Right Before I Go to Bed, I Read This Sh*t - Almost another $200,000 worth

Deaf student left miles from home

"Pinellas school officials are investigating an incident Tuesday that left a 13-year-old deaf girl at the wrong bus stop, in the rain, more than two miles from her home"

"She tried to use sign language and other hand gestures, said her father, Joe Catalano. But the driver seemed frustrated and hurried her off the bus. Asked whether Heather tried to communicate with the driver through a written message, Joe Catalano said, "It never got to that point."

He added: "My daughter panicked and didn't know what to do.""

A 13 year old deaf girl.

Signing to the bus driver. Sign language we will presume that was professionally taught to her by an education system that recognizes special education.

Not a 13 year old girl saying "Fu*k you bro, I ain't gettin' off here!". Not a 13 year old girl all up in the bus driver's face. Not a 13 year old girl yelling and screaming. Because if she had done all of the above, a frickin referral would have been written, she would have been suspended from school transportation and sent to alternative school.

But no, we have a meek disabled, educated kid trying to tell an adult that the adult is wrong.

Fat chance that an adult that works for a public education system would even have a second thought about their actions being questioned, much less be questioned by a disabled kid (or parent for that matter).


I am quite sure this is forgotten:


Right bus, wrong stop, devastating consequences
Eric Martin died three years ago when a car struck him as he walked home from the wrong bus stop, 5 miles from home. Could it happen again?
By LOGAN D. MABE, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published November 3, 2002

“Eric Martin, a sixth-grader at Walker Middle School, was 10 years old and 5 miles from home when he was dropped off at the wrong school bus stop Oct. 28, 1999. It was the first day of an after-school tutoring class, so he went home on a different bus with a different driver who had different bus stops.
In the growing darkness, Eric set out on the long walk from VillaRosa to his family's house in Wyndham Lakes. He was hit and instantly killed on Lutz-Lake Fern Road.
Kimberly Martin sued the Hillsborough County School Board claiming negligence on the part of bus driver Linda Moore, who was driving Eric's bus that day.
The case never went to court. The School Board settled out of court for the state-mandated maximum of $200,000. Martin says she didn't sue for money but to bring attention to what she calls a flawed system. “

"On the advice of legal counsel, the district's director of transportation declined to discuss procedures in the context of the Martin case. Mark Hart, the district's spokesman, released a statement saying that dismissal procedures are regularly reviewed. Bus drivers now get a "rollover" list of student passengers to help drivers at the beginning of the school year. And elementary school officials now have an instructional video tape on effective dismissals to watch.

Hart emphasized that these changes were in the works before Eric's death. "

-----

"Eric made it about 3 miles trudging along busy Lutz-Lake Fern Road before a Dodge Ram, driven by University of South Florida student Christine Matanane, hit him. Matanane said she tried to avoid the boy but couldn't. It was about 7:25 p.m., 40 minutes after sunset. Eric's parents had been driving all over looking for him.

A little after 9 p.m. sheriff's deputies delivered the news to Kimberly Martin. She knew why they were there before they said a word. "


-----------------------
"The case never went to court. The School Board settled out of court for the state-mandated maximum of $200,000. Martin says she didn't sue for money but to bring attention to what she calls a flawed system.

-------------------------



I despise the arrogance and ignorance of those who have the authority to abuse it.

The very ones that need our help the most are used for a cathartic expression of power and authority because they can't fight back without the unchallengeable retaliation that they face.

I fight the fight because they can't.

I mock and make snide, sardonic comments about the system because it is what it is, and I recognize it.

Prove me wrong.

"Suing the District" or "Filing a State Complaint"

Special Education is not for the faint of heart. It is about big money as much or more as it is about specialized instruction that is designed to meet the needs of a student with disabilities.


