Bump and update: A lot more about the incestuous relationship between the school district and local news coverage appeared in the last couple of days.
A disturbing issue arises from this email. Zakh is a juvenile, a minor. This anchor/reporter alleges that "very reliable sources" gave him federally protected, privileged medical and education information about this boy. Given this disturbing inference, I contacted the reporter myself...And a torrent of "explanations" from said reporter (whom I presume to be Darren Bobb) ensues, including an abusurd statement that his "very reliable sources" amounted to Google. It's quite long and you should read the whole thing from the horse's mouth. But this part seized my attention:
I note here for the benefit of the reader that according to Carole Reynolds and other sources, the reporter's wife is a special-education teacher in the district. The reporter himself, as he notes, has been working in that capacity in Fort Smith for 25 years. He states emphatically in another forum that he did not get any information from his wife.
Need I observe that it is an obvious conflict of interest for this reporter to be involved in this story?
It leads to such confusion. Should I now assume he's lying about having the information he claimed to have in his email, lying about where he got it or some of each?
And of course, the same confusion - due to this very conflict of interest between school district and media - now applies to any statements made by the school. One is confused as from where the information comes, and what "confidentiality" means when it's cited to forestall questions.
It's really quite difficult to respect an authority that does not behave respectably. Oddly enough, it goes to character.
Meanwhile, in the realm of reality where cause follows effect:
"PRESS RELEASE: A Due Process Hearing Complaint against the Fort Smith School District has been lodged with the Arkansas Department of Education regarding the District's failure to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education for Zakh and the District's circumvention of the IDEA. We are currently awaiting the assignment ...of an Impartial Hearing Officer and the scheduling date for the Due Process Hearing which the ADE should be issuing today."
Popcorn?
---original post follows---
Autistics and small towns do not seem to mix well. I'd rather expect that some degree of plain old xenophobia is part of the reaction to Zakhqurey Price and his large family.
I've seen similar things. Hell, I grew up as a similar percieved thing, which explains part of my interest in the case. Other parents and adult autistic-spectrum people are interested because they have gone through it on behalf of a child. We've gone through both.
With the grace of God and a good lawyer, it may soon be possible to move the whole family to a jurisdiction where the term Free and Appropriate Public Education is clearly understood.
The following is cross-posted from the Southwest Times Record's facebook page, one of dozens from all over the world from people who are quite shocked to see that this story is not getting any local coverage.
There's also a new topic started at channel five, asking about the redaction of their coverage. (Bets on how long that stays up?)
I'm an independent journalist and my wife is a former Special Ed Teacher. We are both shocked at the lapses in professional standards here. From the record, it appears that local "personality" Daren Bobb of channel 5 has somehow inserted himself into the story.
Look up your old Journo 101 texts. This is a large No-No. ...That would be quite aside from the possibility that Bobb might be wittingly or unwittingly furthering a cover-up of a series of actions that from an outside perspective, look very much as if they are in furtherance of illegal actions. Not just "violations of professional standards" - although they are. Blatantly so. I could make a case for this amounting to a civil rights violation.
I mean, conspiracy to create circumstances that permit the false imprisonment of a child in order to fraudulently place this (expensive) child on the Medicaid budget? I think it would be possible to argue that position well enough to justify an investigation to determine the facts of the matter.
My wife (special ed teacher of 20 years) wrote a detailed comment about the legal reality of special ed on the linked article.
This is the sort of thing that makes each and every person at the school who participated in this travesty personally and collectively liable, along with the school district (and you, the taxpayer) for amounts that could easily end up in the millions. Easily. It's happened before, with far less provocation.
And I would have thought you would have been curious when the initial story run on channel 5 simply vanished, along with the comment threads.
Did they not mention to you in the first year of journalism that when some fat cat says, "nothing to see here, move along now," there is something to see, and you only move along if you don't have your camera?
Now. How often do local newspapers ever get to participate in a suddenly breaking national story?
Ladies and gentlemen - this is YOUR Sarah Palin.
My wife commented on my earlier story about Zakh's situation with the following, which I referred to above.
Wampus 12:28 PM
This case is amazing in so many ways. I was a special ed. teacher for 20 years... basically from its inception, in the U.S. any way. It's an odd beast, special ed. It is entirely based upon legal action. It began when 10 moms of children with Down's Syndrome wanted their kids to be allowed to go to school... they sued for the right, and won. A bazillion law suits later, we have special ed, as it is known in the U.S. Virtually every development of special ed policy, procedure, ideology, etc, has been a result of legal action.
