Changes needed in the next reauthorization of IDea

: IDEA could be eliminated altogether. I recommend we let the states handle sped. I really see no point served to continue to add more and more language to the law, more and more regs. until they have buried us under the paperwork. We already have a dearth of special education teachers. The feds pass a plethora of laws, then they fail to fund them and no one really intends to take the time and spend the money on the monitoring. Monitoring districts for compliance would be the equivalent of a massive tax audit. We teachers have to worry more about following the timelines and procedures (10 days for this, 15 days for that, 30 for yet something else………) than we do about actually teaching. Lawyers and advocates continue to push the envelope to the extreme on issues. Here is one everyone on the parent boards hate: some parents come to IEP meetings to tell the teacher what the goals should be, the programs they want used………. Excuse the tirade. But, IDEA took a good profession that I entered in to help LD people learn to read/write/compute and has piled on so much, it is nothing like what I set out to do some years ago. I really think, with the level of handicapped awareness in this country today, we could do just fine returning the jurisdiction and authority to run special education services to the states. Pre-PL 94-142 CA had LD teachers on every campus only taught (1:1) 7-10 students. At least, my district operated that way. You won’t convince me our LD students are better off now.

Professionals who have spent their lives working with special needs children were virtually ignored in the new IDEA. In the behavioral realm, this piece of legislation is a nightmare. Oh, there’s plenty of paperwork, probably even paperwork to reduce paperwork…. but the bottom-line…. Oh, to go back to 1976 - when children with LD’s had caring services (but less legal rights..)Care to argue??The clothes have no Emperor!! Ken Campbell

PASSWORD>aaypjoGdHk2QkI’m going to play the devil’s advocate for one minute and ask this question: We see on these BB’s that many kids, even with federal laws in place, have districts that try to deny them services. If we left it up to individual states and/or districts, wouldn’t it give the districts lots of wiggle room to deny more kids appropriate services.I throw out this question to further more dialogue on this very important subject.: Professionals who have spent their lives working with special needs
: children were virtually ignored in the new IDEA. In the behavioral
: realm, this piece of legislation is a nightmare. Oh, there’s
: plenty of paperwork, probably even paperwork to reduce
: paperwork…. but the bottom-line…. Oh, to go back to 1976 -
: when children with LD’s had caring services (but less legal
: rights..): Care to argue??: The clothes have no Emperor!! Ken Campbell

I will not debate the monstrous level of paperwork required to satisfy Fed compliance requirements. I work with state and federal compliance paperwork every week and it is a colossal waste of time which serves best to act as a cover for your own fanny more than anything else.But let us not kid ourselves that IDEA has outlived its usefulness. It has not even been properly inplemented to date. When IDEA brought the notion of FAPE to table, forcing schools to address the unmet needs, it was so poorly implemented and even more pitifully enforced that it was mostly an exercise in academics. Schools manipulated the dossier of their sped students, and continued to warehouse them in hollow programs with diverse disabilities and handicaps in one room, so that none got what they really needed to achieve.IDEA 97 attempted to address this by pushing for inclusion (which is the right of these children under the ADA). And still many parents have to threaten to go to DUE Process to get what by statute should be offered to them in the first place.Caring professionals being stifled by strangulating regs? Perhaps a few. But what of the teachers who use dangerous restraint on autistic children for non-compliance. (ref. CIBRA) Or how about the BD specialist who placed a PDD girl inside a cardboard box for timeout? (ref Reed Martin) Perhaps the regular ed teacher who decided he didn’t have to follow the IEP of an ADHD child included in his classroom? (ref Byrne Decision)Idea does not need to be tweaked anymore, just properly implimented. There are two things that Congress can do to meet these aims. They can first of all make good on their promise of adequate funding. When IDEA passed originally, Congress promised 40%, but historically has never paid more than 12%. Forcing the states to scramble for money was a mean trick by our top Lawmakers, but it does happen all the time in many areas. The second thing that Congress can do is remove enforcement of IDEA from the toothless lapdogs at the US DOE and turn it over to the Justice Dept where it belongs. Once the states see that they will not be off the hook in providing FAPE, in offering LRE, in utilizing methods and therapies which are proven effective, things would improve.

