The Echo

It's been one week since we presented letters to each of our children's schools asserting our parental directive to Opt Out of Delaware's High Stakes Testing Program, DCAS, and any additions or replacements that may come down the pipeline.

Our daughter's charter school went to work immediately and provided a response the first business day following receipt of our letter.

Our son's school principal in the largest school district in the state replied with an acknowledgement and plans to discuss later in the week.  However, we are still waiting for a official response from our district. We are looking forward to discussing our decision and our intentions.

I have stated this before, but I am compelled to restate it - Our attempts are not adversarial in nature.  Our hope is to work in conjunction with the leadership in each LEA to pave the path for our state to acknowledge the fundemental right of the parent to Opt Out as has occurred in Pennsylvania and California. In these states, parents opt their children out of testing without adverse consequences that punish either the child, the family, or the school, even if the schools dip below 95% participation.

From:  http://unitedoptout.com/a-how-to-on-opting-out-in-pennsylvania-2/

It’s true. Directly from the PA Code, “If upon inspection of State assessments parents or guardians find the assessment in conflict with their religious belief and wish their students to be excused from the assessment, the right of the parents or guardians will not be denied upon written request to the applicable school district superintendent, charter school chief executive officer or AVTS director.”

Specifically, you must make an appointment with the school to review the PSSA test, sign a confidentiality agreement, review the tests, and write a letter that simply states that participation in PSSAs violates your religious principles. If you’re not sure how PSSAs violate religious principals please be aware that after 10 years of PSSAs childhood anxiety disorders have dramatically risen. Children have been denied a fully comprehensive education. Our children are being used to provide data that will label the child, teacher, school, and community a failure. This data is being sold to Washington think tanks and other data management organizations. Tax money (our money) has been diverted to testing and data management companies instead of schools and children. What religion supports such a system?

 From:  http://unitedoptout.com/state-by-state-opt-out/california/

CA Ed Code 60615. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a parent’s or guardian’s written request to school officials to excuse his or her child from any or all parts of the assessments administered pursuant to this chapter shall be granted.

Even New York, a state similar to Delaware in that there is no designated method to opt-out in the state's laws/regs/codes, the NYC DOE has issued a FAQ that explains what happens if a school fails to attain AYP b/c test participation falls below 95% and it isn't designed to be punitive in nature:

All intervention decisions are based on intensive review of many factors; no intervention would ever be made solely on the basis of the State test participation rate. (The FAQ is published below.)

Of course you're wondering why we haven't posted the response for our older child's school.  We've chosen to withhold that one until we receive the second for the purpose of comparing how these two different LEAs in our state respond to the same request.

Comments in Color are Mine:


From: Longhurst Valerie (LegHall)

To:
Sent: Tue, Jun 28, 2011 11:51 am
Subject: RE: Pencader Charter

XXXXX,

Thank you for your email and expressing your concern. I’ve been involved with the Pencader Charter School since the inception. Sen. Longhurst, how frequently do you visit Pencader? Over the years I have received many complaints and followed up on many issues surrounding the school. Have you heard of the many wonderful things that are occuring at Pencader?  How often have you commended the educators at Pencader for going above and beyond, driving educational outcomes for students who were destined, within the traditional public school, to acheive only mediocrity?  Have you looked at Pencader's student body and acknowledged the significant number of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder who are thriving in the small school environment and whose educational future may be damned when they are tossed back into schools that cannot need meet their idividual needs in the way that Pencader has? PENCADER is able to do so because they ARE a Charter School! I feel for the students especially the ones who will be graduating this year. This is a very unfortunate situation that everyone in Legislative Hall has been discussing. We passed a key piece of legislation last week that would protect students from the failures of Charter Schools by moving the date of closure to enable students to find alternative schooling. I know it is too late for the Pencader students but hopefully we can correct this type of situation in the future. "Too Late"?  It's never too late!  This is one of those times when Delawareans need their elected representation to demand that departments of the state are held accountable.  The NACSA report clearly identifies the DOE/CSO's failure regarding charter schools.  The failures at DOE certainly began before this administration, but YOU, Rep. Longhurst, are one of the few who yield the power to demand improvement.  Punishing Pencader's students for the failure of adults is unacceptable.  You MUST demand more of our State's Leaders.  You MUST stand for the children of this state because they are the ones without a collective voice.  They are the whispers.  In your capacity, you and your fellow legislators must ROAR.  You should be angry, not apologetic.  You should be enraged, not complacent.  YOU must act to protect these students and provide Pencader an opportunity to prove their merit.  YOU MUST ACT TO SUPPORT OUR CHILDREN!

