Archive | Education RSS feed for this section

Free and Appropriate Education?

6 Oct

I’m a bit short of time this morning so couldn’t give this story the time it deserved. The following is a cut and paste job from Fox Houston:

Dreams brought Kenneth Chibuogwu to America and in time determination brought many of those aspirations within reach.

“I worked hard. I came to this country with nothing,” says Kenneth.

It is a country this father and husband have deeply embraced, along with its core convictions.

“If you don’t stand up for something, you’ll fall for anything,” he says.

And what could be more worthy of battle than his first born son, Chapuka, “Chuka” for short a child who will spend each and every day of his life challenged with autism?

“This child was a gift from God,” insists Kenneth.

Guaranteed by federal law a “free and appropriate education” for their son, Kenneth and wife Neka hoped the Alief School District would prove an able partner in helping Chukka reach his potential.

It didn’t happen.

“When I went there I saw things no mother would want to see,” says Neka her visits to Chuka’s middle school.

“My wife went to observe, found him squashed in the corner and nobody cared,” says Kenneth.

“There was nothing I could do but cry because I was so shocked that such a thing could go on in this country,” added Neka of the repeated conferences with Alief administrators ending in stalemate.

In Texas when parents and educators can’t agree on whether a school district is giving a disabled student all that the law demands the state offers a procedure called “due process” where a sort of education judge listens to all the evidence and decides the issue.

In May of 2007, using much of their life savings, Chuka’s parents filed their case.

Instead of seeking compromise, Alief launched a full-blown legal counterattack alleging the case was “improper” and that the Chibuogwus “harassed” district employees during meetings.

“Nobody in this household harassed the school district. I feel that they harassed us,” insists Neka.

“These people had been railroaded, these people had been maligned,” says special education advocate Jimmy Kilpatrick who represented Chuka and his parents.

Drained and discouraged, Kenneth and Eka dropped their due process case and Chuka never returned to class.

The conflict could have ended there, but Alief Superintendent Louis Stoerner and then board president Sarah Winkler had other plans.

The District sued the economically distressed parents of a special needs child for every penny of the district’s legal expenses, an amount, at the time approaching $170,000 dollars and now estimated at close to a quarter million.

“What I feel is that they are trying to bully me for asking for a chance for my son¿s life,” says Kenneth.

Alief taxpayer and watch dog Bob Hermann sees the lawsuit as senseless and mean spirited.

“I don’t know why we would spend taxpayers money to try and punish somebody who doesn’t have the money and are probably going to win at the end of the day anyway,” says Hermann.

Those who represent special needs families suspect a larger more sinister scheme.

“What they are trying to do is send a chill down parent’s spine about advocating for their children,” says Louis Geigerman, president of the Texas Organization of Parents, Attorneys and Advocates.

“Lets set some examples, lets hang a few of them at high noon right out here in the middle of the town square and show you what we do to people who want to advocate for their children,” adds Kilpatrick.

“If I don’t fight them, you know they are going to do it to other parents,” says Kenneth Chibuogwu.

This past April after three long and expensive years of legal warfare a federal judge here in Houston issued his ruling. Alief I.S.D. was wrong and had no right under the law to collect legal expenses from Chuka’s parents.

Instead of accepting the ruling, superintendent Stoerner and apparently the Alief School board have chosen to risk even more taxpayer dollars and appeal the ruling to the 5th Circuit.

At a board meeting, by phone and by e-mail Fox 26 news has repeatedly asked the Alief decision makers “Why” and have yet to receive an answer.

A district spokeswoman promised comment after the appeals court rules.

“We’ve almost lost everything trying to keep this up,” says Neka.

“What basically there are trying to do is run me and my family on to the street,” says Kenneth

While school expenses are generally available for public inspection Alief has attempted to block our opens records request.

FOX 26 News has however obtained invoices which show the district’s taxpayers have compensated Erik Nikols and his Law firm Rogers, Morris and Grover as much as $12,000 in a single month for waging the three-and-a-half year courthouse campaign against the Chibuougwu’s.

The meter, presumably, is still running.

“I know a lot of people have gained from this, a lot of people have been enriched by this,” says Neka.

