Bring Back Some “Old School” Education

There is a common belief among the education community that education theory is evolving.  Ph.D.s and school administrators keep thinking up new ways to ‘improve’ our education system, for example ‘common core’ and ‘standardized testing’.  Problem with that theory is we are graduating more children from the K-12 system now who do not have the basic skill set to get a job, live on their own, or function in the post-secondary education environment.

I have a thought about that: we have abandoned some of the tried-and-true methods that worked in the 50s, 60s, and 70s for the sake of ‘experimenting’ with our children’s education.  My suggestion is to resurrect some of those ‘old school’ methodologies.  Here are some techniques that studies have proven to be effective:

1. Bring back music and the arts into our school systems as mandatory courses

Studies have repeatedly shown that music and art trigger portions of the brain that ‘core subjects’ do not and help the brain process other subjects better, for example math.

One study showed that listening to music reduces distraction when doing schoolwork.

“We seem to have two attention systems: a conscious one that enables us to direct our focus towards things we know we want to concentrate on and an unconscious one that shifts attention towards anything our senses pick up that might be significant. The unconscious one is simpler, more fundamental, and linked to emotional processing rather than higher reasoning. It also operates faster.”

“Music is a very useful tool in such situations. It provides non-invasive noise and pleasurable feelings, to effectively neutralise the unconscious attention system’s ability to distract us.”

Other studies have concluded the same, indicating that our ability to concentrate during studying is enhanced by music.

The same is true with art, but for different reasons.

“Almost as soon as motor skills are developed, children communicate through artistic expression. The arts challenge us with different points of view, compel us to empathize with “others,” and give us the opportunity to reflect on the human condition. Empirical evidence supports these claims: Among adults, arts participation is related to behaviors that contribute to the health of civil society, such as increased civic engagement, greater social tolerance, and reductions in other-regarding behavior. Yet, while we recognize art’s transformative impacts, its place in K-12 education has become increasingly tenuous.”

“We find that a substantial increase in arts educational experiences has remarkable impacts on students’ academic, social, and emotional outcomes.”

2.  Return vocational training to K-12 education

An article in Forbes magazine a few years ago observed:

“Throughout most of U.S. history, American high school students were routinely taught vocational and job-ready skills along with the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic.”

“[T]he focus shifted to preparing all students for college, and college prep is still the center of the U.S. high school curriculum.”

“Not everyone is good at math, biology, history and other traditional subjects that characterize college-level work. Not everyone is fascinated by Greek mythology, or enamored with Victorian literature, or enraptured by classical music. Some students are mechanical; others are artistic. Some focus best in a lecture hall or classroom; still others learn best by doing, and would thrive in the studio, workshop or shop floor.”

“The demise of vocational education at the high school level has bred a skills shortage in manufacturing today, and with it a wealth of career opportunities for both under-employed college grads and high school students looking for direct pathways to interesting, lucrative careers.”

The reality for most school-age children is that they will only be exposed to college-centered curriculum in public school and those who don’t have that interest will suffer.  It was exacerbated when President Obama “called for every American to pursue some form of education beyond high school ” during an address to a joint session of Congress in 2009.

However, it is well-established that not every kid should or can afford to go to college.  What is perhaps worse is that the drive for every child to go to college has resulted in student loan debt skyrocketing and nearly impossible to elminate due to a lack of jobs in those sectors.

“Now that the Department of Education has made this data available, it appears that, in fact, the average student loan borrower takes longer than ten years to repay his/her loans.”

“Because more than half of defaults [on student loans] occur outside the [time] window covered by current federal default statistics, overall default rates are much higher than previously thought.”

“These data suggest that whether a degree is completed, and what type of degree is completed, may be more important factors related to the increasing default rate than the amount students borrow.”

The data is pretty clear – jobs that graduates get can’t keep up with repayments of student loans.  This argues in favor of a trade education, where the student debt is likely to be much lower, but job security is much higher.

3.  Teach cursive handwriting

The benefits of learning cursive go way beyond the ability to sign checks.  Article after article touts this curriculum, but schools have abandoned it because it is the “computer age”.  That’s not an excuse.

A New York Times article from 2013 discussed how learning cursive stimulates the brain.

“Putting pen to paper stimulates the brain like nothing else, even in this age of e-mails, texts and tweets.”

“As a result, the physical act of writing in cursive leads to increased comprehension and participation.”

“Regardless of the age we are in or the technological resources at one’s disposal, success is measured by thought formation, and the speed and efficiency in which it is communicated. Because of this, students need a variety of technologies, including cursive handwriting, to succeed.”

