Myths and Co-optation

In late 1996, when I realized that common sense and normal interactions with many of the people-in-power within the public school system did not work, I sought assistance from other sources. One of these happened to be a book.

"You, Your Child, and Special Education" - A Guide to Making the System Work by
Barbara Coyne Cutler

It made a lot of sense as I connected to the issues that were outlined. Parents like me are found everywhere. What I liked about the book was how she conceptualized "the system" and "parents". For instance, she conceptualized some "myths". She stated "they are effective in keeping a smokescreen around the human and everyday limitations and imperfections of the people who work for school systems, and, to the extent that they silence or confuse parents, they provide security to "threatened" school personnel. However, the myths do not really benefit anyone, - children, parents, or even school personnel." pg 16

She wrote about "myths about educators". They include:
"Educators are super experts in their field"
"Educators are totally objective"
"Educators are free agents"

And then she says this: "Professionals caught in the super expert myth try to maintain the appearance of knowing all out of fear that otherwise parents or colleagues will question their competence. Furthermore, the need to appear super competent may become more imperative if school budgets are tightened and more people vie for fewer permanent school positions. School personnel may feel financially and professionally threatened if they confess they do not have all the educational answers at their fingertips." pg 30-31.

Having said all of that, Cutler goes on to outline ineffective ways to deal with the system. The one I choose to point out is what she calls "co-optation". While she talks primarily about parents, I can't help but think this same strategy works for "disgruntled" school employees also.

While reading some of the local blogs, I can't help but wonder if these strategies will be used to rein in the ones who are vocalizing issues.

Once members of this group grow weary from struggling, they become grateful for kind words and special relationships. "Some schools are experts at recognizing these parents and do just enough to keep them in an ingratiating posture: a few kind words.. a little threat... . Be careful of the teacher or administrator who tells you that you are not like the other parents(because you are so understanding and realistic), who shares his or her problems with you, who is always in when you call, and who is unusually prompt about returning your calls. "

"Co-optation is a hard pattern to change because the seduction... is gradual, even insidious, process during which you have may occasions to develop the habit of supporting and sympathizing with the school person."

In an earlier post I asked this question - how do some people sleep at night?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in myths and co-optation.

Obfuscate and Cavalier - A Curtain? Shield?

I posted the below from the Tribune on my PRO on HCDS blog. Obfuscate and cavalier are unusual words to be seen together very often.

It took me from 1990 to 1996 before I started to analyze the repeated occurrences effecting me to conceptualize those two words about HCDS. When it was obvious to all that something was wrong, the focus on what was wrong was never the issue. Many many times in many different settings. Rather the focus was placed on a myriad of other areas, frequently me. Many times I felt that for "them" to fix the problem would admit (from them) that there was a problem. Therefore, the "fix" couldn't happen right away or until I was no longer there to see the fix.

My concerns about the special education issues in HCDS are not about me. It isn't because I am a malcontent. It isn't because I will never be satisfied. It isn't because I am an isolated incident. It isn't because I carry a broad brush. My kid is out of the system.

It is because the issues are real for the kids, the parents and the teachers. I just spent Saturday at a conference about special education. There were hundreds of isolated incidents, malcontents and broad brushes. It was not just parents. By a show of hands, I only saw two administrators. Even if there were more administrators there, it would still be a low number compared to the ones that were there because they are looking for answers to problems. According to the administrator that I heard spoke, there are a lot of good things happening in the world of special education.

I hope all of those things reported on are not undone by obfuscation and being cavalier. I hope that everyone, including teachers and supervisors, have the ability to speak up about their concerns when it comes to the rights of children with disabilities. I know, it's about all of the kids. If I had been at a science conference, I wonder if I would have heard "We are here for all of the children, and our support for the science department goes right along with our support for all of the students here in our District".

What is the cost to the District if the kids, the parents and the teachers do not trust the District?


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


Click here: Shooting Case Raises Questions About District's Credibility Tribune says: "Instead of treating parents' questions with respect, they obfuscate or cavalierly dismiss them. "


I have been using the words "obfuscate" and "cavalier" to describe the HCDS since 1996.

