Making Special Education Actually Work

  Based on the professional peer-reviewed research, intersectionality can be understood as the phenomenon in which an individual person's social position relative to more than one socially defining characteristic, such as race, language, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, etc., come together to simultaneously impact a person's status in and access to society at large. Where a person fits into the world is a matter of multidimensional considerations.   When looking at the question of whether the current mechanisms of our system of government, and the behavioral rewards inherently built into them, truly serve the good of the people according to the will of the people and the rule of law, the importance of intersectionality to the accuracy of our analyses cannot be overstated. There is no “silver bullet” that will eliminate all of our social challenges with a single shot. Solving our complex, interconnected problems takes complex planning and execution.   Society is a complex system of inextricably intertwined considerations that all have to be accounted for in order for everyone's needs and rights to be equally met. There are no cutting corners, and we now have the computing power to stitch together effective systems of equity for all into the ways our government functions, if the technology is just used the right way. The fail-safes that can be built in and the audit trails that would be automatically created would prevent and capture any attempts at abuse just as a matter of normal functioning.   We aren't there yet, but the application of enterprise-class computing technologies to the delivery of publicly funded services is inevitable, and it will streamline a lot of inter- and intra-agency operations, trimming the administrative fat within a lot of State and local publicly funded programs. Eliminating human error and dishonesty from a public agency's administrative processes prevents episodes of noncompliance that puts the agency in legal jeopardy.   I've told the story in past posts of the case in which one of my students went for months without a needed piece of equipment ordered by his Occupational Therapist (OT) as an accommodation for his sensory needs in the classroom, which meant he was up and out of his seat disrupting the instruction, because of an interpersonal feud between two mean old ladies who hated each other in administration. One of the mean old ladies worked at the student's local school site in the office, processing purchase requisitions and submitting them to the school district's main office to be processed into purchase orders.   Now, this was back in the day and all of this was done using paper and the district's own internal courier service, commonly referred to as “brown mail,” because most things came in those big brown manila envelopes. There was no email. If things needed to move faster than brown mail, it was done via fax. So, context.   The other mean old lady in this situation worked in the accounting office at the district offices. I'm not exactly clear on the details of why they hated each other so much, but I do recall that it had something to do with either a green bean casserole or a three-bean salad – I can't remember which – at some kind of district holiday party. Like, maybe both of them brought the same thing and it turned into a feud over whose was better, or something? I don't entirely recall the details, I just remember it was something to do with beans and a holiday party and that it was totally dumb.   The mean old lady at the district offices would sit on the purchase requisitions submitted by the mean old lady at the school site just out of spite, without any regard for the people who had submitted the requisitions to the mean old lady at the school site or any students who may have been impacted by her behaviors. The mean old lady at the school site wasn't willing to call over to the mean old lady at the district offices to find out what had happened to her requisitions, so she'd become hostile with the school site staff who would ask her where their stuff was. They became afraid to ask her where their stuff was, and just took it as a given that the average purchase would take at least 60 to 90 days before it came in.   Computers don't do any of that! As many concerns as we have about computers processing things correctly, that comes down to how they are coded. They aren't going to fight with each other over three-bean salads at a Christmas party and then undermine each other professionally to the detriment of the constituents they are being paid by the taxpayers to serve.   So, knowing that the implementation of the technology is inevitable, our job as informed voters and taxpayers is to understand what that technology needs to be able to do in order to truly perform according to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. That technology must account for how intersectionality impacts every person, whether staff, vendor, or constituent, who must participate in the execution of the government's responsibilities to the people.   This brings me to a very specific issue within special education in the State of California that has affected way too many families in a detrimental way, which is the intersectionality of the African-American experience with special education in the public schools. This is an under-researched and poorly regulated aspect of our current modern society, here in California, and as the State seeks to shore up democracy in spite of the many forces presently working to undermine it, I believe this specific instance of intersectionality particularly deserves the State's attention.   I'm speaking specifically of the long-outdated and now inappropriate Larry P. requirement. To quote the State:   "The Larry P. Case" In 1972 in the Larry P. case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that African American students in the San Francisco Unified School District were being placed into classes for “Educably Mentally Retarded (EMR)” students in disproportionate numbers, based on criteria that relied primarily on the results of intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that were racially and/or culturally discriminatory and not validated for the purposes for which they were being used1. In 1979, the court permanently enjoined LEAs throughout California from using standardized intelligence tests2 for (1) the identification of African American students as EMR or its substantial equivalent or (2) placement of African American students into EMR classes or classes serving substantially the same functions3. The court held that court approval would be required for the use of any standardized intelligence tests for African American students for the above purposes. The court laid out a state process for this.  The EMR category no longer exists. The court has never held hearings to determine the “substantial equivalent” of the EMR identification or placement, or whether IQ tests are appropriate for assessing African American students for identifications or placements other than the substantial equivalent of EMR. The state process to seek approval has not been invoked. Although the law on assessment has evolved, as described above, the Larry P. injunction remains in place, and the court retains jurisdiction over its enforcement. The Larry P. injunction does not apply to tests that are not considered standardized intelligence tests. Footnotes 1 Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306, 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1972). 2 The court defined a standardized intelligence test as one that result in a score purporting to measure intelligence, often described as “general intellectual functioning.”  Larry P., 495 F. Supp. 926, 931 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1979), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Larry P., 495 F. Supp. at 989.   Here's what everybody needs to get, and which way too many school psychologists and other special education assessors in California's school districts do not: Larry P. only applies to norm-referenced intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that result in a full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score. It doesn't apply to the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD) Cognition subtest. It doesn't apply to any standardized speech/language assessment measures. It has nothing to do with OT. It has nothing to do with measuring academic achievement using standardized assessment tools.   Unless the assessment measure is designed to produce an IQ score, Larry P. does not apply. But, I've now handled a half-dozen cases in the last couple of years in which the whole reason why the students' IEPs were poorly developed was because they'd been poorly assessed by people who didn't score any standardized measures for fear of violating Larry P. because they didn't actually understand the Larry P. rules. The professional development on this issue throughout the State is atrocious.   More to the point, the State needs to invoke its process to seek approval to now use the current, modern, unbiased IQ tests in the special education process, because the assessment failures caused by poorly trained cowards who don't have the sense to go onto Google and look up the rules themselves and/or push back against administrative supervisors steering them in a non-compliant direction are causing a cataclysm of disastrous consequences at the intersection of the African-American experience and childhood disability in the State's public schools. This just feeds these kids into the gaping maw of the School-to-Prison Pipeline.   I want to take it one more step further than that, though. I want to encourage more representation of the African-American community in special education assessment. I want to see more college students of color going into school psychology, speech/language pathology, OT, assistive technology, etc., so that they can be there to advocate from an informed, expert perspective within the system for the children from their own community who are at risk of being otherwise misunderstood by people who lack the perspective necessary to appreciate the long-lasting impacts of their assessment errors.   People who don't actually understand the rules can over-interpret them in an over-abundance of caution. They will not do more than what's actually been prohibited for fear of doing something they aren't supposed to, to the point that they're not doing what they are supposed to be doing. They go from one extreme to the other. In an effort to avoid committing a State-level Larry P. violation, they commit a violation of federal law by failing to appropriately assess in all areas of suspected disability according to the applicable professional standards and the instructions of the producers of the standardized measures used.   It's currently a “from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire” situation for the State that is wrecking lives and creating special education violations left and right. The State is setting up its public schools to fail at this particularly significant intersection of social factors, at the same time that the State is seriously considering reparations to the African-American community here in the State.   I promise you that none of the assessors I've encountered in the last few years who have been committing these Larry P. violations are actually trying to be hurtful. None of them know what they're supposed to be doing and they're making dumb errors in judgment, often under pressure from authoritarian administrators who don't know an IQ test from a roll of toilet paper.   I'm advocating, here, for both the development and implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies that will automate as much of the public sector's administrative functions as possible according to the applicable regulations, including mandated timelines, as well as for the State to request the court to reverse Larry P. so that schools are no longer enjoined against using current, valid, appropriately normed IQ tests in the assessment of African-American children in California for special education purposes. These two things matter to each other.   Larry P. is no longer a solution, it's a problem. It's not that assessors couldn't work around it; it's that they don't know how to work around it and they commit more errors trying to than anything that could possibly go wrong actually using an IQ test on an African-American student in this modern day and age. Further, the specific ecological factors that contribute to the success of students who are impacted by the intersectionality of their disabilities with other traits that can affect their social standing, such as ethnicity, need to be understood as specific data points worthy of intense administrative and policy-making examination.   As a matter of civil rights and monitoring its own internal compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, one would hope that a public education agency would want to know if particular classes of students are somehow being under-served and need more attention from the adult decision-makers involved in their educational experiences. Who is monitoring each school district's compliance with Larry P., right now? Is that the job of each district's 504 Coordinator? How is Larry P. compliance in the field such an issue, still, after all of these years and, more to the point, why is it even still a requirement after all of these years?   Analyzing data from an enterprise-class computing solution regarding intersectionality among special education students would help public education agencies recognize trends of noncompliance and programming failures. This would include rampant Larry P. violations producing shoddy assessments that result in poorly crafted Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) that fail to deliver appropriately ambitious educational benefits according to the current Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) standard pursuant to the 2017 Endrew F. Supreme Court decision.   Issues of intersectionality can be captured by competent data analysis, which can be greatly facilitated by properly coded enterprise-class computing technologies, and used to ensure that all students, pursuant to Endrew F., receive an IEP appropriately ambitious in light of their unique, individual circumstances. A properly configured system would be spitting out reports detailing the instances of noncompliance to the inboxes of the key decision-makers so they could respond as quickly as possible.   Had such a system already been implemented, the Larry P. violations I've encountered all over the State over the last couple of years would have been caught among all the others I haven't encountered and either rectified or prevented altogether by the State realizing what a colossal disaster Larry P. has become in the field and executing the process outlined by the Court to put an end to it. Were the State monitoring the right data points, it would have realized that Larry P. needed to be ended a long time ago and that it causes infinitely more problems than it solves because it forces assessors to assess African-American students differently than everyone else, which is not equal access.   Frankly, this lack of equal access is more discriminatory than using an IQ test could ever possibly be and becomes even more so when the quality of the assessments are compromised because the assessors don't know how to comply with Larry P. and they jack up their entire evaluations in the process. Jacked up evaluations lead to jacked up IEPs, which lead to the denial of educational benefits and all the consequences that these children will experience over their lifetimes as a result of being deprived of a FAPE.   The people who make these kinds of errors will be among the first to engage in victim-blaming once these students end up in the justice system, acting like it was unavoidable and inevitable, because they can't recognize or accept the degree to which they had a hand in making it happen. The people who do it on purpose hide among the people who don't know what else to do, fueling the victim-blaming, which becomes part of our current, exhausting, ridiculous, ongoing culture wars.   I would rather see Larry P. ended so that it's no longer creating confusion among assessors in the field and technology implemented that will identify when things like this are going on so they can be stopped early on. I would much rather monitor digital data as a compliance watchdog as I get older than have to go in, one kid at a time, to hold the public education system accountable to its mandates under our democracy's rule of law. So long as there is transparency in how the system operates and all the real-time data, other than anything personally identifying, is accessible to the public to be analyzed for compliance failures, technology stands to enhance the functions of democracy. But, it all comes down to how its coded.   I expect that watchdogs and advocates in the future will spend more time analyzing system-generated data than necessarily representing individual students, and that a healthier partnership between the public sector and the citizenry can evolve in which the user feedback shared with system developers and operators can be used to enhance its functions and allow each agency to serve its mandated purposes in a compliant manner that is both cost-effective and substantively effective.   The more that social and behavioral science is integrated into the policies, procedures, and applied technologies in the public sector, the more effective and efficient they will be. The more integrated the technologies among all of the public agency stakeholders, the more cohesive the communications and execution of time-sensitive tasks. I see a future in which systemic violations, such as rampant Larry P. failures, will trigger an examination of the intersectionality of disability and other social factors, such as ethnicity, on compliance and help identify when something like getting rid of Larry P. needs to happen sooner rather than later.   I see this Larry P. mess as yet another compelling argument for the implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies within public education administration. I hope the State is listening.

Click here for full text I'm long overdue to post new content to the KPS4Parents blog, podcast, and social media, but it's been a busy school year. The continuing fallout from COVID-related school closures that disrupted the educations of most children, and had even more profound effects on our learners with disabilities, has kept me busy. It's one of these COVID-related cases that brings me back to the blog and podcast today, because after over two years of waiting for a complaint investigation to get done that was only supposed to take 180 days, the United States Department of Education (USDOE), through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), finally concluded an investigation of Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD) and how it handled its students with disabilities during COVID-related school closures. To say I and the student's family now feel vindicated is an understatement. You can read OCR's findings and the resolution agreement that OUHSD entered into with OCR to resolve its violations by clicking here. I'm not going to belabor every little thing in those documents because they speak for themselves and you can read them at your own convenience, but I will summarize them, here. In short, not only did OCR find that the District violated my client's civil rights, it likely violated the rights of its other students with special needs by refusing, as policy, to provide any in-person disability-related supports and services during campus closures, even if they were necessary in order for the student to access learning. At the beginning of the pandemic, when the schools were first closed down here in California, the Governor's office understood immediately that our special needs students were going to be disproportionately affected by the school closures. With the new budget during the summer of 2020, the Governor committed $1B to cover compensatory education costs for students with disabilities who lost educational benefits during the school closures because they couldn't access the disability-related supports they needed in order to learn. Back in the Spring of 2020, right after the pandemic hit and the schools shut down, both the Governor and USDOE reminded the public education system that its legal obligations to its students with special needs had not changed in spite of the pandemic and that local education agencies should do everything possible to continue implementing services and supports to students with disabilities during campus closures. But, there was also that extra money set aside by the Governor to compensate students for learning they lost due to unavoidable losses of educational benefits and, presumably, if their local education agencies otherwise botched their pandemic response to the detriment of their kids with special needs. I've been negotiating Informal Dispute Resolutions (IDRs) to claims like these ever since in-person learning resumed, and I'm still dealing with the residual effects of the school closures across my caseload. Which brings me back to this most recent OCR investigation outcome. What OCR and OUHSD are now doing is working together to repair the harm done to all of the OUHSD students with disabilities at the time of the COVID-related school closures who did not get the services and supports they needed such that they are now owed compensatory education. This is a very big deal! According to the Resolution Agreement entered into by the District with OCR, OUHSD must send letters to every potentially impacted student and offer a meeting to determine if any compensatory education is owed to them and, if so, document how it will be provided. OUHSD is not being left to its own devices to determine whether it has met each affected student's needs; OCR will be overseeing OUHSD's implementation of these remedies to make sure they're done correctly. OCR will provide the technical assistance to OUHSD to help it clean up this mess and set things straight. In theory, my work here is done, other than to work with the family of the student for whom I'd filed the complaint to make sure she gets the compensatory education that she is now due. But, for all of the other OUHSD students and former students impacted by this outcome, I still have concerns. None of the other affected students and their families knew about this complaint. They're going to get a letter in the mail that they weren't expecting with an offer to meet with the District to determine if their kids are owed any back-due educational services and not necessarily understand what it is, why they are getting it, or how important it is. Today's post is about making sure that the other students who are impacted by this outcome get what they need and are due. I know that OCR will be working with the District to make sure that the families who avail themselves of the offer to meet regarding their possible compensatory education claims have a fair shot at getting the right stuff. I'm not as worried about those families. The families I'm most worried about are the ones who don't understand English and/or their rights. We have a fair number of households in the District in which the parents may not be educated sufficiently to understand what any of this is about. Unless they actually take the meeting with the District to learn more, OCR is not in a position to help make sure their kids actually get what they need. So, my goal with today's post is to make sure that all the affected OUHSD families are fully aware of what that letter inviting them to meet with the District to discuss compensatory education really means and that they take those meetings and get the remedies that are due to their children. We have to remember that we already paid taxes so these kids could get these services, and then that money was never spent on serving them appropriately during campus closures. This is about belatedly delivering the services that had been previously purchased by the taxpayers but never actually delivered to their intended recipients. The only part of this that brings new costs into the picture is all of the extra work that will now have to be done to help these kids recoup lost learning and catch back up after having been deprived of what had already been paid for in the first place. After all of the OUHSD students who were impacted by this outcome, my next concern after that is all of the other students throughout the County whose school districts also refused to provide in-person services during the COVID-related campus closures who were not similarly held accountable by their regulators. The California Department of Education (CDE) has done a shoddy job, in my experience, of addressing these exact same concerns in other area school districts. None of the school districts in Ventura County, to my knowledge, provided in-person services to any students with disabilities during the campus closures. In fact, I fought tooth-and-nail throughout the period of campus closures with a number of school districts throughout the State to address these same concerns. This instant OCR complaint was just one of many efforts I made to protect my kiddos during campus closures. One family was able to use their health insurance to get in-home ABA services so their child had 1:1 behavioral supports during distance learning, which was the only reason he was successful, but that was an isolated incident. Another family was able to negotiate a settlement agreement with their district to reimburse the parents for paying for a private aide to come to their house to support their child during distance learning, but that was, again, an isolated incident. Most of my students sat at home with their moms as their 1:1 aides, which either worked or didn't, depending on the student. If you look back through the content I created for KPS4Parents during the COVID-related campus closures, you'll see a lot of what I published back then had to do with the mandates that special education and other disability-related services were required to continue without reductions in services and supports. It's nice to know that the United States of America has our students' backs on that point, but they can't investigate the case of every student with disabilities in America. It took over two years to investigate just this one, although systemic violations were uncovered in the course of it doing so. I sincerely hope that the outcome of this investigation benefits not only the students of OUHSD who failed to receive appropriately ambitious educational benefits because of the COVID-related campus closures, but also similarly impacted students in all the other school districts that used the pandemic as an excuse to cut corners and not pay for services that were so seriously needed by so many students with disabilities. This outcome needs to impact more students with special needs than just those within the OUHSD attendance area. It needs to set an example. I find myself frequently telling people that the measure of whether a society is civilized or not goes to how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, and that special education law is the canary in the coalmine of American democracy. If we can't respect the civil rights of our children with disabilities, what does that say for the civil rights of the rest of us? School districts are not for-profit private businesses; they are government agencies funded to execute the functions of our society for the benefit of the public. We should be able to trust our local government agencies, including our local school districts, to abide by the rule of law. KPS4Parents is currently reaching out to various stakeholders in Ventura County to make sure that the other families affected by this outcome understand exactly what this is, how they are affected, and how to make sure their kids get what they actually need. If you are part of an affected family and need assistance with this process, KPS4Parents will do everything we can to support you, including putting you in touch with other advocates and attorneys if necessary to handle the sheer volume of families who may need this level of assistance. If you are part of another organization or agency that also serves students with special needs in Ventura County and/or their families, and would like to help area families navigate this process, please contact us and we'll get back to you as soon as we possibly can. It's exciting to be part of the solution, but the work is just getting started and our agency can't do it all alone. We're part of the larger community of loving, democracy-minded people who advocate for social justice issues. We need the help of our social justice partners to make sure all of these affected families are properly supported and served, and to help us generalize these remedies to benefit other similarly affected students in other communities. It takes a village, so I'm asking for the rest of the village to step up and help me help all of these other affected families, and for the families who are already experienced with this kind of stuff to help other families who might not be so savvy. This is an exciting time for systemic change, and I want families of children with special needs to feel empowered by this and set the example on how to participate in our democracy at the local level in a meaningful and impactful way. Bottom line, screaming at school board meetings about their personal beliefs and feelings gets parents nowhere, but regulatory complaints filed to enforce the rule of law can be everything.

  To see the text transcription of this podcast, including links to content discussed, go to:  https://kps4parents.org/interview-of-rose-griffin-slp-bcba. 

LAUSD Main Offices - Downtown Los Angeles   The school year hasn't even started yet and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second-largest school district in the country, has already hit the ground running with illegalities left and right, not the least of which is the systemic policy issue that I'm focusing on in today's post. It's hardly the only violation, but its a systemic one that stands to continue hurting a lot of children with disabilities, particularly our kiddos on the autism spectrum.   What I'm about to tell you would sound far-fetched if it was not for the fact that the United States is currently engaged in a soft civil war in which right-wing extremists are attempting to change us from a democratic republic to a ethno-religious dictatorship. The evidence indicates these decades-long plans were started at the local level in city councils, school districts, and various county agencies, then percolated upward into our federal agencies before culminating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection against our democratic republic.   The reality is that I've been dealing with these kinds of behaviors from local education agencies for the last 31 years, and there is no end in sight for many families in local education agencies as large as LAUSD. It's the Titanic, it's been on a direct course for an iceberg for decades, and it will collapse and sink under its own weight before too much longer at the rate it's currently going.   This is particularly the case as the pro-democracy backlash to recent fascist efforts to overthrow our system of government is gaining momentum as more and more high-ranking fascist individuals at the federal level face the consequences of their actions with the J6 Hearings and related Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations. When the example is finally set at the national level and all of those responsible for J6 are either behind bars or being pursued by the feds and Interpol after fleeing the country, the trickle-down of legal consequences to State and local government agencies that have been engaging in fascist practices all this time will be severe.   But, we're not there, yet. The only way to really get there is to make public what the heck is really going on so that taxpaying registered voters in Los Angeles can make informed decisions about the people they entrust with the responsibility of educating their children, particularly their children with disabilities. So, let me get into the actual issue to which I want to call immediate attention, that being LAUSD's unlawful and unethical method of conducting Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs), which it has implemented as a policy, district-wide, according to District personnel.     Title 34, Code of the Federal Regulations (34 CFR) Section 300.304 describes the parameters for how special education assessments are supposed to be conducted. 34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4) mandates the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education, which includes the assessment process. Taken together, these laws require that competent assessors acting within the scope of their qualifications conduct assessments according to the professional standards that apply to each of the various types of assessments being conducted, in conformity with the peer-reviewed research.   There is no standardized measure, like an IQ test, when conducting an FBA, though there are assessment tools and instruments that can help inform the process. Instead, the applicable science describes the types of critical thinking and lines of inquiry a properly trained behaviorist must apply when determining the function of a maladaptive behavior and the most appropriate ways of responding to it. The science used is referred to as Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA).   ABA is not a special education service, per se. ABA is the science behind effective behavioral interventions. ABA services requires scientists to think independently in applying the known science to the unique facts of each individual person assessed. It's not a paint-by-numbers, one-size-fits-all measure. It's not psychometrics in the sense that norm-referenced standardized tests will be administered to the student. It requires more thought and higher-level critical thinking skills than that, and the people who are certified to do it must prove their abilities to function that way.   There are no formal criteria for FBAs, specifically, but they are based off the Functional Analysis (FA) procedures developed by Dr. Brian Iwata and his colleagues in their published research. While being certified as a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) is supposed to confirm that a behavioral scientist is adequately qualified to analyze behavior, BCBA certification is not required in California for conducting FBAs in the special education context. Anyone who has gone to graduate school for a school psychologist credential should have theoretically been trained on ABA just as a part of their grad school education.   My master's degree is in educational psychology and I had to study ABA more than once during my higher education. It is not typically part of a special education teaching credential program, other than to mention that other professionals are available in the special education context to conduct FBAs and provide ABA-based behavioral interventions.   That is, except, in LAUSD, which is using special education teachers to conduct its FBAs. It will hire Non-Public Agencies (NPAs) that specialize in providing ABA services through and under the supervision of BCBAs, but it will not allow the BCBAs to actually conduct their own FBAs to inform their own Behavior Intervention Design (BID) services, which then compromises the quality of the Behavior Intervention Implementation (BII) services. This is a district policy, according to various LAUSD employees with whom I've been speaking about this since April, and they don't seem to understand why I have such an issue with it.   First, the 8th grade LAUSD student I'm currently representing in which this issue has come up has been "assessed" under this model since the 1st grade and he still has the same behavioral challenges today that he had in 1st grade. He's made no improvements and now he's over 6 feet tall. His toddler-like tantrums result in significant property destruction, which has only gotten worse as he's gotten smarter and bigger over time, and he puts himself and others at risk of injury when he throws them. Not only does LAUSD's method of conducting FBAs fail to comply with the applicable science and law, it does not work!   LAUSD's solution is to offer yet another illegal FBA conducted by an inexpert special education teacher who must then hand off their "data" to a BCBA who is then supposed to somehow magically engage in scientifically valid BID and supervise a Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) who is supposed to provide the BII in conformity with the plan designed by the BCBA. When I point out the epic failure of logic behind this practice to LAUSD personnel, I'm met with the Orwellian Doublespeak of corrupt District administrators and the blank stares of ineptitude and rote recitations of District policy from school-site personnel.   One school site administrator actually tried to get me to lie to the parent and trick him into doing something he otherwise was not inclined to do. I analyzed her behavior according to ABA standards based on what information I could gather and ultimately concluded that she's as stupid as she is corrupt; her behaviors were automatically reinforcing and externally reinforced by her employer, which appears to employ the dumbest people it can find in positions of authority well beyond their critical thinking abilities and professional skills so that they can be the clueless, easily manipulated henchmen of the mafiosos at the main office on Beaudry.   Basically, what we are dealing with here is science denialism and unconstitutional conduct on the part of public officials to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. LAUSD is the government, regulated by the rule of law and answerable to its local constituency, but the people generally have no voice against this behemoth of a self-serving institution, which is why I'm talking about it, here.   LAUSD is long overdue for a reckoning regarding its systemic illegal conduct across all aspects of special education, and it's probably safe to say that if the District is willing to compromise its most vulnerable constituents, that being children with disabilities, it's likely equally comfortable violating everybody else's rights, as well. I can't speak to the other social justice issues in which the District might be in the wrong, but it has historically failed on the special education front ever since special education and related civil rights laws were first passed in the 1970s.   Disability-related civil rights law is truly the canary in the coal mine for American democracy. The measure of how civilized a society is can be determined by how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, and children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable humans on Earth. If LAUSD is willing to treat children with disabilities this way, it's top administrators should probably swap out their dress suits for animal pelts so that their lack of civility is adequately conveyed. Otherwise, they're just wolves in sheep's clothing, preying our our most vulnerable children.   The Chanda Smith Consent Decree came after decades of unlawful special education conduct and was in place for decades thereafter in an effort to end the District's unlawful conduct, which it failed to do. The courts attempted to pull LAUSD out of the gutter with the consent decree, but LAUSD just pulled the courts into the gutter with it. An Independent Monitor was hired to oversee the consent decree until such time that LAUSD came into compliance with special education law, but that day never came.   Apparently, presuming that compliance would never happen, the Independent Monitor began engaging in equally corrupt behavior, assuming lifelong job security for so long as LAUSD continued to violate special education law and grifting the system by overpaying consultants who failed to make any kind of perceptible difference with respect to LAUSD's compliance. The Office of the Independent Monitor was shut down and the consent degree was closed out following an audit that revealed excessive unnecessary spending by the Independent Monitor that could not be related to the District's conformity with the consent decree.   Further, while it may be true that the District legitimately improved some of its special education programming, by no means had to come close to a reasonable degree of compliance, as evidenced by the number of families who have still had to file lawsuits to get services, and even that doesn't guarantee they'll get all of the right services for their children. Many get only some of the services their children need, making their IEPs as effective as watered-down penicillin in the face of a raging bacterial infection. For all the services they may actually get that they need, the absence of the other services they also need undermines any successes they may have in the areas in which they've actually received help.   Which circles back around to the question that serves as the title to today's post/podcast, which is, "Is LAUSD Run by a Fascist Mafia?" From the outside looking in, this seems to be a legitimate question.   Let's start with the fact that LAUSD hired computer coders to work with its in-house counsel decades ago to bastardize a piece of insurance software known as Welligent into its IEP software. As a result, LAUSD has basically bureaucratically obligated its school site personnel to break the law because of the software limitations of Welligent, or at least how it has been coded by the District, that fail to even offer compliant options to its users in many areas of special education.   For example, let's look at the assessment plan, redacted for privacy, that was offered to my current LAUSD student, which was generated from Welligent, and compare it to another redacted assessment plan for another student on my caseload in a different school district who also needed an FBA.   Example 1, below, is the assessment plan offered to my LAUSD student, and shows the FBA as an "alternative assessment" to be conducted by a special education teacher. "Alternative assessments" usually refer to non-traditional assessment measures or methods from those typically used in the place of standardized testing.   For example, using curriculum-based assessments in the classroom to gather informal data on actual classroom performance can be a more reliable method of assessing academic achievement than a standardized measure like the WJ-IV or the WIAT-4. None of this assessment plan makes sense with respect to the FBA.   Example 1 - page 1   Looking at the table of "standardized" testing from page 2 of this assessment plan, which is referenced by page 1, FBAs are not listed. Item 7 targets "Adaptive Behavior," but that goes more to independent living skills and self-care, like dressing, toileting, and navigating the school setting. FBAs do not fit that category and the LAUSD assessment plan has no category that FBAs would logically fit. This was a deliberate coding decision made in Welligent by the District that has absolutely nothing to do with adequately assessing children with special needs and offering them appropriate behavioral supports at school.   Example 1 - page 2   Example 2, below, shows a different student's assessment plan from a different school district. This assessment plan offers the student involved an FBA to be performed by the school psychologist in collaboration with a district behaviorist. This actually makes sense.   In this student's case, it turns out the special education teacher was the problem and she got reassigned to a different classroom. This student had gone without behavioral challenges until she was placed in this teacher's class, and the FBA made clear that the teacher was the one provoking the behaviors. Objectivity is one of the most critical aspects of science that must apply to special education assessments. Can you imagine if she had been trusted to conduct the FBA?     I can assure you the quality of the outcomes using appropriately qualified people who actually care makes all the difference in the world. Whereas our LAUSD student has historically been assessed according to plans virtually similar to Example 1, above, and has now gone for over six years with next to no improvements in his behaviors, our student from whose case Example 2 was taken is now thriving in school with no serious behavioral challenges of any kind.   To be clear, it's not like the student in Example 2 has never had issues with this school district. There were problems years ago when she was little that I had to deal with, but it had been smooth sailing until she ended up in that whacko teacher's classroom, last school year.   Because the student's behaviors were interfering with her learning, even though we suspected the teacher was likely the problem, we didn't go in accusing the teacher of anything. We simply asked for an FBA to get to the bottom of the behaviors and the next thing we knew the teacher was gone. The FBA report we got back was very well-written and explained the facts without demeaning the teacher or doing anything else unprofessional.   We hit a huge bump in the road that had the potential to go really badly, but the District in that student's case handled it professionally, compassionately, and responsibly. I've yet to see any of those qualities from anyone I've dealt with from LAUSD regarding my LAUSD student. The difference in handling is night and day, and I've caught both districts messing up before. The difference is that my other student was met with professionalism, while my LAUSD student is being met with science denialism and an utter abandonment of the rule of law.   It is this refusal to abide by science and law on the part of the second largest school district in the nation that raises the specter of fascism. It's all very "Marjorie Taylor Green-ish."   Consider that California has adopted the Common Core as its State Standards. The purpose of these standards is for our public schools in California to teach students how to use academic knowledge and skills to solve real-world problems, yet LAUSD doesn't use academic knowledge and skills to solve problems. It denies science and breaks the law.   How can people who deny science teach our kids to use science to solve problems? How can people who have abandoned the rule of law credibly teach social studies, particularly civics, and educate our kids to become knowledgeable participants in American democracy? How is this anything other than fascism and when are the feds going to do something about it?   I tried filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), but it twisted my words into a narrower complaint than what I alleged and then declined to investigate its twisted version of my allegations, which is a first for OCR with me, I have to admit, and it makes me fear for our democracy even more, now.   If OCR is too intimidated by LAUSD to investigate such that it makes up lame excuses as to why it shouldn't have to, how does that not also suggest the presence of organized crime within LAUSD so large and expansive that even the feds won't touch it? DOJ is a little busy with the J6 investigations, but I suspect all of this stuff in inter-related as multiple spokes of a wheel-and-spoke conspiracy to overturn democracy in America.   Remember that Betsy DeVos tried to shut down OCR after she was appointed Secretary of Education by the 45th President until she had the snot sued out of her and subsequently reinstated it. She also admitted that her goal was to abolish USDOE as the Secretary of Education; she took the job with the specific intent of shutting down the entire agency from within.   How many people from the last administration continue to poison the well at USDOE? It's the same question Americans have to ask about every single federal agency, but as pointed out in the above linked-to article from The Root describing DeVos' desire to abolish USDOE altogether also describes the conference at which she recently shared her continued desire to shut down USDOE as teaching far-right parents how to build conservative-dominated school boards in their local communities, ban books, and a host of other undemocratic activities intended to deny the civil rights of children with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, students of color, and students from other protected classes.   It's an anti-science, anti-democracy approach that includes anti-vax, anti-masking nut-jobs who are too dumb to know how dumb they are and/or are profoundly mentally ill, being manipulated by grifters like DeVos to vote against their own interests in favor of the interests of the grifters. It's the "have-nots" falling for the tricks of the "haves" who know the only way they can have way more than what they actually need is to make sure others don't have enough.   Today's post isn't about documenting how I've figured out a way to overcome whatever fascist mafia might control LAUSD. It's about exposing what I've witnessed and adding my voice and the voices of the LAUSD students who aren't getting what they need to the conversation in the hopes that it will spark others to also help hold LAUSD to account for its egregious violations of special education law.   I'm hoping that voters in LA will learn more about these issues, understand that special education social justice issues cuts across all other demographic groups, and no segment of society is safe for so long as our government is allowed to conduct itself in this way. If you are involved in any type of social justice issue in which LAUSD has engaged in discrimination and withheld services it is legally required to provide, consider getting involved with our Meetup Group, Social Justice Series - Everyday Local Democracy for All.   Our Meetup Group is not limited to people living within the LAUSD attendance area, but we certainly have Angeleños already in the Group. You can comment/DM us directly on Meetup or on our social media, or use our Contact Us form on our site with any questions/feedback. We don't have all the answers, but awareness is the first step to solving a problem, so we're starting there.

