system and start asking these things in a way that’s diplomatic and kind. But at the same time is assertive enough that your child is going to get what they need, because quite honestly, you are your child’s only advocate in the system.
Anne Zachry 22:48
Right.
Catherine Michael 22:48
And unless you’re asking for these things, the schools simply aren’t going to provide them. And in many, many situations,
Anne Zachry 22:55
it’s just a sad reality of it. But I mean, this also goes to the fact that in a democracy, we’re of the people, for the people, and by the people, and the parents are the people, the students are the people and we shouldn’t be afraid to take ownership of that responsibility. It’s what we all agreed we wanted to live under. That’s …
Catherine Michael 23:13
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 23:13
… the model we’ve chosen. And so I think, for me, what makes me upset most about the way it’s designed, it’s not just that it forces parents into litigation, because that’s what the rules require, in order to resolve the dispute. It’s the attitude that parents get from the school district personnel when they actually exercise that right. And the “How dare you?” and “Oh, you think you’re …” you know, whatever. And all of a sudden, the parent becomes the bad guy for simply exercising a right and following the rules, because that’s the only mechanism available to them, not because they want to. Nobody wants to do that. But if they do, you know, as someone who works with families, if somebody comes to me and says, “I cannot wait to go to court,” I’m like, “Well, okay, I hope you find somebody to help you with that, because it’s not going to be me,” You know, it’s that you shouldn’t be eager to go to court. It should be the last resort. And so when parents are forced into that corner, and that’s the only option they have left, and they exercise that right, and then they catch grief for it, like somehow they’re the bad guy, I think that’s what bothers me the most. Because it’s like you …
Catherine Michael 24:18
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 24:18
… said, you know, that the parents can be made out as, “Oh, they’re just this this disgruntled person and they just aren’t happy with anything. They’re sad about being the parent of a special needs child.” I’ve heard that one a lot. “They’re having a hard time coping and they they’re angry and they need someone to take it out on, so they’re suing the school district.” No, you broke the law and you harmed their child. That’s why they’re suing you. You know, it’s frustrating.
Catherine Michael 24:46
Yeah, and, to that end, like, I want, you know, schools as well as parents to I you know, I would so love if we could even stop thinking of due process as litigation or suing or something like that, because these parents cannot get damages under IDEA claims.
Anne Zachry 25:04
Exactly.
Catherine Michael 25:05
What you can get, right? You can recover your attorneys fees. But in these cases, I mean, if we look at them in their most simplistic nature, it’s simply the parents asking their state Department of Education to appoint an independent hearing officer to make a decision as to the appropriateness of their child’s program.
Anne Zachry 25:23
Right.
Catherine Michael 25:23
A parent doesn’t need, although I certainly wouldn’t recommend it, but a parent doesn’t need an attorney. So, you know, I will often hear from schools that, you know, this is the litigious parent who filed a suit. And I’m thinking, number one, this person hasn’t filed a suit against you. Right? A suit, you know, traditionally is a claim we would file in civil or federal court.
Anne Zachry 25:46
Right.
Catherine Michael 25:47
This is an administrative action that they filed with an administrative agency. It’s not even … so, and then we hear, you know, “a litigious parent.” Parent’s not asking for money, you know. They may be asking for what we call an “in lieu of FAPE” type of agreement where they can actually get the funds to place their child in an appropriate program.
Anne Zachry 26:05
Right.
Catherine Michael 26:06
But I think that is a mindset that we really need to have get schools over and also get parents again, thinking that if you have a problem with Social Security, or you had a problem with your child’s Medicaid, you file an administrative action to get that corrected. Right? You file with, you know, your federal Social Security office, “Here, I need to get this adjudicated,” or somebody who’s disabled. We don’t think about it the same way.
Anne Zachry 26:31
No, not at all.
