Making School's Accountable for Behaviors – Some helpful hints and questions to ask the school.

If you are reading this, you probably have experienced some problems with your child's behaviors in school. If your child does not currently have an Individual Education Program (IEP) in place, first step is to request evaluations. To do this, send a letter to the school districts Special Education Director, Principal or Superintendent requesting a "“multidisciplinary evaluation" and a "“Functional Behavior Assessment"” (FBA) by a behavior specialist. If your child does already have an IEP, just request the FBA as stated above (in writing). Because the school district has 60 school days to perform these tests, its also important to call an IEP team meeting if you have an IEP. Or if you do not, just call a meeting with his regular education teacher, the school psychologist, and anyone else who has been involved with disciplining your child (principal, etc.).

Once complete, the FBA should be the outline used to create a Positive Behavior Support plan (PBS).

Studies have shown that Positive Behavior Support plans are key in modifying behavior. Conversely, most schools do not have school wide positive behavior support plans. Many schools still employ the "“spare the rod, spoil the child" methods. And even if they have done away with corporal punishment, many still use other forms of psychological and physical punishment in an attempt to reform behaviors. However, for children with disabilities who have limited control over emotional states and other factors, punishment often encourages the very problem behaviors the staff is attempting to extinguish.

An argument for PBS that I often use is this. Adults crave positive reinforcement in lieu of negative consequences (punishment). For instance, if your boss says "“Do this extra work for me, and I'll give you a bonus"” or "“Do this extra work for me or I will dock your pay", which will make you work harder? Which will make you want to quit? Our society is driven by a token economy which is a positive behavior support. Do the work, earn your pay. And we get bonus incentives for extra hard work. Our children are no different (except the rewards tend to be less costly).

Add to this that children with disabilities that interfere with social skills, such as Pervasive Development Disorders, Mental Health issues, and other neurological disorders need to be taught essential skills that most take for granted. Your boss cannot expect you to do the extra work if it's out of your realm of experience. You must be trained. Training our children to behave in social situations, then reinforcing those skills with positive support makes all the difference.

When your child is disciplined for manifestation of disability, prepare to ask the school the "“tough"” questions. Generally, most districts will state that they have "“done all they can"” and really "“want this to work" and that your child just "“lacks or needs discipline"”. Some have involved the police. Some have already labeled your child a deviate. However, the questions formulated below will help turn the tables on accountability. After all, we cannot control their behavior when they are out of our care. Someone must teach them appropriate skills in the classroom setting. And that obviously cannot be the parents.

Aggression

Physical [defined as purposeful physical contact that results in injury]

Verbal [defined as threats and inciting others to act out]

1. It is a known fact that my child's disability of [insert here] causes easy frustration and anxiety which when not addressed can lead to explosive behaviors. What positive supports have you put in place to help him/her be less stressed and have less frustration in:

   1. Physical Education Class [aka gym]

   2. Academic Instruction

   3. Recess/Leisure time

   4. Bus/Transportation

   5. Lunchroom

   6. Assemblies, etc.

2. Where did it take place, What time, Who was present, What what said and by whom, What happened right before, What took place right after.

3. Is someone charting ABC [antecedents, behavior and consequences]? If so, please be sure to forward us a copy. (note: if not, call an IEP meeting to get this written in)

4. When can we meet to revise/create the Positive Behavior Support plan?

Screaming

1. My child was screaming. What proactive measures did the school staff take to determine what causes our child to reach this level of frustration?

2. How many scheduled breaks is our child getting on a daily basis to alleviate stress?

3. Where can our child go for some "“quiet time"” where he/she feels safe when his/her stress level is high?

4. What methods are you using to teach our child to deal with his/her frustration and anxiety?

5. What can we do as a team to help our child learn to deal with frustration in a more appropriate manner?

Defiance

1. What exactly did our child refuse to do?

2. Was he/she presented any choices?

3. Was he/she offered an explanation of "“why" they were told to do something (many children need to know why before they can comprehend necessity. This is very common in gifted and high functioning children).

