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?"

Ignorance Abounds

I will be gone for two weeks. Not sure how often I will be able to access online. In a way, I will miss it. In a way, I will be glad to get away from hearing stories of ignorance. It amazes me when those who should know the law, don't. It amazes me when they abuse their power through their ignorance.

Let's talk about evaluations and re-evaluations. At the risk of doing what I think the District does, I am going to choose parts of IDEA to paint a picture. For the one's that use their power, they should know the whole of IDEA so that they understand how it all works together.



§300.304 Evaluation procedures.
(b) Conduct of evaluation
(2) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a
disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and
(c) Other evaluation procedures
(4) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing,
social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities;
(6) In evaluating each child with a disability under §§300.304 through 300.306, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked
to the disability category in which the child has been classified.


This is the part where some professionals use their arrogance with their ignorance:

§300.303 Reevaluations.
(a) General. A public agency must ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted in accordance with
§§300.304 through 300.311--
(2) If the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.

For discussion sake, lets say we have a student who has already been declared eligible for ESE and has a "disability category" (label). Has never had an occupational therapy evaluation. The parent has reasonable cause, along with the neurologist, that the kid needs an OT evaluation. The Doctor sent a note for the school saying as much.

So, having read all of this, what appears to be a reasonable outcome if the child's parent requests a reevaluation in this area of suspected disability that is not commonly linked to the disability category? Repeatedly asks. And, according to what I was told, was given a real hard time and told she (parent) was getting wrong advice.


If you were in this type of situation, how would you handle it?

I think this one may be resolved because someone finally read something. It is almost impossible for "normal parents" to overcome ignorance and arrogance. I am sick of hearing about isolated incidents. What is the outcome with all of the moms who don't have someone to help them get the professionals to read the rules?

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.

Activism or Advocacy?

Yesterday I wrote about misunderstandings a lot of people have about disabilities. This ignorance becomes critical when it has authority and power behind it. When this happens, it is an abuse of power.

The link is to a blog that is hosted by a real professional special education teacher. The post I am linking to has a lot of dynamics in it. Basically, the teacher blogger read a post (by original poster) on another blog, recognized incorrect information and responded to it with correct information.

The recipient of the new correct information (the original poster) was appreciative of the new correct information, and qualified her ignorance by having only been there nine months and her wrong information came from a 2005 article.

Tiny Bouts of Activism

What got my attention was when the original poster said she would forward the new information to her department director for further follow up. I then became curious about what system was the original poster in.

What I wanted to see was how much power and authority these decision makers had regarding the information on cerebral palsy and the role they played with the person with CP. I googled the original phrase and found the original source. Nova University


I found the original article on page 28. It is a typical article in awe of what a person with a disability can do. I first experienced this "awe" over 20 years ago. Since that time, across the United States and in Australia, I have witnessed people with disabilities doing things that are surprising.

I have learned that the "awe" comes from our ignorance and low expectations. If parents and educators understood the dynamics about their kid's specific disability from day one, understood the educational implications of the specific disability in regards to how each kid can learn in their unique, individualized way, all of our kids would have these amazing outcomes.

Understanding a disability is more than just knowing a label. Effective evaluations, done by professionals, should include the educational implications that are specific to each child.

Department directors should be up to date on the latest diagnostic and best practice teaching modalities so that they ensure that teachers are up to date.

"We are the Experts" equals "We are the ones in Control"

There is a cost to arrogance that is boistered by ignorance.


My son's first three years in the HCDS were great. The problems started when we switched schools in 1990. As the year progressed, I experienced a few of the below, I just didn't know it. As the months went by, and meeting after meeting (increasing in both number of attendees and distance from my house) brought no results, we brought in a real expert on my kid's disability from Florida State University. This real expert spent two days observing my kid at school. This real expert then wrote a very comprehensive report. She included many anecdotal incidents to explain what should be changed. We were so excited because here was a professional saying what we had been trying to say, but we were never "understood".