As for Chuka, he’s now fourteen, attends no school and for five years hasn’t received a single minute of the free and appropriate public education that is his right

Their child, his parents insist, has been thoroughly left behind.

Mike Stanton Speaks

13 May

The following is taken from a piece from Secondary Education.

A leading expert on autism has said that mainstream schools should re-evaluate how they respond to children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

According to Mike Stanton, a teacher at the George Hastwell School in Cumbria, which caters for children with severe learning difficulties, many schools often treat autism as a behavioural problem rather than a communication problem.

Instead of viewing difficult students’ actions as “challenging behaviour”, he encourages teachers to take a different attitude and consider what lies behind the situation.

By trying to understand why the pupil is reacting in a certain way, Mr Stanton thinks that the problem of strained relationships between teachers and autistic children – sometimes caused when the child is asked to do something they do not want to – could be avoided.

“There’s a thin line between fight and flight in autistic children,” he said.

Mr Stanton told us this “fine balance” can be more sensitively addressed in the classroom by looking at two principal ASD issues: time and space.

Unstructured time and social interaction are difficult for autistic children, he says, but strategies can be implemented to make these easier. For example, providing respite from the hustle and bustle of the school in the form of a quiet room, or structured, quiet activities such as playing chess.

Beth Reid, policy manager for the National Autistic Society, agrees that there are basic things that can be done, such as changing the ways in which autistic children are spoken to.

For example, as people with ASD can often take things literally, teachers can avoid using complicated, metaphorical language. She told us: “We can be more aware of the environment that they are sensitive to.”

However, Mr Stanton feels that beyond the school gates, services and provisions should be put in place to more effectively tackle barriers such as a lack of teacher training, and the examination system.

He said: “Mainstream schools operate under the burden of Ofsted inspections and exams. To change this, schools should be able test competencies, instead of having to implement stressful exams.”

Mr Stanton believes that the government should do more to reward schools that take on less-able children. He continues: “It is wrong that a school which takes children no one wants can be classed as a ‘failing school’.”

Furthermore, Mr Stanton claims that much of the research done into teaching autistic children is not getting through to educational establishments because the researchers themselves are using the wrong tactics.

“Teachers are bombarded by new initiatives and people telling them to change their approach,” he told us. “If the people doing the research could go into schools and find out what they need help with and what they can change, then that might work.”

Despite this, Mr Stanton says that things are gradually changing for the better, referring specifically to the Restorative Practices programme. Although not autism-specific, the programme’s approach has been found to be highly effective. Instead of attributing blame, it focuses on repairing relationships. By asking children questions like “what happened?” and “how did you feel?” a more co-operative response is elicited than if they feel accused.

Training for the programme is currently taking place in special needs schools across the country, and in some mainstream schools. However, a significant lack of awareness still exists about ASD.

Ms Reid continued: “I know of schools that are doing excellent work but I still hear of establishments that don’t think autism exists and perceive it as naughtiness.”

Mr Stanton added: “There is still a huge amount of ignorance surrounding ASD and people often don’t take it seriously.

“There is not enough respite provided for autistic children, and not enough trained staff. Also, those who are trained are overworked.”

U.S. Department of Justice opens investigation on Judge Rotenberg Center

23 Feb

The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is probably the best known and most controversial special education school in the world. The JRC describes itself as:

The JUDGE ROTENBERG CENTER (JRC) is a special needs school in Canton, Massachusetts serving ages 3-adult. For 38 years JRC has provided very effective education and treatment to both emotionally disturbed students with conduct, behavior, emotional, and/or psychiatric problems and developmentally delayed students with autistic-like behaviors.

If you haven’t heard of them, you are probably wondering how they could be controversial. From the JRC website:

If positive and educational procedures alone are not effective, then after trying them for an average of 11 months, we approach the parents to suggest supplementing the rewards with a corrective (aversive) consequence for the problem behavior. If the parent approves, and if we obtain an individualized authorization from a Massachusetts Probate Court, we apply an aversive in the form of a 2-second shock to the surface of the skin, usually on the arm or leg, as a consequence each time the problem behavior occurs.