4. Was the behavior in question in line with rules our child has been taught?

5. What has the school done to teach our child about compliance?

6. What positive behavior supports are in place to encourage compliance?

Disrespect

1. Who is responsible for teaching the children proper social etiquette in this setting?

2. What classroom methods are used to teach the children tolerance for differences?

3. What positive behavior supports are in place to encourage proper etiquette and tolerance?

4. How can we, the team, ensure that our child is taught appropriate tolerance and social skills?

Pennsylvania Alert: Has the Gaskin Settlement Run out of Gas?

A six month progress report has come from the Gaskin Overall Settlement and Implementation Committee.

Upon reading the report, one has to wonder what it going on in Harrisburg. It would appear that certain parties are stifling communication. Not only PDE, but the plaintiffs themselves.

From the report...

Section IV.1 Policy Development and Implementation

A) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to require school districts to adhere to requirements of IDEA and case law, including Oberti v. Board of Education, when making placement decisions.

B) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to provide coordinated and paid services in accordance with the interagency of Memorandum of Understanding entered into among PDE, DPW, L&I, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

C) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to assure that special education students are also entitled to gifted support or to Chapter 15 services have a single plan.

D) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to gather input from the Panel and to design and make available to parents of children with significant disabilities information about supplementary aids and services that children with disabilities can receive in regular education classrooms and information about how to seek assistance in obtaining such supplementary aids and services.

E) Input has been solicited from the Advisory Panel, but no information exists to support a view that PDE has designed and distributed to school districts materials for display in school buildings to make it clear that all children are welcome.

Section IV.2 Advisory Panel

1. The Advisory Panel has been established.

2. It is questionable whether the composition of the panel is consistent with item (4). The Panel is widely described as including nine parents of children with disabilities, but in actuality, the plaintiffs have selected nine parents of people with disabilities, three of whom are actually parents of people who are not served in special education in Pennsylvania because they are adults.

3. Panel members receive reimbursement for travel costs to participate in actual Panel meetings, but have not received word, despite repeated requests, whether or not they can be reimbursed for expenses associated with other Panel activities, e.g. postage, mileage for visiting schools, stationary, etc.

4. The initial meeting of the Panel occurred within the required time frame, though it was not a business meeting, but an organizational meeting.

5. The Panel has met quarterly but has not been provided with adequate time or data to review and evaluate system-wide progress in implementation of the Settlement Agreement. Despite this circumstance, the Panel has made some recommendations for continued progress.

6. The Panel has developed a committee structure.

7. The Panel is in the process of finalizing operating procedures, which may occur at the June meeting.

8. PDE has not provided sufficient data on a timely basis to the Advisory Panel or to its Committees.

9. PDE has not complied with the obligation to provide the Panel with data regarding placement of first grade students.

10. Given that very little data has been provided, there is no information to support a finding that data has been provided in a manner consistent with this item of the Settlement Agreement.

11. There is a concern among Panel members regarding the level of support provided to the Panel. While support has been provided, there appears to be a disagreement that the level of support has been “reasonable.”

12. A Panel member was appointed by the Advisory Panel in January 2006, to work with PDE regarding the needs assessment.

13. Panel members have been identified to assist PDE in identifying exemplary practices in school districts in Pennsylvania, but those Panel members have been waiting for months for information from PDE regarding reimbursement for postage and travel and for “authorization” to visit schools.

Section IV. 3 IEP Format

1. PDE provides an annotated IEP format.

2. PDE did not modify the LRE portion of the Annotated IEP by December 31, 2005, but has modified it recently. The Panel has not been provided with information to support a finding that PDE has incorporated the modifications into the actual IEP format.

3. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to not modify the LRE portion of the Annotated IEP or the IEP without the consent of the plaintiffs.

