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.

Voucher Fraud - Imagine that

Click here: Printer Friendly Version
Sister's Found Guilty in Fraud Case : Abuse of the McKay Scholarship.

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.

$56 Million is a lot of money

Click here: Rocky Mountain News - Denver and Colorado's reliable source for breaking news, sports and entertainment: Education


While the state is complaining that some Districts are charging for "in between class time", the state owes this bill:


"For example, Jefferson County is owed $56 million of state and federal money for services to handicapped students ".

No wonder administrators dodge parents who advocate for what the law says.

FLORIDA SCHOOL BOSS COLLABORATES CONCIERGE

Your humble Concierge has been looking for a slimmer brush (trying to get rid of the broad brush). I realize that this is another isolated incident (not sure what the magic number is to get rid of the word ‘isolated’). This post on a blog certainly supports my side commentary on “Legal Defense Fund”. (please reread again)

This “Florida School Boss” presents 3 lessons that are a must read for school administrators.

His last three paragraphs should also have red flares attached with extra cowbell and brought to the attention of school boards across the nation. If one reads for comprehension, it speaks directly to the differing motives of “the school board attorney” and the “district’s liability insurer’s attorney”.

May 10
Pass the Trash and Pay the Piper
This case sounds all too familiar to Florida School Bosses. Huge settlements handed out... because the district hasn't got a real good case (the teacher admits too much and the teacher aides will testify to long-term abuse of students)... and the legislature will seemingly approve any jury award or settlement even though they must approve any award over $100k.
One lesson here is obvious... don't pass the trash.
Another is a little harder... make sure teacher aides know they have a duty to report wrongdoing... and make it easy for them to do so. Then listen to them.
The final lesson is more subtle. When a teacher has been accused of abusing severely disabled students, but there isn't enough evidence to dismiss or convict, don't leave them in charge of defenseless profoundly disabled, autistic kids.
Make them teach high school kids with normal IQ's and communication abilities... so they can report the strange behaviors of the teacher.
Did I mention that over 1.5 million in cash has left the district coffers and they aren't done yet. It's important to know that insurance may cover these settlements, but the higher rates will definitely impact the district's discretionary budget.
The school board attorney is a veteran and would not recommend a settlement unless it was the best he thought could be done.
Or the district's liability insurer's attorney insisted on the settlement... you knew they could do that, right?

http://floridaschoolboss.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=cat%3dSupervising%2bStaff

Note to my accountant:Urgent -Premium Check Disbursement for this Umbrella Policy

NASET News Alert
Wall Street Journal Raises Questions About Conspiracy and Corruption in NYS with Children with Disabilities July 26, 2007
The Wall Street Journal reported this week on what appears to be widespread corruption at the New York State Education Department. This corruption targets children with disabilities. Dan Golden, the journalist making this report, cited sources inside the Office of State Review confirming that the State Review Officer, Paul Kelly, was ruling contrary to recommendations of his attorney staff in order to find in favor of school districts at the expense of children with disabilities. The article suggests that his relationship with Kate Surgalla, Kelly's paramour and a high ranking attorney with the Office of Counsel of the State Education Department, may be influencing his decisions. Kelly and Surgalla refused comment, according to Golden. The State Review Officer is required by law to be independent of the State Education Department and render impartial decisions on the special education cases that come before him.
"Golden has confirmed many of the facts that my office has been investigating over the last year in preparation for legal action against Mr. Kelly and the others involved in what I believe to be a conspiracy," Cuddy stated. Sources inside Kelly's office have been reporting to parents' attorneys across the State that the office has been compromised, and any voice of opposition to these shenanigans within Kelly's office is quickly stifled. Kelly's office has been determined to have turnover rate four times higher than other State Education Department offices, as individuals are pressured to leave when they speak out against Kelly's agenda. "Multiple attorneys in that office reported that they left because they felt that participating in Kelly's agenda would cause them to lose their licenses to practice law, and sources inside the office confirm that the agenda is ongoing despite expressed opposition within the office from Kelly's staff," Cuddy said.
Because of today's Wall Street Journal report, Cuddy has requested that New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo commence an immediate, full-scale investigation in order to determine whether there has been a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of New York State's disabled children and their parents. "We can't allow evidence in Albany to be destroyed in shredders or wiped from computers. We cannot allow witnesses to these events to be coerced or intimidated into withholding information from investigatory authorities. My office is offering assistance to any current or former employee of the State Education Department who feels that they are being threatened or intimidated into participating in a cover-up. I am also concerned that the people of good conscience that participated in exposing this situation will be retaliated against. Steps must be taken to protect them as these issues move forward." Cuddy also bought this matter to the attention of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Education.
On July 20th, parents' lawyers from across the State met in New York City to discuss possible legal avenues to address the situation at the Office of State Review. As a result of Golden's article, these attorneys will meet again at 3:00 p.m. on the 25th to coordinate efforts in a legal action against the State Education Department and the individuals responsible. Cuddy concluded his letter to Cuomo, "As long as this situation is allowed to exist, no parent of a disabled child is being afforded due process in New York. The safety and the futures of disabled children are being put at risk. I urge your office to take immediate action to hold individuals accountable."
From naset:
http://www.naset.org/807.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2380&tx_ttnews[backPid]=533&cHash=4517126cbc

The Common Area for the Common Good- No Pillows Allowed

I don't make it up. I wonder if this tags along with the Wilted Tomatoes and Rotten Lettuce.

"Since children with exceptionalities have the same rights to education as other children, the educational needs of children with exceptionalities cannot be delayed until the needs and service demands of the majority of children have been satisfied. Educational resources are always likely to be finite. The application of the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" to determine which children's needs shall be met first directly contradicts our democratic society's declared commitment to equal educational opportunity for all children. History confirms that the social injustices and ill effects that flow from the application of the majority-first principle to educational budgeting are too serious for this principle to be used in educational financing.

Children with exceptionalities constitute a minority of the school population. The programs serving them represent a comparatively high financial investment in relation to the numbers of children served. In some school systems, money allocated to special education is regarded as an alternative to the improvement of regular school programs. The climate of competitive interests thus produced can jeopardize the stability of special education services."
http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Other_Policy_Resources&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2306