As for Pencader, I just started receiving emails in the last two weeks. I’ve discussed the matter with the Governor and Sec. Lowery. This is a very unfortunate situation but Pencader must come up with the financing before and show it still maintains financial support. Pencader has secured the needed funding, contingent upon written assurance that Pencader will be a school in the 2011-2012 school year.  Yet, the state refuses to assure Pencader that its funding will flow.  They have shuttered the Pencader Accounts knowing full well that a loan is contingent upon them!  This behavior is hostile towards childrens, vendors, parents, and community.  This is an issue that I can not help with. You absolutely can help by demanding that the Pencader accounts be re-activated, and ensuring that the DOE reinforces its committment to students by flowing funds to Pencader on July 1.  It's premature, unfair, undemocratic, and unacceptable to freeze the accounts for this school when the decision regarding its future has yet to be made!  Stand Up for Pencader!  Stand Up for Delaware!  Stand Up for your constituents!  They will remember the bullies on election day, even if you do not remember them! I’ve voiced my concern to Sec. Lowery and as had the other Legislators. I will continue to keep the conversation going but can not make any promises. I hope that you can understand that I was asked to get involved too late in the process. Again, please know that I am concerned for the students and this isn’t a matter I take lightly.  Never too late.  Pencader self-reported to the Charter Office their financial difficulties months ago.  The board enacted corrective action immediately.  They moved on this before DOE did.  DOE did not find the financial problems.  DOE has been negligent in monitoring charter schools.  It has been DOE's refusal to share responsibility for the problems at hand that has led to your constituents to need YOU to intervene NOW!

Please stay in touch as I will also.

Letter from Dori Connor to her constituent regarding Pencader Charter High School:

XXXXX,

Many of us have made inquiry into your situation and are awaiting answers from the Dept of Education and do not know of any action that is taking place to change the course. I applaud your open meeting on the 21st and am hopeful for a successful event.

I am not able to attend your gathering due to my responsibilities and required attendance for Legislative Session in Dover on the day. At this time of year our agendas tend to be quite lengthy and no one can predict the length of debate on each proposal, that is why I am not at liberty to commit my attendance at any function on session days. These next two weeks are our final days with a close-out date of the 30th. Our days are very long and go into the evening and in the last week we have a history of even going in the next morning.

In closing, as a parent and former educator, please know that I have been a strong supporter of families having the opportunity to select the education plan that is best for their child…..be it public, charter or private. Again I regret that I am not able to attend on the 21st.

Yours in Service,
Dori Connor
State Senator

Dear Christina Constituents,

In a few hours C&E 1st will go on hiatus for three days as I hit the wilderness with my girl scout troop.  Before I go, I want to address an article in today's News Journal, Delaware schools: Christina board violated FOIA, AG's Office rules.

In March, I found myself in a difficult place.  The board had convened a public meeting that in my opinion was not properly noticed in accordance Delaware State law.  The night before the meeting, a fellow board member brought the omission of the Agenda from the posting to my attention.  On the morning of March 6th, I attended the board meeting at Sarah Pyle Academy and shared my concerns.  I presented a copy of the state's code on open meetings and Delaware's Freedom of Information Act to our board president.  He briefly considered the documents and determined that the meeting was "legal."

The meeting was called to order.  After the Pledge of Allegiance, I re-iterated my concerns with the appropriateness of the meeting and informed those in attendance that I would not stay and participate.  I have been committed to transparency since I began my campaign more than a year ago.  I was elected to position on that platform and will not deviate from my core values.  Participation in this meeting would have constituted both a personal moral and ethical violation. 

The meeting was conducted at the president's direction after I departed.

At the regularly scheduled March meeting, our president offered comments regarding the departure of a board member at the previous meeting.  It became apparent to me that the culture that sustains our district is one in which transparency is not clearly understood and that deficit is reflected in all of our actions.  I believed that the only place to turn for an accurate interpretation of the state code was the Office of the Attorney General for a Freedom of Information Act finding.