4. PDE has provided written guidance to school districts regarding the LRE portion of the IEP.
   

Section IV.4 Compliance Monitoring

1. 1) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to ensure that regular cyclical monitoring has included the required additional steps outlined in the Settlement Agreement.

2) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to engage in targeted monitoring.

3) PDE has engaged in LRE monitoring, but

a) Has not based the identification of priorities or goal statements on input from the Advisory Panel, nor has it involved the Panel in a discussion about such. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to set priorities based on increasing the number of students with disabilities in regular education classes and neighborhood schools with needed supplementary aids, services and support or on developing IEPs capable of providing students with disabilities a meaningful benefit from inclusion.

b) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to base LRE monitoring on a limited number of indicators identified within priority areas.

c) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to base LRE monitoring on comparisons to state averages identified by PDE or that it has communicated those standards clearly to school districts.

d) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to clearly communicate triggers to school districts.

B) 1)There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation that all areas of compliance monitoring serve the purpose of assessing the educational progress of children with disabilities.

2) There is no information to support a finding that PDE’s monitoring staff have been appropriately trained or engage in regular professional development. Compliance monitoring has been conducted for Tier One school districts. There is no information to support a view that PDE has engaged in targeted monitoring and no information has been provided to assess the status of regular cyclical monitoring.

C) There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to create an LRE index, nor is there any information to support a finding that districts’ LRE index scores have been made public as part of school and district report cards under NCLB and the IDEA.

D) The parties did not identify Tier One School Districts by December 31, 2005. They identified them subsequently by mutual agreement. The Panel has reports that Monitoring visits were to be conducted in April and May, but has no information regarding Monitoring team members. The Panel has not been provided with information to support a finding that the process involved met the requirements of the settlement agreement.

NOTE – The parties used a similar process to identify Tier Two and Tier Three school districts, though no such provision exists in the Settlement Agreement.

1. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligations for Tier Two LRE Monitoring.

2. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligations for Tier Three LRE Monitoring.

3. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligations to engage in targeted monitoring.

4. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligations cited in the Settlement Agreement regarding Regular Cyclical Monitoring.

5. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligations in the Settlement Agreement regarding Sanctions for Noncompliance.
   

Section IV.5 Complaint Resolution

1. There is no information that has been provided to the Panel that would support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to comply with the requirements identified in the settlement agreement regarding submission of a parent or student complaint to PDE.

2. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to investigate the status of the complaint or outcome of due process decision at the district’s next compliance monitoring for similarly situated students.
   

Section IV.6

There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to build upon and refine its present system of review and approval or disapproval of special education plans. PDE is supposed to accomplish this aspect of the Settlement Agreement by no later than September 16, 2006.

Section IV.7

1. PDE has implemented a mini grant program. An Advisory Panel member was appointed in January 2006 to work with PDE regarding the needs assessment and a committee of the Panel has been recommending specific information on technical assistance and training. However, few Panel level recommendations have been made on the subject, and there is no evidence to support a finding that PDE has implemented those recommendations.
   

Section IV.8

1. There is no information to support a view that PDE has complied with the obligation to provide the plaintiffs with a letter of support for an advocacy grant proposal.
   

Section IV. 9

1. PDE has paid $350,000 for compensatory damages. The plaintiffs are responsible for distributing the funds among themselves, and there are reports from stakeholders that those funds have not yet been entirely distributed.

2. PDE has paid plaintiffs’ counsel $1,825,000 for all attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs are responsible for distributing those funds between attorneys’ fees and litigation costs as they see fit. There are reports from stakeholders that those funds have not yet been entirely distributed for these purposes.

3. PDE made the payments on a timely basis.
   

Section IV.10

The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Court, which retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing aspects of Section IV.10. While there are verbal reports that PDE has complied with its obligation to provide the required certification on or around March 16, 2006, the parties have jointly agreed to deny the certification to the Panel for review. There is no evidence to support a finding as to whether or not the plaintiffs have complied with their obligation to respond to the certification in writing. If they have failed to do so, the plaintiff’s counsel is estopped from seeking relief for any material breach of the Settlement Agreement. There is no information, consequently, about whether the plaintiffs have identified material breaches in PDE’s implementation of the Settlement Agreement.

