tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74388987084368692882024-02-08T09:08:47.606-08:00Disabling the Disability Labels - Advocacy for UsMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-74847159001991284522013-10-24T11:53:00.001-07:002013-10-24T11:53:07.761-07:00Matt Cohen & Assoc. Wins Right to Systematic Multi-Sensory Math Remediation for 9th Grader with 1st Grade Math Skills
<a aria-haspopup="true" aria-owns="js_5" class="UFICommentActorName" data-ft="{"tn":";"}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=288530631191274&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22ufi%22%7D" data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][0]" href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Matt-Cohen-Associates/288530631191274?ref=stream" id="js_7" style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: grey; cursor: pointer; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18.66666603088379px; text-decoration: none;">Matt Cohen & Associates</a><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][2]" style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: grey; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18.66666603088379px;"> </span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3]" style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: grey; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18.66666603088379px;"><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[0]">Case Number: 2013-0447</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[1]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[2]">T. A. vs. City of Chicago SD 299</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[3]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[4]">Hearing Officer: Joseph P. Selbka</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[5]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[6]">Illinois State Board of Education</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[7]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[8]">Date of Hearing: 9/17/2013 to 10/15/2013</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[9]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[10]">Date of Decision: 10/21/2013</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[11]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[12]">Summary of Decision The parents filed due process claiming Student needs multi-sensory research based instruction in basic math order to obtain FAPE. The IHO found for the Parents.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[13]" /><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[14]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[15]">ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS HEARING</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[16]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[17]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[18]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[19]">IN THE MATTER OF T</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[20]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[21]">v.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[22]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[23]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[24]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[25]">City of Chicago SD 299 </span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[26]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[27]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[28]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[29]">FINAL HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATION AND ORDER</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[30]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[31]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[32]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[33]">I. Introduction and Procedural History</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[34]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[35]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[36]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[37]">1. The initial complaint was filed on May 9, 2013. The matter was continued from time to time as reflected by orders in the record. (“Parents”/”Father”/”Mother”) filed the complaint on behalf of their son, T (“Student”). An amended complaint was filed on August 23, 2013, with leave of the undersigned (which was given in a verbal order at the prehearing conference).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[38]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[39]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[40]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[41]">2. A pretrial conference was held on August 29, 2013. Both parties have submitted preconference disclosure statements through e-mail. The parties have waived the resolution process and conducted a mediation on June 18, 2013.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[42]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[43]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[44]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[45]">3. The hearing occurred on September 17 and 18, 2013. Closing briefs were submitted on October 15, 2013. At the hearing, the following persons testified: Carly Mon Teith (“District School Psychologist”); Eric McCabe (“District Special Services Administrator”); Dr. Elizabeth Friedman (“Independent Psychologist”); Mark Collins (“District Summer Teacher”); Lisa Willeumier (“Current Math Teacher”); Mother. District Exhibits 1-574 were admitted into evidence without objection. Parent Exhibits A1-A4, B1-B13, C2-C307, D1-D58, E1-E9 were admitted into evidence without objection.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[46]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[47]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[48]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[49]">II. Issues for Hearing</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[50]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[51]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[52]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[53]">4. The issues to be decided in the Parent’s amended complaint were:</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[54]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[55]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[56]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[57]">a) Whether the District designed an appropriate IEP for two years prior to the filing of the complaint to the date of hearing. Specifically, the Parent contends Student needs multi- sensory researched based instruction in math and a laptop to receive FAPE.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[58]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[59]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[60]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[61]">b) In the alternative, whether the District failed to implement Student’s IEP by failing to provide a laptop.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[62]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[63]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[64]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[65]">At the hearing, the parties agreed to settle Issue b. Specifically, the parties agreed to have an agreed order entered that Student will be provided a laptop for the remainder of his time at CPS with all software required by the IEP to be uploaded into the Lap Top. Thus all that remains is Issue a.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[66]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[67]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[68]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[69]">III. Findings of Fact</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[70]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[71]">5. Student is a ninth grader diagnosed with multiple disabilities. Student currently attends a local high school, North Grand High School.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[72]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[73]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[74]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[75]">Aspects of Student’s Disability Including his Ability in Math</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[76]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[77]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[78]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[79]">6. Student has been diagnosed with autism, multiple learning disabilities, and speech and language impairments. Student has also been diagnosed with verbal apraxia, fragile x syndrome, and processing disorders.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[80]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[81]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[82]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[83]">7. For purposes of this case, Student’s disabilities manifest in a difficulty to comprehend basic math. Student has significant problems in understanding basic math calculations. Student currently can only count up to the number 5. Student cannot complete most addition and subtraction calculations above a basic level (PD A2). Student has problems with visual and spatial reasoning. Student is unable to complete basic math facts (PD A2).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[84]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[85]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[86]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[87]">8. Related to Student’s problems in math are his problems in working memory and processing. See PD B12.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[88]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[89]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[90]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[91]">9. Two psychologists testified at hearing (Independent Psychologist and District School Psychologist). Both psychologists testified that Student is currently below the 1st percentile in math. He currently has the math ability of (at best) a first grader. See PD A2, B10.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[92]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[93]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[94]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[95]">10. District Special Services Administrator opined that Student’s math skills are higher than the two psychologists (and their evaluations) suggest. District Special Services Administrator relies upon some standardized tests which show Student is in the 73rd Percentile in math. However, District Special Services Administrator’s contentions do not take the unique strengths and weaknesses of this child into account when making his opinion. Specifically, District</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[96]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[97]">Special Services Administrator (who has no degrees or qualifications in special education other than being an administrator for the District) based his opinion on the fact that many disabled students have stronger abilities in math than formal case study evaluations suggest; and the fact that Student is able to do well on math tests administered at school (See e.g. PD B9). District Special Services Administrator never considered the unique abilities of this child or individually evaluated this child (even informally).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[98]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[99]">As District School Psychologist testified to, Student has a complex psychological and learning profile. Student has significant strengths from which he can do well on tests with the appropriate accommodations. Student’s Mother presented uncontradicted testimony that Student is able to complete math calculations with a calculator while not understanding the basic calculations which the calculator completes for Student. Student’s IEP allows as an accommodation, Student’s use of a calculator at all times (PD C27, PD C 105, PD C251, PD C291). District Summer Teacher presented uncontradicted testimony that Student was always allowed to use a calculator on exams and during math class. Therefore, the undersigned makes a credibility finding that Student was allowed to use his calculator on assessments conducted at school (apart from the case study evaluations done by the psychologists).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[100]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[101]">11. In light of the above stated credibility finding, the undersigned makes an inference that the District assessments (administered apart from formal case studies) do not properly assess or serve as evidence of Student’s proficiency in basic math skills. The undersigned adopts the opinions of District School Psychologist and Independent Psychologist that Student has very</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[102]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[103]">poor basic math skills. The undersigned makes a credibility finding in favor of Student’s Mother and the psychologists that Student does not have proficiency in basic math skills. The undersigned makes an inference that Student is able to mimic completion of basic math calculations on school assessments without understanding the logic behind them by using a calculator to complete the basic math calculations.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[104]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[105]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[106]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[107]">Student’s Progress (or lack thereof) in Math and District Responses</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[108]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[109]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[110]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[111]">12. Student’s IEPs since 2010 state that his level of performance in basic math skills have not changed significantly for years (SD 21,35; SD 141, 168; SD 188, 207; SD 339, 356). District Special Services Administrator claimed that Student’s IEPs were improperly drafted and do not reflect Student’s true ability in math. District Special Services Administrator claimed one teacher did not compile Student’s IEPs properly. However, the undersigned makes a credibility finding against District Special Services Administrator for the following reasons: (1) the entire IEP Team agreed (or should have agreed on) the Student’s present levels of performance; (2) Student’s present levels of performance remained in place in 2013(after District Special Services Administrator became involved); (3) two case study evaluations show Student lacks basic math skills; (4) Student’s Mother testified credibly that Student lacks basic math skills.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[112]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[113]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[114]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[115]">13. Student’s IEP report cards state that Student is making progress on his goals. However, in light of the fact that Student’s present levels of performance haven’t changed for years (for the reasons set forth above), the undersigned finds that Student has not made progress on his goals at least as to such goals measure basic math skills. Moreover, to the extent the goals fail to measure basic math skills, progress on Student’s goals do not measure progress appropriately.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[116]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[117]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[118]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[119]">14. While the District has changed the number of minutes Student is taught in math instruction, the District never has even attempted multi-sensory research based programs in math.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[120]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[121]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[122]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[123]">15. District Summer Teacher provided Student with math over the summer of 2013. District Summer Teacher’s tutoring was not provided pursuant to Student’s IEP, but was a compensatory service provided as a result of a settlement agreement (related to Parents’ claims of denial of FAPE which are not the subject of this due process proceeding).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[124]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[125]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[126]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[127]">16. District Summer Teacher testified that Student was able to make progress on understanding basic math concepts related to money and time, although Student did not meet his annual goals in math. Moreover, with the aid of 1:1 tutoring, Student was able to understand basic story problems. District Summer Teacher is a licensed special education teacher. The undersigned makes a credibility finding that Student is able to make progress and learn basic math concepts.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[128]" /><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[129]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[130]">17. The District makes an argument in its closing brief that Student will never be able to understand abstract mathematical concepts so that Student could understand the meaning behind basic math. However, District Summer Teacher testified that by using some of the techniques in multi-sensory instruction, Student was able to make progress on basic math. Moreover, Student’s IEPs suggest that “hands on learning” is a way in which Student can learn. Hands on learning is a key component of multi-sensory researched based instruction. Therefore, the undersigned makes an inference that Student can learn basic math concepts when provided with an appropriate methodology which meets Student’s unique needs.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[131]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[132]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[133]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[134]">18. The District, through Student’s Current Math Teacher, admitted that Student is currently not being taught basic math skills. Rather, Student is being provided the accommodations to make up for Student’s failure to understand basic math in an attempt to teach advance math skills.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[135]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[136]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[137]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[138]">Recommendations of the Evaluators</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[139]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[140]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[141]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[142]">19. Independent School Psychologist and District School Psychologist both recommended multi-sensory, researched based math programs designed to teach Student basic math skills. Programs such as “Saxon Math” or “Singapore Math” can be used to teach Student basic math skills. Both psychologists based their opinions on their assessments; professional norms which require a preference for programs shown to be effective based upon research; (as well as the statutory requirement for a preference for research based methods of teaching).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[143]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[144]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[145]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[146]">IV. Conclusions of Law</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[147]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[148]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[149]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[150]">Burden of Proof, Evidentiary Issues, and The Authority of The Hearing Officer</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[151]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[152]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[153]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[154]">20. The Federal and State Special Education Laws are set out in the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”) and Article 14 of the Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02a. In enacting IDEA, Congress intended to establish a “cooperative federalism.” Evans v. Evans, 818 F.Supp.1215, 1223 (N.D. Ind. 1993). Compliance with minimum standards set out by the federal act is necessary, but IDEA does not impose a nationally uniform approach to the education of children with a given disability. Id. Thus IDEA does not preempt state law if the state standards are more stringent than the federal minimums set by IDEA. Id.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[155]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[156]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[157]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[158]">21. In regard to the burden of proof in a special education proceeding, the Supreme Court has held that the ultimate burden of persuasion lies with the party filing the due process complaint. Schaffer v. Weast 546 U.S. 49 (2005). However, the Illinois School Code has placed a</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[159]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[160]">heightened burden on school districts. 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02a (g-55). In a due process proceeding, the school district has the initial burden of production to show that the special education needs of the student are identified and that the special education program and related services proposed are adequate, appropriate and available. Id. After the District meets its initial burden of production, the ultimate burden of persuasion then shifts to the the filing party to prove his/her/its case. The parties must prove their cases by a preponderance of the evidence.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[161]" /><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[162]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[163]">22. In determining whether a placement is proper under IDEA and the School Code, the hearing officer does not need to defer to the school district witnesses. School District of the Wisconsin Dells v. Z.S., 295 F.3d 671, 676 (7th Cir. 2002)(like Wisconsin ALJ’s, Illinois Impartial Due Process Hearing Officers are presumed to be experts on special education and special education law, see 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02c); Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186 v. Illinois State Board of Education, 41 F.3d 1162,</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[164]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[165]">1167 (7th Cir. 1994)(hearing officer characterized as expert witness in determining whether placement is proper).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[166]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[167]">Therefore, even though a medical expert witness cannot prescribe educational placements</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[168]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[169]">(See e.g. Marshall Joint School District No. 2. v. C.D. ex rel Brian D., 616 F.3d 632, 638-642</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[170]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[171]">(7th Cir. 2010), a hearing officer can override a school district’s proposed placement after hearing pertinent medical testimony. Specifically, a hearing officer can use his/her special expertise regarding special education and special education law to draw inferences as to the appropriate placement under the law—after taking into account the physical and psychological</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[172]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[173]">manifestations and symptoms of any given disability as testified to by a medical expert. School</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[174]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[175]">District of the Wisconsin Dells v. Z.S, supra; Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186 v. Illinois State Board of Education, supra. See also Heather S. v. State of Wisconsin, 125 F.3d 1045, 1053-1054 (7th Cir. 1997)(hearing officer characterized as having special expertise in special education law). See also Marshall Joint School District No. 2. v. C.D. ex rel Brian D., 616 F.3d 632, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (a medical expert’s diagnosis is important evidence and should be considered by the IEP Team and, by extension, hearing</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[176]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[177]">officers, in determining a student’s special education placement).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[178]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[179]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[180]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[181]">23. In determining whether an expert is qualified on a specific subject matter, education, experience, or other training can provide the appropriate qualifications for an expert. See Fox v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir. 1990) and United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476,</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[182]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[183]">1498-1497 (7th Cir. 1990); and Valiulis v. Scheffels, 191 Ill.App.3d 779, 785 (1990). The test to</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[184]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[185]">determine whether expert testimony should be admissible is whether the expert has specialized knowledge and expertise in the area where the expert expresses his/her opinion. Valiulis v. Scheffels, 191 Ill.App.3d 779, 785 (1990). It is not necessary to be licensed in Illinois in a field of expertise to provide expert testimony on that expertise. Thompson v. Gordon, 356 Ill.App.3d</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[186]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[187]">447, 459-460 (2005). An expert also does not need to have a degree in the field for which the expert is providing opinions as long as the expert has an expertise in said field. Valiulis v. Scheffels, 191 Ill.App.3d 779, 786 (1990); Kinsey v. Kolber, 103 Ill.App.3d 933, 953 (1982).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[188]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[189]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[190]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[191]">24. In Illinois state administrative proceedings, hearsay which has been objected to is generally inadmissible. Sudzus v. Department of Employment Security, 393 Ill.App.3d 814 (2009).1 To the extent hearsay is admitted without objection, the evidence can be given its</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[192]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[193]">natural weight. Abbott Industries, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 2011 Ill.App.(2d)</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[194]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[195]">100,610 (2nd Dist. 2011); Sykes v. District of Columbia, 518 F.Supp.2d 261, 49 IDELR 8 (D.D.C.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[196]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[197]">2007).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[198]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[199]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[200]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[201]">1This aspect of Illinois administrative law is different than federal administrative hearings where hearsay is admissible as long as it is relevant and material. Otto v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 253 F.3d 960, 966 (7th Cir. 2001).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[202]" /><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[203]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[204]">25. The trier-of-fact in administrative adjudications generally should accept uncontradicted factual testimony as true. Crabtree v. Illinois Department of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Industry Regulation, 128 Ill.2d 510, 518 (1989). Thus, for the undersigned to</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[205]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[206]">disregard factual testimony, it should be contradicted by positive testimony or circumstances, the witness proferring the testimony must be impeached, or the testimony must be inherently improbable. Bucktown Partners v. Johnson, 119 Ill.App.3d 346, 351 (1st Dist. 1983).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[207]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[208]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[209]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[210]">26. Admissions by counsel may be treated as judicial admissions and may be treated as binding on the party making the admissions. Lowe v. Kang, 178 Ill.App.3d 772, 776 (1988).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[211]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[212]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[213]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[214]">27. Inferences are conclusions of fact derived from the evidentiary facts introduced at hearing. Smith v. Tri-R Vending, 249 Ill.App.3d 654, 661 (1993). Hearing officers can make reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced at trial. However, like in all administrative adjudications, the inferences must be supported by facts proved or admitted. National Labor Relations Board v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 814-815 (1990)(Scalia, j. dissenting). The inferences must be drawn from facts through a process of logical reasoning. Id. Thus, the hearing officer must draw an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and result. Frobes v. Barnhart, 467 F.Supp.2d 808, 817 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Moreover, any inference a hearing officer makes must be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support his/her</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[215]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[216]">conclusions. Frobes v. Barnhart, 467 F.Supp.2d 808, 817 (N.D. Ill. 2006).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[217]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[218]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[219]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[220]">28. Expert opinions are admissible if the experts are considered qualified under a relaxed standard similar to the Daubert standard used in the federal courts. Pasha v. Gonzalez, 433 F.3d</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[221]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[222]">530, 535 (7th Cir. 2005). To the extent the hearing officer relies upon expert opinions, the expert opinions must be inferred ultimately from facts in the record, and the inferential process by</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[223]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[224]">which an expert reaches his/her conclusions must be fully explained. Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[225]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[226]">School District No. 204, 636 F.3d 874 (2011) (expert testimony must be grounded by material facts in the record and the inferential process by which an expert reaches his/her conclusions must be fully explained in the record); Mid- State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago, 833 F.2d 1333, 1339-1340 (7th Cir. 1989)(in litigation, expert opinions must be grounded in facts and inferred from a process of logical reasoning).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[227]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[228]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[229]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[230]">29. Hearing officers are entitled to and often need to make credibility findings. However, in such cases, hearing officers should provide reasons for why they found testimony credible or not credible. Marshall Joint School District No. 2. v. C.D. ex rel Brian D., 616 F.3d 632, 638 (7th Cir. 2010)</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[231]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[232]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[233]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[234]">30. Illinois law also imposes upon all administrative hearing officers the obligation to properly make an administrative record. Meneweather v. Board of Review, 249 Ill.App.3d 980,</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[235]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[236]">984-985 (1992). As in most state administrative proceedings, Illinois administrative hearing officers have an obligation not only to listen to evidence presented by the parties, but to affirmatively find facts necessary to properly to determine which party should prevail under the law. Meneweather, supra; See also, Frank Cooper, State Administrative Law, Vol. 1, Bobbs- Merrill Company, Inc. (1965), pg. 336. Similarly, all special education cases, hearing officer decisions must be based on substantive grounds as to whether the child’s special education needs are being met. 20 U.S.C.A. 1415(f)(3)(i); A.G. v. District of Columbia. 