That being said, this case shows so many abuses... sigh...
The standard of confidentiality in regards to a special ed. student and information about them is as strict as that of a medical dr's... so some reporter having access to that information is unbelievable! The child, the guardians, are supposed to have absolute control over who has access to that information. Within the school setting, the special ed. teacher is supposed to guard that information. Only personel who provide DIRECT services to the student are to be given information regarding that student. And THEY are to log in, so as to keep a record of who knows what, when... One simply does not have casual conversation regarding these issues... In fact, in order for a school to get a special ed. file (if a student moves, for example) they must obtain written permission from the guardian. And the 'sending school' cannot even confirm whether or not a particular child IS classified as special ed, without this written document.
Now, the excuse that this child has only been in the school for 3 months, as reason for denying appropriate services is INSANE. When a student moves to a new school, that school has (legally speaking) ZERO time to implement a "temporary" IEP, and 30 calendar days to complete any needed information gathering, WHILE providing services to the student, at which point (within 30 calendar days) they must hold a full, complete IEP, and provide the services determined by that IEP immediately. "Waiting" is failure to provide a free appropriate public education, and is a huge NO NO.
Now, as to the idea that this child's label matters... whether or not he has been diagnosed with this or that or nothing at all, completely irrelevant as far as schooling goes. Diagnoses are medical. They may or may not effect school stuff. The label the school has for him (0/d i think?) is also irrelevant! The point to labeling a child in school is only for the purpose of obtaining funding. It in NO way affects the placement or services the school provides. Once a child is deemed to be 'disabled'... once they have a label (ANY label).... the IEP process determines... FIRST what are the needs of this child... SECOND what supports does the child NEED to have success in the realm of school... (academic, social, behavioral, yadda yadda... all around success) Third, how are we going to provide that support... fourth, what else can we do to be of help (related services) and LAST... based upon the needs and the plan for meeting those needs... WHERE will we provide those supports....
None of this is determined by the label, OR by the cost, OR by what's available at the school... that's all details to be hashed out later...
So, this school appears to have it wrong in every possible way!
sigh
it makes me tired.
That being said, this case shows so many abuses... sigh...
The standard of confidentiality in regards to a special ed. student and information about them is as strict as that of a medical dr's... so some reporter having access to that information is unbelievable! The child, the guardians, are supposed to have absolute control over who has access to that information. Within the school setting, the special ed. teacher is supposed to guard that information. Only personel who provide DIRECT services to the student are to be given information regarding that student. And THEY are to log in, so as to keep a record of who knows what, when... One simply does not have casual conversation regarding these issues... In fact, in order for a school to get a special ed. file (if a student moves, for example) they must obtain written permission from the guardian. And the 'sending school' cannot even confirm whether or not a particular child IS classified as special ed, without this written document.
Now, the excuse that this child has only been in the school for 3 months, as reason for denying appropriate services is INSANE. When a student moves to a new school, that school has (legally speaking) ZERO time to implement a "temporary" IEP, and 30 calendar days to complete any needed information gathering, WHILE providing services to the student, at which point (within 30 calendar days) they must hold a full, complete IEP, and provide the services determined by that IEP immediately. "Waiting" is failure to provide a free appropriate public education, and is a huge NO NO.
Now, as to the idea that this child's label matters... whether or not he has been diagnosed with this or that or nothing at all, completely irrelevant as far as schooling goes. Diagnoses are medical. They may or may not effect school stuff. The label the school has for him (0/d i think?) is also irrelevant! The point to labeling a child in school is only for the purpose of obtaining funding. It in NO way affects the placement or services the school provides. Once a child is deemed to be 'disabled'... once they have a label (ANY label).... the IEP process determines... FIRST what are the needs of this child... SECOND what supports does the child NEED to have success in the realm of school... (academic, social, behavioral, yadda yadda... all around success) Third, how are we going to provide that support... fourth, what else can we do to be of help (related services) and LAST... based upon the needs and the plan for meeting those needs... WHERE will we provide those supports....
None of this is determined by the label, OR by the cost, OR by what's available at the school... that's all details to be hashed out later...
So, this school appears to have it wrong in every possible way!
sigh
it makes me tired.
19 comments:
Thank You for sharing this ...
I guess 5news talkback doesn't like the community to be informed!
Shame of Ft Smith's local media .. They must think of us as fools and slaves..
The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager
Did you hear/read about the hate mail & posts that Carole the grandmother is getting from -- another autism group?! Claiming she's actually loaded and is bilking us for the price of Zakh's legal fees. One of the admins of Carole's website is stepping down because he and his family are getting threats.