Catherine Michael 26:32
I think if we could … right? And so to me, that has always been fascinating as somebody who does this, when, you know, I have one that’s in a hearing right now, where the, you know, the parents, quite honestly only asking for an appropriate IEP, and then assorted related services for her child. And now, you know, when the school’s attorney is speaking to us, they’re saying, you know, this is simply a litigious parent. And I’m thinking, you know, she’s not asking for a dollar.
Anne Zachry 27:00
Right.
Catherine Michael 27:00
Just write an appropriate program. So I really want to even reframe how parents think about these things. Again, schools are basically performing a government function.
Anne Zachry 27:14
Yep.
Catherine Michael 27:14
When we ask for the enforcement of these laws, it’s an administrative action. And you’re asking, you know, someone from your state simply to make that decision. Certainly, they can be appealed to federal court. And there’s all you know, all of the things that you and I often see.
Anne Zachry 27:31
Yeah. Which Yeah, I’ve gone all the way to the Ninth Circuit on some of these things and it’s just like, “Are you kidding me?” And something that you had said before we got started, as well as that how much money school districts are sometimes willing to throw in attorneys that they would never throw at services, I mean, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight over a $7500 education service.
Catherine Michael 27:50
Yeah. And you know, I’ve even seen that when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation. In most states, those can go for around $3500. Some states that we’re looking at California and New York, it can be higher. So I’ve seen schools go through an entire due process, arguing that their evaluation is appropriate, where they spent triple, quadruple, what it would have cost them to provide the parents the evaluation. And when you look at that, you’re really what you’re seeing is a school district saying, “We want to make this process so hard on parents that they don’t even bother to ask.” And they talk to their friends and they’re like, “Yeah, this is what happened.” And that’s not the role of a government entity, right? We shouldn’t have government entities making it so difficult for individuals to get their, you know, their legal rights met.
Anne Zachry 28:23
Right. Right.
Catherine Michael 28:38
They don’t even want to start that process. And that’s why I think it’s really important for parents to feel empowered, and to realize that what they’re asking for is supposed to already be being provided to their child. And again, it becomes their job to enforce that. And you can do so in a diplomatic way.
Anne Zachry 28:55
Exactly.
Catherine Michael 28:56
There are a lot of you know, yeah. And there are a lot of things you can do even outside of due process. But I don’t want parents to be afraid of due process.
Anne Zachry 29:03
Right.
Catherine Michael 29:03
And, I want to reframe their thinking on that topic.
Anne Zachry 29:07
I think that’s a really healthy perspective. I wish we could reframe the thinking of the folks from the school district who come in and deliberately try to make it toxic in those instances where they do. And you know, when it isn’t always that case, you’re right. I have been in situations where we’ve had to file for due process. And it’s almost one of these things where everybody in the IEP team knows that it was coming, and nobody’s surprised by it. And they’re waiting to see what happens. And it’s almost like the administration is hoping the parent will file because then they can go to the school board and say, “Look, now will you listen to me?” And because, sometimes it’s not that the department doesn’t want to do it, it’s that their hands are tied by, you know, whoever holds the purse strings, who’s not part of the IEP process, even though the team is the one vested with the authority to make those decisions. So, the politics that are going on behind the scenes become a toxifying effect. And …
Catherine Michael 29:59
Right.