Yes. The JRC uses aversives. Not just any aversives, they use electric shocks. When I first read that it sounded like they get parental and Court approval for each shock. Not so. Children are fitted with backpacks or “fanny packs” which have control units. Children are monitored 24/7. If a staff member believes an aversive is called for, the JRC staff can remotely signal the control unit to apply a shock to the child. Children can be shocked 30 times–or more–in a single day.

A coalition of disability organizations have filed a complaint against the Judge Rotenberg Center with the United States Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice responded with a letter stating they have opened a “routine investigation”.

A letter from Nancy Weiss informing people of the investigation is below. Ms. Weiss is from the National Leadership Consortium on Developmental Disabilities and the University of Delaware.The Complaint letter, signed by 31 disability organizations, is quoted below that.

Disability advocates have cause for celebration today. In response to the September 30th letter signed by 31 disability organizations, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division has announced that they have initiated an official investigation of the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC); see the Department of Justice letter attached.

I’ve been waiting to receive the official notice before announcing this exciting news for the 31 disability organizations that signed the September 30th letter and for all of the disability advocates who have been fighting for over twenty-five years to put an end to the use of electric shock, other painful and aversive procedures, seclusion, unnecessary restraint, and food deprivation as methods of behavior control. Our September 30th letter was sent to seven government agencies and three human rights organizations (see list of letter’s recipients below and the letter and addendum, attached).

The initial response of the Department of Justice was that they didn’t believe that they could take action because they didn’t believe they had jurisdiction over privately operated facilities (like the Judge Rotenberg Center) since CRIPA, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/cripa.php) applies only to state-run (not state-funded or -licensed) institutions. I suggested to them that they consider jurisdiction under the ADA on the basis that people with disabilities are being treated in ways that are neither legal nor would be tolerated if applied to people who do not have disabilities (see my email to them below). Their letter states that they are pursuing this investigation under Title III of the ADA which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.

None of the other government or human rights organizations that were recipients of the letter have so far been able or willing to take action – Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights had other priorities; Amnesty International is seeking guidance through their international headquarters in London but, as has been our experience in the past, they have shown little interest. The U.S. Department of Education referred us to their efforts with regard to seclusion and restraint, which, while related and important issues, do not address the concerns about electric shock and other aversive procedures described in the letter. The Office on Disability suggested that advocates should “think about finding a way to connect this issue to regulatory compliance,” though clearly we have pursued this approach with limited success for over twenty-five years.

While it is not possible to say how long the Department of Justice investigation will take (they just chuckled when I asked this) or what the impact of this investigation will be, we know that Department of Justice investigations are customarily thorough and rigorous. I will certainly keep the 31 signing organizations and others who have expressed interest in this effort informed along the way. If you are not sure you are on that list and would like to be kept posted, just send a reply email.

If you have first hand knowledge of JRC/BRI related issues and would like to be interviewed by the Department of Justice investigators, please let me know and I will pass this on to them.

To each of you who has maintained energy for this issue over a long, frustrating and mostly unproductive battle, I am most appreciative of your continued commitment. When you think about how long these abuses have been known and generally ignored, I know you share my sense that we must have fallen down the rabbit hole. We can only keep our fingers crossed that this is the first step in righting a long history of wrongs.

With renewed hope,

Nancy

This is the complaint letter.

September 30, 2009

We are writing to ask the above Government agencies and human rights organizations to take action to put an end to the use of electric shock, other painful and aversive procedures, seclusion, unnecessary restraint, and food deprivation – all inhumane and unnecessary methods of behavior modification used in some schools and residential facilities for children and adults with disabilities in the United States. This letter is signed by 31 disability organizations concerned with the humane treatment of people with disabilities.

The attached information focuses on the practices of the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts. While there are examples of the use of prolonged seclusion and unnecessary restraint in schools and residential facilities across the country, studies prepared by government agencies and investigative reports that have appeared in the media suggest that the Judge Rotenberg Center uses these procedures as well as painful electric shock and food deprivation. According to public sources, residents of the Judge Rotenberg Center receive painful electric shocks for behaviors as innocuous as stopping work for more than ten seconds, getting out of their seats, interrupting others, or whispering1. In the view of the undersigned, the use of painful and dehumanizing behavioral techniques violates all principles of human rights. We are sending this letter to a number of government and human rights organizations. We ask that you show leadership in protecting the rights of all people in the United States by acting to put an end to these inhumane practices wherever they occur.