Bluejay
I'd heard something to that effect but haven't seen many specifics.
Which group would that be? And, of course, threats of that nature should be forwarded to the authorities. It will certainly underline the seriousness of the matter.
Age of Autism is apparently the source of the fraud accusations.
more here
"Wow," to all that has occurred for this family, Zakh, and the schools. I speak as a mother of an 18 yr. old son with autism and a 25 yr. old daughter with Down Syndrome. I also work in the public school system with students with special needs. I obviously have seen both sides of stories such as these.
If you have a child with special needs, it is a given you have had to deal with difficulties getting your child services you felt they needed, at one point or another.
I have also taken into my home, a child with whom I worked, who had been institutionalized multiple times, and placed in a special class for students with ED. He had also been aggressive to me and his teachers in the ED classrom, and administrators at the school he was attending.
It is not always easy to discern what the trigger for a child's behavior is, and sometimes you end up just dealing with an aggressive behavior and have to figure out why the behavior occurred later. It is a learning process for educators and children. If I remember correctly from my reading of your blog, Zahk had been in an institution for 2.5 years. I agree he should have been put on a behavior plan to help with his behavior. However, even with a plan in place, a child can become aggressive or his/her behavior can still escalate over minor issues.
The child I took into my home as a 12 yr. old boy with ED had also been charged with assault and arrested on several occasions. Sometimes this helped his family get the services that were needed, or documented he had needs greater than his home situation could handle.
The schools are asked to educate and handle the emotional needs of ALL children in their care. That is a big job. Not only are they trying to cope with Zakh's issues, but the issues of all the students in his classroom and school.
I see the educators who deal with my own children as human beings who will make mistakes. I don't always handle every situation that pops up with the children I work with currently, in a perfect manner. Dealing with the children with special needs and ED is very stressful. It also has it rewards.
I hate to see how this situation has deteriorated.
I also hate to hear the educators always being bashed. I want the best for all children and feel like MOST educators have that same goal in mind.
I wish the best to all involved.
By the way, Arkansas is abbreviated as AR. AK is Alaska.
Best regards to all,
Bev
@KSOL thanks - checking that out
@Bev Luck: I'm more than usually aware of the challenges. And I'm well aware that teachers and administrators are human and therefore imperfect.
However, you are presuming that they are attempting to do their job in good conscience, while handicapped by lack of training, poor legal understanding and heavy class loads.
And if this had been the first such "misunderstanding," I'd think that too. But unless I misremember, this is the third - and we are not counting the involuntary (and apparently mistaken, if not malicious) institutionalization.
To me, the whole thing is suggestive of an authoritarian response to "the wrong sorts of people." And children who cannot be cowed into obedience - well, they tend to be the target of administrators and teachers who's primary tool is fear.
Of course, that could just be MY experience. Things like that aren't supposed to happen these days.
Mind you, the local media coverup does tend to suggest that perhaps the Enlightement has skipped Ft. Smith, ASS.
...did I get the state code right this time? It's so difficult to keep these things in my head.
Bob,
You are correct. I am presuming that the educators are acting in good conscious. I work in a school system right outside of Ft. Smith, and the educators I have come in contact with act in the same manner.
I think it is presumptuous to assume the educators have a lack of training. It was my understanding that the former situation which occurred was in a classroom with 8 total children or 8 children other than Zahk.
The child I had in my home this past year, who had a diagnosis of ED, would get on the bus he rode and would explode at being asked to buckle his seat belt. He was arrested multiple times due to his violent behavior. He had also run away from the school building when didn't want to do a task at school. He has also thrown desks, hit at people, disrupted the classroom.
He has been institutionalized multiple times. As far as I am aware, it is up to the institution to develop a behavior plan that works for the child, when they leave a facility and enter their new school setting. The people in the institution (and Zakh had been there 2.5 years if I am not mistaken) have become the experts regarding this child.
It is of question to me, what more do you want the schools to do? How much would you endure if you were being hit or had furniture coming your way? I agree there is an authoritarian response, but feel it might be necessary in order to protect all involved, including the other children in the classroom and the educators.
I would love to hear more about your comment of the local media coverup. What are they covering up? Please expound on this point.
Feel free to abbreviate the state of Arkansas in any manner that amuses you.
The idea that Fort Smith has been bypassed in regards to enlightenment, is subjective. You are more than welcome to your opinion.
I tend to view this situation differently, unless you are able to tell me what the media is covering up.