William Klemm, Ph.D., Senior Professor of Neuroscience at Texas A&M University, offers numerous biological and psychological benefits of learning cursive.

Still another author provides 10 reasons to learn cursive, not least of which are:

  • Improved neural connections
  • Improved fine motor skills
  • Increased retention
  • Ease of learning – “Cursive is of particular value to children with learning challenges such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, and difficulties with attention.”

Conclusion

While this may not cure all of our education woes, it certainly is worth trying.  We are failing our kids right now.  Why not go back to methods that worked in the past instead of experimenting with the new?  It is my opinion if we accept the basic premises that (a) not every child is cut out for college; (b) that providing alternative skill set training expands the opportunities for our kids; and (c) returning to proven-successful teaching methodologies, such as inclusion of music and the arts and teaching cursive, will improve their academic progress and cognitive abilities, then we are likely to see a brighter future for our children.

 

The Appropriate Use of Assistive Technology for Students – Antonia Guccione, MA, MS [Guest Blog Post]

Discerning how, when, and why students should access Assistive Technology to support learning involves many levels of decision making.  It all starts with the IEP, the student’s present levels of performance, his educational needs, and the impact those needs have on learning. Thank goodness there is help! The Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative provides a series of tools for educators and parents. The WATI Assistive Technology Consideration Guide is a great place to start if you suspect that there are tools that are necessary to support a student’s learning.

For example, if a student has an issue with writing, it can seriously impact that student’s ability to function in the classroom and do grade level work. For our purposes, we will assume an upper elementary age male child and begin our assessment and decision making there.  He may not be able to express thoughts, opinions, or ideas on paper.  How will he form complete sentences and/or organized paragraphs?  How can Assistive Technology help him?

Discerning how, when, and why students should access Assistive Technology to support learning involves many levels of decision making.  It all starts with the IEP, the student’s present levels of performance, his educational needs, and the impact those needs have on learning. Thank goodness there is help! The Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative provides a series of tools for educators and parents. The WATI Assistive Technology Consideration Guide is a great place to start if you suspect that there are tools that are necessary to support a student’s learning.

http://www.wati.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/WATI-Assessment.pdf [PDF file]

THE WATI

Enter the WATI Assistive Technology Consideration Guide. First, the team must agree on the impact of this issue.  While many are possible, let’s assume that the major impact for this student is his ability to do grade level work in the classroom and express his thoughts on paper in an organized paragraph.  The question becomes whether there is currently assistive technology- either devices, tools, hardware, or software that might help address this need?

Referring to the Assistive Technology Continuum, there are Low Tech, Mid Tech, and High-Tech tools to consider. Have any been tried?  Is there data to support the trials?  Possible Low-Tech tools include specialized pens, raised paper, highlighters, post -its, and slanted surfaces. Mid Tech Tools include tape recorders, spell checkers and dictionaries.  High Tech tools include word prediction software, word banks, and word processors.

Finally, would the use of these assistive technology tools support the student in performing this skill more easily in the least restrictive environment? If the answer is yes, it is time to consult with the IEP team and document this need, its impact, and interventions that might be helpful.

https://adayinourshoes.co m/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WATI-Assessing-Students-Needs-for-Assistive-Technology.pdf [PDF file]

Based on lack of progress on IEP goals, the Committee on Special Education must consider a student’s need for assistive technology devices and/or services, as well as possible modifications and accommodations.  If a student needs such devices and/or services, the appropriate sections of the IEP must specify the:

  • nature of the assistive technology to be provided; 
  • services the student needs to use the assistive technology device; 
  • frequency, and duration of such services; 
  • location where the assistive technology devices and/or services will be provided; and 
  • whether such a device is required to be used in the student’s home or another setting in order for the student to receive a free appropriate public education.

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/iepguidance/present.htm

GOALS

Goals must be written accordingly, and I recommend using the concept of a SMART Goal.  A specific goal which is measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely has a greater chance of being accomplished than a general goal.

https://east.madison.k12.wi.us/files/east/Smart%20Goals%20Information%20CC%2011_0.pdf [PDF file]

Here is an example of an objective taken directly from an AT-Resource Guide for written communication which utilizes Assistive Technology:

Goal: Jon will use an electronic graphic organizer to write an opening topic, a closing, and three supporting detail sentences to construct a five-sentence paragraph, by the end of the first semester.