Anne Zachry 29:59
… then you Have the attorneys that these individuals will hire and certain individuals, you know, birds of a feather flock together, and you’ll find people who are like minded in their view of these things. And I know that for from what I’ve seen the socioeconomic status of the community where the school district is, can have an influence over whether they will comply or not. In a school district where they don’t have the money to throw at lawyers, they’ll go ahead and pay for the service, they’re not going to fight over it …
Catherine Michael 30:27
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 30:27
… because they can’t afford to. But you get into an affluent community, especially when you’re talking Southern California where you got these little pockets of nouveau riche and their big McMansions. And they’re feeling all special because they have money and the school district people will tell them, “Oh, well, you don’t want to go through public special education services. That’s like a welfare service. You would do much better if you pay privately for the services yourself. You’ll get much better results than what we can give you because ours is publicly funded.” And so they play that …
Catherine Michael 30:58
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 30:58
… that mind trip on these wealthy parents whose identities are all wrapped up in their their newly accomplished wealth, and they play on that and these parents are taken for a ride, because then these parents are paying out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars for all of these specialists who were hovering, like vultures just waiting because they know it’s coming. So you’ve got, you know, you’ve got all of these parties that are financially invested in enabling that mechanism to play out the way that it does. And then you have parents who suddenly realize after, you know, they’ve broken the bank, and they don’t have all that money anymore, because it went all to private school and residential placement costs and things and to come to find out that they could have gotten all of that from the school district. But there’s …
Catherine Michael 31:40
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 31:40
… only a two year statute of limitations and they’ve been paying out of pocket for the last 10 years. And so not until they’re bankrupted by it that they realize the error in their judgment, and then they can’t go back and fully recover. And it just there’s all of these different games being played by people who seem to be similarly motivated to not serve, while taking public dollars to hold a public service position. And I think that this is as much a taxpayer issue as it is a parent issue, because like you said, we’ve already paid for these services to be provided. Those are our tax dollars. And in those are the laws that our Representatives passed in order to provide for these children. And yet, this is what we have instead. And so I think …
Catherine Michael 32:22
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 32:22
… that one of the parent advocates that I met a few years ago said she went up to Sacramento with a group of parents and sat down with state assembly members or state Senate, I’m not sure who all she met with. It was state officials, representatives. And said, you know, “When you take into account all of the people in California who have disabilities, and their immediate family members, like their parents, or you know, a spouse, do you consider them a constituency?” And he said, “No, the number is too small.” And she said, “Well, okay, what about all the people who are employed to support all of these people with disabilities and their families and their extended families? When you add all those people in, does that become a constituency to you?” And he said, “Yes …”
Catherine Michael 33:08
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 33:08
“… at that point, now you’re talking about a significant number of people.” And so what that really communicates is all of this divisiveness that we’ve been seeing in our culture where, you know, we’ve got people being pitted against each other for different ways of thinking about things and the things that make them unique from each other. And disability is no stranger to that experience. And what we’re starting to realize is that the people who are trying to divide us are a minority. And they’re easily identified, we all have a common group of individuals who are all trying to pit us against each other and turn us into special interest groups, when really we’re just the majority. And if we all …
Catherine Michael 33:49
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 33:49
… weave ourselves together and collectively advocate for each other, then we’re a constituency. And I think that …
Catherine Michael 33:57
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 33:57
… that is where we have to start thinking about these things now that it’s not, “Oh, my disability rights versus your LGBTQ+ rights.” It’s not my “My race rights versus your gender rights.” You know, it’s not a “versus.” It’s no, everybody. Everybody has equal rights. And that’s the whole point.
Catherine Michael 34:16
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 34:16
And so I think that our dialogue needs to shift in that direction. I know that I had this conversation in an IEP meeting the other day with a team, I had to file an OCR complaint. I’m like, “Look, this pandemic is not the apocalypse, you know? Zombies are not at the door.”
Catherine Michael 34:32
Right.
Anne Zachry 34:32
“Democracy has not fallen, the rule of law still applies. And at no point did public health usurp civil rights, they are equally important. So what are you guys gonna do?” And they’re just like “Uhhh!” because they don’t know. I mean, but they understood why I filed a complaint. They weren’t mad at me. They’re probably … they’re actually they’re like waiting to see what comes of it because maybe now they’ll be given permission to do their jobs. You know?
Catherine Michael 34:56
Right.
Anne Zachry 34:56
Nobody was angry about it. It was like “Okay, well, yeah,. That logically makes sense. We’ll just have to see what happens.” And so I’m not necessarily, in my situations … and of course, I have relationships with a lot of these people, because I see the same people in IEP meetings for different kids over the span of decades. So we all know each other. So it’s not like …
Catherine Michael 35:17
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 35:17
… you know, I’m going into a novel situation, and then some stranger coming in and telling them what to do. Because that can be, you know, people can become defensive and adversarial when that happens. So I have rapport, but, you know, even still, you know, the fact that I can say something like that, and everybody’s like, “Yeah, you know what, you’re right. We still are not empowered to do what you’re asking us to do.” And so that that, to me, is very frustrating, because I know that there’s people who want to do the right thing, and they can’t; they’re not being allowed to.
