Thinking about NCLB Outside the Beltway: Those with Severe disabilities March 30, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in Alternate Assessment, Blogging, Ed Policy Discussion, NCLB, Parents and parenting, Special Education.comments closed
It was brought to my attention that perhaps there might be some discrepancies between what people “inside the beltway” might be thinking versus those “outside the beltway” as far as NCLB and IDEA, specifically in regards to testing students with disabilities. So I’ll address issues specifically in regards to testing those students with the most severe cognitive disabilities.
First off, let me define people inside the beltway. Over there on the right, in my blogroll, you will see a category for Ed Policy Discussion. If you are in that category, I’m thinking of you as an “inside the beltway” entity. Everyone else is probably outside of it. I don’t blogroll a lot of beltway/policy bloggers because I’m not quite as interested in what they write compared to real people with real stories. Real parents, real teachers and real people who actually have exceptionalities are infinitely more interesting to me.
But a couple of these policy entities caught my attention early on, namely Eduwonk and NCLBlog, almost as much for their repartee when they go back and forth as anything else they write and publish.
Eduwonk wrote a recent response to a post published by John on NCLBlog that sort of caught my attention and I’m only just now getting a chance to respond. Eduwonk observes:
The parent is impassioned by not completely right about the mechanics of the law in terms of students with more severe disabilities, but no matter for AFTie John, it’ll do! In fact, it reads like a more general criticism of testing, let’s hope the AFTies aren’t bending to the pressure to come into the fold with all the other groups!
One problem I have with beltway entities is that they are in love with testing. They have a love affair with standardized tests because they are relatively cheap and easy compared to almost any other type of assessment. This has become the tool of choice when determining how well a child is learning or how highly qualified a teacher is. I’m actually totally fine if you want me to take any sort of standardized test. When normed properly, I usually score towards the top. On the last Praxis I took, I was in the 100th percentile.
Eduwonk then goes into some discussion about the various types of students with disabilities and for arguments sake, I’ll use his categories for special needs students:
To oversimplify only slightly, there are really three primary groups* of special needs kids: Those that should be included in the mainstream system (eg vision or hearing impaired kids need access not a different set of standards and most students in the learning disabilities category should be included also), those who should be but with some modifications, and those that need something substantially different.
The NCLB policy is still clumsy with regard to that last group but the answer is, I’d argue, to be found in using data drive local flexibility rather than blanket exemptions as is basically the policy now. But, that last group is a distinct minority, despite the rhetoric the fact is that the “average” special education student does not have Down Syndrome or severe autism, more than half have learning disabilities and many of them just haven’t been taught to read well.
This is the problem. I teach the third group. There are maybe a dozen teachers in our county who teach that third group. We are a minority, yes. And at the hands of Eduwonk and the rest of the beltway entities, we repeatedly get tacked on as some sort of asterisk footnote. We get forgotten. When NCLB was written, special needs were barely considered at all and then were finally thrown in as an afterthought. When Highly Qualified teacher provisions were written, no one thought about special ed. teachers. We had to wait until IDEA 2004 came down and then we only had a few months to become HQ in order to comply with NCLB!
Eduwonk has a link to explain the mechanics of the law, which allows for an alternate assessment for students like mine. You can read it for yourself, but there is one theme that is hammered into that document and NCLB over and over and over. That is the concept of academic grade level standards. There is absolutely no way to comply with NCLB without it. The centerpiece of NCLB is that every single child, no exceptions, will master grade level content standards by 20013.
So let’s talk about the most abstract of concepts to beltway entities: reality.
Larry will be undergoing the alternate assessment next year. He is profoundly intellectually disabled with severe CP. He can not feed himself, speak or do much of anything independently. He does know how to smile when he likes something and cry when he is wet and needs his diaper changed, or to express his displeasure at having to sit in one position for too long. Larry’s last psychological was done over 7 years ago, but his functioning has not improved substantially. His independent functioning according to a recent assessment is at a level of someone 5 months old. His IQ 7 years ago was 3. Now, at the age of 17, I don’t think it would have risen substantially to get out of the single digit range.
You should have seen his mother’s eyes bulge when I showed her Larry’s academic goals for next year:
The student identifies, analyzes, and applies knowledge of the structures and elements of American fiction and provides evidence from the text to support understanding; the student:
a. Locates and analyzes such elements in fiction as language and style, character development, point of view, irony, and structures (i.e., chronological, in medias res, flashback, frame narrative, epistolary narrative) in works of American fiction from different time periods.
