Old news is still bad news, but how many know it?

A post on "The Gradebook" prompts me to post it here:

"According to a HCDS state complaint dated July 18th, 2005, “82% of the students surveyed by the state had not received the amount of OT services as stated on their 2004-05 IEP. 64% of the students had not received the amount of PT services required by their 2004-05 IEPs." The report states: "The student records reviewed by the Bureau indicated a systemic violation regarding the provision of OT and PT services to students with disabilities during the 2004-05 school years.”
http://www.standadvocates.org/2005_OT-PT_State_Complaint_Response.doc

For those who read my posts and think I am hopelessly lost from any sense of realism, this may open some eyes and ears. For those who want to rationalize this one away as an isolated incident, tell that to those kids that did not get the services that the District signed on the dotted line to provide and received the money from the state per the matrix of service.Which brings me to the questions that are never asked and never answered in these proven cases.

What happened to the money?

In light of the recent events regarding pay raises (or slight increase, depending on what the real numbers) and huge bonuses, we can only speculate.
For those who are interested, it is one thing to believe something, and another thing to prove it. If I had to prove there is gravity, I would be lost, no matter how strongly I believe it. In order to prove a state complaint, it takes diligent effort to get provable information, a somewhat arduous task when there is one entity that controls the paperwork. Therefore to one who understands the game, these statistics are staggering.
Parents are the true isolated entities when it comes to these type of tactics by Districts. Teachers and special ed specialist have more opportunity to expose these types of actions only if they are adequately trained in the full concept of IDEA, as opposed to how to "fill out the MO-12, the front page of the IEP, the PLOPS, the goals and adjectives, just check the assistive technology box and Fla school for the deaf and blind to indicate these areas were discussed, the LRE form, the ESY form and make sure the parent signs. Along with the obligatory "things to not say to limit District liability" (see Aug. 14 post).
One more thing - I have yet to hear a response to anyone finding the definition of "educationally relevant" within IDEA or anywhere else. Trust me, the CERT is a gimmick. There is not supposed to be a "double eligibility" standard once one is under IDEA. "If the IEP team decides the need, then the student can get the supports or related services". The CERT is a shell game played on parents. Prove me wrong.

A Teacher who knows the reality.

Click here: http://blogs.tampabay.com/schools/files/reality_check.doc

http://blogs.tampabay.com/schools/2007/03/more_than_300_m.html

These comments are obviously made by someone who sees the big picture and the detail. She is right about the legal ramifications for Districts that do not follow the law of IDEA. Teachers are between a rock and a hard place when ESE parent's learn of their rights, and then learn how to seek enforcement of them. Most parents do not know them (their rights). Most parents only learn them after they have been lied to and deceived to the point they become angry and look for relief.

LRE decisions that are not based on the individual needs of the child but rather on the availability of teachers or class size are referred to as "administrative convenience" placements. Those who understand the game know what I am talking about. As long as the parent does not actionably object to the placement, life goes on.

In the case of an ESE student that is incorrectly placed based on "administrative convenience", what choice does a teacher have when they know the placement is incorrect based on the needs of the child?

In the same above case, what choice does the teacher have when the parent is or becomes knowledgeable about the issues of LRE and the parent learns to present present levels of performance, evaluation data along with educational implications, anecdotal information that supports the correct LRE, individualized goals and objectives, identifies the need for specific supports and related services necessary for the student to receive FAPE, and, most importantly, puts this all in written form for accountability purposes?

Does the teacher have more of an ethical dilemma for one of the two scenarios, or is the ethical dilemma the same for both, or is there no ethical dilemma at all?

What is the truth - the school reports or the parent and their actions taken?

Click here: Northoftampa: North of Tampa: Hormones, transition, peer pressure and more cause discipline problems

If Mrs. Perkins had the written documentation of her story, complete with letters to the teacher, Principal, etc, along with the written incident reports (dare I ask if they exist), there may have been a different degree of accountability.
I will say it before any one else does - this is not a broad brush attack nor an isolated incident. What about the kid that could not stand up but was charged with seven counts of battery against a school person? He could not stand up or move, so how close were the school people?The real issue is the disdain that some "professionals" have for the ones they have power over.