For more information on the Gaskin Settlement Agreement visit PATTAN

When inclusion isn't "inclusive"...

A recent article has brought to light a new way of claiming inclusion but still segregating children with disabilities. Schools are starting to lump a certain number of Special Education students into one classroom and call it a regular education classroom.

Taken from: http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin340.shtml

Up the road at Doctors Inlet Elementary School in Middleburg, Florida, the most efficient way to handle ESE students is to put them all in a single class at each grade level. In that way, "we are able to assign 2 teachers -- a regular classroom teacher and a special education teacher -- to each class," said principal Larry Davis. "In the typical inclusion classroom, a teacher will conduct a content lesson, and then the students will go to an assigned group for follow-up instruction focusing on that group's special needs or learning strengths."

As is the case in many other schools, grouping together inclusion students is the most efficient use of personnel at Southdown. "That often translates into some classrooms having a larger numbers of inclusion students than others," Peltier said. For example, the third grade has 12 special-needs students. The most efficient approach was to group them in a single classroom, even though that created a class in which 12 of 18 students have special needs.

Obviously, this tactic is a sly way to cut costs and remain in "compliance" with the least restrictive environment clause in IDEA 2004. However, it is not "inclusion" if all or most of the special education children are in one classroom.

Parent beware...be sure to ask how many special education students will be in your child's "regular education classroom". Because this model described above is not the Least Restrictive Environment.

Making a Dream Team

What if...
All parents of special education children were to form an alliance?

And if...
Those parents coached each other through the IEP process?

Additionally...
Each parent in the group made a pact to attend each others IEP meetings.

We'd be talking about equity, balance and fairness in the process. And it might just be worth thinking about.

Who are the best advocates out there? Why those who have been through the process.

Let's all make a pact to help each other! Something to think about....

The Balance or lack Thereof

I had an interesting conversation today about public school "when I was a kid". And it was semi-enlightening or confirming to me that there is just a completely unfair balance when it comes to teaching our children.

I for one, was a Neurotypical, typical child. I had a few bad but many good school experiences. Our school was not riddled with problems, yet suffered it's fair share. In any case, I can only remember my parents having to involve themselves twice in my 13 years of public school due to school problems.

Okay, so 13 years, 2 incidents. That's probably about average. But here I sit, the parent of a special needs child and have beaten this record in one year and in at least in triplicate. What is wrong with this picture?

Not only are we running ragged learning to manage our special needs children's appointments, therapies, social skills groups and the likes, we deal with a day in, day out learning curve on how to manage our children's emotional needs at home (Doc Spock had noooooo idea).

Add to all of this a new slant. Suddenly, we have a burden that is unique to special needs families - making the schools "teach" our children.

I can't help but envy the parents (like mine) whose biggest obstacle was that "one" teacher who seemed to have it in for their child. Or the parent who objects when the school play lead is given to the mayor's daughter when she certainly isn't as talented as their own. And so on and so forth.

It almost begins to feel like we, special needs parents, are being taken advantage of. We are weak prey, the injured quarry.

And I don't want to sound like I'm only blaming the teachers. It's not always a teacher issue. Many times, it's unwritten school policy.

And I'm sure the schools will blame the States who blame the Feds. But what it comes down to is this. We are all talking about the education of a child.

Will that "one" teacher ruin a child. No, it will probably make him stronger for having to deal with the conflict. Will losing the lead in the play devastate the child to the point of depression and future trauma. No, it will probably make her more determined to work harder.

On the other hand, doing the minimal for our children who are in need of the maximum will affect them for life. Schools have our children for 13 plus years for the greater part of their days. You can do a lot of damage in that time to self esteem, hopes and dreams. And on the other hand, you might just be able to help mold them into functional citizens.

Which shall you choose?