Pre-Order on Amazon   Anne Zachry 00:00 Welcome to Making Special Education Actually Work, an online publication presented in blog and podcast form by KPS4Parents. As an added benefit to our subscribers and visitors to our site, we're making podcast versions of our text only blog articles so that you can get the information you need on the go by downloading and listening at your convenience. We also occasionally conduct discussions with guest speakers via our podcast and transcribe the audio into text for our followers who prefer to read the content on our blog. Where the use of visual aids, legal citations, and references to other websites are used to better illustrate our points and help you understand the information, these tools appear in the text only portion of the blog post of which this podcast is a part. You will hear a distinctive sound [bell sound] during this podcast whenever references made to content that includes a link to another article, website, or download. Please refer back to the original blog article to access these resources. Today is April 28 2022. This post/podcast is titled, "Interview of Dawn Barclay, author of Traveling Different: Vacation Strategies for Parents of the Anxious, the Inflexible and the Neurodiverse." In this podcast, which was originally recorded on April 1 2022, Dawn and I discuss her book and the challenges that children with various special needs can experience when it comes to going places in the community, including travel and vacations.   Anne Zachry 01:28 Thank you so much for doing this with me. So, you know, just to get started, if you could just introduce yourself, and then tell us about the book you've written and more or less the core issue that you were trying to tackle with it.   Dawn Barclay 01:40 Okay, terrific. So my name is Dawn Barkley and I have written a book called Traveling Different: Vacation Strategies for Parents of the Anxious, the Inflexible and the Neurodiverse. I have been a travel writer for the past 30-some years. I specialized in travel trade writing. And when I needed a book like this back in around 2008-2009, there wasn't a book like this. So I wanted to write a book that would help the parents of children on the autism spectrum, as well as with mood and attention disorders. What I what I found was that the tips would help in a neurotypical family, as well. Anne Zachry 02:31 That stands to reason. I mean, that's one of the things that research bears out, that when we start creating accommodations for people with special needs, that it turns out that it benefits everybody. I mean, look how people are now using text-to-speech to text when they send their text messages, right, you know, and that was started out as an accommodation. And now just people do it because it's a convenience. And so it just becomes adopted as, "Well, of course. Why wouldn't you use a calculator?" And so that totally makes sense that you would find overlap there that, you know. When you're having to think very deliberately for someone who needs that level of deliberate thought in order to simply access the situation that, you know, it's also going to benefit other people. So that's an interesting finding that you've made.   Dawn Barclay 03:16 Well, I think it stands to reason also that when a child is taken out of their comfort zone, they can be anxious or inflexible, you know, everybody is a little out of it when they are out of their comfort zone. And children haven't experienced those transitions as much as adults ...   Anne Zachry 03:32 True.   Dawn Barclay 03:33 ... they really need ... It's great when people take the time to really explain to a child what's going to happen on a trip, or get them involved in the planning of a trip. So they have a vested interest in being successful. So little things that you can do like showing videos to a kid before they travel, so they know where they're going. It's not all super exciting ...   Anne Zachry 03:54 No, it's all it's all common sense stuff. But it's you know, when we're talking about our special needs kids, these are things we would write it into, like, into an IEP, an accommodation for priming or front-loading, you know ...   Dawn Barclay 04:06 Right.   Anne Zachry 04:06 ... to warn them of transitions ahead of time, to give them a visual schedule so that the ...   Dawn Barclay 04:11 Right.   Anne Zachry 04:11 ... daily routine is predictable. And you know, and it really goes to ... you're right, it's a fundamental human thing, that anxiety is about lack of predictability.   Dawn Barclay 04:20 Yes.   Anne Zachry 04:20 And when you don't know what is coming next, it makes you anxious. And so you know, we all have our ways of dealing with that. And when you're talking about kids, they haven't necessarily develop the repertoire of skills ...   Dawn Barclay 04:34 Right.   Anne Zachry 04:34 ... and certainly as you were talking about a kid with special needs, the speed with which they're acquiring coping skills may not be as quickly as, you know, typically developing kids who may pick them up through observation, whereas some of our kids may need to be explicitly taught.   Dawn Barclay 04:48 Yeah, you're totally on target. And that's what I found. And that's what a lot of the advice revolved around is how to prep the child for each different type of trip. Whether depending on mode of transportation, or whether it evolved through restaurant or camping, or going to a hotel versus a vacation rental, any type of situation they might be put into, "How can we prepare?" and, "How can we smooth the way?"   Anne Zachry 05:16 Yeah, so that you know what to expect, and you're not worried or freaked out and anxious. That totally makes sense. And yeah, and it goes to ecological control, too. And you said something interesting in your email to me when we were setting all of this up about how some kids may need to start small. And maybe it's not even like an overnight trip anywhere, it's like going to a garage sale, or, you know, just going through a novel environment of any kind. And just, it's a skill that needs to be generalized. And so what ...   Dawn Barclay 05:45 Yes.   Anne Zachry 05:46 ... what was, what were your findings with regard to scaling and in scaffolding the complexity of the outings?   Dawn Barclay 05:54 Well, I have devoted a whole chapter to starting small, because I think it's vital to preview what the trip is going to be like, before you actually do it. And you've got a lot of time and money and energy invested in it. And so a lot of it involved social stories, which I would imagine that ...   Anne Zachry 06:13 Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 06:13 ... you're familiar with.   Anne Zachry 06:15 Yep.   Dawn Barclay 06:16 And also videos. But even before all of that, to do something small, like you said, like maybe if you're planning a trip to Italy, you would have some Italian food and talk about currency, or maybe introduce some Italian words, and just try to teach children that there is life that out there that's different than the way they experience it, and just make it fun for them. But also, like you said, like a garage sale, or a trip to the post office, any trip, you can take a child on can be a learning experience, if you couch it that way.   Anne Zachry 06:55 Right.   Dawn Barclay 06:55 I mean, I take them to a bakery that specializes perhaps in you know, like an Italian bakery or German bakery. And there are things that they're not familiar with and little by little get them excited about maybe trying something new. Local festivals in your town might be a good short trip, or a zoo, or an aquarium. Any of those can start the child getting used to something that will involve maybe a tour later on, on a vacation. And you can always refer back and say, "Oh, remember when we went on that tour to the aquarium? You've sort of experienced that."   Anne Zachry 07:32 You can even create a social story about outings in general based on past experiences on a smaller scale like that, and take photos and then, "Okay, well, when we go on the big trip, we're gonna go to other places where we take a tour. You remember the rules for tours, right?" And ...   Dawn Barclay 07:48 Right.   Anne Zachry 07:49 ... and whip out that social story with pictures of them having successfully done it before, and it just reinforces "Oh, I can handle this." So I think that's really smart. Well, that's really clever stuff. Well, so can people ... where can people get the book? Is it on Amazon or other places? Where are you selling it?   Dawn Barclay 08:06 Right now it's on pre-order. It's coming out August 15. But it is on pre-order on Amazon, on the Rowman and Littlefield website, on almost any online retailer. And we're hoping that we'll be in libraries as well. Right now you can preorder in hardcover, or in audiobook.   Anne Zachry 08:27 Okay.   Dawn Barclay 08:27 The ... that ... you can't preorder the digital the ebook yet.   Anne Zachry 08:31 Got it. Okay. That's good to know. Well, we do have our own online store of books, that is really just Amazon, that we use for fundraising for our nonprofit organization and to put useful tools in the hands of the families we serve. And so if you're listed on Amazon, that's easy enough for me to just, you know, include you in there so folks can pre-order, so I'll be sure to do that. And then, yeah, and then we'll have a link for that to the post as well, so that people can just click right on over. In your situation, what you're doing is so elegantly simple. And so, you know, most brilliant things are. Because you're just ... you're whittling it down and distilling it down to, you know, you don't need to overcomplicate this. That's what freaking everybody out is it's overcomplicated in their mind, and it's too chaotic, and you're just, like, bringing it down to a succinct, "No, here's what's going on. Here's the predictable thing that you can expect." And you're taking something that's unpredictable and turning it something ... into something predictable and more easily managed emotionally for ...   Dawn Barclay 09:31 Yes.   Anne Zachry 09:32 ... for people who struggle with lack of predictability for, you know, for whatever reasons, which we all do to one extent or another. But I think that there's very definitely ... I know for my families that have to struggle every summer with, "Do we accept the offer of extended school year services from the school district, or do we send our kid to some kind of camp where they could potentially get more, or do we do a family vacation?" and, you know, "What if we want to do all three? And how do we schedule all of that?" And I think that your, you know, your bottom line point that as long as you're -predicting and you're front-loading and you're priming. And you're thinking deliberately about how you're going to pace everything that it can be done. And very often, you'll have kids who do extended school year to work on things like social skills, or their ...   Dawn Barclay 10:21 Yes.   Anne Zachry 10:21 ... you know, their communication and their behavior. Well, they can also work on those same things if they're in a national park, you know, listening to the park ranger explain how, you know, what to do if you see a bear.   Dawn Barclay 10:35 True, and there are special passes for those with invisible disabilities for national parks.   Anne Zachry 10:41 Yes, there are.   Dawn Barclay 10:42 I talk about how you get that, and I talk about camping as well. If you want to take a small trip that might start with an overnight in your backyard, just so you can test what camping is like ...   Anne Zachry 10:52 Exactly.   Dawn Barclay 10:53 ... and then how to gauge ... how to evaluate a campground ahead of time to make sure it's going to work for you. There's a checklist for that. There are checklists for if you're going to rent a vacation rental, things you should look for.   Anne Zachry 11:06 Oh, that's so huge.   Dawn Barclay 11:08 Yeah. And when you talk about hotels, another tip for starting small is maybe just spending a night at a friend's house with a guestroom ...   Anne Zachry 11:17 Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 11:18 ... the child can get used to just staying in a different location and sleeping, to see how they adapt to that.   Anne Zachry 11:25 That makes a lot of sense, that makes a ... totally makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I mean, it's the baby steps sometimes before you take the large leap.   Dawn Barclay 11:33 Yes.   Anne Zachry 11:33 And, yeah, and it's scaffolding, I mean, when you're when you're talking about instruction, when you've got a child whose functioning below grade level, you just don't hit them full force with the grade level content. You back up a little bit, and you teach the prerequisite skills that they need to master that might be at a lower level. But if you don't know that, the bigger thing is not going to make any sense, you know?   Dawn Barclay 11:55 Sure. Of course.   Anne Zachry 11:56 And so it's you have to take those baby steps and work someone incrementally towards their comfort level, and where they're at a place where they can master something new. And that's really what, you know, it's the same concept just applied to, you know, the real life situation of just going out in the world and participating. And, you know, it's not really about the academics per se, but the concept still applies to learning how to access the world around you. So I think that's, you know, obviously, it's a very transferable concept. And you've ... it sounds like you're applying it in a really smart way. I'm excited to see your book now that you've told me all these awesome things and planning the things that are in it, because I'm telling you, I have families who are like, "We don't know what we're going to do this summer." And a lot of families who are just like, "We're just not going to do anything, because it's too hard to figure it all out." But if there's something ...   Dawn Barclay 11:56 That's so true.   Anne Zachry 11:57 ... yeah, there's something they can use that will help ... because I think for a lot of moms in particular, it tends to be the case that moms are the ones saddled with the planning ...   Dawn Barclay 12:53 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 12:53 ... and the logistics, and getting everything together and organizing everything. And just the thought, I mean, I can feel my own heart palpitating. You know, I remember doing Girl Scout events and having to get all those things together. And I know what kind of anxiety is around being the planner.   Dawn Barclay 13:09 There's been a study where they interviewed 1000 families and, of the ones with special needs, 93% didn't travel but said that they would if they knew where to go and how to handle it.   Anne Zachry 13:21 Exactly. No, that totally makes sense. Well, I think, you know, this is a huge service for the community of families that we serve, this is definitely information that families need. So I'm excited to share it all out and see what the response is to it once it comes out. I mean that right now it's preorder so no one's it's not available for review at the moment. But it'll be exciting to see what people say once they've gotten a chance to look at it. How have the preorders been going? What kind of feedback have you been getting from people now that you're going around promoting it?   Dawn Barclay 13:51 Well, I don't get to see the preorder numbers. However, we did send it to some people ... early endorsements for the back cover. And I was very, very happy with what people had to say, especially people who had written books about autism, and they were very positive about it. So that made me feel good, because the only people who had really read it before that was my agent and my publisher ...   Anne Zachry 14:14 Right, on.   Dawn Barclay 14:15 ... you know, I really hadn't heard from the community. And when I heard from them, and they felt that this was a very helpful book that made me feel great, because if I get a letter from someone in the future, who's read this book and said, you know, "Because of what you wrote, we traveled and thank you because you opened up the world to us," that will have made it all worthwhile for me.   Anne Zachry 14:36 I totally understand that. I mean, that's as advocates, that's what we're doing is, we're in the business of opening doors for people who otherwise they wouldn't open for, and it is. It's incredibly gratifying to realize that, you know, even if it's something simple, but certainly when you put forth this kind of effort to know that other people are benefiting from it. Yeah, it's very ... it's just, you know, you're reason to get up in the morning. I get it, I totally get it.   Dawn Barclay 15:04 It's true, and there's so many people out there who don't know what the resources are, like there are certified autism travel professionals out there who have dedicated themselves to being able to plan trips for families ...   Anne Zachry 15:17 Holy Moly!   Dawn Barclay 15:17 ... on the spectrum, and there are different certification companies like IBCCES, and that stands for the International Board of Credentialing and Continuing Education Standards.   Anne Zachry 15:31 Right.   Dawn Barclay 15:31 ... IBCCES, they created the Certified Autism Centers, and they go around certifying and training different venues to know how to work with the autistic population. And that's so important, because then you have certain resorts who have dedicated themselves to training their staff to helping.   Anne Zachry 15:50 That is so cool. Well, it's interesting now that you're saying all of that, because separate from the work that we do through our advocacy organization, I also have a separate program that I created that we operate, called the Learn & Grow Educational Series, which is part of the ecotourism circuit, and we address food security and sustainable living instruction through project-based learning and modeling. So online and in-person teaching, and we've actually got a teaching garden in a space that we use to do that kind of instruction. And that's something that actually I'd be interested in doing is getting us certified that way, because I've already got the master's degree in educational psychology, I already serve people on the spectrum every day, I understand how to apply the science but having a certification that says, "Yes, Anne knows what she's doing," I can see the value in that as well. So that's really interesting.   Dawn Barclay 16:42 Yeah, I can certainly tell you who to speak to, because not only does IBCCES do it, sorry, I'm tripping over myself ...   Anne Zachry 16:50 No worries.   Dawn Barclay 16:51 ... there are other organizations that are also starting to certify, like the Champion Autism Network, there's Culture City, there's Sensory City, just a number of people who are taking up the cause. But of all of them, I believe IBCCES has been around the longest, and they have done the most work for the certifying ...   Anne Zachry 17:10 Right.   Dawn Barclay 17:10 ... if you go to autismtravel.com, you can download their most recent list their catalogue of different locations. And what I have done is combined a lot of what they've done with other autism friendly resorts and attractions. And you have to be very careful whether it's certified or autism-friendly, because these things always change ...   Anne Zachry 17:34 Right.   Dawn Barclay 17:34 Certifications change. In fact, the new catalog just came out in there are some that are not in my book. And that drives me crazy. So I'll be running the Traveling Different blog that will update my book. That's the only way I can live with myself.   Anne Zachry 17:50 I totally get it. Yeah, because once it's printed, you're like, "Oh!" and then things change.   Dawn Barclay 17:56 "Ahh! I don't have that one." But what's also important is, and I mentioned that several times in the book is if you see something that says "autism-friendly," you have to do your due diligence. You have to call them or write to them and find out exactly what that means. What is their training entail? What have they actually done? Because it means different things to different suppliers, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be right for you. And also then you might be autism-friendly on the weekend, or on certain days in the month. That doesn't mean that they're always gonna have like autism-friendly days or low-sensory days at a museum every day.   Anne Zachry 18:33 Right.   Dawn Barclay 18:34 It might be one Saturday, a month. You have to be careful.   Anne Zachry 18:36 Right. No. And I know that in the greater Los Angeles area, and that the museums and the different aquariums and things that they'll have those types of events, but you're right, it's scheduled. And it's only like once a quarter or once ... Yeah, so you have to, it's not like they're just going to accommodate you like that on the fly necessarily. So ...   Dawn Barclay 18:37 Right, you have to make sure that it's going to happen while you're there. What I've also done in the book that I think it was very important I thought for me is I think most people with children on the spectrum know that they can obsess about a specific topic for up to 16 hours a day. It's their life.   Anne Zachry 19:13 Yep.   Dawn Barclay 19:13 So what I've included is a whole list of museums for special interests that are not necessarily autism-friendly, but they're going to be autism-friendly for your child because your child is going to be so thrilled to be there, that it might help overcome other obstacles ...   Anne Zachry 19:29 Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 19:29 ... like flourescent lighting or other sensory issues because I think there'll be so excited that here ... like I talked about one child that was ... I don't know if they were in Montana or somewhere in that area ... and there was a mustard Museum, and the kid was crazy about mustard and only talks about his how his parents took him to this museum. So museums all over the country. So say you happen to be going to Cleveland and your child is interested in something you know some oddball ...   Anne Zachry 19:58 Yeah, area of interest. Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 20:01 ... and that would turn the whole business trip into a really memorable trip for your child because you engaged in their interests. And the trip has to be child-centric. And once you get, you know, that idea that we're going to build it around the child, I think everything starts to fall into place. So I do include a very large chapter about that, as well as ways to find other museums.   Anne Zachry 20:23 That is so cool, this is really interesting, I'm really looking forward to seeing the book when it comes out. Thank you so so much for tackling this, because you're right, this is ... this has been an area sore need for a long time. And you do have to have that blended knowledge of the travel industry and be a travel insider to be able to speak to what all these different places can do and what your options are, and how you go about asking for those kinds of things. But you have to understand what the needs are in the first place to know that you need to ask, and so, you know, you're in this nexus between the travel industry and the disability community, you know, making those connections between where the needs of one overlap with the abilities of the other to serve. And ...   Dawn Barclay 21:11 Well, and it does take a village right?   Anne Zachry 21:11 So, but you know, it also takes somebody to be that person who ties it all together and, you know, puts it down in writing for everybody to use in the, you know, your role is very significant in that because even though all of these people may have possessed all of this disparate knowledge, it needed to be distilled down into something that the lay public could access and make use of, and that's where you basically act as a scribe and made that happen. So I think that that's a gift to be able to take what you already know, and connect with the ... with people who are going through these unique circumstances, and be able to create a tool like this. So this was really exciting stuff. Thank you so much for doing the work.   Dawn Barclay 21:11 And I thank goodness for the people who contributed to this book, because this isn't my story, this is the culmination of over 100 interviews with parents, with certified autism travel professionals, with health professionals like Tony Atwood and Dr. Ellen Lippmann, and different organizations, and different advocates and allies, and all of them taught me so much. And that's what ... I couldn't have written the book without them.   Anne Zachry 21:39 Thank you.   Dawn Barclay 21:39 I learned so much. I mean, I would have never known that there were therapeutic aspects to diving vacations, or to golf vacations, or to skiing, and there's so much out there for this population now, because everybody is trying to be so much more inclusive than they were before.   Anne Zachry 22:35 Right.   Dawn Barclay 22:35 So it's just fascinating that you can go to a dude ranch, and there are ones that will cater to your child, or you can go to rent a house boat, we should really know the safety measures that are involved in that or if you want to rent a yacht, because, you know, if you rent a private boat, you certainly have enough room to bring along friends or family that can help take care of the child. So it's not only on the parents.   Anne Zachry 23:01 Right, no that's a really good point, too.   Dawn Barclay 23:04 ... all kind of gels together.   Anne Zachry 23:06 That's really interesting. Now, I will say that a lot of our families are not going to be renting yachts anytime soon. I mean, a lot of folks, you know, what isn't appreciated very often is the added expense that comes along with parenting a child with special needs, and that, you know, even a middle class family can find themselves struggling just because of those added expenses. So I think that the ... you also, you know, talking about these other options, and that where you start small at a more local level, still builds the skills and still gives them that exposure, even if you know, we're not going to go to Europe this summer, but we're you know, maybe we're gonna go, you know, we're going to drive for six hours and go stay with aunts and uncles in another part of the state, you know, and, and so whatever the scale of it is, really, it comes down to the experience for the child and the predictability of it. And having your ducks in a row in terms of, like you said, planning it and making a child-centric plan about how you're going to handle your trips, which I think is really smart. I mean, it's not about saying that any one person is more important than everybody else; it's just saying that this person's needs are going to be the most demanding ones we need to accommodate, and at minimum, we need to make sure we take care of x, y and z. And then we can take care of everything else around that and you know, you get those those the hardest things you're going to have to accommodate out of the way and then everything else is easy going forward. So ...   Dawn Barclay 24:32 Right, and I agree with you, not everybody can afford a yacht. I certainly can't. I do spend a lot of time talking about car travel, bus travel. I talked about how the Autism on the Seas Company has a scholarship or a grant for people who can't afford to sail on their own ...   Anne Zachry 24:51 Right on!   Dawn Barclay 24:51 ... if they want to take advantage of an autism cruise. I do talk about how to handle restaurants and how to do camping, so I do include all that information and I'd like to think that this book can help people from, you know ...   Anne Zachry 25:05 From across ...yeah, across the socio-economic spectrum.   Dawn Barclay 25:08 Yes.   Anne Zachry 25:08 Yeah, because you were talking about camping and things like that. And I'm thinking to like, even if you do make it to Europe, maybe you're not going to rent a car, you're going to be using public transportation.   Dawn Barclay 25:17 Right.   Anne Zachry 25:18 And you know, and you're gonna be using a Europass, or whatever. And so, yeah, so there's a lot of things that have to be factored in. And everybody's situation is unique. And yet there's these things in common that, you know, these unifying factors that if you just attend to these details, then all of the things that are unique, will still be manageable. So ...   Dawn Barclay 25:39 And also, like, how to keep safe, how to make sure you don't lose your child, and safety measures to take. All information like that. That's so important to have.   Anne Zachry 25:47 That's so huge. Absolutely. My goodness! Well, this was just a very enlightening conversation. I really appreciate you sharing all of this with me. I'm looking forward to sharing your information with everybody and hearing what they have to say about it.   Dawn Barclay 26:01 Absolutely. My pleasure. Thank you so much.   Anne Zachry 26:03 You're so welcome.   Anne Zachry 26:04 Thank you for listening to the podcast version of interview of Dawn Barclay, author of Traveling Different: Vacation Strategies for Parents of the Anxious, the Inflexible and the Neurodiverse. KPS4Parents reminds its listeners that knowledge powers solutions for parents and all eligible children, regardless of disability, are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. If you're a parent, education professional, or concerned taxpayer, and have questions or comments about special education related matters, please email us at info@kps4parents.org or post a comment to our blog that's info at "K" as in "knowledge," "p" as in "powers," "S" as in "solutions," the number "4," "parents," P-A-R-E-N-T-S dot O-R-G. We hope you found our information useful and look forward to bringing more useful information to you. Subscribe to our feed to make sure that you receive the latest information from Making Special Education Actually Work, an online publication of KPS4Parents. Find us online at KPS4Parents.org. KPS4Parents is a nonprofit lay advocacy organization. The information provided by KPS4Parents in Making Special Education Actually Work is based on the professional experiences and opinions of KPS4Parents' lay advocates and should not be construed as formal legal advice. If you require formal legal advice, please seek the counsel of a qualified attorney. All the content here is copyrighted by KPS4Parents which reserves all rights.