Catherine Michael 35:45
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 35:46
And I think that parents need to understand that too, that, you know, not everybody’s the enemy, but you got to be paying real close attention these days. I mean, would you agree, I mean, the parents just need to be …
Catherine Michael 35:56
I would.
Anne Zachry 35:56
… very discerning about who they can trust?
Catherine Michael 35:58
Well, absolutely. I think it’s, again, it’s being discerning. And it’s also it’s being educated as to what your child needs are, what you’re asking for. And then also, you know, again, understanding that you are going to be the only one who really has your child’s true best interests at heart. That’s not to say that there aren’t, you know, within school systems there are really dedicated teachers, dedicated administrators who are doing their very, very best to ensure children are being educated appropriately. But at the end of the day, and I don’t necessarily like that expression, but it really does come down to, you are always going to know your child best. And it is going to be up to you to enforce these laws.
Anne Zachry 36:43
Right.
Catherine Michael 36:43
You know, you may have a great teacher one year and not another. And again, the school’s interest isn’t going to be the same as yours, right? Theirs is going to be on their budgeting, the union, you know, everything going on, your interest is going to be on “Is my child getting an appropriate program?”
Anne Zachry 36:51
Exactly. Right. And, I mean, in terms of checks and balances, that’s why the parents are such an important part of the team, and are afforded so many rights and the protected right to meaningful parent participation and …
Catherine Michael 37:11
Right!
Anne Zachry 37:12
… informed consent. I mean, all of those privileges and rights are there, because that’s meant to be a check and balance against the rest of the system. And so, you know, if they if the parents are being bamboozled, and they are signing documents that they don’t actually understand, then those enforceable rights are not being honored. And, you know, it’s parents have to understand that they have recourse and they need to educate themselves as to what what that is.
Catherine Michael 37:36
Right.
Anne Zachry 37:36
And ask! I mean, my favorite thing is when parents say, “Okay, well, what are my rights under this circumstance?” and put it back on the school people … … to explain what their rights are, you know? And I think that that’s a good strategy, because it is the burden of the school district to explain to parents what their rights are. They’re supposed to be able to do that. And so you know, if they’ve put you the parent on the spot, the parents should feel comfortable saying, “Well, you know, what, I need to turn this around to put you on the spot for a minute, because I don’t understand my right. And I’m not sure what I can do here.” If you’re savvy enough to know, in some states, you know, how the rules play out are different. In California, all you have to do is give 24 hour written notice, minimum, and you can audio record your child’s IEP as a parent. You can’t video record, but you can audio record, and the school district can’t say no, but they also have to record as well so that there’s a backup copy. And you know …
Catherine Michael 37:42
Yes!
Anne Zachry 38:23
… just for authenticity reasons. So different states have different rules about audio recording, but, you know, I audio record every IEP meeting. One, because I have ADHD myself, and I don’t want to miss anything. And so it’s just a … it’s more of a safety net, because I very rarely have to go back and listen for …
Catherine Michael 38:23
Yeah. Yeah.
Anne Zachry 38:38
… my own account. But just to know that I can make me less anxious during the meeting, but also because, you know … … it ends up getting introduced into evidence if we do have to go to a due process hearing. And it’s been a very powerful tool.
Catherine Michael 38:44
Well, yeah. Right. And you can be clear as to what you asked for, why you asked for it, what the school’s response was.
Anne Zachry 38:58
Exactly,
Catherine Michael 38:59
I think that can be extremely helpful.