This is taken, word-for-word, from the state curriculum standard and it is from a list of required elements that had to be included in the alternate assessment this past year. Remember, he is going to be in 11th grade. He must be assessed according to grade level academic content standards! It is true that I’ll put together some sort of portfolio showing some sort of proficiency instead of him taking the graduation test. It will be watered down and show him accessing the 11th grade curriculum in some way. But tell me: how is this meaningful? In addition to American Literature, I’m going to have to assess Larry’s academic proficiency in American History, Biology or physical science, algebra and geometry.
It is this nightmarish absurdity that makes me absolutely disgusted with pretty much anything inside the beltway or under any dome of any capitol. IDEA was put in place to deal with how school systems discriminated against students with disabilities, but NCLB is counteracting that by pushing for conformity. There is no possible way for the beltway to be able to micromanage what is taking place out in real classrooms. As Eduwonk says in an asterisked footnote:
I’d argue, paradoxically, that IDEA’s vital emphasis on individualization has actually had the effect of working against customization for kids. You want customization at the school level but it’s less important and more unwieldy the further up the policy chain you go. But, that’s not an argument, as some Republicans are now making, to leave all decisions to the local school districts, it’s just an argument to get the balance and incentives right.
IDEA’s vital emphasis on individualization is the only provision that has made IDEA work at all. Every single time they try to tweak it with incentives, it becomes mired in more red tape. Eduwonk seems to think individualization could better be dicided in Washington D.C. To diminish the individualization aspect of the law is to in fact repeal it and to increase the power of government at the expense of the students and their parents. Lawmakers actually listened to parents on that one and I hope they continue to do so, rather than various beltway entities. I would sooner trust my son’s mother, me, and his teachers and therapists to make the most informed decisions as to what he is capable of and at what pace he should be learning. NCLB makes no provision for that, thus the empowerment of IDEA has been diminished. I read Madeleine Will’s testimony and actually do agree with some things she said. I also agree with what Eduwonk says in regards to some of those with milder disabilities not being adequately educated. However in regards to the students I teach, common sense has been totally abandoned by the people in the beltway.
Perhaps upon successful completion of his alternate assessment, Larry can get a job designing ballistic missiles for the Pentagon, inside the beltway.
D.
Dealing with Cruel Words March 23, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in Backstory, Blogging, Learning Disabilities, Regular Ed, Special Education, Teachers.comments closed
I was surfing around and came across this older post from California Teacher Guy (who is at this moment drinking a pilsner in some haufbrauhaus to help him get over his jet lag) that got me to thinking.
[WARNING: I’m not going to water this down so it might be ‘R’ rated for the potty talk.]
In that post, a fellow teacher refers to an EBD student as a “Piece of Shit.” Later on, he posts some advice given to him by others as to what he should do, including being a good example, watching a video tape and taking hidden camera footage.
I have only occasionally come across this attitude since working kids with severe intellectual disabilities. However, I know that it is out there. I also know the causes of it. I once had a similar attitude, myself.
Twenty years ago, I was teaching a regular education elective class at the high school level. Vocational agriculture to be exact. 20 years ago, colleges began changing their admission standards and tightening them up. They began requiring 2 years of a foreign language along with more core subjects which meant precious little space for electives. And this meant that I got very few college-bound kids in my agriculture classes. Who did I get? Us agriculture teachers had many names for them. Rum Dums. Sweat hogs. Dummies. Speds. We resented their presence mightily. I remember getting after a guidance counselor for steering students away who might actually want a career in agribusiness from taking my classes. I ended up sort of fleeing the situation by getting certified in general science, biology and chemistry. But I ended up at a school that boasted being able to teach kids with learning disabilities. And I kind of liked it. I was on the road to reform. I still had issues with student behaviors but I was learning to deal more proactively.
There are a couple of reasons why teachers dislike special education students as much as they do. The biggest one is ignorance. As an ag teacher, I had no idea what to do with these people and hadn’t received any instruction in dealing with kids with special needs. And yet, over half my class was made up of kids with some sort of disability and many of the others simply weren’t identified. The other reason is lack of support. When I had all of these students with special needs, I had no help or guidance as to what to do. I was on my own and since I was a brand new teacher, I was going to struggle no matter what. I met with a couple of special education teachers but some seemed more interested in piling more work on ME in having me fill out assorted checklists for evaluations. The end result was that I had very few fond feelings towards a group of students who needed a lot more support than I was capable of offering at that time. I don’t remember saying a student was a piece of shit, but I think I probably thought it more than once. My fellow agriculture teachers had every bit as much hostility as I did as this was not the sort of situation we had studied about in our college classes.
