Jargon - Parsing Words - Dazzle or Baffle -

Here is an interesting link to several resources on "lingo".

My previous post links to another post that has a subsequent post about the definition of "eligibility" for occupational therapy (or any other related service).

Seasoned veterans of IEP's know the well practiced dialogue that is used by some school personnel to bamboozle ignorant teachers and parents alike.

A frequent reader of my early posts on both blogs would find many anecdotal stories of these twists of words and contortions of meanings that revolve around minimizing services. A favorite one that is used is "educationally relevant". Trying to get a meaningful definition of "educationally relevant" within the context of how the needs of the student are or are not met within an IEP is like trying to nail jello to a wall. To the best of my knowledge, "educationally relevant" is not defined in any of the Federal laws regarding special education.

Try asking your local special education mentor for a written definition of "educationally relevant" and then try to use that in the context of the federal regulations regarding the development of an IEP.

What teachers should know is that they are presented the same hoops of misunderstanding that parents have to jump through.

DANGER DANGER DANGER - Will Robinson

Danger, Danger Will Robinson

Please prove me wrong on this.

I was perusing the HCPS new website. The very first course of links I chose to follow (how did I know) ended up leaving me stunned.

One More Isolated Incident

I was in attendance in my son's IEP meeting on December 16th, 1996. I assumed it was going to a contentious meeting, as it had all of the earmarks of those types I had attended before.

Prior to this meeting, I had written a letter to the principal outlining some of my concerns. After six years of learning the ways of the District, I had become better at covering all of the bases, even though I knew there would be some angle I was not prepared for.

While there were a lot of interesting things that happened in this meeting, I will address one connected to the link below. The principal recorded the meeting. There were a lot of "damaging" things said by some of the District people and also there was a lot of "evidence" of how my "procedural safeguards" were compromised, some being outright violated. Keep in mind this was prior to me learning the rules of the game. In fact, that day started my official quest for knowledge regarding IDEA and how it is supposed to work.

It was the proverbial straw. Some of the people who were in that meeting are still around. I think one or two of them understood the injustice that was done. I think the others were more entrenched in how to spin the events so they were defensible.

The fallout of this meeting was immediate and widespread. It may not surprise some of you that despite the fact that I had an MO-12 inviting me to an IEP meeting on that day and a time specific and room specific, along with the fact that nine or ten other people showed up at the same time and place, upon my request for copies of the records of that IEP meeting, I was told by a District Person that there had been no IEP meeting. I guess it depends on what the definition of "was" was.

The principal had tape recorded the meeting. She had prepared for taping. I did not. Try getting a definitive "yes" or "no" answer today whether a parent can tape an IEP meeting.

Back to my point that speaks to the below. After I insisted on getting a copy of that tape, I was finally given a tape.

The tape I received was blank.


This post jogged my memory:

Saturday, April 05, 2008

I can't remember exactly how this poor mangled teacher came to my attention. I think she emailed me. I asked for a copy of her court case to put on our blog, and she said OK.

Maybe It's Just Me

While my local school system is in the public throes of who is really running the show, I get stuck on the meaning of words.

Now that freedom of speech issues have finally reached the point that the HCDS police are called to action, I wonder where has everyone been all of these years.

I will always vividly recall the day at Mann Middle School when I was told by the principal that if I came on campus without checking in to her office first, I would be charged with trespassing.

The fact that I was making a big squawk about my repeated attempts to address issues with my son’s education and the fact that this threat came the day after I wrote a complaint letter gave me reason to believe that the 3 months of previous same actions on my part were now under a different line of scrutiny.

At least I didn’t have the security called on me. Instead, I called the Director of ESE while sitting in the office. I had the number saved because I used it a lot over the years. This may have saved my immediate arrest. It was a gutsy move on my part, because Directors have as much say over what a principal does or does not do as I did. But there is something to say about safety in numbers, and how many people know.