Anne Zachry 39:01
And if, you know, when you go into an IEP meeting and you do have the, you know, you’ve legally made it okay to audio record – given written notice or whatever is required – and you’re doing it lawfully, and then you go in and say, “I don’t understand my rights under the circumstance, please explain them to me,” and then the explanation they give you is either going to be a good one, or it’s going to be a bad one. And if it’s a bad one … … you know, the backup, you know, it’s like, “Okay, well, I didn’t get the right answer, but I got proof that they don’t know what they’re talking about. And I’m not crazy.” And so it becomes evidence and I think the parents and, certainly as an advocate, when I go into the to the IEP process, I’m trying to solve the problem for real in the moment but I’m also making the record along the way in case it doesn’t get resolved …
Catherine Michael 39:24
Yeah. Right.
Anne Zachry 39:28
… and so that by the time we arrive at due process, the trail … the evidence trail is clear. If when they say no their explanations are, you know, are whatever they are. And, going back to what you had said earlier about prior written notice one of the things that I’ve noticed out here is that I would say, a good third of the time when I get a prior written notice, in response to something I’ve submitted for a family, it won’t make a lick of sense. It will say prior written notice according to 300.503, blah, blah, blah …
Catherine Michael 40:14
Right.
Anne Zachry 40:14
… and have all that legalese at the top of it, and then they … it’s like a form and they’ll populate the form with a bunch of gibberish that’s just nonsense. It doesn’t even explain why they said, “No.” There’s no real explanation. I’m like, “Okay, well go ahead and make the record that this is what you’re sending out on a PWN form, and this is what you’re going to represent as PWN,” … because substantively, it is embarrassing. And just because you put “PWN” at the top, and you cite the code that you’re supposed to be following, the fact that you didn’t is reflected the document itself. And it just, it blows my mind what people will put into writing because they think they’re so clever. And it’s like, “Okay.” And so one of the things that I think is really valuable, that’s helpful for parents to know, too, is that the regulations, it’s 34 CFR section 300.320(a)(4) mandates the application of the peer reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education. When you have a bad IEP, you can say, “I want to understand the science that underpins this IEP. What peer reviewed research did you rely on to inform …”
Catherine Michael 40:34
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 41:20
… you know, and of course, they don’t have anything. And then when I ask for something specific, and I know, I can reasonably anticipate that they’re going to balk at it, because it’s something they’ve not done before. And it’s going to require them to create something new. I will cite the science that backs up the request that I am making and say specifically, the regulations require you to apply the peer reviewed research to the degree that it’s practicable. So if you’re not going to do this, when you send your prior written notice, please explain what it is about the science that is not practicable.
Catherine Michael 41:20
Yeah. Yeah.
Anne Zachry 41:23
And then they’re, they’re stumped, because they don’t know how to reply to that. And again, it goes back to the fact that they don’t actually have access to the peer reviewed research. I’ll go ahead and …
Catherine Michael 42:02
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 42:02
… spend $70 on an article just to make my point, because I can …
Catherine Michael 42:06
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 42:06
… you know, but I shouldn’t have to do that. And that’s the problem, is that we have this paywall between our educators and the science that would tell them what to do. And what is the politics behind that? Why is there a paywall between our educators and the research that will tell them how to teach our kids right? How is that not part of the public domain? Why do teachers not have access to that? And then, especially when you have a legal mandate that requires it, you know?
Catherine Michael 42:31
Oh yeah, and …
Anne Zachry 42:32
It blows my mind.
Catherine Michael 42:34
It goes to the fact that, yeah, that because the laws are not enforced, right? We’re just not seeing, for instance, when we look at health care, right, we have, you know, standards of care, best practices, we see checklists for everything with the doctors getting weekly reports on different new procedures, medications, right? We don’t see that in education, because, again, there’s so little penalty. We’re not seeing teachers, sort of, you know, given a weekly mailer, you know, here are some of the programs that we’re seeing coming out. Here are some of the best practices for working with a specific learning disability, you know, can you update off on how you’re implementing this in your classroom? We don’t see that because, again, there’s so little importance level. Yeah, I really haven’t felt the need to do that.