As long as "paper compliance" is the focus instead of "moral and ethical compliance", we will reap what we sow.

"Worse than numbers"
While a majority of discipline incidents are in the double digits across the board for middle schools, a majority of north Tampa schools -- elementary through high school -- report zero bullying incidents.
"That's just crazy," says Brendale Perkins, a two-time PTA president who pulled her son Justin out of one such school three years ago because of what she described as relentless bullying.
Perkins says her son, who is medically disabled, was shoved around by boys who took his lunch and his money. Unlike many middle-schoolers, Justin complained to a teacher. But things did not improve, and Justin became angry and violent at home.
Perkins took the matter up with the administrators. Eventually, she says, five boys were suspended. But after they returned to school, a teacher sent one to the restroom with Justin. Brendale says the youth shoved Justin into a stall and wouldn't let him leave.
Perkins immediately transferred Justin to a private school. Because of his medical problems, he is now homeschooled.
Told that the school now reports zero bullying, she said, "That's ridiculous. There are going to be conflicts there."

One Reason How a Special Ed Motel is different than a Regular Hotel.

In a nutshell, one recognizes parental involvement - one does not.

Page 6:
“Our opinion holds in essence that the Constitution does not afford parents a substantive due process or privacy right to control through the federal courts the information that public schools make available to their children. What information schools provide is a matter for the school boards, not the courts, to decide.” 9th Circuit Court
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/966A73E8103317D888257170007C7F87/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement

In the below statement you will find: “Educators and families must boil down broad adequacy goals into a personalized and individualized plan for a specific student. “


This can be confusing to administrators who are used to not having parents involved in what information the schools provide. In special ed, it is not the arena of “when the door is closed, it is solely the teacher’s or district personnel's domain.”

The below speaks to the word "adequate" , the word used in the Fla. State Constitution, melded with IDEA.


“…
Several other state supreme courts adopted the seven criteria set forth in Rose as requirements under their state constitutions.[44] These courts held that a constitutionally adequate education is not a minimal education. The New Hampshire Supreme Court stated in Claremont v. Governor (Claremont II):
Given the complexities of our society today, the State's constitutional duty extends beyond mere reading, writing, and arithmetic. It also includes broad educational opportunities needed in today's society to prepare citizens for their role as participants and as potential competitors in today's marketplace of ideas. A constitutionally adequate public education is not a static concept removed from the demands of an evolving world. It is not the needs of the few but the critical requirements of the many that it must address. Mere competence in the basics--reading, writing, and arithmetic--is insufficient in the waning days of the twentieth century to insure that this State's public school students are fully integrated into the world around them. A broad exposure to the social, economic, scientific, technological, and political realities of today's society is essential for our students to compete, contribute, and flourish in the twenty-first century.[45]
When states properly incorporate these constitutional requirements into the definition of FAPE, students with disabilities are entitled to more than just a "basic floor of opportunity" or "some educational benefit." These students are entitled to receive an education that allows for meaningful participation in a democratic society, and competition for post-secondary education and employment opportunities.[46]
The IDEA requires incorporation of broad educational adequacy goals set forth in court decisions into Individual Educational Programs (IEPs) that meet the unique needs of each disabled student. Each student with a disability, as defined by the IDEA, is entitled to an IEP under the IDEA.[47] The IEP must be tailored to meet the unique needs of the student.[48] The IEP is the cornerstone of FAPE. Courts look at whether an IEP is appropriate when assessing whether a school district has provided FAPE.[49]
Aligning IEPs with the state's constitutional requirements regarding an adequate education presents challenges for school officials and parents. Educators and families must boil down broad adequacy goals into a personalized and individualized plan for a specific student. An IEP must contain specific goals and objectives to meet the student's unique needs, and must describe the special education and related services the school will provide so the student may meet these goals and objectives.[50]
Reexamining Rowley: A New Focus in Special Education Law by Scott F. Johnson, Esq.[1]
http://www.harborhouselaw.com/articles/rowley.reexamine.johnson.htm

Voucher Fraud - Imagine that

Click here: Printer Friendly Version
Sister's Found Guilty in Fraud Case : Abuse of the McKay Scholarship.