Anne Zachry 0:00 Welcome to "Making Special Education Actually Work," an online publication presented in blog in podcast form by KPS4Parents. As an added benefit to our subscribers and visitors to our site, we're making podcast versions of our text-only blog articles so that you can get the information you need on the go by downloading and listening at your convenience. We also occasionally conduct discussions with guest speakers via our podcast and transcribe the audio into text for our followers who prefer to read the content on our blog. Where the use of visual aids legal citations and references to other websites are used to better illustrate our points and help you understand the information, these tools appear in the text-only portion of the blog post of which this podcast is a part. You will hear a distinctive sound [bell sound] during this podcast whenever reference is made to content that includes a link to another article, website, or download. Please refer back to the original blog article to access these resources.   Anne Zachry 0:58 Today is March 31 2022. This post in podcast is titled, "Interview of George Bailey, president of ZPods." In this podcast, which was originally recorded on March 23 2022, George and I discuss the impact of sleep disorders and related conditions that interfere with children's access to education and the research being done into his company's sleep solutions for children with autism, sensory integration disorders, insomnia, anxiety, and other disorders that can negatively impact their sleep quality.   George Bailey 1:29 Hi, I'm George Bailey, and I'm president of ZPods. We're a startup in St. Louis, and we are developing sensory-friendly beds for autistic children and others who have severe sleep problems that are caused by sensory issues. So, our goal is to help out as many of these kids as possible. We enjoy it … and, uh, yeah.   Anne Zachry 1:54 That's very cool. And I know that when I was emailing with you guys back and forth, when we were coordinating all of this, you know, my first question was what kind of peer reviewed research do you have behind what you're doing? Are you doing any kind of studies? And, I understand that, not only are you … because you were just telling me that you've got a regional center here in California that's already funded your product for one of its consumers, and they're not going to just jump on something unless there's evidence to back it up. But I know that you guys are also participating in some evidence … some studies and whatnot to collect the hard data that speaks to not just whether or not it's effective, but what makes it effective. How is it effective? And what is the science that underpins what it is that you're doing? And so I was hoping to get more information about that from you guys, in terms of what's … what's the research currently being done on the efficacy of your solution?   George Bailey 2:44 It's such a good question. And, you know, I was just telling somebody earlier that one of the reasons why it took us a while to get around to really focusing on autism … we were thinking about, like, you know, "Where we should go?" … is because when people would tell us, you know, look at autism, early on, as we were trying to find an application for sleep pods that were great. We were bringing it from China, I balked at it. I'm a father of five. And I have two kids on the spectrum. And I thought like, "Ah, come on guys," … like, parents of autistic children get all sorts of stuff.   Anne Zachry 3:19 Oh, yeah, for sure.   George Bailey 3:20 … business. Yeah. I don't want business on playing on people's hopes and stuff like that. And so I, initially when I approached him, and said, "Okay, I want to take this serious, because we're getting that feedback that says we should do this." But I started talking to experts, and with parents of autistic children, and interacting with autistic children of my own. And the feedback was a resounding, "Please try it." And I think that … so, I'm going to answer your question two parts: I think that there's an intuitive evidence and I think that there's going to be actual evidence and the intuitive of evidence is kind of based on all of our collective experience.   Anne Zachry 3:59 Right, the anecdotal data. Yeah.   George Bailey 4:00 Yeah, yeah. There's some heavy anecdotal evidence that's seems to say, like, these children really value … they have the same needs as if … in that there's, kind of, like, one type.   Anne Zachry 4:11 Right. There's no monoliths, but, yeah, kids with similar needs. Yeah.   George Bailey 4:15 Yeah. These kids tend to love sleeping in the closet, under the bed, up against the wall, and … there's something that's like it. And there was enough there for us to see, so there was something there. But, all of the things that, kind of, come together out of this bed, it was not built for kid's processing, initially. It was just, like, an enclosure with some LED lights and some fans and a mirror, and all of those elements, when combined together, seemed to form this really fantastic environment. And if you were to take any one of those things, separately … study this out and find some interesting things. Like for example, when you enclose somebody, then you give them darkness … well, darkness is heavily prescribed for good sleep hygiene.   Anne Zachry 5:06 Right.   George Bailey 5:06 … darker or something like that. It's separate, but the enclosure itself provides almost like a sensory …   Anne Zachry 5:12 Right.   George Bailey 5:13 And, then, LED lights, you know, again, heavily used in the sensory, or special needs community …   Anne Zachry 5:22 Right.   George Bailey 5:22 Heavily used. And so all of these things … Now, where we're at with clinical trials is that we've been in touch with the folks at the Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders.   Anne Zachry 5:27 Um-hmm.   George Bailey 5:37 The lead clinician for this project is going to be Dr. Christina McCrae, who is published widely on autism and sleep, and that was a must. We needed somebody to do … to ask the right questions …   Anne Zachry 5:48 Right.   George Bailey 5:49 … not do what we say. I am trying my best to remove myself from the academic questions as much as possible to just, kind of, stand back and let them do their work.   Anne Zachry 6:01 Right.   George Bailey 6:01 Because, it needs an honest assessment. That was my stance from the beginning, is that, if were going to go into this, here's how we're going to look at it: We're going to find out what's true. And what's true may not be as flattering as what we'd like, or maybe it'll be moreso. Maybe it will be better than, you know … maybe we're not being optimistic enough? I don't know.   Anne Zachry 6:20 Right.   George Bailey 6:21 … but if we learned that "X" works … and we will continue to do facts …   Anne Zachry 6:25 Exactly!   George Bailey 6:26 … if we can say, if we learned that, "Y" doesn't, then we will also chalk that up to success and say we're going to stop doing "Y." And if we learned that we should probably … there's an implication here that we should be trying "Z," then we're going to start pursuing that. We're not …   Anne Zachry 6:43 Right.   George Bailey 6:43 … because I think that it requires that kind of mentality to really test this out. So …   Anne Zachry 6:49 Well, yeah. I mean, any kind of solution requires that kind of mentality. That's just common sense. Which, you know, we also call scientific method.   George Bailey 6:59 It's hard to do this in our community. When you're an entrepreneur, you're hustling and you're getting out there. You're constantly … you just gotta, you know, sell, sell, sell, and you got to pitch your brand, bla bla bla. But you got to break out of that sometimes and just listen to what is being told to you.   Anne Zachry 7:19 Right.   George Bailey 7:19 And sometimes even … sometimes that's hard, but you put your heart and your mind to it and your … and your money, as well. It's very difficult, but at the same time, if you listen, then the rewards in terms of, kind of, like, personal satisfaction that you are doing right by the people that you're trying to serve … Pretty tremendous!   Anne Zachry 7:40 Yeah, and I have to agree with that. Well, and what you're making me think of is that the psychology of sales and marketing is the exact same science as the psychology of good instruction. It's … it's all the same thing.   George Bailey 7:52 Yes!   Anne Zachry 7:53 It's all the same thing. And so, what you're doing is … when you're doing … there's the, you know, the snake oil salesman, kind of, "I'm going to sell ice cubes to Eskimos and get people to part with their money for things they don't need." But then you also have consultative sales, which is responsible sales, where you're actually … you're not out there selling, you know, product features, you're out there selling solutions to people's problems. And you're … you're approaching it from the standpoint of, "What is your situation and do I have something that will help you?" And if you do, then what you're really doing is you're not selling the product, you're selling the solution, and the product just happens to be the means to that end. And that's a more authentic thing. And you build relationships with people. And it requires you to listen to what their needs actually are. And this is what they've been, you know, all these sales classes, they have people take, this as the message, and this is what you're doing. But it's also exactly the same thing as when you're trying to identify an IEP solution for a kid. You've got to pay attention to what's going on with the kid as a unique individual and match the solution to the actual need. And so there really is no difference between consultative selling and IEP development when you're talking about matching solution to need. And …   George Bailey 9:11 I love that perspective. And, you know, it's interesting, because I found myself in a few situations where I've actually explicitly told the parent, "I don't think we're a good fit for you." And I feel like … it may feel like a, kind of, short-term security to be able to say, like, "Yay!" You know, "We sold another bed."   Anne Zachry 9:30 Right.   George Bailey 9:31 But, it's a long term hurt on the brand. If you really are trying to establish yourself, it's like, we don't make scientific claims. No matter what, here's the crazy thing. It's like no matter how many times I say that we are not making medical claims …   Anne Zachry 9:48 Right.   George Bailey 9:48 … there will be parents who read onto what we're our saying medical claims …   George Bailey 9:53 Right.   George Bailey 9:53 … because hope springs eternal and they're looking for a solution and this sleeplessness … sleeplessness of their child is causing them genuine distress.   Anne Zachry 10:05 Right.   George Bailey 10:06 When a child's not sleeping with the entire family has suffered.   Anne Zachry 10:09 Exactly!   George Bailey 10:11 And so you have to be really careful to kind of repeat that again and again. But at the same time, there's the kind of the other interest … is that you also want to make sure that you get it out there, because you rely on those early adopters who are like, really like, they'll take a risk.   Anne Zachry 10:28 Right.   George Bailey 10:28 I love those people. I am not an early adopter, okay, I wasn't on Facebook until 2011. I'm the last kid on the block buy the new thing. But the early adopters, one of the things whether they succeed or fail with your solution, they give you information, that it's very valuable, you have to respect that …   Anne Zachry 10:52 Absolutely!   George Bailey 10:53 … going back to your sales mentality, I think you're right, I don't think that it's always true. I've seen salespeople, huge tricks of the trade that I personally find to be manipulative …   Anne Zachry 11:07 Right.   George Bailey 11:07 … but I used to be a foreign language instructor …   Anne Zachry 11:12 Hmmm.   George Bailey 11:12 … for nine years. And it was really fun. I loved that time in my life, where I got to teach, and there was always, kind of, the part of explanation.   Anne Zachry 11:24 Yep.   George Bailey 11:25 You know, where you had to learn to, kind of … and a lot of the explanation that I did was kind of fun, it's a little bit off topic, but you know, I taught Mandarin Chinese, first year. And that was very fun. And, the way that we would explain things … we were told by the teacher that we worked with, I was a teacher's assistant that also taught courses, you're not going to use English to teach Chinese, you're going to use Chinese to teach Chinese.   Anne Zachry 11:49 Right.   George Bailey 11:50 So, there was a lot of need to be able to be empathetic with my audience. When I was looking at 20 of my students saying, "Wǒ" (我) which is the Chinese word for "I" or "me," that I'd have to see, are they really getting it? And I think that with the art of sales, you have to really listen to people.   Anne Zachry 12:10 Yeah.   George Bailey 12:11 And the better you are at listening to people and their needs, I think the better you're going to convey, like, that … that you really care and that you're ready to solve a problem and not just, like, you know, get … sell snake oil.   Anne Zachry 12:24 Right. Well, again, I relate it back to … everything back to IEPs, because if you think about the IEP process, it's the same thing. You can't write an IEP, an individualized program of instruction for somebody, unless you listen to what their needs actually are. There's not a one size fits all. That's called Gen Ed.   George Bailey 12:45 Yes, yes.   Anne Zachry 12:46 You know, and, and so, you know, general education is the assembly line. And special ed is the custom shop.   George Bailey 12:55 You know, I really agree. We've worked with some IEP experts with my oldest son, Joseph. And I was always really touched. When I felt like they were taking the time to listen to me. And when they were really looking at my son and his specific needs, and so that's, you know, it's a labor of love. And it's really critical to look at each child as an individual.   Anne Zachry 13:20 And, it's required by law for that reason.   George Bailey 13:23 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 13:26 So yeah, so I mean, I realize there's overlap, you know, all these processes and procedures that everybody's using … it's interesting that no matter what outcome you're trying to achieve, very often there's a similar formula to how you make it happen. And there's always a needs assessment. And then there's a matching of solutions and need.   George Bailey 13:44 A situational analysis.   Anne Zachry 13:45 Yeah. And so, I mean, it's, again, you know, it's common sense, otherwise known as scientific method. But, well, this is very interesting. So what, what kinds of … what kinds of responses have you gotten from the families who are using the ZPods?   George Bailey 14:02 So, we've got both the responses that have been highly favorable, and some that have been like, "Meh," you know, but even with that, what we've never gotten .. what we've never heard from a single parent is, "My child does not like your bed." We may have gotten responses like, "Your assembly instructions need some real clarity and they're very inconvenient," like, you know, we've gotten that …   Anne Zachry 14:25 Right. Technical stuff.   George Bailey 14:27 … from the parents, but the one universal is, "Our kids love, love your bed." And then we've had another set of children where it's like, minimalist a fact that they love it; they use it as a chill space. Right?   Anne Zachry 14:40 Right.   George Bailey 14:41 And then we've had a very large number of parents and again, I hesitate to get the numbers. I'll give you what numbers I can, to be as, kind of, precise as possible. And we've worked between … with between 60 and 70 families, okay. And that number is always increasing and that there's been a very high degree of customer satisfaction and a consistent feedback from families like, "Wow, my kid's doing things that I've never seen the kid do before," We've had, for example, one of my favorites was Dawson, a six-year-old boy, who, after a week of sleeping in our bed, the … first of all, the immediate result was that his sleep jumped from roughly two or three hours a night to about eight hours at the very least.   Anne Zachry 15:28 Praise God! That by itself is worth it.   George Bailey 15:30 Yes, that by itself is already worth it. But then, the, kind of, double validation came a week later, when the school teacher for Dawson pinned down the mother and said, "What are you guys doing different?" Because that was unsolicited.   Anne Zachry 15:49 Right.   George Bailey 15:50 One of the things we have to be really careful about as we study this is that parents who take the time and the trouble to purchase one of our beds have a bias towards believing that they made a good decision.   Anne Zachry 16:03 Right.   George Bailey 16:05 And, I don't want to manipulate that. We want them to be happy, naturally. We want them to feel like they made a good decision. But I also acknowledge that bias that they have. So, when it comes to the third parties that come in and say, "Wow, I've seen some really, really great improvement," … but we've seen that a fairly large number of cases where we'll have like an OT say to parents, "This bed has been a game-changer," things like that.   Anne Zachry 16:32 Right.   George Bailey 16:33 And, in Dawson's case for the teacher to come up without knowing that there was a change in his sleep, but just saying, "This kid is more alert, more focused." And, incidentally, in his particular case, there was talked amongst the parents about the possibility of institutionalizing him.   Anne Zachry 16:50 Right.   George Bailey 16:50 Because it was that bad.   Anne Zachry 16:52 Yeah.   George Bailey 16:53 And, Dawson's not a bad kid. We know that. But, anybody who is under-slept so severely is going to have severe behavioral problems.   Anne Zachry 17:05 Right.   George Bailey 17:06 Sleep has incredible value for for the brain, for the body, you know, for cognition. it's just …   Anne Zachry 17:14 … it's neurologically necessary.   George Bailey 17:17 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 17:17 And it's a … it's part of human survival. You have to go through that or you will … it will make you literally ill. And …   George Bailey 17:25 And it sounds kind of funny, like trying to sell sleep. We're not selling sleep, per se; it's that we're selling something that we hope will cause more sleep. But it's almost a little bit kind of funny to hear myself, like, "Aww, now I've become one of those sleep preachers!" I keep reading these books about sleep, and I'm, like, these guys are all … dealing with sleep and saying the same thing. It's almost like talking about water.   Anne Zachry 17:48 Right.   George Bailey 17:49 "Did you ever see the rejuvenative powers of water? It's incredible!"   Anne Zachry 17:56 I know you … you really have hit on a very fundamental, visceral, survival-level kind of need that sadly enough in our society is neglected. And, you know, and you're … you're looking at, "Okay, how do we address this fundamental survival need, and these individuals who are struggling with this who … and are compromised?" And so I think that … I mean, I'm always excited to see new stuff. And anecdotal evidence is always a sign that, okay, we need to look into this a little bit more deeply to see, you know, what makes us you know, for real, so I'm always happy to hear that, you know, with stuff like this, the early adopters are like, "Oh, no, this seems to be doing a thing." And all of it makes sense. I mean, logically, and intuitively, you're right, it all logically makes sense. But it's still going to be interesting to see what kind of research data comes from it and you know, … maybe some grad school student will latch on to it and want to write a paper or something. You just never know, and so …   George Bailey 18:54 And, that's what we're encouraging constantly. It's that we want it to be subjected to scrutiny, empirical data, empirical study and and we also want to urge all companies out there that are trying to provide a solution for the autism community to find ways to get at third parties that are impartial to come in, because you only stand to gain …   Anne Zachry 19:19 Right.   George Bailey 19:20 … you may not hear what you think you hear; you may not hear what you want to hear, but you are going to hear what is going to be beneficial.   Anne Zachry 19:28 Right. Once you know what you're working with, you can say, "Okay, well this is what I know I can do and I'm gonna stay in my lane and do only that," you know? "I'm not gonna try and be everything to everybody," and there's … there's a lot of value in that …   George Bailey 19:49 And, we don't want that, either. You know, there's this temptation to kind of overplay it, like, "Hey, you know this is going to do "X" and "Y" for the kid's autism," but you don't know, it's gonna be different for every kid, and it's going to … whatever your child needs is going to be a very large combination of things. We are one part of a very, very complex puzzle of sleep …   Anne Zachry 20:03 Right.   George Bailey 20:04 There are physiological components to it, you know, some people can't sleep because like internal parts of how they function.   Anne Zachry 20:13 Right.   George Bailey 20:13 Others that they're … it's just a matter of really good sleep hygiene. Some have a more selective sleep hygiene, which is kind of where we play …   Anne Zachry 20:20 Um-hmm.   George Bailey 20:22 … where they really need the aspect of enclosure, I don't need to be enclosed in something to feel safe.   Anne Zachry 20:30 Right.   George Bailey 20:31 You know? Then again, I like being enclosed in my home, in my bedroom. You know? And then in my wife's there. Those are some of the things that add to my own personal satisfaction …   Anne Zachry 20:42 Right.   George Bailey 20:43 … where I can calm down and initiate sleep. But some kids, they just thrive on …   George Bailey 20:50 And, you're making me … the word "proximity" pops into my head, where … proximity to the wall, you know? How close are the walls to me? As … you know, if you're … if you feel safe within your house, you're still within a structure. But if that feels too spacious, and you need to have the walls closer to your physical presence to really feel that … that enclosed feeling, then I … then, yeah, that would, to me, say that some individuals need the walls in closer proximity to their physical beings than others. And, it again goes to everybody falls on a spectrum of some kind in every aspect of development one way or another. And that's … this is just the one that you happen to be dealing with. And …   George Bailey 21:37 Yeah, some kids, actually … so our bed, it fits a twin size mattress; it's about three feet tall on the inside. It's pretty big I can I can sit up, I can kneel down and I'm barely touching my head.   Anne Zachry 21:51 Right.   George Bailey 21:52 So some kids feel comfortable in that, and they feel it. And I'm wondering, this is now I'm, kind of, theorizing that I wonder if this would fall under the proprioceptive sense. You know, where you can kind of sense that closeness to something without it being a touch sensation.   Anne Zachry 22:10 Yeah, because proprioception is like your the sensation of your body moving through space. And, yeah, and pressure and those kinds of things. Well, and I'm wondering if you're enclosed inside of the pod, how much of it is air pressure? And if there's an inner ear vestibular piece to it as well?   George Bailey 22:29 Yes, yes.   Anne Zachry 22:30 That's curious.   George Bailey 22:31 … really comfortable, that other people feel like all they need around them are the warehouse walls of a Costco.   Anne Zachry 22:37 Right.   George Bailey 22:38 You know, something very large, they're fine with that, you know? So …   Anne Zachry 22:43 Well, and it makes you think of our kids on the spectrum that struggle with personal space, and getting all up in people's faces, and they don't understand that other people have a personal bubble, and you need to step back a few.   George Bailey 22:54 Oh, that's a great comparison!   Anne Zachry 22:55 And I'm wondering how much of that is inter played with what you're dealing with? That'd be an interesting line of inquiry to explore.   George Bailey 23:01 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 23:03 Yeah. Well, you know what I'm thinking of to is here in California, which I know is unique, because not most states don't have anything if any other states do. I've not heard of any other states that have it. But here in California, the Department of Education operates what they call Diagnostic Centers. And there's three of them. There's one up in Northern California in Fremont. There's one in the central part of the state in Fresno. And then there's another one down in LA for … that covers Southern California. And what they do is they're … they're funded out of the State's federal special ed dollars and state special ed dollars, skimmed off the top, and then all the rest goes to the public schools. And so what Diagnostic Center does is they conduct evaluations of students who their local education agencies are having a heck of a time, even going through all the normal assessment procedures, trying to figure out what to do for these kids. And what they do, it's an on-site thing where they … the family will go and the State will put them up in a hotel and give them coupons to, like, Soup Plantation, you'll never want to eat there again by the time you're done … and, and you stay there for like three or four days while your child is being evaluated by all of these "ologists" in this facility, while you as a parent are sitting on the other side of the one way glass watching the whole thing. And you're getting interviewed and they're just like turning, you know, your whole world inside out to get a handle on what's going on with this kid. And I'm wondering if Diagnostic Centers wouldn't benefit from having something like this to test with those kids who have those kinds of issues.   George Bailey 24:34 That is such a great question. Well, first of all, let me say that California has a fond place in my heart. I was born and raised in Hayward …   Anne Zachry 24:42 Oh, right on.   George Bailey 24:51 … so not too far from your Fremont Diagnostic Center. And, you know, In-and-Out Burger, I don't know if you've ever been there …   Anne Zachry 24:51 Oh yeah.   George Bailey 24:52 Best hamburgers in the West. Great place. But to your point, that's actually … I don't know if we've toyed with that specific idea. I love that a lot. One of the things we have toyed with that we're working on right now, it's hard to get started to get … we're very … we were three years old as a company,   Anne Zachry 25:11 Oh, you're babies. Yeah.   George Bailey 25:12 Yeah, we're babies. We're two years old working within the autism community.   Anne Zachry 25:16 Got it.   George Bailey 25:18 But one of the things we'd love to see happen is we would like to get more Airbnbs to use these …   Anne Zachry 25:25 Ohhh!   George Bailey 25:25 … just depending on what kind of family it is. Well, then the point is that it's kind of like if you go to the mattress store, and the guy says, "Well, try the mattress out, see how you like it." Well, you're gonna sit on the end, and kind of push it down with your hands. You don't know what you're doing. It's kind of like, "How do I know if this is good?" And then he'll tell you, "You gotta lie down."   Anne Zachry 25:46 Yeah.   George Bailey 25:47 So we're trying to take it to the next level with our idea of putting these in Airbnbs because then it's like getting inside the bed. We're pretty good at assessing, we've had a number of kids come by St. Louis, just to try it out, get inside, and they love it. It's pretty automatic. And they'll close themselves in without being asked to do so. It was actually my son, when he did that. And then lie down. And I didn't know what he was doing in there. I gave him five minutes alone, just kind of waiting. And then I was just like losing my patience. And I opened the door. And there he is on his back with his hands behind his head. Very chill, very relaxed. And that led me to like, "Okay." That was one of my earlier signals were onto something. The point is that I could observe that for five or 10 minutes. Or I could do it overnight…   Anne Zachry 26:36 Right.   George Bailey 26:37 … with a lot more confidence.   Anne Zachry 26:40 It's like an opportunity to try it out. You know, that's interesting that you would say that, because separate from what we do in special education, I have a whole other program that we run that's devoted to sustainable living and food security.   George Bailey 26:53 Yeah? Oh, that's great!   Anne Zachry 26:53 And yeah, and so it's all evidence based instruction. It's the Learn & Grow Educational Series. But what we're looking to do is build these Learning Centers where people can come and stay in a sustainably built structure, with grey-water recapturing and composting toilets, and all these things that sounds scary, but really aren't and try it out for a few days …   George Bailey 27:00 … would love this, what you're doing by the way!   Anne Zachry 27:15 Yeah, and …   George Bailey 27:15 … very much into this!   Anne Zachry 27:17 … our ultimate goal is to at some point in time … what's the point of convincing people to live this way, if there's no place where they can go live this way?   George Bailey 27:25 Yes!   Anne Zachry 27:25 … is we also want to be able to do affordable housing that's sustainably built with all of these same technologies. And so that if they go and they … they do a trial through Airbnb, at one of our Learning Centers that we are looking to build in the future, that they go, "Oh, I can deal with this. This isn't gross. This is still really bougie. I can handle this," you know, then they … they can … there's a place for them to go buy into a home that has all of those things. Because right now, it's all the DIYers who are doing that, and not everybody wants to build their own sustainable house. Lots of people just want to go buy a house and move in and be done with it. And but there's no sustainably built homes in neighborhoods like that. And so it's the same concept of, if you go and try it out first, and then realize, "Hey, this is cool," and you see benefits from it, then you're, like, ready to approach it for real and incorporate it into your actual lifestyle. And so I think that that's something you are doing that's in common with what I'm doing in this other program I have. And that there, there's a lot of value of having that Airbnb Experience out there for people to try things that are new. It's something that I don't think Airbnb realized when they first started that they were going to create.   George Bailey 28:34 Yes.   Anne Zachry 28:35 But it's you know, there's now all of these places, and now they have Experiences. In fact, our Learn & Grow Educational Series, we actually do classes (and tours) through Airbnb Experiences. For one thing, it's a lot more affordable to do it that way for us because Airbnb will insure all of the events that we conduct for up to a million dollars per event.   George Bailey 28:55 Oh wow, yeah!   Anne Zachry 28:56 And so that means I'm not having to go down and get a certificate of insurance every time I'm conducting a class. And the owner of the property where I'm doing my classes is like, "Oh, thank God, I'm not going to have to file a homeowner's claim if somebody trips and," you know, "sprains an ankle while they're walking through the driveway or something." There's all of these advantages to using Airbnb to create these novel experiences that people can test out for just a few days without having to change their whole living experience. And then if they decide, "Oh, this was worth it," okay. It is like a living test. And I think that's … that's huge. I think there's a lot of value in that. So that's exciting. I think that that's a smart way to go.   George Bailey 29:36 And it's something … it's something that we hope to get started as soon as possible. I know that maybe some of your listeners are thinking, "Oh, where can I do this?" It's still in process. I mean, we're still looking for people to kind of try it out. We may have something in Indiana, but not … certainly not in California right now. But what's interesting to me about it is that on a broader topical discussion rather than just autism, it goes to show that we have shifted our purchasing behavior dramatically since the advent of the Internet, and Amazon has really changed.   Anne Zachry 30:07 Huge. Yeah.   George Bailey 30:08 It's big because, like, we think, for example … we used to think, "Well, what would the brick and mortar store look like for our operation?" And pretty soon after that, we concluded that there is no brick and mortar store for us.   Anne Zachry 30:22 Right.   George Bailey 30:22 That's not to say that brick and mortar is dead. I'm actually a big fan of brick and mortar. I love getting out there. I love being around people. I love walking around. I don't want to buy everything I have on online and then cloister myself.   Anne Zachry 30:35 Right.   George Bailey 30:37 But, that being said, this specifically, it's just, it's a big product. And it has … you're going to consider it more like a buy like a car…   Anne Zachry 30:48 Right.   George Bailey 30:48 … which can be which can't be bought at the store.   Anne Zachry 30:51 Right. Yeah, it's not an impulse buy. Yeah.   George Bailey 30:54 Yeah, it's not an impulse … Thank you. That's basically it. Nice, Anne. Yes!   Anne Zachry 30:59 … that, and, yeah. So, because it takes that consultation planning and forethought and thinking, yeah, it's not really a retail-oriented kind of thing where you would just have like, the ZPod Store. I can see like, if you had a ZPod section of a mattress store or something. But I can also see, you know, literature in developmental centers and regional center offices, you know, and things like that, where it would be something that, like you said, you're not doing a medical model. So it's not necessarily something that would be prescribed. But, you know, like an assistive technology evaluation, when you have kids who are in a special ed, who you're trying to find out what technologies will give them access to education. Well, what if the issue is sleep? Could that be part of an assistive technology evaluation? And if that's the case …   George Bailey 31:51 Now that being said, I'm really excited you brought that one up because I was I was just about to bring it up. Assistive technology programs … if you have an assistive technology program nearby, like, ask them about us. And the reason why is because we're actually currently I mean, literally currently reaching out to all of them. Because we didn't really even know they existed. I was not sophisticated enough with special needs community that really understand what these things were …   Anne Zachry 32:20 Right.   George Bailey 32:20 … but it's a program that's been around since the 80s …   Anne Zachry 32:24 Um-hmmm.   George Bailey 32:24 … and every state has one. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, last year, the director for the Assistive Technology program for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, reached out to us. And these guys, they set the standard.   Anne Zachry 32:40 Yeah.   George Bailey 32:41 They're actually the best in the United States. And this guy, the director, really wonderful gentleman, Tom Mercier reached out to me, I think he's retired now, but Tom said, it's, like, you know, "Some parents are really trying to get me to look at this, and I just want to take a look." And we were like, "Sure!" you know. We set them up with one of our beds, they tried it out with the family. It was really amazing success for this family, to the point where Tom and his team approved for their field operators to be able to recommend the bed.   Anne Zachry 33:13 See in this … yeah?   George Bailey 33:14 I'll end with saying, now we're reaching out to every single one of them, just to educate them. And they are a great place where, if they do keep these products in stock, and then allow people to try them out to find if it's suitable.   