A comment from Personal Experience 6:28 about a parent having "sued the district time after time" gives rise to the question if the commenter understands the difference between due process, which is a highly formalized legal procedure (suing), and a state complaint:

§ 300.153 Filing a complaint.
(a) An organization or individual may
file a signed written complaint under
the procedures described in §§ 300.151
through 300.152.
(b) The complaint must include—
(1) A statement that a public agency
has violated a requirement of Part B of
the Act or of this part;
(2) The facts on which the statement
is based;
(3) The signature and contact
information for the complainant; and
(4) If alleging violations with respect
to a specific child—
(i) The name and address of the
residence of the child;
(ii) The name of the school the child
is attending;
(iii) In the case of a homeless child or
youth (within the meaning of section
725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)),
available contact information for the
child, and the name of the school the
child is attending;
(iv) A description of the nature of the
problem of the child, including facts
relating to the problem; and
(v) A proposed resolution of the
problem to the extent known and
available to the party at the time the
complaint is filed.
(c) The complaint must allege a
violation that occurred not more than
one year prior to the date that the
complaint is received in accordance
with § 300.151.
(d) The party filing the complaint
must forward a copy of the complaint to
the LEA or public agency serving the
child at the same time the party files the
complaint with the SEA.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control numbers 1820–0030
and 1820–0600)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3)
(not suing)

*****************
As we should all know, the District has an obligation to provide the parents the rules of the game. This may be difficult if the front line District people don't know the rules themselves.

"§ 300.504 Procedural safeguards notice.
(a) General.

----
(2) Upon receipt of the first State
complaint under §§ 300.151 through
300.153 and upon receipt of the first
due process complaint under § 300.507
in a school year;

(c) Contents. The procedural
safeguards notice must include a full
explanation of all of the procedural
safeguards available under § 300.148,
§§ 300.151 through 300.153, § 300.300,
§§ 300.502 through 300.503, §§ 300.505
through 300.518, § 300.520, §§ 300.530
through 300.536 and §§ 300.610 through
300.625 relating to—

----
(5) Opportunity to present and resolve
complaints through the due process
complaint and State complaint
procedures, including—
(i) The time period in which to file a
complaint;
(ii) The opportunity for the agency to
resolve the complaint; and
(iii) The difference between the due
process complaint and the State
complaint procedures, including the
jurisdiction of each procedure, what
issues may be raised, filing and
decisional timelines, and relevant
procedures;

The Sound Of A Closed Door Can Be Deafening

There is something very intriguing about the doors to public education. I don’t know who built the first one, but I am sure that information could be found if one took the time. I have no doubt that the study of the origin and progression of public schools in our country would be a fascinating endeavor . I am also sure the following statement made by a former Teacher of the Year would not go without challenge:

“ The secret of American schooling is that it doesn't teach the way children learn
- nor is it supposed to. Schools were conceived to serve the economy and the social order rather than kids and families -- that is why it is compulsory.”



I throw that out there for others to attack or defend. The premise is why I have chosen it. The fact that even today there is much discussion about whether current influences on public education are self serving and not truly aimed at education is no different than the above premise.

I do know of two major social issues where it took the Federal Court to pry open the doors of public education that were obviously closed for two identifiable groups. One major door opening to the public as a whole was Brown v. Board of Education. Another major door opening to the public as a whole was the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA or the Act). One must read about the many other doors that had to be pried open before these two major doors were forcibly opened.

Since the mid 1990's this writer first learned about the secret that when the teacher's door is closed, it is their realm. In fact it was told to me in that way almost verbatim. The secret was dirty then, and it remains so today.

I have previously asked the question "what rights does a regular education student have to their education." The answer to that question increases in intrigue and difficulty when one compares it to the answer of the question "what rights does a special education student have to their education."

Understanding case laws that have shaped our public education system is a formidable task. Many of the people who work day in and day out may not even know or understand where the pressures come from that effect their daily routine. A door may be physically closed, and a parent may be physically kept out of the classroom, but is that really keeping the parent out of the classroom?


I have chosen a passage from a federal case HONIG, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. DOE, et al. to make a point:

"Envisioning the IEP as the centerpiece of the statute's education delivery system for disabled children, and aware that schools had all too often denied such children appropriate educations without in any way consulting their parents, Congress repeatedly emphasized throughout the Act the importance and indeed the necessity of parental participation in both the development of the IEP and any subsequent assessments of its effectiveness. See 1400(c), 1401(19), 1412(7), 1415(b)(1)(A), (C), (D), (E), and 1415(b)(2). Accordingly, the Act establishes various procedural safeguards that guarantee parents both an opportunity for meaningful input into all decisions affecting their child's education and the right to seek review of any decisions they think inappropriate. These safeguards include the right to examine all relevant records pertaining to the identification, evaluation and educational placement of their child; prior written notice whenever the responsible educational agency proposes (or refuses) to change the child's placement or program; an opportunity to present complaints concerning any aspect of the local agency's provision of a free appropriate public education; and an opportunity for "an impartial due process hearing" with respect to any such complaints. 1415(b)(1), (2)."