Objective: Given five sentences in an electronic graphic organizer, Jon will identify and arrange the opening topic, the closing, and three supporting detail sentences to create a paragraph, by the end of the first six weeks of school.

https://www.ocali.org/up_doc/AT_Resource_Guide_6.pdf [PDF file]

IN THE IEP

Another resource which offers support to parents in understanding what Assistive Technology is and how to get it into a student’s IEP is noted below:

https://adayinourshoes.com/assistive-technology/

Once the tools have been obtained, how does one manage the Assistive Technology?  Who trains the teachers and parents? Who trains the student?  But that is a whole other discussion!

Even if the present levels of performance indicate a student who can participate in a discussion, that doesn’t mean he can write about it. A basic understanding of texts and current events is not the issue. However, ask him to summarize that information in a paragraph and the sky falls down.  On the IEP, present levels of performance are recorded, and appropriate sources of data have been discussed and administered.  These have included both formal and informal assessments, with work samples, and data charts to show progress or lack of progress over time. Are there modifications and accommodations that have been incorporated? Have these interventions resulted in significant progress or is this student still having difficulty responding to a writing prompt.

FINAL NOTES

In conclusion, Assistive Technology provides many tools to support learning and can result in a positive outcome.  It is a timely process, but one worth pursuing. Better to know what works sooner rather than later.  Assess the student’s needs, document the impact on learning, and then choose the appropriate tool to support learning in the least restrictive environment.  Keep accurate data to demonstrate progress.

If you suspect your child could benefit from assistive technology, reach out to the professionals involved in his education.  In addition, access the sites documented in this article.  I’ve only presented one need, and that is for writing. I haven’t even touched on communication, mobility, motor aspects of writing, reading, learning and studying, math, recreation, or activities of daily living, vision, hearing, and language processing. Understand that the array of Assistive Technology Tools is vast.  Following a process to obtain these tools may be involved, but it can result in access to tools that can help this child for life. 


Antonia Guccione, MA; MS

Antonia is a consultant, educator, and author with over forty years’ experience working with students of all ages, strengths, and needs.

Why Schools Shouldn’t Reject Your Child’s Diagnosis

Recently, I have heard (far too many) stories from parents that the schools are taking away services from their child and/or denying providing services because the school does not believe the child’s diagnosis.  This is wrong and illegal on so many levels, but I will adress the three (3) most important reasons why schools should never deny or reject a child’s diagnosis. 1. Only licensed physicians (medical doctors, doctors of osteopathy, and/or nurse practitioners depending on your state law) may provide a diagnosis and most IEP team members from the school district are NOT licensed physicians (school psychologists are not licensed physicians). As an example, in New Jersey (and most states have similar laws to my knowledge) a person must have a license to “practice medicine or surgery”.  N.J.S.A. 45:9-6.  Diagnosis is practicing medicine.  N.J.S.A. 45:9-5.1. If one of the school staff suggests or takes the position that your child doesn’t have a diagnosis that has been confirmed by a physician, ask such person if he/she holds a physician’s license in your state. 2. Many diagnoses are “hidden” disorders or neurological problems, but should not be denied simply because you can’t “see” them. If a child has Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy or Muscular Dystrophy or is an amputee, the disability is likely obvious.  (I prefer not to automatically assume it is.)  However, many disorders like Autism, ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dyslexia, Cystic Fibrosis, Sensory or Auditory Processing Disorder, Krohn’s Disease, Depression, and others are what I call “hidden” disorders because they are often not obvious just observing a child.  This is another reason that only licensed physicians who understand what tests need to be performed in order to make the proper diagnosis should do so.  I’ve heard teachers and school administrators (people who should know better) say, “But [he/she] looks normal!”  What an awful comment about a child with a disability. Frankly, I can’t understand why school personnel even question this.  For example, I have diabetes – a neurological disease.  Looking at me, you would not know this.  I do long charity bicycle rides of 70+ miles.  Most people would say, “He seems fine.”  While that may be the outward appearance, does it mean that I don’t have diabetes or that the disease does not affect me? It is wrong to deny that. The huge problem with this is that when services are denied because the school does not observe the disorder, the child’s disorder may have devastating effects.  Children with Autism may have meltdowns; children with ADHD may be distracted in classes; children with Auditory Processing Disorder may become disoriented or frightened; children with Krohn’s Disease may become exhausted; etc.  Once this occurs, access to education is impeded.  This is exactly what IDEA, 504, ADA, and other laws are designed to prevent. 3. Schools may respond that they don’t witness how the disability impacts the education, but they also don’t see the aftermath when the child arrives home. While it is true that under IDEA and 504, there are two parts to the question: (a) does the child have a diagnosis that fits them within an eligibility category? and (b) does the child need special education and related services or accommodations because of the disability?  20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A); 29 U.S.C. 794. However, children have amazing capacity to overcome their disabilities.  In colloqual terms, they can “hold it together” during school hours, but then come home and “let it all out”.  Children know home is their “safe space” and if anxiety, frustration, fear, depression, anger, or similar emotions build up during the school day because the disability is not being recognized by the school, the parents must bear the brunt of those released emotions in the home. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education issued a guidance letter that states “IDEA and the regulations clearly establish that the determination about whether a child is a child with a disability is not limited to information about the child’s academic performance.”  USDOE Guidance, Letter to Clarke (2007).  That means behavior should also be considered – whether in school or in the home, because remember a parent is a critical member of the IEP team.  20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B)(i). Conclusion Schools should not reject a child’s diagnosis made by a licensed physician because (1) it is unlikely that an IEP team member is a physician; (2) just because they can’t “see” the disability doesn’t mean it’s not there; and (3) they need to consider all effects of the disability, including behaviors at home triggered by the failure to address the issues at school. If a school rescinds services to your child under an IEP or takes away the IEP because they don’t believe your child has a disability, contact a special education lawyer ASAP.  