I agree there has been scant money allocated for our kids. I also strongly agree that much of regular education would hope our kids and their problems would disappear.Federales have insured there is proper paperwork. Yet, it is my experience that services have continually gotten worse since 1976. Local districts capitulate to parents with lawyers - giving them the resources right out of the pot from which even more needy children get services.Parents have been impowered tremendously, often at the expense of their kids. An example: the idea of a shadow - a one on one aid that allows a child to “survive” in the mainstream. Forcing that upon a child, especially a child with a learning disability is socially devastating.Has 94-142 and IDEA worked? I being also the devil’s advocate would say: “An analysis of data says a resounding ‘NO!‘ “Whole language destroyed at risk children’s ability to learn to read - all done during the Age of IDEA. Class sizes for children with learning disabilities have doubled or tripled - destroying the idea of the resource room in the process.To my knowledge there were no practicing teachers on the committees, etc. involved in the new, improved IDEA. The result: the end of special education as we have known it.There is a fight to renew. It will take forever.In my district, 20 certified special education professionals do nothing but paperwork. (Insuring I suppose that IEP’s are correctly written - yet, knowing they are to be implemented by uncertified rookies.)Universities are significantly watering down programs in learning disabilities and behavior disorders. There will be no programs in many major institutions training tactics for curriculum.Need I go on? Not long ago, I wrote that we must plan the reconstruction of special education. It has been destroyed.

: You don’t want a lecture from me.I do not believe we fix problems by making laws. Using law is the use of “power.” When we attempt to force people with the threat of power, we do not get lasting, significant or sincere change. Do dictatorships last? Real change comes about when people are educated and when people see a need. The problem with this….there is not a system that produces the perfect result, all the time in all sitations. All approaches to a problem have flaws. Every “solution” creates a problem, for someone.One writer I respect highly suggested that the number and complexity of laws that a country has is symptomatic of the, if you will, spiritual poverty of the consciousness of that country. I know my views are not popular, however, once we begin to pass laws, once we begin to look to our government (or someone else) to answer our questions, problems, and prayers, to that extent we begin to descend into spiritual poverty.My comments are not intended to suggest that people should not help people, I believe this is one of the higher roads we can take in this life, but it must be voluntary. But the use of force and power to demand and mandate certain actions of people is sure to gain you the very thing you wish to avoid. If you have a teenager you probably understand this principal very well.

: I do not believe we fix problems by making laws. Using law is the use
: of “power.” When we attempt to force people with the
: threat of power, we do not get lasting, significant or sincere
: change. Do dictatorships last? Real change comes about when people
: are educated and when people see a need. The problem with
: this….there is not a system that produces the perfect result,
: all the time in all sitations. All approaches to a problem have
: flaws. Every “solution” creates a problem, for someone.Susan, I must beg to differ with you, without IDEA where do you think these special needs children would be? My son has an IEP and his teacher does not want to follow it and thanks to IDEA I can make her do it. If we did not have IDEA there would be nothing I could do to enforce this.Diane

