Member Comments are provided by individuals and reflect their personal opinions only. Under NO circumstances should you act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum. ALWAYS check with your personal physician before taking any action regarding your health! MedHelp International and our partners, sponsors and affiliates have no obligation to monitor any comments posted on this site, or the content and/or accuracy of such exchanges. MedHelp International does not endorse the views of any user.
Autism Community
|
Special Report: District Shares Struggles with Special Education - Blame the Parents Edition
by lsautism, Nov 29, 2008 10:16AM
Special Report: District Shares Struggles with Special Education - Blame the Parents Edition
November 28, 2008
By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com/2008/11/special-report-district-shares.html
We recently came across an article published on BerksMontNews.com on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 titled, "District Shares Struggles with Special Education."
The article was about a school board, for Exeter Township School District in Reading, Pennsylvania, that decided to approve 3 settlements the school district had wanted to enter into with parents and to publicize certain information about those agreements; namely, the dollar amounts of the agreements - and not much else.
Since nothing in policy dictates that this information cannot be made available to the public, the district apparantly felt the need to "expose" to taxpayers how much of their money is being "wasted" ostensibly because of "frivolous parental demands."
Russell Diesinger, who is vice president of Exeter's board of school directors - who also voted "no" twice on the settlement agreements - was quoted as saying he "believe[s] these folks that pay their taxes and are concerned about where tax money goes need to be made aware of the demands that are put on these district [sic] by these special education suits."
He went on to add, "I will tell you these people do the best they can in very difficult situations meeting the needs of children of great need," Diesinger said. "Unfortunately, the courts don't view it that way. The courts look for whatever reason there is and we end up in these settlements. Unfortunately, it costs the taxpayers in this community a lot of money."
Superintendent Linton added, "These are federal laws passed down by the state and the state tells us what to do. We have very little control over these issues."
The district is making some pretty powerful statements, so let's just "roll them around" for a little bit and see if those claims have merit.
First, yes, Due Process hearings can be costly, in both time, money and resources, and EVERYONE should be concerned any time a Due Process Hearing is requested.
And second, yes, there ARE federal and state laws that specifically lay out a districts' obligations to educate children with disabilities.
Those are two undisputed facts.
But what about the other claims the district has made?
For one thing, this article doesn't indicate whether the DISTRICT brought these suits against the parents or if the parents felt they had no choice but to bring the suits against the district.
Because, believe it or not, districts DO frequently file for due process, usually to intimidate and/or bully the parents into doing something the district wants, but the parents don't want (for example, to agree to a placement the parents don't feel is appropriate, or to agree to discontinue therapies or services they'd really rather not).
And if a parent has filed, it's not likely over something frivolous - but something important, like denials for needed services or violations of federal and/or state laws. Because unlike what the district would like the public to believe, retaining an attorney is NOT cheap, and representing yourself pro se is NOT easy. I can assure
you of that from experience.
You wouldn't know it from reading this article, though, and that's what districts like these count count on: a lack of general knowledge about special education law and the special education protections under those laws, including the right to Due Pocess whenever "disagreements" cannot be resolved through the IEP process
for whatever reason.
But would the picture change ever-so-slightly when it's the district who is willfully spending tax dollars to take parents to Due Process?
Additionally, school districts traditionally keep attorneys ON RETAINER, at TAXPAYER EXPENSE, just in case a parent EVER has the audacity to challenge the district through due process, regardless if it is the school district or the parent making the due process hearing request, rather than HIRE ATTORNEYS ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY whenever a due process is requested.
In essence, tax dollars are ALREADY being wasted on attorney fees regardless of whether there is an active or pending due process case because the district is already paying to use an attorney.
The questions then are as follows:
"Does Exeter School District keep an attorney on retainer for Due Process cases? How much money has Exeter School district spent on attorneys' fees?"
If the district has ever used the services of an attorney for a due process hearing, then they are the ones "wasting taxpayer dollars"; they are the hypocrites. Because as we understand it, a school district doesn't HAVE to hire an attorney to represent it, rather it chooses to do so; a district can represent itself without legal
counsel (pro se) just as PARENTS may represent themselves without legal counsel.
