Is it really necessary to attend school

Is it really necessary to attend school?

How often does a student need to attend class to receive credit for that course?   That is not a rhetorical question.   Recent reports show that some students in Montgomery County Maryland high schools have attended class only 60% of the time and yet have earned credit for that course.  How can that be?   Isn’t it necessary to be in class in order for the student to learn the course content?

I think the answer is yes and no.

First of all many high school students miss school because of family responsibilities.  Some kids have jobs to help their families survive day-to-day.   Some kids take care of younger siblings so that both parents can work.  Are these good reasons to miss school?  Well it depends on just how critical that student’s contribution to the family's economy is.

Some kids miss school because they are bored to death.   The required pacing guides mean that teachers can’t stay on a topic longer than needed because they have another topic to do on another day.   That also means, teachers can’t dig deeper into a topic if students are really interested or curious.   Tomorrow is another day in the pacing guide.   Each day’s curriculum is carefully laid out.  Like Goldilocks, teachers can’t go too fast or too slow; they need to get it just right.  Smart kids can miss school, come back later, and as with a soap opera, know just where the story is going.

The issue is not whether it is terrible that some kids are graduating this June after having missed 40% of their classes, the issue is why are these kids missing so much school and why don’t we look to see if there are things we can do about that.

On the other hand, maybe the answer is that kids don’t really need to be in school all that much in order to master the material as it is currently being delivered to them.  One of the students who attends school regularly, complained that it was not fair that the students who missed so much school were going to get the same diploma he was getting and he went to school every day.   That boy is totally missing the point of going to school.  While it is true that both kids might get the same piece of paper, it is also true that each student is getting a totally different education.  Hopefully the boy who attended school every day had learning experiences that far exceeded those of the boy who was absent a great deal.  State regulation says that students need to meet the aggregate time requirement of the local school system necessary to earn the credit.  Some school districts have moved away from a set number of hours and instead use an academic standard.   If one looks at the situation from that perspective, maybe some kids only need to be in school 60% of the time. Then again, that premise presumes that all we learn we learn in school.   Maybe we can learn as much or more without being in school.

Might does not make right

Might Does Not Make Right

We live in a world where people and organizations with more power think they can use that power to assert their will on others.  Simply having the power to do so does not make it right.

For over ten years the District of Columbia public schools and several DC public charter schools have allowed students in non-public special education schools to earn a diploma as a private school student.  This past fall, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) for the District of Columbia has stopped that process. (Don't let it bother you that the "State Superintendent" is without a state)  As a consequence, fourteen students are left to find other placements.

The issue is that OSSE requires that students receiving a high school diploma need to have two years of a foreign language.   The Harbour School does not believe that will benefit these students as they make the transition from high school to the adult world.   As a consequence, OSSE has cancelled its approval of The Harbour School effective June 30, 2109.   They have been unwilling to allow those 14 kids to complete their entitlement to a free and appropriate education at public expense without referring any additional students to the school.   The situation is even more unfortunate since a number of those students are not even earning a diploma.

Where does this decision leave these students and their families?  It leaves them with limited choices. There are two students who are graduating in three weeks and at this time OSSE has yet to make a decision as to what kind of award the students will receive.  Additionally, there are two other students who are scheduled to graduate in June 2020 who can’t possibly earn credit for two years of a foreign language in the one year remaining to them.   Both of these situations have been identified to OSSE and their response is not to respond.   

There is no question but that OSSE has the power to do what they are doing. After all, they have the regulation to fall back on.  They also have the power to modify the implementation of the regulation for those few children who need a few more years to finish their education.  But they are not interested in doing that.  

As a consequence, families have few choices.   They can accept the decision and have their children placed back in the public schools.  (OSSE has forced the closure of two other non-public schools within the District so there are very few non-public options.)   Families can pay privately for the placement but that will also mean figuring out transportation.   Or they can enter into a due process claim in the hopes of either winning or of stringing the process along for enough time for their children to finish.  Under the law, children get to stay in the last approved placement during the pendency of due process.  Or they can file a state complaint with the very wolf who is guarding the chicken house- OSSE.

Does OSSE have the might to do this?   You bet.   Does that make what they are doing right?  Not by a long shot.   And sooner or later the piper will be paid.