Anne Zachry 33:31 Right. Well, and you're making me think of so many things. So, when you're talking about an assistive technology evaluation, trial and error is the only way to know if the tech is going to meet the individual's needs. So it doesn't matter how much peer reviewed research you have about, you know, this group of subjects in a study. How does that relate to Bob over here who needs this particular problem solved? Is it going to work for Bob, you know? And so … so you have, you know, you … you end up with a study where, you know, N=1, you've only got one subject, and … when you're doing an evaluation … And you're doing individualized planning, and whether you're talking about special education, or developmental services, whether it's through a state DDS or they outsource it to regional centers, it varies from state to state, or you're talking about the Department of Rehabilitation, which is to employment what special ed is to education. And you're talking about 18 and older now and adults with disabilities and if sleep deprivation is an issue that prevents them from holding down a job, is this an accommodation that department of rehab might have to buy somebody to keep them employable? And so there's all and it's, it's all individualized planning, everybody gets an individualized plan of something, some kind. So if it's Regional Center, it's an individualized program plan - an IPP. If it's special ed, it's an Individualized Educational Program - IEP. If it's Department of Rehab, it has an Individualized Plan for Employment - IPE. But they all start with that "I." And it's always coming down to the assessment of that individual person of, "What are your unique needs, and how can we meet them?" And when you're doing AT evaluations, again, it's trial and error of, "Let's try this tech with you and see if you benefit from it." Then, really the bottom line, that's the only thing that works in an AT eval. And that's just as scientifically valid as a-million-and-one research studies about a bunch of random people that doesn't have anything to do with the one person you're trying to serve. So I think that if you connect with all of these publicly funded agencies and have to do individualized programming, then your support data is going to come from the instance-by-instance individual assessments of, you know, how many of these individuals benefited from this tech? And what was it about them that made it useful for them? What do they share in common in terms of needs? And what do they share in common in terms of effects? And, then you get your aggregate data from that, but you got to have enough individuals served that way. But I think that might be an interesting way to go. Because you don't already have to have the published research to necessarily back you up. If you've got, I mean, where you're at right now is sufficient, and the fact that you've already got a regional center here in California funding this for someone, and you've got these AT assessors from … from, you know, around the country, taking a serious hard look at this from a developmental standpoint. I think that's huge. And that's very compelling.   George Bailey 36:35 Oh, I feel very, very fortunate. And the thing, I know, a couple of points to hit number one, our parents are the secret sauce.   Anne Zachry 36:43 Yep.   George Bailey 36:43 They work so hard.   Anne Zachry 36:45 Yep.   George Bailey 36:45 And they make it happen. Like, we're where we've had successes, really, primarily, because the parents pushed for this, they see what we're doing, they see the value, they have to do the sales, you know, to these institutions.   Anne Zachry 36:58 And they have to enforce the laws with these institutions. I mean, all of these …   George Bailey 37:03 Yes, enforce the law. I love that.   Anne Zachry 37:04 … all of these … the parents are the enforcement arm of all of these civil rights laws that protect individuals with disabilities. It's usually the family that has to go to bat for an individual who can't go to bat for themselves. And, and so you, you've got the way the laws are written, is that, you know, and this is democracy: Of the people, for the people, by the people. So the way the laws are written is the people are supposed to be able to … you know, advocate for themselves using these systems. Now, how effective that is, is a whole nother conversation. But the way the system is created, it's … it's on … the burden is on the family …   George Bailey 37:39 Yes, absolutely.   Anne Zachry 37:41 … to drive the process. And these, these programs exist for their benefit, but they're supposed to go seek them out and avail themselves of these programs and say here are their needs that need to be met, what do you got, and then when they come to … come with a unique issue that the system doesn't already have a, you know, a canned solution for, and they're required to innovate, these institutions are not built for innovation. They're built for bureaucracy. And so if the burden then falls on the parents shoulders, they go, "Well, wait a minute," you know? "You're here to serve us," you know? "That's we pay taxes, and we've already paid for this stuff. So what are you gonna do with the money you've already been given?" And so, you know, it really is … it does fall on the shoulders of the parents, and not just because they're the secret sauce. It's because they have to be. You know, it's how the system is set up.   George Bailey 38:31 As much as I know that there are people out there … my son's, you know … people who teach him and mentor him and stuff like that. Love him. Take care of him.   Anne Zachry 38:43 Right.   George Bailey 38:43 But none of them … none of them love him like I love him.   Anne Zachry 38:46 Right.   George Bailey 38:48 So you have to fight to be that advocate, but you bring up another interesting point earlier, that just really jumped out to me that is that, on the one hand, you're totally right, that, you know, what is right for one individual may not be another and yet, we still have a big need for clinical trials …   Anne Zachry 39:06 Yep.   George Bailey 39:06 … for these broader statements. So that we can at least know what could be predicted to work. In other words, those individual assessments if you have to start from scratch every single time, because you don't have any big picture data …   Anne Zachry 39:19 Right.   George Bailey 39:20 … and it's very hard for you to be able to say, "Okay, this is what's gonna work," or, "We should even try this." Because every single time that you revisit … you visit an individual, you have to start from scratch …   Anne Zachry 39:32 Right.   George Bailey 39:32 So, big picture, you know, clinical Data, allows us to be able to predict.   Anne Zachry 39:37 Right.   George Bailey 39:38 This study says that 80%, 70%, 90% of people with this condition are going to respond positively to this.   Anne Zachry 39:47 Exactly, it helps you narrow down the field of what to try. Yeah.   George Bailey 39:51 Yeah. At the same time, on the individual level, if your child … turns out that your child gets a full 10 hours of sleep, which is probably what they should be getting at the age of five to 18, or whatever the number is, right?   Anne Zachry 40:08 Um-hmmm.   George Bailey 40:08 Ten hours of sleep, they get that because they bounce the ball 10 times before they go to bed. They're good. Guess what? if that works for your kid, rock on.   Anne Zachry 40:16 Right.   George Bailey 40:17 I love that. And I love the individualized approach. So there really is value in both sides of that.   Anne Zachry 40:23 Absolutely.   George Bailey 40:25 And then on the other side, one thing that I wanted to add is that, you know, we have these individual customers. Our goal right now as a startup is, how do we early on establish a pattern of gathering data that can tell us more about each of these individuals, and then the aggregate, so that we know with greater certainty, what is still … what is going on what is helping, what is not helping? And I think that it's very important, you know, I would really urge all startups, anybody in this space, do clinical trials.   Anne Zachry 41:00 Yeah.   George Bailey 41:01 Expose yourself to that. And also do everything you can to get constant customer feedback, because they're always going to tell you ways that you can improve …   Anne Zachry 41:11 Right.   George Bailey 41:12 … and some can be more shy about it than others but you've got plenty who are just, like, "I'm going to tell you my mind. I don't like this part of your product, but I do like this," and you will improve.   Anne Zachry 41:21 Right.   George Bailey 41:21 Some of our best improvements came because, you know, I got told by a very frank parent, "I don't like this."   Anne Zachry 41:28 Right.   George Bailey 41:29 And, I was really grateful, because then we took those things and immediately said, "We have some changes to make."   Anne Zachry 41:34 Well, in your … I was gonna say you're making me think of how it could be done, because how you could get that data, because if you do the individual assessments where you're matching product to unique individual need, and now you've got 50 individuals who have this in their IEP, or their IPP, or their IPE, whatever. All of those documents are goal-driven. So, whenever you do any kind of individualized planning, first, you have to figure out what it is you're trying to make happen. And then you write a measurable annual goal to that need. So if the goal is is we want Bobby to sleep at least eight hours a night for a full month straight, then that's your annual goal, that by the end of this year, Bobby is going to be able to sleep the, you know, at least eight hours a night for a month straight. And the progress … being made towards that goal is going to automatically generate data if the goal has been legitimately written … if it really has been written in a measurable manner. And so you've got all of these individuals with all of these goals that speak to sleep, and this is the solution that they're attempting to meet that goal, the data collection is naturally going to speak to the degree to which the device is helping or not. And then when you get enough people who have these devices as part of their individualized plans, and you've got this progress towards goal data being collected in terms of how efficacious it is, then you can take all of these multiple individualized reports, and then turn it into a report of aggregate data where you say, "Okay, well, out of the 50 people where we had on these individualized plans, 25% of them have this issue and responded this way versus this or …" you know what I'm saying? So you're taking the individualized data, and piling it all together to create a body of aggregate data that can then be analyzed. And so you're taking advantage of both sides of that coin to get valid data. And … and it's performance based. It's not hypothetical. So that's what I was thinking …   George Bailey 43:37 That's one thing that really, I love. And that is, I want to emphasize to you on the terms that what, folks in the IEP, what I would love is that, I'm going to speak a little bit, because I'm not the IEP expert, okay?   Anne Zachry 43:56 Right.   George Bailey 43:57 But, the thing that I hope that a lot of IEPs take away from this is that, of all of the aspects of a child's life we're talking about, this is a pretty critical one.   Anne Zachry 44:08 Yep.   George Bailey 44:08 I'm not saying it's the most important because I think that each of us in our specialties, we're all vying for attention, we're all trying to, "Well, we're the most important because we're sleep and that's 1/3 of your life," and "We're the most important because we're broccoli, and if you don't eat broccoli, you'll get cancer!" All of us are competing, but I am here to say that sleep is a critical component of your IEP.   Anne Zachry 44:33 Yeah.   George Bailey 44:33 And, if it's going great, that's wonderful, but it should be visited. And that … that's a hard to find in a professional, in the sense that they at least have to have some fundamental understanding both of its benefits, and maybe some kind of surface recommendations that they can make, at least getting out the gate to, kind of, let's … let's take care of some of the things that could be the problem. Let's find out, for example, your child … Is it dark enough when they're sleeping? Is it too noisy? Are you watching television until 11 o'clock at night with your child exposed to screens? These types of questions help us to eliminate as factors, possible causes …   Anne Zachry 45:17 Right.   George Bailey 45:18 … what is driving the loss of sleep, and you need to have at least a fundamental, basic understanding of what could be getting in the way of sleep. Now, of course, at that point, you always want to have a good "sleep go-to"; somebody that you go to, "Okay, you know, I'm out of it, I'm out of my depth, I recommend targeting this institution with sleep centers," …   Anne Zachry 45:40 Right.   George Bailey 45:39 … or something like that. And even then, though, I'll tell you that I get a lot, a lot of phone calls from parents who said, the sleep center's, like, given up.   Anne Zachry 45:48 Yeah.   George Bailey 45:49 They just don't know what to do with this kid. Because this kid defies their kind of expectations for what should be helping the child to get better sleep.   Anne Zachry 45:59 Well, and I would think the sleep centers would want to test your product as well to see if … especially when they're running into a situation like that. That that should be part of the testing milleu.   George Bailey 46:07 Yeah. Well, this is all the more reason for in-depth clinical trials, to be able to put in front of them, because they will correctly come to us and say, "We expect you to have data."   Anne Zachry 46:19 Right.   George Bailey 46:20 And I expect that from them. I think that that is good. Now, if they're so inflexible as to not be helping at all, especially when we already have the pretty heavy anecdotal evidence …   Anne Zachry 46:32 Right.   George Bailey 46:33 … that this is something that should be taken seriously, the aspect of that concept of enclosure, that I think would be kind of negative. But I do expect them to have an academic interest in what it is we're doing.   Anne Zachry 46:47 I would think they'd be wanting to … helping you do the studies. That they would want to get in on and get published. I mean …   George Bailey 46:52 Oh, yeah. The reality, though, behind studies that we should all here bear in mind is that no matter what you do, you're going to be spending money.   Anne Zachry 46:54 Right.   George Bailey 47:02 And so, for example, investors and startups, they don't actually like to spend money on stuff. If you go to investors and say, "I want to raise capital, this amount of capital, $200,000, or whatever it is, is going to go towards a clinical trial."   Anne Zachry 47:18 Right.   George Bailey 47:18 They'll say, "Come back to us, once you've done the clinical trial."   Anne Zachry 47:21 Yeah, it's the same way with nonprofits. It's like, "We'll give you a grant, if you can show what you've done with the grants you've gotten in the past." I'm like, "Well, now, somebody's got to be the first one, here."   George Bailey 47:33 Yeah, so you have to look for people who are very invested, not just financial returns, that you may be able to provide, but the outcome that they actually love the story that you have …   Anne Zachry 47:47 Right.   George Bailey 47:48 … what you're trying to create. And so that's where, you know, I agree with you that I would love to have more sleep centers, try our beds to figure out how effective they are. And not just that the tried numerous aspects. It's not like, the bed's are effective or ineffective. That's not really …   Anne Zachry 48:05 Right. It's like, how are they effective? And what areas? Yeah.   George Bailey 48:09 Yeah, yeah. Or, what about the scent? Is the smell of the space affecting anything? What about the temperature? And so there's so many variables. We do have the, kind of, virtue of being able to isolate those variables and create some constants that are not really, as easily achieved in normal experimentation. I actually had a really good conversation with Temple Grandin about this, an the thing that she said, that just blew my mind, I would not have been the one to think of this, she's very …   Anne Zachry 48:43 Oh, her brain is just something else. Yeah.   George Bailey 48:45 It's really amazing. The thing that she told me … she says, "Every kid who sleeps in your bed, the same sheets, the same mattress …" and then she laid it out, like, "This is what it's gonna look like," It's just like, "Oh, my gosh!" I immediately ran to my pencil and I'm just writing stuff down, going "Thank you! Thank you!" She's so …   Anne Zachry 49:12 Yeah, the trial is … it's not comparable if everybody's not experiencing it under the exact same conditions. You can't compare one person's experience to another unless it's all identical. Yeah, that's the thing about clinical trials.   George Bailey 49:24 And it was really refreshing to get her perspective on that. I feel she's very generous with her time.   Anne Zachry 49:31 She is.   George Bailey 49:33 And so that's one of the things that I like about events is that we can isolate a lot of factors like, look at, okay, so this is one of the things we're trying to get people to think about as we look at this as a solution is that, imagine every autistic child in the United States and adult. Now, imagine all of their different living situations. Some of them have big rooms, small rooms, most of them probably small rooms, you know, because we're not all wealthy…   Anne Zachry 50:03 Right.   George Bailey 50:05 … you know? Even the room, the shape of the room, the lighting in the room, the proximity to the city, some sleep right next to the train tracks …   Anne Zachry 50:12 Right.   George Bailey 50:12 … and so to be able to isolate, their kind of like, the … the ideal is really hard to do. And I like the idea that we're working towards that. And that we … were kind of, let's give a consistent and predictable environment in which to control for other variables. And then we can start really isolating different variables in a quantifiable way that may be causing some of the more serious issues that we're seeing.   Anne Zachry 50:44 Totally makes sense. Well, so we're coming up now on … it looks like almost 50 minutes   George Bailey 50:51 It's been … every bit, it's been fun.   Anne Zachry 50:57 I know, this has all been, like, enthralling. So um, but I know that not everybody's gonna want to listen for like, hours and hours. So I think the big question that people are gonna have after listening to all of this and going, "Well, that sounds really cool. How much does it cost?" So what is the price point that … that parents if they're interested in looking into this, what are they looking at, you know, in terms of cost? I mean, even if a parent were to lay out money for this, there's a possibility it could be reimbursed by any of these agencies that have an obligation to their kids. So … but it's going to require, you know, proof of purchase and all that kind of stuff. I mean, what kind of price tag?   George Bailey 51:33 So we've got the bed, as I've said, covered in states like Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, California, and Kansas, and we're gonna keep on working on that.   Anne Zachry 51:42 Good.   George Bailey 51:43 We're happy to kind of advise parents on how we think that can be best accomplished. They come out in June, the new version, because we sold out all of … all of our China inventory.   Anne Zachry 51:55 Wow.   George Bailey 51:55 We have a new Made-in-the-USA version that has upgrades all based on what we heard from parents.   Anne Zachry 52:01 That's so cool.   George Bailey 52:02 So the new one will cost $5,000, retail. That being said, the first 288, that we're going to be selling are going to be $2,800 each, and that shipping included on those 288.   Anne Zachry 52:14 Okay.   George Bailey 52:16 So we're going to cover the shipping on that. The reason why we want to get these out and want to get people experienced … I was gonna say that, we do have financing and such, but the fact of the matter is that if you are invested in trying this for your child, we are invested in finding a solution. We have been very fortunate to get some really great guidance on how to get these things funded, we really want to share that with people. Our website is zpodsforsleep.com.   Anne Zachry 52:48 Right on.   George Bailey 52:50 Feel free to reach out to us because we are so invested in these kids, and we just want to help in any way that we can.   Anne Zachry 52:58 Well, that's really exciting. And all that being said, I mean, for me as a … as an advocate, someone who goes in and helps families advocate for these kinds of solutions for their children, you know, this is something that we regularly do. It's like, "This is cost-prohibitive for this family. It's not like we're asking for a $2.99 app, you know. This is this is an outlay of cash that is a necessary accommodation for this particular individual." Then, you know, I know that I can go … these are the kinds of things that I go to agencies for and say, "Look, you know, if it was something easy and out of pocket that this family could do, but this is this is an expenditure. And this is what these public resources are for." I'm really excited. I'm going to be looking on your website to see what you've already got up there in that regard … of how parents can go advocate for themselves to get these things. But I would also want our listeners to know that if you already have an advocate or an attorney that you're working with, and this is something you think might be appropriate, you would want to involve that person in the conversation as well. Because, they may know, you know, how the system works a little bit better in terms of rules and regulations to help you navigate those sharky waters and overcome whatever objections people might have. Because the agencies don't want to spend that kind of money either. And they're going to come back and say, "Oh," you know, "… you just want us to fly your kid to Hawaii and swim with the dolphins." And you know, it's like, "Look, dolphin therapy might be effective, but does it … does my kid needed to learn how to read? No." And so, you know, there's, you know, … I'm not, you know, I'm not the person who's going to go there and try and pitch some, you know, crazy, ridiculously expensive solution just because, you know. We're not trying to help people milk the system for things that are not what the system was designed for. But in an instance like this where, like you were talking about the one child who was on the verge of institutionalization, well, now you're talking about least …   George Bailey 54:48 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 54:48 … least restrictive environment, that in all of these programs, the … the commitment is to try and keep people in as non-segregated of a setting as possible, and to keep them as integrated with the rest of society as much as you can. And, you know … and also, when you're looking at it from a budgetary standpoint, which costs less? A one-time expenditure of five grand, or $8500 a month for a residential treatment facility, and to accomplish the same outcome? And so for those kids who are in that unique boat, I think that this is a serious conversation to be had. Because how many residential placements could be prevented by making the home environment more suitable? When you're talking about … it's really about ecological control. And all if for the … in the absence of ecological control, you're going to pack this kid off someplace and separate them from their support system and their family. You know that … that's never the best idea. And that's always the last resort. So if there's another layer of intervention that can come before that, that can prevent it, that's always important for everybody in the … in these lines of work to understand and know about … that this could be something that the agencies understand this is far less expensive than what the alternative is for some of these individuals. And it certainly is far more compliant and less segregationist. And so for everybody involved it's a better solution, if that's the case. And so I think that this is something that other advocates and attorneys need to be paying attention to as well, that this is something they could potentially be asking for if it suits the need. And if so, only an individualized assessments going to answer that question. And …   George Bailey 55:03 And I would be happy to talk with any of those attorneys formulating strategy sessions. It's kind of our joy, to be able to help. It is funny, but I'll leave you with one last story. I know that we've talked a long time … about two months ago, I was helping a mother and I was in a hearing. I was not allowed to speak. They were asking about, kind of, like … they're looking for any sort of other low-cost, you know, a solution and this mom had tried everything.   Anne Zachry 56:52 Right.   George Bailey 56:54 Finally, the, kind of, opposing counsel, or whatever you want to call him there, was saying, "Well, this is … it's just changing their environment. That's all that they're doing. Why not change the room?" Like, "You can get … the room doesn't need to be that …" Something like that. I was just thunderstruck …   Anne Zachry 57:11 Yeah.   George Bailey 57:12 … by what I was hearing. I was like, "You're literally advocating that this woman move rather than just paying for the cost of the bed?"   Anne Zachry 57:19 Right. Oh, yeah. It's like, "How can …" All the things I see. The stories I could tell, trust me. I mean, that's like the tip of the iceberg. And, and it always comes back down to, "We don't want to …" It's a "not out of my budget" mentality.   George Bailey 57:36 Yes!   Anne Zachry 57:37 It's not out of my budget mentality. You're …   George Bailey 57:39 Very short sighted.   Anne Zachry 57:41 … very short sighted. I mean, these are the same kinds of people who would rather criminalize a behavior and stick a kid in juvenile hall than pay for a BCBA to come in and provide a behavior program. And it's like, well, you know, "Even though it's going to cost the taxpaying public 10 times as much with, like, far more abysmal results to put them in the juvenile justice system, at least that's like coming out of my budget." And it's like, "What? You're gonna go home and pay taxes for that? Do you not understand this coming out of your personal budget?" And it's just the lack of wisdom. And so it's like, how did you get this job? You and I are encountering some similar issues just coming at it from a different perspective. And it this has been a very enlightening conversation, this has given me a lot of things to think about. I'm going

Could YouTube reaction videos be used to teach pragmatic language skills?   I'm not a Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP), so I'm not pretending to be an expert in the field of language processing. However, I rely on data from SLPs to inform my understanding of the communicative aspects of individual learners' respective abilities to process information and put it to constructive use.   I'm familiar enough with the concepts of language processing to have some informed questions about things I see in the world, every now and again. One of those things that just dawned on me most recently is the question of the relationship between pragmatic language processing and the popularity of reaction videos on YouTube.   For those of you who may be unfamiliar with reaction videos, they are videos made by YouTubers in which they react to videos that have become popular on YouTube, as evidenced by their respective number of views. So, to be clear, it's videos of people watching videos, usually for the first time, so that other people can watch their reactions.   The pay-off of watching reaction videos is to connect with the reactor's emotions through the reactor's body language, facial expression, word choice, and tone of voice. Of those four elements of language watched for by the audience in a reactor during a reaction video, three of them are pragmatic language.   Here is my hypothesis, but I need the SLPs in our audience to weigh in on this, too: You know how when you see something cool, your first impulse is to share it with somebody else and see how they react to it? It's like we only get one first time of experiencing something, but we want to relive it and the only way we can is to watch someone else experiencing it for the first time.   We ride the emotional roller coaster with each new first-timer we expose to the cool thing, relating to that other person's emotional response based on our own memories of enjoying our first time with whatever the cool thing is. It sounds like a weaker version of the behavior we otherwise refer to as addiction. The first time is always the best time and the experience can never be fully recaptured, but it can be approximated. It goes to show that all behaviors occur on a spectrum, including those we typically regard as extreme.   Art is the manipulation of media in order to convey emotion. It is often non-linguistic. Light, color, sound, shape, space, and a host of other things can be manipulated according to the laws of physics to evoke feelings and tell stories without words. Other forms are art use words as one more medium to enrich their creations, whether written, spoken, and/or sung.   One of the most popular forms of reaction videos on YouTube is devoted to music, specifically individual music videos. This involves the manipulation of visual and auditory information, only, as the other three senses cannot be actively engaged. The exception could be bone conduction of vibrations from the music in reactors wearing headphones or near loud speakers, creating proprioceptive input that goes to the sense of touch.   There are dozens of reaction videos apiece to a great many songs on YouTube. The number of people reacting times the number of songs to which reactions can be given creates exponential exposure for the artist of each original performance video. Reactors increase their own exposure on YouTube by riding on the coattails of artists who have millions of views of their content because of the quality of their art.   When people search YouTube for an original artist's work, all of the videos of people reacting to that artist's work will also come up in the search results. It's only natural that once one has viewed the original video to want to see it again through the eyes of someone else who has not seen it before and determine if they reached similar conclusions. People are not just looking to relive the experience, but also to be emotionally validated for feeling the ways they felt experiencing the original video for the first time.   Which then begs the questions, “Why do people get so sucked into these videos that are so heavily based on pragmatic language?” and “What are the implications of those facts for individuals who struggle with pragmatic language disorder or autism spectrum disorders that compromise their abilities to accurately read the facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice of others, and express themselves appropriately that way, themselves?”   This boils down to the research question of, “Can reaction videos be used to teach pragmatic language skills through video modeling to individuals who struggle with pragmatic language?” Only scientific research can tell. I'm all about encouraging such research, because now my inquiring mind wants to know.   One of the most powerful examples I can think of is the song, “My Mind,” performed live by Yebba at Sofar New York a few years ago. I have never heard anybody take people on such a hypnotic journey through sound in my life. Watching the reactors getting sucked into the song and becoming mesmerized is something to witness unto itself.   The impact of the reactions to her videos led to a compilation video of several reaction videos, that was basically the YouTube version of a meta-analysis, in which all of the reactors' reactions were displayed simultaneously, allowing viewers to see which parts of the song triggered the strongest reactions from the most reactors at once, like a living performance graph. Me analyzing that now is like the reflection, within the reflection, within the reflection … like, a metaphorical nautilus of analysis.   Another mesmerizing performance is “SOS” by Dimash Qudaibergan at the Slavic Bazaar, also from just a few years ago. Watching people who have never heard of him before reacting to Dimash singing "SOS" is something to behold. The first time you watch it yourself, you're immediate reaction is, “No! That can't be real. He's not human!” Then you watch it again in the reaction videos and see other people having their responses and you think, “Okay, it's not just me.”   Another one that requires additional inquiry is Chris Stapleton's “Tennessee Whiskey,” which doesn't even have a video. It's just the song with a still image of the album cover throughout, and yet it has over 500 million views on YouTube as of the time of this post. Watching people who have grown up on rap and hip-hop reacting to this song with surprise is a joy. They are the ones that give animated visual life to what is otherwise a largely auditory experience.   Anyone watching the Kodi Lee AGT audition reactions can see a handful of egocentric attention- and click-seekers suddenly reduced to puddles of humility over and over again. In an instant, Kodi's performance puts things into perspective and they get it. The clicks to watch the reaction become earned because it isn't a trick; these people are legitimately shook by what they see and that's what engages viewers of reaction videos.   In all of the above-referenced original videos, surprise is always a key element. In every reaction video that gets any kind of traction on YouTube, the reactors are shocked by what they are watching for the first time, and become emotionally engaged with the song and performer to which they are reacting. In all the instances cited above, there is an emotional story being told with which listeners can identify.   The reason the views of the original videos are so high in the first place is because the content is so emotionally engaging. People reacting to them for the clicks suddenly forget about the clicks, find themselves transported, and start talking about things that actually matter in the world. What often started out as an exercise in narcissism for pay can become a transformative experience that snaps a selfishly motivated YouTuber right out of it and puts things into proper perspective.   The sounds of the originally performed songs conform with their respective story lines in a way that takes the listener along for the emotional ride of each. With the exception of the Chris Stapleton example, above, reactors also have the benefit of watching the performance, which adds the benefit of facial expression and body language to the communication. Each song conveys a different emotional experience, but one must have intact pragmatic language skills to appreciate what makes each song so uniquely impactful that it inspires so many views and, thus, so many reaction videos.   And, I want to be clear that, even if the reactors are initially reacting to these specific videos only for their own marketing purposes, the ones that get the most traffic are the ones in which the reactors are caught off guard and have authentic responses, like crying or, in the case of Yebba, getting moved by the Holy Spirit in the middle of a song that is not about religion in any kind of way. The value in watching these reaction videos is seeing real people moved for real in the moment without the opportunity to fake it.   There's no way to conceal authentic surprise and awe, and those are the feelings viewers seem to be trying to experience by watching these reaction videos. What is it about the human psyche, then, that causes us to seek experiences that make us feel surprise and awe? Why do we want to witness miracles so badly? Why are the outliers who receive the most favorable public attention usually artists rather than scientists? Why do we tend to think data is boring and seek emotionally extreme experiences when data is practically useful and emotions often are not?   I don't have the answers. I just think this is a line of inquiry worth exploring. I'm curious to see if the evidence in support of video modeling as an instructional strategy could be applied to using reaction videos to teach pragmatic language skills to those who struggle with this area of language processing. Are there any communication researchers out there who might want to conduct some studies so inquiring minds can know?