57 IDELR 9, 794 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C. 2011).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[237]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[238]">In administrative litigation, the hearing officer must be concerned with not only ensuring a fair process wherein the parties can present evidence, but also a proper result under the law because there is a significant public interest in properly having the law carried out. Landis, John, “The Administrative Process,” Yale University Press (1938) excerpted in Foundations of Administrative Law, Schuck, Peter (ed.) Foundation Press (2004), pp. 13-14. For this reason, administrative hearing officers are constitutionally permitted to depart from the adversarial model and independently obtain evidence and develop an administrative record while remaining a neutral and impartial decision maker. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 110-11 (2000); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 400-401 (1971) (social security administrative law judges constitutionally permitted to develop the record to determine all facts necessary whether benefits should be granted under law).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[239]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[240]">For this reason, the General Assembly provided impartial due process hearing officers with significant powers to independently compel the production of evidence necessary to reach a correct determination. Specifically, impartial due process hearing officers in Illinois are empowered to: (1) compel production of any evidence prior to the close of the administrative evidentiary record, 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02a(g-55); (2) order independent evaluations at school district expense, 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02a(g-55); and (3) question party witnesses during due process hearings, 23 IL ADC 226.660(b).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[241]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[242]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[243]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[244]">Conclusions of Law Related to IEP Design</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[245]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[246]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[247]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[248]">31. A District must develop an IEP which is reasonably calculated to provide the student with an educational benefit. Alex R. v. Forrestville Community Unit School District No. 221, 375</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[249]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[250]">.progress, not regression or trivial academic advancement. M.B. v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools, 112 LRP 6281 (7th Cir. 2011). In determining whether IEP designs are reasonable, a hearing officer need not accept school district claims as true regarding the reasonableness of IEP design, but neither should the hearing officer substitute his/her judgment for that of the school officials who have designed the IEP as the hearing officer determines whether the District</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[251]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[252]">provided an IEP reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit. School District of the Wisconsin Dells v. Z.S., 295 F.3d 671, 37 IDELR 34 (7th Cir. 2002). An IEP must address all aspects of Student’s disability, both academic and behavioral. Alex R. v. Forrestville Community Unit School District No. 221, 375 F.3d 603, 41 IDELR 146 (7th Cir. 2004).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[253]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[254]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[255]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[256]">32. In general, hearing officers should defer to the district on issues of methodology as long as use of the proposed methodology is reasonably calculated to providing the student with an educational benefit. Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Education, 852 F.2d 290, 297 (7th Cir.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[257]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[258]">1988). However, reasonableness generally requires an IEP Team to use methodologies which educational professionals have determined are effective in teaching children with similar disabilities. Like in all social sciences, effectiveness is determined using peer reviewed research. Therefore, to the extent practicable, a district must use a methodology to provide special education and related services based upon peer reviewed research. 20 U.S.C.A.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[259]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[260]">1414(d)((1)((A)(i)(IV); 34 CFR 300.320. Moreover, when a district fails to or cannot articulate a methodology, less deference (or no deference) is appropriate. TH v. Board of Education of Palatine Community Consolidated School District 15, 55 F.Supp.2d 830 (N.D.Ill. 1999).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[261]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[262]">33. When a hearing officer determines whether an IEP is reasonably designed to provide a student with FAPE (or needs to be revised), the hearing officer must judge the district based upon what the district knew or reasonably could have known at the time the IEP was drafted— not solely on whether academic progress occurred. M.B. v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools, 668</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[263]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[264]">F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2011); Thompson RJ-J School District v. Luke P., 540 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[265]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[266]">2008); Adams v. State of Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999); Fuhrmann v. East Hannover Board of Education, 993 F.2d 1031, 1041 (3rd Cir. 1993); Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[267]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[268]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[269]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[270]">34. A reasonable calculation of an educational benefit is gauged using a student’s potential- even though the District is not required to maximize a student’s potential in designing an IEP. Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 247 (3rd Cir. 1999).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[271]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[272]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[273]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[274]">35. In determining whether IEP design is reasonable, a student’s academic progress under the proposed IEP is evidence a hearing officer must consider. T.H. v. District of Columbia, 52</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[275]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[276]">IDELR 216, 620 F.Supp.2d 86 (D.D.C. 2009). Hunter v. District of Columbia, 51 IDELR 34 (D.D.C. 2008). However, a lack of academic progress is not dispositive of whether the IEP has been reasonably designed to provide a student with FAPE. Id. See also Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative School District, 518 F.3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2008).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[277]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[278]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[279]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[280]">36. In determining whether a student is making academic progress, objective factors such as regular advancement from grade to grade and achievement of passing grades is evidence of progress. Alex R., supra, 375 F.3d at 615. However, progress from grade to grade is not dispositive as to whether a child is receiving FAPE. Mary P. v. Illinois State Board of Education, 919 F.Supp. 1173, 1179-1181 (N.D. Ill. 1996).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[281]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[282]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[283]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[284]">37. Another factor in determining whether an IEP is reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit is whether the IEP addresses the Student’s unique needs. 34 CFR 300.39; Jaccari J v. Board of Education, Chicago Public School District No.299, 690 F.Supp.2d 687,</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[285]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[286]">702 (N.D.Ill. 2010). In determining whether the District considered a student’s unique needs properly in developing an IEP, general principles of reviewing decision making in administrative law are helpful. Decisions are unreasonable if the IEP Team: has relied on factors Congress has not intended it to consider; has entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem; has offered an explanation for its decision counter to the evidence before the IEP Team; or is so implausible that the decision could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of IEP Team expertise. See Motor Vehicle Manufacturer’s Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (determining when an agency’s decision making is arbitrary and capricious in rulemaking which is roughly analogous to the task hearing officers have to judge the reasonableness of IEP Teams in making decisions regarding IEP design). Similarly, when educational professionals depart from well-established practices, there must be a good reason for doing so. Id.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[287]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[288]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[289]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[290]">38. A District is not entitled to use an IEP which is not producing progress for years on end.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[291]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[292]">O’Toole v. Olathe District Schools Unified School District No. 233, 144 F.3d 692 (10th Cir.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[293]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[294]">1998). A District must revise an IEP when the IEP is obviously failing to produce progress or in any other situations when it would be appropriate to do so. M.M. v. Special School District No. 1, 512 F.3d 455, 49 IDELR 61 (8th Cir. 2008).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[295]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[296]">39. The IEP must comply with the requirements set forth in 20 U.S.C.A. 1414(d) in order to provide FAPE. 20 U.S.C.A. 1401(9). Section 1414(d) requires measurable goals designed to meet the child’s educational needs that result from the student’s disability. SS v. Howard Road Academy, 585 F.Supp.2d 56 (D.D.C. 2008); Sarah D. v. Board of Education of Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consolidated School District No. 102, 642 F.Supp.2d 804, 52 IDELR 281 (N.D. Ill.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[297]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[298]">2009).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[299]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[300]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[301]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[302]">40. Thus, in order to provide substantive FAPE, an IEP must establish goals which respond to all significant facets of a student’s disability, academic, behavioral, and functional. 20 USCA</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[303]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[304]">1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II);Sarah D., supra.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[305]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[306]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[307]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[308]">41. Goals should describe what a child with a disability can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a 12 month period in a special education program. Letter to Butler, 213</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[309]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[310]">IDELR 118 (OSERS 1988).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[311]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[312]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[313]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[314]">42. Each IEP goal should correspond to some item of instructions or services identified in the</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[315]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[316]">IEP. Burlington School District, 20 IDELR 1303 (SEA VT 1994).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[317]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[318]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[319]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[320]">43. An IEP that lacks meaningful educational goals may be fatally defective. Susquentia School District v. Raelee S, 25 IDELR 120 (M.D. Pa. 1996). It is very difficult (and nearly impossible) to appropriately address a student’s needs without first defining the goals which will provide a reasonable educational benefit. Conemaugh Township School District, 23 IDELR</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[321]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[322]">1233 (SEA PA 1996).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[323]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[324]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[325]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[326]">V. Application of law to Fact</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[327]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[328]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[329]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[330]">46. The undersigned finds that the District acted unreasonably in designing Student’s IEP and in attempting to provide Student FAPE. In making this finding, the undersigned finds: (a) the District is entitled to little or no deference in methodology regarding the provision of educational services in basic math as the District failed to articulate any methodology to teach Student basic math; (b) the current IEP completely fails to address Student’s needs in basic math including failing to provide comprehensive goals in basic math; (c) relatedly, the District failed to consider an important apect of Student’s unique needs, strengths and weaknesses in determining how to teach Student basic math; (c) the District continued to implement a failing IEP for years without significantly changing its methodology or provision of services in basic math; (d) the District completely ignored the statutory preference for providing research based methodologies for teaching Student basic math; and (e) the District ignored multiple case study evaluations</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[331]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[332]">showing Student’s needs in basic math. For the above stated reasons, the District’s IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with an educational benefit in basic math (specifically, his difficulty in understanding basic math).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[333]" /><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[334]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[335]">47. The undersigned rejects the District’s claims that Student cannot be educated in basic math for the reasons set forth in this order. The undersigned therefore further finds that the District failed to design an IEP which addressed all aspects of Student’s disability in that the IEPs failed to address Student’s needs in basic math.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[336]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[337]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[338]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[339]">48. The undersigned finds that the District’s strategy of teaching intermediate math with accommodations while completely ignoring Student’s needs in basic math is unreasonable because the District is not addressing Student’s unique educational needs.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[340]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[341]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[342]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[343]">49. Relatedly, the undersigned finds that Student’s grades and progress are not appropriate evidence that the District acted reasonably because the District’s accommodations completely mask Student’s deficiencies in basic math calculations.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[344]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[345]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[346]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[347]">50. The undersigned finds that Student needs appropriate peer reviewed research based multisensory instruction in math in order for Student to receive FAPE. Moreover, program must be designed to remediate Student’s needs in basic math. As such, the undersigned finds Student needs a program like Saxon or Singapore designed to teach Student basic math.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[348]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[349]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[350]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[351]">VI. Order</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[352]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[353]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[354]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[355]">51. The District shall convene an IEP meeting within thirty days.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[356]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[357]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[358]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[359]">52. At the IEP meeting:, the IEP Team shall first formulate Student’s present levels of performance in basic math calculations without the use of a calculator (including but not limited to telling time, using measurements, determining the value of money, and basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division).</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[360]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[361]">Second, the IEP Team shall then formulate whether Student needs any accommodations to learn basic math. The IEP Team shall not formulate accommodations designed to replace an understanding of basic math. Rather, the accommodations must be designed to allow Student to learn basic math.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[362]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[363]">Third, the IEP Team shall then formulate benchmarks and goals designed to measure Student’s progress in learning basic math. The goals shall include, but not be limited to goals related to telling time, using measurements, determining the value and use of money, and basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[364]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[365]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[366]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[367]">53. After completing the requirements of Paragraph 52, the IEP Team shall then determine an appropriate multi-sensory research based methodology and program for teaching Student’s basic math goals. After making such a determination, the IEP Team shall adopt said methodology and program. Any methodology and program for teaching Student basic math (including the qualifications of teaching professionals to teach Student) adopted by the IEP Team must be approved by Parent’s Independent Psychologist. The program must address Student’s unique needs and deficits in basic math, and must either be Saxon I or an analogous program which instructs Student in a similar fashion as Saxon I.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[368]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[369]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[370]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[371]">53. Finally, depending on the methodology and program adopted for Student, the IEP Team shall determine whether Student’s current LRE is appropriate, or whether Student needs more</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[372]" /><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[373]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[374]">time outside of the general education curriculum in order for the adopted program or methodology to be appropriately administered. If Student requires more pull-out time to learn basic math, the IEP Team shall adjust Student’s LRE accordingly.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[375]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[376]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[377]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[378]">54. The District must continue to provide the adopted multi-sensory, research based methodology and program for at least one calendar year from the date of this order. The Parents’ request to require the adopted program for more than one year is rejected. The adopted research based program may (and hopefully will) be successful, and Student will need a different program after one year of receiving the services required by this order.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[379]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[380]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[381]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[382]">55. Within 30 days of this order, The District shall provide Student with a laptop computer. The laptop computer shall have all programs required by Student’s IEP loaded onto the laptop.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[383]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[384]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[385]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[386]">56. The District shall provide proof of compliance with this order to the Illinois State Board of Education, Compliance Division, by February 10, 2014.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[387]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[388]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[389]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[390]">VII. Right to Request Clarification</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[391]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[392]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[393]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[394]">57. Section 14-8.02a(h) of the School Code, allows the hearing officer to retain jurisdiction after the issuance of the decision for the sole purpose of considering a request for clarification. A request for clarification shall specify the portions of the decision for which clarification is sought and a copy of the request shall be mailed to the other parties and to the Illinois State Board of Education. The request shall operate to stay the implementation of those portions of the decision for which clarification is sought. I shall issue a clarification of the specific portion</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[395]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[396]">of the decision or issue a partial or full denial of the request in writing within ten days of receipt of the request and mail copies to all parties to whom the decision was mailed.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[397]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[398]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[399]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[400]">VIII. Finality of Decision</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[401]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[402]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[403]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[404]">58. This decision shall be binding upon all parties.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[405]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[406]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[407]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[408]">IX. Right to File Civil Action</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[409]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[410]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[411]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[412]">59. Any party to this hearing aggrieved by the final decision has the right to commence a civil action with respect to the issues presented in the hearing. Pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/14-</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[413]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[414]">8.02a(I) that civil action shall be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction within 120 days after this decision was mailed.</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[415]" /><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[416]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[417]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[418]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[419]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[420]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[421]">/S Joseph P. Selbka</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[422]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[423]">Joseph P. Selbka Impartial Due Process Hearing Officer</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[424]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[425]">Date: October 24, 2013</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[426]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[427]"></span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[428]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[429]">Joseph P. Selbka</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[430]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[431]">3701 Algonquin Road, #390</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[432]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[433]">Rolling Meadows, IL 60008</span><br data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[434]" /><span data-reactid=".r[3n0bc].[1][4][1]{comment1382640657237:2906488296}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[435]">847-749-2239 jselbka@sbcglobal.net</span></span></span>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-56677770545567908532012-08-15T15:38:00.001-07:002012-08-15T15:39:41.229-07:00Response to Intervention – Dream or Nightmare? Confronting the Crisis in Special (and Regular) Education and What We Can Do About It!<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
Response to
Intervention – Dream or Nightmare? Confronting the Crisis in Special (and
Regular) Education and What We Can Do About It!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
By: Matt Cohen<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
August 15, 2012<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Response to
Intervention (RTI) is an educational strategy that has been incorporated in the
federal special education law as an option for serving students at risk academically,
especially for students suspected of having learning disabilities. It is intended to provide extra support to
students that are struggling academically in regular education that might
otherwise be referred for special education evaluation due to the suspicion
that they may have a learning disability and require special education. The basic idea is to provide short-term
(8-12 weeks), intensive, scientifically-based educational intervention in the
area of difficulty and to carefully monitor, week by week, the child’s progress
to see how they respond to the intervention.
If the student responds well to the intervention, as reflected in the
data, it is surmised that the student’s academic problems were due to a problem
with inadequate instruction, rather than being due to a learning
disability. As a result, some and
perhaps many students that were being placed in special education due to
underachievement, rather than due to a learning disability, could get the boost
they needed to get on track, without being subjected to unnecessary evaluation
or being placed in special education inappropriately.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As an attorney
representing many children with disabilities, including many with learning
disabilities, I believe Response to Intervention represents a potentially
promising educational strategy in concept and in practice for some children
that might otherwise be misplaced in special education. <b><span style="color: #0070c0;">At the same time, I also see it as the one of the
greatest threats to effective and timely identification and education for
children with disabilities, particularly LD, and potentially a serious misuse of time and
resources for many regular education students without disabilities as well.</span></b> There is a continuing debate about RTI within
the educational and disability rights community, as the implementation of RTI
gains momentum and its impact, positive and negative, becomes more
apparent. This debate occurs
simultaneously with a further challenge, as the disability rights community fights
a holding action to preserve existing, albeit inadequate, special education
services and safeguards and to regain some of the protections and services that
are being progressively stripped away.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 27.0pt;">
As I follow this debate, my
reactions are informed by my own experiences with many clients and schools here
in Illinois, from visiting and talking with parents and educators around the
country and though my various training and legal activities. In my experience, there are schools and
districts that have developed and implemented carefully- designed RTI programs,
with good staff training, sensible guidelines, effective monitoring, and
meaningful use of data. Such programs
have subsequently resulted in better
differentiation of those kids that need special education evaluation after a
time-limited RTI experience and those that prove to benefit from the
time-limited intervention and do not appear to need special education. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 27.0pt;">
On the other hand, I encounter
many situations in which students with significant learning problems are kept
in RTI status indefinitely, with poor data gathering and analysis, with
programming implemented without intensity or fidelity, sometimes by staff that
are not even qualified to do so, and with long delays in moving to evaluation
for those students that are not progressing.
I have also seen schools that implement school-wide RTI classes, with no
differentiation between those at risk and those progressing and with little or
no fidelity to effective, research-based best practices – making RTI a
glorified (or not so glorified) study hall.
Further, many districts are now
exiting students from special education on the grounds that they can access RTI
services as a “less restrictive” intervention, again a bastardization of what
RTI was intended to be. Worse, there
are enormously divergent standards and practices from state to state, district
to district, and even school to school.
There is even increasing effort to expand RTI beyond LD to all
disability categories. The result is
widespread inconsistency, confusion, dilution of services, and delay of
evaluation and services for those with disabilities, and a pretense of a
sub-set of regular education providing more effective services that often are,
in reality, also inadequate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .25in;">
I share these observations about
the expanding debate in the hope of adding some clarity and some potential for
channeling the frustration into a concrete strategy for change. The proposed strategy is ambitious and may
be unrealistic in the current political and economic climate, but provides a
broader approach to the current crisis in the hope that some of the proposals
to address the problems created by RTI can be accomplished.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>1)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>THERE IS ALMOST UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT THAT
THE DISCREPANCY FORMULA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF CHILDREN WITH LD WAS INACCURATE
AND HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO MIS-DIAGNOSIS.</u></b>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>REALITY: </b>There can be little disagreement that
the discrepancy formula was not an accurate measure of the presence of a
neurological processing disorder, but simply a screening tool for the
identification of low achievement.