Maybe there is another way

Maybe there is another way…

Many families who have tried the due process system set up by federal and state law to get appropriate services for their children know that the road is long, expensive and frequently ends in a dead end.

But there is another way to get there that may be more expedient and is definitely less expensive.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also allows families to file complaints directly with the state education agency (MSDE) instead of or, in addition to, any due process hearing.   The state has 60 days to investigate and decide and the decision is not appealable by either side.

A nationwide survey has found that parents prevail in about 50% of the complaints; that is quite a bit better than the prevailing rate in Maryland for due process hearings.  The average national rate for parents success is 24%.  In Maryland it is only about 5%.   See why in last week’s blog.

A complaint to the state department of education can be used to remedy systemic issues which often stand in the way of a child getting an individual program as required by law.

Some of the issues to consider are cut-and-paste goals and objectives, removing goals and objectives without parental permission or after the parents have signed the IEP, and holding IEP meetings without the presence of a school administrator or general ed teacher.

Many of the goals listed are copy-cat goals from goal banks that are so generic as to be unmeasurable.   For example, “the student will read and comprehend increasingly complex literary and informational texts.”   Or, “the student will develop and strengthen writing by engaging in a process that includes prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing.”.   These goals appear to have come right out of something that was put into a bank to mimic Common Core objectives.  The problem is they are pretty much not measurable for any specific student.   How does the parent, student or teacher measure “increasingly complex”.   Does it mean the student will move from pre-reading skills to primer reading or from sentences to chapter books.   Similarly, the writing goal describes a process the child will go through at any level but it does not specifically say what this particular child will be doing.   The use of goal banks that are pulled down from a computer based IEP production system are endemic.   Sometimes the same goals appear year after year.  It is not unusual for the wrong pronoun gender to be used when referring to the student.  

Let’s be clear.   The use of these “cookie cutter” goals for students violate both the letter and the spirit of the law.   They are not ok.   Parents need to learn there is another way to get that INDIVIDUAL Education Program for their child that is required by law.  Of course, parents might have to go back to that writing goal and engage their state department of education.   There is another way.

Maybe there is another way

Maybe there is another way…

Many families who have tried the due process system set up by federal and state law to get appropriate services for their children know that the road is long, expensive and frequently ends in a dead end.

But there is another way to get there that may be more expedient and is definitely less expensive.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also allows families to file complaints directly with the state education agency (MSDE) instead of or, in addition to, any due process hearing.   The state has 60 days to investigate and decide and the decision is not appealable by either side.

A nationwide survey has found that parents prevail in about 50% of the complaints; that is quite a bit better than the prevailing rate in Maryland for due process hearings.  The average national rate for parents success is 24%.  In Maryland it is only about 5%.   See why in last week’s blog.

A complaint to the state department of education can be used to remedy systemic issues which often stand in the way of a child getting an individual program as required by law.

Some of the issues to consider are cut-and-paste goals and objectives, removing goals and objectives without parental permission or after the parents have signed the IEP, and holding IEP meetings without the presence of a school administrator or general ed teacher.

Many of the goals listed are copy-cat goals from goal banks that are so generic as to be unmeasurable.   For example, “the student will read and comprehend increasingly complex literary and informational texts.”   Or, “the student will develop and strengthen writing by engaging in a process that includes prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing.”.   These goals appear to have come right out of something that was put into a bank to mimic Common Core objectives.  The problem is they are pretty much not measurable for any specific student.   How does the parent, student or teacher measure “increasingly complex”.   Does it mean the student will move from pre-reading skills to primer reading or from sentences to chapter books.   Similarly, the writing goal describes a process the child will go through at any level but it does not specifically say what this particular child will be doing.   The use of goal banks that are pulled down from a computer based IEP production system are endemic.   Sometimes the same goals appear year after year.  It is not unusual for the wrong pronoun gender to be used when referring to the student.  

Let’s be clear.   The use of these “cookie cutter” goals for students violate both the letter and the spirit of the law.   They are not ok.   Parents need to learn there is another way to get that INDIVIDUAL Education Program for their child that is required by law.  Of course, parents might have to go back to that writing goal and engage their state department of education.   There is another way.

Maybe there is another way

Maybe there is another way…

Many families who have tried the due process system set up by federal and state law to get appropriate services for their children know that the road is long, expensive and frequently ends in a dead end.

