Tuesday, May 7, 2013

States Get Ranked On Disability Services - Disability Scoop

States Get Ranked On Disability Services

May 2, 2013Text Size A A

Arizona is the place to be when it comes to services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, according to a new national ranking.

The listing is part of a report set to be released Thursday by United Cerebral Palsy, which ranks disability services in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Specifically, the advocacy organization weighed each state’s track record in promoting independence and productivity, ensuring quality and safety, keeping families together and reaching people in need.

In addition to Arizona, the highest ranked states were New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont and California.

Top performing states were largely clustered in the Northeast and on the West Coast. As in past years, the standouts represented both big and small states as well as those with high and low tax burdens. What’s more, the amount they spent to provide community supports for individuals with disabilities varied.

Mississippi was ranked last for the seventh straight year. Arkansas, Texas, Illinois and Virginia filled out the bottom five.

The report — which is produced annually — is largely based on data from 2011, the most recent available.

States are increasingly shifting to a focus on supports within the community, the analysis found. Currently, 38 states indicate that at least 80 percent of residents with developmental disabilities that they serve live in the community. These same states also devote at least 80 percent of their resources designated for this population toward community supports. That’s up from 14 states in 2007.

While some states outshined others the report authors caution that there’s work to do nationwide. Fewer than a third of those with developmental disabilities are employed competitively in the vast majority of states. And, waiting lists for residential services remain high, with 268,000 people in limbo compared to 138,000 in 2007, the report indicates.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Kate Casas: The Sky Isn't Falling on Public Education

The Sky Isn't Falling on Public Education

Posted: 05/06/2013 2:04 pm

SHARE THIS STORY

Submit this story

When I was in kindergarten, my class put on a Mother's Day rendition of the play Henny Penny for our mothers, grandmothers, and other adoring fans. Almost three decades later I entered the education reform community and have been reliving scenes from this fable ever since. Only in this grown-up version instead of Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey confusing an acorn falling from a tree for a falling sky, it is the varying factions paid to protect the education status quo who are confusing an attempt to authentically engage parents, evaluate teachers partially on student progress and expand high quality education options with a falling sky.

Take for example the current, though almost over, Missouri Legislative Session. In late January Representative Kathryn Swan (R-Cape Girardeau) filed legislation to require that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) issue a simplified school report card that would identify all schools as having received an A, B, C, D, or F.

Anyone without a Masters in Education who has tried to understand Missouri's current school report card would appreciate why a new one is needed. The lobbyists representing the teacher unions, administrators, school boards, and others assigned to protect the current system went pleading to legislators and editorial boards that if this bill became law, the sky would fall. They claimed that once a transparent school report card was implemented the first thing to fall from the sky would be a voucher system, then teachers and students with exceptionally low morale would come tumbling after, followed closely behind would be plummeting real estate values. Lastly they told legislators they would need to find much bigger umbrellas to protect themselves from the hoards of parents falling from the sky onto the Capitol grounds while advocating for expanded school choice.

Unfortunately for all those who spread the message to policy makers that the sky would fall if parents really knew how schools were doing, the real numbers tell a different story. This preliminary information, obtained from DESE through an open records request, reveals that about 75 percent of schools in Missouri would get an A or a B under the proposed legislation and that less than 15 percent of Missouri's 2000+ schools would be deemed failing.

Likewise, when reformers and legislators have proposed teacher evaluations be based in part on student academic growth, the education establishment's reaction has been paramount to Henny Penny's. For example, in Missouri an American Federation of Teachers Local 420 representative told the Senate Education Committee that if we altered teacher evaluations and then "...fired all the bad teachers in places like Saint Louis..." we would have "tons" classrooms with no certified teacher. However, in a New York Times article on March 31, 2013 it was reported that changing evaluations only resulted in a small increase in the number of teachers rated below effective. These findings support what education reformers in Missouri have been saying -- we don't want to change evaluations so that the sky will fall on Missouri's teachers. We want to change evaluations to begin measuring and providing meaningful feedback to educators about the only thing that really matters, student academic growth.

