Christine Seijas seeks a job , Did Goshen Central School District Pay a  "Hearing Witness" to Fight Special Education Services for a Dyslexic Child ?

 School Watch is actively gathering the testimony of school district witnesses in order to expose perjury, lack of professionalism, and corruption ,in a recent special education due process hearing in the Goshen CSD, the District paid a witness an exorbitant fee to testify against the child and family. Christine Seijas was called to testify on behalf of the district, and at the expense of the local tax payer, on issues of the child's needs, despite the fact that she had never met the child, communicated with any of the staff working with the child, or observed any of the programs that were being considered for this child from the Goshen central school district. Hearing witness? This individual's only knowledge about the child was that information that was provided to her by the School District's attorney, Garrett Silviera,of the law firm of Shaw and Perelson.

Seijas was brought in on behalf of the district, apparently, because she has a background in Orton-Gillingham, a specialized reading program for children with reading disabilities. One of the primary issues in the hearing was the District's inability to provide appropriate reading instruction using and Orton-Gillinham methodology. The District stipulated in the hearing that the District was not offering a free, appropriate public education, and they were attempting to win the case by arguing that the private school that provided O-G instruction was not appropriate. Seijas was their primary witness on this issue, despite never having talked with or visited the school that was providing the O-G to the student.

Because teachers are not held to any ethical standards as a profession, Seijas apparently felt free to say absolutely anything the District paid her to say to support their defense. Seijas, unfortunately, is an adjunct profession at Fairleigh Dickinson University where she is instilling her "values" on graduate level students who eventually will be working with students with reading disabilities.

Neither Seijas nor the Goshen CSD apparently has any regard for the confidentiality of student records. Without any release from or notice to the parents, the child's educational records were shared Ms. Seijas in violation of the Family Educational Rights to Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA is a federal law that requires student's records to be guarded from disclosure to third parties without written consent of the parents. FERPA only allows disclosure of records for restricted purposes, including school officials with legitimate educational interest, other schools to which the child is transferring, for officials conducting audits or evaluations, for financial aid purposes, studies for or on behalf of the school, accrediting organizations, to comply with judicial orders or subpoena, for health and safety emergencies, or to State or local authorities pursuant to State law. None of these FERPA exceptions to release records applied to Seijas and clearly violated the law.

The schools attorney, Silviera, clearly withheld most of the child's records from the witness, still, apparently to prevent her from having all the relevant information on the child. Silviera only shared the child's current IEP and a Central Auditory Processing evaluation. Silviera withheld from the witness the child's psychological test and the educational testing, perhaps the most relevant of the evaluative data necessary to determine what services the child needed.

Now, an inside source has provided a copy of the testimony of Seijas. The following are excerpts from the "Hearing Witness's" testimony, evidencing her compromised integrity.MY Comments about the testimony are enclosed in brackets, in this manner, [Comments]. Anyone desiring a full copy of this "Hearing Whore's testimony can contact the author at advocate411@optonline.com

Q. Miss Seijas, when were you first contacted about C.?

A. I believe about two weeks ago.

Q. Who contacted you?

A. Mr. Silveira.

Q. How did he contact you?

A. With a phone call.

Q. Did you meet with Mr. Silveira after that contact?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you meet with Mr. Silveira?

A. About a week and a half ago, two weeks --it was maybe two or three days after he spoke with him.

Q. Were you subpoenaed to be here today?

A. Was I subpoenaed?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Were you offered money to be here today?

A. Was I offered money to be here?

Q. Yes.

A. No, but I will put in that I would be billable.

Q. What is the arrangement you have with Mr. Silveira about your payment for participating in this process?

A. I don't have an arrangement with him. I am supposed to bill I think somebody – I haven't worked that out yet. [Maybe Silviera was going to leave the money on the bedside table when he's done with her.]

Q. So you are going to be billing the school district?

A. I don't know. I will have to speak with Barbara or Mr. Silveira regarding that issue. [Does her payment depend on how well she performs?]

Q. Was there some sort of an agreement that you were going to be paid to testify today?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that agreement?

A. I don't understand what you are asking. If you asking how much am I going to --

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, that's what he is asking.

A. Is that what you are asking me?

THE HEARING OFFICER: He is asking, yes.