I was not accustom to this type of treatment, or rather, the treatment was getting worse. I did not think the setting was safe for my son. So when I said I was keeping him home until we could have another of those countless meanings, the veiled threat of truancy was thrown out. Knowing the absolute power of the school District, I made sure I obtained a Dr's excuse to protect me.

As the days and weeks played out, since I had become learned in the ways of paper warfare, my documentation along with proof that “they” had changed theirs, probably saved me from the usual bulldozed flattening that most parents end up with.

Taking on the system means that you must have documentation and make sure some one else has a copy of it too.

Yesterday I posted the link to some probable cause affidavits.

One of the sentences struck me as odd, so I revisited it today. On page two, it says that the teacher’s strikes (to the kid who was an “equivalent 11 to 14 month old reference motor skills”) “were often prompted by an incorrect answer to a question, not any disciplinary problem or wrong doing. In that sense, there was no legal justification for her to strike the child.”

And then on page 3, we find: the teacher’s statement of “you gonna kick me, I’m gonna kick you (pg 2),” “implies revenge as a motive and a desire to hurt of cause pain to … rather than any educational purpose.”

I am thankful that the writer was able to determine that there was no educational purpose for the actions the teacher took upon the kid. It must have been a tough legal decision to write that out.

If it was about religion, race or sexual orientation, there would be tolerance

"Marsha Alcorn, the district's 504 coordinator, says most parents with allergic children don't need the 504 plan.

"We do a health care plan in the schools with the school nurse," she says. "I think the parents feel there is more teeth [in the 504], but they should be getting all they need already."


See article :'A Peanut In The Classroom Is Like A Loaded Gun'




I am not surprised to hear this scenario in Hillsborough County. I am also familiar with the standard response of "isolated incident".

Research the year plus difficulties a parent had that led to a 504 complaint that resulted in the HCDS policy on juvenile diabetes (1997). This was a classic case of ignorance and refusal to accept medical information(over a year) exacerbated by a system entrenched in need to maintain power to back up the teacher’s actions.

This is also not a "broad brush attack".

I believe the problems lie where there is lack of understanding of the law and professional responsibilities infused with a cavalier attitude for some District personnel to maintain power. This abuse of power takes many forms, usually by backing a decision that was ill founded. The District appears to be reticent to openly correct a misguided administrative decision. I often wonder if switching student placement or promoting personnel is the preferred face-saving action.

I am aware that there are many professionals in HCDS that do a great job, work hard and are dedicated to the welfare of their students. In fact, the unprofessional actions of others play a big part of making your job more difficult.

Ask yourself how long these and other reported problems go on before they rose to a degree of exposure and forced accountability. Accountability is the issue. Parsing over health care plans or 504 plans and are they written or not is the smoke screen.

Read for yourself. Go to wrightslaw.com - bottom left link - Section 504

Milwaukee Public Schools loses special ed lawsuit - Coming to a District near you soon?

Milwaukee Public Schools loses special ed lawsuit.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=660882

See below how the judge answered this one: "lawyers hired by the school district had argued that much of the testimony from the parents was not reliable"


Systemic delay in HCDS was addressed a few years ago. The District has, to the last of my knowledge, a written policy that requires initial evaluations to be initiated within 30 days of parent's signed consent and completed within 60 days of same consent.


Unless the parent knows that the signed consent is the only thing that triggers this timeline (possibly a false premise under Section 504), verbal assurances that the issues will be adressed only delay the timeline. Suspending kids whose behavior is dramatically different from his/her peers (usually a sign that it may be a manifestation of their disability) without the District acknowledging or evaluating the kid for a suspected disability certainly saves money.

Suspending kids sets the stage of "First we blame the kid, then we blame the parent". It absolves the District from providing resources needed to address the manifested behaviors. While the parent is repeatedly assured that the District personnel are trained professionals, the District personnel's ignorance of understanding the concept of "special education" is on full display. This is prevalent with site administrators who have no concept of special ed.

What is the cost to saving money?