Sincerely,
Bev
"Bob,
You are correct. I am presuming that the educators are acting in good conscious. I work in a school system right outside of Ft. Smith, and the educators I have come in contact with act in the same manner."
Indeed? So, you consider direct, documented violations of IDEA to be "acting in good conscience?" Seriously? The law is extremely clear on the issues of FAPE and compliance. As a teacher with ANY child with an IEP in your classroom, it would be very much in your interest to be familiar with the law, because you are, in fact, responsible for implimenting the IEP as written. Each and every time.
"I think it is presumptuous to assume the educators have a lack of training."
Not at all. My wife is an expert in this matter. Had they been properly trained, this situation would not have evolved as it has done. Period. It's not just the *particular* issue, it's the pattern. Her view of the matter is Here.
It was my understanding that the former situation which occurred was in a classroom with 8 total children or 8 children other than Zahk."
Indeed. A classroom intended for behaviour issues. One expects people entrusted with such children to be trained to react to them. One would expect them to have an IEP and a behaviour plan. One would expect a child who has a recommendation for a transitional aide to have an aide.
And yet you "presume competence." My, you are a charitable person. Or you have particularly low professional standards.
"The child I had in my home this past year, who had a diagnosis of ED, would get on the bus he rode and would explode at being asked to buckle his seat belt." ...and your point would be?
" He was arrested multiple times due to his violent behavior. "
...and your point would be? I'm sure that improved his attitude no end, and contributed to him integrating into society in a productive and meaningful way. Why, with enogh arrests, perhaps he will be cured entirely.
"He had also run away from the school building when didn't want to do a task at school. He has also thrown desks, hit at people, disrupted the classroom.
He has been institutionalized multiple times."
Yes, no doubt the cases here are identical, and if this child was treated in this way - under your care - well, Zach should be too. because, well, you wouldn't wish to be seen as incompetent, or making excuses for any poor outcomes.
" As far as I am aware, it is up to the institution to develop a behavior plan that works for the child, when they leave a facility and enter their new school setting. The people in the institution (and Zakh had been there 2.5 years if I am not mistaken) have become the experts regarding this child."
No. It's not the "institution's responsibility." the law is very clear on this point.
It is the school district's responsibility to develop an IEP and if required, a behaviour plan for that child. And by law, a TEMPORARY IEP must be in place on the day the child starts, and there is 30 days to develop and implement the proper IEP.
Federal law. Go look it up.
"It is of question to me, what more do you want the schools to do?"
Comply with the law. I want them to comply with the law. Oh, and actually commit an act or two of education along the way, but at the very least, complying with the law seems a not-unreasonable expectation.
...continued next comment...
"How much would you endure if you were being hit or had furniture coming your way?"
...if you don't like dealing with horseshit, don't keep horses. If you cannot cope with children, even the unruly ones, without violence or excuses, don't become a teacher.
" I agree there is an authoritarian response, but feel it might be necessary in order to protect all involved, including the other children in the classroom and the educators."
Oh, my, dear child, werehever shall I begin with such an un-selfaware piece of perp-apologetics?
How about this: Authorities who ignore the laws are NOT authorities. The laws are there in order to secure the safe and effective education of children.
There are trainings and techniques for dealing with ED and other children who's disability includes the risk of potential violence.
One way we achieve this is through an IEP and behaviour plan for dealing with situations before the become incidents.
"I would love to hear more about your comment of the local media coverup. What are they covering up? Please expound on this point."
...that's been widely covered, including my previous article. The initial story disappeared off channel five, no other media there seems to be covering it, and all comments on media sites are deleted. (Save for the odd and damming screen capture here and there.)
So, of the two of us, given the oddity of you showing up on my site to tender your gentle, concerned bewilderment, I would imagine you'd know better than I what's being covered up. I at least presume you have a very shrewd idea who to ask that question. So why don't you. :>
"Feel free to abbreviate the state of Arkansas in any manner that amuses you. "
Oh, I do. And you are such a wonderful ambassador for the state. It's caused me to deeply regret my casual mistakes and transgressive sarcasm.
"The idea that Fort Smith has been bypassed in regards to enlightenment, is subjective. You are more than welcome to your opinion."
Respect for the rule of law is a rather basic tenant of "The Enlightenment."
Authoritarian rule by well connected city bosses - that's fudalism. So, I think my opinion is one informed by political science. You are, of course welcome to the one somebody told you should have.
"I tend to view this situation differently, unless you are able to tell me what the media is covering up."