Fraud is wrong. They were given money by the state to provide a service. The money was to pay for the services they were to provide. But they took the money and used it for something else. In other words, they accepted the money but did not provide the service.

I wonder if the fact that it was a voucher program is why they were arrested.

The Training of Coded Language - Another Brush,Another Incident, but keeping out of legal jeopardy

I spoke of the coded language that is taught in IDEA training meetings. I have spoken about obfuscation of the law by those who should know. The following is straight from a publication that is developed by the District for the District.


http://www1.sdhc.k12.fl.us/~ese.dept/communicators/ESEComm1104.pdf

From : THE EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNICATOR November-December, 2004 Vol. 4 No. 4


WHAT NOT TO SAY AT IEP MEETINGS !
When parents make requests at IEP meetings there are some things that you shouldn't say in
response; using these phrases could place the district in legal jeopardy if the parent files for
due process later on:
 We can’t do… - We don’t believe…
 No student gets more than…  It would cost too much to…
 It would take too much...  We don’t do…
 We never do…  We only do…
Instead, show that you’re listening by asking:
Where did you hear about that ?
 Which IEP goals do you see that addressing ?
 Do you have data on that ? Can you get us information?
 Have we described what we’re doing in the program we’re using ?

This speaks volumes to one who understands the game. I don't care who wrote it. But it is pretty clear that the focus is on protecting the system -gate keeping if you will.
It also clearly says to "show you are listening by asking...." as to "show you are listening by answering the question or addressing the issue".

If one honestly looks at these feigned "listening strategies" it is no wonder that the special education realm is frustrating for all. I continually hear about teacher retention and the teacher shortage in special ed. Dealing with students and parents is a hell of task. But dealing with a system that "shows you are listening" does not work.

$56 Million is a lot of money

Click here: Rocky Mountain News - Denver and Colorado's reliable source for breaking news, sports and entertainment: Education


While the state is complaining that some Districts are charging for "in between class time", the state owes this bill:


"For example, Jefferson County is owed $56 million of state and federal money for services to handicapped students ".

No wonder administrators dodge parents who advocate for what the law says.

ALL ROOMS ARE THE SAME (ask at desk if luxury suites are available )

Yesterday, I vented. Over the years, I have been told many things from others as they express their thoughts about me as a father in relationship to one of my children. Most of these comments are positive, a few of them negative. I don't hear those same expressions about my relationship with my other children. My belief is that the absence of these expressions about my 'normal' kids is how society accepts the status-quo of kids growing up and becoming adults and that there is a wide range of expected and accepted paths that they can go.

The positive comments come mostly from people who have known me a while. I know the positive comments and the commenter are meant to express appreciation for the circumstances. The negative comments have been few and from "professionals".

After my rant yesterday, I spent some time thinking about what is in me that I choose to have such feelings. Maybe it has something to do with the path that my son must go and the fact that this path does not fit in the "wide range of expected and accepted paths" for the majority of people.

One of the positive comments that I have heard numerous times is that "God chose you to take care of his little angel". I will never forget the day a very well meaning person said that to me and I had the insolence to reject it. That was over fifteen years ago. Not sure if I knew the above Eagles' song then or not.

One of the negative comments that sticks out in this context is when a reporter asked me how I "felt about the perception of many that parents in your situation think the world owes them". I will never forget my reaction. What I said was something to the effect that if she and I had not been introduced in the manner that we were, I would tell her to get the hell out of my house right now. I gave deference to her position - the insinuation and implications of the word "many" to this day haunts me. That conversation happened around 11 years ago.

I have spoken about compulsory school attendance and school choice here and on other blogs. I have previously posted the contents of the "Wilted lettuce, Rotten tomatoes" missive and the implications of same. I spoke of the lack of control I have in choosing my children's strength and weaknesses in my profile.

I am coming to this. My son and I are fine with our path. It is when we are forced in to situations that are not good and then told we have to accept it because we are who we are just does not fit well.

