http://www.doverpost.com/news/education/x1664786353/Parents-praise-bill-to-raise-standard-for-services-to-disabled-students
My comments in RED.
Though none spoke at the hearing, the bill is not without opponents.As the gatekeepers of education, we perpetuate the disparities between special education and general education students. Culturally, we have relegated special needs children and adults to a caste system. While the mass integration of the institutionalized may have marked a bright spot in Geraldo's Rivera's career, it did not, however, end the discrimination. It simply thrust the adults into homelessness and children into schools ill equipped to educate them. After thirty years, many in education continue to fail these children in much the same way school districts are failing children living in the City of Wilmington. The reality is not all that different and frequently overlaps when the child is both urban and disabled.
Susan Francis, executive director of the Delaware School Boards Association, said her membership has expressed concerns over the financial impact of the higher standard, particularly related to possible legal proceedings parents of disabled children may initiate with school districts if they feel their children’s educational needs aren’t being met.
DSBA is wrong, their logic faulty. They have not decreed opposition to the "financial impact" that will surely accompany the move to adopt National Standards, including but not limited to replacing curriculum materials in all of our school districts. What their opposition to HB 328 does signify is that they are unwilling to provide a similar capital outlay for special education students. What I am left to summise is that disabled children are not worthy of the same "higher standards" as their typical peers.
By the way, Due Process procedings already exist. And the very simple Truth is: If we did it right the first time and valued the disabled as we value those without disabilities, then we wouldn't need due process, would we?
These so-called “due process” proceedings allow parents to challenge school district policies with respect to their children."So-called" is right. Families in need of representation are hard pressed to find it in Delaware. As a result of a limited availability of ed law attorneys in Delaware the number of due process procedings have been artifically suppressed. Families are limited to one or two who serve (and advocate) for children across the state. The bulk of ed lawyers are on retainer with school districts and DOE.
Again, if we were true to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the intent of an IEP, Individual Education Plan, we'd have many fewer families seeking legal recourse for the failure of school districts to provide the most basic of services.
Francis said school boards are concerned that the language of HB 328 would lead to more due process grievances being filed by parents and cost the district money for attorneys’ fees.
As a new board member in CSD, I have repeatedly expressed my own wish that this district undertake an audit of our own IEP students for FAPE, Free and Appropriate Public Education as defined in IDEA. In the very least, it's a show of good faith on our part. This year was particularly timely as Christina undertook the first phase of needs-based funding -- evaluating students for funding level based on services provided in their IEP and not upon the existing catagorical system utilized by DeDOE that USDOE has found to lack in compliance with IDEA. My requests by my district were ignored.
I'd love to see/hear the context for this statement; however, despite being a DSBA member, this is the first I've heard of the organization's opposition to this bill.
“Certainly we are supporting an appropriate and strong education for all children, we approve of that concept,” she said. “We oppose parts of the bill as written."
Sponsor Johnson said he thinks districts won’t have to worry about legal action if they do what’s best for disabled students.Exactly! And a new law would certainly give administrations across the state a reason to review IEPs for something more than a "serviceable chevy" model of education.
Damn Right! Technically speaking, according to IDEA, if a child's need warrants the moon, the school district is required to provide it regardless of whether it's a service they offer. But, it's highly unlikely for administrators to suggest a service that they cannot offer as it would force them send funding out of the district. So parents either embark on a journey that will take them through administrative complaints and due process procedings that can take years, all the while their child fails to thrive (and/or learn) and vital time is wasted; of the parent simply looks at the cost, the lack of available attorneys, the overwhelming frustration associated with knowing the most Due Process cases are found in the district's favor because it's currently legal to apply artificially low standards to special education students, and they give up.
“People might say, ‘We’re afraid of what parents may ask for,’” he said. “I think parents should ask for the moon.”
Email Doug Denison at doug.denison@doverpost.com.
2 comments:
It's horrible what the districts are allowed to get away with. I hope this bill is passed, I would love to see the districts do right by our children.
I would love to see Ms Francis deal with some of the issues that parents of special needs kids put up with and see how quickly she changes her mind.
Dear Elizabeth,
While your comments are disheartening as to your perception of DSBA's position on this bill, perhaps some background information will guide you.
DSBA always, everywhere, and at all times will represent a free and appropriate education for all children in Delaware. Having been one who sat on that very legislative committee, and directed Susan Francis to voice our dissent and concern in regards to this bill as proposed, I feel uniquely positioned to illustrate the difficult position this places education in this state.
Because of the nebulus term "potential" as attached to a special needs student--we have no choice but to ask for a cleaner, more finite threshold of deciding (and really mandating) requested services. No one will argue the need for accommodation, personnel, assistive devices etc., to enhance a learning environment for any special needs child. However, placing school districts on the hook for "potential", becomes limitless and ill-defined as to intent. With that being said, a child in a gen-ed setting also has potential, yet we often fall short of meeting or maximizing that uncharted territory also. Elizabeth, the fidelity is to be "free and appropriate education" for ALL children of Delaware. The "special needs" tag was not to entitle funding/access to uncover, discover or hope that potential is actualized. Our goal is progress. If progress delivers potential--it's a great day. However, for most parents, thankfully---hope springs eternal, and their child always has more potential than what" the darn school district did for them". It's human or parenting nature.
I would ask you reread HB328. We did as a legislative group. Deciding, if we left out the word "handicapped" (we had draft copy--yours may say special needs), and it just read "person"--we could no way support this type of nebulus mandate, full well knowing EVERY CHILD in Delaware has potential--and every parent has ideas of what their child really responds to---but do we employ it? No--it's a free and APPROPRIATE education--not an "all call" to fund potential thru a parents' eyes. Agreement was reached w/ this line of reasoning at that legislative meeting by all districts present. There was one abstention. We asked for some wordsmithing--Rep. Q. Johnson was present. The bill ran anyway, and Sue Francis brought concerns forth. Unfortunately, the emotion of this legislation overrode the scrutiny.
No one is against special needs children, nor their needs. We are against "potential" being used as an indicator for services--and used against districts, who cannot educate ALL children to that same standard. Free and appropriate already includes special needs students--why does "potential" and HB 328 exclude gen ed?
Just some thoughts to you on the thinking of DSBA Legislative on this one--we went beyond emotion, because we are gatekeepers of education.
Respectfully,
Joanne Christian
Post a Comment
Word Verification May Be Case Sensitive