One could probably say that it was poetic justice and God kicked my ass for having such evil thoughts by placing me in the most special of the special education settings and by virtue of having a child of my own with exceptionalities. I had no choice but to become more educated. Being more educated about the people around us is the cure for a whole host of ignorant prejudices, and as educators that’s sort of what we’re called to do. We are fighting the war on ignorance.
People say all sorts of things without thinking. Anyone who would say something like that around me would be in for some sort of education with a fair amount of personal counseling to boot. That teacher was voicing her frustration, and it is wrong of her to take it out on the kids, but confronting her and being hostile isn’t going to improve her outlook at all. Getting her reprimanded will help neither her nor the students unless maybe she’s fired. But then you’re back where you started with the next ignoramus who decides to try to teach these challenging learners. So those who know have to educate those who don’t. It’s just part of my job, and I try to take a supportive role especially for the beleaguered vocational teachers who get the bulk of the exceptional students. So part of the answer is protect our students but also do so without being too harsh on teachers who say silly stupid things. Not that I haven’t jumped on a few, but the sad part of that is that those teachers I’ve gone after were special educators! Gah!
dick
Goal-Objective Clinic March 22, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in IEPs, Parent Support, Special Education, Teachers.comments closed
I had a chance to give a mini-clinic on goals to a teacher who didn’t have them done at her IEP meeting. Yes, I know we are all supposed to develop them at the IEP with parent input all the time. I’ve been to meetings where this has worked nicely and today’s meeting was the first one I was able to do when I wasn’t the parent.
This was a student who was struggling with completing assignments, staying on task and using his time wisely. Unfortunately “Student will use time wisely” with a criteria of 80% and an evaluation method of “Formal and informal testing methods” is one butt-ugly objective. It is meaningless. How the hell do I measure mastery on this abomination? The case manager was not the one who wrote the original goal, as it was done in middle school. I won’t go into the trashy crap we get from the middle school in the form of IEPs, but this goal was the least of the offenses I’ve seen.
The parent and the regular education teacher got a bird’s eye view, as well, of this process. The regular ed teacher, who is a young guy in his first year of teaching ELA courses caught on very quickly and was actually more helpful than the caseload teacher who has been doing this for 5 or so years. We actually put in some good goals that include some concrete mechanisms for accountability.
Instead of “Uses time wisely” I wrote “Will stay on task during a 30 minute interval in his resource class for 4 of 5 days per week for a 9 week grading period.” The method of evaluation is timed observation from the resource teacher and it is to be reported weekly on the weekly progress report. I picked on the resource class, because that is where there should be a trained teacher and para who can work on this skill. The 9 week grading period limit gives the teacher room to opt out of taking the data once the kid has mastered the goal. This was the carrot for the student, himself, who basically wanted his mother and everyone else to get off his back. I said he could have that IF he mastered his goal. He had to prove something first, and then we might let him off the hook. But not before. I also wrote in an objective or two about completing assignments and keeping an assignment log. In anycase, we did it like it was 100% supposed to be done, but only after the teacher bombed out and the meeting had already gone on over an hour. The parent was getting belligerent with her son to the point of embarrassment and the case manager had lost control.
I’m not against parents having their say, but getting loud and blessing the kid out in front of others over and over and over gets old quite fast. I can see why the boy has issues.
I was also invited to another manifestation. Once I heard one of the facts, I told the inviter that they didn’t want me there. The school would clearly not prevail if I was at another of these where an unsupervised para was teaching the student’s resource class. We are now short no less than 4 special education teachers in this building. It’s hard to imagine a more secure profession than special education with so many positions that are fully funded yet unfilled.
dick
The Effective Use of Our Para Educators March 16, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in Paraeducators, Regular Ed, Special Education, Teachers.comments closed
I write about paras probably more than any other teacher blogger because they are such an integral part of what I do. I’m supervising 3 right now, but have been in charge of supervising and training as many as 7 at one time. I’ve also done a fair amount of research on para issues, as well as have a background as a para at one time.
