The Echo

Did TC or Kilroy send you here? Got something to say? We have a comment section, too! And. Murph, that goes for you, too.  We have real ANONYMOUS commenting on Blogger.

I had soaring hopes for Sec. Murphy.  Grounded.

Okay, so I get that DOE is having capacity issues - as in a flock of underlings have flown the coop since the Jack hatched Murph.  It happens - moulting.  What clucks, though, is what the cockerel does with the clipped wings still in the hen house.

Looking solely at Delaware's exceptional children - students who require special education - it would be negligent to ignore the fact Murph is about dilute critical mass by asking the State Board of Education to appoint Mary Ann Mieczkowski to be the Acting Associate Secretary of the Teaching and Learning branch.  Mitch is officially the Sec. for the Exceptional Children and Early Learning branch. Good move for Mitch, bad for kids.  Special education cells are among Delaware's lowest scoring DCAS testing cell. Whole schools fail to make AYP due to the state's failure to compel achievement from these students.  For the first time in memory, the Delaware Autism Program failed to make AYP in 2011-12.  When the state's pre-eminent special education AYP-maker fails to hit basic minimal achievement markers, you can bet it's something to crow about.  Over-extending the leader of the department that addresses Exceptional Children is just bad practice. Yep, bad for kids.

Now, factor in Baby Race to the Top, Delaware's second RTTT victory.  We've secured funding to develop more comprehensive intervention for Delaware's youngest learners - the Early Childhood segment.  So, what's Murph do?  He assigns even more duties and responsibilities to a critical secretary.  There's a term for this in the poultry industry - Forced Moulting - and it's not pretty.

Just what did Jack hatch? besides of crock of edushit? A cockatrice who lacks any appreciation for exceptional children? or a chicken running around with his head cut off? 

Murph gets an F in exceptional children.  But, then what would you expect from a leader whose about to import an Louisiana D to lead Delaware's Turnaround Unit? (and if you don't what I'm talking about, you better get your Google On!)

Take the crown off, Murph, you're headed for educational caponization. Do I see a chicken saddle in your future? http://www.mypetchicken.com/catalog/chickens/Chicken-Saddle-Free-shipping-p764.aspx

Forced moulting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulting
In some countries, flocks of layer hens are force moulted to reinvigorate egg-laying. This usually involves complete withdrawal of their food (and sometimes water) for 7–14 days or up to 28 days under experimental conditions^[7] which presumably reflect standard farming practice in some countries. This causes a body weight loss of 25 to 35%,^[8] which stimulates the hen to lose her feathers, but also reinvigorates egg-production. Some flocks may be force moulted several times. In 2003, more than 75% of all flocks were moulted in the US.^[9] Other methods of inducing a moult include low-density diets (e.g. grape pomace, cotton seed meal, alfalfa meal)^[10] or dietary manipulation to create an imbalance of a particular nutrient(s). The most important among these include manipulation of minerals including sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), iodine (I) and zinc (Zn), with full or partially reduced dietary intakes.^[11]

Sounds like a bad dream, right?  It's not. 

Many of you know that I while I am a passionate advocate for education, there are few causes that fuel my fury more than the right of special education students to receive diplomas upon the completion of their high school career.  The problem is that in Delaware, we are systemically denying special education students that right every year.

Thursday night, following a Town Hall meeting in New Castle, I was able to discuss my concerns with Lt. Gov. Matt Denn.  Albeit brief, it was a conversation that gives me hope because I know that our Lt. Gov. shares my passion for special needs children.

I can't tell you when Delaware started denying some special education students diplomas, but I do remember the rumble of the differentiated diploma, under the administration of then-Governor Thomas Carper, in the early part of this decade.  In the May 3, 2000 publication of Education Week, Carper touted Delaware as an early education reformer: by legislating that "the state would become one of the first to link educators' job-performance evaluations to their students' test scores."

According to the same article by Joetta L. Sack, that piece of legislation set up "a new diploma system for students. To receive an "academic" diploma, students would have to pass the 10th grade assessments in math and language arts. Those who met all the course requirements but did not pass the exam would receive a "standard" diploma, while special education students who were unable to meet those requirements could receive a certificate of performance."

In the intervening years we know that despite Carper's legislation, Delaware failed to tie teacher performance to student test scores; yet, differentiated diplomas took root, sealing the fate of the many special education students who take the DAPA as second class citizens.  In one fell swoop, Carper and our legislature damaged and devalued the disability community and damned a generation of children to an additional challenge - finding employment or pursuing additional education.

I wasn't on the education scene back in 2000.  I was a newlywed and student, finishing up a degree in Journalism at the University of Delaware and working toward becoming a certified activity director.  I had no idea of the direction that my life would take, that in September 2001 I would become a parent and in three years time learn that my daughter had special challenges; or  that I would embark on journey of advocacy that would me in 2009 to run and win a seat on the CSD Board of Education. 

During the course of this week, I intend to educate my audience as to the reality of differentiated diplomas within the scope of special education, and to lead readers to the only logical conclusion:  Delaware must reverse itself in regards to the Certificate of Performance because regardless of the track you take, education is not a game, a play, or a Performance.  At the end of this journey, young adults are better served by a diploma than bouquet of roses!

