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
|
Blame Edition Part II
by lsautism, Nov 29, 2008 10:17AM
Next question:
"Has the district EVER requested due process and how many have they requested?" If they have made a request even ONCE, they are again being hypocritical because there are other avenues that could be explored, like facilitated IEP's and mediation, that cost the taxpayer NOTHING.
Another question:
"Is it fiscally more expensive to go through Due Process and/or agree to settlements than to provide the requested services, OR would it be more cost efficient and/or fiscally responsible (in time, money, and resources) to provide those requested services when first asked to do so?"
Attorneys fees are not cheap. How much is the district, and therefore taxpayers, paying those attorneys anyway? How much would it cost to provide the services the parents want? Which is less expensive - and less problematic - in the long run?
Next, "Why did the district want to settle ANY of these cases in the first place?"
"If the district is so innocent and did nothing wrong, but are simply victims of an "unfair system" which keeps them "enslaved" by "unreasonable laws" - why didn't they allow the due process to move forward?"
It's common knowledge in the educational field that Due Process cases are found traditionally more IN districts' favor and AGAINST parents' than vice versa in PA and in many other states.
Some hearing officers even have a history of ruling much more favorably for districts than others, depending upon the hearing officer and the districts' "connections"- which is why advocates like me are DEMANDING changes in how the Office for Dispute Resolution operates.
So why did the district want to settle?
Unless they weren't as innocent as they claimed.
If the hearing officer found in the district's favor (and, again, the odds were most likely IN their favor) it would most likely have been CHEAPER than agreeing to settle with the parents, because most settlement agreements are written in such a way that districts pay all attorneys fees, including those of the parents, in addition to the "payoff" amount.
Another question to consider:
"Who proposed those settlements in the first place?"
Usually it's not the parents' attorneys or the parents' themselves if represented pro se that ask for a settlement - but rather school districts in general traditionally offer to settle ONLY the cases they feel they CANNOT win - which is a strong indicator, if not outright admission, that they have violated federal and/or state laws
in some way.
Districts also LIKE settlements because almost ALL of them are ONLY offered with the proviso that the parents must sign a confidentiality waiver which says THEY AGREE NOT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR SITUATION FURTHER.
This way districts can continue to violate the same laws or deny the same services to others that was the "CAUSE" of the Due Process in the first place.
Then the district plays Russian Roulette again until and/or if called out by another parent. And then they offer to settle again. And again. And again.
And they can get away with it. Because parents' voices are effectively stifled.
This is why districts are able to get away with abuse of their power -because if the parents say anything, then THEY have violated the settlement agreement and can/will lose everything they may have gained. Including the "settlement dollar amount."
I don't know about you, but I'm a little tired of the bias being perpetuated against us "overbearing parents who expect miracles from children who have 'no future', but to be a further drain on society's limited resources," yet the "poor district" has to legally "do everything they can for us" because federal and state laws SAY they
have to, and they know they're providing "everything they can for us" because THEY SAID SO.
And we should be able to trust them, right? Because they'd NEVER lie to us, they'd never, ever, ever do anything illegal. Really, why would they? They're educators and the future of society, nay, the very world, is on their shoulders.
They're trying soooo hard, after all, giving their all, but our children are just virtually impossible to work with. And their parents? Well, they're even WORSE.
Not to mention these poor districts just don't have the money to offer the best services possible, as we ungrateful parents demand, all the while hinting that it's because of the "parents' delusions about their child, and their child's 'abilities' (or rather DIS-abilities) and our inability to accept reality."
Yet they fail to mention that not only do they receive more money from the government for special education students so they CAN provide them with "extra, special services," but also the fact that most services (expenses) could be and most likely ARE reimbursed in full to the districts through the child's Medicaid - which the child most likely receives, as they qualify because of their disability.
The districts also fail to mention that the money they receive for special education doesn't have to be "accounted for." What that means is that the money doesn't have to be designated or remain in its own "fiscal category" or "account"; monies received for "special education," including insurance payments to the best of our knowledge and experience, are permitted to be transferred into a school's general education fund.
That GENERAL FUND is just as it sounds; monies that can be used on whatever a district wants, even if it's astro-turf, band instruments, or football uniforms, and not necessarily the special education services they'd received the monies for.
So the argument that the "funds just aren't there," or "we don't have the money" are automatically suspect, not for the fact that the money isn't or wasn't there to begin with, but that it was and should be.
Nope, we PARENTS are causing TAXPAYERS and SCHOOLS undue financial hardship every time a due process request is made. Everyone else is just an innocent by-stander.
And ya know, parents are just rushing left and right to make these "demands" on schools right away. That's why there's just soooo many due process hearings.
How many due process cases are heard a year again?
According to the Office of Dispute Resolution, the agency responsible for handling Due Process cases in PA, 822 requests were filed in PA from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 , but only 663 requests in the whole state were heard.
Let me repeat that: 663 requests were heard in the WHOLE ENTIRE STATE in a single year.