In our weekly department meeting, teachers were admonished that they needed to be using their paras more effectively. The department head said that they should not be sitting at their desks, reading books or doing some other personal work, but should be used to their full potential.
I began to wonder how that translated into the minds of most teachers. I have heard more than one teacher complain about the para being somewhat less than capable and some have even tried to get out of having paras in the first place because they think it is like simply having another student. Math and science teachers seem to complain the loudest, at least from the small experiences I’ve had with them.
There are two issues that come to mind when I think about using paras effectively. One is how the para is trained. I’ve commented before how I have met precious few (like NONE) that has bothered training their paras. They treat them as incompetent underlings and then wonder why they are not getting anything out of them. Or teachers fail to convey expectations, and then wonder why these other adults are not performing up to par.
The second issue is also about training, but I’m thinking about the training of the teacher. There are currently no classes that I’ve ever encountered at the university level that trains special educators on the training, supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals. In fact, I’ve never met a teacher who was trained on what to do with those other adults in their classrooms. In contrast, our county offers a class twice a year every year entitled The Role of the Paraprofessional. This class is required for every person hired as a para in our district. Unfortunately, this class is taught by and for those in regular education, so the special ed. paras are often given material and content ill-suited to their needs. But I’m wondering about a class for teachers about the role of the para.
I’m thinking about possibly trying to teach an in-county workshop on the subject. I’m thinking it should include sections on training, supervision and evaluation. But what other specific things might be covered?
dick
Thanks to the NRCP for throwing me a bone! The least I could do was post something slightly more up-to-date.
I Wish the News was as Good as it Sounds March 16, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in Alternate Assessment, Ed Policy Discussion, NCLB, Special Education, Teachers.comments closed
According to the Washington Post, “Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush’s Prized ‘No Child’ Act.” I actually saw a bit of this hostility on C-Span last weekend when Margret Spellings appeared. I wish I could report more on that, but I kept falling asleep.
However, according to the article, the GOP is only tweaking around with this abomination. In the first place, they are providing some mechanism for states to opt out of the testing provisions of NCLB. That sounds good to me, after my recent experiences with the alternate assessment. Until I read this:
In both cases, the states that opt out would still be eligible for federal funding, but those states could exempt any education program but special education from No Child Left Behind strictures.
WTF? So this means that special education still has to be shackled and cuffed to this leaky, stinky bureaucratic barge? Of course. Why? Because the ignorant monkeys in Washington wrote and passed the IDEA 2004 re-authorization to align, heel and otherwise kowtow to NCLB. Why? Because those ignorant whelps don’t bother thinking past the next fundraiser or martini. The re-authorization of IDEA was not on the radar screen when Bush, Kennedy, Miller et. al. pushed and horse traded NCLB in its present form into existence. They were so distracted by that stupid Iraq war, that they were 2 years over due on the re-authorization of IDEA. And most members of congress probably didn’t even bother looking at it and it passed with very little contention from anyone, aside from the usual spats about funding which they’ve never honored and never will.
IDEA 2004 final regulations were just handed down from the Feds last fall, so no one is even thinking about the next review of that law. No matter what congress does with NCLB, those of us in special education are stuck.
In related news, I just heard about two teachers from the middle school that feeds into ours are leaving their positions. Each have been teaching there since the school opened 7 years ago, but the rigors of the alternate assessment has made them seek other options. Middle schools are no bargains in the best of circumstances, but they had to do the GAA on every student. I groused badly about doing 2. Can you imagine doing 7 from 3 different grades? They each had enough, and said “adios” to teaching severe and profound students. Our county just had a recruitment fair last weekend. Guess how many special education teachers showed up looking to teach the severe population?
How about NONE. Zero.
“”Statistics are not, of course, the whole answer, but nothing is as emphatic as zero. United States v. Hinds County Sch. Bd. 1970″”
Mark my words: There is a real crisis brewing in special education that has been a serious problem for over a decade. With the increased litigation, the increased legal red tape, the increased demands and the stress that goes with it, what are systems going to do? There are simply not enough warm bodies to fill those positions open today. This fall it will be downright ugly.