Because we used the discrepancy formula as the primary measure of the
existence of a learning disability, many children were improperly diagnosed as
having learning disabilities, when other factors, including inadequate
education, were the actual cause of the underachievement. It is likely that inadequate education and
over-identification of LD based on the discrepancy formula disproportionately
impacted children of low socio-economic status, as they often were and are more
likely to attend schools that lacked the resources to provide adequate
education for all their students. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>CONSEQUENCE: </b>Those that respond to the problems with
RTI by seeking to rehabilitate the discrepancy formula diminish the need to
obtain fair and accurate evaluation and to reduce problems of
over-identification. This attempt to
rehabilitate the formula promotes the return to a procedure that was
legitimately criticized as over- and under-inclusive and as promoting
over-identification of children of color and those from low SES. Rehabilitating the discrepancy formula is
not a solution to the problems being created by the widespread adoption of RTI
models for both diagnosis and “educational intervention.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>ACTION: <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo4; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">a)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">We need to focus on identifying and requiring use of
valid diagnostic procedures that actually address whether neurological
processing deficits are present, rather than framing the choice as one between
two inadequate evaluation methods – RTI and the discrepancy formula. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo4; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">b)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">Further, in promoting the use of reliable evaluation
procedures, we should embrace the use of both the discrepancy formula as a
screening tool and the use of RTI as a desired short-term</span></b><span style="color: #0070c0;"> <b>preliminary
intervention and as a source of additional diagnostic data—albeit not a
procedure that replaces more accurate procedures as the sole or primary
determinant of the need for evaluation or of eligibility, or as the basis for
improper deflection or delay of appropriate requests for evaluation for special
education eligibility. <o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo4; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">c)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">In doing so, we also need the US Department of Education/OSEP
and/or the SEAs to clarify—through the
Reauthorization process, through regulations, or through much stronger
regulatory guidance—the ongoing necessity for neuropsychological testing as a
necessary component of the assessment of children suspected of having learning
disabilities and rejection of the use of RTI data as the sole or primary means
of determining whether a student does (or does not) need evaluation or meet
criteria for LD. RTI data, when based
on appropriate RTI programming and data gathering, should be a part of the
evaluation consideration, but not the predominant variable.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>2)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b><b><u> THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR RTI WAS AND
REMAINS AN INDICTMENT OF THE EFFICACY OF REGULAR EDUCATION IN AMERICA.<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>REALITY: </b>The underlying assumption of RTI is that
many children, especially children of color and low socio-economic status, were
being placed inappropriately in special education because of the
ineffectiveness of regular education instruction. Sadly, the educational system is falling
short for many students, as reflected in the intense focus on the need for
better outcomes and more accountability.
The premise of RTI is that inadequate instruction has been a significant
contributing factor in children underachieving and being referred for special
education. This is accepted as a
truism, but the significance of this as an overall indictment of American
education has been lost. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>CONSEQUENCE:</b> RTI, even if conceptually helpful for some
students, recognizes the underlying inadequacy, or at least unreliability, of the
regular educational system for many, if not all students. We cannot adequately address the needs of
students with and without disabilities if we don’t dramatically improve the
overall quality of education in America.
Research-based interventions should not be a fallback intervention for
students that are at risk or failing.
They should not be substitutes for implementing comprehensive best
practices throughout regular education nor as educational and diagnostic
strategies in lieu of competent evaluation and appropriate research-based
practices for children with LD and other disabilities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0;">ACTION:</span></b><span style="color: #0070c0;"> <b>Effective,
systematic and research-based, best practice instruction should be the right of
all students and should be provided to all students. Attacking RTI is a holding action, but doesn’t
address the fundamental underlying problems of American education. <o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">a)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">Any effort to redefine RTI, to protect LD services, and
to construct a clinically valid evaluation process needs to also address the
need for the universal implementation of:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 114.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo7; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">i)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">Effective, systematic research-based best practice
instruction for all students, including those without disabilities, <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 114.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo7; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">ii)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;"> Differentiated
instruction in regular education by teachers who are well-trained (not just
“highly qualified” and equipped to provide effective teaching to a diverse
student population, and<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 114.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo7; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">iii)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;"> Specialized, research-based systematic
multi-sensory instruction for children with accurately diagnosed learning
disabilities. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">b)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">We must substantially strengthen standards for curriculum
development, teacher training and in-service training, and utilization of
educational programming that is geared to our children progressing in all
academic and relevant non-academic areas.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>3)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>THE FOCUS ON INCLUSION AS THE SOURCE OF
THIS EVIL IS MISPLACED.<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>REALITY: </b> The concept of inclusion as theoretically
conceived and implemented with fidelity has great utility; is educationally
sound for most students with disabilities; and is a legal, moral, and communal
imperative. This is true for many of
the theoretical grounds for RTI as well.
Unfortunately, many schools purportedly
implementing “inclusion” are not implementing educationally sound programs, nor
are they providing adequate supports for inclusive programming generally or for
specific students. Universal design and
instruction theoretically should help to close the gap between theory and
practice, but that is a generation or more in the future for many schools. Many schools are implementing programs that
are labeled as “inclusion programs” that are actually just a form of dumping—doing
a disservice to the students with disabilities, students without disabilities
and the staff. Further, the development of RTI programs
allows schools to shift students with or at-risk of having disabilities into
regular education with less intensive or individualized instruction, with little
or no clear baseline and progress-driven planning, and with inadequate progress
monitoring. These RTI systems often use programs
or staff not adequately trained to deliver appropriate instruction. Thus, the goals of RTI and inclusion merge,
ostensibly facilitating mutually supportive and desirable inclusive practices,
but actually creating mutually destructive dilution of quality programming and
delay or denial of effective instruction to many of the students involved,
whether based in regular or special education.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>CONSEQUENCES:</b> The problem with inclusion is not with the
concept, but is often with the misuse of purported inclusion as a means to
restructure schools’ delivery of special education services to save money and
leverage resources. Rigid inclusive procedures,
especially when implemented with weak training and support for staff and
students (whether driven by ideological grounds, theoretical grounds, or
economic motivators) are ultimately likely to dilute services for students with
disabilities, including those with LD.
This will result in a further deterioration in educational outcomes for
all students in those systems. This is
not a critique of inclusion theory or as a civil right, but rather an
indictment of the real world implementation of procedures that redirect
students with disabilities into regular education without adequate staff
training or support for teachers and students. Further, where this is occurring,
particularly with the use of RTI programming as an alternative or stop gap
measure, it weakens the intensity and individualization of services for
children with disabilities, reduces accountability, and dilutes the efficacy of
RTI services for at-risk students that may benefit from it when it is also
being misused to serve students that either don’t need it or require even more
intensive and specialized instruction.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0;">ACTION:</span></b><span style="color: #0070c0;"> <b>Attacks on inclusion in the interest of
protecting special education should differentiate the problems of implementation
with the desirability of participation in regular education to the maximum extent
possible and appropriate with effective support. Part of improved service for children with
disabilities, including children with LD, necessitates improvement in regular
ed-based supports for those students.
Action to protect and improve services for students with LD and other
disabilities should address both special education and regular education,
rather than casting the solution as being mutually exclusive. Further, while RTI programming may provide a
short-term bridge or extra support for students with disabilities, it was not
intended to replace special education, is not structured to do so, and cannot
do so. Merging RTI with inclusive
efforts undermines both. <o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -39.0pt;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">a)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">Congress, OSEP, the Office for Civil Rights and/or the
SEAs should make clear that RTI is a diagnostic intervention, not an ongoing
educational service intended to provide a non-special, open-ended delivery
system for students at risk of needing special ed but that are deflected or declassified. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -39.0pt;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">b)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">This requires clear rules that RTI is to be time limited;
must have clear entrance, service, and exit criteria; and must NOT generically take
the place of special education evaluation or services.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -39.0pt;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">c)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">Further, the rules for RTI, whether at the national,
state or local level, should clarify that availability of RTI services are not
a justification for either terminating special education or providing on going
RTI services in lieu of special education.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -39.0pt;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">d)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">Finally, LRE/Inclusion rules should be reiterated to make
clear that providing services to children with disabilities in regular
education is a placement issue, requiring appropriate service and support for
the student, and where appropriate, the staff, and is not an eligibility issue
impacted by the availability of RTI diagnostic interventions for students at
risk.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 75.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>4)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>THE CONCEPT OF RTI AS AN INTERVENTION IS
THEORETICALLY DESIRABLE, BUT IS OFTEN HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE IN IMPLEMENTATION.<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<b>REALITY: </b> Some schools are doing a good job of
implementing short-term, time limited intensive, research-based intervention
for children at risk of serious academic difficulties. Interventions are provided by teachers
skilled in the chosen intervention techniques; services are provided and data
is gathered with fidelity; and programming is chosen, provided, and monitored
to address specific suspected problems using relevant and appropriate educational
interventions. Where the child is not
making adequate progress, the school staff responds initially with reasonable
short-term adjustments, but when these are unsuccessful, referral for special
education evaluation occurs in a timely fashion. Throughout, parents are informed of the
concerns, aware of the process, provided timely meaningful progress data, and
included in the decision-making. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0;">
Unfortunately, in many other schools, RTI is being implemented without
appropriate time limitations and without clear entrance, service, or exit
criteria. It is being delivered by
personnel that are not adequately trained in research-based programs. In too many schools, RTI instruction is not
consistent with the protocols for the programs, data is not gathered
consistently or with fidelity nor used for meaningful evaluation of the
students’ progress, and parents are often not included in the process or in the
data sharing or analysis.</span></b> In
some schools, all students now receive “RTI” instruction as a scheduled part of
their instructional day, regardless of whether they are at risk, making RTI
equivalent to a study hall. In others,
students are kept in RTI programs for many months or even years, sometimes in
the face of little progress and even in the face of parent or staff referral
for special education evaluation. At the back end, some schools are
declassifying students eligible for special education on the grounds that they
can be placed in RTI programs instead of special education, even though RTI was
intended as a short-term, time limited intervention prior to considering
special education eligibility. Further,
in many schools parents are given confusing or inaccurate information about
their right to request special education evaluation even while the student is
being referred for RTI services and/or are not being given proper prior written
notice of the school’s refusal to conduct timely evaluations in response to
parent or teacher referral.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<b>CONSEQUENCES:</b> Some (I
suspect many) students that <b><span style="color: #0070c0;">do</span></b> have disabilities are languishing in inadequate
RTI programs that are not helping them to progress, thereby delaying or denying
evaluation for and access to special education services and procedural
safeguards. Even where a student may make some progress in response to the
intervention program, the program often is not designed to and does not address
all of the student’s academic and non-academic problems. The intervention program focuses narrowly on
a specific skill such as reading rate or accuracy, while missing other
concerns—whether linked to the academic problem, such as comprehension, or
involving other problems, such as language delays, social or attentional
issues, or problems with self-esteem resulting from their academic problems. RTI is not designed to function
multi-dimensionally. The result of these
various problems is that many students are denied or delayed appropriate evaluation
for special education. Also, excessive
focus on the RTI progress data may mask the presence of other problems even
when the child is referred for evaluation and many children are either being
improperly denied eligibility or receiving services that are too narrowly
targeted due to evaluations that do not encompass the range of problems they
are displaying. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;">
<b>ACTION:</b> Amend IDEA regulations,
obtain clarifying interpretation, seek state level rules, or use complaint procedures
and litigation process to secure structural changes in RTI procedures,
including:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo5; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family: Cambria;">a)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></b><b><span style="color: #0070c0;">Mandatory time
limits on period of intervention, with baseline of x weeks and the possibility
of limited extension with parental permission.</span></b><span style="color: #0070c0;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo5; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>b)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b>Delineate
that intervention must be provided with frequency, intensity, qualified staff,
and appropriate group size and instructional levels to comply with intervention
protocols and structure to improve efficacy for students and allow for
meaningful assessment of the intervention.
Add to existing regulations and related administrative guidance that RTI
services must be provided by <b><span style="color: #0070c0;">properly trained teachers</span></b> with certification
in the area of intervention being addressed and the methodologies being
employed. RTI services may not be
provided by non-professional personnel.
Satisfying the NCLB “Highly qualified” standard is not equivalent to
being adequately trained in intervention and assessment procedures.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo5; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>c)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b>Require
notice to parents at point of referral to RTI explaining the reason for
referral, the target of intervention, where time will come from, the data gathering
procedure and requirement for data to be shared with parents, review and exit
criteria, and Parents’ ongoing right to request special education evaluation at
any time. Notice should also identify
collateral educational, social and other concerns that are not suitable for
remediation through the RTI process and the school’s plan for how these
problems will be addressed during intervention period.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo5; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>d)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b>Clarify
that IDEA funds for RTI may only be used for students at severe risk for
referral for special education evaluation and not for all students nor for
students being declassified from special education eligibility as a step down
option.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo5; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>e)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b>Require
that parents be notified within 7 calendar days of completion of RTI process as
to the team’s assessment of whether intervention was successful and/or whether
student requires evaluation for special education, with notice containing all
relevant procedural safeguards and, if evaluation is recommended, requiring
that parent be advised of the domain process, their right to input into the
scope of evaluation, and that domain process and parent consent be requested
with 14 calendar days of conclusion of RTI period. Similarly, it should make clear that denial
of referral for evaluation based on RTI data should trigger a prior written
notice to parents of the decision to decline evaluation, the reasons for the
refusal, and provision of notice to parents of their procedural rights,
including the right to request a hearing to challenge the refusal to evaluate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo5; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>f)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b>Prohibit
misuse of federal IDEA funds for RTI by: a) prohibiting schools from providing
RTI services to all students on school or grade level wide basis, b) prohibit declassification of students with disabilities
on the grounds that their programming could be provided through RTI programs, and
c) prohibit use of federal IDEA funds to provide RTI services to students that
were receiving special education services for related problems within the past
12 months. (Note – it would be
desirable to allocate funding and a procedure for providing transitional
support for students progressing sufficiently that they are potentially capable
of discontinuing special education services, but require some additional monitoring
or assistance to assure they sustain appropriate progress, but such services
should not be confused with RTI programming nor should such funding be mixed
with RTI funding).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>5)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>CLARIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE EVALUATION
AND ELIGIBILITY LANGUAGE IN THE REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS TO AFFIRM
THE CONTINUING ROLE AND NEED FOR CLINICAL DATA ASSESSING WHETHER A PROCESSING
DEFICIT IS PRESENT, THROUGH EVALUATION BY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND THE
CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF AND OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS WITH
CLINICAL DATA CONCERNING WHETHER A CHILD HAS A</u> <u>PROCESSING DISORDER</u></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b>REALITY: </b>The clear message
of the IDEA , in both the legislative history, the commentary and the
regulations, is that the discrepancy formula has been discredited as an accurate
means of diagnosing learning disabilities.
In seeking a more effective procedure, Congress gave states and
districts the option of no longer using the discrepancy formula, although the
IDEA regulations appear to reinstate the formula as part of the eligibility
determination in Section 300.311(a)(5), which provides:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<b> </b>(5) Whether—(i) The child does not achieve
adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards
consistent with § 300.309(a)(1); and(ii)(A) The child does not make sufficient
progress to meet age or State- approved grade-level standards consistent with §
300.309(a)(2)(i); or(B) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and
weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age,
State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development consistent
with<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
§ 300.309(a)(2)(ii);<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b>CONSEQUENCE: </b>Despite this,
the regulations require that a child may not be found eligible under the LD
category unless the team has determined that the absence of appropriate instruction
in regular education is not the cause of the underachievement. 34 CFR 300.306(b). This provision has led many states and school
systems to interpret the RTI language to be an implicit, if not explicit
mandate, and simultaneously, they have reduced or discontinued the use of
psychological evaluation procedures, particularly IQ and Achievement Tests, for
the purposes of determining if a student meets criteria for LD. This interpretation flies in the face of
Congress’ continued use of the same definition of Learning Disability, which
provides that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 63.0pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -4.5pt;">
(10) <i>Specific
learning disability—(i) General. </i>Specific learning disability means 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 the 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. 34 CFR
300.308(c)(10)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
This definition explicitly requires
determination that the child has a neurological disorder that interferes with
one or areas of processing required for learning and academic functioning.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
The research and theory supporting
RTI were designed to avoid students being placed in special education based on
a discrepancy between intellectual potential and achievement that was actually
the result of inadequate instruction.
RTI procedures have no clinical or educational efficacy in determining
whether a student has a processing disorder nor were the intervention
procedures intended for that purpose. Arguably,
requiring schools to rely primarily or exclusively on a child’s response to
intervention, particularly given that the quality of intervention varies by
provider, results in an even higher risk of inaccurate diagnosis than the
previously discredited discrepancy formula.
Further, by effectively dismissing the role of clinical test data relating
to the identification of processing problems, some schools are excluding the
only data that is actually relevant to determining if the child’s symptoms are
a result of a learning disability as defined by the IDEA. Further, because of the inconsistent
delivery of RTI and subjective interpretation of the significance of RTI data,
there is equal or greater risk of children being over-identified,
misidentified, or unidentified based on data that is not sufficient to make an
accurate eligibility decision. Worse,
due to the greater difficulty of providing effective RTI services in poor
school districts, there is a higher risk of over-representation of minority and
low income students in the RTI process and ultimately in being made eligible
for special education using the new regime then under the old inaccurate
regime.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b>ACTION: </b>See Section
One. In addition, clarify and expand the IDEA and state regulations to
acknowledge the continuing role of clinicians, and particularly psychologists
and speech and language pathologists, in assessing the student’s processing and
determining if the student has a processing disorder, by requiring the
involvement of these personnel in the evaluation and eligibility process,
currently discretionary per 34 CFR 300.308 (b), and the use of appropriate
assessment instruments to evaluate for processing deficits be included in 34
CFR 300.311.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>6)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>RTI RESULTS IN WIDESPREAD DELAY IN
RESPONSE TO PARENTAL REQUESTS FOR EVALUATION AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE PRIOR
WRITTEN NOTICE OR NOTICE OF RIGHTS IN RESPONSE TO SOME DISTRICTS’ EXPLICIT OR
OPERATIONAL DECISION TO DELAY OR DENY REQUESTED EVALUATIONS. <o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b>REALITY: </b>In too many
situations, RTI is being used for prolonged periods of time either: a)
without the parent receiving prior written notice of their right to
request an evaluation or, if they request it, the reason for the denial; b) with
schools frequently informally or formally deflecting requests for evaluation by
citing the need to continue with RTI procedures; c) with parents often not
being provided timelines or criteria for the RTI process, its role in
determining either whether a special education evaluation will occur, or the
relevance of the RTI data if an evaluation does occur, effectively depriving
them of the opportunity for making an informed decision about whether to agree
to defer the desired evaluation or to challenge the refusal; d) with even
school staff at times supporting the child’s need for evaluation, but are also
being deflected indefinitely based on the school’s stated commitment to
extended RTI services.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b>CONSEQUENCE:</b> Parents are
often not aware of their rights, are misinformed about their rights, or are
discouraged from pursuing evaluations based on inadequate or inaccurate
information from the school concerning the RTI process as a precursor to
evaluation. The result is that some
students that warrant evaluation and/or need special education services are
delayed or denied access to timely evaluations and services.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<b>ACTION:</b> Expand the prior
written notice requirements to require that whenever a student is referred for
RTI services, the parent must receive notice of their procedural safeguards,
including the right to request an evaluation and the school’s obligations in
response to that request. Clarify and
strengthen the regulations to make clear that involvement in RTI is not by
itself a basis for denying or delaying an evaluation. Expand the regulations to provide that any
refusal of a request for evaluation that is based on the need for additional
intervention or intervention data must be automatically granted if the
intervention period exceeds 16 weeks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo6; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b>7)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></b><b><u>RTI PROCEDURES ARE SO PROBLEMATIC IN
SOME DISTRICTS TO CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS
OF DISTRICTS’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER IDEA, SECTION 504 AND THE ADA AND THE US
CONSTITUTION.<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>REALITY AND
CONSEQUENCE: </b>The use of RTI prevents many children that are appropriate
candidates for special education from either receiving timely evaluation or
being evaluated for a disability at all.