The FOIA reflected two concerns: 1)The proper posting of the March 6th meeting and 2) The lack of minutes for the on-going Agenda Prep meetings held prior to the regularly scheduled monthly board meetings.  In March, I, along with another board member, co-submitted a FOIA petition on behalf of the voters of the Christina School District to the A.G.  The findings were recently released and can be found on the A.G.'s website at  http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/office/opinions/2010/10-IB04.pdf

The Attorney General's Opinion supports the FOIA Petition.  Our Board of Education was found to have incorrectly interpreted the code and as a result, has held questionable meetings.  The A.G. does recognize that the board did not vote or take any other action during the meetings that were the subject of the FOIA. 

For many, the above chain of events will evoke anger.  It did for me, for a number of reasons.  But, I am more concerned for the district's constituents, that they have historically been shut out of process and lost their opportunity to have a voice on policy in times when it has been direly needed.  There are some that support the "old guard," who will be angry that I or any other board member rocked the boat.  They will argue that this was not a matter that should have gone before the A.G. and that I am part of a rogue gang of board members who have a secret agenda.  I know this because in recent weeks those rumors have made their way back to me. 

I assure you that I am neither a "rogue" board member nor do I have a "secret" agenda.  My agenda has been very public from day one:  I seek to create transparency and ensure accountability in our best efforts to provide a world class education for all students.  I will go to the ends of earth -- and the A.G.--  to ensure that I have maintained that effort. 

Had the A.G. found for the district, I believe that I would feel the same satisfaction, in knowing that I had engaged process to ensure that we were following both the letter and the spirit of the law.  This was a necessary step to ensure that our actions support our assertions.  I am a passionate advocate for open government and true democracy and as such I have included the FOIA petition submitted to the Attorney General in tab, labeled Pages, to the right of this post.  It is my hope that you will draw your own conclusions about the appropriateness of these meetings, the filing of the petition, and the A.G. Opinion.

Ultimately, I am satisfied with and saddened by the outcome.  I admit to being a part of meetings (Agenda Prep) that were not in compliance with the state code.  I bear that responsibility and have taken the necessary action to rectify it, through this FOIA petition.  I continue to be troubled by what appears to be a history of such meetings and I cannot tell you (having only been on this side of the board for 10 months) how many such meetings have occurred in the last thirty years. 

Accidental as it may seem, it's ultimately a sad chain of events.  It is, however, a necessity, as in my opinion, we as both a district and a board are without the ability to change erroneous behavior if we do not acknowledge it.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Scheinberg

ttp://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2010/04/diane_ravitch_isnt_the_only.html
Harvard Scholar Makes a Turnaround on Choice


By Debra Viadero on April 13, 2010 4:09 PM

Diane Ravitch isn't the only education scholar undergoing something of an ideological transformation these days. Harvard academic Paul E. Peterson comes to a similar conversion in his new book, Saving Our Schools, which is being published this month by the Harvard University Press.

Peterson is best known for his advocacy of school choice programs in the 1990s. Now, however, he says he has come to recognize that the school choice movement, which never produced the achievement gains its advocates had hoped for, may never be politically viable. He chalks it up, along with the accountability movement, progressivism, teacher unionization, desegregation, and court-ordered school finance reforms. as just another movement in education that failed to ensure that all children receive a challenging education, regardless of where they live.

"Both Diane and I have an unhappy view of where we are today," Peterson said in an interview here at Education Week yesterday. "But where her dissatisfaction goes back to the last 10 years, mine goes back much farther. ... The reforms of the last 50 to 60 years haven't been able to shake the education system out of its stagnant condition."

So, in his new book, which traces the history of American education from Horace Mann to Bill Bennett and beyond, Peterson is placing his next bet on virtual schooling, which he hopes will eventually customize learning for every child. To illustrate his faith in the medium's potential, he relates the story of the Florida Virtual School, which began in 1997 in Orlando and is now the country's largest state-run online school.

"Virtual schooling is still in its infancy," he said, "but it certainly has transformative capacities that none of these other things have."

