SpedEx— Massachusetts’ new and innovative dispute resolution model is up and running! Congratulations to all who worked tirelessly to reach this day.

SpedEx is designed to resolve disputes between schools and parents after an IEP (Individualized Education Program) has been rejected or a hearing has been requested. It is a voluntary program, whereby the child will be assured a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the Least restrictive environment (LRE) in an expeditious and trust building way. The parents and school district jointly select a consultant from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education list to help them determine an appropriate program for the child.

SpedEx is here! How great is that! Let’s hope that parents take advantage of this pilot program and that they rebuild trust and work together for the child’s education.

For more information, please visit:

(SpedEx–the innovative dispute resolution model)

The move is on–as teachers are laid off, it’s last hired, first fired. There is movement to change that. The other side? Seniority rules and teachers unions, claiming it’s the only objective standard. I’m amazed that this story has gotten so far–in the Wall Street Journal. I was struck by the last line, stating that when it comes to key union contract provisions, like seniority, “the interests of teachers and children are not the same.” How sad is that. That says it all, really. Check out this story. It’ll be interesting to see if it has legs.
(Seniority rules under pressure)

My interview with Education News at (Fixing Special Education) is still the “Most Commented!” Check it out in case you missed it. It’s in two parts…. Let me know what you think. I look forward to hearing from you.

Onward and upward to FIX our broken special education system.

By now, you’ve heard of that California law whereby a vote of 51% of parents in a school can close that school, change that school, fire staff, etc.

(Down with parents)

Jay Mathews raises some concerns about it. A thought provoking and interesting read. And frankly, I am not sure how this should be handled….

My concern is the following–one I’ve raised many times before. When are we finally going to use ‘common sense’ and create a law/policy/bully pulpit so schools and parents have to work together to improve schools. We need policies that encourage parents to parent their children, to help their children learn not just to be activists against their schools. I take my clues from President Obama’s urging parents to help their kids learn more–read to them, talk to them, put them to bed on time, feed them nutritious food, work with teachers, etc. You get the idea. Etc. Etc. Etc.

If we gave that policy a good run, and that failed, I’d be more optimistic about the California law. Without it, I see merit in Mr. Mathews’ concerns.

Your thoughts?

The column deals with controversies in Washington DC. However, if we can strip away those politics, this column makes sense beyond that city. In schools, teachers matter the most. We should focus all policies and practices on improving teaching and learning…Success breeds support. Support the teachers in classrooms. Leave them free to teach. Why is that so complicated?

(Teachers matter more than polls)

A drop out program that’s working at Charlestown H.S. in Boston. Good teaching. Motivated students. Academic and non academic standards. A beatiful story.

(Drop out program focused on learning that’s working)

Interesting piece by Jay Mathews… Yes, virtual schools may be growing because they are cost effective, but I think there’s lots more to it.

Are people going to virtual schools also because the public schools often do not provide for their children? Consider the NCLB’s focus on closing gaps for those without basic skills– to a rather mediocre middle. Well, what about the top half? What focus is there for them? Maybe that is part of the reason.

Also, consider the student discipline issues in many schools, taking precious time away from the learning of others. Could that be a reason too?

Also, consider… well, you get the idea. There may be lots of causes, beyond the usual suspects.

In short, do virtual schools give parents the right to vote with their feet without having to move out of their houses or apartments, and without having to argue with their school districts?

(Virtual schools are growing)

See earlier blog on the fact that special education received some $12 billion in the stimulus packaged (compared to the $4+ billions in Race to the Top funds). Is that good or bad? Well, Education Week writes that this special ed money was used by many school districts to plug in holes. The article’s title says it all: “Short term choices could haunt district….”

(Short term choices)

When the funds end, the holes will still be there–maybe larger than before–and the system will still be broken. You decide if that’s good or bad.

Throwing lots of money at a system that needs a fix first is NOT good public policy.

(‘learning styles’ debunked)

As a public schools attorney in matters of special education, I, too, have questioned ‘learning styles.’ I included these concerens in my new book, Fixing Special Education–12 Steps to Transform a Broken System.

But I’m just a lawyer–not an expert in these matters. Now more psychologists have jumped in. That’s great! It’s hard enough to educate kids these days. Saddling teachers and parents with bad science and ideology is not helpful.

If you missed the NY Times editorial on February 5, here it is.

(Improving No Child Left Behind Act).

My two cents?

I agree with those who say that the NCLB has done more good than harm. Its focus on academics, results, and the outcomes for specific groups has been a positive and should continue.

However, the gnawing concern I have is that we get smarter about which gaps to close. For now, our efforts and huge funding are designed to bring students who do not yet have basic skills to a rather basic, mediocre level of ‘proficiency.’ That is OK as far as it goes, but it detracts from efforts and funding for that other gap. We are failing to focus on the top half of the classes–students who can already read, write, and do basic math. What challenges do our laws now provide them? None. There is no focus on them. No new funds. No new sanctions. etc. This is not good for America.

I’m afraid that our laws’ current out-of-balance focus will NOT close gaps for these students, and will leave them behind. Certainly, we are already seeing that international results–comparing top students around the world. Since the law does NOT focus on pushing students who already meet ‘proficient’ standards to higher levels of achievement, I believe that needs a fix. America needs these students to be all that they can become!