Articles in the Special Education category

A new approach to addressing autism

BoardBuzz knows the challenge both school districts and families face in finding the best and most effective way to provide autistic children with an excellent education of the same quality as their peers without the disease, and of the personal challenges autism causes with understanding the learning and social processes that make up the school day.

Too often, children with autism are isolated or not included by other classmates because other children don’t understand why they are acting differently. BoardBuzz was pleased to find an article in the St. Louis Post Disptach that reports on how one mother is educating others about autism to make a difference in her own child’s school experience.

JoEllen Kessler from Troy, Missouri stood in front of her son, Ryan’s, elementary classroom to educate other students on understanding Ryan’s behavior. While, JoEllen doesn’t have the answers to autism, she does have answers to the questions other students may ask about Ryan.

She began by telling them that they may have noticed Ryan acting differently than his classmates and that sometimes he may have problems talking or making friends. As a mother and advocate, JoEllen wanted the chance to explain Ryan’s social skills so other children could understand and have the opportunity to ask questions, with the hope then they won’t focus on why Ryan is different.

Using another student as an example, Kessler tickled the boy’s neck and had students the other students make soft buzzing noises. Then, she asked him to solve a math problem, but the boy was unable to respond. This example allowed students to see how autism affects Ryan; every day Ryan feels his senses stronger than most other people.

BoardBuzz thought the active role this mother took to educate on autism and build a support group for Ryan among his classmates was a step in the right direction for making school days for children with autism better, and it seems JoEllen has already been successful. School officials have encouraged Kessler and invited her to do more presentations, and as for Ryan, playing should be a bit more fun, as one student told JoEllen,” I’ll ask him to play everyday.”

admin|November 20th, 2008|Categories: Boardbuzz, Special Education|

Special education: Experts to forecast what’s coming

Ever wish you had a crystal ball to see what new special education controversy might be headed to a school or a court near you? We’ve got a great alternative for you. Don’t miss next week’s audio conference on “Special Education: What’s On the Horizon?” Join in the discussion Wednesday, April 16, at 1:00 Eastern. Click here for the registration info. This one is a joint production of the NSBA Council of School Attorneys (COSA) and the Education Law Association (ELA) and features a diverse panel of frequent and nationally known presenters and authors: Christopher Borreca of Bracewell & Giuliani in Houston, Tyson Bennett of Reese & Carney in Annapolis, Allan Osborne, Principal of Snug Harbor Community School in Quincy, Mass., and Julie Mead of the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

COSA members, ELA members, state school boards associations, and NSBA National Affiliate districts get discounted rates, and best of all, it’s a flat fee per phoneline, so you can gather your whole team around a speaker phone and follow the slideshow together.

admin|April 8th, 2008|Categories: Boardbuzz, Special Education|

Bellyaching, blogs and BoardBuzz

SpecialEdLaw Blog is all (dare we say?) abuzz about yesterday’s Supreme Court indecision, er, decision, in a special education case, and even more abuzz about our posting yesterday. SpecialEdLaw Blog (SELBlog) predicts BoardBuzz’s “already loud” “bellyaching” is sure to grow even louder. Hmmmm. We beg to differ. Maybe “buzzing” would be a better word.

SELBlog disputes BoardBuzz’s rationale, claiming our view of Congressional intent is not quite as clear as it should be because lower court judges (applying 2nd circuit precedent by the way; meaning: how else could they rule?) saw the law differently. Just because courts disagree doesn’t mean the law isn’t clear. That’s certainly the case in appellate courts and courts of limited jurisdiction like the Supreme Court. And, when it comes to doing the math, BoardBuzz thinks what really matters is how 5 of 9 vote instead of how many votes were had on the bus, in the hallway, on live dancing shows, or on the way to the courthouse steps in Washington.

And, while we’re talking about what really counts, it is this: the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is about collaboration NOT unilateralism. If that were the case, the Supremes would not have ruled repeatedly that Congress intended for parents to work with school districts to achieve appropriate educational results for students. SELBlog says that “most parents do not opt out and unilaterally place, until that they have first opted in.”

We agree. Most parents of students with special needs are happy with the services their public schools offer their children. But that’s not the point. Those parents who unilaterally choose private placement when they have never given the public school a chance to work with their kids were never interested in being part of public system to begin with (as Justice Scalia suggested). Well, except to collect public money for private schooling.

And, ahem, here’s a bit of math for ya: the average cost of a student in special education is $33,000 a year in New York City. So, yes, SELBlog, it’s not likely a big district like NYC will close its doors any time soon, but don’t forget there are many, many small and mid–sized school districts across the 2nd Circuit (many of them single-school districts) that could face serious budget challenges from even one unilateral placement ala Tom F.

So, it ain’t bellyaching. It’s truth. And, that means with the feds providing only 17 percent of the 40 percent of funding they promised for their share of special education, the burden falls to the local taxpayer.