As for charter schools, which Peterson has also championed, he expresses a more agnostic view. While the growth of this new breed of public schools has outstripped that of privately funded choice programs, he says, charters still have a long way to go to transform schooling nationwide. "Their promise may be in that they become a vehicle for virtual schools," he said.

You can hear Peterson discuss his new views today at a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution. Eduwonk also features a debate between Peterson and Ravitch, who favors a return to neighborhood schools and a faith in teacher professionalism as a means of improving schooling. The next print edition of Education Week (cover date: April 21) will also feature a back-page Commentary by Peterson.

From the Dover Post Regarding HB 328: 
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.


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. 

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.

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.  

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. 

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. 

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.

“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."

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. 

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.  

“People might say, ‘We’re afraid of what parents may ask for,’” he said. “I think parents should ask for the moon.” 

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.

Email Doug Denison at doug.denison@doverpost.com.

Title 14
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title14/index.shtml

Title 29
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title29/c100/index.shtml
State Government

General Regulations for State Agencies
CHAPTER 100. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

§ 10001. Declaration of policy.
It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that our citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy; and further, it is vital that citizens have easy access to public records in order that the society remain free and democratic. Toward these ends, and to further the accountability of government to the citizens of this State, this chapter is adopted, and shall be construed.

§ 10004. Open meetings.
Excerpt:
(2) All public bodies shall give public notice of their regular meetings and of their intent to hold an executive session closed to the public, at least 7 days in advance thereof. The notice shall include the agenda, if such has been determined at the time, and the dates, times and places of such meetings, including whether such meeting will be conducted by video-conferencing; however, the agenda shall be subject to change to include additional items including executive sessions or the deletion of items including executive sessions which arise at the time of the public body's meeting.

(3) All public bodies shall give public notice of the type set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection of any special or rescheduled meeting as soon as reasonably possible, but in any event no later than 24 hours before such meeting. A special or rescheduled meeting shall be defined as one to be held less than 7 days after the scheduling decision is made. The public notice of a special or rescheduled meeting shall include an explanation as to why the notice required by paragraph (1) of this subsection could not be given.

(4) Public notice required by this subsection shall include, but not be limited to, conspicuous posting of said notice at the principal office of the public body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists at the place where meetings of the public body are regularly held, and making a reasonable number of such notices available. In addition, all public bodies in the executive branch of state government that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall electronically post said notice to the designated State of Delaware website approved by the Secretary of State.

(5) When the agenda is not available as of the time of the initial posting of the public notice it shall be added to the notice at least 6 hours in advance of said meeting, and the reasons for the delay in posting shall be briefly set forth on the agenda.

(f) Each public body shall maintain minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions, conducted pursuant to this section, and shall make such minutes available for public inspection and copying as a public record. Such minutes shall include a record of those members present and a record, by individual members (except where the public body is a town assembly where all citizens are entitled to vote), of each vote taken and action agreed upon. Such minutes or portions thereof, and any public records pertaining to executive sessions conducted pursuant to this section, may be withheld from public disclosure so long as public disclosure would defeat the lawful purpose for the executive session, but no longer. All public bodies in the executive branch of state government that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall electronically post final approved minutes of open public meetings to the designated State of Delaware website approved by the Secretary of State within 5 working days of final approval of said minutes.

http://kilroysdelaware.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/breaking-newsnames-of-delaware-turnaround-revealed/

The Nation is moving closer to Common Core Standards, leaving School Boards scrambling for intel.  Forty-eight States signed on last fall to support the initiative.  More than anything State Boards are pointing out the challenges of adopting national standards -- curriculum, assessments, and professional development.  

Local-level Board Members need to be asking questions now, like where will the funding come from to provide textbooks, technology, and supplies that support the standards?  The easy answer is Race to the Top b/c Delaware is well-positioned to win that grant.  But, I won't count my chickens before the eggs hatch and I can't count on Race to the Top.

State School Boards Raise Questions About Standards


By Catherine Gewertz

Las Vegas

States that adopt proposed common academic standards must use the entire document word for word, leaders of the initiative said this week.

Answering questions from state school board members at a meeting here, representatives of the two groups leading the effort to design common standards said that states may not revise them or select only portions to adopt.