Who is on the IEP Team?

Perhaps one of the most confusing parts of special education law for parents (and some schools) is who is on the IEP team.  There are both “mandatory” members of the IEP team as well as “permissive” members.  IDEA makes this very clear.

Mandatory Members of the IEP Team

There are five (5) mandatory members of the IEP team set forth in IDEA.  They are (in order as the statute lists them):

  1. The parent(s);
  2. At least one regular education teacher who interacts with the child in a general education setting;
  3. At least one special education teacher or provider who interacts with the child;
  4. A representative of the school district (“local educational agency”) who meets certain requirements (see below); and
  5. “an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results” (who may be also #2-4).

20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a).

Before moving on to the permissive members, let me clarify some things about the mandatory members.  The word “and” is underlined above, because that means ALL five are required.  If Congress meant that only 3 or 4 of those persons were necessary, they would have used the term “or”.  Remember Conjunction Junction from School Kids Rock?

The Parent(s)

At least one parent must be present at an IEP meeting. If there are two parents, both are not required to be there – one can act for both.  But, notice the parent(s) are listed first.

One of the key Procedural Safeguards is “an opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability . . . to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child.” 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1) . The parents of a child with a disability are mandatory members of the IEP Team. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(1) (emphasis added.)

Indeed, “the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child” is critical in developing the child’s IEP. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(1)(ii); see also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) (Parents play “a significant role” in the development of each child’s IEP.)

Parental participation in an IEP meeting is so vital, it is set forth twice in the IDEA regulations. 34 C.F.R. §§300.322(a), (c) and (d) ; 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1).

The LEA Representative

The representative of the school district can’t be just anyone.  Often the school will send a case manager or principal or other administration staff member as the representative, but such person might not meet the requirements of IDEA.

The LEA representative must be:

  • qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
  • knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and
  • knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency (school district).

20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B)(iv); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(4).

In other words, this person must have supervisory capabilities over special education curriculum and services, know the general education curriculum, and know the services available as well as placement options within the district.  If the person the school district sends to the IEP meeting is constantly having to check with someone else about whether the school district can provide such services, the wrong person is in the meeting.

The Evaluation Interpreter

While the fifth mandatory member is only stated as “an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results”, IDEA is no more specific and doesn’t define who this is.

Typically, this person is the school psychologist because that person’s role is to translate evaluation reports into special education and services to be provided to meet the needs of the child.  Most parents don’t know how to interpret evaluation reports.  Heck, even some highly skilled teachers don’t know how either.

Make sure someone is in the meeting who can put testing results into actions and services for your child.

Permissive Members of the IEP Team

IDEA allows other persons to be on the IEP Team.  Specifically,

  • “at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate”
  • “whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.”

These are “permissive” members because they are not required to be there and are only there if the other IEP team members think it is appropriate or necessary.

The first of these options has been interpreted to include “education advocates” for parents; social workers or therapists contracted by the school district; or, anyone else who might have valuable input into the formation of an IEP.  There is no restriction on the number of these individuals so long as they have the requisite knowledge about the child or services and it doesn’t bog down development of the IEP.

The second option is at the discretion of the parent(s).  Whether you bring your child to an IEP meeting is up to you and most agree that the child should only attend if (a) he/she is emotionally capable of hearing about areas where the boy or girl is struggling; and (b) he/she has valuable input to offer, such as when or where he/she is having difficulties (e.g. “I struggle in math class because of the classroom noise.”)