This is not about the “weak party” nor about playing on “the school’s home turf” as SELBlog suggests. It’s about doing what’s right for students. All students. And, the sad reality is that placing greater financial demands on schools without commensurate federal funding hurts all students.

BoardBuzz knows parents like Tom F. may be well-intentioned. But, striking out on their own out of a misguided belief that private is better (especially without having given the public schools a chance) can have a serious impact on the ability of public schools to educate all children. So, to take a phrase for the horse’s, er, SELBlog’s mouth, “Let’s keep this whole thing in some perspective.”

And, while we’re at it, SELBlog, our legal analysis is just fine, thank you. You may disagree with it. But, if disagreement were the standard for determining unprofessionalism, well, what would you be saying about the Supreme Court given its decisions in special education cases beginning with Rowley? So, make your point. And play nice. Or guess who’s the real bellyacher?

admin|October 11th, 2007|Categories: Boardbuzz, School Boards, School Law, Special Education, Student Achievement|

Supreme Court math doesn’t add up

Attention! We interrupt our previously scheduled hiatus to bring you breaking news.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued a 4-4 ruling in a special education case that has the potential for serious financial consequences on school board budgets.

Speaking of numbers, BoardBuzz has a math problem for its loyal readers: What is four minus four minus one? In math terms: (4- 4) -1 = X. BoardBuzz’s quick readers have undoubtedly concluded X = -1. And, in the world of Supreme Court math, a -1 justice can have dire consequences.

In the case of NYC vs. Tom F., minus one justice (Anthony Kennedy recused himself) means the appellate court’s decision stands to award the parent of a special education student tuition fees for placing his child in a private school. And, that kind of math will have a serious implications for school district budgets in the 2nd federal circuit, where parents now can avoid collaborating with their school districts as required by the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) AND still collect public dollars for private schooling.

Say what?

Yep, you heard it. The Supreme Court’s ruling lets stand a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that found the NYC School Board had to reimburse a parent who placed his special education child in private schools without ever enrolling his child in public schools. When the public school district found that its schools could provide the free appropriate public education required by the IDEA, the parent challenged the school district in court because he wanted to retain his child in the private school. Of course, the private education comes with a hefty tag.

Hello? When Congress revamped the IDEA in 1997, they specifically said that before parents were entitled to reimbursement for placing their children in private schools, they needed to first enroll the children in public schools. In other words, because a private school education has the potential for breaking the proverbial school district bank, Congress felt the public schools should have first dibs at providing the free appropriate public education required by law. If the public school could not provide the appropriate educational services, or if it was proven the education was not appropriate after the district had tried, then and only then was the district responsible for paying for private tuition.

But, the Court apparently could not decide on what Congress meant when it gave school districts “first dibs.” Were that BoardBuzz had a seat on the Court rather than in the gallery! After all, BoardBuzz was a baby bee blog once too, and understands the meaning of “first dibs” along with every other first grader.

Congress knew some parents would choose not to send their children to public school. And, that is just fine. But, Congress also knew that public schools should not be footing the bill for those parents that never intended to send their children to the public school, but wanted the taxpayers to pay for their choice of private schooling. So, that’s why Congress, said that public schools should serve children first. Justice Scalia had it right when he commented at oral argument that public schools “should not have to pay the freight for people who would not be coming to public school anyway.”

Dedicated readers of BoardBuzz know we are not one to clamor for legislation. We think, afterall, that the law is clear. But, now that the Court (without Justice Kennedy) cannot tell us what Congress meant, maybe it’s time for Congress to spell it out for the rest of us … and for the Court.

Want more? Read NSBA’s amicus brief. Check out what our legal beagle friends over at the SCOTUSblog are saying. And tune into NBC Nightly News tonight to see NSBA Executive Director Anne Bryant’s take on the decision.

admin|October 10th, 2007|Categories: Boardbuzz, School Boards, School Law, Special Education|

New synthesis of research on special education students

A new synthesis of findings from the national assessment studies aimed at improving results for students with disabilities is now available. The report draws a summary of the seven 1997 studies that comprise the national assessment and coincide with the changes made that year to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).

The seven studies, commissioned by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), address: the needs of infants and toddlers; elementary and middle-school aged students with disabilities; youth with disabilities; pre school-aged children with disabilities; costs of special education; personnel needs in special education; and state and local impact of IDEA.

The report concludes that there has been an increased emphasis on academic outcomes for students with disabilities, and that emphasis has been reinforced by NCLB. Conversely, “students who aged through the system prior to these policy changes may have experienced lower expectations and recieved less rigorous academic preparation.”

To read a complete copy of the research synthesis, click here.

admin|October 4th, 2006|Categories: Boardbuzz, Special Education|

Older dads a risk factor in kids’ autism?

One phenomenon BoardBuzz has noted before is the strange increase in incidents of autism among America’s children. It’s not clear what’s going on here, although suspicion in some quarters has focused on mercury in immunizations, a notion federal scientists have dismissed.