Lastly, the screams to duck and cover because the sky is going to crush us all are at their most shrill when someone dare suggest children should have access to more high quality education options. To see examples of this you again need not look beyond Jefferson City, Missouri. This year, Representative Dwight Scharnhorst (R-Saint Louis County) and Representative Jay Barnes(R-Jefferson City) each are offering modest proposals to provide educational opportunities to unique learners. Scharnhorst offered HB458 that would provide a scholarship tax credits to children on the autism spectrum. Barnes offered HB470 to allow enrollment in a virtual school program for no more than 1.75 percent of Missouri K-12 students. These two bills combined would affect an incredibly small number of children in an enormously positive way.

To no one's surprise when these two bills started moving through the Missouri House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee first the administrators association began running through the Capitol hallways and sending emails shouting that the sky was falling. They were followed closely by the teacher unions who went along with them yelling about the falling sky without question. Eventually the school board association and cooperating school districts of both Kansas City and St. Louis went along with the others. They were all chanting in panicked tones to legislators that if they give permission to parents of autistic children to send their child to a school better equipped to educate them that the sky would fall and crush the entire $7 billion public education system in Missouri.

Once again, the evidence that such panic is not only unnecessary but also in many ways a deliberate attempt to mislead, is strong. Idaho, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia all have virtual school options and yet the sky did not fall on their still strong traditional public school systems. Likewise, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia have scholarship tax credits for children with special needs and in each of those states the sky is still firmly in place.

At the end of Henny Penny, all the barnyard animals are so desperate to get to the King to warn him of the falling sky that they believe Foxy Loxy when she tells them she knows a short cut. Sadly for them, they follow Foxy into her lair where she presumably eats them. The barnyard animals' ridiculous panic about the falling sky blinds them from the actually dangerous fox. This is also not much different than what is happening with in the factions of the education establishment. Their fear of change is blinding them from the real danger -- they are becoming stagnant and unable to meet the changing needs of America's parents and students. I would hate to see our public school system meet the same fate as Henny Penny and the bunch. Maybe soon one of them will look up and see the "dangers" are actually just acorns.

Dear Colleague letter from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Seth M. Galanter

Dear Colleague letter from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Seth M. Galanter

Dear Colleague Letter

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

April 24, 2013

Dear Colleague:
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education (Department) is responsible for enforcing Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age by recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipient(s)) from the Department.¹Although a significant portion of the complaints filed with OCR in recent years have included retaliation claims, OCR has never before issued public guidance on this important subject. The purpose of this letter is to remind school districts, postsecondary institutions, and other recipients that retaliation is also a violation of Federal law.² This letter seeks to clarify the basic principles of retaliation law and to describe OCR’s methods of enforcement.
The ability of individuals to oppose discriminatory practices, and to participate in OCR investigations and other proceedings, is critical to ensuring equal educational opportunity in accordance with Federal civil rights laws. Discriminatory practices are often only raised and remedied when students, parents, teachers, coaches, and others can report such practices to school administrators without the fear of retaliation. Individuals should be commended when they raise concerns about compliance with the Federal civil rights laws, not punished for doing so.
The Federal civil rights laws make it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by these laws.³ If, for example, an individual brings concerns about possible civil rights problems to a school’s attention, it is unlawful for the school to retaliate against that individual for doing so. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual because he or she made a complaint, testified, or participated in any manner in an OCR investigation or proceeding. Thus, once a student, parent, teacher, coach, or other individual complains formally or informally to a school about a potential civil rights violation or participates in an OCR investigation or proceeding, the recipient is prohibited from retaliating (including intimidating, threatening, coercing, or in any way discriminating against the individual) because of the individual’s complaint or participation. OCR will continue to vigorously enforce this prohibition against retaliation.
If OCR finds that a recipient retaliated in violation of the civil rights laws, OCR will seek the recipient’s voluntary commitments through a resolution agreement to take specific measures to remedy the identified noncompliance.⁴Such a resolution agreement must be designed both to ensure that the individual who was retaliated against receives redress and to ensure that the recipient complies with the prohibition against retaliation in the future. OCR will determine which remedies, including monetary relief, are appropriate based on the facts presented in each specific case.
Steps OCR could require a recipient to take to ensure compliance in the future include, but are not limited to:

training for employees about the prohibition against retaliation and ways to avoid engaging in retaliation;
adopting a communications strategy for ensuring that information concerning retaliation is continually being conveyed to employees, which may include incorporating the prohibition against retaliation into relevant policies and procedures; and
implementing a public outreach strategy to reassure the public that the recipient is committed to complying with the prohibition against retaliation.