A. I don't know.

Q. So but you do know you are going to get paid for participating today?

A. Right.

Q. But you do not know how much you are going to be paid?

A. No.

Q. You don't know how much you are going to be paid an hour?

A. No.

Q. So your payment could be anywhere from a dollar to something significantly more?

A. I am sure it will be significantly more than a dollar.

Q. Is there any contingencies on how you are being paid?

A. In the sense of --

Q. What is your understanding of how you are going to be paid?

A. I don't understand.

THE HEARING OFFICER: What are you getting per hour?

THE WITNESS: What does this have to do with –

THE HEARING OFFICER: Per hour.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE HEARING OFFICER: What's your rate per hour?

THE WITNESS: My rate per hour?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I don't understand why. [Oh, my, she really does not want to state out loud how cheaply she sold integrity for.]

THE HEARING OFFICER: It's relevant.

THE WITNESS: 100 to 150 an hour.

Q. What will you be billing the school district?

THE HEARING OFFICER: She doesn't know yet. Per hour, is that what you are asking?

A. About 150 an hour.

Q. So your top rate you are going to be billing them?

A. I guess, yes.

Q. You met with Mr. Silveira for an hour and a half?

A. A little more than an hour and a half.

Q. What date did that occur?

A. I don't recall.

THE HEARING OFFICER: You can't look at him for -- if you don't know, you don't know. [Apparently she was looking at Mr. Silviera for his signals on how to answer questions.]

THE WITNESS: I met with him once to first review the records and I met with him on another occasion.

Q. The first time you met with him, how long was that for?

A. For about an hour and a half, two hours.

Q. The second time you met with him?

A. About an hour and a half. [But her testimony above implied she only met with Silviera once. Caught in a lie.]

Q. What did you discuss with Mr. Silveira in the first meeting?

A. The IEP.

Q. Anything else?

A. The report from Dr. Geffner.

Q. Anything else?

A. The Kildonan School reports.

Q. On the second meeting, what did you discuss with him?

A. We were discussing the preparations for this meeting.

Q. Did Mr. Silveira share with you his strategy in this case?

A. No.

Q. Did he say that he was trying to show that Kildonan was not appropriate for C.?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he say that he was trying to show you or that he was trying to show in this hearing that C. needed speech services?

A. Did he say that he needed the speech services?

Q. Did he share with you -- did Mr. Silveira share with you that he was trying to show in this hearing that C. needed speech services?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he share with you that the district's IEP had been stipulated as not providing a free and appropriate public education

to C.?

A. I believe that was addressed, yes.

Q. Did he share with you the prior testimony of any of the witnesses in this hearing?

A. No.

Q. Do you know who Diana King is?

A. I do.

Q. How do you know Diana King?

A. I met her at the International Dyslexia conference in Dallas last year. [Diana King is a world-renowned expert in the Orton-Gillingham methodology, and this student's teacher.]

Q. Now, would you turn to the binder in front of you.

[The testimony continued and showed that most of the child's educational evaluations had not been shared by Silviera with the witness.]

Q. Have you ever visited Kildonan School?

A. No. [Why would she need to see the school she is testifying about? She's just there to regurgitate what Gary Silviera fed her in their four hours of meetings.]

Q. Did you ever have any conversations about the way instruction was being provided to C. in the classrooms at the Kildonan School with anyone?

A. No.

Q. Your conclusions that you reach about the services that were being provided to Kildonan were drawn simply from the exhibits that you reviewed, correct?

A. Correct. [Do you think she was really testifying about the facts in this case?]

Q. Did Mr. Silveira share any opinions with you during the course of your conversation with him?

A. No. [Come on! Silviera tells her what he is trying to prove in the case, as she said earlier, and then brings her in to testify to support that. Talk about a lack of credibility.]

THE HEARING OFFICER: About Kildonan?

Q. About anything?

A. No, just in the sense that he felt that C. should receive the multi-sensory language instruction and speech.

[Some hearing banter.]

[On Direct Examination Seijas offered opinions regarding the child's speech and language needs. Yet on Cross-Examination, she admitted having no training in this area.]

Q. Have you ever had any training in speech and language pathology?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Have you ever testified before for Mr. Silveira?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you ever testified before?

A. No.

Q. How did Mr. Silveira how did he become familiar with you to contact you, do you know?

A. I think he got my resume from the Goshen Public Schools. [Oh, what an interesting moment in a hearing to learn that a witness has job application pending with the District.]