--------------------------
29.0 High School Graduation

29.1 Students with disabilities who are unable to meet the requirements for a diploma shall be given the option to complete those requirements by continuing their education, at public agency expense, until their 21st birthday. Regardless of the document received at graduation by the student, whether a diploma or a certificate of performance, the student shall not be discriminated against during the graduation ceremonies.
Specifically, a student with disabilities shall be allowed to participate in graduation exercises without reference to his or her disability, educational placement or the type of document conferred.

(Authority: 14 Del.C. §3110)
10 DE Reg. 1816 (06/01/07)

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.

The following article caught my attention this morning for more than one reason.  Yes, it's uplifting.  Yes, it's about special education students.  Yes, it reveals the ingenuity of the human mind when creativity is allowed to flow forth in education, in physical education. 

But, it also spoke to concerns that I heard voiced by Christina's own REACH parents at a recent meeting.  I have submitted the questions about Adapted Physical Education raised by those in attendance and awaiting a response from our own CSD administration.

In the interim, I'd like to share excerpts from today's Edweek.org article, GAO Probes Access of Students With Disabilities to Sports by Lisa Fine.  Click the headline for the whole article.  It's definitely worth reading!

"Last year, Maryland passed a landmark law, the Fitness and Athletics Equity for Students with Disabilities Act, that requires district boards of education to develop policies to include students with disabilities in their physical education classes and athletic activities. The law requires that students be provided reasonable accommodations to participate, have the chance to try out for school teams, and have access to alternative opportunities such as Special Olympics-type teams or events that include students with and without disabilities. It is the only state law of its kind in the nation..."

"The high-profile case of a high school track-and-field athlete who uses a wheelchair and sued in 2006 for the right to race on the same track as her teammates helped inspire the law, proponents say.



Tatyana McFadden, who is a Paralympics medalist and world-record holder, won a lawsuit against the Howard County, Md., district to be able to compete on the same track, at the same time, as her teammates. She had been required to race alone on a separate track, she says, out of concern that her wheelchair would pose safety concerns.

“They would have everyone else run, and then they would stop the meet and have me run by myself, a person in a wheelchair going around alone,” says Ms. McFadden, now a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who is majoring in dietetics and takes part in the university’s adapted-sports program. “Having it like that hurt a little bit. People feel sorry for you when they see you like that. People didn’t see how athletic I was.”


U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., says Ms. McFadden’s case made him aware of the need for schools to have guidance on how to offer students with disabilities access to sports..."

"School staff members often lack training and experience in how to adapt physical education classes for students with disabilities—and the quality of services is reduced as a result, says Timothy Davis, an assistant professor of physical education at the State University of New York at Cortland and the chairman of the Adapted Physical Education National Standards, a project established by a professional group to create standards and a certification program for the profession.


Only 13 states suggest additional training for physical educators to teach adapted physical education, according to Mr. Davis. Most states do not require any additional certification.


Teachers in an undergraduate program for physical education are often required to take one three-credit course in adapted physical education in the last year of the program, he notes. “By the time they get interested in adapted physical education, they are done and they are out student-teaching,” Mr. Davis says. “Then because they have had the one course, they get a job in a district teaching adapted physical education..."


"Because of a lack of training, physical education teachers often feel uncomfortable attending individualized-education-program, or IEP, meetings for students with disabilities—and the absence of those educators troubles him.




“Even if we are not invited to the meeting, we have to knock on the door. It’s your student, in your class,” Mr. Davis says. “If the physical education teacher is not at the meeting, somebody else makes the idea for placement. Somebody else is writing the goals and objectives for physical education. We need to be there; we need the representation.”


Sometimes an attitude shift can make a big difference, he says, in how to teach sports to students with disabilities"


“You focus on ability and not disability,” Mr. Davis says. “Focus on what a kid can do, and you can make it work. If you say, ‘He can’t run, he can’t throw,’ I cringe. Tell me what he can do, and now we can start teaching.”


For students with disabilities, too often being in physical education class or sports has meant being left on the sidelines. Such a student might serve as a “coach” or “scorekeeper,” or receive physical therapy instead of physical education, says David Martinez, who was named the 2009 National Adapted Physical Education Teacher of the Year by the American Association for Physical Activity and Recreation.




Mr. Martinez, an adapted physical education specialist in Cherokee County, Ga., says adapted physical educators must think constantly of how to make an activity work for a child, or come up with a piece of equipment or technology that could assist the student.


He researched and built a Frisbee-throwing machine, for instance, that is switch-operated for some of his students. It lets them throw a disc 30 to 40 feet with accuracy.


Talking with students about what they think would be ways to make a sport work for them also can be helpful, Mr. Martinez says...


Noting the reluctance of many students with disabilities to join in sports, he suggests what he says are creative ways to include those students in the athletic culture of high school. The Cherokee County district, for example, created a varsity-letter program for students in Special Olympics. If students complete two seasons of a Special Olympic sport, they can wear a varsity letter in that sport for the school.


“It lets them enjoy a part of high school culture,” Mr. Martinez says. “It lets parents celebrate along with their children. It lets nondisabled peers say, ‘Wow, that’s neat, what did you letter in? What position do you play?’ It creates a true appreciation for individual differences.”

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.