If OCR finds that a recipient engaged in retaliation and the recipient refuses to voluntarily resolve the identified area(s) of noncompliance or fails to live up to its commitments in a resolution agreement, OCR will take appropriate enforcement action. The enforcement actions available to OCR include initiating administrative proceedings to suspend, terminate, or refuse to grant or continue financial assistance made available through the Department to the recipient; or referring the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.⁵
OCR is available to provide technical assistance to entities that request assistance in complying with the prohibition against retaliation or any other aspect of the civil rights laws OCR enforces. Please visithttp://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm to contact the OCR regional office that serves your state or territory.
Thank you for your help in ensuring that America’s educational institutions are free from retaliation so that concerns about equal educational opportunity can be openly raised and addressed.

Sincerely,
/s/
Seth M. Galanter Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

¹ OCR enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Act), and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Boy Scouts Act). OCR also shares enforcement responsibilities with the Department of Justice for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in state and local government services, programs and activities, regardless of whether they receive Federal financial assistance.

² The Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that retaliation is a violation of the Federal civil rights laws enforced by OCR. See, e.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005); Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2003); Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002).

³ See 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (Title VI); 34 C.F.R. § 106.71 (Title IX) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (Section 504) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); and 34 C.F.R. §108.9 (Boy Scouts Act) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference). Title II and the Age Act have similar regulatory language. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (Title II); and 34 C.F.R. § 110.34 (Age Act).

⁴ See OCR’s Case Processing Manual for more information about resolution agreements, available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.html.

⁵ See 34 C.F.R. § 100.8.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Family files lawsuit after alleged sex assault at school | Palm Beach County News - WPBF Home

CPS removes special-ed teacher after abuse complaints from parents - Chicago Sun-Times

A special-education teacher at Finkl Elementary School in the Little Village community has been removed from her classroom, Chicago Public Schools confirmed Tuesday — with the move coming after parents of her students complained of physical abuse against their children.

Luis Murillo said his 7-year-old autistic son had kept coming home from school with bruises on his body since early in the school year. The school told him it was from children fighting, Murillo said. The child also returned home with the knees of his pants ripped out, as if he had been pulled across the ground.

The boy cannot speak but started drawing this year, and he drew like crazy with colored markers on lined paper in a binder: Pictures of stick-figure children looking scared and sad, saying “no.” Tall stick figure women — three of them — with angry brows and giant teeth. A stick figure saying “help.”

“Every time he drew, we just thought he was drawing,” Murillo said.“He needs psychological help; not only him, but the other kids, too.”

Jessica Sanchez said her 8-year-old son, who has Down syndrome, came home with deep scratches on his face in early March, and the mark of what looked like an adult’s hand on his forearm last Thursday. An aide wrote a note that the boy scratched himself on a table, but the teacher told her the aide scratched him by accident.

Sanchez Picked him up early one day for a doctor’s appointment, and her son scurried behind her as soon as he saw her.

“He grabbed me, hid behind me and pointed at the teacher,” Sanchez said. “I was like, OK, what is the teacher doing that he’s pointing at her?”

She said she has been trying ever since to get answers from the principal, who told her he would contact the Department of Children and Family Services.

“All he said was he can’t get me any information until DCFS contacts me,” she said. He told her on Thursday that the teacher and aides had been removed from the classroom. She was at the school Monday when Chicago Police arrived.

None of the parents who contacted the Chicago Sun-Times knew who was to blame in the classroom for first-, second- and third-grade special-education students was to blame. They said the teacher had two aides working with her and the 13 children. They did not know what happened to the aides, but they didn’t want them around children.

The Sun-Times is not naming the teacher or aides because no one has been charged in connection with the matter.

CPS would not say why the teacher had been removed, nor would the district confirm what, if anything, had happened with the aides.