The type of practices against which we ask you to take action have been documented in numerous government reports and other public documents. One of the best documentations of these practices is the June, 2006 New York State Education Department report2 that noted the following concerns about the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC):

“Students wear the GED device [the device that delivers the electric shock] for the majority of their sleeping and waking hours, and some students are required to wear it during shower/bath time. The GED receivers range in size and are placed in either “fanny” packs or knapsacks. Staff carry the GED transmitters in a plastic box. Students may have multiple GED devices (electrodes) on their bodies. For example, one NYS student’s behavior program states, “C will wear two GED devices. C will wear 3 spread, GED electrodes at all times and take a GED shower for her full self care.” (p.7)

“A combination of mechanical restraint and GED skin shock is also used to administer a consequence to students that attempt to remove the GED from their bodies. In instances where this combined aversive approach is used, the student, over a period of time specified on his or her behavior program, is mechanically restrained on a platform and GED shocks are applied at varying intervals. … An example of this is found on one NYS student’s behavior program; a consequence for pulling a fire alarm is to receive 5 GED [shocks], over a 10-minute period, while being restrained on a four-point board.” (p. 9)

Another example of these inhumane practices was documented by NPR Health Reporter Joseph Shapiro, in his book No Pity. His observations of The Judge Rotenberg Center include the following:

” … one young man got tired of picking out matching shapes on a computer screen. But his teacher demanded that he continue and pinched him on the palm for disobeying. The young man …made a guttural noise of protest and tried to get up. In a second, two staffers had thrown him face down on the floor. This only made him more agitated. Then came a squirt in the face with ammonia water. The man spent a minute on the floor, trying to move and protest, but was restrained by one staffer’s knee in his back and another’s grip on his arm.”3

The JRC website describes these practices as “intensive treatment procedures”4 but almost every national disability organization agrees that the use of painful procedures to change a person’s behavior is unnecessary, inhumane, and should be banned.5

With this letter, we ask The House Committee on Education and Labor to take legislative action to end the use of these practices. In our view the practices described in the New York State Education Department report on JRC meet the definition of torture in the United Nations’ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that is, “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as:

* obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession;
* punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed;
* intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person;
* or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind;

when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”6

We the undersigned urge you to review the attached information which documents extensive instances of inhumane practices and take legislative and regulatory action to halt the continued abuse of children, adolescents and adults with disabilities. Through numerous pleas and campaigns, advocates have seen little action from federal, state or local regulatory agencies or the criminal justice system. These entities have been aware of the documented abuses for over thirty years. Even though there is broad professional agreement that a wide range of positive interventions are available which are at least as effective in managing dangerous behaviors, and which do not inflict pain on or dehumanize individuals with disabilities, no regulatory agency has been able or willing to act to eliminate these practices.

As a group of advocates concerned with the support of persons with disabilities, we call on these Government agencies and human rights organizations to work with us to expose and condemn these behavioral techniques, take the legislative and other necessary steps to protect the rights of people with disabilities, and bring an end to these practices.

For additional information, to discuss proposed action, or to contact the organizations below, please contact Nancy Weiss by phone: 410-323-6646 or e-mail: nweiss@udel.edu

Signed:

Alaska Youth and Family Network and YouthMOVE

Anchorage, AL

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Washington, DC

Association of University Centers on Disabilities

Silver Spring, MD

The Arc of the U.S.

Silver Spring, MD

Autism National Committee (AutCom)

Forest Knolls, CA

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Washington, DC

Center on Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies, Syracuse University

Syracuse, NY

The Coalition for the Legal Rights of People with Disabilities

Boston, MA

Cobb and Douglas Counties Community Service Boards

Smyrna, GA

Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities

Hartford, CT

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

Berkley, CA

Easter Seals

Chicago, IL

Exceptional Parent Magazine

Johnstown, PA

Hope House Foundation

Norfolk, VA

The Learning Community for Person Centered Practices

Annapolis, MD

The Maine Independent Media Center

Waterville, ME

Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education

Hanover, MD

National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors

Washington, DC

National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities

Washington, DC

National Association for the Dually Diagnosed (NADD)

Kingston, NY

National Disability Rights Network

Washington, DC

The National Leadership Consortium on Developmental Disabilities, University of Delaware

Newark, DE

Respect ABILITY Law Center

Royal Oak, Michigan

RHA Howell, Inc.