dick
Motivating Parents to Input More Effectively March 15, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in IEPs, Parent Support, Parents and parenting, Special Education, Teachers.comments closed
Each year, I attend scores of IEP meetings and each one is unique in its own way. However there are a few things I’ve noted, especially with those that involve students with milder disabilities. First of all, I don’t know if I’ve seen any of them go over the mastery of previous goals sufficiently. If you are a teacher new to the IEP process, this is the perfect place to start. Even I get all flustered when first starting to write an IEP and looking at the mountains of paperwork I have to chisel away at. I put the things off and off, and then wonder just where I’m going to start. I have two of my own (Jim and Ravi) that I’m working on for next week. I wanted to get drafts out today, so I had a hard deadline I’d given myself. So I sat down with my pen and a copy of the previous year’s goals and began working through them one by one to see how well they mastered them. Mastery of goals should be done in advance of the meeting, not during the meeting. Assemble whatever data and grades you need. Once you do this, you have an idea of where the student is at and which goals need to be kept, changed, or simply were not good goals in the first place. Now you’re ready to write.
In the mean time, you also need to communicate with parents to get their input. In my experience, parents are not sure what to do or say at most meetings. Ask for input till you’re blue in the face, but you probably aren’t going to get much from them until you share some of your information with them. This is why I like giving my parents a weekend to look over a draft of the IEP. Make sure they understand that this is a DRAFT and that they can make whatever changes they like before or at the meeting. Obviously, I’d like to know their intentions in advance, but if they want to wait until the meeting this is fine.
As special education caseload managers, we have certain steps and procedures we simply must follow. These can take a lot of time, and frankly many of them are boring. My goal in giving out the draft is to concentrate discussion on the most salient features of the IEP, or those that the parent has the most concern about. They may be fine with most of your goals but have questions on a couple of them. They may have some valuable input for the transition plan or add things to the present level of performance. The more informed a parent is, the more they will be able to meaningfully contribute.
I’m going to try something a little more advanced this year. I’m going to put sticky notes throughout the draft with some questions that I have for them. The present level has many parts where parental input is needed, for instance I need to know what medications the student has and if there are any changes in medical status. Transition is really a huge thing, here. The school system has certain responsibilities, but we really are pretty limited when it comes to dealing with outside agencies. Therefore, parent input is crucial.
For students who are not as severe as mine, getting inside their head can be equally as important. Find out what they like, what their goals are and where they want to be in 5 or so years. Obviously I’m zooming in on high school students, but anything you can get at a lower grade as far as likes and interests will be helpful.
Today, my parents will be getting a fairly substantial packet of stuff that I hope they’ll look at and bring to the IEP. If there are portions of the draft that are unfinished (i.e. my SLP and the PT will probably not have anything finished yet) I’ll remove them. But parents rights, a copy of a paper I wrote about guardianship, a copy of the mastery and any other assessment reports that I have will go home. The hope is that they will at least feel less anxious about the meeting walking in. I have had some parents say they’ve felt better having their stuff ahead of time. I still worry a bit about it actually increasing the anxiety in some parents as the whole thing can seem overwhelming to them when they get this big, huge packet.
Jim’s mother will definitely come, because she always does. She has never NOT come to any sort of meeting we’ve ever had. Ravi’s mother, on the other hand, is a very big question mark. She will be getting a phone call before the meeting so that I can be sure I have everything I need and press her about her attendance. I’m not going to pressure her into attending but simply try to get an honest response.
It’s pretty common that parents sign the notice and state that they will be at the meeting. Then they don’t show up, leaving everyone waiting including an embarrassed student. They later claim they thought it was on a different day or at a different time which is far fetched simply because we try to deliver multiple reminders and we document the method and response. I think many parents are a bit embarrassed by their unwillingness to attend. Remember, no one really likes these meetings except possibly attorneys and paid advocates. So what I’ve done with some degree of success is to assure the parent that if they can not attend, we are very much okay with it and not judgmental. I’ll talk to them and get whatever input over the phone and tell them this is fine with me if it’s fine with them. I simply want honesty, and if they back out during that last phone call, I’m okay with it. That will save the entire committee a ton of time and anxiety from waiting for someone who isn’t going to show up. In other words, I’m not going to wait until the meeting to get input from this parent who I think just might stand me up. I’m going to make sure she gets to contribute in a way that may be less intimidating for her without guilt or blame. She will be able to advocate for her son in a meaningful way.
With the above approach, I have managed to turn things around on occasion. I’ve had parents actually decide to attend meetings who had not attended in several years. I think this may be because I did everything I could to limit the intimidation factor. Even if I had to go to the student’s house and spend time with the parent that way, I was laying a foundation of trust and safety.