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


Shooting Case Raises Questions About District's Credibility The Tampa Tribune Published: September 30, 2007 Video: Shooting Raises Questions For Parents If Hillsborough County public school officials want parents to trust them with their children, they need to be responsive and honest. But in Temple Terrace, where many parents are worried about the safety of the area's high school, straight answers are hard to come by. And this seems characteristic of a school district that all too often appears obsessed with avoiding blame and minimizing problems. Consider the town hall meeting inTemple Terrace earlier this month. School leaders brushed off valid questions about student safety, telling parents the area's schools are merely the victims of bad publicity and misperceptions. The handling of the shooting death of King High School student Dalshon Walton during an after-school fight was particularly revealing. It has been nearly two years since the shooting, yet it continues to be a flashpoint for parents with safety concerns because the district has been so eager to dismiss this tragic event as irrelevant. Officials have insisted Walton's death had nothing to do with the school because it occurred just off campus and the shooter wasn't a King student. That remains King Principal Carla Bruning's stance. But investigators and prosecutors have amassed a voluminous file of documents and testimony that shows otherwise. And district officials who maintain there was no connection between the shooting and the school either are ignoring facts or are in denial. We dug into the case, which is detailed in thousands of pages of public documents at the Hillsborough County State Attorney's office. We found strong evidence that Walton died as a result of a dispute between King students, which started in the school days earlier over a minor insult and erupted into the brawl at the McDonalds. Testimony and investigators' reports say Otis Lorenzo Neal, who has since pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, was summoned to the fight by a relative who was a King student involved in that ongoing quarrel. In disturbing - but uncorroborated - testimony, a female King student said she saw the boy who brought Neal into the fight with a gun at school the same day. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy Nathaniel Johnson, who is assigned to King, also testified he met with the same boy and his mother earlier that day because she was concerned trouble was brewing. Defying his mother and the deputy, the boy ended up at McDonald's. The fight clearly was a case of a school dispute spilling onto private property. Yet when asked why the school has always denied a connection, Bruning said she never knew the facts. Bruning says she was never briefed on the case and she never asked the details. Sheriff's Major Harold Winsett, who oversees the school resource officer program, says that's not true - Bruning was told by the school deputy the extent to which King students were involved. Even the school district's head of security, Dave Friedberg, says he has long known the facts of the case and that he and Bruning jointly made improvements in the school in response to those facts. Friedberg says school officials may have said the shooting was not 'related' or 'connected' to King because incidents not on school property are not considered school-related. But Friedberg says he also understands parents would have a broader interpretation. 'Is it school related? No,' Friedberg said. 'Does it involve us? Yes.' Friedberg, though, was not the one tasked with responding to the public about this incident. The school officials who did played word games. Their conduct makes the district look as if it intended to mislead people. This undermines school officials' credibility and takes some shine from what appear to be laudable safety improvements at King. The school has undergone security upgrades, adding a fence, surveillance equipment and an armed security officer. The school's annual crime stats show there were just three fights at the school last year, compared to the 58 that occurred in the 2005-06 school year. Yet school officials didn't come to the Temple Terrace town hall meeting armed with such facts, perhaps because that would have required them to acknowledge violence had been a concern. Reasonable parents will understand that bad things happen despite educators' best efforts. And there is no evidence the school was in any way negligent in the shooting. Yet being defensive seems to be school leaders' natural reflex. We've seen it in the way they've dealt with parents who have questioned the elementary math curriculum; in how they've handled parents who objected to abrupt boundary changes and now in how they answer questions about school safety. Instead of treating parents' questions with respect, they obfuscate or cavalierly dismiss them. At the town hall meeting, a King student who says he was at the fight animatedly talked about running when he heard the shots. Bruning heartily laughed at his account. But parents take such matters seriously. And when it comes to their children's safety, they want, and deserve, the unvarnished truth. To see video of a King High School student talk about safety at his school, go to TBO.com. Click on Tampa Tribune and then Opinion."