Further, because the RTI procedures are implemented in such widely
disparate ways in districts across the country and with substantial lack of
fidelity in many, the theoretical benefit of the intervention process, either
for remediation or diagnosis is absent.
This constitutes a violation of Child Find under both IDEA and Section
504. It also denies students that would otherwise
be appropriately determined to be eligible for special education from receiving
special education, which results in a denial of FAPE.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
The absence of criteria for
determining whom should receive RTI services, the focus of such services, the
duration of such services, and the criteria for determining that special
education evaluation is needed results in failure to evaluate and provide
services to many children with bona fide disabilities or symptoms that warrant evaluation
to determine if they have a disability.
In addition to being a violation of IDEA, this is arguably
discrimination based on the nature or severity of the student’s disability, in
violation of Section 504 and the ADA. Consider
that students with more severe disabilities would be more likely to be
identified even in an inadequate RTI process.
Further, the absence of clear and consistent criteria or evaluation
procedures means that many children are not given evaluations utilizing the
appropriate evaluation instruments designed to assess disabilities they are or
should be suspected of having, just by virtue of the nature of their
disability. Further, to the extent that
children with learning disabilities are singled out for this intervention process—resulting
in widespread delay in evaluation, inadequate evaluation, and failure to
identify the children or provide appropriate services—there is a compelling
argument that the IDEA and districts’ interpretation and implementation of the
law, result in widespread discrimination on the basis of the nature or severity
of the disabilities of children with actual or suspected learning disabilities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Further,
the selective declassification of students with LD based on the availability of
post-special education RTI services, constitutes discrimination based on the
nature and severity of the students’ disabilities, as categories of students
are being declassified without an individualized determination of whether the
existing LD services are needed or the RTI services will be adequate and in
contrast to the service structure for students with other disabilities<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, the widespread delay in providing
notice of procedural safeguards, notice of the right to evaluation, timely
provision of proper prior written notice of the refusal of evaluations and the
ambiguous time frame for providing services violates the constitutional rights
of students with disabilities. <b><span style="color: #0070c0;">First, the
failure to comply with the procedural safeguards of the IDEA may constitute a
violation of the right to procedural due process under the 14<sup>th</sup>
Amendment. Second, the differential
provision of and compliance with procedural safeguards for students with suspected
LD (or other disabilities) involved in RTI procedures, in contrast to greater
and more timely procedural compliance by schools in relation to referrals of
students with other suspected disabilities, may constitute discrimination based
on the nature of disability in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
14<sup>th</sup> Amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>ACTION: </b>Absent corrective action by Congress, the
US Department of Education, the State Education Agencies and local school
districts, litigation to compel due process protections and equal protection of
the laws will be required to address this irrational and inequitable
discrimination against many students that require evaluation and services based
on their disabilities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>CONCLUSION:<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b> <span style="color: #0070c0;">Despite
a variety of potentially positive contributions to the quality of education for
students with academic difficulties, the theory, design and implantation of
RTI, in concert with the vague and even contradictory language of the federal
law and regulations, has resulted in widespread denial of evaluation and
services to students with disabilities.
Further, the inconsistency of regulatory requirements, their interpretation
and their implementation throughout the US, has led to intolerable variation in
the meaning, quality, and impact of RTI by school and even by student. This is fundamentally unfair by itself. Further, the absence of consistent and
adequate standards, training, and funding, has placed a burden on educators,
set them up to fail, and disrupted the educational process for students with
and without disabilities. Where RTI has
worked well, it may, on balance, be a very positive change. However, the absence of standards,
consistency, clarity of purpose, and implementation have all undermined both special
and regular education, procedural safeguards, and educational
effectiveness. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0;"> Given the
potential value of RTI conceptually, it is worth redefining its role and use so
as to maintain its potential contribution to the range of educational options
for educators and students. However,
given its many problems, and the severe threat it poses to special education
both structurally, procedurally, and for individual students, it is imperative
that massive changes be made to improve the rules and procedures for RTI and to
clarify and improve the rules, criteria, and evaluation process for LD. <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<b><span style="color: #0070c0;">This effort can and should occur
nationally, at the state level, and locally.
In addition, it is my hope that some of the issues I have raised will
also be of use to individual families, clinicians, advocates, and educators in addressing
problems with their own children, students, and schools.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-17436221305794926252012-05-17T13:49:00.002-07:002012-05-17T13:49:31.148-07:00Parents’ Right to a Timely and Up to Date 504 Plan At the Start of School<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>824</o:Words>
<o:Characters>4699</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Monahan & Cohen</o:Company>
<o:Lines>39</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>11</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>5512</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>14.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Parents’ Right to a
Timely and Up to Date<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>504 Plan At the Start
of School<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>by Matt Cohen<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Publication of a
variation of this article is upcoming in the<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Next issue of <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Additude Magazine<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><a href="http://www.additudemag.com/">www.additudemag.com</a><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">For better and worse, the Section 504 regulations have no
provisions addressing when during the year the 504 meeting should take place.
Schools typically hold 504 meetings in the spring in the same time frame
as IEP meetings are typically held.
However, there is some what more variability in the timing of 504 review
meetings, particularly because they are often initiated throughout the school
year. Some districts adhere to strict policies that
the plan must be reviewed a year from the initiation or most recent review
date. This can be problematic, as it
is often important to review and revise the 504 plan at the end of the year in
preparation for the new year or, at least, at the very start of the new school
year. There is nothing in the regulations that requires that 504 meetings be at
any particular time of year. There are a variety of things that
parents can do if the school is unwilling to review the 504 plan in time for an
up to date plan to be in place at the
start of school. The easiest is to simply provide all teachers with a copy of
the current (though somewhat dated) 504 Plan written the prior November when
school starts in August or September. The school should be doing this,
but there is no reason why you can't do it as well, just to make sure that the
staff get the information. In all likelihood, this may trigger some
reaction from the school, good or bad, but it does assure that the information
gets to the staff. A second option that you have, even given the
school's meeting schedule, is to make a request before or at the start of the
school year, for a new 504 meeting to occur immediately. You should
probably have some reason other than just wanting the staff to be aware, that
you are asking for the meeting, but the school will be in a weak position if
they ignore your request. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(Note that many of these same concerns may also occur in
relation to the review of an IEP.
Similar arguments or strategies can also be used to push for an updated
review and reconsideration of an IEP prior to or at the start of the school
year, even if the school’s review schedule provides for a later review.)<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> As the failure to have staff
informed of the existence of the plan and unable to implement it effectively
denies the student the benefit of the plan, this may represent a violation of
the student's right under Section 504 to a "free appropriate public
education." The 504 regulations provide: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">34 Code of Fed. Reg. § 104.33 Free appropriate
public education.</span></i></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(a) General. A recipient that operates a public
elementary or secondary education program shall provide a free appropriate
public education to each qualified handicapped person who is inthe
recipient’s jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the
person’s handicap.</span></i></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(b) Appropriate education. (1) For
the purpose of this subpart, the provision</span></i></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">of an appropriate education is the provision
of regular or special education</span></i></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">and related aids and services that
(i) are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped
persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met and
(ii) are</span></i></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">based upon adherence to procedures that
satisfy the requirements of</span></i></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">§§ 104.34, 104.35, and 104.36.</span></i></b><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Given this right, if all else fails, another strategy is to
verify that the staff do not have the information and are not implementing the
plan. Once you have done this, you have the right to file a complaint
with the US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, charging the
school with non-compliance, or to request a 504 hearing from the District.
The first option is less work for you, as OCR does most of the work.
In addition, if the school has to conduct a 504 hearing, they get to
appoint the "impartial" hearing officer. However, my hope
would be that either step would lead the school to either change their policy
or at least make sure that staff have the plan and are implementing it, without
actually having to go all the way through the process. You might also
consider letting the school know of your concern and your intent to take one of
these steps and try to work out an agreement for them to solve the problem
without actually initiating the complaint or hearing request. For
information about the OCR complaint process, go to: <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaints-how.html"><span style="color: #1155cc;">http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaints-how.html</span></a>.
To file a complaint with OCR, go to: <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html"><span style="color: #1155cc;">http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html</span></a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See also: <a href="http://www.mattcohenandassociates.com/"><span style="color: #1155cc;">www.mattcohenandassociates.com</span></a>,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://disablethelabels.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #1155cc;">disablethelabels.blogspot.com</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and my book, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A Guide to Special Education Advocacy- What
Parents, Advocates and Clinicians Need to Know</span></u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">,
Jessica Kingsley Press, 2009, available through our website.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Matt Cohen can be reached at Matt Cohen and Associates, Chicago,
Ill.,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="file://localhost/tel/866-787-9270"><span style="color: #1155cc;">866-787-9270</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>or<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:mdcspedlaw@gmail.com"><span style="color: #1155cc;">mdcspedlaw@gmail.com</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
Matt Cohen, J.D.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-60856951713418565012012-05-12T14:07:00.000-07:002012-05-12T14:28:05.034-07:00An Hour (More) In the early morning of an AD/HD Mind<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: large;">It is Saturday morning. I awaken an hour before the alarm. It is 5:30 AM...I try to find the clock to see what time it is. Shit, I want to sleep. I need sleep. </span></span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
My eyes hurt from lack of sleep, my throat feels like sand paper from fighting a cold and over use. I have given two speeches, led three IEP meetings, and participated in a long and painful meeting about my mom
in the last 72 hours, but my throat has been sore for days. I hope it is just overuse, but maybe I should call a doctor? </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
I fight for lucidity….cursing my inability to sleep. I make coffee and go the the bathroom. I sit on the toilet, counting out my pills for the week (I need my stimulant med refilled), while shaving. </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">Still sitting on my roost.... </span></span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
Dan awakens briefly to pee, (in the other bathroom) disrupted by my activity, despite my effort to be quiet.“Go to sleep, buddy….you don’t have to get up for another two hours"….he pees and returns happily to deep sleep, though I can hear him talking out loud to himself in his sleep. I am jealous. </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
As I count my meds, sitting on the john, my mind shifts rapidly in to high gear. I quickly review what I need to do in the day. First, I need to review and revise my list for the weekend. Already, there are over twenty items, but I am remembering more, including trying to reach the doctor –I need to deal with my throat….and Dan may have broken his nose a few days ago and he may need an x-ray. </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
My mind races. I curse my inability to sleep. My eyes hurt from lack of sleep, but perhaps also from tears from several frustrating events last night, trying to help people I love, but thwarted by things beyond my control. </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
I need to refine my list, but I need to shower, to get Dan ready for bowling and to have my Spanish lesson before I work on my list. Then I will meet Nate for breakfast, perhaps our only chance for private time before he leaves town again….I look forward to the time, but think about his desire to take the 17 year old car with him and how I will respond….and, more importantly, my sadness that he is departing so soon. Oh, and I need to see my folks… </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
As I sit, still planted to the toilet, my mind races to things that have been been percolating in my mind, some for many months, and some just recently.</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
An article to set forth a new conceptual model for the Duty to Warn, waiting for me to write it for over a year, but now I have a new idea for the concept, and a new plan for how to get it done….</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
An article, new talks, or perhaps a book, based on my presentation Wednesday night, on the parallels and differences between Kubla-Ross’stages of grieving a loved one that is dying or dead and parenting a child with disabilities… </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
The need to review a legal brief that is due soon, to blend my different ToDo lists…..I don’t want to lose those thoughts for the articles…. I need to write them down, but I need to make my list. And I need to visit my folks….I dread it… </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
My mom needs to move from her apartment to the nursing floor. She is upset, confused, scared, lonely, sad, angry, blaming….and still smoking….but I need to see both of them. When to fit it in. </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
Shit. Figuratively at this point. I need to shower quick. Dan’s first alarm is sounding (he has three and often sleeps thru all of them). But I need to write down my ideas for the articles….and I want to write this poem that has suddenly come to me. The clock keeps ticking.</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
I race thru my shower, my mind still racing….then I race to write reminder notes for the two articles….</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
Now I start writing this…is it a poem….an essay…. A diary…..? Why am I writing it….what will I do with it…? I think I will share it, with whom? It wasn't even on my list. It just popped in to my head. </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
My skype chat beep alerts me that mi maestre escribe sobre mi clase y yo tengo mi clase in trente minutos. Yo necessitar prepararse. It is 8:10. My spanish class starts in 20 minutes. An hour has turned in to more then two....</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
I need to get Dan up and ready for his bus, but I am not done….and what about my lists….and my eyes still hurt. I need Tylenol….and more coffee, but I need to get dressed and get Dan up and prepared for his bus….</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
I am not done, but I need to go….but I want to squeeze in just one or two more thoughts, and maybe do something else on the ever multiplying list....a list that grows like rabbits...</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
My mind races….filled with many things….My mind, by Itself, exhausts me.
But at least now I am awake. </span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">
Matt</span></h2>Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-43700611696925523662012-04-19T10:59:00.001-07:002012-04-19T11:00:33.290-07:00The Second Semester Senior Year Surprise- Is Your Kid Ready to Graduate?The Second Semester <br />Senior Year Surprise:<br />Is Your Kid with a Disability<br />Really Ready to Graduate?<br />Some Top Tips for Assessing Whether <br />The Student Is Ready to Graduate!<br />by Matt Cohen<br />April 17, 2912<br /><br />Many parents with children with disabilities have high expectations for the ability of their children to function as normally as possible after graduation. Some students with disabilities have sufficiently severe disabilities that both parents and school assume that the child may require special education services beyond their senior year. On the other hand, many students with disabilities have the capability of functioning with greater independence and may have met the graduation requirements by the end of senior year. Many parents are unaware that even children with less severe disabilities may be eligible for services from the public school system beyond their senior year. A student could be doing great academically, but have great difficulty with social skills, organizational skills or other life skills. A student may be functioning academically but have significant emotional or behavioral issues that impede their ability to function independently. A student could have good grades, but the grades are based on a modified grading system or just the efforts of teachers to pass them along and don’t really reflect mastery of needed skills. A student may even be able to do well in the high school, but have great difficulty generalizing those skills at home and in the community.<br /> Does your student even understand his or her disability and recognize both their abilities and the kind of help they may need in the future? If not, is it realistic for them to graduate, even if they have met graduation requirements? The whole point of special education is to promote the ability of students with disabilities to function as independently as possible as adults. Grades, achievement test scores and even mastery of IEP goals do not automatically mean that the student’s special education needs have been met. <br /><br /><br />All this is supposed to be discussed during the transition planning process. Transition planning is supposed to start no later than 16 under federal law and earlier under some state laws. Transition planning should begin with evaluation of the student’s academic needs, vocational needs, and other needs that may relate to their ability to function in the world as adults. It should also address their aptitudes and interests. All this information must lead to the develop of a transition plan that includes post secondary goals, that is – goals for what the student will do after they graduate or age out of high school. The transition plan is an integral part of the IEP for students who are in high school and is supposed to be reviewed regularly as part of the annual IEP review process and more often if needed.<br /><br />The transition planning process is supposed to identify the student’s interests, needs, capabilities, and areas of difficulty. Postsecondary goals are significant, as they provide a separate basis for evaluating whether the child is ready to graduate at the end of senior year. Many parents assume that if the child has met the standard graduation requirements at the end of 12th grade, they must graduate. Many schools are eager for the students to graduate and do not volunteer that the students may be eligible for continuing services even if they have met the formal graduation requirements in regular education. <br /><br />Ten Key Indicators for Graduation Readiness<br /><br />10) I still can’t remember my assignments or turn them in! The student continues to have difficulties with organizational skills relating to basic academic activities, despite having average intelligence and the cognitive ability to perform academic activities appropriately. They still lose instructions, don’t turn in homework on time, 8zcan’t keep track of their books, and are always late with work.<br /><br />9) On the Honor Roll, but has no friends! The student is doing well academically, but has significant difficulty socially and is unable to interact well with peers, seek help, self advocate, or participate in group activities. Friends are important, but these are also skills necessary to function in college, the workplace and the community.<br /><br />8) Academic & Life Skills are Great, but the Student is so depressed they can’t get up in the morning. Some students have serious emotional problems, despite act adequate daily living skills and academic skills,that prevent them from functioning effectively without significant therapeutic support and management of their emotional issues. They may need further therapeutic support in order for the student to continue in progressing towards their post secondary goals. <br /><br />7) Great Progress on the IEP, but it Missed Half the Kid’s Needs! Sometimes a student may have made good progress on the needs and goals in the IEP, but the IEP did not address key areas of functioning. This can occur due to inadequate evaluation, reluctance to do too much, or denial that the problem is serious. These might include things like access to and ability to use assistive technology, lack a awareness of key community resources, transportation options and how to utilize them, or inability to seek help in an emergency. ! Despite the requirement for evaluation and periodic reevaluation, it is not uncommon to discover late in high school that the student has disabilities that were not identified, were misdiagnosed, or did not manifest themselves until the student was in adolescence. Whatever the reason that a disability has been missed, if it is likely to significantly interfere with the student’s ability to meet their post-secondary goals and function as independently as possible, it is never too late to start working on responding to newly identified problems.<br /><br /><br />6) I should be able to, but I still can’t read or do math! Many schools reduce or eliminate remediation of academic deficits for students by the time they are in sophomore or junior year. For students with LD, some schools assume that if you haven’t overcome the learning disability by then, the focus should be on accommodations only. For students with cognitive delays, the assumption may be to focus exclusively on life skills, with out realizing that reading, math and writing are life skills too. If the student has the capability of making academic progress, but needs more remediation, this can be a reason for continuing services. <br /><br />5) I am great with math in the resource room, but not at McDonald’s. Many students develop skills that they can use n the school setting with considerable supports and structure, but have not had the opportunity to practice or use the skills independently. Although the student has made considerable progress with a high-level support, the student lacks the ability to function perform the skills without those supports. THE WHOLE POINT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IS TO PROMOTE THE STUDENT’S ABILITY TO LEARN AND GENERALIZE THE SKILLS SO THEY CAN FUNCTION MORE INDEPENDENTLY IN THE COMMUNITY!!!!