Professional Ugly Duckling Identifiers

We all know the story. A little animal faces adversity from it's peers. The little animal is shunned, mocked and ridiculed. Then one day, the little animal figures out that it can identify with others and suddenly the adversity disappears. At least in the story.


Thanks to the Gradebook, we have the link to this story: Teacher lets Morningside students vote out classmate, 5


... "After each classmate was allowed to say what they didn't like about Barton's 5-year-old son, Alex, his Morningside Elementary teacher Wendy Portillo said they were going to take a vote, Barton said.

By a 14 to 2 margin, the students voted Alex — who is in the process of being diagnosed with autism — out of the class."

...."Steele said the teacher confirmed the incident took place"


....."Barton said her son is in the process of being diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a type of high-functioning autism. Alex began the testing process in February at the suggestion of Morningside Principal Marcia Cully."

....."Children diagnosed with Asperger's often exhibit social isolation and eccentric behavior."

...."Melissa Barton filed a complaint with Morningside's school resource officer, who investigated the matter, Port St. Lucie Department spokeswoman Michelle Steele said. But the state attorney's office concluded the matter did not meet the criteria for emotional child abuse, so no criminal charges will be filed, Steele said."

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

I guess Alex Barton is what some school administrators refer to as the one's who ruin the "public school salad":


.....It is to be hoped that Principal Annette Grasty of Lakewood Elementary School in Sunnyvale, California is wilting with remorse for this thoroughly rotten analogy. Surely she did not intend to be insulting or hurtful.Her comments came about in reference to the penalty that schools face under the No Child Left Behind Act if they fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in standardized testing conducted each spring. If even one subgroup of students (such as special education) does not meet the AYP goal, the entire school is labeled low-performing. Like many educators, Principal Grasty believes it is unfair to flunk an entire school for the low performance of a single subgroup.As reported in the San Jose Mercury News [Download wilted and rotten.doc] , she thinks education should follow a business model: "If I were running a business, I'd try to control the product coming in," she said. For instance, she said, a chef wouldn't prepare a gourmet salad with wilted lettuce or rotten tomatoes. In a public school, she said, "I can't control who walks in that door. I take kids with learning disabilities, I take everyone. They come in at different levels and with different ways of learning."

....


Once again the arrogance and ignorance of a professional educator leads by example. Spare me the "isolated incident" rationalization... this is 2008 and I have heard that excuse since 1990.

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.

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.

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?

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