Is it a properly assembled IEP meeting?

The most important lesson of this article is for both parents and school districts to understand when an IEP meeting is properly constituted.  As stated above, all of the mandatory members must be present [especially the parent(s)].  Without all of the mandatory members present, the proposed IEP may either be improperly designed (because not all of the necessary input was received) or not implemented (because the district does not have the necessary resources) or both.  If there are no permissive members, the meeting can still go forward.

Parents have the motivation to make sure that an IEP meeting is properly assembled so their child receives a FAPE.  School districts have the motivation to ensure that the IEP cannot be challenged on these grounds.  All of this is intended to benefit the child with a disability.

So, if the law is followed on the IEP team, it is a win-win-win.

 

 

 

Relentless – A Michigan Man

I’m going to tell you something about myself, but first I’m going to tell you a story.  You’ll wonder for a paragraph or two where this is going, but stick with me.  You will learn why this post is on my special education law blog.

What is a “Michigan Man”?

There are many articles and blog posts and other sources that try to explain this undefinable quality.   In “What Does It Mean To Be a ‘Michigan Man’?”, author John U. Bacon (a frequent writer about things Michigan, including the football team), admitted that “ultimately, to define it, I have to resort to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s description of pornography: ‘I know it when I see it.’”

He’s right.  And you have to be a Michigan Man to understand why he’s right.  First, you need a deep association with the University of Michigan (no, not that silly green and white agriculture college in East Lansing, but the Maize and Blue Wolverines of Ann Arbor).  [Note: I hate when after telling people where I graduated, they say “Oh, yeh, Michigan State.” Grrrrr.]

Not this!

Second, you need a passion about doing good work.  That passion requires hard work, sound ethics, and a focus unmatched by competitors.  This quality could be no better demonstrated than in the Amazon Show “All or Nothing: The Michigan Wolverines”.  [Outstanding television if you haven’t seen it yet.]

You strive to be a champion in everything you do, but you are not arrogant or presumptuous in that effort.  Perhaps, most importantly, you must be RELENTLESS.  Opponents always want to take you down and if you let your guard down for a moment, they will defeat you.  [Much like Michigan’s loss to Division II Appalachian State in 2007.]

You must be relentless to be a Michigan Man.

What Has This Got To Do With My Law Practice?

I am a very proud 1984 graduate from the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts.  I received a Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major and a double minor.  I guess even in my undergraduate studies I was eager.

I don’t pretend to satisfy all of the qualities of a Michigan Man, but I will admit that is my goal.  That is where the practice of law, especially in the area of special education, comes into play.

I am relentless – in my search for justice; in representation of my clients; and in enforcing special education legal rights.

To my clients: Know that I will be relentless on behalf of you and your child with a disability.  If a school district is not meeting the requirements of the law, I will fight to change that so they come into compliance.

To my adversaries: Know that I will be relentless against your tactics.  I have been in litigation for nearly all of my 30 years of practice.  I have witnessed every strategy and method by opponents to try to get clients to back down.  [Some lawyers call this a “Scorched Earth” approach, because the lawyer will try anything – including burning everything – in order to get a favorable result.]  It won’t work with me.  I won’t give up.

Why?

Because I’m relentless.  Because I strive to be a Michigan Man.

 

 

Put Communications Between Teachers and Parents in the IEP

A new tactic being used by schools against parents of children with disabilities is to require / funnel all communications with the school through one person, usually the case manager.  We’ve seen numerous questions by parents if this is illegal or whether parents can request two-way communication be listed as an accommodation in the IEP.

Yes it is, yes it can and it should be.

But you won’t find the requirement in IDEA.  You’ll find it in ESSA.  Read on.

Not in IDEA

IDEA does not have a requirement or regulation that says that there should be ongoing communication between teachers and parents of children with disabilities.  Probably because Congress felt that such communication was basic common sense and they wouldn’t need to actually write it into a law.

What IS in IDEA is the following:

IDEA guarantees parents and their child with a disability numerous legal rights identified as “Procedural Safeguards”.  See 20 U.S.C. §1415; 34 C.F.R. §§300.500-520.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is not only the child with the disability that has legal rights under IDEA, but the parents are also entitled to assert legal rights on their own behalf under IDEA.  Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 127 S.Ct. 1994, 1996 (2007).