If we examine this part of the statement, does this not "put the parent in the classroom" : "guarantee parents both an opportunity for meaningful input into all decisions affecting their child's education and the right to seek review of any decisions they think inappropriate?"

It Ain't Me Babe, No, No, No It Ain't Me Babe

I was trying to find the information about how making public schools be responsible for educating disabled kids was more about politics than education. Still haven't found it, but the search is interesting.

I once went to Washington D.C. to speak to a couple of legislators about ESE Issues. It has been about 10 years ago and my memory has a lot of gaps in it.

I found this Report to Congress and was perusing through it.

I selected these few bits, but there are plenty:

Finding 1: Parent-professional relationships too often are strained and difficult, and parents and professionals frequently view one another as adversaries rather than as partners.

Finding 2:

Some parents have difficulty finding appropriate services for their children.

.......... the states are "evaluating" children to deny them service. "I don't have this service, and I don't have this service. We don't have the money for this service. We will need to re-evaluate." And when they finish their evaluation, the child is no longer in need of the service. And this is going on again and again, and again. And it is not just in the South...I deal with parents all over the United States.

......."What is lacking is a respect for the kinds of things that it is necessary for students with disabilities to learn......


Finding 7:

Many parents are uninformed about their rights under the law.

Although school districts are required to inform parents of their rights under the law, witnesses testified that parents frequently report that they are not informed.
*************************

"We have a very complicated state formula mechanism [in West Virginia] where special needs students are triple-weighted. And that means that for every dollar appropriated for a regular education student, special needs students are given three dollars. Sounds good, doesn't it? There is a catch. The catch is that those funds are not earmarked and that the county superintendent and his board may spend it on whatever they please. It can be spent on salary increases for the administrators;......."

I could go on and on about things I can relate to that are in this report. I have been writing about these things since I was goaded into blogging.

This report was written almost 20 years ago.

Just read the titles of the Findings and you will get the picture.

Big Fat Money

A little Van Halen to jump start the day:

"Some say money is bad for the soul
Bad for the rock, bad for the roll
Bad for the heart , bad for the brain
Bad for the damn near everything oh yeah
It must be good for something"

I have reason to remind the readers of this event from the recent past:

Old news is still bad news

Go to the link and read finding of fact by the State. Not just a complaining parent.

IEP's are contracts for service. A Matrix of Service is filled out based on what was written in the IEP, submitted to the State, and the State sends money to the District based on the funding number.

If the services that are written in the IEP are not provided to the student, there is a multitude of problems. Ethics would be one of them. Destruction of trust from the parents may be one of them. Fraud may be one of them. An appropriate education for the student is so far down the list, it is lost in the fog of war when the parent finally demands some accountability.

Recent dialog on this blog and posts by this blogger on other blogs has dealt with parents and teachers needing to work together.

Some parents want to audiotape their IEP meetings. How many of you get to a point in your life where you want to go the hassle of taping a meeting? One would reasonably assume that the need to tape something is because one has become wary of false assurances, parsing of words, repeated delays, repeated "misunderstandings" and "clarifications" that are far from what was previously stated or written.

Under the current culture, the burden of proof of compliance is left to the parent to somehow prove that not only did a host of people who say they are educators hear what was said and see what is written, but they are not honoring what they said and wrote.

I have been in many, many IEP meetings. I know the game. If an elephant came into the IEP meeting, dropped a load right in the middle of the table, no one could ever prove it if it wasn't written in the IEP form or the conference notes. Even when there are teachers, ESE specialists, related service personnel, principals, directors and parents that see the elephant, moved their papers out of the way of the big dump, and smelled the aroma that stunk up the whole room. If it wasn't written, it didn't happen.

If the system continues to leave it to the parents to enforce compliance, I will continue to mock those who hide behind this strategy. And I am counting the days. To steal a concept from Goader - tick, tick, tick.