As the people at FSU were not used to the culture of HCDS, they sent us a copy of the report also. (It is a common practice for schools to influence independent evaluations and control what information parents receive.) I did not know then what I know now, but the HCDS people were quite surprised when they gave us their copy of the report and we told them we already had a copy. Had I known then what I know now, I would have compared the two reports to see if anything had been changed. As the IEP team go through the report, I kept seeing that the "team" is not incorporating the recommendations of the report into the IEP. At some point I finally confront this. The answer was "well these are just recommendations, we don't have to do them.".

The last time I looked, the same person who said that is still in the same position now as she was then.

How many times do we hear in an IEP meeting :"well, that is the recommendation of the District's evaluation and it is a consensus of the IEP team that we......." while the parent is still trying to argue the information. It is interesting how the phrase "consensus of the IEP team" has so much more power than "The IEP Team, of which the parent is an integral member, is responsible for determining the services that are necessary for the child to receive FAPE." Spare me the interpretation that the District is ultimately responsible for the decision of FAPE. While I understand that premise under the law, if that is the mindset of the "district IEP Team", then why not say it out loud in the meeting and say "we (the District) recognize that you (the parent) are an integral member of the IEP team, but we are exercising our right to enforce FAPE, so it really doesn't matter what you or your independent evaluations say."


Mistakes People Make - School Districts by Robert K. Crabtree, Esq. Print this page Anything a school system does that undermines parents' trust creates a climate that is costly in dollars, time, peace of mind, and the quality and success of services given to the child. Here are the most significant school system mistakes, according to persons at every level of the system: 1. Refusing to let parents or parents' experts see programs, either within or outside of the school system. When school systems tightly restrict the parents' access to their own programs, the parents wonder what they are hiding and assume the worst; when they refuse to clear the way for parents to see an outside program, the parents will assume that the grass is greener over there; 2. Failing or refusing to communicate and actively coordinate with outside experts working with the child, such as the child's therapist or a tutor; 3. Ignoring reports from independent evaluators; failing to speak to those evaluators to clarify ambiguous information or recommendations; failing to add the evaluator's recommendations to the IEP when reasonable; 4. Failing to respond to parents in writing or at a meeting when a problem arises; 5. Taking a patronizing and/or antagonistic and/or insulting attitude toward parents; personalizing issues between school and parents; attempting to blame parents for their children's educational failures rather than looking for solutions (school system professionals need to treat parents with respect even if those parents are insulting and belligerent themselves); 6. Sweating the small stuff (e.g., spending twenty minutes at a team meeting arguing about whether the meeting can be tape-recorded); 7. Failing to observe procedural timelines and notice requirements (e.g., scheduling timely meetings, getting evaluations to the parents before the team meeting, notifying the parents who will attend the meeting, providing clear written explanations of parent rights); 8. Writing careless and sloppy IEPs. Parents, evaluators, and hearing officers all look first at the extent to which the written IEP reflects a thorough and logically coherent view of the child, the goals and objectives for that child's program, and a clear and understandable description of what will be provided, how, by whom, and when; and how the child's program will be evaluated; 9. Failing to implement an IEP and, worse, trying to cover up that failure; 10. Failing to modify an IEP that is not working and waiting, instead, for the program - and the child - to collapse; 11. Failing to provide additional or different services as a way to avoid having to make more restrictive (and expensive) outside placements; 12. Failing to call in expert consultants from outside the school system with good reputations among both school and parent communities who can help develop or monitor a program for a child with unusual needs; 13. Losing contact with families who have placed their child unilaterally. Some school systems forget or ignore their continuing responsibility to evaluate, review, and propose IEPs for children when they are attending outside placements at their parents' expense; 14. Botching the required procedures around suspension or expulsion of students with identified or suspected special education needs (e.g., failing to convene the team, failing to make a manifestation determination, failing to re-examine the IEP to see if services are appropriate and have actually been provided, failure to provide FAPE to suspended or expelled students with special education needs; 15. Failing to ensure that non-special education administrators - particularly building principals - are fully informed about and are following the required special education policies and procedures. http://www.fetaweb.com/02/mistakes.school.crabtree.htm

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.