Next Stop Special Education

According to the law special education is a set of services and is not a place. Well truer words were never spoken. It is not a place for many children that I represent, it is many places from year to year.  I have numerous children who I represent that come to me having been in five different buildings, albeit in the same "program" in five years. It gives new meaning to the phrase "mobile classroom".  When the parent protests they are of course told that special education is not a  place...

In Illinois, the main culprits are the schools that contract out some of their placements to educational cooperatives who in turn find space in school buildings for a period of one school year. The space is often surplus square footage within the school building that is otherwise wasted.  The space is rented out but the following year the space is needed for "other programs,"  and the existing program becomes nomadic looking for another space which can be far from the original location.  Not only does this disrupt the lives of children and their parents causing all manner of havoc, it tends to impair staff morale and loyalty, who then leave creating even more discontinuity. Children need continuity, regularity and predictability; children with special needs need these qualities even more.

As with books not being available for children with special needs, and mission statements being totally discrepant for children with special needs, it would be a cause of riots if regular education students were shuffled annually in a game of educational roulette. We would never dream of moving our most able students annually, but our most vulnerable students are moved around without a second thought as to the consequences.

I actually had a very constructive conversation with an attorney who represents schools about this situation.   She agreed whole heartedly that this annual moving of programs was chronic and unacceptable. So what is the answer ? State legislation needs to be adopted that requires school districts to contract with educational cooperative for periods of not less than 3 years to create some real continuity.   All sides, including the parents, and the school district that is renting out the space could plan accordingly, knowing that the space will not be available for "other programs."  I realize that some districts will oppose such legislation because they want flexibility and the net result may be fewer excess classrooms will be made available for rent. My response is so what ! Children with special needs should not be left with marginal choices that serve everyone's interests except them. If marginal choices become less available, then the local school district would have to get creative and maybe even think harder about inclusive opportunities in the LRE.  Left unregulated, as it is now, our children will be on the road again like a Willie Nelson song.  Summer is an ideal time to contact state legislators and get the political ball rolling.

Comments

[Daunna Minnich]

Getting the political ball rolling in 50 state legislatures might take 50 years!  What about existing federal anti-discrimination laws?  A complaint to OCR ended a similar practice in my school district about 20 years ago.

[Susan Hodson]

A similar complaint to the Chicago OCR office 3 years ago resulted in federally sanctioned discrimination (isn't it discrimination when treatment is based on ability/disability, and aren't sped kids shuffled around like chess pieces *because* they're sped kids??). OCR used the "it's the program not the physical placement" argument in spite of the fact that at the time the "placement" wasn't even in a school - it was in an administration bldg.

Times are a'changing though - this year the "placement" for the program that my soon to be 18 y/o son attends is in a junior high school 20 miles and an hour away. Let's hear it for education w/ nondisabled "peers".

If I thought anyone would give a darn, I'd request of our local school board that the incoming freshman class at our local HS be shipped off to aforementioned junior high so that my son might perhaps actually get to catch glimpses of his peers during lunch, because of course actually *educating* him w/ his peers is out of the question.

Can only hope that someday some parent w/ better a better tolerance for the ridiculousness that is IL sped (and a big bank account to hire a firm or ten of attys to offset SD's impressive collection of attys who appear to think IDEA is a suggestion, not law) will come in and force FAPE in LRE in IL.

[Abhishek]

Thank you! Regarding GATE, I agree with you there is really not much going on at the enraeltmey school level. There are a couple of really dynamic PPS members who are engaging with the SFUSD GATE coordinator on these issues and if you email me privately I can put you in touch with them. What I would love to see is a plan put together for how we could improve our ES offerings for high-potential students, and then perhaps go to the Prop H money next year to fund a pilot or modest district-wide project. Of course money is part of the problem but another piece is that there hasn't (to my knowledge) been a lot of thinking done about what an enraeltmey-level program for gifted students should look like. That planning has to come first before we look at more funding. On the science question, I have been very impressed with the new K-5 FOSS curriculum the district has implemented this year. It is very hands-on and very comprehensive. Every enraeltmey school should have implemented this curriculum this year, so if you are not seeing it at your school yet, talk to your principal. I think it has been fairly intense for the teachers to absorb and fully digest, so we may not see the full benefits of the new curriculum until next year.