The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) just issued an important, ground breaking, and controversial report, Rethinking Special Education Due Process. http://www.aasa.org/headlinecontent.aspx?id=27966&showcontent=1

The AASA, a national organization of general and special education administrators, placed reforming special education due process squarely on the nation’s education reform agenda. That is a huge step forward and I applaud them for it.

AASA hopes to “spark a thoughtful, new dialogue about the need for critical changes to the special education dispute resolution system.” I agree that such a dialogue is long overdue, even though I question and don’t necessarily support some of the report’s arguments and information.

“The report contends modifications to the current due process system could greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the burdensome and often costly litigation that does not necessarily ensure measurable educational gains for special education students.” And, I would add the burdensome costs (in money, emotion, time, and the constant pressures to comply with regulations) that foster rampant fear of litigation in our schools and confusion and anxiety among parents.

Specifically, the AASA recommends that disputes between schools and parents about children’s special education placements and services be resolved through the following four steps: first, facilitated IEP meeting; second, optional mediation; third, consultant IEP process; finally, if the dispute remains unresolved parties can litigate it in court. Note that the first, second, and fourth steps already exist and that through this proposal, the AASA recommends the elimination of due process hearings.

In its third step—the consultant IEP process—the AASA cites similarities and differences with SpedEx, the Massachusetts dispute  resolution option with which I am involved. See page 23 of the report. Since 2009, SpedEx has grown as a (still small), successful, state-funded voluntary dispute resolution option for parents and schools. Briefly, SpedEx is designed to help parties resolve their own disputes in a trust-building, child focused, efficient (30 days), free-to-the-parties way—without waiving due process rights. To get SpedEx started, both parties have to agree on which consultant the state will hire for them—a large first step in the trust-building process. Assuming the parties agree with the consultant’s report and develop an accepted IEP, SpedEx provides an opportunity for the consultant to observe the student in the accepted program a few weeks after the agreement. I believe that SpedEx has the potential to work well in other states. http://spedexresolution.com/

While I might personally love to see SpedEx go national, I understand that AASA has put out a somewhat similar approach  which, I believe, is to be viewed as a conversation starter. So to help that discussion, I’d like to say that I have concerns about the report’s approach. Its proposal for a consultancy model is not voluntary and the parties are bound to implement the consultant’s report for an agreed-upon time period after which they can seek court action. I have concerns about making a consultancy model the only option for parties and eliminating due process hearings thereby.

How about this for a better way to fix special education’s dispute resolution m?  Let’s follow what I call the ‘dinosaur approach.’ Let’s create attractive options, such as SpedEx, so fewer people resort to hearings. Already we see a decline in the number of hearings nationwide. We don’t need to eliminate hearings (probably not a winnable fight) in order to fundamentally fix the system. Rather, let’s help hearings fade away as the dinosaurs did eons ago.  Let the dialogue begin! I’m sure that together we will come up with great solutions.

It is important to note that in this report, the AASA continues to assume that special education disputes should continue. In the larger picture of fixing special education, I believe it may be time to question that assumption. See my University of Chicago piece on this. http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/79_1/Freedman.pdf

And,  my little flipbook, Fixing Special Education at my website: www.schoollawpro.com/store.

or at  http://www.legaldigest.com/online-store/view/fixing-special-education-12-steps-to-transform-a-broken-system.

As a nation, we need to have that larger dialogue about how to educate ALL students—including students with disabilities—in the most effective results-based way. Let us even consider the possibility that this law, with its entitlement and due process system, should be replaced by something more appropriate for current realities for all students. After all, this 1975 law has succeeded over the past almost 40 years in providing access to all students with disabilities to school programming. We should consider replacing it, rather than continuing to grow it into more and more complex and unintended consequences. This, too, is a dialogue we need to have—changing the entire special education system, beyond substituting one dispute resolution mechanism for another. But, let’s save that for another time.

For now, as you can see, the AASA report has done a tremendous public services by raising these critical issues about special education due process. I applaud the AASA for doing so at this time. Let the dialogue begin!  I have no doubt that we can all do much better!

The American Association of School Administrators just issued its report, Rethinking Special Education Due Process. It is well worth reading.