(http://odr.pattan.net/files/ODRStats/cum_07_08_dp.pdf)
"Has the district EVER requested due process and how many have they requested?" If they have made a request even ONCE, they are again being hypocritical because there are other avenues that could be explored, like facilitated IEP's and mediation, that cost the taxpayer NOTHING.
Another question:
"Is it fiscally more expensive to go through Due Process and/or agree to settlements than to provide the requested services, OR would it be more cost efficient and/or fiscally responsible (in time, money, and resources) to provide those requested services when first asked to do so?"
Attorneys fees are not cheap. How much is the district, and therefore taxpayers, paying those attorneys anyway? How much would it cost to provide the services the parents want? Which is less expensive - and less problematic - in the long run?
Next, "Why did the district want to settle ANY of these cases in the first place?"
"If the district is so innocent and did nothing wrong, but are simply victims of an "unfair system" which keeps them "enslaved" by "unreasonable laws" - why didn't they allow the due process to move forward?"
It's common knowledge in the educational field that Due Process cases are found traditionally more IN districts' favor and AGAINST parents' than vice versa in PA and in many other states.
Some hearing officers even have a history of ruling much more favorably for districts than others, depending upon the hearing officer and the districts' "connections"- which is why advocates like me are DEMANDING changes in how the Office for Dispute Resolution operates.
So why did the district want to settle?
Unless they weren't as innocent as they claimed.
If the hearing officer found in the district's favor (and, again, the odds were most likely IN their favor) it would most likely have been CHEAPER than agreeing to settle with the parents, because most settlement agreements are written in such a way that districts pay all attorneys fees, including those of the parents, in addition to the "payoff" amount.
Another question to consider:
"Who proposed those settlements in the first place?"
Usually it's not the parents' attorneys or the parents' themselves if represented pro se that ask for a settlement - but rather school districts in general traditionally offer to settle ONLY the cases they feel they CANNOT win - which is a strong indicator, if not outright admission, that they have violated federal and/or state laws
in some way.
Districts also LIKE settlements because almost ALL of them are ONLY offered with the proviso that the parents must sign a confidentiality waiver which says THEY AGREE NOT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR SITUATION FURTHER.
This way districts can continue to violate the same laws or deny the same services to others that was the "CAUSE" of the Due Process in the first place.
Then the district plays Russian Roulette again until and/or if called out by another parent. And then they offer to settle again. And again. And again.
And they can get away with it. Because parents' voices are effectively stifled.
This is why districts are able to get away with abuse of their power -because if the parents say anything, then THEY have violated the settlement agreement and can/will lose everything they may have gained. Including the "settlement dollar amount."
I don't know about you, but I'm a little tired of the bias being perpetuated against us "overbearing parents who expect miracles from children who have 'no future', but to be a further drain on society's limited resources," yet the "poor district" has to legally "do everything they can for us" because federal and state laws SAY they
have to, and they know they're providing "everything they can for us" because THEY SAID SO.
And we should be able to trust them, right? Because they'd NEVER lie to us, they'd never, ever, ever do anything illegal. Really, why would they? They're educators and the future of society, nay, the very world, is on their shoulders.
They're trying soooo hard, after all, giving their all, but our children are just virtually impossible to work with. And their parents? Well, they're even WORSE.
Not to mention these poor districts just don't have the money to offer the best services possible, as we ungrateful parents demand, all the while hinting that it's because of the "parents' delusions about their child, and their child's 'abilities' (or rather DIS-abilities) and our inability to accept reality."
Yet they fail to mention that not only do they receive more money from the government for special education students so they CAN provide them with "extra, special services," but also the fact that most services (expenses) could be and most likely ARE reimbursed in full to the districts through the child's Medicaid - which the child most likely receives, as they qualify because of their disability.
The districts also fail to mention that the money they receive for special education doesn't have to be "accounted for." What that means is that the money doesn't have to be designated or remain in its own "fiscal category" or "account"; monies received for "special education," including insurance payments to the best of our knowledge and experience, are permitted to be transferred into a school's general education fund.
That GENERAL FUND is just as it sounds; monies that can be used on whatever a district wants, even if it's astro-turf, band instruments, or football uniforms, and not necessarily the special education services they'd received the monies for.
So the argument that the "funds just aren't there," or "we don't have the money" are automatically suspect, not for the fact that the money isn't or wasn't there to begin with, but that it was and should be.
Nope, we PARENTS are causing TAXPAYERS and SCHOOLS undue financial hardship every time a due process request is made. Everyone else is just an innocent by-stander.
And ya know, parents are just rushing left and right to make these "demands" on schools right away. That's why there's just soooo many due process hearings.
How many due process cases are heard a year again?
According to the Office of Dispute Resolution, the agency responsible for handling Due Process cases in PA, 822 requests were filed in PA from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 , but only 663 requests in the whole state were heard.
Let me repeat that: 663 requests were heard in the WHOLE ENTIRE STATE in a single year.
(http://odr.pattan.net/files/ODRStats/cum_07_08_dp.pdf)
Post Comment