This is not a pleasant topic at all, so I want to start out this post/podcast with the understanding that I know this isn't a pleasant topic. That doesn't make it something to avoid, however. Problems aren't solved by pretending they don't exist. For those of us who work with people with significant mental disabilities, fecal smearing, otherwise knows as “scatolia,” is a behavior we usually encounter among individuals with significant developmental disabilities and dementia. These behaviors often happen among these populations very frequently alongside other bowel-related health issues, such as constipation and encopresis. Simply put, constipation is poop not coming out and encopresis is poop not staying in. The function of most fecal smearing behaviors appears to be communicative, especially among individuals who are nonverbal or have limited verbal abilities. In verbal individuals who engage in these behaviors, other significant mental impairments are still present, whether its the loss of mental functioning due to dementia; the failure of mental maturity due to developmental disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities and/or autism; or some forms of mental illness. Fecal throwing and smearing can also be seen among other primates. It's a primitive, infantile behavior. When I was 20 years old, I worked in a nursing home providing hands-on care to medically fragile and/or mentally compromised elderly people. All of us knew who the poop-throwers were. The one on my wing was also an Evangelical Christian who would sing church hymns while throwing her poop at anyone passing by and accusing them of being the Devil. The exception was the visiting Evangelical pastor who would stop by to visit the patients every week, but he would come down the hallway singing a hymn at the top of his lungs so she would know it was him before he walked into her room, or he would get it, too. I encountered fecal smearing behaviors once again when I finished my undergraduate degree and started working as a job coach in the community with adults challenged by developmental disabilities. One of the young men on my caseload was a fairly capable individual with autism who, in spite of his many attributes that made him employable to bus tables, serve drinks, and perform general maintenance in a restaurant, would engage in fecal smearing whenever someone made him upset. What had started as a behavior when he was younger with less language abilities had become a deeply entrenched learned behavior that followed him into adulthood long after he had developed completely intact verbal communication skills. The differences between these two examples from my own life were important to note. In the nursing home, the woman on my wing with fecal throwing behaviors was kept on laxatives so that her feces wasn't solid enough to hold in her hand for throwing. Cleaning up bedpans was infinitely less work and trauma than jumping into the hazmat shower fully clothed and going home in scrubs from the supply closet because our own clothes had been ruined. By comparison, the young man who struggled to hold onto a job and a group home placement because of this behavior was successfully broken of the habit through Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and psychotropic medication management to address anxiety and depression. Because he was verbal, he was able to talk with his therapist about the feelings he was having when he engaged in these behaviors and we were able to come up with a plan that helped him deal with those feelings appropriately, eventually extinguishing the scatolia altogether. He's been employed every time I've encountered him since, mostly in the community eating at the restaurants where he has worked. What we discovered based on what he was telling us is that, historically, he had found himself in situations where he couldn't tell people what he was thinking for lack of language and, later, as the language started coming on, because he was afraid to complain about certain things for fear of retaliation or punishment. The degree to which he was correct in his perceptions about those past experiences is not as important as the fact that he was afraid to say anything with words, but he could express himself non-verbally through fecal smearing. Fecal smearing behaviors tend to orient around protest, disagreement, and retaliation, based on what little research has been conducted on the topic so far. Most of the available research comes from mental institutions and long-term care facilities. I could find no research about fecal smearing happening in the general community, though such research may exist and I just couldn't find it. So much of the research is hidden behind paywalls that it's not accessible to everyday people, which is a topic of discussion all to itself for another time. I brought this subject up in my book club last night (we're currently reading The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are, by Brené Brown, PhD, LMSW). One of the other club members shared that her home had been broken into years ago and robbed. The robbers also pooped on her wooden floors, ruining the finish, and she had to wait for a year-and-a-half to have the time and money to refinish her floors, with the damaged spot where the poop had been, serving as a daily reminder of the sense of violation she had experienced. Now that I think about it, the same thing happened to my grandparents in the 1990s while they were on an RV trip, only the poop was on their walls. My book club friend stated the police officers who had responded to the call advised her that this was a common behavior witnessed among break-in robberies like hers. Law enforcement may be a better source of information about the prevalence of fecal smearing in the general community, which goes to the degree to which we have delegated the responsibilities of our mental health agencies to law enforcement. Behavioral researchers should look there for data about the frequency with which these incidents occur and how they are addressed. Needless to say, there was no scholarly research I could find that was specific to the fecal smearing behaviors that happened during the Insurrection of January 6, 2021, at the Capitol of the United States of America. Only official records from the government and reports in the media capture the incident. I'm quoting the Trial Memorandum of the U.S. House of Representatives from the second impeachment proceedings against the 45th president of the United States, here: Once inside, insurrectionists desecrated and vandalized the Capitol. They ransacked Congressional Leadership offices—breaking windows and furniture, and stealing electronics and other sensitive material. They left bullet marks in the walls, looted art, smeared feces in hallways,and destroyed monuments … [Emphasis added.] This has been bothering me ever since it was first reported shortly after the Insurrection that fecal smearing had occurred during this incident as well. Based on what I already know about fecal smearing behaviors, what that tells me is that at least one person with profound disabilities was among the Insurrectionists. Based on the other overt behaviors of the Insurrectionists, it's safe to say that America's mental health crisis reached an apex of sorts, though it isn't done showing itself, yet, based on the continuing domestic terrorism threats we all still face. It's an Extinction Burst of a sort, and one we cannot afford to reinforce. These individuals are seeking reinforcement for behaviors that were once rewarded and escalating their behaviors when the rewards are not forthcoming. I think they're all cries for help, but the behaviors are so off-putting to most other people that they are disinclined to help and eager to ostracize anyone engaging in them. I think ostracizing these people helps the rest of us avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with these behaviors, but it's not a democratic response, much less an ethical one, We need a plan as a people on how to solve these problems, not punish people for having them. I'm not saying that people who commit crimes shouldn't pay for them. I'm saying that the causes of criminal behaviors have to be addressed so they don't happen in the first place. There is way too much money being made on incarcerating Americans instead of helping them. The bigger concern for me, these days, though, is how many other people in positions of power actually understand the severity of our nation's mental health crisis and choose to exploit these individuals rather than meet their needs, such as the 45th president of the United States, for example. Protest, disagreement, and retaliation are the usual communicative functions of fecal smearing, and the Insurrection-related fecal smearing doesn't appear to be different in that regard. Everyone involved in the Insurrection was there to protest, disagree, and retaliate. What this specific form of communication tells us is that the people who engaged in it felt desperate enough to express their feelings through these actions rather than words, as if words had failed them and/or they didn't feel safe to use them. When people are mentally impaired and don't fully understand everything going on around them, they can easily become confused, misled, and manipulated by others. They are often aware when others are mistreating them even if they don't fully understand the hows and whys. They know when they find themselves in a disadvantaged situation and will harbor valid resentments about it, but they often don't know who did what to make it happen, much less what to do to make things better. When you have a right to be angry but you don't know how to get out of the situation, and no one is stepping up to help you, it's easy to become angry at everyone. You feel like the whole world is against you and there's nothing you can do. At that point, you default to the highest stage of social emotional development you've completely mastered, which may be well below your chronological age depending on the degree to which your social emotional development was healthy or not. Once someone becomes so overwhelmed emotionally in the absence of a solution that they start freaking out, very childlike – even infantile – behaviors are likely to ensue. In the name of “liberty” and “freedom,” we've absolved ourselves of any responsibilities for the welfare of our neighbors. Personal liberty becomes confused with narcissism. People pay lip service to the ideals of the Constitution while exploiting their neighbors for financial gain. Money is an imaginary construct that many people value more than human life. Many of these same people claim to be true believers in Christ, effectively singing church hymns as they sling their poo at everyone else. I don't recall any part of the New Testament encouraging that kind of behavior, but religious scholars who have studied the texts more closely than I have are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Most of us understand that the people who got sucked into the 45th president's own mental health crisis are also not well, but they also account for approximately one-third of our population. That makes them a dangerous minority that has now grown into a domestic terrorism problem. It puts the assertions by the majority of Muslims around the world that Islam is not a religion of violence into context, now that we've got our own violent religious radicals here at home calling themselves Christians. The inextricable intertwining of religion and mental health problems in societies is yet another topic for a separate conversation, but I have to point out that there are many responsible faith leaders struggling to lead as many of their congregationalists abandon the teachings of Christ to follow every wolf in sheep's clothing that steps into their path. American commercialism and its own brand of capitalism have created a competitive mindset about everything in our culture. It's “My high school football team is going to crush your high school football team.” It's, “My church is made up of the chosen and all the other churches are full of people going to Hell.” It's, “My neighborhood is the best and everyone else lives in a dump.” Where is this narcissistic drive to be “better” than everyone else coming from in a society that's supposed to be democratic? Why do we feel driven to create a caste of “losers” to make ourselves feel like “winners”? How does hurting other people make someone a “winner”? People have developed brand loyalties around things that aren't actually brands. American consumerism and its obscene obsession with the pursuit of material wealth has grossly undermined the uniform message of every great faith. Wanting more than what one needs while others go without contradicts every pious teaching of every great religious leader the world has ever remembered. We're all supposed to be collaborating with each other, not competing with each other, to survive as a species. Raising children from birth under conditions that deprive them of developmentally necessary opportunities to reach adulthood physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually intact, is an uphill battle. The science is clear that the type of family support system an individual has is irrelevant; what matters is whether they have any type of support system at all. Children growing up in homeless shelters with after school tutoring, social services, higher education and job placement services for parents, etc., remain as academically intrinsically motivated as children living in traditional family homes with access to resources. The gender identity and sexual orientations of parents have zero bearing on the quality of their parenting. Parenting becomes poor when it fails to nurture childhood development, regardless of the gender or orientation of the parent. What we can safely deduce from witnessing current events as it relates to the known science is that being raised in economic extremes, whether extreme poverty or extreme wealth, deprives children of developmental opportunities that undermine their mental, emotional, and communicative growth. Extremely wealthy children are at risk of never learning how to do anything for themselves and will implode the minute they have to deal with serious life challenges. Extremely poor children are at risk of malnutrition, homelessness, and other hardships that make mere survival the priority without the opportunities to work on any other part of their development. As the middle class in America continues to disappear, we're at risk of more and more people ending up at one economic extreme or the other and their children growing up thinking that humanity is truly divided as a matter of nature into two classes: the “haves” and the “have nots.” If that's all they see growing up, the divide becomes a hard and fast expected part of society. What do you think happens to a society that is made up entirely of people who failed to reach developmental maturity? It goes Lord of the Flies pretty quickly, after that. In my ever-worried imagination, under such circumstances, humans will return to the trees if we survive as a species at all. I keep thinking, “Maybe the bonobos will have a better go at sentience than we did.” It makes me want to teach them sign language just so I can tell them all the mistakes we've made and what to avoid. The first thing I'll teach them is, “Use your words, not your poop.” Returning the present issue of poop-smeared threats to our democracy wrapped in Confederate flags, I have a theory about one particular aspect of the problem that I haven't seen discussed in the news about the Select Committee's investigation into the Insurrection of January 6, 2021. In my line of work, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act come up quite frequently. When I see things that do not appear to conform with their requirements, they jump out at me. Given that were clearly dealing with people struggling with mental disabilities of one type or another, and given that social media has been instrumental in feeding them misinformation while giving them the tools to organize, it appears to me that the social media algorithms are not coded in a manner that reasonably accommodates users with the types of mental disabilities that make them vulnerable to misinformation and recruiting tactics of foreign adversaries and domestic terrorists. If anything, social media's absence of reasonable accommodations in its coding for users with these types of mental issues is creating more domestic terrorists than we already had in the first place, suddenly taking them from the fringes of our society to a sizable, dangerous minority of violent people bent on overthrowing the government. In the absence of effective mental health interventions, the manipulators swooped in and weaponized our own neglected mentally impaired citizens against us. What we don't take care of will take care of us. That's the whole reason that “being careful” is so important. “Being careful” isn't about avoiding problems, it's about being full of care. Being caring means being responsible for your community as well as yourself and your immediate loved ones. It takes a village, as they say, but if you neglect your village, you cease to be part of it. We're all different for a reason. Whether you're a person of faith and see it as a component of our Creator's Great Plan or you're a secularist who sees it as a function of nature and evolution, or you're like me and think that nature and evolution are parts of the Creator's Great Plan, it's an obvious fact that we're all meant to be different by design. The failure to appreciate the role that diversity serves for the balance of everything has led to efforts by a few unstable individuals who manage to acquire power and try to remake humanity over into a monolith, casting out those who, by design, cannot conform to their invented social hierarchies. This is the essence of discrimination. It's what causes people with disabilities to be regarded as less than human. Anyone who is discriminated against for any other reason should be empathetic to the discrimination experienced by people with mental disabilities that affect their behaviors, but our knee-jerk reaction is to be repulsed by the most extreme behaviors in which we see these people behave. These behaviors, while often intolerable and highly inappropriate, are still cries for help, we need to see them that way, and we need to collectively demand our elected officials to enforce the ADA and Section 504 when it comes to social media algorithms. My theory is that, if we use the existing language of the ADA and, where applicable, Section 504, to compel social media platforms to stop preying on the weakest minds among us, it will not only create jobs for coders knowledgeable of the law, but also enforcement officials knowledgeable of the code. Rather than looking at the daunting task of coding the Code into social media platforms as an insurmountable challenge, it should be seen as a significant step towards true democracy that creates desperately needed jobs. The solution would solve more than one significant problem in this country and serve as an example of adult-level problem-solving for the rest of the world. Marketing research tells us that customer loyalty is greater after a vendor has had to work with a customer to solve a problem than if there was never any problem at all. It's not a source of shame for America to trip over its own feet and experience growing pains as it sheds the hypocrisy and anti-democratic practices of the past; what makes it shameful or not is how we respond. If we can bounce back from the threats our democracy if facing right now with science across the board in every domain of need, including our nation's ongoing mental health crisis, and enforce the ADA and, where appropriate, Section 504, on social media platforms, no additional regulations are necessarily needed. If any other regulations of social media become necessary above and beyond that, so long as the First Amendment is still protected while also preventing troubled people from getting sucked down the rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, we'll redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world. At least, that's my theory.

On January 13, 2022, after staying up late to finish my last post/podcast, I woke up to find a message in my inbox from the CAPCAA listserv that included a very comprehensive-looking report published by a group referring to itself as "The Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force," with the email address of oahspecialedreport@gmail.com. The members of this task force are not identified in the report. The report identifies its authors as follows: Authors/Contributors: This accountability report is provided by the Office for Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force, a coalition of concerned attorneys, advocates and parents. Many of these contributors conducted research, collected and organized the information, and assisted in the writing of this report. Bias, Noncompliance and Misconduct In Special Education Due Process: An Accountability Report on the California Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Division, January 2022 Given the degree of retaliation that anybody calling out the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could easily face in the current anti-democratic climate of American politics, these days, I can't say I'm entirely surprised that the individuals responsible for this report have not named themselves in it. That could be really a good way to find some "good ol' boys" burning crosses in their yards and planting pipe bombs in their hedges on behalf of some tax-fattened, suit-wearing carpetbaggers. So, I can't discount the report for lack of identified authors. That leaves nothing but the content of the report with which to judge its legitimacy, but that's almost better. It's like a blind audition on The Voice; it doesn't matter what you look like if you have a good voice. What you have to say and how you say it matters more than what your name is or what you look like. So, that's how I'm looking at this report. In these troubling times, I'm willing to accept verifiable facts from anonymous authors truly fearing for their own safety if they dare to speak the truth. I will not accept unverifiable assertions being openly spewed by people saying whatever will get them attention. So, let's examine the assertions being made by this report. This Task Force's report follows a professional format for organization and presentation of its information, but it's not a legal brief or scientific paper. Not every assertion is supported by black-and-white evidence, but the assertions not supported by evidence are nonetheless consistent with those assertions that are supported by evidence. Additionally, because I work extensively in the very areas of concern targeted by this report, all of it rings true with the experiences that I've lived as a professional over the period of time discussed in this report. That which is not outright supported by evidence in this report is nonetheless credible to me given the evidence that is presented and what I already know to be true from real-life experience. While anecdotal accounts were added to the report to bolster the authors' positions, the identity of those offering these accounts are unknown, so verifying them is impossible. Again, concerns about retaliation and privacy are legitimate, so I don't want to discount the privacy concerns of the authors, but one of the first rules of proving the veracity of a document is authenticating its content with its authors. That's just a basic rule of evidence. At some point, for this document to be taken seriously by regulators and/or legislators, its authors will have to reveal themselves. Putting aside the authorship issues for the moment and delving into the actual content of this report, what this report is basically asserting is that OAH, which is a division of the California Department of General Services (DGS), is organizationally compromised relative to its obligations to try special education cases pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The report supports these arguments with references to a collection of publicly available documents. These arguments appear sound and supported by credible evidence, in my opinion. Of particular note to me were its references to the November 15, 2021 study conducted by CDE titled, California Special Education Governance and Accountability Study, as well as news that the courts finally resolved the issue of continued distance learning for medically vulnerable children on IEPs. This latter issue affects one of our families and I've been waiting to hear about this situation. The Task Force's assertions in its report are also consistent with my experiences dealing with OAH since it took over the hearings in 2005. In fact, I first became a paralegal in 2005 and witnessed the very shenanigans reported by the Task Force with the change-over from the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO) to OAH that same year. It was a dumpster fire inside of a clown car that had crashed into a train wreck, to put it mildly. OAH underbid SEHO in terms of the costs of conducting special education mediations and hearings by failing to include the costs of administrative support and sending mediators and judges around the State to handle each case in its local community, which allowed OAH to come under SEHO's bid by several million dollars, as memory serves. The moment it opened its doors for business, it was already millions of dollars over-budget from what it had bid to get the business from SEHO. The quality of the judges from OAH was atrocious out of the gate. One then-new judge went down in California special education parent/student legal history for the angrily and stupidly stated words, "Ms. [Attorney], what does autism have to do with behavior!?!" When you have people who have no idea what anybody is talking about deciding the futures of children who have no voice of their own in the process, those of us who are trying to protect these children become almost as powerless as the children we're trying to protect. We were, and continue to be, faced with people entrusted with responsibilities that are clearly light years beyond their actual skills and knowledge, and the authorities and powers that go with those responsibilities. What is the point of having the rule of law if the people responsible for enforcing it are personally incentivized to break it or are otherwise too dumb to know how to enforce it? We're paying these people to implement the regulations, not to invent excuses as to why they don't have to and bully the rest of us if we dare to question them. I've been saying for the last 30+ years that special education issues are civil rights issues, and if our babies aren't truly protected, then none of us really are. The national political landscape appears to support my conclusions, not that I'm happy to be right about that. Marginalized groups with specifically identified protected rights are always the first ones targeted by fascists, so special education is really a "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to American democracy. Clearly, we're not doing that well and this Task Force is seeing a lot of the same things I'm seeing. Regardless of the authorship issue, which I suspect will be resolved in due time, the evidence cited in this report and the consistency of what it describes with what I live and breathe everyday inclines me to treat it as credible, though if anyone can find an inaccurate assertion in it, please post a comment and let me know. At minimum, another federal investigation is warranted based on this report, but I don't know that going to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the right way to go, now. As the report discloses, there was already an OCR investigation in 2014 of the California Department of Education (CDE) as it pertains to making its hearings accessible to individuals with disabilities. I won't repeat the anecdotal account of what that was all about, here; you can read it yourself in the report. But, I warn you, it's upsetting. I wish I could say it was too outlandish to be true, but it sounds just about right for OAH and CDE, based on my own experiences. Last year, just to give you an example from my own caseload, I filed a compliance complaint with CDE against a local school district for failing to implement all of a student's IEP during the pandemic-related shutdown. The most critical element of the complaint was the district's failure to provide in-person 1:1 aide services, as required by the child's IEP. Instead, the district put the aide for this non-verbal, inattentive, prompt-dependent child with autism on Zoom, requiring the child's mother to be the in-person aide helping her child access Zoom, constantly cueing him attend to the online instruction, and prompting him through all of his work tasks to completion. The aide could only sit there, staring at them through the screen, completely useless ... at taxpayer expense. The aide was willing to provide in-person support and the non-public agency (NPA) that employed the aide was ready to send her to the student's house in a mask for in-person services during distance learning, but the district wouldn't permit any in-person services during shutdown. This single parent ended up selling her condo and moving, with her children, in with family friends, in no small part because she couldn't work a paid job while sitting at home serving as the free aide for her child with special needs throughout each school day while the paid aide sat in her own home on Zoom, unable to do her actual job. This was a blatant violation of State and federal law that the district kept blaming on the county's health department. I challenge anybody to find a legal authority that gives a county health department the authority to tell a school district that it doesn't have to abide by the IDEA. After attempting to get the district to do the right thing by way of written correspondence and the IEP process to no avail, I filed a regulatory complaint with CDE. CDE opened an investigation based on what I alleged through its complaint intake unit, but then the investigator subsequently assigned to the complaint materially altered the nature of the investigation and cited the district for a different violation of the law than what I had originally alleged, and failed to issue a finding regarding the original allegation I'd made about the aide. The investigator's findings then went to yet another unit within CDE that developed the order for corrective actions, which included compensatory special education instruction for lost service minutes, but it was silent regarding aide support during those compensatory services. Think about this for a minute. I alleged in my complaint that the district failed to provide aide support during distance learning. The intake unit opened an investigation in response to my complaint based on the allegation of the district's failure to implement the IEP as written, specifically with regard to 1:1 aide support. The investigator found that the district failed to implement all of the instructional minutes in the IEP, but issued no finding regarding the 1:1 aide support. The corrective actions unit ordered compensatory instruction to make up for lost service minutes, but there was no mention of aide support. Once corrective actions have been ordered by CDE and its findings are sent out to the parties, the offending education agency has to provide proof of corrective actions to yet another unit of CDE. When I called that unit to get clarification as to whether the compensatory service minutes were supposed to include the 1:1 aide support called for by the IEP, that unit's response was, "Yes." The offending district's attorneys (definitely of the Rudy Guilliani/Syndey Powell variety), however, said, "No." They then tried to fight with CDE over whether or not the compensatory service minutes had to include the same 1:1 aide support the student required throughout the school day in every other instructional setting, as per his IEP, likely billing the district by the hour the whole time. What ensued turned into an internal feud within CDE. The unit at CDE responsible for collecting proof of corrective action from the district insisted that, because the IEP called for 1:1 aide support during any and all instruction, it was understood that 1:1 aide support also had to be provided during the compensatory services ordered. But, not everybody involved with the investigation at CDE agreed. What I came to suspect was that the investigator and legal department at CDE had deliberately steered my complaint away from its original allegations for presumably fiscal and/or political reasons. It certainly had nothing to do with CDE abiding by its obligations or making the district comply with the law. It had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the educational and civil rights of a little boy with autism who can barely talk and needs an aide to access his education. Reading through this Task Force's report, I'm now seeing that experience again through new eyes. The argument the CDE is fiscally motivated to find it does nothing wrong and neither do its districts, regardless of the facts, as asserted by the Task Force, resonates with me as true. Another compelling argument asserted by this report that also rings true for me is that DGS exists for the purpose of cutting costs, not ensuring the State's compliance with federal mandates or protecting the rights of citizens. The report further argues that, as an integral part of DGS, OAH also exists for no reason other than to control costs and not to protect the rights of California's citizens. As such, the Special Education division of OAH is not organized in a manner consistent with the requirements of the IDEA that special education hearings and mediations be conducted by impartial parties whose only function is to protect the educational and civil rights of students with disabilities. A State employee who is being told their primary function is to save money should not be in charge of making sure the State abides by the IDEA. It's an outright conflict of interest, which this Task Force asserts in its report. This isn't just a philosophical assertion; it's a regulatory requirement. The IDEA requires education agencies to design and implement individualized programs of instruction that confer appropriately ambitious educational benefits upon each student according to his/her/their unique circumstances, regardless of cost. A State agency that exists to cut costs should not be making programming decisions in situations in which it is unlawful for cost considerations to be used to determine who will get what. That, to me, explains a lot of the hyper-Republicanism (in the present-day fascist sense of the term, not the former "Party of Lincoln" sense of it) going on in California's special education system. And, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that, back in 2005, right-wing grifters were responsible for giving the special education due process business back to OAH. One of the sleaziest special ed law firms there ever was, which happened to be the largest special ed law firm representing school districts in California at the time, was Lozano Smith. It was instrumentally involved in getting the due process hearings switched to OAH in 2005. All of this came on the heels of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2004, which resulted in changes to the IDEA. Those changes created an opportunity for anti-student and anti-parent forces to lobby for changes to how California handled its special education matters, from changes to State law, to changing who enforced the laws from SEHO to OAH. However, in 2005, something else big happened involving Lozano Smith, right after OAH took the special education hearings back over. Lozano Smith will live on in infamy, at least in my mind, for decades to come following two public displays of anti-democratic behavior. The first was its epic 2005 faceplant in the matter of Moser v. Bret Harte Union High Sch. Dist. (366 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Cal. 2005)), which made the news. The second public example that stands out in my mind was its 2014 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing protections for special education students under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the matter of K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (C.D. Cal. 2015). This second example didn't steal headlines, but the actual outcome of the case was huge for students with special needs regarding their disability-related communication needs. If special education advocacy has been the "canary in the coal mine" of American democracy, Lozano Smith has been one of the Mitch McConnell-esque specters of obstructive fascism that has been trying to snuff the voices of "canaries" like me for decades. I'm convinced that every single unrepentant person who had a hand in the Bret Harte mess and anything else like it will have a special place waiting for them in Trump Tower Hell, when they die; perhaps it will be named the Lozano Smith Suite. In the present, all of the concerns raised by this Task Force's report are grounded in the realities I deal with every day. The fact that the authors fear to reveal their identities is also grounded in the harsh reality that the fascists aren't even trying to hide the fact that they are coming for us, anymore. Anybody who stands up for civil rights, these days, is a target, and I realize that includes me just by saying so. Here's the thing, though. Those of us accustomed to dealing with special education issues who understand Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) also know an Extinction Burst when we see one. So long as those of us who see this Extinction Burst for what it is continue to abide by our professional ethics, stand our ground, and stick to the applicable science and rule of law, none of the self-serving histrionics of those with anti-democratic tendencies within our government will overcome our fact-based arguments. We have to keep acting like we live in a democracy or it stops being one. We may lose battles on occasion, particularly in those States currently permeated by maskless, unvaccinated seditionists spreading COVID as readily as their lies, but the only way we lose the overall initiative is if democracy fully collapses in the United States. All of us "canaries" need to start beating our wings and squawking loudly as the voices of experience when it comes to fighting fascism within America's government, or it's curtains for all of us. It's not shocking news to any of us that the fascists are targeting local government, including school boards, as a means of seizing control of the country. That's nothing new! That's what all of us working in special education advocacy have been up against since the original laws that protect our children were passed in the 1970s. To the rest of the Country, it's unfortunate that it's now happening to you, too, but we welcome you to the front lines and look forward to working with you to win this soft civil war currently being fought over basic rights and the rule of law in America. To our colleagues fighting similar battles on behalf of other marginalized groups, we look to unify with you. When it comes right down to it, those of us who exist in marginalized groups collectively outnumber the few individuals at the center who put us in their margins. In a democracy, majority rules. The minority of individuals who want to rob the rest of us of our rights cannot oppress a unified majority. Special education rights are human rights, just like ethnic rights, gender rights, sexual orientation rights, relationship rights, etc. If all of us whose rights are being infringed upon join forces instead of competing for the crumbs that fall from the would-be oligarchs' tables, we can be sitting at the table eating meals full of freedom with everybody else, instead.