As a parent myself, I totally get why parents don’t bother showing up or participating. Every time Thomas has a meeting, the school redoubles its efforts at intimidation by inviting a slew of teachers and administrators from several agencies and services and then everyone tries to stare me down when its time to make a decision. Been there, done that. Gotten sick and tired of it. And his inexperienced caseload teacher is probably all but wetting her pants because she thinks she’s going to get nailed for a lousy IEP. Thing is, despite goals and objectives and a behavior intervention plan that are totally lackluster, he continues to improve. That’s really all I’m after. But it would be nice if the red carpet of trust was laid down well in advance of the annual review. If school systems insist on cultivating this adversarial culture, they are going to reap the whirlwind of hostility.
So if a parent doesn’t want to go through these motions and hoops after having done it for over a decade, far be it from me to blame them. So perhaps one of my best strategies in getting parents to participate more is to not be so hard on them if they choose not to. They have lives beyond this one child and this one meeting with this one teacher. Unless you’ve spent a lot of time with that child in his own house with his own family, you have no idea what sort of pressures and stresses that family is under. Being nonjudgmental can go a long way in forging some trust. Perhaps the family might come around to thinking that you might be someone worth spending some time with, and someone who will not make them feel small. It is hard being a parent and not feeling very small and insignificant when surrounded by all of these well-dressed, well-spoken and well-educated professionals, especially when parents might barely have a high school diploma themselves.
Dick
Parent Input March 14, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in IEPs, Parent Support, Parents and parenting, Special Education.comments closed
Charles Fox has graciously shared examples of input statements that nicely illustrate what parents can contribute to the IEP process. I know teachers might get a bit anxious about having a parent submit such documents (especially when the parent is an attorney) but such input can be an invaluable source of information for next year’s teachers. His son is transitioning to high school which scares the pants off most parents. If it don’t, it should. Information and direction given by a parent should be taken in and digested and used to best serve the student. After all, that’s sort of why we got into the business in the first place, right?
dick
IEP Process: Manifestation Determination Part 2 March 12, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in Ed Policy Discussion, IEPs, Parent Support, Parents and parenting, Services, Special Education, Teachers.comments closed
This is the second post on manifestation determination, which is an important variation in the IEP process. See part 1 here.
Raising a child with a disability is difficult. You’ve been dealing with this person’s behavioral issues since day one. And you still love them because this is your child! Little Johny might not be an angel, but he’s trying his best. You may be getting many phone calls from the school regarding your child’s behavior and heaven knows you hear enough at the annual IEP meetings.
But in about 7th grade, it might be a bit more serious. Johny or Joni might have done something for which they are being suspended. Perhaps it is something like getting into a fight or stealing something or bringing something they ought not to have brought to school. Formal charges might have been filed with the police. For most students, they will go through a tribunal or disciplinary process to determine the facts and then give out the punishment. But for students with disabilities, there is an added part to the process called a Manifestation Determination.
The idea for doing this is because the disciplinary process could be used in such a way as to deny a student their right to a free and appropriate public education. If we can just frustrate a student with a behavioral disability long enough, they’ll do something dumb and they can be kicked out.
To a parent, this manifestation is going to look an awful lot like a tribunal or trial. In a sense it is, but it’s not exactly what you think. If your child is up for suspension for fighting, the specific facts of the case will be brought up but that is not going to be the focal point of the discussion. This often confuses parents because they come to the meeting prepared to argue on behalf of their child staying in school. While this is what is at stake, it is not going to be treated directly. This is both good and bad. The good news is that there is at least one more meeting where the case can be argued if this one fails. The bad news is that it can be very confusing to parents.
Using my example from the previous post, where a student accepted money that he knew had been stolen, it looks very bad for the student. How does a disability in writing influence whether or not a child steals?
However, the present level of performance did reveal some impulsivity and a vulnerability to undo influence from peers. These are not untypical for individuals with various disabilities who lack social skills. It’s not so much the writing disability at issue as much as the topography of the entire disability. So a savvy parent could legitimately make the case that the incident could indeed be a manifestation of the disability. However expect heavy argument and dissention from the administrator.
This is a good reason for a parent to have an individual private evaluation done and included as part of the IEP record. Such documentation is the key to turning things around.
