|
Threat to Special Education Uncovered
"When discussing special education it is important to emphasize ... that New York State has always had, and continues to have, a deep commitment to the social compact that demands that we care for those most in need".
With these seemingly encouraging words, the NYS Commission on Property Tax Relief then offers cost-saving "recommendations" to the Special Education world that would reduce or remove numerous accommodations that we fight hard to obtain. With no surprise, this segment of the commission's report is applauded by the NYS Council of School Superintendents.
This December issue is totally dedicated to uncovering this "crime" and organizing a grass roots movement to let Governor Patterson and the Albany legislature know that "we're here, we're affected parties and we vote". |
| Twists, Lies and Innuendo |
|
The Special Education Section of the NYS Commission on Property Tax Relief are filled with twists, lies and innuendo.
Did you know that "'special education' is a term of art", according to the Report? Not me Art, but art art. I have been led to believe that "special education" was a federally mandated taxonomy in which specific classifications of LD, Speech/Language, ED, OHI, etc. are part of. The Commission would have us believe that special education is a whimsical categorization to get children extra services or extra time to complete assignments.
Did you know that the IDEA requires that every child receive a 'free and appropriate education' (that's true) and that should be in the 'least restrictive environment' (that too is true), which means (followed by some weasel words) regular classrooms (there's the lie). They are pushing inclusion, which has its proponents, but they are also pushing unlimited class sizes (see the feature article on the right).
Did you know that the average impartial hearing costs $75,000? I cannot dispute this cost but I can explain large chunks of it.
Outside of NYC, school districts hire law firms to handle their impartial hearing litigation. In this venue, there seems no check-and-balance for the law firms -- hearing drag on for excessive days, legal briefs are volunteered by these law firms (which must be matched by our side), appeals are encouraged. And why shouldn't they? These law firms have no encouragement to settle or streamline their processes, as they bill the school district.
Within NYC, things are little different. Tuition costs as low as $7,000 are challenged with multi-day hearings and appeals. CSE recommendations are overturned by Central Based Support Teams (CBST), whose governance and authority are indetermined, causing us to go to impartial hearing. Appeals are more commonplace now than in any previous period, thanks to the DOE creating a Special Education Appeals Unit. |
| Outcome-Based Accountability |
|
"The State Education Department should shift its emphasis from regulatory enforcement, especially in special education, to performance standards ..."
The problem with performance standards is that they are taken statistically and taken after-the-fact.
'Statistically' means that performance is not measured for your child as an individual but your child as one of a population. If your child fails to perform, it is a value on a pie chart, not your family's issue. This is the same faux philosophy that created the now-discredited No Child Left Behind. Performance is measured by the school administration, who are measured by their performance. Hmmm. Is it only me or ...
Performance taken after-the-fact is the other pernicious fallacy. You send your special ed child to school and you expect measurements of progress. Measured when? ... in 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months. And then (lo and behold!) your child's performance is poor. Your teacher or administrator is not measured in 6 weeks or 6 months. He/she is measured over a year. That is a year of minimum progress or negative progress for your special ed kid. Cold comfort that your child has lost another year of potential education.
Without regulatory enforcement, as has been shown by actions on Wall Street, greed and minimal ethical obligations rule. Although there may be differences between educators and Wall Street types, both groups are human and subject to the same temptations as we all are. Without regulation and stated obligations, people tend to cut corners, do minimums of work, and eventually build a myth to justify such behavior.
|
| Organizing and Reminding Our Elected Officials that We Vote |
|
I believe that Governor Paterson and our elected legislators are good people facing difficult fiscal issues. That notwithstanding, the education of our children with special needs is an ongoing process whose curtailment would injure the most vulnerable of our citizenry -- the children with special educational needs.
We should contact our Governor and our elected legislators to have them reject the Special Education recommendations of the Committee on Property Tax Relief that are onerous and counterproductive.
Write or call:
Governor David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
518-474-8390
Information about your state representatives can be gotten from:
or visit your representatives' local offices.
|
| Who are they? |
|
The Commission on Property Tax Relief
Commission Members
Thomas R. Suozzi, Nassau County Executive
Shirley Strum Kenny, Pres., Stony Brook University
Nicholas Pirro, Former Onondaga County Executive
Michael Solomon, Director, Merrill Lynch
Merryl Tisch, Vice Chancellor, New York State Board of Regents -- abstained from recommendations
Paul Tokasz, Former NYS Assembly Majority Leader
Special Advisers
Lisa Donner, Co-Director, Center for Working Families
Elizabeth Lynam, Deputy Research Director, Citizens Budget Commission
Sandra Parker, President and Chief Executive Officer, Rochester Business Alliance
Karen Scharff, Executive Director, Citizen Action of New York
Robert Ward, Deputy Director and Director of Fiscal Studies, Rockefeller Institute of Government
I wonder how many of these individuals have children, grandchildren, neighbors with children who have special education needs. Our advocates and affiliated attorneys are nose-deep in special education but I must wonder about these commission members and advisers. They speak from the pulpit of fiscal responsibility but they play into the hands of those who would steal the future of special education children. | |
|
We at Susan Luger Associates are outraged by this Commission on Property Tax Relief undertaking to subvert the IDEA and the needs of special education children. We hope that this newsletter sparks a grass roots response to our elected officials.
Sincerely,
Susan Luger
Susan Luger Associates, Inc.
|
|
|
| Special Education Recommendations |
|
|
Proposed mandates for the 2009-2010 School Year
The Commission believes that "inflexible staffing mandates" that require pupil-teacher-aide ratios should be eliminated as a cost-saving measure. Thus, the district could determine the number of staff, aides and students in each class as it sees fit.
Class size mandates should be repealed and schools should be permitted to establish class size based on their students' needs. Unfortunately, history shows that students' needs are far down the priority list where budget and action are concerned.
There should be no mandatory minimum service levels for special education. Levels should be determined by the CSE's. This would give power to the district to provide speech, OT, PT, etc. as it sees fit (and no doubt based on budgetary considerations rather than student needs).
Push for a change of the federal guidelines to reduce or remove payment for transportation of special education children.
Dramatically accelerate the integration of special education with general education by dismissing the formal classification procedure (termed "outmoded" by these commissioners).
Shift the burden of proof in hearings when families appear with representation. I'm not sure of the legality of this means-testing (if you can afford representation, you have the burden of proof) -- I'm not a lawyer -- but it seems unfair that if you have professional representation, the burden is yours. Maybe if the Boards of Education don't have legal representation, the playing field will be less tilted ... maybe not.
Shorten the statute of limitations for non-approved private schools reimbursement cases from two years to ninety days.
|
| Share this Newsletter with your friends and colleagues by forwarding this email to them. |
|
|
| If you learn of any newsworthy item related to Special Education, contact us with the information. |
|
|
|
|