EMAILNOTICES>no: Susan, I must beg to differ with you, without IDEA where do you think
: these special needs children would be? My son has an IEP and his
: teacher does not want to follow it and thanks to IDEA I can make
: her do it. If we did not have IDEA there would be nothing I could
: do to enforce this.: DianeActually, it was Anitya, not Susan, who made the argument that IDEA should be abolished.Anitya, it would be ideal if we could bring about change through education alone; unfortunately, that by itself won’t do the trick. At best, the educational process you refer to takes generations to accomplish; LD kids have only one childhood to get the education they need to overcome their disabilities. If you don’t believe me, think about the abolitionists and their crusade to end slavery. They relied heavily on education to try to bring it about, but in the end, it took a war, followed by laws (read: force), to accomplish the task. Black people might still be slaves if we waited for people to change sufficiently on their own to decide to end the practice. Sometimes, to get justice, you have to use force, poor though that is.If it were simply a matter of ignorance, we could indeed count on education to solve the problem, given time. But attitudes and bigotry come into play here: many educators simply feel in their hearts that handicapped kids aren’t worth educating and are a waste of time and money. Left to themselves, they would deny kids with disabilities the educations they deserve forever. Whose wishes or rights are more important: the right of the educators to not have to deal with the difficulties educating such kids brings, or the right of the kids to be educated and equipped to become productive adults? Seems to me the needs of the kids should be foremost.If a way can be found to bring about the needed changes in time to make a difference in the lives of children without the use of laws and law enforcement, I, for one, am all ears. But to trust that all educators will be so good-hearted as to magically be willing to accommodate and remediate kids just because they’ve told they should is wishful thinking, to me.Yours truly, Kathy G.

: Actually, it was Anitya, not Susan, who made the argument that IDEA
: should be abolished.: Anitya, it would be ideal if we could bring about change through
: education alone; unfortunately, that by itself won’t do the trick.
: At best, the educational process you refer to takes generations to
: accomplish; LD kids have only one childhood to get the education
: they need to overcome their disabilities. If you don’t believe me,
: think about the abolitionists and their crusade to end slavery.
: They relied heavily on education to try to bring it about, but in
: the end, it took a war, followed by laws (read: force), to
: accomplish the task. Black people might still be slaves if we
: waited for people to change sufficiently on their own to decide to
: end the practice. Sometimes, to get justice, you have to use
: force, poor though that is.: If it were simply a matter of ignorance, we could indeed count on
: education to solve the problem, given time. But attitudes and
: bigotry come into play here: many educators simply feel in their
: hearts that handicapped kids aren’t worth educating and are a
: waste of time and money. Left to themselves, they would deny kids
: with disabilities the educations they deserve forever. Whose
: wishes or rights are more important: the right of the educators to
: not have to deal with the difficulties educating such kids brings,
: or the right of the kids to be educated and equipped to become
: productive adults? Seems to me the needs of the kids should be
: foremost.: If a way can be found to bring about the needed changes in time to
: make a difference in the lives of children without the use of laws
: and law enforcement, I, for one, am all ears. But to trust that
: all educators will be so good-hearted as to magically be willing
: to accommodate and remediate kids just because they’ve told they
: should is wishful thinking, to me.: Yours truly, Kathy G.Susan & Karen I am sorry. The way the thread was running it looked to me as if Susan had said this. I agree with you Karen these children’s lives are here and now not 20 years down the road. I had to report my sons teacher this morning for not following his IEP I hated doing it but he will not have a second chance at an education.Thank-you, Diane