One More Isolated Incident - Getting Closer to My Area

Let's get it out in the open. Typical fight. Parents want kid in school with supports and services - District says no.

District spends money to fight case. Parent spends money to fight case.

Who wins even if they win court case.

Why dangle a carrot for parents to grab on to but keep pulling it away -Delay of services is Denial of Services. District personnel to judge:"Well, we never said no, we just haven't said yes"
(see procedural safeguards - Prior written notice)

Why tell a school system they have to educate a child when they don't want the kid because it cost's too much money plus it overwhelms the complete professional educational system except for the few who are trained and get it. NOTE: TRYING HARD and being trained are two separate issues.

Read comments at end of "Parents file federal complaint" below- other parents don't want "special ed" kids in their class room because they are disruptive - blah, blah, blah, as if "special ed" parents walk around with a big banner that says "HA HA my kid can act that way but yours can't. Take a "special ed" kid home with you for a week and see what it is like. We live with it - those who make those comments tolerate it for a very short time.


Let's take away the words "special ed" and then make a determination of which child is "entitled to what".

Just don't tell me that the school system is full of professionals that understand the law and follow it. Just tell me they understand the law and have well defined strategies to circumvent it.

Please read with comprehension.

Enjoy your stay whether you like it or not.


This happened in February, 2006 -it was about the kid

Click here: Parents file federal complaint against School District


This happened April, 2007 - it is about all of the kids
http://www.collier-ese-reform.com/docs/complaint.pdf

For the Want of A Nail a phone message was lost (Procedural Safeguards 101)

Ben Franklin can show up anytime one is not expecting him. The other day I told my friend about my new Motel Special Ed. Today she wanted to tell me I had not done a very good job of writing my welcome statement. I was imbibing on a Mint Julip when she dropped by. In case one does not know, the key ingredient to a Mint Julep is the finger crushed mint --ok, the mint is a minor key, the traditional Early Times is the major key - anyway, I was tending to no one else's business but my own. She said I had to include information on the procedural safeguards when someone checks in to the motel. She thought she had nailed it.
I dutifully explained to her that all of my motel staff were trained in the procedural safeguards and anyone who had to sign in was responsible for learning it themselves. She asked me if I knew any of my staff who had actually read it. I dutifully told her again that I had a group of professionals that explained it's content to everyone who worked here.
Then she came up with this cockamamie story about a "telephone game". Somehow, a bunch of people sit in a circle. The first person has a piece of paper with a paragraph on it and reads it verbatim to the person sitting next to them. That person then turns to the next person, and without benefit of the paper, repeats the statement. When they get to the last person, that person has to say out loud what they were told, and somehow it never is the same as what the first person read.
This jostled my memory and I hearkened back to the days of old when that very same event happened to me. I can not remember the times that what someone told me the procedural safeguards said came out different when I said to them ' "let's just read that section right now". Ring, ring, telephone ring. "Compliance Office. May I help you?" Nailed it.

Don't lie to reporters. Don't lie to the public. Don't lie to your staff.

This guy seems to say it pretty straight - not the obfuscation and lies that I experienced alot.


September 25
PR for School Bosses- Situation Management
This is not the only story http://www.palmbeachpost.com/education/content/education/ about this situation.
This might be called "crisis management", but let's leave the word "crisis" for something where students are at risk.
In a situation, effective PR must be combined with effective action of other types.
First, admit there is a problem. Straight up. Look straight at the camera... oh yeah, there is lots of TV devoted to something this big. Say, "we screwed up". Don't dwell, but don't hedge. Don't blame the vendor... even though they may have failed to deliver.
Then say, "We're going to fix this as soon as possible."
Then fix it as soon as possible.
The first two steps without a real commitment about the last item is lying. Don't lie to reporters. Don't lie to the public. Don't lie to your staff.
Key staff should be working 18 hours a day to fix this problem. The boss should be working with them.
Report daily to the press on actions taken that day to resolve the issue. Talk about the handwritten checks that have been written as a temporary fix.
Keep employees informed more directly. They shouldn't hear key developments in a matter that is this big, and this important to them, in the newspaper or on TV. This is the age of email. Use it.
Give profuse and heartfelt thanks to the employees who are burning the midnight oil (and stressing their families) to solve the problem.
Apologize publicly and privately to the employees who have been hurt due to these school district errors. Thank them for their patience and understanding
http://floridaschoolboss.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!1E56463A3B8792CF!215.entry