<br /><br />4) I met graduation requirements, but not my IEP goals.<br />If significant IEP goals have not been mastered and the student continues to require additional time and assistance with respect to those goals and objectives, graduation may be inappropriate.<br /><br />3) My transition plan listed great services from other agencies, <br />but none of them have been provided. Schools are allowed, even encouraged, to utilize other agencies and resources to address various transition needs for students with disabilities. For example, they may refer a student to a state operated vocational program. However, the IDEA provides that even if the transition plan provides for referral to outside agencies, if those agencies don’t provide the needed services, the IEP team must reconvene and find other ways to meet the student’s needs.<br /><br />2) I met my goals, but still need more. The student may have mastered alter goals and objectives for senior year but have continuing needs in order to be able to function as independently as possible in relation to their postsecondary goals.<br /><br />1) OMG. My baby will never make it. Schools are not required to cure disabilities or ensure that every student with a disability achieves full independence. But they are required to have appropriate evaluations, to have an appropriate, individualized transition plan geared to the student’s needs, aptitudes and interests, and to provide the services necessary to allow the child to have the ability to achieve the appropriate post-secondary goals developed by the team. If the student is not ready to enter the world because the school has failed to meet its obligations, the student should not graduate. <br /> These are just some of the indicators of when students may have significant needs to justify ongoing special-education services. Many students are reluctant to continue to attend high school, as this may be perceived as a failure or retention. Many schools also have off-site transition programs or services in the community, which may help the students develop skills without having to feel that they're still in high school. In addition, high schools should have some vocational programming that allows the students have paid or unpaid work experiences to develop work-related skills. Under some circumstances, schools may not have adequate or appropriate transition services and it may be necessary to develop a program from scratch or to seek services through a private transitional program at school district expense. In any event, graduation terminates the school districts responsibility for services. If the parents object to the student's graduation at the end of 12th grade and the school is insisting on graduation, the parents may need to request a special-education due process hearing prior to graduation in order to block the graduation. Doing so requires a school to provide continuing services while the dispute is resolved. Ultimately, it may be possible to resolve the graduation issue without having to go to a due process hearing, but in any event, the school must continue to provide services while the due process hearing is pending. <br /><br />The parent should also be aware that when their child turns 18, or the age of majority in the particular state, the student becomes the decision-maker, unless they have delegated authority for decisions to the parents. It's important for the parents be aware of this in advance, so that they are not caught by surprise when they are facing the student’s 18th birthday and are told that they no longer have a right to participate in the process. Schools are actually required to give parents notice of this change of responsibility when the student turned 17, but many people are unaware of this rule. <br /> There are many creative options for students in relation to the development of meaningful transition supports, in relation to academics, vocational activities, and life skills. These do not have to be limited to services within the walls of the public high school. Be creative and remember that the transition plan is part of the INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-43895678227763870972012-04-07T10:57:00.000-07:002012-04-07T10:58:10.105-07:00Passover, Easter and Thoughts on FreedomPassover and Thoughts on Freedom<br />By Matt Cohen<br /> <br />Tonight, my family gathered to celebrate the Passover Sedar. The sedar commemorates the liberation of the Jews from enslavement by the Pharoh, the parting of the Red Sea and the passage from bondage to freedom, from poverty to the land of milk and honey, from oppression to self-determination. It celebrates the transformation from slavery to freedom, from sorry to joy, from darkness to great light, from bondage to redemption. By leaving the front door open for the Prophet Elijah to join the celebration, it also conveys a message of inclusion, that any one is welcome. That the family, the community, embrace everyone. <br /> <br />We promote inclusion and equality, but most of our wealth is concentrated in the top few percent of the population. Many worry about the national debt and complain about taxes and government programs to assist the poor, those with disabilities, or immigrants from foreign countries. These same critics ignore the underlying values embodied in our Constitution of liberty, justice and equality for all, unless it is their own liberty, freedom or economic position that is threatened.<br /> <br />At a personal level, It happens that this is a time of many transitions for me, for my family, for our society, for the world. We celebrate freedom, but we must not take it for granted. We have many things that are difficult, many changes that are challenging, painful, or worse. Pain and opportunity, instability and possiblity, suffering and adaptation, and the potential to preserve much that is good, learn from mistakes and cope with the pain, while growing and building....many things that hold the potential for more freedom, at the same time that many things constrain our desires and abilities to do what we wish or to have some of what we have cherished in the past. <br /> <br />Whether at a societal level or a personal level, freedom defines the nature of our existence. But many take freedom for granted. Freedom is not permission to be selfish, or a pass to focus on one’s own needs to the detriment of the community. Freedom is not having permission to just do what is best for oneself without regard to the needs of others or the impact of our actions. Freedom carries with it responsibility – to oneself, to one’s family and loved ones, to one’s immediate community, and to the society and world at large. Freedom gives us the right to make choices, but the obligation to make choices responsibly, with awareness of the consequences for others as well as our selves.<br /> <br />Freedom is not free…..it is the most expensive thing there is. We must defend it fiercely, not only for ourselves but for those less powerful, those without a voice, without a house, without a vote, without a choice. Freedom does not mean ignoring others’ needs, rights, desires, but rather acting in a way that balances our own rights and needs with those of those around us. <br /> <br />We have the freedom to disagree, but we must do so in a way that is respectful of the right of the other person to their own opinion. We must respect majority rule, but we must be mindful of the tyranny of the majority, the corruption of power that is too concentrated, the danger that demonizing those who disagree risks stifling an open society, community, or even open communication in a family. <br />We are free to have children, but we have the responsibility to care for them. We are free to have relationships and marry, but we must be conscious of the needs, rights and autonomy of our partners. Freedom is not a blank check that entitles us to what we want, without regard to others. Freedom is a fine balance between oppression and anarchy, between selfishness and selflessness, between isolation and sacrificing oneself to the community. Freedom is an individual right that is protected by collective commitment. Collective freedom is protected by individual commitment. <br />The path to the promised land carries with it hard work, compromise, sacrifice and commitment not only to one’s own needs but to the needs of others, not only to one’s own family, but to the family of humanity. The land of milk and honey is not a utopia filled with luxury, but a place where seeds must be planted, flowers watered, weeds pulled, and the fruits of our labor harvested together. The possibility of freedom, real freedom that is not transitory or at the expense of others, necessitates an awareness that freedom is also a form of obligation. We open the door for Elijah as a message that we prepare the meal not only for ourselves but for all that are hungry. We may have to work harder and give up some of own desires at the moment to have enough food to keep the door open for those with less. This seeming sacrifice of our freedom actually helps to preserve opportunity, equality and freedom for all of us. At this moment, freedom may be a burden, even a sacrifice,, but it is also a form of insurance, an investment in the family, community, society and good of humanity, that gives us many things that would not be possible if we only acted for ourselves. <br /> <br />Let us walk together from oppression to freedom, arm and arm, tasting the fruits of our labor and sharing the sweat of our effort. Let us embrace the noble responsibility of freedom, not just the transient pleasure of actions we take in the name of our own freedom and self-fulfillment without regard for others or for the consequences of our actions. Let us walk to the promised land, the land that was promised for all of us, not just some of us. Happy Pesach, Happy Easter. Let these holidays be a celebration of our collective freedom and our commitment to protecting this freedom for all.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-78304368181002047252012-02-05T19:04:00.000-08:002012-02-05T19:08:20.740-08:00School uses text message to suspend students for alleged drug useA recent Chicago Tribune article focussed on a massive school district drug crackdown based on confiscating the cell phone of a student suspected of dealing drugs and then tracing all his text messages to other students. See my position on this in the article. I think this this is a gross invasion of student privacy and has the potential for many students to be implicated that may not be guilty of anything worse than trash talk, but it is also a lesson in why kids (and adults) need to be much more careful about what they put in text messages and emails.<br />http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-stevenson-drug-probe-20120202,0,1472927.storyMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-68974270667883108562011-10-26T17:50:00.000-07:002011-10-26T17:59:07.276-07:00Beware the IQ Score: New Research Challenges Our Ed Policy and PracticeBeware the IQ Score: New Research on Intellectual Development Challenges Traditional Educational Policy Based on Reliance on IQ Scores and the Assumption that a Person’s Intelligence is a Constant
<br />
<br />By Matt Cohen
<br />
<br />For over a hundred years, researchers, educators and others have debated about the factors that contribute to human intelligence. It has been generally believed that a person’s intelligence was primarily innate, that is that it was based on their genetic makeup and under most circumstances would remain constant. Intelligence might decline due to severe illness or neurological trauma affecting the brain. It might be subject to some positive influence through early interventions such as Headstart. However, for most people, one’s intellectual ability would remain relatively the same throughout their healthy life. This belief has had an enormous impact on educational policy. Formal and informal tracking systems in regular education and programming and placement strategies for many children with disabilities have been heavily influenced by the belief that one intellectual potential was essentially constant and not significantly related to one’ s education, upbringing, enrichment experiences and other external factors. The possibility that one’s intellectual ability or potential could be positively or negatively influenced by the quality and intensity of education and other positive or negative environmental experiences should dramatically change our commitment to providing more intensive and sustained educational experiences for all children, rather than assuming that the intellectual cake is baked by adolescence, if not earlier In addition, the belief that intellectual ability was constant gave measuring a person’s intelligence n special importance, as it appeared that it was not only possible to assess a person’s intellectual functioning at a particular point in time, but that, barring neurological damage, that assessment was likely to be predictive of the person’s intellectual performance from childhood onward. In other words, your intellectual ability, whether high or low, was essentially thought to be pre-determined. .
<br />
<br />Remember that one’s native intelligence or intellectual ability does not equal one’s performance. As well, IQ tests purportedly measure intellectual ability or potential, where academic achievement tests are intended to measure what a person has learned. A person can have high intellectual ability and perform poorly academically. This can occur due to the presence of a learning disability, poor teaching, lack of motivation or many other factors. The converse was generally believed to not occur- one could not generally function academically higher than one’s intellectual potential. The growing recognition that a person’s intellectual ability can be influenced by their academic experience, positively or negatively, undermines some of the key assumptions about how we educate people and how we structure curriculum and resources for education. If a person’s intellectual ability can be substantially improved with higher quality teaching and can be negatively impacted by poor teaching (and other environmental factors), it raises the stakes enormously in relation to the need to provide “the best” or at least “much better” education, as opposed to the minimally adequate education that we often currently provide.
<br />
<br />Complicating matters, even assuming that the beliefs about intellectual development are accurate, modern societies and particularly the United States, have attached tremendous importance to the assessment of intelligence and have used IQ scores for everything from kindergarten classroom placement to qualifications for employment. There are even organizations for the intellectually gifted. IQ scores follow us from an early age—either a gold badge of ostensible superiority and promise or a scarlet brand on the forehead—a numerical message that the individual has limited ability for intellectual growth or performance.
<br />Adding insult to injury, there are many problems with the accuracy of IQ testing. The tests are often based on norms (comparison groups) that may not adequately represent all of the people being tested (you can’t predict the IQ of an apple when you are comparing it to the IQ of an orange). They often are dependent on means of testing that do not adequately control for the limitations of the tests. For example, few evaluators would give an IQ test requiring vision to someone that is blind, but many IQ tests requiring language are given to people with language problems and most if not all IQ tests require attention and concentration, though some people that are very bright have problems in these areas.
<br />
<br />Our educational, vocational and even social policies are in many ways based on the belief that one’s intelligence is static. Consider the degree to which schools shift from a regular curriculum to a “functional” curriculum for children labeled as mentally retarded. Or that the law allows schools and parents to waive the requirement for three-year reevaluation based on the assumption that the child’s functioning may not have changed much. Or that a high or low IQ scores can entitle one or exclude one from special benefits, from disability benefits for those with developmental disorders to extra accelerated educational programming for students considered to be “gifted.”
<br />Although still a source of controversy, there is a variety of research that also suggests that teacher expectations for students, based to some degree on the perception of the student’s intellectual potential, create a self-fulfilling prophecy that impacts the student’s academic and overall performance. (See for example http://www.education.com/reference/article/teacher-expectations/
<br />and http://american-education.org/1999-self-fulfilling-prophecy.html )
<br />Indeed, it is my suspicion that this phenomenon is present not only among educators, but with parents, families, employers and the society at large. If someone is told that a person is cognitively delayed or intellectually gifted, most people adjust their expectations accordingly. In turn, this often has a significant impact on the person’s self-perception, self-confidence, motivation, and performance. But at the most fundamental level, the assessment of intellectual potential for many people significantly influences the level of information and experience that they are exposed to. The assumptions about the person’s intellectual ability drive the type of academic instruction they receive, the content, rate and intensity of material, the expectations for progress, and even the types of cultural experiences they may have. Does the IQ brand impact performance? It is hard to imagine otherwise. There are many reasons that this is problematic, but especially if the brand is not accurate or reliable.
<br />
<br />But new research about intellectual development raises even stronger concerns about the assumption that IQ is static—the assumption that we can take snapshots that allow us to accurately assess it and respond to the individual or groups of individuals based on these assumptions in ways that presume to link the level of instruction, cultural experience and vocational potential to performance predictions based on the IQ scores. This past week, Nature magazine (a UK-based science magazine) published a study indicating that the intellectual ability of students continues to change through their teen years. Cathy Price, at the University College of London, conducted this study on teens between the ages of 12 and 16. Her team found that a teenager’s IQ can rise or fall as much as 20 points over the short span of four years. In the statistical analysis of IQ scores, that 20 point difference in IQ score could represent the difference between a label of average and gifted or average and cognitively impaired. In her study, 20% of participants moved either way on the intelligence scale—showing the ability of experience to alter intelligence. Such changes were found to actually correlate with changes in brain structure. While the study is still new, and its findings require more research for any broad conclusions, it provides hope that intellectual potential may not have the plateau we once thought. Early assessment may not be a telling indicator in all circumstances, which should alter the way we think about education, academic performance, and our children’s potential. This is especially true in relation to children with disabilities, as there are a number of very important educational, programmatic and even procedural decisions that have historically been heavily influenced by our assumptions about the static nature of intelligence.
<br />In light of this research, consider these principles in relation to testing, intelligence and expectations:
<br />
<br />1. SHATTER THE INTELLECTUAL GLASS CEILING!
<br />First, if as the research suggests, a child’s cognitive ability (not performance, but actual intellectual ability) can be dramatically influenced by non-physiological factors, we need to rethink our entire approach to educational theory, programming and tracking systems. Rather than assuming that a student with a low IQ scores in elementary school is developmentally consigned to function at a low cognitive level for life, justifying an educational plan that lowers expectations, content, and intensity, there may be renewed basis for raising standards, expectations, and intensity to promote the potential intellectual growth of the student, as well as their academic achievement. If we teach low, this research suggests that we may miss the opportunity to shatter our self-imposed cognitive glass ceiling.
<br />
<br />2. DON’T BASE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING DECISIONS ON OUT OF DATE OR INACCURATE SNAPSHOT IQ SCORES OR JUDGEMENTS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE PERSON’S INTELLECTUAL POTENTIAL!
<br />Second, the research highlights the tremendous danger in utilizing IQ snapshots, particularly from testing performed when children are in elementary and junior high schools, to track students. The misuse of IQ scores may occur in relation to the determination of whether someone has a cognitive disability or simply based on gradations of ability within the regular education population. By making tracking decisions based on the early IQ scores, or even based on perception of intellectual ability driven by teacher or parent judgment, even without IQ testing, we assure that the students perceived to be less intellectually capable will be provided a lower level of instruction, potentially guaranteeing a lower level of performance by an individual capable of developing further. The new research showing that a child can experience gains or losses in intellectual ability through adolescence, based on environmental and educational (that is, non-medical) factors, calls into question whether the use of IQ tests as a significant, if not controlling, factor in relation to placement and programming decisions violates the IDEA’s protections against misuse of testing. The IDEA provides:
<br />
<br />(b) Evaluation Procedures.--….
<br />(2) Conduct of evaluation.--In conducting the evaluation, the local educational agency shall--
<br />(A) use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining--
<br />(i) whether the child is a child with a disability; and
<br />(ii) the content of the child's individualized education program, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum, or, for preschool children, to participate in appropriate activities;
<br />(B) not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability or determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and
<br />(C) use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.
<br />(3) Additional requirements.--Each local educational agency shall ensure that--
<br />(A) assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this section--
<br />(i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
<br />(B) the child is assessed in all areas of suspected disability;
<br />(C) assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided;
<br />20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414 (b)
<br />
<br />If a student is capable of experiencing considerable cognitive growth based on their educational experience, it is inconsistent with these provisions to base their programming on a single IQ test or even a set of scores that assume a static level of intellectual functioning. Instead, those scores may offer a baseline for the student’s potential functioning, rather than a ceiling. Educational decisions based on lowering expectations or programming based on these scores become questionable, both educationally and legally.
<br />
<br />
<br />3. DON’T TRUST IQ TESTS OR SCORES OR LET THEM DEFINE PERCEPTIONS OF A PERSON’S POTENTIAL
<br /> In a 1997in an effort to streamline the evaluation/reevaluation process for students receiving special education services, Congress modified the IDEA to eliminate the previously absolute requirement that all students receiving special education services be given a full reevaluation, including new psychological (including intelligence) testing, at least every three years. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414 (c)(4). Perceiving the testing to be costly, time consuming and sometimes unnecessary for students whose intellectual or other development appeared static, Congress gave schools the option to recommend either reduced or no retesting if they felt that the student’s functioning was generally constant.
<br />34 CFR Sec. 300.303 Reevaluations.
<br />(a) General. A public agency must ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability….
<br />(2) Must occur at least once every 3 years, unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.
<br />
<br /> Parents retain the right to insist on full testing, but frequently acquiesce to limited or no testing based on school recommendations, particularly for students with labels of cognitive impairment, due to the belief that their cognitive ability could not vary significantly. But it is important for parents to remember they have the option of insisting on full and up-to-date reevaluations at least every three years. Given the inherent limitations in IQ testing, these reevaluations would often be advisable even in the absence of the new research on brain development. However, in light of the new research, it seems even more important for schools and parents to recognize and implement more frequent, comprehensive periodic reevaluation in order to ensure that the student’s programming is adequately challenging them and giving them the greatest degree of opportunity for intellectual growth and enrichment.
<br />
<br />4. WHEN TESTING, PICK TESTS THAT FIT THE STUDENT AND RECOGNIZE THEIR LIMITATIONS<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span></span>
<br />No IQ test can take into account the many variations in individual functioning that affect the accuracy of the testing. For example, many IQ tests rely heavily on language skills. A person may have considerable intellectual ability, but language impairments. A language based IQ test would likely yield a score suggesting low intelligence. However, there are non-verbal IQ tests that would help to control for this. Similarly, there are IQ tests that require less motor skills. It is very important to be sure that IQ tests are actually testing the person’s IQ, and not something else that limits their ability to test.