One of the key Procedural Safeguards is “an opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability . . . to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child.”  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1) (emphasis added.)  The parents of a child with a disability are mandatory members of the IEP Team.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(1).  Indeed, “the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child” is critical in developing the child’s IEP.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(1)(ii); see also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) (Parents play “a significant role” in the development of each child’s IEP.)

Parental participation in an IEP meeting is so vital, it is set forth twice in the IDEA regulations.  34 C.F.R. §§300.322(a), (c) and (d) (emphasis added); 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1).

But that is all concerning parental participation in the development of an IEP.  These provisions don’t discuss the daily, ongoing communication with the school.

Now, we look at ESSA . . .

ESSA

In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (2017) (“ESSA”).  This was an amendment of the prior No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”).

The ESSA guarantees parents of a child with a disability to participate “in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities” and “play an integral role in assisting their child’s learning.” To accomplish that goal, parents are “encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s education at school . . . [and carry] out of other activities, such as those described in section 1116.” 20 U.S.C. §7801(39) (emphasis added.)

The activities referenced in “section 1116” state that parents may engage in to participate in their child’s education include, inter alia, ongoing communications between teachers and parents and classroom observation. 20 U.S.C. §6318(d) (emphasis added.)

Put Two-Way Ongoing Communication in Your Child’s IEP

Thus, since Congress deemed this so important that they wrote it into law, it is important enough to make it part of your child’s IEP.  Show them the law quoted above.  (Maybe even print out this article and bring it to the IEP meeting.)  Tell them that you want this accommodation written into the IEP, especially if the school is trying to deny this right of access.

I’m quite sure that even teachers would welcome such ongoing dialogue.  The key is not to abuse this right – don’t contact the teachers several times every day.  Be reasonable as teachers have other students and their parents to meet this obligation.  But, if you do so reasonably, there is no legal basis for a school to block such regular and common sense communication.

It’s no longer just common sense – it’s now the law.

 

Bullying and the Gebser Letter

You probably know what bullying is. You may not know what a Gebser Letter is or what it does. Sit down, grab your cup of coffee and read on.

The Effects of Bullying

First things first. It is now widely accepted as fact that children with disabilities are more likely to be bullied than their neurotypical and able-bodied peers.  About 20% more likely, to be precise.  A study was performed by Chad Rose of the University of Missouri College of Education and Nicholas Gage of the University of Florida examining 6,500 students from K-12 during the years 2011-13.  Although the study did not include online bullying (which has now become more pervasive through social media), it found that students with disabilities were bullied more than other kids particularly in grades 3 through high school graduation.

More about the study can be found in this excellent article “Disabled children more likely to be bullied during school years, study says” by HealthDay News.  There is even more helpful information on the statistics on bullying and harassment of students with disabilities at the National Bullying Prevention Center’s website.

It is also now widely accepted that bullying negatively affects a student’s ability to learn.  It directly impacts that student’s education.  The U.S. Department of Education’s official blog published an article called “Keeping Students With Disabilities Safe from Bullying” that highlighted a 2013 Guidance Letter on bullying.  A year later, the USDOE’s Office of Civil Rights issued an even stronger Guidance on how schools should handle bullying.

What is a Gebser Letter?

In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in a case titled Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the opinion for a divided court.  The Court decided that under Title IX, you cannot sue a school district for damages for bullying or harassment unless you have notified a school official who has the ability to take corrective measures on the district’s behalf of the misconduct and the school district is “deliberately indifferent” to the notice.

Out of that case came the very simple concept of preparing a letter – a so-called Gebser Letter – to provide the proper notice to the school.  The only question was whether the school then acts with deliberate indifference to the conduct.

This case emphasizes our constant mantra in special education law – If it ain’t in writing, it never happened. Document everything!

We strongly urge you to consult with a lawyer on the proper format and language of a Gebser Letter and/or if your child has a disability and is the victim of bullying.  We have provided a form Gebser Letter in our packet of special education legal forms, which are FREE to download, but remember that these forms do not constitute legal advice and are not a replacement for consultation with a lawyer in your state.  But the letter could get the ball rolling for your child and you.

Free Special Ed Legal Forms on SchoolKidsLawyer.com.

You can also have a 30 minute consultation with us for $100 to discuss your child’s case.

 

Public Schools Have Made Your Child the Enemy and You, the Taxpayer, Are Funding Their Battle

You pay federal taxes.  You have schools in your town.  Those schools have special education programs.  If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably a parent of a child with special needs.

Well, guess what?  If you have a dispute with your school about your child’s IEP or otherwise not meeting your child’s special education needs, YOU are paying for the school to fight against you and your child.