Oh, of course. THAT's a reasonable standard. I'm sure you think you have done a wonderful job of raising doubts about this whole matter. And you are *entitled* to that opinion, Bev.
But we do have a term for such efforts. "Concern troll." And as trolls go, well... I've seen better.
Just ONE point on style... when you claim the right to argue from authority - as a teacher - grammar and spelling *do* count. That's rather trivial compared to an apparent complete lack of understanding of special education law, even after "taking care of" a LD child. So, I can believe you are lying, or I can believe that you are stupid and incompetant. Because what you have said is good evididence for either assumption.
Hm. Then there's the matter of actually coming here and saying these things out loud.
Yes, I think that establishes that I can reasonably presume you are stupid enough to lie in service of an issue that you somehow think can be addressed this way.
Have a nice day, Bev.
Apparently I struck a nerve with you Bob, by questioning some of the issues involved in this story and having my own opinion.
It seems you are assuming I responded to you with dripping sarcasm rather than innocent questioning.
I was a member of a local autism blog when this grandmother posted wanting help in getting her grandchild from DHS approximately 1 1/2 yrs. ago. She was also needing help because she was not able to visit her grandson, who was inpatient in a local facility. That was the last I had heard of this case so my questions as to the recent past were very sincere.
Never did I say that violating an IEP was was acting in good conscious. I am aware of the laws regarding IEP's and follow them. The reason I asked the ???'s was to gain background knowledge.
You seem to assume I know all the details of this boys story.
This "dear child" is 50 years old, but I appreciate the compliment.
The child I took care of was Emotionally Disturbed, ED.
Because I am asking questions about this situation, you are assuming I am raising doubts. You are obviously very passionate about this story, and I applaud your passion.
I don't have low professional standards, but there is no point in discussing this with you. I was truly interested in this case and I will follow the links you included and hopefully get the information sans the personal attacks.
Too bad the information couldn't be shared in a more kindly manner.
Good luck.
Bev
Struck a nerve? Well yes. I have no patience for foolishness, less for the apologists thereof.
Your "questions" would have been answered had you read the posts. That is why I write the posts.
And since it seems every blog that has written about this has been blessed with the presence of similar "concern," yes. I doubt your sincerity.
Particularly since you have utterly failed to meaningfully respond to the issues I raised.
And yes, I am passionate about abuse, injustice and petty little cliques deciding that their ideas of what sort of person "should" belong trumps the law and constitution. The sort of behavior you "presumed" to be "for the good" of "everyone concerned."
Even thought that has already resulted in the wrongful incarceration of a child who is now being prosecuted by persons who are clearly out of control themselves.
What part of "it's the ethics, stupid," do you fail to understand?
Interesting how you define foolishness Bob. Those who have questions are deemed foolish. Hmmm.
I only came upon this page of your blog which is why I thanked you for posting the previous. Hence, I said I would go back and read what you had read.
"It's ethics, stupid" is fairly straighforward Bob. I "get" it. lol
You are above the rest of us and and it's unfortunate I didn't respond to the "issues" you raised.
We cain't help it we have been bred in Fort Smith, ASS.
It's no wonder this situation has not gotten wide public support with such high falutin educated people as you to help the cause.
Your crass and arrogant attitude have succeeded in keeping me from following this case any further.
Congrats and kudos!
Bev
Hm. How to put this. I respect intellegent questions. I respect honest questions. I question the motives of people who ask dishonest, or uninformed, or manipulative questions.
And yes, I HAVE found that, having ethics and expecting ethical behaviour tends to cause a certain sort of person to react to me as if I was "gettin' above myself."
"It's ethics, stupid" is fairly straighforward Bob. I "get" it. lol
You are above the rest of us and and it's unfortunate I didn't respond to the "issues" you raised.
Well, if you think "ethics" are something that only arrogant coastal liberals think about - well, I'm kinda tired arguing it ain't exactly true.
But I'm *sure* they know how to "handle" that sort of thing in Ft. Smith. Just as long as it stays in Ft. Smith.
But you see, that's only if nobody ever finds out about how "things is done heyah." Because, well, sometimes the "way things are done" is a crime.
It really does tend to suggest that there IS a crime when suddenly there are threats, disinformation campaigns and coverups. (as noted in the post above.)
My highfalutin' use of grammar, and paragraphs and spelling seems to be a problem for you. Wait, wait, didn't you claim to be a teacher?
I also work in the public school system with students with special needs. I obviously have seen both sides of stories such as these.
Your first comment.