PASSWORD>aaypjoGdHk2QkThanks, Kathy, for setting the record straight. It was I who also made the argument for special ed laws (such as they are).In a perfect world school districts would *do the right thing* and give all children who need services what they need. However, history has proven that districts need legal motivation to *do the right thing*. One has only to read the many postings from parents all over the country and varied districts to read how their districts deny or try to deny services.I have been involved in the special ed process as a parent since 1986. It is amazing how a school district can be *persuaded* to give appropriate and justified services once legal action is mentioned.How I wish all people were interested in the good of all children. Since that is not true, we parents must have a *big gun* at the ready to get services which are specified in detail in law and not leave it to the whim and *kindness of strangers*.Sure, IDEA definitely needs improving. No one will argue the imperfections in it. Still, I saw what was available in 1986 and what we have now is definitely preferable.: Actually, it was Anitya, not Susan, who made the argument that IDEA
: should be abolished.: Anitya, it would be ideal if we could bring about change through
: education alone; unfortunately, that by itself won’t do the trick.
: At best, the educational process you refer to takes generations to
: accomplish; LD kids have only one childhood to get the education
: they need to overcome their disabilities. If you don’t believe me,
: think about the abolitionists and their crusade to end slavery.
: They relied heavily on education to try to bring it about, but in
: the end, it took a war, followed by laws (read: force), to
: accomplish the task. Black people might still be slaves if we
: waited for people to change sufficiently on their own to decide to
: end the practice. Sometimes, to get justice, you have to use
: force, poor though that is.: If it were simply a matter of ignorance, we could indeed count on
: education to solve the problem, given time. But attitudes and
: bigotry come into play here: many educators simply feel in their
: hearts that handicapped kids aren’t worth educating and are a
: waste of time and money. Left to themselves, they would deny kids
: with disabilities the educations they deserve forever. Whose
: wishes or rights are more important: the right of the educators to
: not have to deal with the difficulties educating such kids brings,
: or the right of the kids to be educated and equipped to become
: productive adults? Seems to me the needs of the kids should be
: foremost.: If a way can be found to bring about the needed changes in time to
: make a difference in the lives of children without the use of laws
: and law enforcement, I, for one, am all ears. But to trust that
: all educators will be so good-hearted as to magically be willing
: to accommodate and remediate kids just because they’ve told they
: should is wishful thinking, to me.: Yours truly, Kathy G.

PASSWORD>aaypjoGdHk2QkThe original IDEA was passed and implemented in the 1970’s. Are any of you old enough to have been in school in the 1950’s, 1960’s or early 1970’s?? Do you remember how the kids who had learning problems were treated?? In my elementary school (which was considered educationally progressive), those kids were all put into the *dumb* class. No one individualized their learning for their particular style or problem. They were inevitably *left back* sometimes for 2 years only to be exposed to the same content in the same style for a second year — like just repeating it would really help.For my child, I am thankful that specially trained teachers (yes, some better than others) had to teach to my child’s style, that a school psychologist had to give him standardized testing to determine what was going wrong in the learning process.Do any of you really want to go back to a hit or miss approach to teaching children who learn differently?: Thanks, Kathy, for setting the record straight. It was I who also
: made the argument for special ed laws (such as they are).: In a perfect world school districts would *do the right thing* and
: give all children who need services what they need. However,
: history has proven that districts need legal motivation to *do the
: right thing*. One has only to read the many postings from parents
: all over the country and varied districts to read how their
: districts deny or try to deny services.: I have been involved in the special ed process as a parent since
: 1986. It is amazing how a school district can be *persuaded* to
: give appropriate and justified services once legal action is
: mentioned.: How I wish all people were interested in the good of all children.
: Since that is not true, we parents must have a *big gun* at the
: ready to get services which are specified in detail in law and not
: leave it to the whim and *kindness of strangers*.: Sure, IDEA definitely needs improving. No one will argue the
: imperfections in it. Still, I saw what was available in 1986 and
: what we have now is definitely preferable.

I began teaching in the 70’s in Florida - before 94-142. Class sizes were smaller, teachers were better prepared, students made more progress, the science of special education was exciting and innovations were pouring forth. Students were better served.Now, we have tons of legal rights - yet, the heart of the matter is virtually ignored - everywhere. Litigation rules. Students suffer.The new IDEA as it is misinterpreted is being used as a guise to virtually eliminate services by putting children in the mainstream all day. Read the posts of frustrated parents. They abound.I see no light at the end of this tunnel. It is time for a restart.