Raleigh, NC

Self Advocates Becoming Empowered

Kansas City, MO

TASH

Washington, DC

United Cerebral Palsy

Washington, DC

Values Into Action

Media, PA

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Nursing

Newark, NJ

University of San Diego Autism Institute

San Diego, CA

The Voices and Choices of Autism

Lakewood, CO

Here is an addendum letter.

Addendum to Sept ’09 Letter from Disability Advocates – End Inhumane Practices.doc

If you can stand reading more about JRC, Mother Jones ran a story on JRC in 2007, School of Shock.

The disability advocates say it much better than I ever could. Picking but one sentence: We cannot condone treating persons with disabilities in a manner that would not be tolerated if applied to other segments of the population.

Obama’s disappointing education budget

21 Feb

One of the key features of the Obama commitment during the campaign was a commitment to fully fund the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act). The IDEA made a commitment that the U.S. Federal Government would pay 40% of the costs of special education. In reality, the government typically pays about 17%.

Here is the wording from his plan. It was inspiring to hear a presidential candidate make such a bold commitment. One that could make a huge difference for disabled children.

Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Barack Obama has been a strong and
consistent advocate for fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Congress
promised to shoulder 40 percent of each state’s “excess cost” of educating children with disabilities, but it has
never lived up to this obligation. Currently, the federal government provides less than half of the promised
funding (17 percent). Children are being shortchanged, and their parents are forced to fight with cash-strapped
school districts to get the free and appropriate education the IDEA promises their children. Fully funding IDEA
will provide students with disabilities the public education they have a right to, and school districts will be able
to provide services without cutting into their general education budgets. In addition to fully funding IDEA,
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure effective implementation and enforcement of the Act.

Here is what the 2011 budget proposes:

The $12.8 billion request for Special Education programs focuses on improving educational and early intervention outcomes for children with disabilities. For the Grants to States program, the Administration is requesting $11.8 billion, an increase of $250 million over the 2010 appropriation, to maintain the Federal contribution toward meeting the excess cost of special education at about 17 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE), and provide an estimated average of $1,750 per student for about 6.7 million children ages 3 through 21. Funding for the Grants for Infants and Families and Preschool Grants programs would be maintained at their 2010 levels

17%. Status quo. Disappointing.

California’s Invisible Autism Epidemic Continues

13 Feb

Over a year ago, I wrote a post at Autism Street titled,
“California’s Invisible Autism Epidemic“.

At the time, IDEA child count and population data was available through 2007. Admittedly, what follows is a bit of a repeat, but there is updated information included too.

That January 2009 post asked the following question:

It would seem that many an “autism advocate” has warned us of an impending “crisis” that looms for California’s healthcare systems and schools. If autism caseload is increasing, and it represents a real increase in autism itself, then a next logical conclusion is that, ceteris paribus, similar increases will also be seen in the total numbers of children in special education in California’s schools, right?

And suggested an answer:

Wrong – well, maybe wrong.

Another year has passed, and IDEA data for 2008 is beginning to become available. Here’s what the preliminary IDEA data for California kids in elementary, middle, and high schools shows for autism now:

Autism

To borrow a phrase from Bev over at Asperger Square 8, “Don’t Panic!”.

Also, please remember, that like the CDDS client data, the IDEA is not descriptive epidemiology.

The USDE data are not reliable for tracking the prevalence of autism, and they in fact never were meant to fill this need.

Source

What we can actually learn from this, is that the increase in the number of kids receiving special education services who wear an “autism” category label continues to increase.

Of course the, “not so fast” is next.

The Invisible Epidemic

The next graph shows a bigger picture in California. It’s the number of students (age 6-17) receiving special education services, as a percentage of the population (age 6-17) for all disability categories.