Q. Have you had prior to your contact with Mr. Silveira, have you had any contact with anyone at the Goshen Public Schools?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. Barbara. [Barbara Butler is the Special Education Director in the District.]

Q. What contact did you have with her?

A. I had an interview.

Q. When did she interview you?

A. In August or September early, late August, maybe early September, I don't recall.

Q. That --

A. That was -- it was not related.

Q. After that interview did you have any contact with Barbara?

A. No. Unless I saw her when I met with Mr. Silveira, just briefly.

Q. She was with you when you met with Mr. Silveira?

A. No.

Q. She was in the building?

A. In the building, correct.

Q. Who did you have the conversations about your payment with?

A. I haven't had any conversation. I had a brief conversation with Barbara.

Q. Barbara indicated that the school district would pay you?

A. I believe so. [First she testifies she had no contact with anyone from the district on this matter, and then indicates that Butler told her about getting paid. Are any of the readers picking up on her evasiveness about this payment arrangement?]

Q. When you interviewed in August or September, it was for some sort of work position?

A. Correct.

Q. Are you still in consideration here in Goshen for some sort of work related position?

A. I don't understand what you mean. [Apparently she really does not want to answer this question. It's not that hard to understand it.]

THE HEARING OFFICER: Are you still pursuing an opportunity to work

with the district?

THE WITNESS: I think if something came up, then yes, only due to

the fact I drive an hour to work every day.

Q. Prior to today, had you had any conversations with either of C.'s parents?

A. No.

[Apparently, Seijas does not believe a parent has relevant information about the needs of her child.]

Q. Had you had any conversations with C.?

A. No.

[Nor does she seem to believe the child might have any relevant input into his own needs.]

Q. Any communication whatsoever with anyone from the family?

A. No.

[Family input into educational decision-making apparently means nothing to Seijas. At least most of the public schools represented by Shaw and Perelson will pay "lip service" to parental participation, but not Goshen's PAID WITNESS, "hearing whore." ?]

Q. What based on your experience is the -- as an educator, what is the impact on a student with dyslexia who's placed in a program with students that are significantly cognitively below that dyslexic student's levels of cognitive ability?

MR. SILVEIRA: I object based on relevance. I am not sure where we are going with this question.

[Mr. Silviera apparently believes that an appropriate objection is "I don't understand opposing counsels hearing strategy."]

THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I think it's not irrelevant to the extent

that you brought up the issue of LRE.

MR. SILVEIRA: If that's where you are going.

THE HEARING OFFICER: I will allow it.

THE WITNESS: Will you repeat it?

Parents Attorney: Can I have that read back?

THE HEARING OFFICER: You might want to rephrase it.

A. I think I understand what you are asking me.

Q. A student with dyslexia who is of average cognitive ability, what would be the emotional impact on a student such as that to be placed in a program with students who were significantly behind

them in levels of cognitive ability, if any?

A. Are you talking about the entire day, are you talking about just in a reading – in a class.

Q. Let's break it into two parts. How about for the entire day?

A. Would I think it is appropriate for him to be surrounded solely by those who are less cognitive than him.

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. What if his reading services were provided alongside students who were significantly cognitively delayed?

A. I don't think that would be beneficial.

Q. To the student with dyslexia?

A. Correct. I think, though, in my own experience in the real world there is no way that you can always group -- if you are working in a group, in a reading group, there is no way to definitely have

students who are on the exact same cognitive level to provide them

instruction. However, I think if they are grouped within means of each other then that would be beneficial.

[Seijas did not take the time to learn that the child was placed in a reading class with children that were mentally retarded, despite his high average IQ.]

Q. You testified that C. does need instruction in multi-sensory language?

A. Correct.

Q. How in your opinion -- what for how long a day does he need that type of service?

A. Usually it's from 45 minutes to an hour a day.

Q. Every day, right?

A. Every day.

Q. When you are referring to the multi-sensory language based thing, you are referring to something that's an Orton-Gillingham type of program?

A. Correct.

Q. In regards to the language services that you perceive that C. needs, you indicated that they should be focused on engaging in conversation?

A. Correct.

Q. Perhaps some oral motor production of sounds?

A. Correct, I think that's what I said.

Q. Are you aware whether or not C. is capable of orally producing sounds?

A. From what I recall, I think he is.

[She was not even sure if the child was able to speak?]