Where Does The Money Go and How Does One Know

A wide variety of media sources are full of stories about the financial woes of school systems. Not enough money for this, and not enough money for that. In the arena of Special Education, it is the same. Try to have a discussion about Special Education finances with a high ranking administrator and see how long it is before they make sure it is stated that the District is "responsible for all children". I have been to events that promote science and never heard an administrator remind everyone not to forget that the District is there for all students, not just science students.

It appears that finding money for specific personnel within the District is easy compared to finding money for specific educational programs. Maybe it has to do with something like a leak in a water bucket where a drop is nothing until there are no more drops and then complain there is a water shortage.

Public Law 94-142 (1975)later to be known as The Individualized with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a funding mechanism. I guess since public schools were forced to take on the education of kids with disabilities in the mid 1970's, the good natured people who made this decision wanted to make sure that everyone realized that disabled kids were a hardship to everyone so they gave extra money for each one. This way, the disabled kids are always second to the trough because they have special papers to fill out and hoops to jump through instead of just showing up at the school house and receiving free money as a matter of course like the regular kids do.

And to add insult to injury, the Feds way back then promised 40% funding for the disabled kids. The highest figure I have heard trying to reach this benchmark was "less than 15%."
Because of this shortfall, it sort of feeds the belief that disabled kids really aren't worth even what the Feds say they are. If one studies the history prior to IDEA, there is belief that IDEA was a stepping stone towards attempts to increased socialized government. How could anyone turn down helping those poor pathetic kids that were not allowed at the public school drinking fountain? I unfortunately can not relocate the link that provided the names of the people, the course of events and how it was more about politics than education.

"For whatever reasons--compassion, votes, humanism, dollars--the handicapped are big business today, are political factors not to be taken lightly." Burton Blatt

For those who want to read how the funding is figured, click on the link below. Go to the last few pages and see if it is clear how the math works. Then ask "where does the money go and how does one know?"
USE OF THE EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT EDUCATION MATRIX OF SERVICES

They Just Didn't Get It

My previous post was an attempt to provide some insight in to why some educational settings do not succeed, despite how much the educators involved want to believe that they know what they are doing. Money is not the answer. Changing a mind-set is.

As a parent of a disabled child, I have years of experience and hundreds of anecdotal incidents (far exceeding what was often referred to as "isolated" by District personnel) that I could share. Despite my incessant efforts to bring in outside educated supports from places such as FSU, Fla. School For Deaf Blind, UofF, Texas, New York, Gallaudet, Boston College Deaf/Blind and even Australia, some people just didn't get it that their way was not good. Despite numerous evaluations, observations,reports and money spent on bringing in real experts, some people just didn't get it that their way was not good.

Dealing with behaviors was one of the most exasperating issues. I can not tell anyone how many times I was told my son did something "for no apparent reason". Like the time he broke his pencil, crumpled his paper and threw it on the floor "for no good reason". He was sent to the office. The principal informed us that he would not be allowed to act like that.

As the uninformed, emotionally attached, overwhelmed father, I only had excuses for his behavior. The fact that he had an uncorrectable vision problem did not matter. The fact that he was deaf did not matter. The fact that there was no one at that school to sign to him did not matter. The fact he was extremely successful in the prior setting because the previous teacher had all of the supports needed for him to succeed but they were not with him didn't matter. The fact that he had been given the same ditto several days in a row did not matter. The fact that the ditto was too small of print for him to see didn't matter. The fact that the lesson plan called for recognition of presidents didn't matter. The fact that no one knew how to present an abstract concept such as President Lincoln and President Washington to a kid who will never be able to grasp the concept didn't matter. The fact that he could not see pencil markings very well didn't matter. The fact that he was used to a black marker to accommodate his vision didn't matter.

No, I simply had to trust those who had the authority of the school system vested in them.

In my continued efforts to be a helpful father, despite my shortcomings, I talked with the teacher about my concerns. She told me she did not have ink to make separate dittos for my son. I asked what kind of ink cartridges she needed, and went directly to what-ever store it was and bought two cartridges and a ream of paper and gave it to her.

