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.