However, I think he struggles with certain sounds.

Q. Does C.'s struggle with certain sounds that you feel you are familiar with, does that impact on him in the educational setting?

A. I couldn't say.

[Of course she can't say. She knows little about this child she is "whoring" herself to deny FAPE to.]

Q. Does C.'s needs in the sense of conversational therapy that you referred to, do those things impact on him in the educational setting?

A. I need you to rephrase that.

Q. You testified earlier that you believe that C.'s speech therapy should focus on engaging in conversation, I think if I wrote my notes down correctly?

A. I want to say I am not a speech-language therapist, [Likely meaning to emphasize the fact that she is really a "hearing whore."] I have only was saying those type of activities based on my experiences with other speech-language therapists.

Q. I understand.

A. That were presented in the report from Dr. Geffner I think is the individual's name.

Q. Based on your experience, and your familiarity with C. as limited as it is, do C.'s conversational deficits impact on

his participation in the educational setting?

A. It appears yes.

[Of course she expresses this opinion without ever having seen C in his educational setting.]

Q. How does it appear that way to you?

A. In the sense that from what I read that he struggles with sentence structure, semantics which would in turn affect how he is perceiving those same things.

Q. Those two areas?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you do anything to determine whether or not the Kildonan program was working with C. on sentence structure and semantics?

A. In the sense of what?

Q. Throughout his school day, do you know if they are working on sentence structure and semantics with him?

A. I don't know for sure [Because she is a "hearing whore" who did not take the time necessary to make any determinations about this child's program or needs] but I am assuming that they are addressing it somehow in their program.

Q. In fact an Orton-Gillingham program would address both of those things, would it not?

A. Correct.

Q. People who are trained in Orton-Gillingham would have some level of ability to address both of those deficits, correct?

A. Correct, as -- yes.

Q. There was a CSE meeting that occurred in September for C. Did you have any input into that?

A. No. [Of course she didn't. The District was not going to pay her to help develop an appropriate program for a child. They only were willing to pay her to prevent the parents from recovering tuition for an appropriate program. The District was never were interested in offering a FAPE to the child.]

Q. You hadn't had any contact with the district prior to that?

A. No.

Q. My question was poorly worded because it was conversational but you did not have any conversation with the district about C. prior to that September CSE, correct?

A. Prior -- no. Did I have any contact with -- I don't understand what you are asking.

Q. My question is a poorly worded one.

THE HEARING OFFICER: What was the date of the CSE meeting?

Q. The CSE meeting occurred September 5th?

A. I was contacted after.

Q. Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: For the record September 5th, 2008.

Q. When a student has receptive language deficits that are known to a teacher, it would be a common teacher strategy to repeat things back to the student, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It would be a common strategy to have the student repeat directions that were given to them, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. That's something that someone in one of their first couple of years of special education course work would learn, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you take any general education courses in preparation for your degrees?

A. No.

Q. Never, none?

A. No.

Q. Now, did Mr. Silveira show you any of the standardized test scores that were obtained from C. during the period of time that he was at Kildonan?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they indicate to you whether or not C. had made progress in there in the

past?

A. They indicated slight progress. [Exactly the term used by other District witnesses and obviously supplied to her by Silviera, as he ventured perilously close to suborning perjury.]

Q. Why do you characterize it as slight progress?

A. Is it possible for me to look at them, those standardized scores.

Q. What would you be looking for, at what standardized course were you shown?

A. I believe they were the ones from the Kildonan School with the Woodcock Johnson on it. Basically was looking at the standard score and the percentile which only went up I believe one point, maybe two. I don't recall the exact numbers that they went up.

Parents Attorney: Can we go off the record a minute?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Off the record.

(Off the record.)

Parents Attorney: I will show you mine.

Q. Ma'am, I am going to ask you to turn to what's parents Exhibit 48 and page three and see if that's what you are referring to?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that what you are referring to?

A. Yes.

Q. When you said there was a one percentile change?

A. Standard score looking at the Word ID.

Q. I am backing up to my earlier question. What in here indicates to you that C. only made slight progress during from May '07 to May '08?

A. Looking at his from the Woodcock the Word ID and the Word Attack. I am saying that he made gains. However, I am saying they

are not substantial gains.

Q. Are you aware that Word Attack was not one of the deficits that was identified for C. prior to May '07?

MR. SILVEIRA: I am going to object unless there is some foundation

because I don't recall that being in any documents or any testimony.

Parents Attorney: I will withdraw the question.

THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't remember.

Q. Ma'am, do you know how old C. is?

A. I believe he is in seventh grade.

Q. Word Attack where C. has a grade equivalent of 6.9 is not a deficit, is mit?

A. Well, you tend not to look at the grade equivalency.

Q. Is his standard score of a 99 a deficit in Word Attack?

MR. SILVEIRA: Now you are moving over to May of '08, I gotcha.

A. No.

Q. During this period of time from May of '07 to May of '08 he was right near the median standard score, correct?

A. For Word Attack?

Q. Yes.

A. Correct.

Q. Now, what on this report are you referring to that indicates that you think he made slight progress during this period of time?

A. Well, I was looking at the Word ID, the GORT-4 which was the rate, accuracy, fluency.

Q. Anything else?

A. I am looking. I am looking at his spelling, the Test of Written Spelling, there were gains, however not significant gains.

Q. Now, when you say not significant, you are basing it solely on this report here or was there some other information?

A. From what I am seeing, yes, just this report.

Q. Is there any other report you relied on to conclude that C. was making slight gains?

A. The progress report from the Kildonan School.

Q. Now, were you aware of any of the records that showed C.'s reading abilities when prior to him entering the Kildonan School?

A. No. [She apparently is only offering her opinion based on Silviera's expectations of her.]

Q. Were you aware that C. was unable to read at all prior to entering the Kildonan School?

A. No.

Q. Ma'am, you said you have not worked with non-certified people before?

25 A. Correct.

Q. When you were answering that question for Mr. Silveira, were you referring to teacher certifications?

A. Correct.

Q. Teaching certification doesn't provide an individual necessarily with the skills they need to meet C.'s needs, does it?

A. What do you mean?

Q. Would a special education teacher coming out of school without the Orton-Gillingham type of training that you have had be able to meet C.'s needs?

A. In the sense of his reading instruction, no; I think in addressing other areas of concern, yes.

Q. Do you have any independent knowledge of the types of programs that are offered by Kildonan?

A. No. ["Why would I need to base my opinions on any actual knowledge, I'm a 'whore' basing my opinions on those fed to be by the school district's attorney.]

Q. The answers that you have given in regards to the program at Kildonan, are they based solely upon the records that Mr. Silveira provided to you?

A. Yes. [Why would I need anything other than what the school district's attorney has fed to me?]

Q. Did you ever discuss with Diana King C. and his needs and the programs he was receiving at Kildonan?

A. No. ["Of course not. Why would I converse with the student's current Orton-Gillingham teacher. She may provide me information that conflicts with the opinions that Mr. Silviera told me to express today."]

Q. Did you do any independent inquiry in regards to Kildonan?

A. No. ["Again, anything I found out would have conflicted with what Mr. Silviera wanted me to say today."]

Q. In your familiarity with C.'s needs, where would you prioritize his need to get the Orton-Gillingham type of reading instruction that he needs?

A. At the top.

Q. Is it your testimony that you don't -- based on your review of documents you don't believe C. has received any educational benefit while at Kildonan over the last two years?

A. No, I believe that he has received some benefit from being at Kildonan.

Q. Did Mr. Silveira share with you the social history that had been completed by the parents?

A. No. ["As I have tried to make clear in my testimony, Mr. Silviera, the District and I all believe the parents' involvement and input in special education decision-making is really unnecessary."]

Q. Did you discuss C.'s needs with anyone other than Mr. Silveira?

A. No. ["Again, you are implying that an opinion other than Mr. Silviera's matters. Mr. Silviera's opinion is the only relevant opinion, and that is what I am here to relay to you."]

Parents Attorney: May I take a two-minute break?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Off the record.

SchoolWatch is actively gathering the testimony of other school district witnesses in order to expose perjury, lack of professionalism, and corruption. If you are a parent, Teacher or advocate that would like the testimony of a witness shared with others, please contact the author at advocate411@optonline.com. These hearings are intended to be a search for the truth so that the educational needs of a child can be met appropriately. This type of gamesmanship must be exposed.