Needless to say, my purchase of the ink cartridges was not the answer. That was in 1990. By December 16th, 1996, despite various settings, it was the mind-set of several people that was never overcome and it led to me learning the rules.

Most of them had authority that could have righted the issue. Fortunately, there were a few who not only got it, but even without power and authority, they overcame the misguided. But not without a lot of effort to make things work.

The previous article speaks to how behaviors can be made worse by ignorance combined with power and authority.

Disabilites, Behavior and how misguided the approach may be

While many professionals perceive parents as a biased and uniformed source of information regarding best practices, some parents do try to inform themselves regarding challenging issues dealing with their children. Imagine the response a parent might receive if they provided the below article to their IEP team. The "knowing looks" among the professionals as they perceive the information as just another form of parental denial of the child's disability may be one response. Or perhaps the often heard reassurance that the professionals know what is best for the student and the parent understandably is overwhelmed and is to simply trust the educators. All of this while the student's behavior continues to impede their's or their peer's access to their curriculum.

The thought that the professionals are part of the issue just never seems to be part of the solution. If one reads for content, simply taking a student out of one classroom and putting them in another does not cure a defective system. What really happens all too frequently is that those who think they are doing right are misguided. Their inability to encorporate new concepts leads to poor educational settings.

Below is an excerpt in hopes it will intrigue one to read the complete, professionally written, article. It isn't written by an overwhelmed parent who must just trust, despite the reality. It even speaks to how Districts could save money. Italics are mine.



Click here for full article: Ethics Of Behavior Change by Nancy Weiss

There is no question that some people with disabilities have behaviors that are dangerous, disruptive or otherwise difficult. I am not one who believes that because all people are to be valued and respected equally that all behaviors are equally acceptable. Some people (both with and without disabilities) exhibit behaviors that interfere with the quality of their own lives and the lives of the people with whom they interact. We have a responsibility to offer supports for people to change behaviors that are dangerous,disruptive, or interfere with their ability to achieve goals they have set for themselves. Our responsibility, however, is to do this in ways that value, enhance, and include people rather than through the use of methods that are coercive and too often, come dangerously close to revenge.


We Americans have a strongly held ideology that supports the notion that people who work hard and do right should be rewarded and those who do wrong need to be punished. The roots of such thinking go back to the very earliest days in this country; the Salem witch trials being a good example. Often when I speak with people who work in residential settings or schools, there is resistance to the basic principles of positive behavioral supports. They say, “So we’re just going to let her do whatever she pleases? Surely, there have to be some consequences for her behavior!” It’s hard for people to let go of their need to punish behavior they find troublesome and even harder to forgive someone who is making one’s life more difficult day-to-day or has caused one physical harm.

Many ethical issues in the design and implementation of behavior programs relate to issues of control. Whenever one person is trying to change the behavior of another, there is an inherent and unavoidable imbalance of power. People with disabilities are often denied opportunities to make basic life choices and are subjected to unreasonable amounts of control as a matter of course. Layering additional controls must be carefully weighed. There is an unfortunate cycle that operates in schools and programs that seek to control too many aspects of people's lives. The cycle starts with a person who is receiving supports attempting to assert a degree of control over aspects of his/her life that are in the control of others. This is a natural response, characteristic of all people who are made to feel powerless. Having few other options, people in restrictive environments protest the control by behaving in ways that are challenging. Teachers and staff conclude that additional restrictions that will serve to limit challenging forms of self-expression must be needed. Because it sounds more pleasant, we prefer to say “a more structured environment is needed” rather than "we need to apply additional controls or restrictions".

In response to the added restrictions, people can be expected to escalate behaviors in further attempts to assert themselves. This leads caregivers to determine that they were correct in assuming that more "structure" was needed; they now conclude that since behaviors have gotten "worse", even more control measures are called for, and the cycle continues. There is irony in the fact that in the effort to eliminate aggressive and impulsive behaviors, practitioners employ techniques that have been proven to result in precisely these kinds of behaviors. Caregivers rarely emerge victorious from such power struggles. It is not only unethical but downright illogical to respond to people’s desperate attempts to assert a degree of control over their lives by responding with efforts to impose greater and greater amounts of power over them.