FLORIDA SCHOOL BOSS COLLABORATES CONCIERGE

Your humble Concierge has been looking for a slimmer brush (trying to get rid of the broad brush). I realize that this is another isolated incident (not sure what the magic number is to get rid of the word ‘isolated’). This post on a blog certainly supports my side commentary on “Legal Defense Fund”. (please reread again)

This “Florida School Boss” presents 3 lessons that are a must read for school administrators.

His last three paragraphs should also have red flares attached with extra cowbell and brought to the attention of school boards across the nation. If one reads for comprehension, it speaks directly to the differing motives of “the school board attorney” and the “district’s liability insurer’s attorney”.

May 10
Pass the Trash and Pay the Piper
This case sounds all too familiar to Florida School Bosses. Huge settlements handed out... because the district hasn't got a real good case (the teacher admits too much and the teacher aides will testify to long-term abuse of students)... and the legislature will seemingly approve any jury award or settlement even though they must approve any award over $100k.
One lesson here is obvious... don't pass the trash.
Another is a little harder... make sure teacher aides know they have a duty to report wrongdoing... and make it easy for them to do so. Then listen to them.
The final lesson is more subtle. When a teacher has been accused of abusing severely disabled students, but there isn't enough evidence to dismiss or convict, don't leave them in charge of defenseless profoundly disabled, autistic kids.
Make them teach high school kids with normal IQ's and communication abilities... so they can report the strange behaviors of the teacher.
Did I mention that over 1.5 million in cash has left the district coffers and they aren't done yet. It's important to know that insurance may cover these settlements, but the higher rates will definitely impact the district's discretionary budget.
The school board attorney is a veteran and would not recommend a settlement unless it was the best he thought could be done.
Or the district's liability insurer's attorney insisted on the settlement... you knew they could do that, right?

http://floridaschoolboss.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=cat%3dSupervising%2bStaff

One Week Today - Only one guest - Must get bigger Vacancy Sign

I was more or less goaded into the development of this website. I serendipitously stumbled onto a blog a couple of weeks ago and followed it's links. Became interested, decided to follow the American dream and build my own. I continue to renovate the many rooms and guest suites I maintain as I recognize a better staging opportunity.
I also have spent part of the week following blog links, and I have been rewarded with an increased awareness of many different aspects of the dilemma that teachers are in. While there are many, I am chasing the one regarding the "teacher vs. parent" discussion.
This interests me a lot, especially in my area of the motel business. While one could spend a lot of effort arguing on the merits of which one (parent or teacher) is more responsible for the success (likewise, failure) of a student, I have concern about the "special ed teacher vs. the special ed parent" issue. Regular ed teachers do not have to follow a set of Federal Laws that allows the parent to be an "equal participant" of the student's education plan. Special Ed teachers have this added variable. I am curious if and why this added variable is an asset or a liability for the SpEd teacher

Note to my accountant:Urgent -Premium Check Disbursement for this Umbrella Policy