Zafer Elcik - Otsimo   The following is the written transcript of the audio recording of my interview of Zafer Elcik of Otsimo, which you can listen to in the podcast version of this post. This transcription was aided by Otter.     SPEAKERS Anne Zachry, Zafer Elcik   Anne Zachry Thank you so much for being in this podcast with me today. I really, truly appreciate you making the time, especially since we're having to accommodate international time zones, and I'm here in the United States and you're in Turkey. If you don't mind, could you just go ahead and give us just a brief introduction of yourself and your product?   Zafer Elcik Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. My name is Zafer. I am co-founder of Otsimo. At Otsimo, we are developing apps for kids with special needs, mostly for autism, Down Syndrome, and mental challenge. What we are trying to do is to provide early intensive education to the mobile devices and the speech therapy, as well. I have a brother with autism. He has been vulnerable for a long time. And I realized that he has special interest in smart devices one day, but I couldn't find any suites or apps for my brother. The typical apps have a lot of advertisements, as well as, like, they have a lot of sounds, animations, and so on, and my brother actually liked to play with them, but he ended up with a bad situation. I decided to create app companies just helping kids on the spectrum. Well, right now we have kids all across the US, UK, as well as Turkey. We have already met the Minister of Education of Turkey. We reach education and speech therapy all across the world through the mobile device.   Anne Zachry That is so cool. That's such a powerful outcome to make happen. That's such an accomplishment. That's so cool.   Zafer Elcik Thank you.   Anne Zachry Oh, thank you. So well, one of the things that because we're here in the United States, and we're constantly advocating for kids with special needs to get the services they're supposed to be getting and the supports that they need. And, very definitely, the whole issue of alternative communication methods and kids who have language impairments who can't get their words out, but that doesn't mean they don't have words ... I mean, I've worked for over 30 years with kids with every kind of disability you can imagine, and lots and lots of kids on the autism spectrum with language challenges, but also across all age groups. And, so one of the things I wanted to ask you about - because I did download and install your app and mess around with it, so I could become familiar with it - the graphics and the imagery, and the age ranges that look like on the app max out at like seven and older. And, for my kids on the spectrum who are middle school and high school age or young adult age, they don't see themselves necessarily in the apps, and the tools that are are out there for children who are younger. And, the accommodations they need evolve over time as they get older, and they may still have the language skills of a very young child, but they are still a teenager on the inside. And, so, my question to you was, "Is there ... are there plans to expand the app to have a version that is more grown up and more adult looking and more age appropriate for teens and young adults that will follow them into college?" Because I'm seeing kids who everybody thought they would never go to college. But once they get the help was like "Oh, hey! That's a possibility for you, now ..."   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... but these tools can't follow them necessarily. And so my question to you is, "Are you looking to expand it to for to make the tool something that will support older users, especially as your kids get older ... your child users?"   Zafer Elcik Yeah, actually, it's a great question, because my brother is getting older and older. And, we try to test with my brother as well to what the level will be of the new content in the app. Like, at Otsimo, we approach early and intensive education, because, like, you heard a lot of the time that you know it, like, if the kids can get early and intensive education, it affects our ...   Anne Zachry Right, right. Those are my kids who are now growing up and going to college, who, when we first started when they were four and five years old, that wasn't even a thought. But, now that they're 18, it's like, "Oh my gosh! Look what you can do!", because we got all those services when they were little.   Zafer Elcik That's because, like, I realized that, in the US, as well as in Turkey - I mean - a lot of countries in the world, because, like, we have a lot of users all across the world, and we realized that, like, getting a diagnosis and, then after that, getting the first education is a really big hassle. Like, in the US, as well, like, you need to go to IEP meetings ...   Anne Zachry Yep.   Zafer Elcik ... to get what you need, and it's a big hassle and you lose a lot of precious months, sometimes a year, to just getting the education. That's because we, at first, we focused on the, like, really early and intensive skills, like, small hand gestures, or social skills, and so on. But, after that, we really found out that we need to create content for a really diverse community. That's because, like, right now we have more than 100 games, some of them is really easy, some of them is kind of middle school-ish. But we haven't, like, created, like ... I can set it up, like, we ... our apps are at pre-K to K-2, but after K-2, right now, we don't have real content. That's because, right now, we are developing new content every month, just to keep updated. I don't think so we will create content for university or high school and so on, but I believe it's so go we can go to like pre-K to K-8, and so on, in the near future. We will have a lot of content for that.   Anne Zachry Right. Well, definitely the early intervention is a huge part of it. I mean, that's certainly important. And, you know, my background is also in educational psychology. That's what my master's degree is in. And I can tell you from an instructional design standpoint ... but, also I've worked in IT. I've worked it ... I can do some coding, it's not my greatest skill, but it's not like I don't have any coding skills at all. I understand what it takes to build something from scratch in code. And you want to start with the simpler skills and move into the ... progress into the more complex skills, anyway. You know, that those simpler younger skills are foundational, not only for human beings, but also for technology. So, you build on that not only with the kid, but with the tech over time, I would imagine. So, that totally makes sense.   Zafer Elcik Yeah. Right now, we are developing these apps for more than five years, and still, I believe that we are in the, like, really beginning.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik We have more than 20 people. Like, we have psychologist on team. We have educators, developers, designers, testers. A lot of people lately, designers working with us, and so on. And it takes a lot of ...   Anne Zachry I can only imagine. I mean, I'm just trying to envision what all the logistics are of making something happen, you know, like what you're doing. And, it's just ... you know, what you're doing is moving the earth. That's huge. And you said something a moment ago that ...   Zafer Elcik Thank you.   Anne Zachry Thank you ... that really caught my ear, and that was, you know, the diversity within the autism community. And, we have a saying over here that, "When you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism."   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry Because, no two people with autism are alike, you know. Just like everybody else, that no two brains are alike, even if they have a common disorder. And so, how it manifests ... and I've got, you know ... and this goes to my next question is, you know ... I've got situations out here where we have students with IEPs that will say in the IEP that they're supposed to have an AAC device, with hardware and software loaded on it, but they won't specify what they're using. They won't name the device and they won't name the software in the IEP, as though all AAC tech is interchangeable. And, it's not! Each technology is different and nuanced, and every student has to learn that piece of technology as a way to learn language. Like, if you start a kid out on ProLoQuo2Go, and then you move that kid to another school, and they see that, "Oh, well. You've got an an AAC device with some kind of software in your IEP. We have to implement your IEP that you came in with, but we don't know what you were using." And they'll go off and get, you know, a Samsung smart pad with some kind of who-knows-what software installed on it. And it's not the iPad with the ProLoQuo2Go the kid knew how to use from the last school. And so, what happens is their language gets taken away. And so, I guess my question to you then becomes, "If there's other technologies that are going to be used as these children get older, like ProLoQuo2Go, going into the adult world, do you think that it's wise to start them off on something different and then switch them, or does it make more sense to get them accustomed to one piece of technology and have it carry them through, or does it make sense to teach them more than one type of AAC tech so that if one goes out of business, the other one's still around?" I mean, that's my concern. It's about the people in the public schools who tend to think that AAC technology, if they're not specifically trained in it, they think it's plug-and-play, and you can pull one out and push another one in. And, I wonder what your feedback on that what would be.   Zafer Elcik Yeah, my feedback on that, like, is, we have also AAC solution in our special education app.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik We are targeting mostly young children instead of, like, ProLoQuo2Go or other AAC devices as well. And I believe in ... so, like, we need to introduce the AAC to the people and individuals on the spectrum as soon as possible, because, like, we have a lot of research also going on there. AAC actually doesn't have any disadvantages to learning a language. It also have advantages to learning language or concepts of vocabulary, and so on. I believe ... so, we need to, we need to show the AAC in really early stages, because it's helpful for them. And the second thing I need to say: We need to find a way to, like, a different kind of solution. Like, sometimes you need Tobii Dynavox with a eye-tracker device on it ...   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik ... and so on, and sometimes you need also some AT with a light reading cue and open source system with you. I think that, like, the schools doesn't ... like, schools must not mandate an AAC over others. They need to accommodate the diversity, the diversity of different assistive technology. That's because, like, I also came across some schools, like, they're using just one tech and they don't want to change, but it doesn't help anyone. Like, it just helped the teachers, maybe the managers there. It doesn't help the kids and the family. Because I think that, like, teachers also have a lot of goals, as well, because of the ... I don't want to say that, but, like, teachers need to accommodate the diverse kids ...   Anne Zachry Yeah. Right.   Zafer Elcik ... diverse problems or ... the diverse solutions of the kid, and find a way to use the ... what the kids like, what the individuals like. Because, like, communication is essential, and when you are changing a device, you're actually changing the whole communication system. And, you force them maybe to voiceless.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik And that's a huge drawback for diverse communities. That's because, I believe it. So they don't need to see a lot of different AAC, but they need to stick with what they feel comfortable.   Anne Zachry Right. It's doesn't do any good to teach a kid how to speak using the tool and then take the tool away from them. And...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... and that's our concern. And that, again, goes back to how special education is legally regulated here, because you can't just go and change things up once it's written into the IEP. That's a legally binding contract that the parents can hold the school to that says, "Hey, these are the things you're supposed to do for my kid." But if the contract itself is flawed, if the what it describes in writing is not appropriate, then that's what's enforceable. And, what we run into is ... Yes, I agree with you that you have way too many school districts that will standardize on a particular technology, because they get bulk discounts. If they buy in bulk from the vendor, they get it less per unit.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry And so, it's cheaper to get multiple licenses of a particular AAC and a particular device because they can buy those in bulk, because all of these vendors have realized that they can sell more in quantity to the schools if they can convince them that their technology will solve all these problems. And, for a lot of kids it will, but you have to specify what it is in the IEP. Because, if a kid has started out, say, on your technology and it's part of what's being done in the classroom, if it's not written into the IEP, and that child moves to another area, and that IEP has to follow them to the new school, but it doesn't say in there ... that they were using your technology, the new schools not going to know to put that in. And so, what we run into is sort of a mixture of too vague of a description of the accommodation, as well as what you were talking about, what is sometimes is over-specified to the point where there's no flexibility to try anything new.   Zafer Elcik Yeah ... Yeah.   Anne Zachry So, you don't ... you have to strike a balance where there's enough flexibility with the way the document is constructed that trying out new technologies is not prohibited, but what the child is familiar with is also not taken away. And so, it comes down to the wording of the document. And I think that that's something that a lot of solution developers find frustrating when they enter into the American special education system because they're thinking, "Oh, America loves special ed! They actually have laws and they make it free and they do all this stuff!" But, when you actually try to participate in it, it looks a lot different to live through it than it looks like on paper. Yes, there's an embracing of it. But there's also all of these rules that get in the way of actually doing something about it, sometimes. And so, sometimes the rules are there to help, and sometimes they get in the way. And I think that, especially as an international developer, for you coming in to try and insert your product into that kind of situation and have been successful, that's enormous. Because that's not an easy thing for anybody to do. And for you to come from outside of the country, and insert yourself into such a heavily regulated situation, with a solution that people are actually adapting and accepting and using, I think that's huge. So that's ... congratulations on that. That's enormous.   Zafer Elcik Actually, like, the system in the U.S. is changing by state-by-state. And that's because like, maybe it's district-by-district.   Anne Zachry Yeah.   Zafer Elcik You are right. They're involved in that kind of stuff. We here are actually trying to be a company like family-friendly, or special individual-friendly. What we try to provide is an additional value. Like, they can pick what they want. Mostly ... most of the other companies, like there are big corporations in the U.S., like, they are selling bulk, but they don't update the software for a long time or doing anything like that, specifically.   Anne Zachry That's true. Right.   Zafer Elcik That's because, like ... and also, some states and district doesn't ... they need to cover by IEP by law, but they have a lot of that system. That's because kids couldn't reach out for, like, the AAC they need.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik That's because we try to find a way to be an affordable and accessible solution for all families, instead of, like, binding the districts or states to just forcing them into one single product. But, you are also right. On the other side, if the kids started some sort of specific AAC, I think, I believe it, so they need to follow the same system in the other schools or other districts because, like, they learn how to communicate through that. Like, it's something like you learn in English in one nursery; while you carry on your school, you need to ... you're forced to talk in French and ...   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik ... it's impossible for you to actually ... it's something like that.   Anne Zachry I agree.   Zafer Elcik ... take a special tech from their hand just because of the bulk discount or so, but it doesn't help anyone.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik It's helping the ... maybe the district managers and so on.   Anne Zachry Exactly. And that's a lot of what we run into is ... we run into administrators who spend zero time in the classroom, who are business office people making decisions that affect the classroom based on finances, which is illegal, but it happens all the time, because they don't know any better. They don't realize their decisions are going to have that big of an impact on a kid. They're not even thinking about that because their business office people. And so, that's I think it's ... we're running into an issue over here with respect to how the bureaucracy is organized. It was created during the Industrial Revolution and emulates a factory. And, even though modern business technology has evolved well beyond that, public education technology has not. Public agency technology has not. The public sector, our government agencies, are decades behind technologically speaking, which I'm sure you've encountered with all of their different business systems ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah, yeah.   Anne Zachry ... and things and accounting systems and was like, none of them are running the same operating system. None of them are running the same software. So, it's a highly disparate situation. And it kind of reminds me when I was working in IT years ago, around the, like, the late 1990s, early 2000s. I went through that whole Y2K thing ... and ... when I was working in IT. And, at the time, the customers that I had for the company I worked with were mostly in the freight forwarding business. And, it was when U.S. Customs was switching to paperless. And, my goodness! The pandemonium and chaos that broke out amongst all of the people who handle paperwork for shipping goods back and forth overseas. I mean, this was all a paper driven processing, and now Customs wanted to go paperless, and it was something. And, nobody had the same operating system. Nobody had the same software. But, everybody's stuff was somehow supposed to magically talk to U.S. Customs electronically. And, making that all come together over the span of like five to seven years was outrageous. But at the same time, I see that now happening in public education where we're finally starting to reach that place where we're just going to have to deal with it in do the upgrades. And, I think that once the upgrades get done, and we get to a more cohesive modern system, that it'll be a lot easier because ... we have better technology being implemented in the classrooms than we having implemented in the business offices. And, I think that that's a lot of the problem is that we have this antiquated bureaucracy responsible for teaching modern children. And so, we have all these innovators like you bringing technology in, but what's it supposed to integrate with? It's like a green cursor on a black screen or an amber cursor on a black screen. I mean, some of the tech is so old. And so, I know that you're having to go in and blaze a trail in a place where, you know, in a space in an industry where technology is not as easily as embraced as it is in other places. So that's another thing that you have to be proud of yourself for, because it's another accomplishment, to be able not only to come into the American market, with all of the regulations involved, but also just all of the backwards technology that you're going to have to overcome. And so you've really taken on something that's enormous. You know, I have one last question. I have a young man on my caseload that I've been with for a very, very, very long time, and he's severely, severely, severely autistic. But he's even more severely intellectually disabled. I think the intellectual disability gets in his way more than the autism does. But, when he was much younger, he was very self-injurious. And he would hit his head against very hard surfaces, like floors, and roads, and walls and ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... and so he was a head-banger. And, he would hit himself and he would hurt other people. And, it was because he couldn't get his words out. And, when he would speak, people wouldn't take him seriously, because he did a lot of scripting. So they didn't listen to anything he said, even when he was trying to speak for real. And so, it got to the point where the behavior became his method of communication. And it took a long, long time; he had to be institutionalized to break him of that habit, and teach him to use his words again, and to get him to, you know, where he could be more functionally communicative without engaging in these violent behaviors. Unfortunately, in the course of all of this before I, you know ... by the time I got involved with him, a whole lot of harm had already been done. And he had managed to, as best as we can tell, detach his own retinas from head-banging. So, now, he's permanently blind.   Zafer Elcik Oh, wow!   Anne Zachry He hit his head so hard that he blinded himself, or at least that's what the doctors are saying, because he just ... all of a sudden, his retinas peeled off the backsides of his eyeballs and he couldn't see anymore, and, so, you know, and it was after years and years of head-banging against really hard surfaces. And, his school would ... they didn't know what to do with him, so they would just put them in a seclusion room and leave them in there to whack his head on the wall for 45 minutes at a time. And, needless to say, there was a lawsuit. And, you know, we got compensatory services for him. But what we can't do with him, now, is teach him to use a traditional AAC or any kind of device-based technologies where, you know, all these wonderful things like what you created, because he doesn't have eyesight anymore. He can't see the screen.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry And so, you know, we've had him evaluated by experts to help figure out what we can do for this guy, you know. And, he's now my friend. I love him to death. He's my sweet little lamb. He ... I mean, I don't have any behavior problems with him. But, here he is now, you know, as a young adult finally starting to say, "Okay, well, I think I want to have a life and do something with myself," and the tools and the resources are so now limited for him because of the eyesight loss, because everything for autism was all about visual schedules and visual cues.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry And, you know ... and I can't do that with him. And so, what we've had to do is, I create tactile schedules for him where I take dollhouse miniatures, and I glue them on a great big piece of foam board. And, I make like a visual schedule, but instead of looking at it, he's got to touch each item, and it moves through a progression so that he can, you know, follow the flow of what it is we're going to do. And once he learns the routine - once he gets that ritual down - he knows the order of events, I don't have to use the schedule with him anymore, because he already knows what's coming. Now he knows the routine. But, to teach him new schedules, I would have to glue together $200 worth of dollhouse miniatures off of Amazon onto a piece of board to give him an idea of what was about to happen. And, what I'm not seeing ... and so, I'm kind of putting it out there, hopefully you'll ... this is something you can think about ... are tools for individuals with autism who are also blind or are deaf and have these sensory impairments on top of the autism that makes the typical solutions inaccessible to them. And just your your thoughts maybe of what you think might be a good way to go in terms of adapting a device for use with someone. Like, I can see if someone has hearing loss ... hearing loss, you could do vibration. You could make the device vibrate ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... in the absence of sound. But when for someone with vision loss, I don't know how you replicate a visual schedule, other than to just audio record yourself, like in the voice recorder, you know, just speaking your way through it. I've done that, too. But it doesn't seem to be as powerful as a tactile schedule. And I'm curious as to, you know, when I talk to developers, what do you think about that? What do you think could be done for someone who's got multiple disabilitiees and the autism is just one of many?   Zafer Elcik Yeah, it's a nice question. Like, we also came across like, people with hearing disorders with autism, and so on. We try to make our product as much as accessible for that. I don't know, literally, like, because we are not doing visual schedules. I don't know, in specific people region schedule basis. But for the Apple devices, there is, like, assistive disability techniques. And I know that, for example, ProLoQuo2Go has a system. You can actually use the switches or you can ... they will actually scan the screen with them. But, you need to teach them this assistive tech on the Apple devices to the kid. And, I believe it, we are also ... there will be our apps right now. I can't say we are 100% accessible for vision problems, or hearing problems and so on, but you can use that assistive settings in the settings in Apple devices. And, combined with that assistive settings with the apps like us or ProLoQuo2Go, or if you're using a visual schedule app, you should reaching out to developers and saying them, like, "Could you implement assistive settings to our device on your app, because we are using it for for this, this this?" And, that's the only chance I can see from my point of view ...   Anne Zachry That stands to reason.   Zafer Elcik Apple has a great assistive settings for people with vision problems, as well as hearing problems. That's because, if he or she can use them assistive techniques while using the device, apps also can be a part of it and you can use that settings in the specific apps, and you can just scan the screen instead of picking seeing regionally, and so on. You will see here what you, like, the device actually loudly saying that what they're clicking, and they can actually talk thanks to that, while just memorizing what they were seeing. That's doable and a lot of companies are doing but, yeah, it's a one more additional step of teaching.   Anne Zachry Is it like an API where you if you're a developer, you could reach out to Apple and say, "Hey, we want to link in with your accessibility tools. What's the code?"   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry Okay.   Zafer Elcik Yeah, it's kind of an accessibility feature. You use that kind of specific codes in your app. At times, too, the Apple accessibility feature actually can be used in the app as well. The name is ... or ... you can use voice over, or you can use in the voice over settings. You have, like, Braille alphabet, as well as, like, the others. And also hearing devices can be connected to the Apple devices and you can use for specifically hearing disorders and so on. That's because like, the settings if the app using that specific API or SDK, for just specific assistive technology settings, you can use it in the app as well. And Facebook, Google, using these APIs a lot. You can test it out there. You can see how they ... how it's working. And if you're using one, we just schedule it out. You just reach out to developers and say what you want. That I believe in, so they will implement it in near future.   Anne Zachry That's a really good point. I know that one of the colleagues that I work with who I've actually have involved with this student in the past to teach independent living skills, she herself is blind. And she ... her whole house is an Apple smart house at this point, because she's become so dependent upon the Apple technologies to ... as her accommodations ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... but it's interesting you would say that because the first time I introduced the two of them to each other, we met at a restaurant in the community that is entirely staffed by individuals with mental disabilities. And, we were there to meet each other - for him to meet her - and I went inside to go get the menu. And, there was a line! And, I had to wade through a sea of people before I could even get the menu to bring it back out to him and read it to him and ask him what he wanted. And my colleague had already looked up the menu on their website, and had her phone read it out loud to the both of them so that, by the time ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... I got back outside with the menu, he already knew what he wanted.   Zafer Elcik Yeah. Like, Apple devices are expensive, but Apple as a company, really pro assistive technology. That's because, like, they devices are best in case for using that kind of technology.   Anne Zachry Right, they've got the most experience working with this kind of stuff; they've been doing it longer. And well, it just for the for the benefit of our listeners who are hearing this conversation, I mean, here in the United States, if you if you're on the autism spectrum, especially if you have other disabling conditions, other developmental disabilities, you're also going to be eligible for services from Department of Developmental Services. And every state has a Department of Developmental Services. Now, again, federal regulations that come down from the top, just like special education law, but then how each state ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... implements the federal regs varies from state to state. And so with Developmental Services, some states, the DDS is its own thing, and you just go to the DDS office and that's who you deal with. It's the state agency, and they have offices in different communities around the state. But in California, and in other states, it's a little bit different, where you have what's called regional centers. And, regional centers are non- ... here in California, are non-profit organizations that contract with California's Department of Developmental Services. And, their function is to provide anything that someone with a developmental disability needs above and beyond what any of the other generic agencies have to do. So, for example, for a child who's in, you know, K-12 age, the school district is going to have the primary responsibility for meeting their needs in terms of publicly funded programming for people with disabilities. But if there's anything that doesn't have to do with school, like afterschool childcare, or social skills in a non-school setting, like a Boy Scout troop, or something like that, there's services above and beyond what the school is obligated to do, those things fall to regional center. So, if a child gets an iPad with your technology - with Otsimo - loaded on it, for example, at school, that's only for school. If they need to be able to use it to communicate with people outside of the school day, they need a second separate iPad that they keep at home and take out into the community, and that's regional center. Because the school's ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... only responsible for what happens at school, or anything to do with homework, you know, anything that's school related. But, if it's beyond that, if it's just life in general, now, you're talking about regional center. And, for our individuals who have graduated from high school with a diploma or aged out of special ed, and now they're young adults and they're going out into the world, regional centers and the Department of Developmental Services are obligated to serve these people their entire lives, not just when they're children. So, if someone is using an iPad with your technology, or ProLoQuo2Go or anything else, and then they're no longer a public school student - they've grown up, they've gone on - but they still need that iPad with that technology on it to communicate with people, then they have to go back to DDS, or regional center, depending on how its configured in their state and say, "Okay, well, this is a life functional skill thing for me. This is an activity of daily living. If I don't have this device, I don't have a means of communicating with people." And so, the laws very definitely protect their communication rights. And so, it falls on a different agency to purchase that equipment. It doesn't automatically fall on the shoulders of the families to come up with all this money to buy all of this tech. There's public dollars out there for it. Just, people need to know which agency to go to for which circumstance. If you're talking about someone who is an adult who's looking to get a job and needs to have this technology to communicate in order to be employed, well, now you're talking about the Department of Rehabilitation, which is also federally funded and also regulated under the same bodies of law as special education law on a federal level. But again, every state does it different. Some states will roll their Department of Developmental Services and their Department of Rehab together as one solid agency that takes care of both of those responsibilities. Where others, like in California, DDS it's its own thing and it's got its regional centers, and the Department of Rehabilitation is a completely separate entity that you have to go to separate from everybody else and go ask for their help. And so, getting all of these different agencies that each may have an individual responsibility to one person can be a lot, but any one of these agencies could end up having to finance the technology, the communication device and software, that these individuals would need. And so, I'm just putting it out there not only for you, but for our listeners, that there's more than one way to get the job done, and if one avenue is not appropriate for an individual, there may be another avenue that is, and that could still make your technology accessible to people outside of just the schools, even if they can't afford to buy it personally. And so, I just, you know ... Yes, I want my families who can afford it, they can just go straight there and get it. It could even be something they could get reimbursed on by the schools, if they buy it themselves because the schools haven't given them anything appropriate, and that ends up working for them. And so, there's a lot of different ways here in the United States where families can access these tools, including your technology, even if it's not through the public schools.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry There might be another way to do it. So I just wanted to put that out there. Have you worked with any other agencies other than the school districts out here?   Zafer Elcik Not yet. But we will like to working with agencies and so on. Right now, we are on track to complement ...   Anne Zachry I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to share your information with, here in California, we have First5, which is an early childhood intervention program, separate from the schools, but it works with them, sort of, but it's separate. And, it is all early intervention. And, very often they're the ones making the referrals.   Zafer Elcik Yeah, that would be awesome.   Anne Zachry Yeah, they're the ones often finding out, especially when you're talking about children from low-income, non-English-speaking families, immigrant families ... they don't know what to look for necessarily, or, even if they see something's up, they don't know what to do.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry Very often, First5 will be the one that catches it and makes the referrals and gets these kids into the appropriate supports and services. And so, this is the kind of stuff that they're going to want to know about. So I'm very definitely going to share it with them. And, then I'll also have it on our website and everything and I'll put it out there on our social media.   Zafer Elcik So, I forgot to mention we have also a Spanish version, as well.   Anne Zachry Ooooh!   Zafer Elcik Many families are using our apps in U.S., is reaching out to special education.   Anne Zachry Oh, that's huge. That's enormous to know. I'm excited to see what your project is going to be doing as it expands use through here in the United States, and as it evolves over time. I'm going to be putting links to it on our ... on this ... the post for this podcast. Wanted to ask me about anything?   Zafer Elcik No, thank you for your time. Like, it was a nice coffee talk with you. Like, I haven't imagined that, like, we are going to talk in this prophetic situations, and how I am thinking about it. It was nice questions. It was the one of the best questions I ever ask. Thank you for that and thank you ...   Anne Zachry Oh, of course! Thank you!   Zafer Elcik ... for your time and showcasing our product, as well as me. Happy to see you in two years, three years after this podcast, out with the new products focusing on adults on spectrum. That will be really awesome!   Click here to see Zafer's TED Talk (go into the video settings on YouTube to turn on English or other language translation), and see how disability rights advocacy and smart device-based interventions transcend borders and can put evidence-based practices into the hands of the people, regardless of whatever rules and regulations may apply where they live.