It helps, if you’re going to prevail in these one-upmanship battles, to convince yourself that such interventions are necessary and to detach yourself from the people with whom you work. This depersonalization makes it easier to continue the use of demeaning procedures. Danger abounds here for everyone concerned. Not only are the basic human rights of the people subjected to such approaches threatened, but we also compromise the public's perception of all people with disabilities when our treatment implies that these are dangerous, unpredictable people whose extraordinary behaviors need to be controlled through extraordinary means. Finally, we are only beginning to understand the effects that participation in demeaning and coercive behavioral programming has on the staff who implement the procedures, but we know something about the effect of torture on the torturer. Ironically, the use of coercive techniques requires the studied avoidance of a personal and caring relationship – when it is that very thing people with challenging behaviors most need in order to change those behaviors. con't..

One more hook:

..."I sometimes get asked how positive approaches can be used in institutions or other restrictive settings. They can’t. People can’t have good lives in bad places. If the first step toward changing behavior is helping people find meaning in their lives, prerequisites are living, learning, and working in places that people choose and that are fulfilling. Positive programs in negative settings probably do little beyond making the staff feel better.

Laura was in a segregated classroom. Her teacher didn’t include her in many of the learning activities in which the other children participated. The teacher had selected a few activities for Laura that she felt were better suited to Laura’s abilities. These included sorting pegs by color, putting together a puzzle, and matching objects to pictures on a grid. Laura showed curiosity about the activities of the other children. Their activities were more interesting and generally of a more active and participatory nature. Laura would wander around the classroom disrupting the work of the other students. When she was redirected back to her seat and her activities, Laura would often become upset,throwing her materials on the floor and occasionally even pushing and hitting the teacher. Laura’s teacher enlisted the help of the school’s behavior specialist to develop a program to encourage Laura to stay in her seat, attend to her work, and to reduce Laura’s aggressive behavior. She told the behavior specialist that Laura was noncompliant. The behavior specialist got right to work on a careful system of reinforcement to assist Laura to achieve these behavioral goals.

Simply because the technology exists to train Laura to be compliant doesn’t make it acceptable. Maladaptive behaviors are exhibited in response to maladaptive environments or expectations. Viewed from this perspective, behaviors labeled as maladaptive are, in fact, perfectly adaptive responses to inappropriate environments or expectations. Attempting to change behavior to adapt to inappropriate demands is at best ethically suspect. An astute teacher or behavior specialist would recognize Laura’s behavior as one of the most objective critiques of service quality that is ever likely to be received. We could save money on hiring expensive consultants to do complex program evaluations if we simply listened to what the people we support are telling us."

Dealing with behaviors - Straight from FLDOE

This TAP (Technical Assistance Paper) speaks to a District's responsibilities to behavior.

Functional Behavioral Assessment
and Behavioral Intervention Plans

It should be noted that it references IDEA 1997. If there is a current TAP for IDEA 2004, it could not be located.

A few points of interest are:

"Federal law now places greater emphasis than before on the role of functional
behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans in serving the needs of students with disabilities." -----------

So when parents ask for help from the school dealing with child's behavior and don't want the kid repeatedly sent home or to the resource room, they are not just asking for special treatment.


*******************************************************
"Section 1414(d)(3)(B)(i-v) addresses the role of the IEP team in considering special factors. Part (i)
states that the practitioner should
“in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, consider, when appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior.”----------

How many people overlook this part of the statement - "whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others". So when the Principal says the kid is disruptive to the class, this should be a signal to bring in professional assistance, not just send the kid home.

Also, how many times do we hear that laziness, inattention or lack of organization is a problem for some students that impedes his or her learning? So when parents ask for positive interventions, strategies and supports, they may not just be making excuses for their child.

If the teacher says he/she can't be babysitting every kid, does this absolve the District from their responsibilities? Or should they ask for supports and services for the teacher?

**********************************************************

"9. Are there other times when a functional behavioral assessment should be considered for use (a)
with students with disabilities who are not being considered for a change in educational setting or
(b) for students who are not disabled?

Best practice suggests that a functional behavioral assessment be conducted for a student whenever behavior appears to be significantly interfering with the learning process and well before behaviors reach crisis proportions." ------------


FBA's for students who are not disabled? - This will put a dent in the budget if word gets out.

