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.

"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

The Training of Coded Language - Another Brush,Another Incident, but keeping out of legal jeopardy

I spoke of the coded language that is taught in IDEA training meetings. I have spoken about obfuscation of the law by those who should know. The following is straight from a publication that is developed by the District for the District.


http://www1.sdhc.k12.fl.us/~ese.dept/communicators/ESEComm1104.pdf

From : THE EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNICATOR November-December, 2004 Vol. 4 No. 4


WHAT NOT TO SAY AT IEP MEETINGS !
When parents make requests at IEP meetings there are some things that you shouldn't say in
response; using these phrases could place the district in legal jeopardy if the parent files for
due process later on:
 We can’t do… - We don’t believe…
 No student gets more than…  It would cost too much to…
 It would take too much...  We don’t do…
 We never do…  We only do…
Instead, show that you’re listening by asking:
Where did you hear about that ?
 Which IEP goals do you see that addressing ?
 Do you have data on that ? Can you get us information?
 Have we described what we’re doing in the program we’re using ?

This speaks volumes to one who understands the game. I don't care who wrote it. But it is pretty clear that the focus is on protecting the system -gate keeping if you will.
It also clearly says to "show you are listening by asking...." as to "show you are listening by answering the question or addressing the issue".

If one honestly looks at these feigned "listening strategies" it is no wonder that the special education realm is frustrating for all. I continually hear about teacher retention and the teacher shortage in special ed. Dealing with students and parents is a hell of task. But dealing with a system that "shows you are listening" does not work.

ALL ROOMS ARE THE SAME (ask at desk if luxury suites are available )

Yesterday, I vented. Over the years, I have been told many things from others as they express their thoughts about me as a father in relationship to one of my children. Most of these comments are positive, a few of them negative. I don't hear those same expressions about my relationship with my other children. My belief is that the absence of these expressions about my 'normal' kids is how society accepts the status-quo of kids growing up and becoming adults and that there is a wide range of expected and accepted paths that they can go.

The positive comments come mostly from people who have known me a while. I know the positive comments and the commenter are meant to express appreciation for the circumstances. The negative comments have been few and from "professionals".

After my rant yesterday, I spent some time thinking about what is in me that I choose to have such feelings. Maybe it has something to do with the path that my son must go and the fact that this path does not fit in the "wide range of expected and accepted paths" for the majority of people.

One of the positive comments that I have heard numerous times is that "God chose you to take care of his little angel". I will never forget the day a very well meaning person said that to me and I had the insolence to reject it. That was over fifteen years ago. Not sure if I knew the above Eagles' song then or not.

One of the negative comments that sticks out in this context is when a reporter asked me how I "felt about the perception of many that parents in your situation think the world owes them". I will never forget my reaction. What I said was something to the effect that if she and I had not been introduced in the manner that we were, I would tell her to get the hell out of my house right now. I gave deference to her position - the insinuation and implications of the word "many" to this day haunts me. That conversation happened around 11 years ago.

I have spoken about compulsory school attendance and school choice here and on other blogs. I have previously posted the contents of the "Wilted lettuce, Rotten tomatoes" missive and the implications of same. I spoke of the lack of control I have in choosing my children's strength and weaknesses in my profile.

I am coming to this. My son and I are fine with our path. It is when we are forced in to situations that are not good and then told we have to accept it because we are who we are just does not fit well.

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.

Wow - Compare This With Side Commentary on Legal Defense Fund

"Why So Few"

"Litigating against a school district costs time and money that many parents don’t have, and school districts are increasingly willing to spend. Determined public schools can outspend and outlast almost any family. In California, school officials “fought so hard to block the claims of a student that Judge Oliver W. Wanger of United States District Court took 83 pages to berate the district’s ‘hard-line position’ and its law firm for ‘willfully and vexatiously’ dragging out the case so long that the former student is now 24.” Litigated cases are extremely rare; media reports of a tidal wave of special education lawsuits are contradicted by an examination of the data. In California, only 0.6 percent of students with a disability file a formal complaint over their educational services. Far fewer ever reach the courts.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/6018321.html