Information is currency for democracy.
- Thomas Jefferson
A day without sunshine is like, you know,
night. -
Steve Martin
Education is unique among consumer products;
when it fails to work as advertised, it's the customer that gets labeled as
defective. - Kevin
Killion
Please
download for best results in using
this website.
Courage is the most important of all
the virtues, because without courage you can't practice any other
virtues consistently. You can't be consistently kind or fair or
humane or generous, not without courage, because if you don't have
it, sooner or later you will stop and say, "The threat is too much.
The difficulty is ...too high. The challenge is too great. ~ Maya
Angelou
JANUARY 2008
Funded by our school
tax dollars, private attorneys "train" public
school districts how to
PROTECT against
children with special needs and refuse to allow
parents and advocates to attend.
Excerpt from NELI
letter : I'm sure you will understand that
based on the curriculum in the brochure, our
regular attendees would be a bit nervous to have
a representative from Advocacy, Inc. in the
audience. This is terribly rude, but I must "uninvite"
you to our Houston conference!
1/30/08 - ANOTHER
DENIED REGISTRATION...
Your choice to exclude
me leads me to question the purpose of your
training and if you have some sinister purpose
or hidden agenda. There is no reason to
unilaterally limit parents, teacher educators,
and private service providers from attending if
your purpose is genuine. - Melissa L. Olive,
Ph.D., BCBA
Excerpt from
conference invitation: When it comes to
protecting your district from costly special
education litigation, there is nothing more
empowering than knowledge of the law. To get it,
you dont (sic) even need a cape or X-ray vision!
Topics Include:
·
"Super
Kids": Evaluating for Autism Under IDEA
·
"Kryptonite
- ABA and TEACCH and PECS, Oh My!": Autism
Methodology Cases and What Can be Learned From
Them
·
"The
Superhuman Challenge": Meeting All Eleven
Requirements Under the New Autism Supplement
·
"Deflecting
Financial Bullets": Requests for Outside
Services and Private Placements
·
"Using
Your X-Ray Vision": Determining Eligibility for
LD Under the New Commissioners Rules
·
"Leaping
Tall Buildings in a Single Bound": Addressing
Challenging Behaviors Under Autism and Other
Disabilities
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Amy,
I am contacting you
again because I replied to your message below on
January 22nd. In my email, I requested
additional information about why I was being
excluded from this conference after I had
already received confirmation of registration.
In my email, I
specifically indicated:
"Your website
indicated this conference is ideal for: Special
Education Directors, Principals/Administrators,
Superintendents, Educational Diagnosticians, 504
Personnel, General Education Personnel,
Counselors, Teachers, Charter School Personnel,
Board Members, Behavior Specialists, Autism
Specialists. I am both of the last two items on
your list. Please clarify further why I am not
allowed to attend an event that is open to the
public."
Because you have
failed to respond to my request, I am writing a
follow-up message. In this message I am carbon
copying Representative Eissler, Senator Watson,
Senator Shapiro, Senator Shapiro’s Educational
Aide, Ryan Franklin, Richard Garnett, Chair of
the Texas Council of Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, and Kathy Clayton at TEA. I am
copying these individuals because I believe (and
hope) that they will find my concerns of
interest.
To assist them in
better understanding the issues, I am attaching
a copy of the brochure regarding the training
from which you are denying my attendance. I am
attaching this brochure because you have since
removed it from your website making it
unavailable to the general public. It is
important for our policy makers to fully
understand the issues our state is facing
regarding the appropriate education of
individuals with disabilities; particularly
individuals with autism. Your brochure will
certainly shed some light on these issues.
I am still unclear as
to why you have denied my attendance at this
training event. In addition to being an autism
specialist and a behavior specialist, I am
currently teaching a course at Texas State
University. My class has approximately 25
master’s level students enrolled. The students
are all seeking special education certification
in Texas. The title of the course is Classroom
and Behavior Management for Students with
Disabilities. The information in this conference
seems to be directly related to what my students
would need to know as future teachers in this
state. Yet, you have decided for some unknown
reason, to exclude me from accessing this
information.
Your choice to exclude
me leads me to question the purpose of your
training and if you have some sinister purpose
or hidden agenda. There is no reason to
unilaterally limit parents, teacher educators,
and private service providers from attending if
your purpose is genuine.
I conduct trainings
regularly that help teachers and family members
learn to collaborate. I do this because this is
the intention and the spirit of IDEA. Sure, it
is uncomfortable to have dissenting views in one
room but so is an ARD meeting when the two
parties disagree. Learning to work through the
difficult situations in a collaborative manner
is a skill that must be developed by all
involved parties.
I do hope that
individuals who are attending your conference
are doing so on funds that are separate from
IDEA funds. It seems to me that the federal
government may also express concerns about
schools using federal funds to train staff on
policies that are developed for the benefit of
students and their families yet those
individuals for whom the policies are developed
are denied access to the information.
I also hope that you
will respond to my request as to why I am being
denied access to this training. I am sure (and
hope) that our policy makers have an interest in
your logic for this decision.
In fact, the only
people permitted to attend are school board
members, school district employees and charter
school employees. The ISDs will pay for travel,
hotel, meals, expenses and registration for
employees for the conference - using our tax
dollars, of course - but for what?
What
goes on at this disco party?
They’re our kids. And
this is money that is supposed to be going
toward their education. Why are we sending
district employees to a school law conference
where they will learn mysterious, secret
information that parents are not allowed to
know?