“The teacher has been removed from the classroom and has no contact with students. Appropriate further action will be taken pending the outcome of the investigation,” CPS spokesman David Miranda said in an email.

The Department of Children and Family Services would not confirm whether they had been called. Chicago Police had not made any arrests as of Monday afternoon, according to spokesman John Mirabelli.

CPS would not provide further information about the teacher, including how long she has worked for the district.

On her LinkedIn profile, she wrote that she has worked for CPS since March 2012 and is a special-education teacher.

None of the phone numbers listed for the teacher was in service. A message left for her on Twitter was not returned A woman identifying herself as the teacher’s mother said she would relay a message, but her daughter was told not to talk to anyone.

The teacher did not call back.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

A Vaccine for Vaccine Damage? | The Thinking Moms' Revolution

A Vaccine for Vaccine Damage?

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Thinking Moms' Revolution

You know, it takes a LOT to get me really fired up. I am pretty laid back (for the most part) and try to find something to smile about no matter what. Humor is my defense mechanism. I get stressed out or worried…I need to laugh. Maybe you’ve noticed that my blogs are usually aboutpoop cupcakes and beer bottle caps.

Well, Mountain Mama posted an article yesterday that really pissed me off. I’m talking I wanted to punch a hole in the wall and scream at

the top of my lungs. Perhaps you saw it in your news feed on Facebook. Science Daily published an article titled, “First Vaccine to Help Control Autism Symptoms.” Yes, you read that correctly…a vaccine to control autism symptoms. And guess what it targets??? BINGO. The bad gut bacteria that so many kids with autism have.

Wait, what? Bad gut bacteria? Hold the phone…autism is genetic. We are just better at diagnosing it! Right? WRONG. Autism. Is. Medical. THINK.

I find this entire article, and the fact that researchers are looking for a vaccine to target fixing these kids’ guts, completely insulting. My son, at the hands of the medical community through unsafe vaccine practices, had his gut destroyed to the point that he stopped growing. STOPPED GROWING. He was loaded up with broad spectrum antibiotics for years for ear infections which led to an overgrowth of clostridium difficile among other bad bacteria. On top of this, he was

given vaccines while he was taking these antibiotics, which even the CDC says shouldn’t happen. From the CDC’s vaccine guidelines: “Routine physical examinations and procedures (e.g., measuring temperatures) are not prerequisites for vaccinating persons who appear to be healthy. The provider should ask the parent or guardian if the child is ill. If the child has a moderate or severe illness, the vaccination should be postponed.“ But guess what? It still happens. Kids are still getting vaccinated while they are on antibiotics. I overheard a grandmother at preschool talking about how her granddaughter was grumpy because her tummy hurt from the antibiotics she was on, and in the very next breath she explained that it also could be because she got her MMR that day too. MMR and antibiotics. A recipe for disaster.

So rather than PREVENTING the destruction of a child’s digestive system, we are looking for a vaccine to help fix the damage. I am sorry, but this is just disgusting and is a great example of what is wrong with our medical system. Perhaps if the powers that be would take some time to look at WHY kids with autism have such bad gut bacteria and start working on reversing the practices that cause the gut damage in the first place, autism symptoms would be reduced without this new wonder vaccine.

Oh, wait…there is no money in that. No money in fewer antibiotic prescriptions. No money in reducing the number of vaccines that are

given at well visits. No money in spreading them out. No money in taking out the dangerous adjuvants that make the vaccines shelf-stable for years. No money in healthy people. You and your children are worth more money when you are sick than when you are well.

I will leave you with something to think about. Since the beginning of March, my son has finally started to gain weight. We have been working on healing his gut for years and he is finally absorbing the nutrients from his expensive, organic diet. Guess what else is changing? He is becoming more social, more verbal, and he is having an easier time communicating and playing. His autism symptoms are lessening. Had we not wrecked his gut years ago, would he have autism today?

We will never know the answer to that question for my son, but just maybe if we start protecting the gut flora of our children NOW, we will see what happens to the autism rates. If only there was money to be made off of healthy children. Maybe then we would find out.

~(A Partly Cloudy) Sunshine ☼

MOAFAA

Missouri Advocates For Families Affected by Autism

Tuesday, May 7, 2013