But there is another way to get there that may be more expedient and is definitely less expensive.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also allows families to file complaints directly with the state education agency (MSDE) instead of or, in addition to, any due process hearing.   The state has 60 days to investigate and decide and the decision is not appealable by either side.

A nationwide survey has found that parents prevail in about 50% of the complaints; that is quite a bit better than the prevailing rate in Maryland for due process hearings.  The average national rate for parents success is 24%.  In Maryland it is only about 5%.   See why in last week’s blog.

A complaint to the state department of education can be used to remedy systemic issues which often stand in the way of a child getting an individual program as required by law.

Some of the issues to consider are cut-and-paste goals and objectives, removing goals and objectives without parental permission or after the parents have signed the IEP, and holding IEP meetings without the presence of a school administrator or general ed teacher.

Many of the goals listed are copy-cat goals from goal banks that are so generic as to be unmeasurable.   For example, “the student will read and comprehend increasingly complex literary and informational texts.”   Or, “the student will develop and strengthen writing by engaging in a process that includes prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing.”.   These goals appear to have come right out of something that was put into a bank to mimic Common Core objectives.  The problem is they are pretty much not measurable for any specific student.   How does the parent, student or teacher measure “increasingly complex”.   Does it mean the student will move from pre-reading skills to primer reading or from sentences to chapter books.   Similarly, the writing goal describes a process the child will go through at any level but it does not specifically say what this particular child will be doing.   The use of goal banks that are pulled down from a computer based IEP production system are endemic.   Sometimes the same goals appear year after year.  It is not unusual for the wrong pronoun gender to be used when referring to the student.  

Let’s be clear.   The use of these “cookie cutter” goals for students violate both the letter and the spirit of the law.   They are not ok.   Parents need to learn there is another way to get that INDIVIDUAL Education Program for their child that is required by law.  Of course, parents might have to go back to that writing goal and engage their state department of education.   There is another way.

Maybe there is another way

Maybe there is another way…

Many families who have tried the due process system set up by federal and state law to get appropriate services for their children know that the road is long, expensive and frequently ends in a dead end.

But there is another way to get there that may be more expedient and is definitely less expensive.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also allows families to file complaints directly with the state education agency (MSDE) instead of or, in addition to, any due process hearing.   The state has 60 days to investigate and decide and the decision is not appealable by either side.

A nationwide survey has found that parents prevail in about 50% of the complaints; that is quite a bit better than the prevailing rate in Maryland for due process hearings.  The average national rate for parents success is 24%.  In Maryland it is only about 5%.   See why in last week’s blog.

A complaint to the state department of education can be used to remedy systemic issues which often stand in the way of a child getting an individual program as required by law.

Some of the issues to consider are cut-and-paste goals and objectives, removing goals and objectives without parental permission or after the parents have signed the IEP, and holding IEP meetings without the presence of a school administrator or general ed teacher.

Many of the goals listed are copy-cat goals from goal banks that are so generic as to be unmeasurable.   For example, “the student will read and comprehend increasingly complex literary and informational texts.”   Or, “the student will develop and strengthen writing by engaging in a process that includes prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing.”.   These goals appear to have come right out of something that was put into a bank to mimic Common Core objectives.  The problem is they are pretty much not measurable for any specific student.   How does the parent, student or teacher measure “increasingly complex”.   Does it mean the student will move from pre-reading skills to primer reading or from sentences to chapter books.   Similarly, the writing goal describes a process the child will go through at any level but it does not specifically say what this particular child will be doing.   The use of goal banks that are pulled down from a computer based IEP production system are endemic.   Sometimes the same goals appear year after year.  It is not unusual for the wrong pronoun gender to be used when referring to the student.  

Let’s be clear.   The use of these “cookie cutter” goals for students violate both the letter and the spirit of the law.   They are not ok.   Parents need to learn there is another way to get that INDIVIDUAL Education Program for their child that is required by law.  Of course, parents might have to go back to that writing goal and engage their state department of education.   There is another way.

Maybe there is another way

Maybe there is another way…

Many families who have tried the due process system set up by federal and state law to get appropriate services for their children know that the road is long, expensive and frequently ends in a dead end.