Parents and Advocates,
please let TEA, your Senator and your
Representatives, the media, and especially
National Educators Law Institute, know what you
think about these "training" sessions funded by
our tax dollars behind super-secret closed
doors.
NATIONAL EDUCATORS LAW
INSTITUTE
3660 Stoneridge Road
Suite D-101
Austin , TX 78746
(512) 732-2988
(512) 322-9342 FAX
Retaliation: A
Primer
Note to the Reader:
"Retaliation: A
Primer" and the "Retaliation Triangle" were
originally published in The Observer, a
newsletter published by the Sacramento LDA.
retaliation, n.-Syn. vengeance,
reprisal, punishment; see revenge
Retaliation against parents is a taboo topic in
special education. No one knows how wide spread
it is, or how often it occurs. Yet, wherever
parents gather and whenever parents talk among
themselves, the topic of retaliation receives
lively attention. The focus of this essay is on
parents; however, retaliation is not limited to
parents alone. Anyone who advocates for children
can become the target of retaliation. (click
here
to read about Pamella Settlegoode, adaptive PE
teacher, who sued her Portland, Oregon school
district for retaliation and won a one million
dollar verdict that was upheld on appeal).
Retaliation is the act of using official
resources to "punish" parents. It can take many
forms. It is not, technically, a crime and it
can be difficult to detect. (Note: This is not
correct. Retaliation is defined and prohibited
by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Click here
for the legal definition of Retaliation from the
ADA)
However, the underlying "causes" of retaliation
are no mystery. There are two key ingredients:
power and accountability - too much of the
former and not enough of the later. The
mechanism that seems to trigger retaliation is
effective advocacy.
Retaliation occurs in an environment where
school officials view IDEA as an unwanted
imposition or as a way to develop a power base.
In this setting the job is not to fully
implement IDEA. Instead, school officials
translate their responsibilities and duties to
children and families into unquestioned decision
making power over them. The profile of such
officials can take two forms: openly hostile or
smoothly deceptive, the latter preferring
passive aggressive resistance. Hostile officials
on the other hand use their position as an
instrument of power to openly intimidate and
even punish parents.
Many parents never encounter retaliation. Those
that do however, are usually strong advocates
for their children. Regardless, retaliation does
occur and the fear of retaliation inhibits many
parents. This affords school officials wide
latitude to implement IDEA and the ADA as they
see fit.
The Retaliation
Triangle
Patterns of Retaliation
Like the food triangle, patterns of retaliation
can be classified into three levels. Level I,
the most frequent, is low-level passive
activity, with the goal of delaying the process.
Level II is more overt; the goal is to scare
parents. Level III is the form of open hostility
and the goal is to punish parents. Level III
retaliation is rare, but costly, dramatic, and
damaging.
Level I - Delay
.
The goal at this level of retaliation is to
reduce parent effectiveness by passive
resistance, such as the introduction of delays
and obstacles in the many processes involved in
special education. There are numerous ways
officials can achieve this result.
One is simply playing dumb. This allows
officials to effectively ignore the law and
parent rights under the law. Another is
"forgetting" to do things. An official may
repeatedly forget to follow-up on a commitment,
such as getting back to parents with further
information, or fail to schedule further
meetings without several reminders. Being "away
from the phone," so often that parents give up
on some important issue is also effective.
Yet another technique is overly technical
interpretations of laws and regulations. Level I
does not appear hostile, but it can be extremely
effective.
Level II - Fear
. Level II retaliation
is not hidden. At this stage officials may
appear to be openly frustrated and hostile. They
will state that they won't for example, allow
parents to observe a class, or won't permit
certain kinds of testing. The list of "can't
do's" is quite long. Most of it however, is
bluff.
Level II retaliation is based on putting up a
tough front in an effort to scare parents and
reduce their advocacy. It is predicated on
parental ignorance of the law. While it can be
very effective, parents can break through this
barrier by learning more about special education
laws and regulations and simply insisting on
compliance. Once past the obstacles, parents
usually find that resistance is eliminated.
Level III - Punishment
. At this level,
retaliation can get ugly, with school officials
openly threatening and actively trying to punish
parents.
In this war-like state, school officials have a
variety of weapons to choose from. One is the
fair hearing (due process hearing) process.
Schools have vast financial resources to
transform hearings into major trial-like
proceedings. Since there is no accountability to
taxpayers for the large sums spent in such legal
adventures, officials have free rein to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars. (See the
Hamilton
County TN v. Zachary Deal
case, where the school district spent at least
2.8 million dollars on attorneys' fees to fight
parents of a child with autism.)
Aiding and abetting this practice is a network
of attorneys who specialize in fighting parents.
These attorneys are organized into a
professional group which holds national
conferences and training programs at the local
level. School officials are invited to attend
these conferences where they are tutored in the
finer points of "aggressive action," in the form
of strategies to be used before an IEP meeting
or at the pre-hearing conference of a due
process or fair hearing.
There have been recent reports of a menacing new
form of retaliation involving the fabrication of
child abuse charges against the target parent.
Such allegations can trigger an investigation by
Child Protective Services which has police-like
powers. Pending the outcome of their
investigation, they may choose to remove
children from the home.
Level III is so serious that most parents need
an attorney to protect themselves.
Note: "Retaliation: A Primer" and the
"Retaliation Triangle" were originally published
in The Observer, a newsletter published by the
Sacramento LDA (Spring 1998). This link is no
longer active. However, this article and more
information about retaliation for advocacy are
available