: Please also consider that Samuel Kirk coined the term “learning disabilities” in the 1960’s, I believe. The term “dyslexia” had been around at that point, though.ADHD was not a term in use during the mid-late 1970’s when I started teaching. We did refer to a small number of “hyperactive” students.The state of knowledge re. learning problems at that time was no where near what it is today!!!For today, I still see areas of conflict. As we learn more and more about the LD brain, we find that there are potentially several areas of “abnormality” (this is not damage, but rather a case of too few cells, cells that are smaller than normal, fewer layers, etc.) that translate into significant difficulties performing tasks that require finer and finer discernment. We know the brain is very susceptible to training and that at times other areas of the brain can be “taught” to take over malfunctions. This, however, takes TIME and very intensive THERAPY. While the LD students are (maybe) receiving this therapy (in the best of settings)the rest of the population is moving forward.These issues bring up some very difficult questions for public educators and for parents. Intensive therapy for learning problems may require 2-3 hours per day (what part of the curriculum or the child’s life gives while this therapy takes place?) for several years. Who provides and pays for this therapy? How do we reconcile the educational areas that may not be taught in order to create this time (in the best of all worlds)?What about the oftentimes many social problems had by severe ADHD students? Who teaches them every single little detail of life they don’t get intuitively or by watching the world around them? Who takes them in hand and does this, day in and day out, to help them understand how to gauge personal space around themselves and other people, etc.? Again, perhaps much can be taught, but where? At the expense of what else?I have no problem with arguing for therapeutic programs for our handicapped students. However, we are expected to address core curriculum, we are implored to fully-include.Parents, you need to help us here. We special ed. teachers are being ordered from all sides to keep everyone happy. They want full-inclusion with intensive therapy within the 6 hour school day and we are the same folks who must attend the after school IEP meetings, staff meetings, trainings, conferences with our students’ teachers……..so when parents suggest that we provide after school services, sorry…..we are otherwise committed. We are forbidden to place students by handicap, despite the fact that handicaps have names BECAUSE of the many common characteristics those who are afflicted share. So, we have many special ed. teachers who are teaching classrooms that include an autistic child, an aphasic (very, very limited language), several LD, and perhaps the MR or two. Don’t forget ADHD in its severe forms, Tourettes, OCD, ODD….and on. You folks have demanded that we teach to these diverse needs within our 6 hour school day, get to the heart of the problem, use meaningful programs that are researched based to work, write aggressive goals that will often result in fixing the child over the course of several years……….You should decide exactly what you want. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too if you want special education to work. When you decide, get together with other parents, then write letters to your legislators.