Guess what else? Even if you don’t have a child with special needs or don’t even have a child in the school district, YOU are still paying to have the school fight against the child with a disability and his/her family.

Yes, you heard that right.  YOU are paying to fight against children with disabilities in your community – maybe your own child.

Let me explain this in greater detail and why the system should change.

Federal Funding For Schools

The federal law known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq. or “IDEA” protects students with disabilities and guarantees they receive an appopriate education from their local schools.  This is accomplished and enforced through a federal funding mechanism within IDEA.  If a state receives federal funding for its schools, it must provide special education and related services to children with disabilities in its public schools.  20 U.S.C. § 1412.

In other words, some of the federal taxes you pay goes to fund special education and related services for students with disabilities.  You probably don’t object to ensuring a wheelchair-bound child can access the school via ramps or a child with diabetes having access to the school nurse to administer insulin shots.  You also likely don’t object to a chid with a learning disability receiving extra help in the classroom so they can achieve with their non-disabled peers.

YOU don’t object . . . but the schools are.

Where Does the Funding Go?

Those federal funds for special education – your tax dollars – are supposed to be used to assess if children have disabilities and evaluate their needs, prepare Individualized Education Programs or “IEPs” with special education adn related services to meet those needs, and decide the best location to provide those services for the child.  20 U.S.C. §1414.  Just as non-disabled children can get their education at their local public school for free, the goal of IDEA is to provide the same for children with disabilities, called a Free Appropriate Public Education or “FAPE”.  20 U.S.C. §1401(9).

Still sounds pretty reasonable, right?

How Does A School Make Sure It Provides a FAPE?

Schools are supposed to ensure a child with a disability provides a FAPE via two main mechanisms: (1) assembling an IEP team; and (2) ensuring that the rights of the child are protected and the parents are active participants in enforcement of those rights.  Tax dollars pay for schools to assemble an IEP team, which consists of the child’s parents (and the child if appropriate) and several key school personnel, to discuss how best to provide FAPE for the child with a disability.  20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1).  States and schools must also put procedures in place to secure the legal rights of the child with a disability and his/her parents.  20 U.S.C. §1415.

This is where the system usually breaks down.  Because the parents and the school staff don’t alawys agree on how the IEP is developed or what services are provided to the child with a disability.  Thereby, a dispute arises.

How IDEA Addresses Special Education Disputes – The Problem

IDEA provides mechanisms to address these special education disputes between parents and schools.  If a school wants to do something with which the parents don’t agree or if the school doesn’t want to do something the parents have suggested, the school can issue a Prior Written Notice or “PWN”.  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(3) and (c)(1).  Parents can review their child’s education records kept by the school as a check on whether the school is providing a FAPE.  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1).

There are other “Procedural Safeguards” in IDEA, but none that causes as many problem as a party’s right to file a complaint challenging the “identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child” a/k/a a “Due Process Complaint.”  20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(6) and (f).

Why is this a problem?  Well, anytime lawyers get involved, there’s a problem, right? [He says half-jokingly, half-seriously.]  Each party to a Due Process case has “the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel.”  20 U.S.C. §1415(h)(1).

Still not a bad thing until you realize who is paying the school district’s lawyer’s bill.  The answer is . . . you probably guessed it . . . YOU ARE!

Paying For The School District’s Lawyer

That’s correct.  Whether attorney’s fees are paid directly by the school district’s Board of Education or through insurance (which is purchased using school budget money), the source of the money paid to the lawyers fight against your child with a disability is tax dollars.  YOUR tax dollars.

Schools are misdirecting funds intended to provide education to children with disabilities by spending it on legal bills or insurance to fight special education cases.

So what does that mean?  It means YOU, the taxpayer, are paying for the attorney sitting across the table from you and representing the school district.  The harder the school district lawyer fights, the more YOU are paying him/her.  The school district never has the incentive to resolve the dispute because they’re not truly paying the bill.

Now, I don’t know if you have ever been in a lawsuit before, but if you have, you know what a financial burden it is to pay a lawyer.  You have the incentive to get it over as quickly as possible because, in all likelihood, you are not Bank of America (or Citibank or Goldman Sachs or some other big bank).  But if you didn’t have to pay for your lawyer, you’d fight to the ends of the Earth, right?  That’s how the school district views it.

Not What IDEA Was Designed To Do

IDEA was not set up to favor the school districts.  In fact, IDEA was designed by Congress to “level the playing field” so that parents had a stronger role in the education of their child with a disability.  Specifically, Congress stated: “The purposes of [IDEA] are to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected; and to assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities” among other goals.  20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1).