Now comes an intriguing study, published here in the Archives of General Psychiatry and front page news here in the Washington Post, suggesting a link between the age of many of today’s fathers and the incidence of autism.

Whatever the causes, the costs of doing everything we can to enable each autistic child to reach his or her full potential have been increasing. And year after year Congress fails to make AYP toward its funding promises to families who depend on special education.

So what are our esteemed Representatives and Senators saying this election season? Ask ‘em. For loads of laughs, see how many of the Congressional dodges listed here on pages 7 and 8 you can get your favorite “education candidate” to try out on you. Then call their bluff.

admin|September 6th, 2006|Categories: Boardbuzz, Special Education|

Finally, IDEA final regs released

The U.S. Department of Education released the final regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Thursday, concluding a process that started in January 2005 with a series of meetings to collect public input to develop the new rules. See NSBA’s comments here.

ED has posted an unofficial copy of the final regulations. The final regulations are not significantly different from the proposed regulations published in June 2005, ED officials said. They provided additional clarifications and details on specific topics. Secretary Margaret Spellings said that the IDEA regulations have been aligned with the No Child Left Behind Act to ensure students with disabilities are held to high expectations. The official regulations will be published in the Federal Register in about two weeks.

On a related issue, states and districts still await ED’s final 2 percent rule and guidance on developing modified assessments. ED officials said they will “work quickly” on the rule, but also suggested that states will not be able to implement these modified assessments in the upcoming school year. See NSBA’s comments .

admin|August 4th, 2006|Categories: Boardbuzz, Special Education|

On to the Supremes: Should districts reimburse parents for special ed experts?

Last week NSBA filed its brief in an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case on special ed costs: Arlington Central School District v. Murphy. Press statement here.

The issue is whether a school district has to reimburse parents who win their special ed dispute with the district for the costs of expert witnesses, consultants, lay advocates, etc. IDEA requires the district to pay for the parent’s attorneys fees, but the statute is silent, and the lower courts split, on the others. The case arose in this district in New York. The Second Circuit court of appeals decided that courts should read into IDEA that Congress intended to cover such fees. Summary here.

NSBA and its fellow amici argued that this ruling is contrary to IDEA’s focus on collaboration. In the words of NSBA General Counsel Francisco Negrón, upholding the Second Circuit “will simply perpetuate a cycle of costly litigation by encouraging parents to hire experts. Public schools in turn will have little choice but to hire their own experts to rebut experts hired by parents.” In fact, Congress has leveled the playing field on this question by requiring school districts to pay for a parent who disagrees with the district to obtain a timely evaluation from an independent expert.

Joining NSBA on the brief were American Association of School Administrators, the New York State School Boards Association, and the New York State Council of School Superintendents. NSBA Council of School Attorneys members Darcy Kriha, Julie Heuberger Yura, and Patricia Whitten of Franczek Sullivan in Chicago were lead authors. Also noteworthy: The Bush administration is siding with the school district.

This blog by Chicago special ed parent lawyer Charles Fox highlights some of the arguments on the other side. “Time For The Court To Show Us the Money!” it says, arguing that parents need their own experts to match the “firepower” of the schools. In this case, firepower refers to special education professionals whom, NSBA’s brief notes, the district employs “not to have an unfair advantage at due process hearings” but to serve children appropriately.

As BoardBuzz observed when the Supremes handed down their sensible ruling a few months ago in Schaffer v. Weast, it’ll be worth watching how the news media report this one. As we said then, the press often succumb to the tired temptation to portray these disputes as us-vs.-them, parents-vs.-bureaucrats battles; this tendency is the whole issue in this case. On another point educators and parent advocates can agree: No story is complete if it omits the chronic under-funding of special education that underlies so many of these disputes.

admin|February 27th, 2006|Categories: Boardbuzz, Special Education|

Special ed voucher push in Virginia

A special ed voucher bill introduced in the Virginia Senate will not get to the floor. But it was close. At least one senator who voted against the measure said he could support the same concept next year, with some changes, and the bill was formally carried forward for renewed discussion in 2007, the Washington Post reports. The “Scholarship for Disabled Students Program” would provide $10,000 to “the parent of a public school student with a disability who is dissatisfied with the student’s progress.” The bill is here.

admin|February 13th, 2006|Categories: Boardbuzz, Special Education|

IDEA full funding: New life?

Senators Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) reintroduced legislation Wednesday to meet the federal government’s commitment to fund 40 percent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The Hagel-Harkin bill would fully fund IDEA in five years through mandatory annual phased-in spending increases, until federal funding reaches $26.1 billion in Fiscal Year 2011. The bill would free up local and state funds that had previously been used to meet IDEA requirements for other important education priorities. So as the federal IDEA share grows, local school districts will have increased flexibility for all their education programs. More details here.

admin|January 26th, 2006|Categories: Boardbuzz, Educational Finance, Special Education|
Page 3 of 3«123