EMAILNOTICES>no: ADHD was not a term in use during the mid-late 1970’s when I started
: teaching. We did refer to a small number of
: “hyperactive” students.LOL! I remember, as I went to school during the 1960s and ’70s. They were known as hyperactive or hyperkinetic.: The state of knowledge re. learning problems at that time was no
: where near what it is today!!!True!: For today, I still see areas of conflict. As we learn more and more
: about the LD brain, we find that there are potentially several
: areas of “abnormality” (this is not damage, but rather a : case of too few cells, cells that are smaller than normal, fewer
: layers, etc.) that translate into significant difficulties
: performing tasks that require finer and finer discernment. We know
: the brain is very susceptible to training and that at times other
: areas of the brain can be “taught” to take over
: malfunctions. This, however, takes TIME and very intensive
: THERAPY. While the LD students are (maybe) receiving this therapy
: (in the best of settings) the rest of the population is moving
: forward.Yes. Obviously, a way needs to be found to accommodate the 2 sets of needs.: These issues bring up some very difficult questions for public
: educators and for parents. Intensive therapy for learning problems
: may require 2-3 hours per day (what part of the curriculum or the
: child’s life gives while this therapy takes place?) for several
: years. Who provides and pays for this therapy? How do we reconcile
: the educational areas that may not be taught in order to create
: this time (in the best of all worlds)?If the child’s disability is severe enough that such therapy is needed for success, he might be better off in a special class or school, where such therapy can be an integral part of the school day for him. To expect him to do such therapy on his own time, followed by hours of homework, is just too much.: What about the oftentimes many social problems had by severe ADHD
: students? Who teaches them every single little detail of life they
: don’t get intuitively or by watching the world around them? Who
: takes them in hand and does this, day in and day out, to help them
: understand how to gauge personal space around themselves and other
: people, etc.? Again, perhaps much can be taught, but where? At the
: expense of what else?If it’s that severe, again he might be better off in a special class. Cases differ from student to student, though.: I have no problem with arguing for therapeutic programs for our
: handicapped students. However, we are expected to address core
: curriculum, we are implored to fully-include.That is difficult, I know.: Parents, you need to help us here. We special ed. teachers are being
: ordered from all sides to keep everyone happy. They want : full-inclusion with intensive therapy within the 6 hour school day
: and we are the same folks who must attend the after school IEP
: meetings, staff meetings, trainings, conferences with our
: students’ teachers……..so when parents suggest that we provide
: after school services, sorry…..we are otherwise committed. We
: are forbidden to place students by handicap, despite the fact that
: handicaps have names BECAUSE of the many common characteristics
: those who are afflicted share. So, we have many special ed.
: teachers who are teaching classrooms that include an autistic
: child, an aphasic (very, very limited language), several LD, and
: perhaps the MR or two. Don’t forget ADHD in its severe forms,
: Tourettes, OCD, ODD….and on. You folks have demanded that we
: teach to these diverse needs within our 6 hour school day, get to
: the heart of the problem, use meaningful programs that are
: researched based to work, write aggressive goals that will often
: result in fixing the child over the course of several
: years……….I’m not a parent, so I can’t speak for the parents on this forum. I can only speak for myself. As an NLDer who spent part of her educational career as a product of the special-ed system (and who’s done an extensive amount of reading on LD), I have to say that I have NEVER called for full inclusion. In fact, I am against it! Some kids have disabilities so severe they simply can’t be remediated and accommodated in a regular classroom, no matter how hard you try to make them. Some can only make it in a regular class part-time, and a smaller number must be kept full-time in a special setting or they can’t succeed. But as many as CAN succeed in a regular classroom with remediation, accommodations, modifications (and if need be, pull-out) should be allowed to do so. In other words, the full continuum of placements must be kept. Anything else is a recipe for failure and disaster.: You should decide exactly what you want. You cannot have your cake
: and eat it, too if you want special education to work. When you
: decide, get together with other parents, then write letters to
: your legislators.I’ve given my thoughts on the subject. I’ll leave it to the parents on this board to give theirs.Yours truly, Kathy G.

Perhaps the question is not so much in what changes should be made to IDEA, but what changes are needed in our thinking about learning disabilities, and how/when/where remediation can occur.Across the nation, special education has become a dysfunctional maze, with IDEA regs provide the “straws” to break our backs.Trying to make our 1960’s version of discrepancy based performance be the standard for evaluations, no longer falls in with what current brain based research tells us about learning. Perhaps it is time to start from the beginning with a completely new SPED model. Even more radical, perhaps it is time to examine our entire education structure, and think about possibilities for “customizing” education for all, instead of just “special” students.Arthur Levine, president of Teachers College, at Columbia University wrote to this in the NY Times. The San Diego City Schools, Communications Dept. has his editorial “Tomorrow’s Education, Made to Measure” from the 22 DEC 00 NYTimes, posted on their webpage for all to read. I find the fact that this editorial ran in the NEW YORK TIMES…. and that it IS on the San Diego schools web site of some importance. Especially when I juxtaposition this with my state’s current juggling act of not enough SPED teachers, many SPED eligible students with needs going unmet, not enough funding, AND the (threatened) federal take over of special education for the entire state (‘tis all under one school district).I’ll try to link Levine’s editorial for those who have not read it, elsewhere. If I fail in my link attempt, you can try a cut and paste with this url into your location frame:http://www.sandi.net/comm/articles/nytimes/nytimes.001222.measure.htm <