When a Supervisor Becomes An Advocate

3 Consultant: Schools Short On Nurses

2 Click here: New Strategies For School Health Care

1 School Nurses Alarmed Over Shrinking Staff, Rising Needs

"Luis, the district's general director for student support and federal programs, said Monday morning that there is a health professional at every school. On Tuesday morning, he produced a list showing at least one person's name beside each school. Luis said the list was valid as of last week, although subject to change.
The first name The Tampa Tribune checked out was Tanski. The list shows her as the sole health care provider assigned to the South County Career Center.
"I don't even know where that is," Tanski said Tuesday. Her assigned schools are Dowdell Middle and Clair-Mel and Palm River elementary schools, with Summerfield Elementary added this year, she said.
Gallogly said late Wednesday that the list remains "fluid" and is being revised. Tanski's name was listed next to the career center as a "placeholder." There is a nurse at the school, Gallogly said, but she teaches there and is not employed by her department.
The health assistant listed for Riverview High School is Shelly Olsson, who Gallogly confirmed has been doing paperwork and compiling records in her office until this week. She has worked as a health assistant and will work in that capacity to fill in where needed, Gallogly said.
"They're placeholders," Gallogly said of the assignments that don't match what nurses said is reality. "The list is probably 96 percent accurate."

******************************
I must say that in the last 16 years I do not recall so many critical stories regarding the HCDS. The stories have been there, but it seemed the slant always favored the District. Maybe it's just me.

We now have a publicly made line drawn in the sand. I can only assume that the person that is challenging the system is doing so because she is no longer an employee. Hopefully someone will track the future employment status of the two current employees that have now been shown to publicly challenge the District's information.

What is interesting to me is the apparent advocacy that is now being demonstrated by the Supervisor of Health Services. It seems she is willing to come out and say that what is going on is not right. It seems that the reduced numbers of nurses may have something to do with the way the concerns of those on the line are not being respected.

As a self appointed Concierge for the Motel Special Ed, it would be most interesting to see a similar inquiry into the status of the many different areas that have supervisors in the HCDS Special Education Division.

As an example, let's revisit some documented statistics:

"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, "

As a result of the findings, the District developed a committee to address the issues. The members included district personnel and parents. Sub-committees were set up, including the apparent obligatory sub committee of teacher retention and recruitment. Month's of meetings and documentation. At the end, there was a unanimous recommendation made, despite voiced disagreements by some, mostly parents. This was the second committee I had the priviledge of attending where it appeared that the outcome was pre-determined, despite the input of the parents.

Apparently, since it had not happened before, the parent's that were able to make a complaint that stuck were able to bring about some type of action for the District to supposedly address the problem. While people are snooping around about the nurses, maybe some one could find out how many OT/PT's there are really (not a check box answer) available for the number of kids that are supposed to get the servicies.

But why would parents be involved in the District's operations. If there is a problem, such as documented above, one would think that the people responsible for Supervising their area would be jumping up and down with data that shows there is a problem and demanding responsible support from the District that has a national reputation. Apparently that is not how it works.

Years ago an Administrator made it clear to me that the District did not need policing. I always wonder if the many different Supervisors within the Special Education Division of HCDS aren't jumping up and down about their lack of resources is because there is no police to go to.

A Missed Point By Any Other Name is Still a Missed Point

Dot 1 Click here: Motel Special Ed: Voucher Fraud - Imagine that

"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."


Dot 2 Click here: Motel Special Ed: Old news is still bad news, but how many know it?

"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.”

"What Happened to the money?" .......

Dot 3-Click here: Motel Special Ed: A Teacher who knows the reality.

...."what choice does a teacher have when they know ......... 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....."

"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?"


Connecting the dots. Are we retaining teachers by providing them an honest work environment or are we driving them away because we are clever in ways we save money?

Read my related post on Click here: PRO on HCPS: Sacred Cows and Unwritten SP&P's.

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?

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".