<br />
<br />In “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey writes that “Principles are like lighthouses. They are natural laws that cannot be broken….The ‘objective reality,’…is composed of ‘lighthouse’ principles that govern human growth and happiness-natural laws that are woven into the fabric of every civilized society throughout history and comprise the roots of every family and institution that has endured and prospered….[there is] the principle of fairness….of integrity and honesty….of human dignity….of service….of quality or excellence. There is the principle of potential, the idea that we are embryonic and can grow and develop and release more and more potential, develop more and more talents. Highly related to potential is the principle of growth-the process of releasing potential and developing talents, with the accompanying need for principles such as patience, nurturance and encouragement.” (emphasis added)
<br />
<br />Covey did not write this in reference to the development of the brain, nor in reference to IQ testing, scores, and the ways that our society sets artificial limits based on lowered expectations. He did not write in reference to our educational system and whether it should be structured based on achieving minimal outcomes or to promoting and nurturing and enhancing each individual’s chance to grow as much as possible. But as I read the passage above, by pure coincidence, as I was in the midst of writing this essay, the connection was unavoidable. OUR BASIC PRINCIPLES, OUR BASIC HUMANITY, DEMAND THAT WE PROMOTE THE FULL POTENTIAL OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL. AN ENHANCED RECOGNITION OF THE EXISTENCE OF EVEN MORE POTENTIAL FOR GROWTH IN EACH OF US ONLY STRENGTHENS THE PRACTICAL AND COMMON SENSE BASIS FOR WHAT IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE – EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO GROW TO THEIR FULL POTENTIAL. OUR SCHOOLS, OUR SOCIETY, OUR OWN EXPECTATIONS SHOULD ENCOURAGE THAT, SHOULD INSIST ON THAT AND SHOULD SUPPORT EACH PERSON IN THEIR UNIQUE EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE IT!
<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-710111025871183132011-10-02T15:20:00.000-07:002011-10-02T15:21:07.641-07:00What, No Recess???!!! - Blowing Off Steam and the “Right” to Exercise for Kids with AD/HD – Countering a Knee Jerk School Punishment”“<br />(Appearing in Fall, 2011 issue of ADDitude Magazine,<br />www.ADDitudemag.com).<br /><br />by Matt Cohen, J.D.<br /><br />“What, no recess!!!!” Johnny screams after being told that he will not be able to participate in recess because he talked in class without raising his hand.<br /> <br />“What, no recess!!!” Rachel stammered, after being told that she couldn’t have recess because she hadn’t earned enough points on her behavior chart for completing her classwork on time because she was too distracted. <br /><br />“What, no recess,” Matt cried, because he kept getting up to go to the bathroom and the class behavior plan said that all students lost recess if they got out of their seat more than once during class.<br /><br />There is lots of research showing that exercise and physical activity help students improve academic performance and behavior. <br />A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control supports this:<br /><br />“School boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers can feel confident that providing recess to students on a regular basis may benefit academic behaviors, while also facilitating social development and contributing to overall physical activity and its associated health benefits. There was no evidence that time spent in recess had a negative association with cognitive skills, attitudes, or academic behavior.” http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/<br />pdf/pa-pe_paper.pdf (July, 2010)<br /><br />Recess is good for kids. Does it make sense to use it as punishment or require that it be earned?<br />NO!!!!!! Research confirms the importance of recess and extra physical activity for kids WITH AD/HD! A study in a school psychology journal concluded:<br /><br />“Results showed that levels of inappropriate behavior were consistently higher on days when participants (with AD/HD) did not have recess, compared with days when they did have recess. Results also showed that the level of inappropriate behavior for all participants progressively increased over time on days when they did not have recess. However, this progressive increase did not occur on days when the participants had recess.”<br /><br />Effects of Recess on the Classroom Behavior of Children With and Without AD/HD.<br />Ridgway, School Psychology Quarterly, Vol 18(3), Fall, 2003, 253-268. <br /><br />KIDS WITH AD/HD ARE LIKELY TO BEHAVE BETTER AND BE MORE ENGAGED ACADEMICALLY WITH RECESS AND OTHER PHYSICAL EXERCISE. LINKING RECESS TO REWARDS OR PUNISHMENTS DOESN’T MAKE EDUCATIONAL SENSE!<br /><br />Unfortunately, the federal special education or disability laws do not explicitly address a right to recess. However, apart from the research and common sense arguments for kids with AD/HD need recess, the federal laws support the right to recess for kids with AD/HD and related disabilities.<br /><br />First, every child with an IEP or Section 504 plan is entitled to an individual program, designed to meet their needs, including accommodations and special supports. For many kids with AD/HD, there is a need for at least equal, if not even more opportunities for exercise, then for typical students. If the activity is needed for the child to benefit from education, it should be provided, not withheld.<br /><br />Second, the IEP should include “positive behavior interventions and supports.” If a student needs recess in order to help them stay on task or discharge excess energy, it should be written in to the IEP as a part of the student’s accommodations and/or behavior plan. <br /><br />Third, when schools are developing behavior plans or administering discipline, they should do a functional analysis of the relationship of the student’s disability to the behavior, including whether they may need recess or if removing it makes things worse. Research shows that depriving a student of recess is unlikely to promote positive behavior and may result in increased inappropriate behavior.<br /><br />Finally, Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of the nature or severity of a student’s disability and requires that students with disabilities be given equal access to school programs and activities. Excluding a student from recess for behavior relating to their AD/HD may be discriminatory because they are being punished based on their disability.<br /><br />Parents and educators should promote recess and additional breaks as a positive support for children with AD/HD, rather than something that must be earned or can be removed as a punishment. That not only conforms to the provisions of federal law, it makes good sense!<br /><br />Matt Cohen provides legal representation to children, adults and families with AD/HD and other disabilities in Chicago. He writes and speaks frequently on AD/HD, special education and disability issues throughout the US.<br />mdcspedlaw@gmail.com disablethelabels.blogspot.com<br />Phone: 312-961-4179<br />This article is not intended as legal advice. If you have a problem with your child’s school, you should seek informed legMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-28868687257353648732011-09-11T18:58:00.000-07:002011-09-11T19:18:02.533-07:00“I Don’t Want to Be Pushy, but…..” – Ten Ideas for Parents AND Educators to Help Deal with the Start of School“I Don’t Want to Be Pushy, but…..” – Ten Ideas for Parents AND Educators to Help Deal with the Start of School<br /><br />By Matt Cohen<br /><br />September 11, 2011<br /><br /> We leave in an age when schools are underfunded, saddled with expectations that are difficult for them to fulfill, loads of scrutiny using arbitrary test measures, and inadequate training for teachers to cope with the demands that are placed on them. And then there are “those pushy parents.” Parents that actually want to contribute to the development of their child’s IEP. Parents that want to know how their child is doing. Parents that want to get meaningful feedback from the staff and perhaps even observe the classroom from time to time. Parents that want to know why their child isn’t making progress on their goals and objectives or why promised services aren’t being delivered. Parents that ask questions at IEP meetings or even in between IEP meetings. Parents that may even have special knowledge about their child that might be helpful in teaching the student or in working with them more effectively. Parents that are actually interested in volunteering in the classroom. Oh, my God!!!!!!!<br />Those pushy parents!!!! A scarlet letter quickly gets branded on their foreheads – watch out for them, they are “pushy parents.” <br /><br /> It is no surprise that this happens, as teachers feel unsupported by parents and administrators, overloaded by paperwork, unprepared to cope with some of the demands of their students, let alone of parents, embattled and unappreciated. The quality (or inadequacy) of American education is now an ongoing political issue. It can’t feel good to go home and turn on the tv to have politicians and talking heads blasting away night after night. <br /><br /> But the result is a phenomenon I call “Pushy Parent Hypersensitivity Syndrome.” This syndrome leads some educators to react defensively to any efforts by parents to become more involved, seek more information, make suggestions, or just come to observe. Clearly, some parents over do it, seeking to micromanage every thing about their child’s education, down to correcting the teacher’s grammar or insisting on being called every day. But “Pushy Parent Hypersensitivity Syndrome” causes many educators to react to even highly appropriate efforts by parents, even very limited efforts by parents, to get involved, to participate or, god forbid, to share a concern about something that is happening. PPHS results in reluctance to take phone calls, refusal to respond to emails, rigid time schedules for meetings when more time is needed, involvement of administrators when direct communication would be better, even restrictions on the parents’ ability to communicate with staff or visit the school. This syndrome usually escalates to a point of Mutually Assured Distrust, for as the educators shut down and become more defensive, the parents become more concerned, more frustrated, and feel greater need to be assertive, demanding and ultimately adversarial.<br /> So as this new school year starts, here are some suggestions for both PARENTS AND EDUCATORS for avoiding PUSHY PARENT HYPERSENSITIVITY SYNDROME and MUTUALLY ASSURED DISTRUST!<br /><br />1) COMMUNICATE OPENLY AND OFTEN ABOUT POSITIVES. Not only does the child need to feel good, but the parents and teachers need to feel good. Open and positive communication is the best vehicle for building cooperation and rapport. <br />2) SEEK AND WELCOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR HELP. Parents should make clear their desire to assist and support the educational staff, whether volunteering in the classroom, on field trips, or at school events. Teachers should seek out and embrace this involvement. In this era of limited and declining resources, who couldn’t use more help.<br />3) RECOGNIZE THAT THIS CHILD IS THE PARENTS’ MOST IMPORTANT CONCERN AND THAT THE TEACHER CAN AND SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS CHILD BUT CONCERNED ABOUT ALL OF HIS/HER STUDENTS. This is a message that both parties need to understand in both directions. It is important for the teacher to understand and value the parents’ concern for THEIR child and convey appreciation for that concern. It is also important for parents to recognize that no one can have the level of concern they do for their own child. They should expect appropriate and sincere concern for their child from the staff, but not that the staff will have equal concern or ignore their responsibilities for other students.<br />4) DON’T MAKE IT PERSONAL/TRY NOT TO TAKE IT PERSONALLY. It is is for people to feel ignored, devalued or attacked. For parents, this may happen if they feel their child is being mistreated or given insufficient attention or support, or is being treated disrespectfully. For teachers, this may result from something as simple as the parent asking the teacher their qualifications or years of experience or experience with a particular teaching method or computer system. It is easy to feel hurt, injured or angry. Try to avoid reacting to the impression or emotion that is perceived or implied. Try to focus on the actual problem. And if there seems to be inappropriate or miscommunication, try to clear the air as quickly as possible. <br />5) IT IS BETTER TO SOLVE SMALL PROBLEMS NOW, THEN TO HAVE THEM BECOME BIG PROBLEMS LATER.<br />It is important to work on relationships and communication all the time. Little problems can build into big problems if they are not addressed. For both the parent and the school, this is made more complicated because the parent remains involved throughout, but the teacher inherits whatever problems have occurred in the past. Try to start each year fresh. Don’t ignore prior problems, but try to allow for a new start and to repair whatever problems were present before. It can be helpful to acknowledge these issues and try to address them and move on, rather than pretending they weren’t present.<br />6) PICK YOUR BATTLES! WORK FOR AGREEMENT, EVEN IF IT REQUIRES COMPROMISE.<br />The converse of number six is that sometimes, the parent or educator may get hung up on minor issues that are not worth fighting over. Rule 5 is important, but it is also important to be selective about the things you are concerned about and address with the other party. Especially if things are getting tense, it can be easy to overreact, react to things that aren’t high priority or react in a way that aggravates the problem, rather than promoting a solution.<br />It is almost always preferable to work together, rather than to be in conflict. Even if compromise is needed on both sides, a plan or process that everyone supports is far more likely to succeed than one that is forced on someone or that is done without real commitment. <br /><br />7) BE SMART AND RESPECTFUL ABOUT SOLVING PROBLEMS.<br />Some special education disputes may involve legitimate issues where the parties just disagree. Many get tangled up with communication issues, personality, trust, competence, motivation and emotion. Where individual competence, motivation or conduct is at stake, it is often best to try to work out issues individually first. If that doesn’t work, try talking to a supervisor or the parent in an informal setting. Saving face is important for everybody. Public confrontations are generally more likely to polarize, rather than to bring people together. Unfortunately, if informal means are unsuccessful, it is also important to go through formal procedures and make sure that concerns are documented.<br />8) TRY TO PUT YOURSELF IN THE OTHER PERSON’S SHOES. <br />Everyone involved in this process may be experiencing stress or pressures about the process and the outcome. Often, there are other things happening that may not be known to the other party that also cause problems, stress, limit options or influence how the person comes across or what they can do. Try to imagine the situation from their perspective. It is especially important for educators to imagine what they would do if they were in the parents’ situation and all the issues the parents must be facing in trying to help their child. But the parents should also go through that process, rather than making assumptions about the educators.<br />9) AVOID SURPRISES.<br />Sharing important information at the last minute, or worse, in the midst of an IEP meeting, generally triggers a negative reaction in the person receiving the information. It also consumes valuable time for the other person to even process and understand the information. Often, because the person is upset at being surprised, they may respond with anger and be unable to even address the information in a meaningful way. This is particularly important when the school is sharing major new information about a child’s diagnosis, new difficulties, or need for some other program. Parents hearing this type of information for the first time in an IEP meeting are very likely to feel hurt, victimized and overwhelmed. Imagine being told that your child is failing or has a new or different disability when you thought the meeting was just a routine meeting. Similarly, parents may trigger hostility and resistance when they bring in new clinical information or a dramatic change in desired plans for the child without any advance discussion with any of the school staff. Everyone is more able to focus on the real issues when they are aware of them, rather than surprised by them. <br />10) DON’T FORGET THE CHILD.<br /> Often, the adults involved in decision-making concerning the child can easily become caught up in their own agendas, in personalities, in emotions, and in issues of power, control, and ego. It is easy for the child and the child’s needs to get lost. All the adults, parents and educators, need to be aware of their own agendas and emotions and keep them in check. The goal is to meet the child’s needs, not to make a point, establish control, or win a moral, financial, political or emotional victory.<br /><br />Copyright, Matthew D. Cohen, September 11, 2011. May be reprinted with the author’s written consent.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-41594659926103705622011-09-03T20:55:00.000-07:002011-09-03T20:56:05.264-07:00Diagnostic and Statistical Manual- Modern Techno Edition by Matt CohenDiagnostic and Statistical Manual – Modern Techno Edition
<br />Copyright by Matt Cohen, September 3, 2011 on behalf of the
<br />American Psyberatric Association
<br />
<br />104.50 Too Many Techno Toys Disorder:
<br />Characterized by a need to acquire the latest and greatest communication device, each of which has unique advantages, and each of which uses a different mode of communication. This individual typically experiences a strong sense of inadequacy, jealousy, anxiety and incompleteness if they do not have the latest and newest device. Normal inhibitory process is defeated by the need to acquire the newest devices, regardless of need or resources. This disorder creates functional problems due to demands, real or perceived, for the user to maintain, charge and carry multiple devices, as their family, friends and clients may each use different systems and the New Techno Conversion Disorder causes the individual to feel that they must be available to all people at all times. People with TMTTD are typically convinced that the devices save time and improve accessibility and communication, but usually suffer persistent difficulty with keeping devices charged, remembering passwords, keeping all devices available, and losing devices frequently.
<br />
<br />265.40 Listosynchomania- This disorder manifests itself in a chronic and overwhelming need to insure that various techno devices including calendars, contact lists, files, and data bases are constantly up to date and are using the latest versions of the necessary software. This disorder becomes progressively more disruptive as increasing numbers of devices and changing software create ever growing problems in maintaining consistency. This triggers a secondary disorder – ,
<br />
<br />558.60 Duplication Distress Disorder, resulting from lists replicating out of control and causing memory overload and search identity disorientation. The cumulative manifestation of this disorder is an obsessive desire to insure that all lists are up-to-date and have no duplicates, leading to chronic list purging and resynching.
<br />
<br />668.14 Post-It Addiction Disorder
<br />This is a pre-techno disorder typical of individuals that have difficulty with organization and/or are often generating or receiving Too Much Information (TMI Syndrome –see 994.68) and can not adequately manage it either in working memory or in a consistent single method. Post-it addiction disorder presents problems with Post-it Creep, a phenomenon in which the individual’s surroundings are gradually and progressively covered by more and more post-its, even in their car, their bedroom and bathroom and their mirrors. As the Post-it Creep intensifies, the individual may experience a worsening of the condition by adding different sizes, colors and shapes of Post-its, leading to even more confusion and anxiety as to what the colors and shapes represent.
<br />Similar to eating disorders, the individual typically maintains over use of post-its, but periodically engages in Post-It Purges, in which they frantically remove post-its, consolidate them, or transfer them to lists that are then misplaced or buried under additional post-its, rendering them unreadable and useless.
<br />
<br />668.15 Post-Post It Traumatic Stress Disorder: This disorder is a second stage disorder, related to Post-It Addiction Disorder, but more complex. The individual with PPTSD becomes so overwhelmed by the Post-It disorder that they begin to compulsively seek alternative ways of recording their thoughts, tasks, and reminders. Often shifting to techno-based programs, they develop multiple lists, alarm systems, reminder messages are other electronic means of tracking information previously confined to post-its. Some even use an electronic version of post-its. Whatever the means, the person inevitably becomes overwhelmed by excessive numbers of lists, lost passwords, and has co-morbid problems
<br />with Listosynchomania and Duplication Distress Disorder. One paradoxical effect of Post-Post-It Traumatic Stress Disorder is that the individual continues the effort to shift to electronic substitutes for the post-its, but, due to an underlying feeling of anxiety and insecurity as to whether the lists will be accessible or may be lost in a techno crash, they often revert to using Post-its at the same time, resulting in a dual addiction and requiring more complex intervention.
<br />
<br />144.99 Numerous Numbers Anxiety Disorder: This disorder is a reciprocal disorder, experienced both by those possessing numerous communication devices and by those trying to communicate with them. As the number of devices, numbers, email addresses, and communication systems proliferate, e.g., gmail, email, voice mail, facetime, skype, blackberry, Nextel direct connect, VoIP, and smoke signals, people trying to reach the person using these devices are never sure which is the preferred device, which is on, which has the priority alarm or alert system, and/or is charged. Recognizing that the proliferation of means of connection may result in MESSAGE LIMBO (a state in which a message is transmitted to the person, but is not received because the device is turned off, left home, lost, deactivated, or buried in their purse), the person transmitting the message develops Numerous Number Anxiety Disorder, leading them to compulsively transmit messages to all available numbers and addresses, realizing that limiting the means of communication to one method reduces the chances of the message being received in direct proportion to the number of devices or message systems the person has. The American Psyberatric Association has, through exhaustive research, developed an equation to explain this phenomenon:
<br />The probability that any given transmitted message will reach the intended recipient goes down in direct ratio to the increase in number of devices the person possesses. Conversely, the probability that a single message will be received goes up in direct proportion to the fewer devices the person has. The only fail-safe option, which then generates NNAD, is to generate messages in equal number to the number of devices. NNAD triggers a number of secondary reactions in the person receiving the messages including a variation of Duplication Distress Disorder (see above, but here generated by excessive messages due to excessive devices, rather than excessive lists) and Reactive Message Invasion Syndrome.
<br />
<br />842.35 Reactive Message Invasion Syndrome. See above. This syndrome results from the person with the communication devices feeling overwhelmed by the number of messages they are receiving, both generally and from specific senders. Though triggered to some degree by TMTTD, the person with RMIS does not perceive that their techno systems may be contributing to message overload or generating difficulty for others in knowing how to best communicate with them. Despite the Message Invasion Syndrome, which can sometimes even result in resentment or hostility at the receipt of excessive messages, the individual is unable to reduce the number or sources of messages out of fear that they will miss something important or that their TMTTD will be further aggravated. A vicious circle of overload and inability to control it results, which leads to aggravation, reactivity, fatigue and sleeplessness, resulting from the need to keep track of all the messages.
