Parents victimizing schools is the premise of this long winded article from the San Fransisco Chronicle. This article furthers the propaganda war against parents of children with special needs and fosters the notion that schools are being victimized. Among the many failings of this article, it fails to even mention the low standard of FAPE set out in Rowley. The article claims that "the law does not define appropriate--an omission that has lead to escalating disputes about what public schools must pay for." Ignorant of the law that the Supreme Court gave meaning to this term in Rowley over 30 years ago, and cases have been refining it ever since. The article misconstrues the power disparity between well funded schools with attorneys on their payroll, and parents who are forced to take significant risks to fight for their child's education, usually when all else fails. The article misses this essential point. The article even misstates the entitlement of IDEA being to the age of 22 when it ends at 21.
The focus of the article is about a high school student with learning disabilities. His parents unilaterally placed him in a private school in Maine. Most of the parents' issues in the case were not discussed in the article. According to the article, the school failed to create "a required 'transition plan' for the family. That is, district administrators had never filled out the proper form indicating precisely how teachers would ease the boy into bustling Woodside High [public school]." The article does not understand the nature or the importance of a transition plan.
A transition plan is meant to lay out the goals and steps as to how a child will achieve a measurable outcome upon leaving public school. It is not simply a plan to ease a child into high school. Education is not an ends in itself. The transition plan is the means to a meaningful ends of the child's education. It is not a failure to fill out a "proper form," as if it was a minor oversight in the otherwise sound process. If it is just a "form" in this district, that is a major problem, as the transition plan is meant to be an individualized document not a set formula.
Mr. Paul Goldfinger, California school finance expert, who is quoted extensively in the article, slamed parents' desire for an appropriate education.
" 'It's a blank check,' said Goldfinger, vice president of School Services. 'The system is stacked so that one segment of the population--disabled children--has first call on funding, and the others get whatever's left."
Apparently Mr. Goldfinger needs to get out more and see the reality of special education as it really exists in the world. For too many children with special needs, it may be a "blank check" in the sense that there are no numbers written on the check--that is they get as close to zero as possible. Indeed, news reports bear out that funding for special education is being cut. Goldfinger's propaganda is the exact opposite of the truth. This article wrongly portrays him as an expert speaking the truth.
Children with special needs are frequently short changed. A recent report from Harvard reveals that the much touted No Child Left Behind law has effectively exempted special education students from the law. Moreover, Mr. Goldfinger needs to read the report of the National Council on Disability "Back to School On Civil Rights" which details the systematic violations of the rights of children with disabilities that go unenforced and without remedy.Download Back to School.pdf
The report in its executive summary states: "NCD finds that federal efforts to enforce the law over several Administrations have been inconsistent, ineffective and lacking any real teeth." This NCD report is based upon an exhaustive review of the data of the systematic ways children with special needs have not been receiving their entitlement under IDEA over many years. The NCD report stands in stark contrast with the unfounded and untrue perspective of people like Mr. Goldfinger, and this article from the San Fransisco Chronicle.
Gr-r-r! Hatchet job is how I'd describe this article. Not only does the education writer not understand the importance or purpose of a transition plan, she also doesn't know it is not a "form filled out by administrators" but a plan of 1 or more pages developed by the entire IEP team. What her ignorance portrays is the attitude of schools that approach the transition plan as tedious paperwork rather than a thoughtful educational planning tool. ... Then there's the sly comment, "Not that the family ever requested a transition plan." Well, well. Since when is it the responsibility of the family to KNOW the district is legally required to develop a transition plan? Since when is it the responsibility of the family to REQUEST a legally required transition plan?
One-sided scandalmongering "news" like this is a disservice to society. We all lament the high cost of disability, but whining makes us weak. When schools stop resenting the cost and inconvenience and instead do their damnedest to serve kids with disabilities, society will reap the benefits. It's a 10/50 plan: invest for 10 years in appropriate special education, then "collect" for 50 years as the graduates pay taxes and spend earnings in their communities. The alternative, of course, is 10 years of educational neglect, with 50 years to foot the bill for welfare, prison, and sluggish economy.
Posted by: Daunna Minnich | February 19, 2006 at 09:21 PM
How interesting how that liberal rag is turning on the parents of our kids- might the teachers union be just a little left.
Posted by: George | February 20, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Azimov claims that "Kents Hill does not have a special education program". The Kents Hill website says:
http://www.kentshill.org/campus/academics/skills.asp
"The Waters Learning Skills Center
Since 1979, the Waters Learning Skills Center has provided an excellent support program for students with middle to moderate learning differences. One of the first such programs in private schools in the nation, The Waters Learning Skills Center is well-known for providing superb support, while helping all students acquire strong learning and advocacy skills for college and beyond. Students enrolled in the Waters Learning Skills Center are mainstreamed into entirely college preparatory classes.
The mission of the Waters Learning Skills Center is to assist students in an intellectual and social maturation process, thereby producing a fully competent, capable student and person who will be able to thrive in a college environment."
Posted by: Liz | February 22, 2006 at 11:08 PM
I was truly dismayed by the front-page article and two page spread in the Feb.19th San Francisco Chronicle. Apparently, the Chronicle staff writer, Nanette Asimov, has not had any personal experience with children with special needs. Her slanted perspective fails to acknowledge the thousands of families who are not able to receive "appropriate" education for their children, either because the school district refuses to provide the necessary services or the families do not understand their mandated rights and do not know how to access the system. By citing the few "over-the-top" cases in which parents were able to "work the system" and obtain unusual services for their child, the author presents skewed and inaccurate information in inflammatory journalism. The average taxpayer reading this article, without other knowledge or background of the issues involved in special education, could take this article as another example of wasted public funds. What the author fails to expose is the failure of many school districts to adhere to the federal law, "IDEA"; to address the requests of parents for even minimal services for their children; and the lack of funds and personnel to provide services, This author would be better served to write a follow-up front page article, of the same length, discussing the problems of providing special education and of the many chilfren who are left behind. Additionally, she could spend an equivalent amount of time as she did in detailing the funding sources and the number of disputed cases to researching data related to the cost-benefit to society of providing intervention and services to children with special needs. Perhaps she could highlight the achievements of children who have received appropriate help and their subsequent contributions as independently functioning individuals, who do not cause tax payers a burden. This would create greater public understanding of the importance of providing resources and services to children with special needs. This is not "extra-special education", but the rights of all children to receive approriate educational services to help them become contributing members of their community.
Evelyn Jaffe, MPH, OTR, FAOTA
Assistant Professor,
Department of Occupational Therapy
Samuel Merritt College
Oakland, CA
Posted by: Evelyn Jaffe, MPH, OTR, FAOTA | March 04, 2006 at 07:31 PM