Who, then, are they to criticize parents - who must pay for their attorney fees generally out of their own pockets, not the districts or taxpayers, and in advance, that's if they can even AFFORD to hire an attorney - for "wasting taxpayer dollars" when the districts are the ones who must hire and/or retain the services of an attorney - using taxpayer dollars - for "potential" and/or realized services?
November 28, 2008
By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com/2008/11/special-report-district-shares.html
We recently came across an article published on BerksMontNews.com on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 titled, "District Shares Struggles with Special Education."
The article was about a school board, for Exeter Township School District in Reading, Pennsylvania, that decided to approve 3 settlements the school district had wanted to enter into with parents and to publicize certain information about those agreements; namely, the dollar amounts of the agreements - and not much else.
Since nothing in policy dictates that this information cannot be made available to the public, the district apparantly felt the need to "expose" to taxpayers how much of their money is being "wasted" ostensibly because of "frivolous parental demands."
Russell Diesinger, who is vice president of Exeter's board of school directors - who also voted "no" twice on the settlement agreements - was quoted as saying he "believe[s] these folks that pay their taxes and are concerned about where tax money goes need to be made aware of the demands that are put on these district [sic] by these special education suits."
He went on to add, "I will tell you these people do the best they can in very difficult situations meeting the needs of children of great need," Diesinger said. "Unfortunately, the courts don't view it that way. The courts look for whatever reason there is and we end up in these settlements. Unfortunately, it costs the taxpayers in this community a lot of money."
Superintendent Linton added, "These are federal laws passed down by the state and the state tells us what to do. We have very little control over these issues."
The district is making some pretty powerful statements, so let's just "roll them around" for a little bit and see if those claims have merit.
First, yes, Due Process hearings can be costly, in both time, money and resources, and EVERYONE should be concerned any time a Due Process Hearing is requested.
And second, yes, there ARE federal and state laws that specifically lay out a districts' obligations to educate children with disabilities.
Those are two undisputed facts.
But what about the other claims the district has made?
For one thing, this article doesn't indicate whether the DISTRICT brought these suits against the parents or if the parents felt they had no choice but to bring the suits against the district.
Because, believe it or not, districts DO frequently file for due process, usually to intimidate and/or bully the parents into doing something the district wants, but the parents don't want (for example, to agree to a placement the parents don't feel is appropriate, or to agree to discontinue therapies or services they'd really rather not).
And if a parent has filed, it's not likely over something frivolous - but something important, like denials for needed services or violations of federal and/or state laws. Because unlike what the district would like the public to believe, retaining an attorney is NOT cheap, and representing yourself pro se is NOT easy. I can assure
you of that from experience.
You wouldn't know it from reading this article, though, and that's what districts like these count count on: a lack of general knowledge about special education law and the special education protections under those laws, including the right to Due Pocess whenever "disagreements" cannot be resolved through the IEP process
for whatever reason.
But would the picture change ever-so-slightly when it's the district who is willfully spending tax dollars to take parents to Due Process?
Additionally, school districts traditionally keep attorneys ON RETAINER, at TAXPAYER EXPENSE, just in case a parent EVER has the audacity to challenge the district through due process, regardless if it is the school district or the parent making the due process hearing request, rather than HIRE ATTORNEYS ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY whenever a due process is requested.
In essence, tax dollars are ALREADY being wasted on attorney fees regardless of whether there is an active or pending due process case because the district is already paying to use an attorney.
The questions then are as follows:
"Does Exeter School District keep an attorney on retainer for Due Process cases? How much money has Exeter School district spent on attorneys' fees?"
If the district has ever used the services of an attorney for a due process hearing, then they are the ones "wasting taxpayer dollars"; they are the hypocrites. Because as we understand it, a school district doesn't HAVE to hire an attorney to represent it, rather it chooses to do so; a district can represent itself without legal
counsel (pro se) just as PARENTS may represent themselves without legal counsel.
Who, then, are they to criticize parents - who must pay for their attorney fees generally out of their own pockets, not the districts or taxpayers, and in advance, that's if they can even AFFORD to hire an attorney - for "wasting taxpayer dollars" when the districts are the ones who must hire and/or retain the services of an attorney - using taxpayer dollars - for "potential" and/or realized services?
Post Comment