But there is another way to get there that may be more expedient and is definitely less expensive.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also allows families to file complaints directly with the state education agency (MSDE) instead of or, in addition to, any due process hearing.   The state has 60 days to investigate and decide and the decision is not appealable by either side.

A nationwide survey has found that parents prevail in about 50% of the complaints; that is quite a bit better than the prevailing rate in Maryland for due process hearings.  The average national rate for parents success is 24%.  In Maryland it is only about 5%.   See why in last week’s blog.

A complaint to the state department of education can be used to remedy systemic issues which often stand in the way of a child getting an individual program as required by law.

Some of the issues to consider are cut-and-paste goals and objectives, removing goals and objectives without parental permission or after the parents have signed the IEP, and holding IEP meetings without the presence of a school administrator or general ed teacher.

Many of the goals listed are copy-cat goals from goal banks that are so generic as to be unmeasurable.   For example, “the student will read and comprehend increasingly complex literary and informational texts.”   Or, “the student will develop and strengthen writing by engaging in a process that includes prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing.”.   These goals appear to have come right out of something that was put into a bank to mimic Common Core objectives.  The problem is they are pretty much not measurable for any specific student.   How does the parent, student or teacher measure “increasingly complex”.   Does it mean the student will move from pre-reading skills to primer reading or from sentences to chapter books.   Similarly, the writing goal describes a process the child will go through at any level but it does not specifically say what this particular child will be doing.   The use of goal banks that are pulled down from a computer based IEP production system are endemic.   Sometimes the same goals appear year after year.  It is not unusual for the wrong pronoun gender to be used when referring to the student.  

Let’s be clear.   The use of these “cookie cutter” goals for students violate both the letter and the spirit of the law.   They are not ok.   Parents need to learn there is another way to get that INDIVIDUAL Education Program for their child that is required by law.  Of course, parents might have to go back to that writing goal and engage their state department of education.   There is another way.

Parents Can't Win

Parents Can’t Win

In the last five years, parents have won less than 15% of cases filed for due process against the various Maryland local school systems. And that represents an improvement up from only 3-5% of wins a few years back.

But it was not always that way.  When the federal law (and Maryland’s law that came later) was first enacted in 1975, there were two levels of hearings, local and state, before any appeal to a state or federal court.   In those days, the hearing officers at the hearings were required to be professionals, “knowledgeable and expert in the fields relevant to the child”.  These were professionals who knew what an appropriate education looked like for a child with learning disabilities, emotional issues or other learning challenges.  Differently trained professionals were picked for the cases based on the issues of the child.   Local hearings had one hearing officer and state level hearings had three officers. AND, when professionals who were knowledgeable and expert about what the students needed, parents WON 90% of the cases.

Fast forward to more current times.  This win rate for parents annoyed local school systems and MSDE.  Consequently, they set out to do something about it.   First, the local hearing was disbanded.  All complaints went directly to the state hearing level.   The major change came when professionals were no longer to preside at hearings.  Instead, administrative law judges were chosen to hear cases.   These administrative law judges are just that, they decide issues of administrative dispute for all of Maryland’s various departments.  They are neither expert nor knowledgeable in special learning challenges.  They may not get a case involving special education for several years.   They have no professional training in the needs and issues surrounding the provision of an appropriate education for a child with disabilities.   They are trained in the rudiments of the special education law by the staff of the Maryland State Department of Education.   Sort of like a union training the hearing officers to settle labor disputes.  Not exactly a level playing field.   After this switch there was a sea change in the decisions coming from the hearings.   Parents went from winning 95% of the cases to losing 95% of the cases.

If that wasn’t enough, the next step was for there to be a shift in the party having the burden of proof.   Initially, since the law mandates that the school system be the provider of an appropriate education, local school systems were required to demonstrate that they had met that burden at a hearing.   Then there was a shift in what, at first, appeared to be innocuous. The burden of proof would now belong to the party proposing the change in placement.  That seemed innocent enough except that in practice it is almost exclusively the parents who are dissatisfied with what the school district is providing and, therefore, they became the party requesting the change and thereby having the burden of proof. With these two changes, the parents win rate went from about 95% to less than 5%!

Did the validity of the cases change?   Nope, not at all.   Did the playing field of justice tip in another direction?  You bet, and now the parents can’t win for losing.