IDEA was meant to improve collaboration and cooperation between schools and parents to help children with disabilities receive better education.  Certainly, Congress did not intend for states and schools to use federal funds to wage bitter lawsuit wars against parents and their children with disabilities.

But that is what it has become.  Ask any of my colleagues at COPAA.

So What Can You Do About It? – TAKE ACTION!

If you are like me and fed up with this system of injustice and abuse of taxpayer money, you can take action.  What school districts and their attorneys don’t want you to know is that because the source of funds paying the lawyer fees is public tax money, they MUST disclose such payments to the public who are paying those taxes.

In other words, if you live in a school district that is waging a special education war against a child with a disability, you have the RIGHT to know how much the school is paying its lawyers.

How do you find this out?  You make a Freedom of Information Act or “FOIA” request (or your state’s version of FOIA; for example, in New Jersey it is called the Open Public Records Act or OPRA).

Each state has a website for FOIA requests (I’ve listed a few below as examples) and usually a form to fill out.  On the form ask to see “All fees and costs paid to lawyers by XYZ Schooll District for special education disputes or legal disputes under IDEA for the last 5 years” or something similar.  Prepare for a fight, but you have the lawful right to that information as long as you live in XYZ School District.

New Jersey OPRA Records Request Website and Form

Florida Public Records Act Website and Forms

Texas Open Records Requests Website and Forms

Pennsylvania Open Records Request Website and Forms

For those not listed here, Google “[Your state] FOIA request” and look for an official state website URL.

Go get ’em!

Websites for Parents of Twice Exceptional (2e) Kids

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Audio Recording IEP Meetings – Is It Allowed?

Having an audio recording of what happens in an IEP meeting is powerful evidence, especially when school districts deny what was said or fail to put a service in writing into the IEP.   For example, an audio recording can prove or disprove what was actually discussed during the meeting, whether the parents were given proper opportunity to participate, and what decisions or objections were made.   For those reasons, parents often wonder if they are permitted to record an IEP meeting.

So, can you do it?

Federal Law

There is no federal law prohibiting a parent or school official from recording IEP meetings.  IDEA and the other special education laws are silent on that specific issue.

However, IDEA does say a few things that are relevant to the discussion:

  • Parents are critical members of the IEP team
  • Parental participation in IEP meetings is vital and if a school blocks such participation, it is a denial of FAPE
  • Parents have the legal right to understand the IEP and, if necessary, have it explained to them

Audio recording an IEP Meeting, when the IEP Team is aware and consents to it, is not a violation of federal privacy law.

So that means you can do it, right? Not so fast.

The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has issued a letter opinion and Policy Memorandum on this subject in June 4, 2003 (PDF file).  The bottom line of the analysis is that it is a local policy issue and depends on several factors.

When a federal law is silent on an issue, the individual states can decide or legislate on the issue.

State Privacy Laws

The next hurdle to overcome is what state law says on privacy and audio recordings.  Each state has its own laws regarding the consent required to audio record events, even if they are ‘public’ events.

Some states are known as ‘dual consent’, which means both parties must know about and agree to the recording.  Some states are ‘single consent’ which means that only one of the interested parties (usually the parent who wishes to record the IEP meeting) has to agree to it.

While not exhaustive of every state’s law, the Digital Media Law Project collected links to some state’s laws on this issue.  This site is not being kept up to date, so make sure you check your own state’s law on recording or consult with a local attorney.

School District Policies

It is therefore left to the State Educational Agency (SEA) or Local Educational Agency (LEA) to determine the policy on audio recording these sessions.

The SEA or LEA (local school district) may issue a policy requiring, prohibiting, limiting or in any other way regulating audio recording of IEP Meetings.  If the public agency has a policy that prohibits or limits the use of recording devices at IEP meetings, the policy must have exceptions necessary to protect parental rights, such as the ability to understand the IEP or the IEP process. Any such policy on tape recording IEP meetings must be uniformly applied.

Protecting Access to Recordings

Any recording of an IEP meeting maintained by a public agency is an “education record,” within the meaning of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)[1] and would be obtainable by the parents through a written request.  It would also be subject to the protections of FERPA prohibiting its release to anyone not authorized under that law.

So what do you do?

Parents wishing to use audio or video recording devices at IEP meetings should consult state laws or local school policies for further guidance or consult with a local education attorney.

——————–

[1] 20 USC §§1232g and 1232h; Regulations 34 CFR §99.1 et seq.