  Now that the Fall 2021 half of the regular school year has come to an end and all the students on my caseload are on Winter Break, I'm taking advantage of the break from back-to-back Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings to reflect on the most serious issues I've had to deal with so far during this first half of the current school year.   While I've had to deal with a lot of different challenges, it is the impact that the lack of appropriate services during shutdown, from March of 2020 to August or September of 2021, that has hit hardest. It's been the absolute most hardest on my students with intensive behavioral services in their IEPs who have suffered the most regression and lost educational benefits. School districts all over Southern California, and likely elsewhere throughout the State and beyond, refused to provide in-person services to children on IEPs who required them in order to continue learning during shutdown.   This was in spite of explicit changes to State law that mandated in-person services for those special education students who needed it and compensatory education for any special education students who lost educational benefits during shutdown. Not only were in-person services denied, compensatory services are still being denied as school districts act like their students' regression has nothing to do with the fact that the districts failed to provide in-person services to these children during shutdown.   What was done instead? Aides employed originally to provide direct, in-person support to these students in the classroom setting were put on Zoom, Google Meets, Microsoft Teams, or whatever else platform their employers were using for distance learning as remote participants. How in the Hell an aide on Zoom was supposed to provide the supports necessary to facilitate the student's participation in online learning via Zoom was anyone's guess. It consistently failed to work.   Further, even though the new laws clearly made it an option, only one of my students' districts hired a non-public agency (NPA) to provide in-person behavioral support services in the student's home during distance learning so the student's behaviors could not be permitted to allow him to escape/avoid the instruction. Instead, they rewarded his participation and prompted him to return to task when his attention wandered, so he was able to make excellent academic progress during distance learning.   What he wasn't able to work on was his social skills with peers and adults in normal everyday settings. When he returned to on-campus learning, his classroom behaviors became increasingly challenging and the behaviors of the other students in the class became escalated in response. It eventually got so bad that the other students in his non-public school (NPS) classroom assaulted his NPA behavior aide because they blamed her for keeping him in their class. He triggered them that badly.   We ultimately changed his placement right before Winter Break started and a due process case for the involved district's utter failure to offer or deliver a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the last two years is now pending. Settlement is entirely possible, which I can't discuss in detail, and the IEP team has come up with a strategy to hopefully salvage his education for the moment, but this is a student who is able to meet academic standards in spite of his grossly impaired social skills.   Our concern is that he will graduate with a diploma and get arrested the next day for acting out in public. His behavioral needs have been exacerbated by shutdown because he didn't get any instruction or practice in behaving in socially appropriate ways when in-person with peers or adults at school. In part, this was because the NPS he had attended had a “philosophy” that failed to conform with the evidence-based scientifically valid practices of the NPA that was providing his behavioral interventions.   As such, NPS staff regularly failed to abide by the Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) in the student's IEP, much to the frustration of the NPA experts who had designed it and much to the danger of the Behavioral Intervention Implementation (BII) staff who was assaulted by my student's classmates because he made them so upset. Rather than work collaboratively with the experts hired to address his behaviors using methods proven to work by science, the NPS staff would engage in ad hoc interventions based on whatever ideas popped into their science-denying minds in the given moment, none of which worked.   Most of the students in the NPS had mental and emotional health needs, many of which arising from past trauma, but our student had autism and just didn't know how to read the room. It was dubious as an appropriate placement from the outset, but the ecological factors of the on-campus setting weren't a problem during distance learning.   It wasn't until our student, who not only has autism, but also ADHD, started attending on-campus, which required him to be in transport between home and school for a total of five hours per day, and then attempt to behave in a socially appropriate manner among other students with serious mental and emotional health needs, that things really fell apart. He might as well have been put into a rocking chair in a room full of long-tailed cats.   The harm was inevitable. And, as always, he's being blamed and vilified while no one from his school district offers something appropriate to his needs. We're hoping the interim placement he has for now will benefit him more than where he's been, but it's still less than ideal. It may take a judge to figure it all out.   I've had two other students on my caseload face expulsion just within the last few weeks. One student's case just recently settled after the involved school district attempted to assert that behaviors that were clearly associated with the student's disabilities somehow magically were not, during a Manifestation Determination (MD) IEP meeting.   The only way for a parent to appeal an MD IEP meeting outcome is to file for due process. Because the student is facing expulsion, the hearing is automatically expedited. This gives parents very little time to prepare for hearing, much less find adequate representation.   I was able to refer this family to an attorney right away who was able to handle the MD appeal via due process. We were lucky to find a really good attorney who could take the case right away and handle it. Most of my attorney colleagues are overwhelmed with the volume of cases they are getting, right now. The violations are everywhere, evidently, and this failure to provide in-person services during shutdown when they truly were needed seems to be a recurring theme.   This case settled because we were able to move quickly through the process and find a good attorney who could handle going to an expedited hearing if necessary or otherwise negotiate an appropriate settlement. Not everybody is having that same experience, these days. This family was lucky. The violations in this student's case were pretty egregious and the attorney was able to convince the involved school district that it wasn't worth going to hearing.   My other student facing expulsion still awaits a decision from school site administration as to whether the principal should just let the IEP team effect a change in placement for special education reasons rather than subject this student to expulsion proceedings. Again, the involved school district tried to claim that the student's disability had nothing to do with the behaviors, which was simply ridiculous.   The student already had behavioral interventions built into his IEP to address the very kinds of behaviors for which he was in trouble. He had a history of escalating to the most outlandish behaviors he could think of to come right up to the line and just barely cross it enough to get himself kicked out of school to avoid the instruction. He hated it that much.   He had transitioned to his current placement in a Special Day Class (SDC) for special education students with behavioral challenges from a special school where all the students had behavioral challenges at the start of the 2019-20 school year and had been largely successful for most of that school year, until the shutdown started in March 2020. During that time, his targeted behaviors of work refusals and avoiding the classroom setting altogether were entirely reinforced by being stuck at home on the computer while the aides from his SDC were also in their own homes using their district's online meeting platform.   There was no one in his home trained in the interventions that were necessary to compel his compliance with teacher directions. There was no one who could make him even login. He had a baby sister at home and his mother was not about to have him triggered into angry outbursts in the home by trying to convince him to participate in the instruction with a baby in the house. Further, his mother was medically fragile and required multiple surgeries throughout the shutdown and afterwards. She was in no position to handle the angry outburst of a frustrated teenager with no impulse control due to ADHD struggling with the work because of a co-morbid learning disability.   We have a complaint pending before one of his school district's regulatory agencies in response to its mishandling of his behavioral needs to date. He is now pending expulsion for a behavior we're fairly convinced he engaged in so as to be kicked out of school. We don't believe he ever had any intent to hurt anyone, but he did enough wrong for someone who doesn't understand the function of his behaviors to think he might pose a credible threat. Law enforcement determined he posed no threat. It appears that district personnel may have exaggerated the severity of the behavior on purpose to justify expulsion.   All that said, the expulsion case may be dismissed if the district agrees to simply let the IEP team refer this student back to his previous placement at the special school. It was successful in preparing him for his transition to a comprehensive high school placement before shutdown; it should be able to return him to that state and help him transition back, again, with success. We also have a ton of new assessments pending to figure out what the most appropriate IEP for him should be, going forward.   This situation may deescalate before it has time to turn into a full kerfuffle. If we can all just agree to work together to address this student's serious behavioral regression through the IEP process and avoid the expulsion process altogether, particularly given that this district is being looked at very closely by one of its regulators right now for failing to adequately support this student thus far, already, we can implement a solution that will eliminate the parent's need to pursue accountability.   The goal isn't to nail the school district's hide to the wall; the goal is to get the student appropriately served as quickly as possible. Nailing hides to walls should only take place if it's absolutely necessary to get a student appropriately served as quickly as possible. It's a last resort option.   I have yet another student whose case is pending settlement, hopefully. It would be foolish on the part of his school district to allow it to go to hearing. I can't discuss much about it while it's pending settlement, but suffice it to say his school district totally blew it by failing to provide in-person behavioral services and supports during shutdown.   He has a host of learning challenges including partial vision loss, severe autism, intellectual disability, a seizure disorder, extremely limited communication skills, and self-injurious behaviors that frequently result in property damage in his home. His windows now have Plexiglas® panes and the dry wall in his home has been replaced so often, his family has lost count. He has made frequent trips to the emergency room and urgent care for medical treatment after hurting himself during an outburst. He has hurt his petite mother by accident.   He's now a young adult who is still eligible for special education and he's had these behavioral challenges his entire life. He's been a student of the same school district his entire public education career. It's not like they don't know what he needs. Before shutdown, he received intensive 1:1 and 2:1 behavioral supports throughout the school day to keep him safe and engaged in the instruction. He got none of that at home during shutdown.   His mother was left to be his 1:1 aide support during distance learning over a computer while his actual aide support staff stared back at him from the screen from their own homes. He was immediately triggered into violent outbursts because he didn't understand why he wasn't at school with these people instead of looking at them on a computer screen. His participation in distance learning had to stop immediately for his own safety and that of his mother. It's been a struggle ever since to get an offer of appropriate services in his IEP as a prospective matter of FAPE, much less with respect to all of the compensatory remedies he's due.   This student's case has been referred to a different attorney than the one mentioned above, but also an amazingly talented and smart one. Because settlement terms are still being discussed, I can't speak much further to the matter, but I think the point is made that this is happening way too much. We've got too many kids who didn't get what they needed during shutdown who are now owed compensatory remedies and they have until March 2022 to file for due process on their claims.   Special education attorneys who represent families are working at capacity with respect to their caseloads. That said, there have now been enough cases litigated and settled since the increase in claims began that openings are starting to come on many caseloads. Others are bogged down by appeals, which are largely occurring in the federal District Courts.   Some attorneys are having an easier time these days than others, just depending on whether they get good judges at the due process level, or have to work the appeals system before they get to someone willing to take the time to really listen to the arguments and examine the evidence relative to the rule of law and applicable science. That's always the chance that attorneys take with these cases, and it's not fun to work the appeals, I promise you.   I've provided paralegal support on cases all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and there is nothing more tedious than a Table of Uncontroverted Facts, because there are always facts that become controverted between the parties. The back-and-forth between the parties about what facts were agreed to, which ones were disputed, and all the references to the evidence and testimony on the existing record from the original due process case and previous appeal to the District Court that supposedly supported each party's asserted facts, became one of the most exhausting exercises I've ever engaged in as professional. I have ADHD – Inattentive Type, myself, so trust me when I say it was grueling.   Litigation should always be the very last resort to solving a special education problem, but these days it's been necessary. For those of you finding yourselves in similar circumstances, I'd like to share a decision from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).   I downloaded the PDF of this decision just in case it ever gets taken down in the future, and have uploaded it to our site. Click here to download the PDF of this due process decision from California in which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of a student who was deprived of educationally necessary in-person behavior services during shutdown, if the link to the OAH site doesn't work. In this case, the ALJ ordered compensatory services as remedies to the student.   If this decision can help you argue for resolution to your own child's lost educational benefits during shutdown, whether via due process or just a sensible discussion with your school district's representatives, it will have served its purpose as a persuasive authority on the subject. If you find it necessary to hire an attorney to file for due process over shutdown-related deprivation of educational benefits, be sure to share this authority with your attorney. They may have very well already seen it, but if you can relate the facts of your own child's case to the facts of this due process case linked to here, you will help bring your attorney up to speed regarding your child's claims, so you can timely file your case before March 2022.   You may also choose to use this decision to support your arguments as you advocate for your own child in the IEP process as a parent. If you share this decision with your school district's IEP team members and relate the facts of your child's situation to the similar facts in this due process case, presuming your child's case follows a similar pattern of a denial of behavioral services from his/her IEP during shutdown, your school district may be compelled to work with you rather than have you lawyer up and then have to deal with the costs of a legal action.   Parents' attorneys' fees and costs can be recovered from the offending school districts as a condition of settlement or upon prevailing in due process or appeal. School districts are smart to work things out through Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) Agreements or Confidential Settlement Agreements, if they can. The costs of due process and any subsequent litigation are far too great for taxpayers to fund when those dollars could be spent on educating children, instead. Spending education dollars on fights over the deprivation of educational benefits just adds insult to injury, honestly.   The evidence is increasingly making clear that far-right politics have way too much influence on public education at various levels of government, from local to state to federal education agencies. This is how public service was infiltrated at its weakest point. Extremists would get elected by an uniformed or misinformed electorate, then hire their cronies to work for them within their agencies, undermining the efficacy of local government while mishandling the finances in order to “prove” that government doesn't work while arguing for increased local control and reduced regulatory oversight.   Then they pay themselves more than they'd ever earn in the private sector where job performance matters as they slash resources to those expected to actually deliver on the agency's mandates who work beneath them. This is the climate in which special education violations occur. This is why public agencies defy the regulations to the detriment to some of our most vulnerable children, many of whom coming from low-income households whose parents are often at a loss as to how to fight back. Most parents won't do anything because they don't know what to do and don't realize how badly their children are being hurt in the long run.   If you are a parent whose child did not get appropriate services during shutdown, and who has regressed and may require compensatory services to be brought back to where he/she should be in school, right now, you're not alone. Whether you negotiate resolution on your own with you local education agency or hire someone to help you, know that many other parents have already started to fight this same fight before you, and some really helpful decisions are coming out of the various venues that can help bolster the arguments you and/or your representatives make on behalf of your child.   I hope this helps you put your own child's situation into perspective and gives you some ideas on how to go forward in the most constructive and least adversarial way possible. I can only imagine the other families' stories that out there similar to the ones I've described and the case captured by the decision linked to above. All of you are in my heart and I'm praying for you all.

Urie Bronfenbrenner, Human Development Researcher I have a million other things I need to be doing right now, but this is one of those moments where if I don't stop and purge these thoughts from my mind into print, they will torment and distract me until I do, so the sooner I finish this post, the sooner I can get back to work without continued torment and distraction. I wasn't intending to post, right now, because my caseload is blowing up and my other endeavor, The Learn & Grow Educational Series, is starting to require more of my attention lately as it continues to experience its own growth and expansion. My plate is full, but it's the reasons why it's full that prompt me to stop what I'm doing and post this today. In the course of analyzing the incoming bombardment of data that is my life, I'm seeing the connections between the specific issues I've chosen to take on with my professional skills and the turmoil being experienced by the world at large, right now. I'm seeing common allies and culprits across issues, and recurring themes and trends that can be generalized from the work I specifically do to the work that needs to be done overall to cure the defects of reparable systems, and overhaul and replace systems that no longer serve us. Today's post is an appeal to my colleagues to think beyond the bubbles and silos in which you may exist as professionals and recognize the need for your respective skills to contribute to much larger solutions on a much simpler scale. Capable, ethical, and responsible people each making what contributions they can along they way, just in the course of doing what they were already going to do, can reshape society into a healthier version of itself. We need to see our everyday activities as substantial contributions to the world that exists around us and appreciate that every little decision we make really does matter. If enough of us are thinking right and making the smart, ethical, and responsible decisions, we can help influence those around us who are less capable, thereby loving our neighbors as ourselves and being our brothers' keepers when necessary. We each help make the world we live in be what it is through our individual actions with each other. Those actions and their outcomes become woven together into complex relationships that evolve into established systems supported by nothing but learned behaviors. We don't do them because that's the way things work; the reason why that's the way things work is because that's the way we do them. That being the case, we have every reason in the world to believe that enough smart, ethical, altruistic people can facilitate healing throughout society to a more powerful degree than a minority of fear-based thinking, hate-mongering cowards can try to destroy it. It comes down to mindfulness and living a life of purpose that serves the common good while also serving oneself and one's immediate loved ones in healthy and constructive ways. One of my favorite theorists from human development research is Urie Bronfenbrenner. The lame graphic below is one I created in graduate school so as to avoid a copyright infringement by grabbing someone's more professional graphic off the internet, but it illustrates the model. Follow the above link for more information about Bronfenbrenner's model, if you're not already familiar with it or need to brush up on it. It's quite sobering in light of current world events. Bronfenbrenner's Socio-Ecological Model of Development Bronfenbrenner realized that, while nature had a certain degree of influence on the raw materials with which each person started out in life, it was the environment in which that person was raised relative to those raw materials that dictated the unique development of that individual person. No two people who have ever existed, exist now, or will exist in the future will ever be entirely identical to each other because, regardless of genetics, actual life experiences that shape people through learning are never identical from one person to the next. Genetics provide for a whole lot of variability, but they're still technically finite in spite of their vastness. Environments are ever-changing; they must be adapted-to in the moment via individuals' behaviors and over time via genetic mutation of the species. For those of you among my colleagues in special education and related fields who are expected to individualize programming according to the unique needs of each constituent served, this shouldn't be a leap of logic for you. For people unfamiliar with what it takes to truly individualize something for another person, particularly another person with diminished capacity to communicate their needs, it might as well be alchemy or voodoo. The bottom line is that everybody thinks differently and has relative strengths and weaknesses. You can't assume that just because it's obvious to you, it's obvious to everyone else. But, you also can't assume that just because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense to anyone else, either. The sword of understanding cuts both ways for each of us. We're each good at some things and not so good at others; that's normal. Some people, however, are not so good at recognizing when they're not so good at something. This goes to another body of psychological science, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but that's a whole discussion unto itself that I'll link to but not delve into, right now. One lay person's less-than-kind distillation of it, once it was explained to them, was, “So, basically, dumb people are too dumb to know that they're dumb.” The point is that those of us who get it have to carry the weight of those who don't and/or can't. It's the opposite of authoritarianism, which demands the compliance of coerced individuals; what is called for, here, is the responsible stewardship of public service agencies to actually serve the public according to their mandates in conformity with the professional ethical standards of their involved professional disciplines. For those of us supporting the needs of individuals with disabilities, we understand that the situation sometimes requires helping people exercise their informed choices as independently as possible. Other times, our responsibilities require us to protect the rights of those who are incapable of making fully informed choices without our help and are otherwise helpless and vulnerable to exploitation. We understand this better than most people and we need to recognize that we are collectively unique as a result. It's not that big of a stretch between the issues of conservatorship abuse and voter suppression and nullification laws. A whole lot of science in the areas of psychology, sociology, communication, behavior, instruction, organizational planning, leadership, and related disciplines has been conducted over the last 100 years. Many of us have access to that research but don't make the time to follow it. I encourage every one of my professional colleagues to create a saved search for a specific body of peer-reviewed research and, whenever you are able to grab a free moment, take the time to run the search and read something new from the science that tells you something you didn't already know, then think about ways to incorporate it into what you are doing in your work and follow through on applying them. What small change in a routine task can you make that applies the knowledge you've gained for the better? Over time, how much better will things incrementally get with each little new thing you tweak after reading from your saved search? Is it a relevant authority to something you are currently writing? Does it help you better understand how to individualize a particular constituent's goals and services? Is there another colleague who you think might benefit from the information with whom you can share it? Can you share your thoughts about it on LinkedIn and/or other professional online platforms in a constructive way? Nothing exists in a vacuum. The more we recognize and honor the logical connections among our respective professions and how the science applies to out constituents and their service needs, the more we realize that Bronfenbrenner was right. J. V. Wertsch, who worked with Bronfenbrenner, states in his 2005 review of Bronfenbrenner's book, Making Human Beings Human,"Starting with the assumption that ‘to a greater extent than for any other species, human beings create the environments that shape the course of human development' (p. xxvii), Urie has argued that it is incumbent on all of us to create decent, nurturing environments for human development." [Emphasis added.] In my opinion, that's something we have yet as a species to do; ants do a far better job of this than we do. Unfortunately, because we still are not proactively applying Bronfenbrenner's science as an ongoing element of how our society functions, we still do not love our neighbors just as we love ourselves and we are not our brothers' keepers when our brothers go astray. We blame and punish people for having weak minds rather than remediate the effects of their shortcomings. As a species, humans generally treat their abilities as unfair advantages and use them to exploit others. They should be humbled by the responsibilities that come with their gifts and use them prudently with good intent, but in the absence of informed, deliberate planning, what has naturally been allowed to come to fruition is a society that rewards abuses of the rules more richly than compliance with them. Those of us trying to facilitate functional independence among our most vulnerable children and adults know all too well that there aren't enough of us with the necessary expertise to change the maladaptive behaviors in every bad situation that is collectively poisoning society, right now. The most we can do is the most we can do in our respective situations. We have to hope people will start copying our strategies that work when they see our successes. We need to start generalizing our successes into other areas where the same degree of expertise is not available, just as a matter of making sure our democracy thrives and functions as it should according to what can be proven true and responsibly effective for everybody. Further, we as a society have historically regarded those individuals on the cusp between “can't” and “could with learning” as an acceptable shade of gray on the spectrum of social involvement, but now they have become an outspoken and increasingly violent minority of individuals who cannot successfully function with independence in the quickly evolving world. They don't know how to adapt but they can still wreak havoc on their way down the tubes. The only difference between “can't” and “could with learning” is the provision of instruction. The outcomes of both are the same if no instruction is made available; there has to be the “with learning” part in order for the choices of the person who can learn to differ from the choices of the person who can't. The problems we are seeing in the world today from misinformation being spread on the internet goes to the degree to which many internet users have no idea how search engines and social media algorithms indulge subjective biases and feed them whatever will increase their engagement without regard for how those choices impact the individual user or society on the whole. When all of our individual choices put together collectively shape the fabric of society, an artificial intelligence that only reinforces user engagement with neutral disregard for the quality or nature of that engagement will, by design, radicalize the most violent of the weakest minds into acts of terrorism. It weaponizes a previously harmless sub-population by turning them against us in irrational, violent ways and selling them the products to do it. At the end of the day, humans are again proven to be part of nature and not something separate from it. The natural consequences of poor choices eventually catch up to people, one way or another. Sometimes other, innocent people become collateral damage along the way, and its in the interest of minimizing those numbers now and ultimately eliminating them as soon as possible that those of us who already work in professions helping people with disabilities need to generalize our skills into other aspects of human need where possible. What those of us working with individuals challenged by mental health issues already know can be imperative to addressing domestic terrorism. As an example of generalizing one's skills beyond one's professional area of focus, while I still represent students with disabilities and consult with their parents as a lay advocate, provide paralegal support to attorneys representing students with disabilities in various legal proceedings, and design and implement compensatory programs for individuals with disabilities who were wrongfully denied services by publicly funded agencies, I also created something else using my knowledge and skills. I created the Learn & Grow Educational Series to address food insecurity and sustainable living issues. The science of instruction is also the science of marketing, and social media can be used just as effectively to push learning as it can be used to push sales. In many cases, content creators push both, with the sales funding the instructional content and the instructional content driving the sales in a synergistic way; if it were organic, it would be considered symbiotic. The science I rely upon to determine appropriate educational goals and services for my learners with special needs is the same science I rely upon each time I create a new Learn & Grow learning experience for my online and in-person learners. Through Learn & Grow, I'm able to teach people everywhere how to grow their own fresh fruits and vegetables anywhere using free and/or inexpensive materials, even if they have no open ground for growing. I use evidence-based instructional practices to teach them how to make self-watering containers from buckets for patio, balcony, fire escape, and rooftop gardening. These containers are water conservative, using as little as one-tenth the amount of water of in-ground growing, and self-regulating, meaning the soil is never too wet or too dry so long as the reservoir beneath it doesn't run dry. These containers are portable, meaning renters can take their gardens with them when they move. I've moved my own garden five times since I first started it in June of 2013, and the goji berry thicket I started from seeds when I first started the garden is still going strong in its original container, giving me two crops of berries per year. The design of these containers is totally open-source, public domain knowledge. What is unique to Learn & Grow is the body of evidence-based instruction and project ideas using this gardening method that I provide in person and which lives online through Learn & Grow's website, Facebook page, Instagram account, and video channels on YouTube: Food for Thought and Learn & Grow with Emmalyn. This is where I was able to apply my skills normally used in special education and disability resources to address other types of challenges the world is currently facing, specifically food insecurity and climate change. In October 2020, I expanded the Learn & Grow curriculum to include sustainable living methods, starting with alternative energy sources and gray water recapturing. I've most recently started conducting online Meetups using Zoom and Prezi for urban gardeners in the greater Los Angeles area who can benefit from Learn & Grow's instruction regarding self-watering bucket gardens. Without any marketing, my online classes are getting bookings and my Meetup group continues to grow in membership. Once I start marketing it, I expect to reach a larger number of learners who want to be able to grow their own food in their apartments, condos, mobile home parks, and other limited growing environments. This is an adaptation to their environments I can help them make, a lá Bronfenbrenner, to create a greater quality of life using sustainable means in a very healthy way. If they get their buckets used from local restaurants or bakeries, they keep that plastic out of landfills and reuse it for something entirely purposeful. For me, achieving increased food security, recycling, water conservation, and portability with a single solution is too good of a thing not to share. It's not directly related to publicly funded services for individuals with disabilities, but it relies upon the same sciences to be successful. I can generalize what I already know from what I've been doing professionally for the last 30 years to tackle an entirely different area of need, and it's not that hard. It's not any harder than representing a child with special needs in a federal complaint or supporting a child's attorney in due process, and I can do those things. Plus, I'm taking advantage of online tools to automate as much of my Learn & Grow content as possible, so the planning phase is followed by the scheduling phase which is then followed by an automated implementation stage that frees me up for months to years at a time to focus on other things, like the individuals on my caseload. I can drip instruction just as easily as I can drip marketing messages using the same online tools. I also recently rejoined my local Kiwanis club, which is a community service organization. I'm helping the club use Learn & Grow to provide self-watering bucket gardens to community-based programs, like adult day cares and preschools, as well food insecure individuals through local food pantries, hunger relief programs, and shelters. I'm able to address food insecurity through a more direct means by partnering with my local Kiwanis club, which has ample volunteers and existing trusted