All Disabilities

The percentage has been flat, at a little under 9.2%, for 11 straight years. How is this possible? If there have been “epidemic” increases in the autism category, all things being equal, we should have seen this number rise, shouldn’t we? And therein lies one potential answer – all things are probably not equal. It’s true that within the IDEA data for California, the increase in the use of the “Autism” category label is not offset by decreases in the use of the category label “Mental Retardation”. The increase is also not offset by a corresponding decrease in use of the label “Speech or Language Impairment”.

Speech or Language Impairment

A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

Source

So what else is there? Something big in California?

Autism and SLD's

Specific Learning Disability

A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

Source

I can still see how, in days of lower awareness and recognition of autism among parents and educators, an autistic child could easily be placed in this category (as a kind of catch-all), based on the first portion alone – “A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written…”. It could even be the case, that alongside less awareness and recognition, there was also some degree of unwillingness to use a category label like “Autism” on the part of both parents and educators.

Interestingly, the apparent in increase of .09% of the resident population categorized under “autism” appears to be offset by a .09% of the resident population decrease for “specific learning disabilities” in 2008.

Source data can be found at http://www.ideadata.org

90% of autistic kids bullied?

13 Nov

A story just out from the Boston Herald state: Survey finds 90% of autistic kids bullied. The story starts out with:

A shocking new online survey has found that nearly 90 percent of autistic children in the Bay State have been targeted by bullying so violent and ruthless that a state lawmaker says teachers and school systems must be held accountable.

All kids are bullied to some extent, but I have no doubt that autistic kids get much more than their share of bullying.

I have to admit that the survey did not use the most rigorous methods as it was taken to convince legislators:

About 400 Massachusetts parents responded to the online survey between Sept. 23 and Oct. 12. The survey was prepared as part of an effort to pass legislation requiring that autistic children be taught bullying coping tactics as part of their individual educational plans.

With that acknowledgment, I’ll say it again, autistic kids get bullied more than typical kids. In some cases a lot more. A lot of us feel like our kids have great big bulls-eyes painted on them. Our kids have a hard enough time coping in schools.

I hope the Massachusetts legislature takes notice. I don’t know if including “bullying coping tactics” into IEP’s is the best response, but I know that doing nothing is the wrong response.

Edit to add: a second story from the Herald: Parents say schools look the other way

Special education takes a step forward in Egypt

7 Sep

A recent story from the Egypt Today website caught my eye:

Into the Mainstream
‘After decades of virtually no access to education, children with special needs are getting a shot at the regular school system.’

The story details how the Egyptian Ministry of Education is changing its policy towards special needs students. The story gives an interesting view into how special education is handled in what is to me a very different culture.

It is both encouraging and very discouraging at the same time. According to the story, few of Egypt’s special needs students are currently getting any education. About 1.8%. Egypt plans to increase this to about 10% by 2012. So they are increasing enrollment of special ed students a lot, and will still leave about 90% unserved.

As it stands, children with special needs have had practically no access to mainstream schooling. Now, as the MOE moves to open classroom doors for them, families are faced with a new dilemma: will their children be better off integrated into public and private schools, or should they remain in special schools for the disabled?

The idea is to allow kids only into regular education environments. This will obviously limit who is accepted:

Even after training and renovation, schools will not be able to accept all children with disabilities that come to their doors. A prospective special needs student will undergo an evaluation exam prior to admission. To be eligible for a regular school, a student must not have a dual disability, such as visual and hearing impairments or a combined mental and physical disability. His or her Stanford IQ must be higher than 52 points, and his or her hearing impairment may not exceed the diagnosis of moderately severe hearing loss. Under the MOE plan, each classroom will have no more than four special needs students.

I must say I disagreed with the following paragraph:

“If I’m a child with a disability and I’m always around others who also have disabilities, then I’m not challenged and I don’t have a role model,” says Abdel Hak. In regular schools, she says, a child with special needs interacts with other children and picks up some skills through observation and practice.

I hope Abdel Hak learns soon: a child can be challenged and have a role model while in a special education environment.

This story makes me appreciate all the more the people who pushed through special education laws in the United States. Our system is also both encouraging and (very) discouraging. It is certainly not what I think a special education system should be. But, with apologies to those in Egypt, it could be a lot worse.

California schools with high vaccine exemption rates

3 Sep

The Los Angeles Times has published a list of California schools where the kindergarden class has a high rate of students with vaccine exemptions.