<<<<<<<<<"The inability of MPS to reach full compliance with the law in the area of Child Find is not the result of numerous isolated and unrelated cases, but stems from systemic inadequacies," Goodstein wrote. MPS said two years ago that it had spent $1.8 million on its defense, some of which it could possibly recoup through insurance. That was before the three-week-long trial in 2006. Spitzer-Resnick said his group has spent more than $1 million, money it hopes MPS and DPI will now be forced to pay. During the 2006 trial in front of Goodstein, lawyers hired by the school district had argued that much of the testimony from the parents was not reliable. But Goodstein cited specific cases presented at the trial where he judged the district had not addressed students' needs appropriately. Spitzer-Resnick said that throughout the legal proceedings: "We've heard 'It's poverty, it's mobility, it's homelessness.' Guess what? Those excuses are not given any credence by the court or by the law." One of the mothers involved in the lawsuit, whose son's story was chronicled in a December 2005 Journal Sentinel article, said she made repeated requests that her son be tested for learning disabilities. Eventually, the boy was 12 years old but still in the third grade at MPS. He was suspended so often that his mother and teachers sometimes lost track of where he was supposed to be. In another case, one girl cut herself at school and once wrote on her desk: "Kill all people. Solve the problem." While she did well on standardized tests, she couldn't seem to pass the sixth grade. The judge noted that school officials suspended the girl and referred her to a new school - but did not evaluate her for special education until prodded to. "The issue of suspension has an effect on the timely identification of children in need of special education," the judge wrote. "It also had an effect on the timeliness of providing services.">>>>>>>>

Click here: Dangerously Irrelevant: Why is staff development so bad?

"We have known for a long time (decades!) about what constitutes effective staff development. As the latest version of the National Staff Development Council Standards for Staff Development notes, effective staff development has small groups of educators working together over time in professional learning communities; is based on principles of effective adult learning; and
deepens educators’ content knowledge.
Yet what does staff development look like in most school districts? Typically it involves three or four one-shot “sit and get” (or “spray and pray”) sessions spread across the year, each on a different topic than the one before, that are attended by most or all educators in the organization. A “one size fits all” model is used, meaning that there is relatively little differentiation between, say, music teachers and math teachers and industrial arts teachers. Sometimes schools spice it up a bit and have a buffet day where educators can pick from multiple choices throughout the day, much like a professional conference."

and from the comment section, I chose this:

"The one area that has frustrated me as a consultant is that there is little to no funding to provide executive coaching services to principals. If a principal needs help, they often can't speak up or they are admitting weakness"

I posted the above to say this:

As those who should know, transition plans (school to post school) can start as early as the age of 14. I was aware that the common practice in HCDS was to wait until the last two years of the student's stay, and that out of these last two years, "work training" was usually no more than half a year per year out of the last two. One could understand the difficulties that arose when I insisted on my son obtaining work experience starting at the age of 15.

While there is so much information that should be provided leading up to the following point, suffice it to say that my son became involved in a "pilot program" in HCDS. He was one of three students in the program. The District paid money for an outside consultant to demonstrate how to set up "school to work" situations for even the most "challanged" students. I thought it was a great program and it provided support and guidance to my son's team.

The program consisted of 3 teams for each of the students. My understanding was that the information and strategies of the "pilot program", once developed, would be shared to others and become integrated within the system. In one of the early meetings one of the teachers of one of the teams said" Why am I here? I have a bunch of student's in my class room that need me - I don't have time for this."

I am sure it baffles the administrators that know how much my son received from HCDS to hear me be critical about the system. My previous post under "A Piece of the Dysfunctional Puzzle" speaks to the difficulty of challanging a mindset as opposed to challanging what is perceived as an isolated incident. An illustration of this may be revealed by a comment another teacher made to me one day. She said to me "it is unfair that your son get's more than the other students in the class."

I recently heard that the "pilot program" and the systems that were in place at the school my son was at the time are no longer there. As far as I can tell, the key players of the program are gone from the school. Some have "moved up the ladder" and some transferred out.

I can only assume that when the next parent comes along that insists on following the rules, another "pilot program" will be invested in.