So, are you lying, or simply unqualified? I'm "just asking questions."
You know, I really agree with one thing. Your not following this issue would probably be an excellent idea.
Go BOB!!! It's time that teacher's realize they don't know everything, and sometimes parents know more.
Having a child arrested is not a quick fix, nor will it make the child all of a sudden a better citizen to society.
Bev, you scare me. I would not want any child of mine in your class let alone in your home.
I have two nephews that are on the spectrum, and I would not ever want them to be arrested. We educated ourselves on autism, and we expected educators to do the same to avoid circumstances like this.
As for channel 5 news, they know what they did, and so does good ol' Darren Bobb.
"I think it is presumptuous to assume the educators have a lack of training."
You're saying that just because this took place in Arkansas doesn't mean it's a lot of uninformed hicks. Fair enough. I'm from the rural midwest, and I know what halfassed assumptions people can make about us.
But in Zakh's case, they did lack training.
Zakh said "They got in my face. I wanted to leave [my quiet spot] and they wouldn't let me out."
Zakh was physically beaten as a toddler by his father who thankfully is no longer in the picture. He suffered extreme neglect until Carole took over his care.
These are things that are known about Zakh; they are facts; he is a survivor of extreme abuse.
This, combined with his autism, tells me one thing about the situation as he himself described it; the educators were not trained to handle either an autistic or an abuse survivor.
Because with either an autistic or an abuse survivor, one thing you never do is make them feel boxed in or trapped. This is basic stuff. You do not get in their face or hang over them, or do anything which makes them feel that they cannot get out.
If the educators in this case had been properly trained they'd have known this. Q.E.D.
Bluejay
@Bluejay - can you point us to that info about Zakh's statement?
I think at this point it's a reasonable presumption (one that is worth an investigation by authorities empowered to administer corrective measures as defined by IDEA and/or ADA) that there is a pattern here; one that indicates a general contempt for disabled and disadvantaged persons.
Quite aside from the moral and ethical considerations - (and clearly, they are not being considered, save to the apparent concern of "looking bad") - this is a matter that comes under US federal law concerning disability, equal access to education and - last but certainly not least - civil rights.
I strongly suggest that, aside from all the other awareness-raising, that this case be brought to the attention of a firm specializing in civil rights law. I've mentioned the Southern Poverty Law Center before, and they do both civil rights and Special Education law - because of course, these issues tend to overlap a great deal.
There's an article on the SPLC site about a victory in a rather similar case - and the case they intervened in was less egregious than this.
bev wrote
As far as I am aware, it is up to the institution to develop a behavior plan that works for the child, when they leave a facility and enter their new school setting. The people in the institution (and Zakh had been there 2.5 years if I am not mistaken) have become the experts regarding this child.
It is of question to me, what more do you want the schools to do? How much would you endure if you were being hit or had furniture coming your way? I agree there is an authoritarian response, but feel it might be necessary in order to protect all involved, including the other children in the classroom and the educators.
well, from my understanding, the child didn't have a behavior plan in place... or an IEP for that matter... so, what more would I want the school to do???
I'd want it to contact the institution, set up a behavior plan, implement an IEP, and follow the law. If the folks at the institution aren't "available" then the school has to do it any way... using what ever resources they can scrape up.
As far as putting a kid into a more restrictive setting, there are procedures, based on the law, that must be followed...
The settings should start with full mainstreaming, then some support services IN the classroom, then some pull out, then more support in class and pull out, then self contained in the school... before any consideration of putting a kid anywhere but his neighborhood school. That's law... and the test for moving a kid into more restrictive settings is this: that the previous setting, with ALL possible supports and reasonable time, has failed... (reasonable time is generally 6 weeks... )
This school hasn't even gotten an IEP or behavior plan in place... yikes...
Brilliant blog. I'm following and hope you'll follow me too. Let's educate!
This is Zakh's grandma and it is now almost July 2010 and he still has NOT had his felony hearing, and now has a misdeanor added (they put him back for 3 hrs a day in May, with a state mandated behavior plan) and when he had a meltdown....they called the police again. They didn't take him, but filed it, it's the law they say.
We won the due process without calling a witness, they admitted in the manifestation hearing it was due to his disability. AND the state came in and he is officially diagnosed with AUTISM.
Still the DA will NOT drop the charges. It looks like Aug/Sep before this gets to court.
They have a name for his behavior, it's called 'institutional behaviors' that those who are put away for a long time learn.
I wish people would start posting about him again...
Thanks
Carole
Post a Comment