<br />
<br />125.68 Spamalot Attraction Regulatory Dysfunction: This condition is manifested by the individual’s intense and impulsive need to join lists, visit new websites and add their name to email lists and listservs, resulting in an overflow of messages. This is also manifested by excessive attraction to social network pages and uncontrolled desire to add friends to one’s lists, regardless of whether there is any actual social or other connection. This Dysfunction also leads the individual to post news about their life of absolutely no consequence, but allowing for the sensation of connection to those on their lists (e.g., I saw a Beautiful Bird today…..isn’t that great!) As the inbox and friends lists exponentially expand, the person becomes convinced that they are gaining social importance and connection, though the number of messages and individuals being connected results in another American Psyberatric Association : The Friend/List Paradox: The more messages, lists or friends an individual establishes on line, the less ability the person has to follow the information received or maintain meaningful connection with the individuals or groups sending the messages.
<br />
<br />999.99 Cybercommunication Attention Deficit Disorder/Hermetic Relationship Disorder: These two serious and co-existing conditions involve interrelated phenomena. First, the more messages and lists the individual is receiving and the more devices being used, the more time they need to spend managing, reading and responding to the information and the more dependent they become on the devices and communications systems, as they have no time for other activities or in person interaction. This in turn leads to Hermetic Relationship Disorder, in which the person becomes totally attached to their devices, spending more time with their devices then with people. Often, the condition is characterized by the person anthropomorphizing the devices, giving them names, special colors, prominent places in their room or on their body, spending their day with ear buds or Blue Tooth devices in their ears even when there is no one on the line, and interrupting their daily activities to constantly check for new messages, even in the midst of live conversations with people talking to them. As the condition worsens, they become increasingly engaged in the cyber world, sometimes opting to communicate to people electronically even though they may be in the next room or down the hall. Increasing relying on the light of the device and its keyboard, they may not even turn on the regular lights in their room, glued to their screens, and ritualistically checking the various devices to insure that no new message, list post, or announcement is missed. The only cure for this disorder is MADD: Methodical Assistive Device Destruction.
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-63871014733473297962011-06-26T15:03:00.000-07:002011-06-26T15:05:12.345-07:00Missing the Boat- Aging, AD/HD, Societal Overload? Life is too short to cheat ourselves of the good things we do!“I missed the boat so many times….there were so many crossroads where I made the wrong turn.” Regrets of aging, of AD/HD, of denying the value of what we have done – Thoughts on my father and on life….<br /><br />I spent some time with my 86 year old father today. I see him often, but most often there are other people around, my mother, my children, siblings, friends. I talk to him almost every day and he regularly says “Let’s make a date. I would love to have some time just with you.” <br />Today we did. He is 86. He has Parkinsons, some form, perhaps Parkinson’s dementia, perhaps some Alzheimers’s thrown in, perhaps just a mind that gets confused and has trouble remembering things both present and past….<br /><br />My son was diagnosed with AD/HD when he was 3…..an AD/HD emergency, the neurologist called it. I was diagnosed with AD/HD about eight years ago, but was aware I had it long before that. And my dad was diagnosed about 5 or 6 years ago, before his Parkinson’s was in full swing. It is hard to know now what is Parkinson’s, what is AD/HD, what is being old for him. <br /><br />Recently, Nor and I read a book together by Ned Hallowell that drew a parallel between the experience of people with AD/HD and the experience of everyone. The point was that our society is overwhelming now, filled with distractions, excessive demands and pressures, information overload. This creates a societal Attention Deficit disorder that mimics many of the symptoms of AD/HD for those that actually have it. True enough. Imagine what is like for those of us that have AD/HD and have societal overload as well. Imagine what it like for my dad, as he struggles to establish where he is, what point in time, what part of his life. As he comes and goes from considerable lucidity and awareness to being in the ball park, but not quite, to being totally frustrated by his difficulty recalling a thought or a needed word, to being totally disoriented and disconnected.<br /><br />Whatever the other factors, I am convinced he did have AD/HD. Through out his adult life, despite amazing accomplishments, he struggled with many things, time, completion of projects, keeping track of details….and we certainly saw incredible signs of it when we helped my parents move from their house – letters piled in old bags, uncashed checks, files replicating other files, things hidden away all over and countless systems of organization – each well designed, but none consistently implemented.<br /><br />As I was growing up, my dad constantly communicated a message that I was very talented, but could do even better, should try harder, could do more. Saving the world was pretty good, but all in a day’s work. But he was an even harder critic of his own work. He developed and constantly revised elaborate formulas for calculating what he had accomplished. How many patients had he seen? How many students had he taught? How many patients had the students he taught helped? And on and on. Never enough. The numbers an attempt at comfort and satisfaction, but actually an impossible trap – what ever the numbers were, they were never enough.<br /><br />So we talked today….or mostly I listened and occasionally asked questions and tried to cut through the haze of his confusion. He kept saying he “had missed the boat, made too many wrong turns….” He wasn’t sure if he would have been here or there, but wasn’t sure where here and there were, but was sure that the choice was whatever the path he hadn’t taken. <br /><br />I talked about how hard it is to be confused and overwhelmed by choices, information, expectations, and that we can only do what we are able – and he couldn’t allow himself to hear that. He wasn’t confused, he just……and then he would lose what he was saying. Then he started telling me a story about a cat and a small man, a story that he said his father told him repeatedly. Both the cat and the small man had many virtues, but their virtues conflicted with each other and they couldn’t seem to acknowledge each others virtues or find a way for each to work with the other. It was one or the other, but never both. It took a while to tell the story, and it was unclear if he was reporting the story his father told or sharing his own story or talking to me in the present. I asked him if this was a metaphor for his life and his marriage and he laughed but didn’t respond, perhaps couldn’t respond. He wasn’t sure who was telling the story or to whom it applied. He said there was so much he hadn’t done, had not accomplished. I described the Cohen condition – always expecting too much, accomplishing much, but focusing on what we haven’t done, not on what we have done. I talked about the number games he had played trying to prove to himself that he had accomplished a lot but always seemed dissatisfied. I shared that we were all our own worst critics and needed to be able to give ourselves credit for what we had done (and he had done an incredible amount), but he kept coming back to bad choices, wrong turns, things undone. A societal condition? A personality characteristic? A genetic predisposition (it seems to run in our family!) A part of his AD/HD? I am sure it is all of the above. But I think the story of AD/HD makes this particularly hard, and the experience of aging can make it very hard. But AD/HD does create confusion, persistent doubt. We constantly generate new ideas, new projects, new possibilities. Many get done. Many don’t. But there are so many in our head, so many things always spinning in our minds, that it is impossible to feel that we are ever finished. It is hard to feel we have ever done enough. It is hard to feel that we have accomplished what we could or what we should, because more is always there, both because of the many things in our head that never make it in to the world and because the many things in the world that demand our attention and make it harder to focus on the things that we are doing or need to do. As I sat with my dad, I was crying inside, in part because of the pain of watching him struggle just to say what he wanted to say, but also because whatever confusion he felt, there was no question that he saw his life in many ways as a failure and was unable to see or value the great things that he was able to do. <br /><br />Growing old is hard. Each person experiences it differently. And having AD/HD is also hard and we each experience it differently. But a common element, for all of us, is to value what we do, to treasure what we have experienced, and to enjoy the people in our life and what we can give to them and they give to us. It isn’t healthy to ignore our problems or to minimize mistakes we make. We need to deal with them and learn from them. But we need to be able to value the things we have and that we accomplish. And we should be able to recognize that it is a very difficult and confusing world, one that we can’t totally control and that often overwhelms. Sometimes, just keeping going is a big accomplishment by itself. I love my dad, love what he has done, and love our moments, even as he struggles to hold on to them. We all need to hold on to them. Old, AD/HD or just facing an out of control world, we should value that we keep doing what we can to make things better.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-62361548080651191442011-05-14T14:36:00.000-07:002011-05-14T14:39:08.084-07:00What lessons are our children really learning? It is time to break the code of silence and the phony outcomes game!What lessons are our children really learning? It is time to break the code of silence and end the phony outcomes game!<br /><br />Jimmy has disabilities and struggles at school, but had never been evaluated for special education. Some kids that live near him were bullying him, before, during and after school. His parents complained to the school staff, but little was done….. and he became more and more upset. In an apparent effort to deal with the bullying at school, a speaker was brought in to address all the students about bullying. At the end of the speech, he offered the students his email so they could write him. The next day, Jimmy wrote that he was being bullied and was not getting protected and was having suicidal thoughts. The speaker told the Principal, who called the parents and suggested that Jimmy be hospitalized. When Jimmy returned to school, little changed. The bullying continued. Jimmy finally couldn’t take it any more and fought back. He was suspended for fighting and still the school did not stop the bullying nor evaluate him. What does it teach the victim when he is ignored when he seeks help and, not getting help, is punished when he fights back? What message does it send to the bullies when they are not punished, but the victim is? Can teachers feel safe and supported if their administrators are not willing to take decisive action to maintain control of the school and assure that bullying, aggression and violence are not permitted?<br /><br />Sally has learning disabilities, AD/HD, Reactive Attachment Disorder and auditory processing problems, along with other disabilities. She is only 8 years old. She receives special education services at school and has an outdated behavior plan that calls for the staff to record all of Sally’s behaviors and to email the parents if there are any serious behaviors. Recently, the teacher and staff in the class have been logging as many as 180 behaviors a day and emailing the parents 10 or more times a day about all the problems she is having. Most often, the reports show the behavior, but nothing is being done to change the behavior or to change the strategies that have been repeatedly unsuccessful. Because the plans aren’t working, Sally is spending much of her class time in time out and the staff are spending much of their time recording behavior data, but not addressing the behavior. Isn’t learning supposed to include learning that we need to change our strategies when they aren’t working? Isn’t it likely that Sally has learned that she can escape the work that is difficult for her if she acts out, because then she is removed from the work? Is that what we want Sally to be learning about behavior? How much academic learning is Sally able to do when there are so many behavior problems occurring? What is the teacher learning, when she is spending enormous time recording data and sending reports to the parents, but no one is analyzing the data or helping her to identify what may be causing Sally’s behavior or to find better strategies for addressing it?<br /><br />Andre had a reading disability and Asperger’s Syndrome, but is very smart. His teachers didn’t think that he had a disability, because he was able to perform reasonably well in school. The parents were insistent that he needed extra help or would begin having serious problems. The school finally agreed, but the teachers were skeptical, feeling that he didn’t need their help and it was a waste of time. At the end of the year, one of the teachers told the parents that Andre had made remarkable progress with the strategies that she had started using, but that she had discovered that many of these strategies were also very helpful with most of her other students. It’s great that the teacher was able to recognize and acknowledge the effectiveness of the strategies the parents were recommending, but what would have happened if the parents hadn’t known to ask for a change? How long would Andre have had to fail before the staff realized that something different was needed? Isn’t part of learning that we always strive to find solutions to problems and to find new and better ways to learn and teach, even if things are working adequately? Sometimes new strategies initially involve more work. Working with kids with disabilities, and teaching generally, can be emotionally and physically exhausting. But what lessons to we model for kids when we repeat what is familiar, rather than challenge them and ourselves by trying things that are new and setting standards that require them and us to stretch higher?<br /><br />Tommy’s mother was worried that he didn’t seem to be learning much at school and struggled with the little homework that he brought home. Recently, the school did a three year reevaluation of Tommy. Tommy’s mother was very confused because the staff reported that he had made lots of progress and had tested in the average range in the school’s psychological testing. Tommy’s mother decided to get an outside evaluation done to help to figure out why Tommy was struggling so much if the school’s testing was accurate. When the evaluator began to test Tommy, he not only reported that he was familiar with the tests, but that the teacher had spent worked with him to practice taking the tests at school and had helped him while the formal tests were being done by prompting him if he was giving an incorrect answer. How is Tommy helped by being assisted to perform on a school evaluation so he will appear to be functioning much higher than he really was? What will Tommy learn from being assisted to cheat on an important test? What accountability does a teacher or evaluator have for encouraging a student to cheat? Is this isolated or are educators receiving subtle or even explicit pressure to teach to the test and to take questionable measures to increase the test performance of their students?<br /><br />Bonnie had a variety of fine motor and speech problems. She had an IEP with very modest goals in these areas and she was getting passing grades. Even though Bonnie had many continuing problems with speech and sensory-motor skills, the therapists and teachers decided she no longer needed speech or OT services and that the teachers could provide whatever help she needed. Is it realistic to expect teachers to know how to help Bonnie if the specialists aren’t involved? Is it fair to Bonnie or the teachers to expect them to do even more to assist with Bonnie’s problems when they already have a full load of activities and aren’t trained to provide these services? Is it wise educationally to reduce services to Bonnie (perhaps to save money), when the many needs Bonnie still has may create further academic and other problems for her as she continues with her education and into adulthood?<br /><br />These stories are amalgams of the experiences of a number of children with whom I have worked in the last few months. While the names and details have been changed for obvious reasons, each story is based on real situations. There are many excellent, committed and compassionate teachers and educators working in our schools. And there are many good schools and good school districts. We ask them to do the impossible, but give them the resources to do what is unacceptable. But in the ongoing debate over the lack of adequate outcomes from our educational system, as part of the debates over No Child Left Behind, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the push for accountability, innovation, flexibility, and less regulation and control, the stories above and many variations are frighteningly commonplace. I have grave doubts that some of the proposals for reforming education that are currently being discussed will improve the schools. In fact, I fear that many of the proposals may make things worse. <br /> Students and educators all deserve better! It is tempting to focus on quantitative measures to promote higher quality in our schools, but it is an impossible mission. We must broaden our view of the role of the schools to include not only academics but the wide range of life skills. These cannot be measured on school-wide tests.<br />We must broaden our training of teachers so that they are using the best educational practices to teach our students academics (skills that many currently lack), but also prepare them to be leaders and models for our students in relation to values, behavior, communication, and service. We must shatter the code of silence within schools in which low performance is hidden and professional evaluation is seen as a threat, rather than seen as a means to identify and solve problems. We must break down the barriers to parent involvement, both those erected by the educators and those resulting from parental indifference or inability to find time to be involved. <br />We must invest in teaching new teachers not only the basic content information they need to teach a subject, but much more in how to be a good teacher. We must rethink and redesign our ongoing in-service and continuing education programs for current teachers to give them access to the training to learn and master best practices. We must demand that administrators set expectations for their teachers and their schools that are geared to excellence in teaching, to maximizing the performance of all students, not only on test, but in their day to day work, and we must redefine the schools as open communities involving educators, parents and businesses, rather than as fortresses to be defended against attack from the public or from complaining parents or policy makers. We must recognize the importance of public education, the need for high standards and the cost of quality education. We must invest in our children, our teachers and our schools, rather than paying lip service to quality, accountability and innovation through gimmicks that require change, but are not likely to achieve the true changes we want and need. We must expect outcomes that improve the quality of our children’s education and their ability to succeed as adults, rather than outcomes that show statistical improvement, but do not correspond to improvement in real life. Too often, parents and teachers are now seen as opponents in the political arena. Isn’t it time that teachers and parents united and demanded better training, resources, and support.? It would be better for all of us.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-20223885778056443572011-04-14T09:10:00.000-07:002011-04-14T09:11:30.637-07:00Myths, Legends and Realities- Legal Rights of Kids with AD/HD at SchoolMyths, Legends and Reality-<br />School obligations for Kids with AD/HD That <br />Need IEPs or Section 504 Plans (c) <br />by<br />Matt Cohen, J.D.<br /><br />This will appear in ADDitude Magazine's Fall<br />Success in School Issue - <br />www.AdditudeMagazine.com<br /><br /><br /> After working in special education law for more than 30 years, I have found that some schools don’t always follow the letter and spirit of the law when it comes to providing accommodations and services for children protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the IDEA, the law governing special ed) and Section 504. The bottom line: Because your special needs child doesn’t receive some or any of the educational assistance he deserves, he may find school more challenging or even experience failure, rather than success. <br /> Here are 10 common myths that some schools purvey, either through ignorance or in an attempt to discourage parents from receiving help they are legally entitled to. Remember parents: Knowledge is power.<br /><br />1) Myth: ADHD is not a real disorder and does not qualify as a disability. <br />Reality: ADHD is among the most thoroughly researched and documented psychiatric disorders, and the U.S. Department of Education has expressly recognized that students with ADHD may qualify for special education (and an IEP to implement their program) under the Other Health Impaired (OHI) Category or a Section 504 plan, even if they don’t qualify for an IEP through special education.<br /><br />2) Myth: Students with ADHD may only qualify for a Section 504 plan, not an IEP, particularly if they are getting passing grades or adequate achievement scores. <br />Reality: Students diagnosed with ADHD can qualify for an IEP if their AD/HD adversely affects educational performance (including social and behavioral performance), and requires special education (including modifying the content, method or <br />mode of delivery of regular instruction,). Special education can be delivered in a regular education classroom. The OHI category of IDEA expressly lists ADHD as one of the Health Impairments that may qualify for special education. Further, a student with AD/HD may qualify for an IEP even if they are getting passing grades and have good achievement scores, if they are having other serious difficulties at school.<br /><br />3) Myth: Students with ADHD can only qualify for an IEP or a Section 504 plan if they are failing or if they have below average achievement test scores. <br />Reality: Students with ADHD may be eligible under either law if their symptoms affect their performance at school, including problems with organizational skills, time management, behavior and social skills, or even regularly talking without being called on. Failing grades and low achievement scores may be evidence of impairment, but are not the only factors to consider. IEPs should not only identify accommodations or related services to address the student’s needs, but also goals for the student to improve the behaviors that result from the ADHD, such as time management problems or being off-task.<br /><br />4) Myth: To be eligible for special education or Section 504 plan, the student must be diagnosed with ADHD by a physician. <br />Reality: While best-practice evaluations of ADHD recognize the importance of comprehensive medical and psychological evaluation of a student suspected of having ADHD, the Department of Education has issued a policy statement stating that if the IEP team includes persons the school believes are qualified to diagnose ADHD—a psychologist trained to evaluate ADHD—a medical evaluation is not legally required. <br />5) Myth: Schools may require a medical diagnosis of ADHD at parent expense prior to proceeding with an evaluation for special education or a Section 504 plan. <br />Reality: If a school requires or recommends a medical, psychiatric, or neurological evaluation as part of the evaluation process to determine eligibility for special education or a 504 plan, the medical evaluation must be at no cost to the parent. The school must pay for it. <br /> <br />6) Myth: Schools may require that students with ADHD receive stimulant medication in order to qualify for special education or for other school services or activities. <br />Reality: Schools may not base a student’s eligibility for special education or any school activity on their taking any medication. Medication is a medical decision between the family and their doctor. If the student has ADHD and qualifies for special education through an IEP or a 504 Plan, but is not taking medication, the school still must develop appropriate academic and behavioral supports to meet their needs. <br /> <br />7) Myth: Teachers may decide whether or not they will implement an IEP or 504 plan or even have a student with a disability such as ADHD in their class. <br />Reality: If a student has an IEP or a Section 504 plan, the staff are required to implement it. Further, teachers may not refuse to have a student with a disability in their class, just as it would be illegal for them to refuse to teach a student based on race, gender or religion.