“You can’t pick and choose what you want. This is not cafeteria-style standards,” said David Wakelyn, the program director of the education division of the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices.

“Adoption means adoption,” said Scott Montgomery, a deputy executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, which is organizating the common-standards endeavor with the NGA.

More HERE

From Delaware's Race to the Top Application:

(A)(2)(i)(e) Using the fiscal, political, and human capital resources of the State to continue after the period of funding has ended


In order to continue providing fiscal support to the reforms initiated through the Race to the Top application, the State will pursue a tiered strategy, including:


1. Continuing the overarching Statewide commitment to reform as outlined above
2. Implementing a consolidated purchasing program among LEAs for select categories of goods and services – this may include a central bidding process for instructional materials
3. Coordinating with the General Assembly to realign existing funding in the Public Education budget for reform efforts
4. Providing greater flexibility to LEAs in the administration of their state funding in order to promote autonomy, innovation and reform. This effort began in the last Delaware General Assembly, specifically with House Bill 119.

Combined, these activities will support reform and promote autonomy, efficiency and innovation in education spending throughout the State. Continued funding coordination and repurposing will involve fiscal responsibility and political will as the DDOE works with the General Assembly to ensure that State and federal education funding is distributed fairly and effectively.


Human capital resources dedicated to reform will also continue after the period of the grant. The Project Management Office and the 9 positions therein will remain in place following the period of the grant. The PMO represents a fundamental reorganization and reorientation of the DDOE to create a culture focused on performance and results. Initially these positions will be funded by Race to the Top, jump-started in the “New DDOE,” but over time the DDOE will reallocate fiscal and human resources from unnecessary current positions to these new offices on a permanent basis. The existing resources of the DDOE will be repurposed to support reform without growing the overall size of the Delaware DOE in the long term.

My biggest objection to Race to the Top, aside from the fact that the reform models are not proven, was the committment required by LEAs to continue funding for successful reforms after the seed money has been depleted. 

This section of the grant application begins to address these post-mortem requirements.  DDOE has committed to "Coordinating with the General Assembly to realign existing funding in the Public Education budget for reform efforts." Well it's about time!  (sarcasm) Shame it took the incentive of $75 Million to get everyone on the same page. 

"The Project Management Office and the 9 positions therein will remain in place following the period of the grant. "  Oh, so much for smaller class sizes, more teachers, and text books ...  We're going to use RttT to create a New DDOE  and eliminate "unnecessary current positions."  Well, let me say it -- IF WE HAVE UNNECESSARY CURRENT POSITIONS IN DDOE, THEY NEED TO BE ELIMINATED NOW!  Why are we wasting money paying for unnecessary human capital?  To ensure that the body count stays the same in Dover?  To prevent the attrition of a position to the Consolidation of State Government? Come on!  I have waivers to permit my schools to operate outside the maximum class size regulations, and DOE has unnecessary current positions.  Down-size now and send me a teacher!

The existing resources of the DDOE will be repurposed to support reform without growing the overall size of the Delaware DOE in the long term.  Oh, I get it, now!  We are going to use RttT to re-train the same people who have stood by while our public school system floundered and failed. It would be my guess, based upon the Delaware Way, that DDOE has a tank of employees who have filled their positions for decades and are within arms reach of retirement and pension.  Let's keep them in place long enough to get them to their full pension because that is certainly the smartest and best way to use our education dollars.

Since taking this unpaid job, I find myself slamming my head into the wall more and more.  What's broken in our schools didn't start in our schools.  It started in the beauracracy crafted around our schools.  RttT leads me to believe that the state thinks we need millions of dollars to undo that before we can begin reaching our failing students.  We have to stop investing in the latest reform, trend, and curriculum and get back to the basics.  Education needs to be about our children, not the adults.  And right now, the conversation really seems to be about the adults. 

I am in no way accusing DE's school system of making these mistakes. (Good God, I shouldn't even need to make that disclaimer, but I know there are those who will ask what is she insinuating?)

I am presenting this article from Wright's Law Special Ed Advocate simple as food for thought. The end of the school year is always the right time to reflect on challenges encountered:

Mistakes People Make - School Districts
by Robert K. Crabtree, Esq.

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.