At one point during that manifestation I thought the parent might actually be on the verge of prevailing. Not on the first question, but on the second regarding the school’s implementation of the IEP. She started asking questions about her son’s teachers, specifically the special education teachers. He had several collaborative classes plus one resource class. The fact was, that one of the collaborative classes was staffed by a substitute all semester and the resource class only has had a para since the end of January. The fact is, fully one third of his services were not being provided in accordance with the law by having a highly qualified teacher. But the parent did not sufficiently pursue her line of questioning, and dropped the matter. When asked, the caseload teacher said the student was getting all the services as written in the IEP.
My role in this meeting was typing the minutes. I wasn’t even supposed to be there, except I was snagged because the person who was originally supposed to do it didn’t show up. The caseload manager was on his last day, since he was about to go on medical leave.
To summarize our staffing in special education:
2 teachers on medical leave
2 collaborative positions that have never been filled
1 resource position that was vacated in January
I also know of one who has a job offer elsewhere and can leave at any time.
The shortage of HQ special educators is real and it is severe and I don’t see it lessening anytime soon. What this means to you as a parent, is that there is a really good chance that you son or daughter is not being taught by someone HQ in special education. For manifestation purposes, the school is not delivering services as outlined in the IEP. School systems around the country are struggling to fill positions or to keep their positions filled. Personally, I don’t think they are doing enough to attract and retain teachers but that’s just me.
I’ve tried to summarize something about manifestations that might be helpful. If you’re a parent, I would advise bringing in an advocate for a manifestation just because it can help to have someone who is not so emotionally bound up in the process who might be able to keep you from being steam rolled. It’s a lot like an IEP except more emotionally charged and consequences can be dire as far as suspension and alternative school.
Hopefully I won’ t have to sit through one as a parent but I think I know enough about the process to make all parties involved very nervous. And they should be.
Having said that, there are times when the action has no relationship to the disability. For instance I once had a student who went through a manifestation because he brought a porn tape to school and tried to play it. He intended to trade the tape for something else, but when he tried to play it he was busted. While he was being served in a self-contained EBD class, his actions were clearly deliberate and not related to being EBD. In fact, his deliberateness and ingenuity at working to get something he wanted by trading rather than intimidation might almost be seen as an improvement. So in this case, his trip to the alternative school was earned.
I’ll write more about IEPs later, but thought this needed to be talked about at least a little bit.
dick
IEP Process: Manifestation Determination Part 1 March 12, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in Ed Policy Discussion, IEPs, Parent Support, Special Education.comments closed
It’s that time of year, again. A time special education teachers find themselves stressed: IEP Annual Reviews. And I’m going to talk about those annual reviews but I want to spend a minute on a special IEP process that is dreaded by all parties even more than an IEP. That would be the manifestation meeting. I’m going to speak primarily to/about case managers here, but parents would do well to pay attention in order to better understand the process.
My kids will never see a manifestation because virtually every strange behavior can be attributed to having a severe or profound cognitive disability. Also, my kids are supervised 24/7 and if there was a manifestation someone would probably be fired in the process.
A manifestation determination meeting is triggered by some disciplinary action that will effectively change a student’s placement. For instance, if a student is suspended for more than 10 days or expelled or if they are going to an alternative school or boot camp or to a more restrictive setting.
The purpose of the manifestation hearing is to answer 2 basic questions:
- Are whatever charges against a student a manifestation of their disability?
and
- Are whatever charges brought against a student a direct result of the school’s failure to provide services to the student as outlined in the IEP?
If the answer to both of these questions is “No” then it’s pretty much a slam dunk that the student’s actions were not a manifestation of the disability. That does not mean the student is automatically guilty or not guilty, it simply means that the local education agency can now go through the more typical disciplinary process.
I was at one such meeting last week and it was interesting. The parent was there and I believe that she is not the first parent to arrive at a manifestation thinking that this meeting was going to determine her son’s fate. The charge was larceny (stealing) in which he accepted money that he knew was stolen. Charges were filed and a manifestation was triggered because the pending penalty for this was 10 or more days suspension.
The meeting is run almost exactly like an IEP. There are more administrators and teachers there, but we went through the steps. We signed in, made introductions and gave the parent a copy of her rights. The specific charges were presented and then a present level of performance was given.