Anne Zachry 43:23
Yeah, well, and I’m thinking we’re overdue for a reauthorization of the IDEA. And one of the things that I would like to see in there is beefing up of that enforcement arm because they’re supposed to be what 10 year audits or something like that? That we have some kind of audit procedure in California that every once in a while somebody pulls the short straw and ends up getting audited. And of course, every time they go through there and examine all the IEPs, it’s just a disaster, but then nothing ever gets fixed.
Catherine Michael 43:48
Right.
Anne Zachry 43:48
And so it doesn’t change anything. It’s like, Oh, they just documented that it’s a disaster and moved on to the next one. And nothing got rectified. And we need to speak to that. I mean, is we’re looking at all of these broken systems that are just cracked open and expose raw and wide for the whole world to see now that there’s no covering up that our social programs are flawed, and that we need to overhaul them. And we need to bring them kicking and screaming into the 21st century with best practices and not just best practices in teaching, but in best practices in operational standards, and efficiency, and … … and security and privacy. And I know I worked in IT for a few years in these huge enterprise class computing environments like Walmart and Sanyo, and Volkswagen and all of these big huge computing environments, where you have these global wide area networks in these supply chain automated pieces. Back in the day, I’m talking like 25-30 years ago, this technology has been around for a long time. And if you look at the degrees of efficiency, and the cost savings and the reduction in overhead that is experienced by the industries that adopt all of this ISO standards and these automated supply chain things and and the internal and the way they automate their internal business operations, that California is starting to head in that direction with respect to individualized person centered planning. That there is a pilot program that’s being developed. And I don’t know when exactly it’s going to be deployed. But I know Ventura County as part of it, where, whether you’re Department of Rehab, or you’re special ed, or you’re county mental health, or you’re welfare, or you’re food stamps, or you’re Medicaid, or whatever, it’s one individualized plan, one caseworker, and your plan calls out to all the different funding sources. So the consumer is not having to chase after the funding, the funding is following the consumer through a single individualized plan, which is only common sense. But it was only achievable by marrying all of these computer systems together, that all of these disparate agencies were working autonomously with, and making them able to talk to each other. And so now we’re getting to the point where we can stitch all of our our computing resources together to create this inter woven supply chain so that we can streamline how we deliver public services and do it more cost effectively. But then what that also means is that there are no there are no dark shadows to hide in where funds can be misappropriated. There will be such a stringent degree of accountability that the cronyism and the back scratching that has gone on will no longer be enabled. It won’t be possible. And so that also will free up a lot of resources. And that is another aspect of increasing the efficiency and the fiscal responsibility of the system and the fiscal management of it. And so there are people who financially benefit from the system being antiquated and broken right now. And they don’t want those kinds of changes coming in. Because there goes all of their opportunities to exploit. We’re starting to see that public service is going through this transformation that private industry went through when this happened decades ago, as these technologies come in. And as the public pushes for a greater accountability. And as we repair and we overhaul our systems, we’re going to be using the most modern tools we have. And so I think that we can be encouraged that the future does hold a lot of potential for a lot of corrective action, and a lot of prevention of things like this happening again in the future. But we are not there yet. And I think it takes … it’s going to take all of us pushing for those reforms. Because as much as each parent needs to advocate for their child on a child by child basis, and not be afraid of the due process mechanisms, if that’s what it takes, you know, but not think that it’s like, you know, the panacea, like it’s going solve every problem, we also need to be pushing collectively as a community of people for reforms that will fix the system in a way where these are no longer the problems we have to deal with. And that we have to repair the broken system, not only on a kid by kid basis, but we also have to make it better than it was in the first place. And so that the next time catastrophe comes, we’re better prepared to roll with it. I mean, sadly enough, this was long overdue, where the system needed to be confronted on its failures. But I think that parents can take hope that we’re part of history right now we’re part of fixing it, we’re part of making this better for our kids with special needs, because all of its going to have to be reformed, we can’t just tape it back together and go back to the way it was. So I think that …
Catherine Michael 44:23
Yeah. Right.