Yes, there are vaccine-rejectionist clusters.

There are about 30 schools with over 50% of the students using exemptions.

Yuba River Charter (Nevada City) 32 of 37 (86.5%) (86%)
City School, The (Lake Balboa) 9 of 11 (81.8%) (82%)
Slvusd Charter (Ben Lomond) 13 of 16 (81.3%) (81%)
Coastal Grove Charter (Arcata) 19 of 25 (76.0%) (76%)
Sunridge Charter (Sebastopol) 25 of 33 (75.8%) (76%)
Sebastopol Independent Charter (Sebastopol) 33 of 44 (75.0%) (75%)
Carmichael Elementary (Carmichael) 82 of 112 (73.2%) (73%)
Waldorf Of The Peninsula (Los Altos) 29 of 40 (72.5%) (73%)
Dehesa Charter (Escondido) 28 of 39 (71.8%) (72%)
Ananda Living Wisdom (Nevada City) 7 of 10 (70.0%) (70%)
Westside Waldorf (Pacific Palisades) 14 of 20 (70.0%)

California is a big state. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised that there are so many schools. I guess one could try to correlate income levels, parent education levels and the like with the exemption rate.

I’m just glad my kid isn’t at any of the schools listed.

I’m sure there are those who would say, “see, they have high exemption rates and they don’t have outbreaks of disease” and imply or state that there is no such thing as herd immunity.

All I can say is that the kids at those schools are safer because of families like mine.

Pittsburgh parents suing over alleged teacher abuse caught on video

24 Aug

The Pittsburgh station WXPI has a story, “YouTube Video Shows Teacher Slapping Autistic Boy“.

This is one of every parent’s worst nightmares–abuse behind closed doors in school. Without the video, this incident may never have come to light.

WXPI has their story video on their page, and the YouTube video is here. Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to embed it right now.

From the WXPI story:

Lori Davis is the teacher accused of hitting the boy. In the video, Davis can be heard shouting, “Stop moving your chair back. Move it, and you stay up there. I’ve had it with you.”

The criminal complaint against Davis alleges, “During the March 14, 2008 special education session, without warning or provocation, the defendant suddenly and violently struck (the victim) on the left side of the head.”

She is no longer employed by the district.

This teacher was immediately removed from the classroom and she is no longer employed with the district. We take these types of things very seriously. This is the only incident we were made aware of involving this teacher. When we found out, we immediately took action. She was removed from the classroom in June 2008.

Again, the idea of teacher or aide abuse is just a nightmare. Let’s face it, many autistic kids who can’t self-advocate or won’t be believed if they try.

NY Times: Disabled Students Spanked More

12 Aug

An article in the NY Times from two days ago reports on a study that shows that in states where corporal punishment is allowed, disabled students are punished more than their non-disabled peers.

This is based on a study by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The report, based on federal Department of Education data, said that of the 223,190 public school students nationwide who were paddled during the 2006-7 school year, at least 41,972, or about 19 percent, were students with disabilities, who make up 14 percent of all students.


The study is online.

In one state, Tennessee, disabled students were punished more than twice as often as their non-disabled peers.

Two examples from the report:

The ACLU and Human Rights Watch received numerous reports of students who were punished for the consequences of their disability. Many of the cases involved students with autism, who were physically punished for exhibiting behaviors common to children on the autism spectrum. Some parents reported that school staff did not take their children’s conditions under consideration when administering discipline. Students are being beaten for behavior they simply cannot control, or cannot reasonably be expected to control, a grossly disproportionate and fundamentally demeaning response to the child’s condition.

and

Despite this medical and scientific evidence, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch received numerous reports of children with autism who were punished because of their behavior. Sharon H., the mother of a girl with autism in Georgia, described her daughter’s experience: “One time, she was just sitting, rocking side-by-side in the gym. That’s what autistic kids do. She was five at the time. The fourth-grade teacher grabbed her and dragged her across the floor.”[136] Another kindergarten girl with autism in Georgia was thrown into a wall after she started rocking and spinning at the same time.[137]

Much of these statements are anecdotal and unanswered by the school system. And, yet, they are very serious and, let’s face it, not unlike what we have all heard (and some seen firsthand).

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →