Miriam K. Freedman

Flexibility in special education is sorely lacking.  Consider these examples:  (a) While Congress made some welcome changes in 2004, the system still feels like a regulatory straitjacket where paperwork, timelines, meetings, and compliance rule.  (b) Specifically, while some attempts to provide flexibility were made, several came with new compliance and paperwork requirements.  (c) In June 2011, the U. S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) allowed school districts some flexibility in how they spend special education funds (the ‘maintenance of effort’ requirement). Yet, after pushback from advocacy groups, OSEP rescinded that flexibility in April 2012, less than a year later.

In 1975, Congress created an adversarial special education system, built on distrust between parents of children with disabilities and schools — with the unproven assumption that somehow more process would protect them and improve educational outcomes.  Parents can dispute their child’s IEP (Individualized Education Program) of services that the school offers, and request due process mediations or hearings.  As a result, educators spend time on meetings, paperwork, testing, writing reports, litigation and preparing for litigation, and parents spend time learning the law in order to advocate for their children—against their schools. Both groups take precious time away from focusing on teaching and learning.

But consider:  What if the vast majority of schools and parents don’t need or want all those requirements, especially when students are doing well?  What if the regulatory demands are really designed for the relatively few situations where disputes about an IEP may occur?

By way of example, let’s review one state’s numbers.  Massachusetts has close to a million students…

980,459. Of these, approximately 166,000 students have IEPs—about 17% of the school population. (Yes, 17% is high—state eligibility rates around the country range from 9% to 18%.)

During the 2011 fiscal year, of the 166,000 students, parents rejected 8348 IEPs—just half of one percent of all IEPs. Presumably, the other 99.5% of parents were satisfied—or satisfied enough—with their children’s education.  Or, even if some of them were not (or didn’t understand that they could reject an IEP), the overwhelming number of parents didn’t dispute their children’s services.  Let’s call them the 97 or 98 or 99%.

We digress to review scant research on parent satisfaction. While we may not have enough research, two reports—one from 1989 and another from 2008, found high levels of satisfaction. In the first, the satisfaction rate was around 70%. In the later study of parents of preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and other disabilities, the satisfaction rates were 86.8% and 90.1% respectively.  Between 91% and 96% of parents of children with ASD reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their child’s program, teachers, and services.

Back to those Massachusetts numbers. Of the 8348 rejected IEPs, 544 hearings were requested (6.5% of the rejected IEPs).  Thus, some 99.97% of parents of students with disabilities did not request a hearing.   (Note that there were also 809 mediation requests and that schools, not parents, request a small percentage of hearings. This article does not track these trends.)

And finally, of the 166,000 IEPs, we come down to the fact that just 35 hearing decisions were written in 2011—a trickle of a trickle of a trickle…

So why are there so many state and federal regulations and bureaucratic requirements for all schools and parents?  Could it be that the focus, attention, fears, moneys, procedures, litigation, fear of litigation, etc. are about that one half of one percent?

What about the vast majority of parents or schools who do not seem to need or want them all?  Where are their rights to create trust-based and positive relations between school and home? How about reinventing this system with innovative approaches to promote flexibility in appropriate situations? One suggestion: While maintaining the school’s substantive responsibility to provide the child a free appropriate public education (FAPE), how about allowing schools and parents voluntarily to agree to suspend some procedural requirements, knowing that either of them can opt back in to the standard requirements at any time?

A simple agreement can be developed (without new federal paperwork mandates!), whereby parents and schools can agree to:

• develop a short, focused learning plan instead of the procedurally-bound IEP; or
• update the child’s program without annual Team meetings when the program is working well; or
• create similar report cards for students with disabilities as regular education students receive, without additional quarterly reports; or
• build a positive and effective communication system between school and home outside the Team process; or …

This post is not about any specific suggestion or innovation. It’s about the fact that in spite of ‘flexibility’ in the wider education community, special education is still bound by a 35+year old burdensome, adversarial, and regulatory system—even when schools and parents don’t want that and children are doing well.

In addition to the half one percent described above, we need to serve the vast majority of schools and parents of students with disabilities—who seek to work  well together. The law should allow them flexibility—without creating new paperwork burdens.  Sadly, in spite of the fact that NO evidence supports the current rigid compliance-driven use of scarce public resources as a way to improve teaching and learning for students, such flexibility simply does not yet exist.

This rigidity is not the way to run an education system, especially when we also consider the far larger community of regular education students in our schools—all of whose interests and needs have to be met by schools in those short six-hour days. It is time for all stakeholders for all students to focus squarely on education—not compliance.  Parents and schools should have flexibility to work together and be able to opt out of requirements that they don’t need or want, especially when children are doing well.  Real flexibility in special education is long overdue. It should become part of Congress’ next reauthorization.

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman is a lawyer, speaker, consultant, and author, and an expert in public education law. For more than 30 years, Miriam has worked with educators, parents, policy makers, and citizens to deal with the legal requirements which impact schools. Miriam translates complex legalese into plain English, and focuses on good preventive practices. For more information, visit her website, www.schoollawpro.com.

The post Miriam K Freedman: Special Ed Needs Flexibility to Build Trust, Improve Outcomes appeared first on Education News.

Miriam K. Freedman

But then I wonder, what is ‘cheating?’ What does that word actually mean? As I see it, it’s a way of pretending that a reported score is valid and actually tells us how the student performed and what that student actually knows. Apparently, these cheating scandals show that scores were tampered with in various ways and were not valid. Reported scores were too high for the actual performance by students. Tragic.

And to this, I would add my concerns about state and testing policies that more generally impede students and teachers, parents and citizens from knowing what students actually know and can do. Some of these policies include targeted ‘teaching to the test’ without teaching to the standards that we hold valuable for students to learn. When ‘teaching to the test’ actually measures the width, breadth, and richness of standards, it’s a plus. When it does not, then it’s a perhaps a form of ‘cheating.’

In addition, some policies allow students, especially students with disabilities and English language learners, to take tests that may not be valid from the get go. That is, tests that have been modified in significant ways and no longer measure what they purport to measure. Such as providing a calculator for a student on a math computation test. Such as reading a reading test to a student. Such as giving extended time on a test that measures results under time pressure. Yet, score reports on these modified tests are issued and claim to show valid results. And, I’m sure there are other policies that allow for this type of ‘cheating,’ so results are not illustrative of student performance and achievement.

In these situations, we can’t blame teachers or students or any of the players on the ground. These are policies and mindsets are developed at the top and create tremendous pressures on educators and students. Examples?

Besides the widespread concerns raised about teaching to tests themselves, as discussed above, how about the fact that the SAT and ACT now allow extended time on those critical tests for some students without letting anyone know that the tests were modified? Of note, this policy, dating back to 2003, was instituted in response to a threatened lawsuit. No law or court decision mandated it. See my story ‘Disabling the SAT,’ and the policy at http://www.collegeboard.com/ssd/student/index.html#apply..

How about reading a reading test to a student who can’t read or giving a calculator to a student who can’t add and subtract–and then reporting the tests as if they are valid. See, e.g., Massachusetts policy.

How about California’s reported scores going up, in part because many students with disabilities take the California Modified Assessment—easier to pass—instead of the standard California Standardized Assessment. In this way, 185,000 students were excluded, thus raising the reported state scores, and showing California gains that exceed reality.

Aren’t all of the above, too, a form of ‘cheating’? Certainly these policies cheat students from knowing what they can and cannot do. And they cheat adults in students’ lives—parents, teachers, administrators, taxpayers—from having a clear understanding of student achievement. Can this issue be related to the high number of students who graduate from our nation’s high schools, having passed tests and courses, enroll in colleges where they need to take remedial courses, only to drop out of college altogether? What do we actually mean by ‘cheating?’ Who is cheating whom? Certainly questions worth pondering as we fret about ‘cheating scandals’ and the achievement levels of our students.

A version of this post originally appeared at Silicon Valley Education Foundation’s Thoughts on Public Education site.

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman is a lawyer, speaker, consultant, and author, and an expert in public education law. For more than 30 years, Miriam has worked with educators, parents, policy makers, and citizens to deal with the legal requirements which impact schools. Miriam translates complex legalese into plain English, and focuses on good preventive practices. For more information, visit her website, www.schoollawpro.com.

The post Miriam K Freedman: What Does Cheating Really Mean? appeared first on Education News.

A lot is on the line. Without radical change, we just tinker on the edges of reform, afraid to confront various realities and stakeholders. But education should be about providing necessary learning opportunities to the next generation, not about today’s interest groups.
Ready for that one way?

Miriam K. Freedman

Close all private schools.

Admittedly, a most radical step that is politically unfeasible. But hear me out on this one! This step will force all students (the very rich, the very poor, the smart, the average, the disabled, the at-risk, and everyone in between) into public schools, creating overwhelming pressure to fix them at last. Imagine CEOs, for example, in New York City, Silicon Valley, Detroit, and Houston and Senators, Representatives, and Presidents—all sending their children to public school! Parents, no longer able to vote with their feet and pull their own children out of the publics, will push for radical reform. Only in that way, schools will matter for everyone — not just for other people’s children.

Here are several wonderful examples of the new vision:

• Education will focus on teaching all children where they are and taking them where they need to be. We will no longer focus solely on closing gaps for students without basic skills—but will focus on closing gaps for all students, including those at the top of their class who need challenges. We will bring back vocational programs, academically advanced programs—whatever all students need.
• Regarding school discipline, students who disrupt classes and violate school rules will be removed to alternative programs without costly litigation that ties the hands of schools, adds disrespect for educators, and damages opportunities for all students. We will become more savvy about drop out prevention and discipline policies. Everyone outside the chattering classes knows that these behavioral issues are the elephant in the public education room. Disruption and time away from learning are key reasons that parents opt out and choose home or private schooling. Parents want their children to learn—not to waste time. Parents want teachers to teach—not face endless distractions. We will get honest about this.
• Teachers will no longer be scorned. As a former teacher, I find the current climate painful. We will rebuild trust between schools and families. With basic respect and trust, reform efforts will no longer flounder. We will treat educators as the experts they are. In my experience, most of them are good enough. We will honor their profession, whether through higher pay, creative training and mentoring, quick and efficient removal of the few who are not up to par, paperwork burden relief, even apples for the teacher, or whatever.
• We will allow only bureaucratic requirements that directly improve teaching and learning, and will trash all others.
• We will demand that parents play their part. Schools cannot educate children alone. Parents must be positive partners to help their children and support the schools. We will change laws that do the opposite, that treat parents as consumers of services and passive participants in improving outcomes, and even require some to advocate for children against the schools! We will see that parents help children with schoolwork, feed and clothe children appropriately, and put them to bed at night. Common sense will return to center stage.

Enough said. You get the idea. Before long, policies for the good of all children will return to public education. Schools will again be not just for other people’s children. I’d predict that within a year, our schools would be fixed, even in the inner cities–kids would learn, discipline would be in place, teachers would have time to teach, and the sun would shine upon us all.

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman is a lawyer, speaker, consultant, and author, and an expert in public education law. For more than 30 years, Miriam has worked with educators, parents, policy makers, and citizens to deal with the legal requirements which impact schools. Miriam translates complex legalese into plain English, and focuses on good preventive practices. For more information, visit her website, www.schoollawpro.com.

The post Miriam K Freedman: One Radical Idea to Fix Public Schools appeared first on Education News.

Miriam K. Freedman

Why me? A bit of history may explain. I came from Holland to America on an ocean liner when I was in 4th grade. After one week at sea, we sailed through New York harbor, past the Statue of Liberty, to Hoboken, New Jersey. Many years before ESL or bilingual education, I quickly learned English through, what’s now called, total immersion. I’ve been grateful that my teacher, Mrs. Bell, did not speak Dutch—I had to speak English!

I soon participated in my first Thanksgiving, had turkey with stuffing, finished elementary school, became a citizen, graduated from high school and college, and became a teacher. Through it all, public schools were the gateway to our wonderful country. I loved them then and do so now.

After my teaching career, I became a lawyer and have worked in public education for more than 30 years—as a hearing officer for special education disputes, an attorney representing public schools, and an author, speaker, consultant, and reformer. We need caring and committed people to work for concrete, real world, research-based solutions for all children in our schools.

Yet, amazingly, with all the talk about school reform today, special education is generally left on the back burner. People say, “We can’t touch that. It’s ‘legal.’” Well, I believe we can and we need to do just that to improve it—now. For starters, we need to:

• Change its adversarial climate and rebuild trust. We need to change the premise of this law—that parents and schools are not on the same page and that parents, as the law’s enforcers, need to advocate FOR their child AGAINST their school. Schools so divided cannot long endure well.
• Focus on teaching and learning, not winning and burdensome paperwork and documentation. 13-14% of our students depend on that!
• Be sure that the $110 billion per year that we spend to educate students with disabilities is smartly spent. Yes, that’s $110,000,000,000!
• Implement only policies and practices that actually help children learn. Cut the paperwork!

Do you agree? Disagree? Not sure?

We know that our public schools are our future. As a proud product of them who believes in public education deeply, I feel called upon to sound the alarm when parts are broken and need fixing. We have generations behind us who need that American dream, as it was given to us. I welcome you in this effort. Together, we can work to fix this broken system.

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman is a lawyer, speaker, consultant, and author, and an expert in public education law. For more than 30 years, Miriam has worked with educators, parents, policy makers, and citizens to deal with the legal requirements which impact schools. Miriam translates complex legalese into plain English, and focuses on good preventive practices. For more information, visit her website, www.schoollawpro.com.

The post Miriam K Freedman: Let’s Prioritize Special Education Reform appeared first on Education News.