<br />8) Myth: Students with ADHD may only qualify for a positive behavior support plan if they are exhibiting disruptive or inappropriate behavior towards others. <br />Reality: Under the IDEA and Section 504, positive behavior supports can be included in the plan to address academic and social problems, such as timeliness, work completion, social isolation and on-task behavior, as well as to address aggressive or disruptive behaviors. <br /><br />9) Myth: Students who have ADHD and a 504 Plan are only entitled to accommodations, like preferential seating or untimed tests, not services. <br />Reality: Under Section 504, students with ADHD (and other disabilities) are not only entitled to accommodations, but may also be entitled to specialized educational services (such as individual instruction or tutoring) and related services (such as counseling). The Section 504 plan should be designed to meet the individualized needs of the student.<br /><br />10) Myth: Students with AD/HD can not qualify for 1-1 aides, bus transportation or other more intensive/expensive services. <br />Reality: Students with ADHD are entitled to any services or supports necessary for them to benefit from their education under IDEA or to have equal access to educational opportunities under Section 504. There is no limitation on the nature or types of services a student may qualify for, if it can be demonstrated that the service is needed for the student to participate in educational activities provided to others and/or to make meaningful progress in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs. Any blanket policy limiting access based on diagnosis or disability label is suspect.<br /><br />(c) Copyright by Matthew Cohen, April, 2011, May not be reproduced without author's express written consent. Additude Magazine Article may be reproduced only with consent of the publisher..Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-11885225400084219362011-03-20T18:00:00.000-07:002011-03-20T18:03:29.960-07:00Let's Stop the Blame the Parent Game.....by Matt Cohen<br />Times are tough for the public schools....less money, more demands, new standards to meet, budget pressures....<br />In many ways, they are even tougher for special education. Kids with disabilities have often been shortchanged <br />in relation to what they really need to make meaningful progress, thanks to an early Supreme Court decision<br />that held that schools had met their responsibilities if the student's program was "reasonably calculated" to <br />allow the student to make "some educational progress." But it is even worse as schools face tightening <br />budgets and increased pressure to reduce seemingly extra or disproportionate expenses for special education<br />services. And even where budget cuts are evenly distributed, the impact on kids with disabilities is often<br />greater, because they are more vulnerable to disruption, reduced support, larger classes, less individualization.<br /> Yes, times are tough for schools. But times are tough for families, too. Families have higher costs, <br />many are facing one or both parent losing work or being underemployed. Health care costs are skyrocketing <br />and state and federal funding for services for kids with disabilities is shrinking. Just the basic costs for <br />food and gas are going through the roof. All families are having to do more with what they have and often have<br />less to spend then before. And their kids need more, as less is available at school, from the state and is less<br />affordable from private clinicians. Stress and more stress....<br /> And times are tough for kids....all kids. They can see their parents struggling, financially and emotionally. They know that their vacations aren't happening this year. They know that for teenagers, work is harder to find, and for those going to <br />college, tuition is rising and financial aid is often harder to get. <br /> And in this painful and chaotic economic crisis, times are especially tough for kids with disabilities. <br />What can the school provide? Will the services be there next year? Direct services are being changed to <br />consultative service. Individual service is not being made group service. Minutes of individual help are being <br />reduced or discontinued. More decisions are financially driven, rather than driven by the needs of the child.<br />It is no wonder that many parents are trying to reach out to their schools to make sure that their kids' needs are being met,<br />asking if the services being promised are being provided, seeking to make up for some of the things that are no longer <br />available elsewhere, or just seeking to hold the line in minimizing the reductions that are occurring. Schools<br />should welcome the concerns parents are sharing....<br /> But it's become BLAME THE PARENT TIME! In too many situations, administrators and school attorneys <br />are going on the offensive. Parents are being criticized for asking for too much when budgets are tight, even <br />though they are asking for things their kids need and often that their IEPs require.<br /> -At a recent program to inform parents about their rights, the school district's attorney broadly chastised parents for<br />being too critical of teachers, for being intrusive, for overwhelming them with questions and emails, for treating them poorly<br />and for not being sensitive to the difficult jobs that they have.<br /> -In a recent case involving a young man that had been inappropriately placed and had 10-15 absences during one semester, some excused and some unexcused, the school attorney, while offering limited extra tutoring to provide the student remedial help, insisted that he or his father (who worked nights), call the school 12 hours in advance if he was going to be sick or reimburse the school for the cost of tutoring (not even doctors charge patients for missed appointments if they are sick) and would lose the tutoring altogether if he missed three sessions in a semester.<br /> -Another parent, who had won a due process because the school was failing to provide appropriate ABA services for her son with Autism, was accused of filing due process hearings to spite the school.<br /> -In yet another case, school staff criticized the parent and the consultant the school had hired for being too easy on the student with disabilities, when the behavior involved was directly caused by her disability.<br /> We should expect more, not less! Parents are being accused of <br />taking advantage of the system for asking for services that go beyond school formulas. Parents asking questions are accused of not trusting the staff or questioning staff expertise, when they aren't getting basic information they are entitled to and any parent would want.<br />Some schools are threatening to have parents arrested if they come to school too often, are restricting<br />parents' ability to observe their kids in school, or are faulting parents for medical conditions that make it impossible <br />for the child to attend every day.<br /> The broader school community is also playing the blame game in relation to special education services. That's wrong too.<br />But the BLAME THE PARENT STRATEGY is really intended to intimidate parents into backing off, giving up <br />in trying to get help for their kids, accepting mediocre services or worse. It is inhumane and arguably, often<br />illegal, if it denies the parent the ability to adequately participate in the IEP process, to access information <br />about their child, or to have the same access to the school as other parents. It may even violate the <br />non-harrassment rules of Section 504 or the ADA if it is being done in response to parents exercising their<br />right to complain or use the procedural safeguards of the special education system. <br /> But legalities and strategies aside, it isn't good for anybody. It hurts the kids. It undermines, demeans<br />and intimidates the parents. And it makes problem solving much harder. When times are tough, <br />everyone is better off having open, cooperative and pragmatic discussions about how to best meet the <br />needs of all students. Blaming parents may cause them to back off at the moment, but it will ultimately<br />create more problems for the students, more conflict, and more work for the staff. And it just <br />isn't right. Parents should blame educators for things that they can't control, but educators and their<br />attorneys shouldn't demonize parents or put them on the defensive just to control them and keep them from <br />being legitimately involved in their kids' education. Let's all start talking, instead of attacking....Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-90062924995220373372010-12-27T10:06:00.000-08:002010-12-27T10:09:22.169-08:00Keeping Hope Alive!Although there are no comments on the new blog, I have received dozens of emails responding to the blog and Enews post "Great Expectations" from people around the country. <br />The responses have a consistent theme, that the message struck a chord for many, addressing feelings that are hard to talk about or acknowledge: - that people are struggling.....that they feel unsupported....that they feel alone and that no one really understands what it means to have a disability or to have a family member with a disability. Nor do people understand the great difficulty of maintaining perseverance and hope in the face of the challenges not only of the disability, but of the often hostile environment we live in. <br /><br />Four themes came through the beautiful, painful, and hopeful responses I received: <br /><br />WE ALL NEED TO FIND SUPPORT AND A COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE THAT CAN UNDERSTAND AND EMBRACE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES!<br /><br />WE ALL NEED TO GIVE OURSELVES PERMISSION TO FEEL TIRED, FRUSTRATED, SAD, ANGRY, OVERWHELMED, GUILTY, NOT GUILTY, FIND WAYS TO TAKE BREAKS, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO SEEK SUPPORT AND VALUE IT.<br /><br />WE ALL NEED TO FIND WAYS TO SUSTAIN OUR ENERGY, OUR PERSISTANCE, AND OUR WILLINGNESS TO KEEP FIGHTING FOR WHAT WE OR OUR FAMILY MEMBERS NEED!Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-33895987762203416092010-12-04T19:50:00.000-08:002010-12-04T19:52:16.879-08:00“Bobby’s” AD/HD - A Story of Pain, Prejudice and Persistence...“Bobby’s” AD/HD - A Story of Pain, Prejudice and Persistence...<br />December 4, 2010<br /><br />On Friday, a sixteen year old kid, “Bobby,” came to my office with his father because he was having trouble at school. Not at his regular high school.....not at the district’s special ed program....at the private behavioral school that the district had transferred him to because he wasn’t making enough progress at the self-contained “therapeutic” school the district operated. Drug dealer? Gang banger? Violent? Disruptive? <br />None of the above.<br /><br />“Bobby” had originally been diagnosed as having a learning disorder. He was also diagnosed as having AD/HD....the school knew about it.....the paperwork documented both. But mysteriously, he had been relabeled as Emotionally Disturbed....<br /><br />Why? His sin was that he had trouble getting his work done....trouble getting it turned in on time....trouble getting to class when he was supposed to. He had the greatest difficulty in English, which just happened to be one of the areas where he had learning problems. And the worst sin of all- he was late for the detentions he was given because he was doing everything else late. So he was put in a self-contained school filled with students that were aggressive, disruptive, in trouble with the law...and the focus was on behavior control, not on helping to overcome reading problems. He was shutting down in the district’s school because it had no academics and no meaningful vocational support. The district persuaded the “Bobby’s” father to accept the transfer to the private therapeutic school because it had several vocational classes that were hands on classes that didn’t require lots of academic skills. “Bobby” actually thrived in the vocational classes, because they involved experiential learning, but he was bored by the rest of the classes that the school had- there was no academic help and the school was only concerned with compliance. “Bobby” was becoming completely disheartened with school - he wanted to go back to the public high school, but his father realized that would probably only cause the prior problems to reoccur, so they came hoping I could help to find appropriate help for him.<br /><br />The school never recognized that AD/HD was a disability covered by the special ed laws....never provided services to help “Bobby” to learn organizational skills or to manage his attentional problems. Wasn’t addressing his learning disabilities....or connecting the lines between his total shut down in academic classes and his reading problems. Nor was the school staff recognizing that “Bobby’s” success in shop classes was because he could use his hands, his motor skills and his visual skills, rather than his verbal skills. <br /><br />“Bobby” is just one of thousands of kids and adults in the US (and all over the world) that continue to suffer because schools, employers, and even families fail to recognize the seriousness of AD/HD and learning disabilities. If it can’t be seen, it can’t be real.<br />But it is....AD/HD disrupts “Bobby’s” ability to concentrate. It disrupts his ability to plan, to be organized, to keep track of his work. It disrupts his Executive Functioning - the ability to develop and carry out goals in an effective way... It interferes with his ability to listen to the teacher and take notes at the same time. It disrupts his ability to manage his thoughts and his emotions. It has contributed to his becoming socially isolated and withdrawn. It gives him a feeling of failure, that itself interferes with his performance, because he assumes he can’t succeed. Remarkably, “Bobby” still goes to school every day....still wants to go to school....and is even willing to stay in high school a few extra years if it will allow him to learn to function more effectively. <br /><br />But in the meantime, despite having had no virtually behavioral incidents (his worst “crime” has been swearing at a teacher who was insisting he do work he didn’t know how to do) , no acts of violence, aggression, or disruption, “Bobby” attends a segregated school for kids with severe behavioral problems.....getting no help with his AD/HD, nor with his learning disabilities, nor with the growing emotional problems he is experiencing because school has become a toxic environment for him. <br /><br />Approximately 5-8% of the school age population have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.....some people call it ADD, or Hyperactivity. When I was a kid, it was called Minimal Brain Dysfunction. Originally, it was assumed that children grew out of AD/HD, but it is now understood that AD/HD is a real neurobiological disorder and that the vast majority of children with AD/HD continue to have AD/HD as adults. <br /><br />AD/HD is a thoroughly researched medical condition. It is a real disability, affecting children and adults. And the impact also disrupts family relationships, with siblings, parents, spouses, children. Yet, 20 years after the Department of Education recognized it as a covered disability, over ten years after it was explicitly added to the IDEA regulations and after hundreds of studies, protection under Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and recognition that it is a neurobiological problem with likely genetic predisposition, people with AD/HD still have to convince people that it is real....and even when it is recognized, have to deal with the problem that even most who are willing to acknowledge it don’t really understand what it is or how serious it affects every day life. <br /><br /> As an adult with AD/HD, I can relate completely to “Bobby’s” experience. Each day, as I struggle to remember things that I was supposed to do, or just started, or just put down, or need to finish, I also am aware that my general success hides my internal struggles and causes others to doubt the distress it often causes me.<br /><br />As a disability lawyer and someone knowledgeable about it, I may be better able to deal with how it affects me and with the reactions of others than many, but everyone with AD/HD struggles with these issues.... And more serious and effective responses from educators, from clinicians and from families, would help every person with AD/HD to more fully realize their potential, to be themselves, to acknowledge and learn ways to use their strengths and to deal with their frustrations, their difficulties, their pain.<br />Bobby hasn’t given up.....but we shouldn’t give up on him or the thousands like him that are either undiagnosed.....diagnosed, but not being given appropriate treatment or accommodations, or even who are getting help, but are still not understood nor having their underlying emotional struggles recognized....<br /><br />Bobby has a right to be treated fairly, to be diagnosed accurately, to get the support that he needs, to be educated appropriately. All the Bobby’s have that right, whether male or female If we provide the help sooner, more people with AD/HD will be helped sooner....and will be better able to deal with the debilitating weight of the AD/HD baggage as they move into and through adult life. It is their right....it is the right thing to do....and it is better for everyone. In fact, this is true in relation to all disabilities.....but that is a longer story.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7438898708436869288.post-53843123126632834402010-11-27T13:33:00.000-08:002010-11-27T13:34:27.312-08:00Great Expectations, Difficult TransitionsGreat Expectations, Hard Transitions November 26, 2010<br /><br />Having kids was the most exciting event in my life. I had thought of having kids since I was a kid. I wanted lots. As I grew older, the wish for children was always in my universe, like the north star......not always visible, but always there, a point in the galaxy to organize life by. As I reached adulthood, the desire remained. I had a familiar nest of hopes and expectations - the joys of birth, the delight of holding and nurturing an infant, the building of a family, the chance to teach, share, play, lead, comfort. As the oldest of four brothers, I had some experience with helping younger ones. I loved the sense of innocence, the spontaneity, the curiosity.....I didn’t even mind changing diapers. I didn’t need for my kids to grow and go to Harvard, win the Nobel Prize, or cure cancer. In fact, having suffered some excess expectations as a child, I was very clear that I simply wanted for them to grow up to lead a good life, to be the best they could be and to find happiness. <br /><br />I have two wonderful sons....one is in college and doing great things that one does in college. He isn’t entirely sure what he will do when he graduates, but he has many options and many talents. For him the biggest challenge may be deciding where to put his energy and taking the plunge to commit to that choice, at least for a while.<br /><br /> My other, older son, alternates his time, primarily living with me at the moment, but spending part of his time with his mother. He is happy right now, perhaps happier than he has been in years, having just started a new transition program, begun to make some new friends, and perhaps, having a real relationship with a young woman that he met through the program. <br /><br />Since he was two, doctors have given him a succession of labels, some somewhat less ominous, ,some more serious, but all significant. Whether ADHD or LD or NLD or Asperger’s, or anxiety, or OCD, or Cerebral Palsy or Epilepsy, I have learned over the years that in the disability game, there is no winner on the severity scale. All have an impact that can vary enormously from person to person. All can be helped in some ways through various interventions, but all can and generally do have a huge impact, on the child and on their family. <br /><br />Part of living with disability is recognizing the inevitable tension of finding one’s place in the world in a world that is not very welcoming. How to be “regular” given what ever differences the child experiences? How to participate and feel and be included when the people around are not always welcoming, or may be welcoming, but unsure of how to welcome, or may be sure of how to be welcoming, but not aware of who this person is and what they want and need. Often, life with disability is also complicated because the child’s needs and abilities are constantly changing, growing, becoming more challenging. Some things become easier, some harder. Some things are out grown or treated successfully, others grow worse with time or become harder because the gap between the child’s abilities and others is growing. <br /><br />And sometimes, the tension is made worse by the inability of the army of doctors, therapists, evaluators, educators, case managers, and well meaning family and friends lead to a witch’s brew of different diagnoses, prognoses, recommendations, and expectations. Condition x requires y, but condition A requires B. This one says x, but that one say A. And if both x and A are present, others say that Z should be done.....<br />Worst of all, some say - he or she has “reached their potential.” Now it is time to accept that they have gone as far as possible and to provide for them....and if parents don’t accept this, we are in denial. <br /><br />My son has lived this. We have lived these tensions with him. What is his potential? (Impossible to know unless we keep trying) Where can he function best? (in a program or at home....we are mortal, but programs and staff come and go and are often not all that they appear to be on paper) How can he learn best? (I wish I could figure that out, but I know that giving up on learning will be the only option that guarantees failure). Can he keep learning (yes, absolutely...whenever I doubt it, he surprises me with a big leap forward.) There is so much pressure to accept a ceiling....to accept the lowest level of possibility.....to accept the easiest solution.<br /><br />The state of the world makes this even harder. An economic crisis. Reduced funding for programs....economic uncertainty for all of us. For kids with disabilities and their families, all of these things are even more devastating than for the rest of the world, because the demands are already greater. And each transition, from one school to another, from one program to another, from one developmental stage to another, brings new challenges, new demands, new surprises. <br /><br />And for the person with the disability, the question remains: “What is my future?” They and their family must find ways to answer this question at each stage of transition. The answer may not be the ultimate answer. Indeed, any realistic answer needs to include the possibility, no the inevitability, that the path will change, perhaps often. But we need to find a path, a sense of future, a sense of belonging, a sense of community. Ultimately, this is far more important than a particular career, or job, or concrete skills. Ultimately, the most important challenge is to help the individual find a way to be as independent as possible, but as connected and engaged as possible - to a path, to a group of people, to a life that provides a sense of self, of worth, of relationship, of belonging, of happiness.<br /><br />As parents, we must evolve - I am still evolving, but as I do so, I increasingly recognize that some of the intangibles of life are more important than those that we typically use as measures of success. For both of my sons, I wish for them the most success and independence and happiness possible. They will be on different paths, but many of the things that will be the true measures of happiness for each of them will be the same - doing what they want to do, with people they care about and that care about them, feeling that they are doing some they value and is valued by others, giving, receiving, and having the chance for love of friends and family. <br /><br />As I evolve (and struggle) with some of these issues, I also struggle with my desire to promote my son’s opportunities for growth without being unrealistic or creating false expectations. But I always come back to the lesson he constantly teaches me, that setting limits creates limits and allowing for unknown or unexpected possibilities and maintaining hope and support that we always can grow assures that growth will keep happening.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01031753523249900064noreply@blogger.com4