NASET News Alert
Wall Street Journal Raises Questions About Conspiracy and Corruption in NYS with Children with Disabilities July 26, 2007
The Wall Street Journal reported this week on what appears to be widespread corruption at the New York State Education Department. This corruption targets children with disabilities. Dan Golden, the journalist making this report, cited sources inside the Office of State Review confirming that the State Review Officer, Paul Kelly, was ruling contrary to recommendations of his attorney staff in order to find in favor of school districts at the expense of children with disabilities. The article suggests that his relationship with Kate Surgalla, Kelly's paramour and a high ranking attorney with the Office of Counsel of the State Education Department, may be influencing his decisions. Kelly and Surgalla refused comment, according to Golden. The State Review Officer is required by law to be independent of the State Education Department and render impartial decisions on the special education cases that come before him.
"Golden has confirmed many of the facts that my office has been investigating over the last year in preparation for legal action against Mr. Kelly and the others involved in what I believe to be a conspiracy," Cuddy stated. Sources inside Kelly's office have been reporting to parents' attorneys across the State that the office has been compromised, and any voice of opposition to these shenanigans within Kelly's office is quickly stifled. Kelly's office has been determined to have turnover rate four times higher than other State Education Department offices, as individuals are pressured to leave when they speak out against Kelly's agenda. "Multiple attorneys in that office reported that they left because they felt that participating in Kelly's agenda would cause them to lose their licenses to practice law, and sources inside the office confirm that the agenda is ongoing despite expressed opposition within the office from Kelly's staff," Cuddy said.
Because of today's Wall Street Journal report, Cuddy has requested that New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo commence an immediate, full-scale investigation in order to determine whether there has been a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of New York State's disabled children and their parents. "We can't allow evidence in Albany to be destroyed in shredders or wiped from computers. We cannot allow witnesses to these events to be coerced or intimidated into withholding information from investigatory authorities. My office is offering assistance to any current or former employee of the State Education Department who feels that they are being threatened or intimidated into participating in a cover-up. I am also concerned that the people of good conscience that participated in exposing this situation will be retaliated against. Steps must be taken to protect them as these issues move forward." Cuddy also bought this matter to the attention of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Education.
On July 20th, parents' lawyers from across the State met in New York City to discuss possible legal avenues to address the situation at the Office of State Review. As a result of Golden's article, these attorneys will meet again at 3:00 p.m. on the 25th to coordinate efforts in a legal action against the State Education Department and the individuals responsible. Cuddy concluded his letter to Cuomo, "As long as this situation is allowed to exist, no parent of a disabled child is being afforded due process in New York. The safety and the futures of disabled children are being put at risk. I urge your office to take immediate action to hold individuals accountable."
From naset:
http://www.naset.org/807.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2380&tx_ttnews[backPid]=533&cHash=4517126cbc

Trouble in a Hotel - But not in my Area

"Mr. Lampros’s introduction to the high school’s academic standards proved a fitting preamble to a disastrous year. It reached its low point in late June, when Arts and Technology’s principal, Anne Geiger, overruled Mr. Lampros and passed a senior whom he had failed in a required math course.
That student, Indira Fernandez, had missed dozens of class sessions and failed to turn in numerous homework assignments, according to Mr. Lampros’s meticulous records, which he provided to The New York Times. She had not even shown up to take the final exam. She did, however, attend the senior prom." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/education/01education.html?em&ex=1186286400&en=acf692212ec5bd17&ei=5087%0A

Your Motel Concierge read the article. The school administrators attempt to challenge the credibility of the teacher, but the supporting anecdotes appear to put the teacher in a favorable position for his action. This article interests me in a couple of ways. First, I personally was involved in an incident similar to this, so there are at least two isolated incidents. Second, it gives credence to concerns that the pressures being brought to bear on the educational system for accountability and "producing a product" is resulting in desperate unintended consequences. It reminds me of when someone says that a student is doing well because the student is making good grades. However, when the student takes a standardized test, the student fails.

The other interesting point I read had to do with the School's grading policy. If a student shows up once in a grading period, they get 45 points towards 100. It reminds me of when one of my children was given extra points on an assignment for bringing in a roll of paper towels to her teacher(not the one in SpEd, the one in middle school, gifted, advanced math). But back to the 45 points. As an employer, I have often seen the attitude that an employee should get pay and raises just for showing up. I will be forwarding this article to a professor in a community college out west. She frequently complains of how she gets students who say they are going to be a nurse, or equivalent, yet they have no concept of basic algebra. And what does she hear most from the students- "well, I made good grades".

The Common Area for the Common Good- No Pillows Allowed

I don't make it up. I wonder if this tags along with the Wilted Tomatoes and Rotten Lettuce.