All to often it can be heard said that FBA's are only done when there is "dangerous behaviors". Section #9 speaks to this. Emphasis should be paid to "well before behaviors reach crisis proportions". Plus, it even speaks to students who are not disabled.


*****************************************************************

10. What qualifications are required for personnel to conduct functional behavioral assessments and develop behavioral intervention plans?

I will pick one:
" knowledge of and skills in creating objective, measurable intervention monitoring
systems that employ direct measurement techniques." ----------


The key here, to be professional, is to create something that is objective and measurable. So, something like "Johnny will respect authority" is difficult to measure. Or Susie "will be responsible for her daily planner" is difficult to measure.

If one would like to have some fun, read a few IEP's and ask yourself how the objectives can be charted and measured. And is the goal and objective specific to the student's disability or is it a broad based generalization such as "Susie will increase her attention span by 80%." How does one measure this?


*********************************
13. What are some important points to remember in developing a behavioral intervention plan?

There were so many good ones, but I picked a few:



The parent (and the student, as appropriate) should be included in the development and implementation of the plan.


Individuals responsible for carrying out the intervention plan should have the appropriate training and possess the required skills for successful plan implementation. [ This one is critical and may be a reason most don't work]


There should be support for and “buy-in” from the person(s) who will implement the plan and, where appropriate, acceptance of the plan by the student. [This one goes hand in hand with the above one]


If consequences are used for problem behaviors, they must be immediate and consistent and not inadvertently reinforce the misbehavior. For instance, when a student seeks to escape an assignment by throwing workpapers on the floor, referrals to the office have a high probability of strengthening the misbehavior. It may be more effective for the teacher to offer the student the chance to complete part of the assignment followed by a short break.
[This is a difficult concept for power oriented teachers and principals to integrate]

*****************************************************

LRE 101

The basics of Least Restrictive Environment.

Full context is provided for those who want to see where it came from. The section focused on is found at the bottom below.

If we focus on the last clause, we find:

(ii) Special classes, separate
schooling, or other removal of children
with disabilities from the regular
educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes
with the use of supplementary aids and services
cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

How does one know if something can't be achieved satisfactorily?
-Gut feeling?
-Observation?
-Screening?
-Wait long enough until we have no choice?
-Evaluation?
-Administrative convenience (teacher or principal want the kid out)
-"all of those kind of kids go to those kind of kid's place?"


How many times do we hear of a professionally administered functional behavior assessment followed by a professionally developed positive behavioral support plan (supplementary aids and services for both student and teacher) tried until it is determined if it is satisfactory?

Or, do we punish behaviors until we get an evaluation that determines eligibility (and how long does that take), we immediately move the student because "that's where those kids go" and "his behavior is disruptive to the other students."

Can we look at ourselves as related service professionals knowing we tried for the maximum extent appropriate prior to change of placement?
Do we blame the parents for asking questions about the law?
Do we blame the teacher for asking or failing to ask for support?
Are we giving professional support to our students, parents, teachers and site based administrators or just making them accept whatever we have and that's the bottom line?

How professional are we in our profession?
Do we blame the students and parents for their existence?
Do we blame the system for lack of funding and reason for our actions and expect that to be an adequate safe position to take?






IDEA
§ 300.114 LRE requirements.
(a) General. (1) Except as provided in
§ 300.324(d)(2) (regarding children with
disabilities in adult prisons), the State
must have in effect policies and
procedures to ensure that public
agencies in the State meet the LRE
requirements of this section and
§§ 300.115 through 300.120.
(2) Each public agency must ensure
that—
(i) To the maximum extent
appropriate, children with disabilities,
including children in public or private
institutions or other care facilities, are
educated with children who are
nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate
schooling, or other removal of children
with disabilities from the regular
educational environment occurs only if
the nature or severity of the disability is
such that education in regular classes
with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily.
(b) Additional requirement—State
funding mechanism—(1) General. (i) A
State funding mechanism must not
result in placements that violate the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section; and
(ii) A State must not use a funding
mechanism by which the State
distributes funds on the basis of the type
of setting in which a child is served that
will result in the failure to provide a
child with a disability FAPE according
to the unique needs of the child, as
described in the child’s IEP.