If you’ve read my article on that, you know that a parent can present their own and introduce other people like private service providers to present a current picture of performance. Like a regular IEP, this will lay groundwork for future actions and decisions. This particular student was being served for a specific learning disability in the area of written expression. What the heck does written expression have to do with stealing money from someone’s purse? To most, it looks like a slam dunk for the district. But teachers did present little things that a savvy parent could have picked up on. For instance, one teacher did notice that the student seemed to lack focus. He seemed to be somewhat impulsive. He had difficulty staying on task. He was not turning in assignments. Otherwise he was not a disciplinary problem and seemed to try hard in some of his classes.
Can you spot the opening? Poor impulse control and poor reasoning are things that might lead one to steal or succumb to peer pressure to accept stolen goods. As a parent, you may have to pry a bit to make a small crack into a bigger opening in order to get help for your student.
This student did not have a behavior intervention plan as part of their IEP and no functional behavior assessment (FBA) was done. I can say that an FBA specific to stealing for this kid would not be worth much. But impulse control and better judgment might be worthy goals to consider. Attempting to identify the function of his thievery might be a worthwhile at least informally. Was it peer pressure? Was it maliciousness?
As a teacher, being notified of having to do a manifestation can send your blood pressure soaring. You’re pretty much guaranteed that at least one administrator and parent will be there along with a host of other colleagues. And you’re guaranteed that emotions will be running a bit high. You’re truly in the middle between parent and administration. You don’t get much notice and have a hard deadline to meet for having it all ready.
So if you’re a new teacher, how do you prepare for a manifestation? What are your responsibilities as a caseload manager?
Each district might be slightly different, but there are a couple of areas that will always be the same. First off, look at the most current IEP. Is it, indeed, current? Is the eligibility up to date? Is the student currently getting all the services in the IEP? Does the student have a behavior intervention plan (BIP)? Is it based on a functional behavior assessment (FBA)? If there is no FBA, you’re going to have to do a very quick and very dirty one. This is why I continue to advocate every student with a BIP also have an FBA. It’s much better to have a proper one done in advance than a poor one hastily cobbled together when you’re desperate and stressed.
The present level of the IEP will have to be updated for the manifestation to reflect the most current status as far as attendance, grades, and disciplinary records. A counselor and psychologist can be helpful members of the manifestation committee.
The caseload manager is primarily responsible for all things having to do with an IEP because the manifestation hinges on the implementation of that document. More than one due process hearing has started in a manifestation. On occasion, the manifestation meeting will transform into an IEP committee meeting, especially if it is determined that the incident in question is a manifestation of the child’s disability. Then it is a matter of assembling supports and services that can better serve the student.
Beyond the mechanics of the manifestation, there are some other considerations that a caseload teacher needs to assess. These probably won’t be mentioned in any text but it has to do with the agenda of the system vs the student. The administrator in charge of the manifestation is definitely voicing the views of the district. The parent is advocating for their child. Whose side are you on? This is going to be evident in how you assemble your part of the hearing. There is considerable pressure to always go along with the district. Remember the question about implementing the IEP? That usually falls heavily on the case manager. However there are ethical considerations that when violated may haunt you for a long time. Sometimes the district is just trying to get rid of a kid they would rather not serve at all. In almost every instance, the district does NOT want an incident to be a manifestation of the student’s disability. Being determined as a manifestation of a student’s disability represents some failure on the part of the district to provide sufficient support. They are interested in getting to the tribunal or other regular disciplinary process.
All I’m saying is, be prepared to be pressured but do not automatically assume the district is correct or right in their assertions. Having said that, I would strongly recommend getting as many facts as possible and investigate as much as possible. If you, as a case manager, see the possibility that this might be either a manifestation of a student’s disability or a manifestation of the school’s failure to provide services, you really need to talk to the administrator before hand. They may not appreciate it at first, but they have to appreciate your knowledge and expertise in the field. They may respect it even more if the parent brings an advocate. Surprises at this point are not going to be appreciated, so do not wait until the manifestation to spring your view that the district has no case.
I’m going to split this topic in two, because I think I need to speak directly to parents about this issue. If you are a case manager, it would do well to read that part as well. You need to know all the angles here. One other helpful resource is found here.
dick
It’s not just Georgia… March 5, 2007
Posted by Daniel Dage in Alternate Assessment, Ed Policy Discussion, NCLB, Parents and parenting, Special Education, Teachers.comments closed
This article does a good job of reporting many of the concerns I’ve tried to bring up. Good to know someone’s paying attention.
dick