"Since children with exceptionalities have the same rights to education as other children, the educational needs of children with exceptionalities cannot be delayed until the needs and service demands of the majority of children have been satisfied. Educational resources are always likely to be finite. The application of the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" to determine which children's needs shall be met first directly contradicts our democratic society's declared commitment to equal educational opportunity for all children. History confirms that the social injustices and ill effects that flow from the application of the majority-first principle to educational budgeting are too serious for this principle to be used in educational financing.

Children with exceptionalities constitute a minority of the school population. The programs serving them represent a comparatively high financial investment in relation to the numbers of children served. In some school systems, money allocated to special education is regarded as an alternative to the improvement of regular school programs. The climate of competitive interests thus produced can jeopardize the stability of special education services."
http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Other_Policy_Resources&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2306

Editing Is Humbling

I continue to see spelling and grammatical mistakes I have made both with my own posts and my posts on other blogs. What amazes me is how many times I reread something before I see the mistake. The waist/waste pile of crap I made certainly deserves a change of linen. My apologies to those who may find these mistakes offensive, and I will attempt to hone my editing skills.

Wow - Compare This With Side Commentary on Legal Defense Fund

"Why So Few"

"Litigating against a school district costs time and money that many parents don’t have, and school districts are increasingly willing to spend. Determined public schools can outspend and outlast almost any family. In California, school officials “fought so hard to block the claims of a student that Judge Oliver W. Wanger of United States District Court took 83 pages to berate the district’s ‘hard-line position’ and its law firm for ‘willfully and vexatiously’ dragging out the case so long that the former student is now 24.” Litigated cases are extremely rare; media reports of a tidal wave of special education lawsuits are contradicted by an examination of the data. In California, only 0.6 percent of students with a disability file a formal complaint over their educational services. Far fewer ever reach the courts.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/6018321.html

How To Sleep At Night

As Concierge of the Motel Special Ed, I have often wondered how some guests can sleep at night under certain circumstances. For instance, when an employee tells someone or is told that under no circumstances are they to commit to services or supports for a student, no matter what the evidence is that justifies the need. A justification within the walls of Special Ed makes it a moral, ethical and legal responsibility to commit to this need. How do they go against their personal and professional beliefs and ethics?

The answer perhaps lies within the social concept formulated by Chester Barnard. One should read the complete critique, but I have chosen a segment that addresses a potential answer to what I have long wondered. I did not know the word abnegation before now. I guess the moral imperative of the executive is stronger than the moral imperative of one's self or the student, and that these employee's purpose is for the organization, not the student. It also means they have met the last condition of being satisfied and manipulated.

From
THE RELEVANCE OF CHESTER BARNARD
FOR TODAY’S MANAGER
Jay P. Chandran, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Richard DeVos Graduate School of Management
Northwood University

"This is in line with Barnard’s moral imperative for executives, although Bartlett and Ghoshal treat the subject more impersonally—they see purpose as an organizational rather than an individual responsibility. Barnard asserts that the most important single contribution required of the executive is loyalty, or domination by the “organization personality” (Functions, p. 220). This assertion is based on Barnard’s concept of executive responsibility, which transcends hierarchy and embraces managers from the lowest echelons within the organization all the way to the Chief Executive. Only by embodying such loyalty can the executives bring about in their subordinates the condition of “self-abnegation” (Functions, p. 84), or the subordination of one’s personal outcomes to those of the organization. This condition brings about in individuals the “willingness to serve” which in turn results in cooperation. These interrelationships, when sustained over long periods of time, can be considered a manifestation of purpose, or as proof of its existence. They also indicate that the conditions of efficiency and effectiveness have been met. As shown in Figure 1, this can only be accomplished by a manager who takes a balanced approach, and treats his or her subordinates as subjects to be satisfied as well as objects to be manipulated. McClelland & Burnham (1995) would define such a manager as an Institutional manager."

http://www.telelavoro.rassegna.it/fad/socorg03/l4/barnard.pdf

(anything in this post that is similar to side commentaries about Trained Staff and Special Ed Language (semantics save money) is purely coincidental.

Is Special Education Fair?