Agree or disagree, I applaud the AASA for stepping out and promoting this important national discussion. The due process system is broken, as I have written–and spoken about– for many years. It’s well beyond time to fix it.  Let’s hope we now have a robust national discussion.

http://www.aasa.org/rethinkingdueprocess.aspx

Notably, the AASA report promotes a ‘consultant’ approach, modeled after our Massachusetts SpedEx innovation! It is wonderful to have SpedEx on the national scene. For more information about this innovative, trust-building, child-focused, efffective and efficient, and free to parties (schools and parents) approach, please visit:    http://spedexresolution.com/

Onward and upward to a more effective, equitable, and outcome-based schools for all students!

When I raised my two children (back in the dark ages!), how often did I say to them, “That’s good. Boredom is good for you.” Obviously in response to a complaint, “Mommy, I’m bored.”  They were unhappy with that but I had a good sense about it. Boredom is good for you!

Little did I know that I was ahead of the brain research on this matter!  I was gratified to read this report from Great Britain on boredom’s contribution to creativity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895704

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/lets-go-back-to-grouping-students-by-ability/274362/

Here’s a piece in The Atlantic on bringing back ability grouping that, I believe, is related to inclusion. The non-tracking idea was also based on ideology, notions of ‘equality,’  not research, as the inclusion movement seems to be based on rights.

In case you missed this op ed–I found it very thought provoking, especially after reading the many comments it garnered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/opinion/defining-bullying-down.html.

One question for me is whether bullying–no matter how it is defined, broadly or narrowly–is a problem that Congress or state legislatures can solve. Think about that. More layers for schools to deal with –with questionable effectiveness–and, of course, less time for teaching and learning. Just think of the hours spent on compliance training–teaching educators how to fill out forms and comply with pages and pages of new rules. Is this really the best way to help children? Alas, we are not even asking this question?

I’d rather see articles like this one–and the many heartfelt comments–in the public square, not legislative halls–at least not until we agree on definitions and ‘best practices.’ We are a long way from all of that. Let us as a people come to consensus about what we will tolerate and what we will not.  And what works. Then, perhaps, let’s take it to our legislators.

First, let’s do some homework. I applaud this piece as a conversation-starter.

Many states are looking at paperwork reduction–teachers and administrators are inundated with requirements. In special education alone, back in 2002, there were 814 monitoring requirements for states and districts. It’s gotten worse. We are certainly losing the so called ‘paperwork reduction efforts (PRE).’  I applaud efforts to reduce paperwork and bureaucratic requirements.

But, I want to be sure that in our efforts, we stay focused on the big purpose,  lest we lose track (MT4TO).  It’s not just about paper reduction, its about the effect of all that paper on reducing time for teaching and learning.  And, unfortunately, on teachers leaving the field.

Thanks for visiting my website.

Here’s the Picasa link to the road sign collection.

https://picasaweb.google.com/111922357335807924669/ChildrenGoingToSchoolRoadSignsFromAroundTheWorld. You may have to cut and paste it…

If you are interested in buying the greeting cards on line, here is the PayPal account:  http:/tinyurl.com/awwydzh.

You may have to cut and paste this also, for now.

I hope you can use it. Let me know if there are issues. I’m still learning the ropes on this!

This is exciting!  Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (the chief executive of Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg, and the co-founder of Google, Mr. Brin) have  teamed up with investor Yuri Milner to create a new prize to spur innovation. Called the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, it provides $3M to each of a  group of 11 scientists to spur breakthrough discoveries.  Here’s the Wall Street Journal article about it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323549204578315480875059390.html

HMMM.  How about an innovation, breakthrough prize to fix the broken special education system–to spur practitioners, legislators, parents, students–to think and do differently.  It is time!  Now that would be truly exciting!

Check out the ROAD SIGNS exhibit at the Boston Children’s Museum–February 15 to March 17!

Signs, Letreros, Hyoushiki …. This exhibit features my collection of road signs of children going to school around the world. Japan, Mexico, China, Czech Republic, Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, etc. etc. Check out the entire collection online.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog about my mother (December 18), I think these signs are fantastic. Artistic and colorful–in basic red, yellow and blue.

Countries show a different view of childhood and children. Some are playful; others stern; some are ‘sexist’ perhaps; others not; some artistic; some face the ‘wrong way!’ Etc. The collection –that I have gathered since 1968, when I got my first sign while living in New Jersey–is a rich testament to the diversity in our world.

Enjoy it! I have created greeting cards of these signs for sale. Buy a set of 4 for $19.50, postage included.

Happy travels! Observe our fascinating world!

Here’s the POSTER for the EXHIBIT!