Anne Zachry 44:54
… you know, there’s, there’s a lot of encouragement in what’s going on here, there’s a lot of opportunity, and we don’t need to be so terrified of the changes that are coming. And we need to really embrace them, because it’s our opportunity to make it better, I think. And it’s going to take people like you and me going in there and one kid at a time, you know, saying, “No, this is … these are the rules, and this is how they apply to this one child. And this is …” ” … the individualized program, and and the individual person matters. You know, it’s like every vote matters, every child matters. And whether that child has a disability or not, should not be a defining criteria of whether that individual matters or not, it shouldn’t even be a question.
Catherine Michael 48:39
Right! Yeah.
Anne Zachry 48:55
And so I think that what we’re doing is a very powerful thing. This is a very prescient area of civil rights law right now. And, you know, I think that, you know, regardless of how things play out with what other people do, what people like you and I are doing, we’re on the right side of history with this, you know? We’re enforcing civil rights. We’re …
Catherine Michael 49:13
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 49:13
… we’re enforcing democracy. It’s we are of the people, for the people by the people doing the work to make sure the people are protected. And I think that families need to understand that they’re not alone, that there are folks like that, like us out there. And we’re not that rare, you know, and the fact that you’re licensed in multiple states goes to the fact that you recognize the degree to which there’s not enough representation in some places, and that you’re making it …
Catherine Michael 49:36
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 49:36
… happen anyway. And so that’s really powerful. I think the parents need to … and I know that there are other attorneys who are licensed in multiple states as well. One of the attorneys I work with here in California is also licensed in Alaska. And let me tell you, going out into the middle of Alaska in the middle of nowhere … … and enforcing special ad law is not an easy thing to do. You’re coming in on a like a bush plane and landing in, you know, somebody field, you know, and going to a one room …
Catherine Michael 49:53
Yeah! Right.
Anne Zachry 50:04
… school house to say,” Okay, this kid needs speech and language. How are you gonna make it happen?” and they still got to do it. And so, you know …
Catherine Michael 50:09
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 50:09
… parents need to understand that even under the most bizarre and difficult circumstances it can be made to happen. There’s always a way.
Catherine Michael 50:17
Right.
Anne Zachry 50:17
You know, and that it’s not a hopeless situation. So I think that talking about this with you has been very enlightening and very encouraging. And I think that you’ve given us a lot of really good information. I do want to remind everybody that I’m going to include a link to your book with all of our, you know, the stuff below on the … because what we’ll do is we we do the podcast, but we also do a corresponding text only post …
Catherine Michael 50:39
Great!
Anne Zachry 50:40
That way, all the links for everything are embedded in the transcript …
Catherine Michael 50:44
Yeah.
Anne Zachry 50:44
… so we’ll have all of that and then …
Catherine Michael 50:47
Oh, that would be fantastic!
Anne Zachry 50:49
Yeah, and that way folks know how to get ahold of you. And this has been a really good discussion, I really appreciate you doing this with me.
Catherine Michael 50:56
You know, you’ve done a great job, as well, at trying to keep parents aware of their rights and helping them feel empowered. And I think that’s the biggest thing that they need to know is that they have a lot of power in their hands. They just need to know that there are lots of us on their side trying to help them along the way.
Anne Zachry 51:13
Right. And it means the world to us to be able to do it. It’s such an honor to be able to be part of making somebody’s life something that you know that they’re they’re happy and they’re fulfilled and they’re not living in misery …
Catherine Michael 51:26
Yes!
Anne Zachry 51:27
… or in crisis, you know, that that we can help people turn those kinds of corners with the kind of work that we do. I mean, it’s an honorable thing that we do and I’m proud of what we do. So thank you, and thank you for doing this and for sharing your information with us and hopefully we’ll get to do something like this with you again soon.
Catherine Michael 51:44
Yeah, I would love it. And thank you again, so much and for all that you do.