This sounds like a fair statement about the concern for the majority. I wonder how far back we should go to decide what the "majority" is?

http://muse.widener.edu/~egrozyck/EDControversy/Culp.html

As stated earlier, the burden special education is imposing on the educational system is perpetuating a phenomenon of reverse discrimination. Schools are justified in our society on the basis of providing social benefits (Rozycki, 2000). These benefits must be indivisible. That is, justice only exists when it affects everyone and if some benefit at the expense of others, there is an injustice. At that point, the benefit distribution is deemed to be divisible. It has been demonstrated that special education is currently a divisible benefit where those anointed as "special" receive an inordinate amount of benefit at the expense of regular education students. Therein lies reverse discriminatory practice. Who is to blame for this? Rather than asking who is to blame, perhaps we should be asking what is to blame for this. Certainly, the interpretive nature of how laws are implemented play a major role in setting the stage for inequity in our schools. On a larger scale, however, I would like to suggest that a phenomenon of cultural relativism is to blame. Our culture makes moral assumptions about the legal system which are inaccurate and untrue. We have placed an extremely high value on it's function and purpose based solely on the perception that it is morally motivated. It is not. The legal system is based on winning cases and following the law. In that regard, the legal system functions on a deontologic level (Rozycki, 2000). That is, as long as they follow the rules of the system, justice is being served. Why is an extrinsically motivated system like the courts telling schools, an inherently intrinsic system, what to do in terms of educating kids? This should not be happening. Is Special Education Fair? ©2000 Robert W. Culp


"Why is an extrinsically motivated system like the courts telling schools, an inherently intrinsic system, what to do in terms of educating kids?" Hmmmm- lets start reversing court decisions of the past that tell schools what to do.....? Was it Pink vs .. no Blue vs.. no it was Brown vs... those damned courts should not be allowed to tell schools what to do!

Where I have I seen this before?: We need to deny that there's anything "special" about being disabled, so we can stop getting "special treatment" instead of justice -John R. Woodward, M.S.W.http://www.jik.com/ilclang.html#TIME_TO_GET_RID_OF_SPECIAL

"A Foot in the Door"

As a result from discussions on another blog, I posted this missive on his website -Eskay Expresso:

A few premises first. My oldest son has forever told me there is no such thing as coincidence. Because of circumstances in my life, I was exposed to many experiences which led me to seek nation wide training learning about the laws of IDEA. Having recently discovered this modern day activity of blogging, it led me to my recent self appointment as the Motel Special Ed Concierge. I honestly can not remember how I came upon Eskay Expresso, but it happened. We became involved in a discussion about education and business - well - just read the transcripts.

This is a coincident. Yesterday, I was exposed to the Business Round Table and it’s relationship to education.. Last night, I heard a radio talk show host discuss the history of the attempts towards socialized medicine in the United States.

I couldn't write down the names of the people (Reagan was one who spoke against it) and the congressional statements he was citing, but I assume the facts can be traced. He (host) said that the first attempt to establish socialized medicine for all failed. So, in order to “get their foot in the door”, the proponents chose to target the elderly and the disabled, because there would be public sympathy, hence Medicare and Medicade. Once they have their foot in the door, they were closer to their goal.

When he said “disabled”, my mind shifted gears. My colleagues and I have many a time discussed why is there a set of Federal Regulations (IDEA) that is so poorly supported, does not have one state that is even close to compliance and was basically ignored for many years by parents, schools and courts until modern technology changed the playing field. We have posed the question - “why not get rid of it, it is so destructive to enforce.” We have far too often seen the destruction and waist of resources on both “sides” follow the same course, while the student (the marble about which the fight is over) remains static.

Then it hit me. Perhaps the whole concept of IDEA was to “get their foot in the door.” I will continue to pursue this concept. While there are many participants in the world of Special Ed, for the one’s, on both “sides”, that have to go through hell because of a “foot in the door”, it is a cruel hoax.

"We need to deny that there's anything "special" about being disabled, so we can stop getting "special treatment" instead of justice -John R. Woodward, M.S.W. http://www.jik.com/ilclang.html#TIME_TO_GET_RID_OF_SPECIAL