business partners willing to invest in the right community service projects with their donations. This is a win-win-win for all involved, and it only happened because I went outside of my normal professional duties to tackle another social issue in ways that only someone with my unique skill set could. All of us have skills and expertise that can be generalized to another problem in the world other than the one about which you spend most of your time thinking. I promise you that finding some other way to express yourself and apply your skills to something hugely constructive towards making the world a better place will open your mind in ways that makes you a better thinker back on your regular job and give you a healthier outlook on life. Food shortages and economic collapse were the unknowns I most feared back when I started Learn & Grow in 2013. That was only made more real when Learn & Grow was discovered by panicked Venezuelans in 2016 when their country's economy collapsed and their government subsidized food supply collapsed along with it, leaving them with no food in their stores and no more coming any time soon. I'm not afraid of that, now. My garden has grown to sixty-one self-watering containers and I have four laying hens who give me eggs throughout the year. Come what may, I'll be okay for food. The shortages in the stores at the start of the pandemic and the supply chain shortages happening right now have only been slight inconveniences compared to what could happen if the whole supply chain were to collapse altogether. Most people have become dependent upon it, and that's dangerously unhealthy. If the commercialized food supply collapsed tomorrow, what situation would you be in? As much as I live and breath special education and disability resource science and law, I can't have figured out a way to dodge the bullet of a collapse of our commercialized food supply, have the ability to teach people according to their individual capacities to learn, and not use my skills to teach other people what I've figured out to survive a very dire time of food insecurity in this country. And, I know I can't be the only one. I know there are others of you out there who see issues with social justice, public health, climate change, domestic terrorism, and/or the ongoing threats to our democracy that would benefit from your unique perspectives and skills. Something horrible happening in the world today has factors in common with a problem you've already solved. Your solution translates into something that can be generalized to solve other serious world problems. Don't keep it to yourself. I'm not special; I'm just specialized in my knowledge and skills, and they can be applied to more than one context. That doesn't make me unique; it makes me a member of a unique sub-population of individuals with relevant skills. You, my professional colleagues, can do something about society's ills today without it being political. Helping people everywhere grow their own food doesn't take sides in anything. Everybody needs to eat. Food is a basic survival need no matter what somebody chooses to believe. Individual food security is a highly personal and universal topic with which every person can relate. So is access to clean drinking water, safety from violence, affordable housing, and a host of other issues begging for your expertise. Most cultural disputes are about access to resources, and the United States is experiencing a cultural civil war, right now. It is fueled by misinformation meant to tear our country apart being published online by bad actors exploiting the capable hands of people with weaknesses of the mind who fear losing what they have to imaginary threats they believe to be real. People who can't or won't face their real problems will imagine things to be their absolute worst without confirming whether they actually are. They catastrophize things. It's a symptom; it's not healthy. It's a feature of anxiety, which is always about lacking predictability. They cling to the familiar because they can't predict anything else and their fear of the unknown is greater than any discomfort they may feel, if any, in their predictable routines. People who can't actually understand what is really going on have no sense of predictability about what is about to come. They will pin their expectations to what they want to happen next as opposed to what the facts dictate will happen next. They can't follow an evidence-based thought process, so they substitute it with wishful thinking, but unrealistic expectations are just preconceived resentments. When things don't turn out according to their wishes, they get mad at reality and insist that it bend to fit their fantasies rather than adjust their expectations according to what actually is. They don't understand everything going on, so they can't adjust their thinking according to all the relevant facts. How can you, as a professional, interact with people who exist in this state without demeaning or condescending to them? Can you interact with them fully understanding that, like many of the individuals with disabilities we serve, these people are doing the best they can with what they have and they need our loving, responsible guidance to find their ways to the right side of things? If we just help them address their needs in more pro-social ways, they won't feel compelled to attempt to meet them in anti-social ways. It's basic ABA. I'm asking my professional colleagues to please strongly consider using your knowledge and skills to address any of the many nonpartisan issues that are currently challenging the human species, right now, that are outside of your normal area of practice. See if there is a Kiwanis club in your local area that could use your help. Identify an unmet need in your local community and find out what is needed to address it, then find other people who have the necessary skills that you lack and start your own thing. Just find a way to contribute, even in a small way, to a nonpartisan issue in your community that isn't currently getting enough attention. The technology available to us today is a tool, but, like a hammer, it can build or kill depending on how it is used. I'm with Urie Bronfenbrenner on this one; we should use our knowledge and resources to make the world a place that meets everyone's needs, rather than a place that meets the needs and wants of those who know how to exploit and take advantage of those who don't. The tools now available for people to collaborate and get things done remotely, thanks in no small part to the necessities that arose with the pandemic, are phenomenally powerful and easy to use. The tools to create online content decrease in cost and become increasingly rich in features over time, and most people only need a few good features to make stellar content. Learn more about the ways you can participate in your citizenship in nonpartisan ways by studying the research on servant leadership. If you find yourself in an environment in which acting in the short-term for immediate gain comes at the cost of considering the long-term consequences, and you can't be a positive influence for more responsible thinking and planning, get out. You're wasting your precious gifts on people who will never appreciate them and would use them to harmful ends if you let them. There are other places you can go where your gifts will be appreciated and put to proper use, where you can earn a decent living and live with yourself in peace. You just have to take the time to find it or create it. That's not always easy, but it's always worth it. There is no way to memorize a script for every possible thing that could happen in the future in order to be prepared for if/when it happens. Nobody can remember that many scripts, much less predict every possible future in advance and develop a script for it before everything changes and new scripts are needed. Living a life that follows the same specific script in order to keep it predictable is a symptom, not an adaptive strategy. That's not participation; it's approximation. It's parallel play. The only way a collective of people can work together towards a common goal is to act according to common guiding principles. For example, if everyone helping with Learn & Grow agrees with and abides by the guiding principle of, “Make sure everyone can grow enough healthy food to survive, come what may,” whatever decisions they face along the way will come down to whether or not their choices facilitate everyone growing enough food for themselves, come what may. If you have a fixed outcome in mind, it's the next best thing to having a script for every possible contingency. Having that fixed outcome limits the number of actions you can take, so it whittles down your choices to a more manageable list of alternatives. The more ethical conditions that have to be satisfied by the solution, the narrower the options, meaning the easier it is to decide. What makes leadership and decision-making so overwhelming for most people is the sheer number of possibilities and figuring out which one makes the most sense. By using a consistent, agreed-to guiding principle as a “North Star” for decision-making, team members can be consistent among each other with their choices and actions towards achieving the common good. We don't need a savior to swoop in and save us. We just need to be mindful of how our actions throughout the day shape the world around us and consciously choose actions that promote the things in the world we want to see based on what we've learned from all of our life experiences, including those most commonly associated with work, even if at only the tiniest level. It all adds up in the end, and every little positive contribution matters. This is mindfulness meeting purposeful action, and I hope you're inspired use your gifts to help in impactful, constructive ways that remind everyone you touch that we only get through these terrible times by working together. Because of your professional skills, you're in a unique position to help humanity survive this time of upheaval and transition and thrive once the worst of it has passed. I look forward to seeing what truths each of you end up speaking to power over the next few years and appreciate the efforts of all of you who choose to contribute in ways you can towards a better tomorrow for everyone.

Photo credit: Marco Verch On July 22, 2021, The Lancet published an article by Adam Hampshire, et. al., in which the findings reported that COVID-19 causes long-term cognitive impairments among many of those who have been ill with it, particularly those who have been hospitalized with severe forms of the illness and those diagnosed with COVID-19 but not hospitalized. I won't rehash the entire article here. Follow the link to read it for the details. In today's post/podcast, I'm summarizing the findings of this body of research and discussing their implications for the special education community. First, let's look at what the cognitive impairments caused by COVID-19 can look like, and then we'll talk about what this means for the special education community. This research by Hampshire and his team specifically found: “[The] results [of this study] accord with reports of 'Long Covid' cognitive symptoms that persist into the early-chronic phase. They should act as a clarion call for further research with longitudinal and neuroimaging cohorts to plot recovery trajectories and identify the biological basis of cognitive deficits in SARS-COV-2 survivors.” So, basically, there is evidence to support that if a person gets sick with COVID-19, they can experience cognitive impairments that last a long time, perhaps permanently, and further research is needed to understand the long-term consequences of millions of Americans having their cognitive functioning reduced by COVID-19. For our kids about to go back to in-person learning, the questions become about whether they will end up subjects in that research after getting COVID-19 and experiencing cognitive impairments, and what will be done to benefit them if they are affected in such a way. The symptoms, specifically, were reported by Hampshire and his team as: “... colloquial reports of 'brain fog,' … low energy, problems concentrating, disorientation, and difficulty finding the right words.” Further, there is evidence that “... COVID-19 patients can develop a range of neurological complications including those arising from stroke, encephalopathies, inflammatory syndrome, microbleeds, and autoimmune responses,” any of which can cause brain damage or impairment. As children face returning to school as the Delta Variant of COVID-19 rages through unvaccinated populations, including children under 12 who are not eligible for vaccination, all parents in their right mind are worried about their children getting sick. The risk of long-term cognitive impairment during the critical learning years of child development and/or permanent brain damage are now yet more reasons for parents to want to keep COVID-19 far, far away from their children. The sad reality is that a lot of children in areas of the country with low vaccination rates, many of which are communities compromised by poverty and reduced access to resources in the first place, are going to get COVID-19, and a fair number of those that survive are going to experience cognitive impairments as a result. This means a whole new cohort of children entering special education who otherwise would not have required it, thereby increasing the special education burden of every local, state, and federal education agency. For those children already on IEPs who get sick with COVID-19 only to be further cognitively impaired by it, we're going to see changes in their present levels of performance that make their current IEPs no longer appropriate to all of their needs. They are likely to experience regression and an increased need for supports and services in their IEPs, meaning yet another increase in the burden on local, state, and federal education agencies. This is, of course, preventable with appropriate safety measures. The problem is that we have some local and state leaders doing everything they can to spread the disease, banning mask mandates in our public schools, for Christ's sake! We have millions of unvaccinated children expected to co-mingle in crowded spaces that will become super-spreader sites that induce cognitive impairments among the students who are there for the purpose of enhancing their cognitive abilities. And, it's the same conservative leaders who are pushing to ban mask mandates in schools who will refuse to fund their students' special education services when they come back to school with cognitive impairments later on. Parents can fight together now to prevent their children from becoming cognitively impaired, or at least more impaired than they already are, by pushing for appropriate safety measures in our public schools, or a smaller but significant number of them can fight later on for special education services for their children who experience “Long COVID” and resulting neurological impairments. Aside from the obvious lingering health problems that children who experience and survive COVID-19 can have, which will require ongoing care that parents previously weren't having to provide, there are the added complications of learning problems that will require parents to exhaust themselves further to pursue. Special education was already falling grossly short of the mark, but we're now in the process of creating the next large population to blaze a litigation trail across the judiciary with special education cases: COVID-related impairments. As it stands, regardless of the symptoms, if a student who survives COVID-19 ends up with long-lasting health and/or cognitive problems that interfere with access to learning, the fact that it's the result of COVID-19 could cause that student to meet criteria for “Other Health Impairment (OHI),” under special education law [34 CFR Sec. 300.8(a)(1)]. It's not like a new eligibility category would need to be created. The special education world went through similar chaos during the 1990s when Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHDs) first became understood and widely recognized as an actual set of conditions. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) ran a great big study on ADHDs. I remember attending a panel discussion by individuals who had participated in the study back in the day. Back then, ChADD (Children with Attention Deficit Disorders, as it was known back then), was big on the advocacy scene while litigation went forward in the courts to determine if kids with ADHDs were eligible for special education. The ultimate outcome was that there didn't need to be a separate eligibility category for ADHDs because they were captured by either the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) or OHI categories, depending on how each affected child experienced it. Back in the early 1990s, I went to a speaking engagement at which the founder of ChADD, who was also one of the parents taking this landmark litigation forward, described the favorable outcomes the litigation had achieved, but also how awful it was to have to go through all of that and how vindicated his family felt in the end, particularly his child with ADHD. I see the same thing happening here with kids who will be disabled by COVID-19 to such a marked degree that they require special education and related services in order to access education, and kids who already needed special education who will now become even more greatly compromised than they already were after surviving COVID-19. Plus, I see this happening the most in the states and locales least likely to protect their children against COVID-19, which are also the states and locales least likely to comply with special education law. Far right politics have undermined the success of special education at the local and state levels since special education law was created. In fact, the laws that protect our children with special needs were created in response to these far right political efforts to deny them access to education. The situation has literally become life with permanent disability or death for far too many of our children, and still the public scrutiny on the right wing fuckery that goes on in public education has not become intense enough to change the broken system. How much more broken will the system become when it has killed a percentage of its students and permanently disabled yet another percentage who will now require special education when they didn't before or who will now need more intensive special education above and beyond what they were previously getting? At what point in the future will all of the associated costs created by neglecting our kids now finally matter enough for the tax-fattened hyenas that are undermining public education from within to realize it's in their best political interests to actually protect and educate their students? Political extremism in any form will derail the most sensibly created system, but public education was not sensibly created for the present times and the political extremism has always been part of it. Many have the misconception that public education stopped serving as an arm of the Patriarchy once it became a female-dominated profession. But, there is nothing professional about a bunch of “Karens” sitting around a table passing judgment over a single, low-income mom of color with a kid who has a mental health disorder and related behavior problems instead of helping her and her child. Thankfully, the field is changing and we have more scientifically-minded people entering special education, but there are still a lot of the old cronies hanging in there for as long as they can before grabbing their pensions and running off into the sunset, leaving all kinds of poorly educated, if not traumatized, children in their wake. This country is going to through a reckoning in which ethics and the rule of law are at the heart and soul of it all. Ethics and the rule of law have always been the heart and soul of special education disputes, and I can only see what is happening on the national level as an expansion of what I've been fighting for the last 30 years. The thing that also is getting lost in this debate is the impact of “Long COVID” on teachers, specialists, and administrators. How does inducing cognitive impairment among a public education agency's personnel serve the public good? How is that an appropriate employment practice for any employer? Why are we willing to impair the minds meant to sharpen the minds of our children? How is this self-preservation as a species? As a tough old broad who has already seen the kinds of bullshit these people can pull, and given how much bullshit the American public is starting to realize can happen within our supposedly democratic government based on what is now coming out about the 45th President's attempted soft coup d'etat following the 2020 election, I don't think I'm being hyperbolic or alarmist when I point out the travesty we're creating for ourselves in increased special education expenditures by failing to prevent childhood cognitive impairments as a result of “Long COVID.” I'm hoping this message isn't falling on deaf ears.

Photo credit: Joe Loong   One of the things I've been trying to get across to people for years is the understanding that Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is a science, not a special education service, much less a service specifically for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). The confusion arises from the fact that instructional strategies and behavioral interventions based on the principles of ABA, which work with all learners, just so happen to also work for students with ASDs and often it's the only approach that does. As such, the demand for ABA-based programs for students with ASDs, and the peer-reviewed research around its efficacy with this particular population, has resulted in confusion among the lay public as to what ABA actually is. Because so many people in public education and the families that rely on it only see ABA used with respect to ASDs, they think that's all it's for, and this is a gross failure on the part of the professionals who know otherwise to set things straight. This is why I've been trying to get this point across for so long. Knowledge powers solutions for parents, which is the whole reason our organization exists. The absence of relevant knowledge on behalf of any of the stakeholders in the IEP process can prevent students with disabilities from getting the kinds of help they actually need, so a failure to appreciate that ABA applies to anyone or anything that behaves can have dire consequences for students who would benefit from ABA-based interventions, even if they have conditions other than ASDs that create these needs. That's a whole conversation unto itself, but that's not the focus of this post. Because ABA applies to anyone and anything that behaves, it therefore applies to all the members of a student's IEP team. For parents, the science of ABA can be not only constructive with respect to developing an appropriate IEP for their children, but also in navigating the behaviors of the other IEP team members during IEP meetings and related exchanges with public education agency personnel, which is what I'm focusing on in this post. To be clear, ABA is not a method or strategy. It is a way of describing behaviors according to how they naturally occur. When it is used to make something happen, it's all about how to interact with others in a way that promotes the behaviors we want to see from them. Used ethically in a team context, it keeps conversations productive and collaborative. However, the proverbial snake oil salesman “selling ice cubes to Eskimos” abuses ABA as part of a con to manipulate people's behaviors for personal gain at other people's expense. The thing to understand is that ABA is a reality-based approach to understanding what is going on and planning what to do about it. It isn't an invention; it's simply a tool that measures what already is. That data can then be used to change how things are. So, it's not like I can give you a checklist of things to do, whether you understand them or not, and you're off and running. You need to understand the underlying science, which I'm going to grossly oversimplify here to make the concepts as digestible as possible. Before I launch into what ABA is, I first have to back up and explain the three key tenets of science. Science relies on: Determinism – an understanding that there is a logical, evidence-based explanation for everything in existence. Empiricism – an understanding that every evidence-based explanation can be described in quantifiable terms using fixed increments of measure. Parsimony – the understanding that the simplest explanation that fits the measured evidence is the correct explanation. That's not an ABA-specific thing. That's how all science works, and ABA is a science. Like a financial audit, science renders reality down into measurable bits that can be analyzed for black-and-white, yes/no answers, regardless of what is being discussed. There is a reason that “accounting” and “accountability” share a common root word. Financial audits examine accounting records for accuracy because those records are supposed to account for where money has gone or will go. For this reason, accounting is actually a science. All other forms of science account for things the same way, measuring what is according to fixed increments of measure and giving us an accounting of what is really going on. Such is the case with ABA. The increase of neo-fascism in America, in which science is frequently denied, is really a rejection of accountability and/or a significant detachment from reality consistent with mental illness. It's about skewing numbers (like the 45th President attempting to offload COVID-infected cruise ship passengers at the beginning of the pandemic onto Guantánamo Bay so as to prevent the numbers of infection cases in the United States from going up) or otherwise pretending the numbers are untrue (like “The Big Lie” told by the 45th President regarding the vote count in the 2020 Presidential election), so as to avoid being held accountable. Science is all about explaining reality using numbers, which requires the application of mathematics. There's only one right answer to a math calculation. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who grasp this concept when it comes to money, but not with anything else. These are generally the kinds of people who own profitable businesses and use their money to hire private jets to fly to Washington, DC, so they can attempt to violently overthrow our government because they fear accountability and equate any perceived loss of privilege or unfair advantage with oppression. Oppressed people can't afford private jets, in case you were wondering. These are also the kinds of people who end up in handcuffs over cooking their companies' books, once the accountability finally catches up with them. When you understand science as a form of accounting for anything that exists in numerical terms, just as with money, it isn't possible to take it as an affront to your belief system, unless you believe things – or are trying to convince other people to believe things – that are not true. There is no rule that says we have to like the truth. An intact person will acknowledge an undesired truth and deal with it. A person engaging in disordered thought will attempt to argue against it and assert beliefs unsupported by evidence as fact, thereby confusing opinion with fact and arguing against what they don't want to be true as though it really isn't. As a parent going into the IEP process, you need to stick to the facts. An IEP is all about measurable annual goals that describe what your child is supposed to be taught and how to measure the degree to which your child learns from that instruction. Services are determined on what is necessary to achieve the degree of success targeted by the goals and placement is determined according to what setting(s) are the least segregated from the general education setting in which the services can be delivered such that the goals are met. The entire process hinges on the appropriate application of the relevant sciences. As a parent, know going into the IEP process that it is scientifically driven and, therefore, relies on measurable facts to inform your child's educational planning, plus it must do so according to the rule of law. The whole system was designed with the education agency's accountability to the individual student and the student's family in mind, which is why it boggles my mind every time I encounter anything but that in the IEP process. Specifically with respect to using ABA to navigate the behaviors of the other team members as a parent attempting to exercise your federally protected right to meaningful participation in the IEP process, there are some ABA-specific concepts you first need to understand. The first concept is that of ABC data collection and the second concept is that of reinforcement. ABC data collection is a process used to determine the function(s) of a specific behavior. The “A” stands for “antecedent,” the “B” stands for “behavior,” and the “C” stands for “consequence.” Each of these has a specific operational definition in ABA, and any deviation from their respective definitions means whoever is taking the data is not actually practicing ABA. An antecedent in ABA is whatever happened right before the behavior that triggered it. When you're talking about students, the presentation of a task demand can be the antecedent to a challenging behavior being addressed by an IEP, for example. When you're talking about corrupt and/or incompetent public agency officials in an IEP meeting, the presentation of a parent request could be the antecedent to some kind of challenging behavior displayed by educational agency personnel, as another example. The behavior in the ABC data collection process is the actual observable behavior being addressed. In the example involving a student just given, let's say the challenging student behavior upon the presentation of a task demand involving a worksheet, is verbal aggression while tearing up the worksheet. In the example of a difficult IEP team member, let's say the challenging behavior upon the presentation of a parent request is a bunch of hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject. The consequence in ABA data collection is the immediate outcome produced by the behavior, specifically the pay-off the individual gets by engaging in it. This is an important distinction because it is often inaccurately reported in school-based behavior assessments, where the previous century of relying on a punishment model of behavioral intervention regards “consequence” as something meted out by staff. That is wholly inaccurate. Anything the staff does in response to the behavior, whether it works or not, is a “reactive strategy,” not a “consequence” within the meaning of ABA. The point of identifying the actual consequence achieved by engaging in the behavior is to determine the function served by the behavior for the individual engaging in it. Once the function of the behavior is understood, you can choose how you want to respond to it in a constructive way. When you don't know the actual function of someone else's behavior, you can respond to it in a way that hurts more than helps the situation. Identifying the function of an inappropriate behavior is entirely necessary before an evidence-based approach can be developed to address it. So, using the examples I just gave, let's say that the consequence of the student engaging in verbal aggression and tearing up the worksheet upon the task demand being presented is to escape/avoid the task demand. With respect to an IEP team member engaging in hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject when a parent makes a request, the function of the behavior is to escape/avoid addressing, much less honoring, the parent's request. In both of these examples, the function of each of the hypothetical behaviors described were both escape/avoidance, but this is not the only function a behavior can serve. Behaviors happen for only one of two reasons: to get something or get away from something. As such, behaviors can be reduced to a one or a zero, depending on whether its function was to get something (1) or escape something (0). Even the most complex behaviors can thus be reduced down to simple binary code as the most parsimonious way to describe what is happening. In ABA, the functions of a behavior are typically described as access/attainment, escape/avoidance, and automatic. Automatic reinforcement speaks to behaviors that address internal drive states, such as physical wellness and emotionality, but even those are based on access/attainment or escape/avoidance. Sensory-seeking and/or sensory-avoidant behaviors are based on automatic reinforcement for someone with sensory processing issues based on their unique neurology, for example. That leads us to the second key concept of ABA that you need to understand, which is that of reinforcement. A reinforcer is anything that increases the likelihood of an individual engaging in a specific behavior in response to a specific antecedent. If the consequence of the behavior is reinforcing, the individual will continue to engage in it whenever that specific antecedent is presented in order to achieve the reinforcer. For example, if you get hungry (antecedent) and go put money in a vending machine and push the right buttons (behavior), you will get food (consequence). The function of the behavior is access/attainment of food to satisfy your hunger. It's pretty simple. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, but these are not judgments of “good” or “bad.” Just as with magnets, the poles of the Earth, and batteries, the terms “positive” and “negative” have specific meanings within ABA that are also frequently misunderstood in special education behavioral interventions. In reality, when it comes to ABA, “positive” means “to present” and “negative” means “to withdraw.” Positive reinforcement, therefore, is the presentation of something that is likely to reinforce a specific behavior. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unwanted in order to reinforce a particular behavior. The aforementioned vending machine scenario gives an example of positive reinforcement because food is presented in response to the behavior of putting money into the vending machine and pushing its buttons. Both forms of reinforcement were best explained scientifically back in the early days of behaviorism by B.F. Skinner using what came to be referred to as a “Skinner Box.” In Skinner's positive reinforcement experiments, rats in a cage were taught to pull a lever in order to access food pellets. At first, pulling on the lever was accidental, but as soon as food came out, the rats quickly learned that engaging in the behavior of pulling the lever resulted in the presentation of a food pellet. The presentation of the food pellet reinforced the pulling of the lever. In Skinner's negative reinforcement experiments, rats in a cage with an electrified floor that delivered mild shocks to their feet learned to pull a lever in order to turn off the electrification of the floor. Again, at first, pulling the lever was accidental, but as soon as their feet were no longer getting zapped, the rats quickly learned that engaging in the behavior of pulling the lever resulted in the termination of discomfort caused by the electrified floor of the cage. The removal of the electrification reinforced the pulling of the lever. In both cases, the behavior of pulling the lever was reinforced. It's just that one form of reinforcement provided access to something preferred and the other removed something aversive. Again, this can all be reduced to getting something (1) or getting away from something (0). In the IEP process, you're either getting what you want for your child or you are not. The public education agency personnel are either satisfying their agency's agenda or they are not. The whole situation is riddled with ones and zeros depending on what you are talking about and who is involved. Again, this is all a gross over-simplification of these basic ABA concepts. There are other considerations that have to be taken into account, such as setting events, otherwise known as Motivating Operations (MOs). MOs increase the likelihood of a specific antecedent triggering a specific behavior. In our previous example regarding the student becoming verbally aggressive and tearing up a worksheet upon the task demand being presented, it could be the case that the student normally complied with task demands but, that particular day, the student had a stomach ache and didn't have the concentration and stamina to engage in the task when it was presented. As such, the antecedent was still the presentation of a task demand, but that antecedent occurred in the presence of the MO of a stomach ache, and the consequence was still to escape/avoid the task demand. Similarly, in our example previously regarding education agency personnel engaging in hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject in response to a parent request for something, it could be the case that said personnel would have normally agreed to honor the parent's request, but that morning there had been an agency budget meeting in which personnel were told they would be subject to disciplinary action from the agency if they committed the agency to services for students that cost more than a certain amount, which is illegal but nonetheless happens all the time. As such, the antecedent was still the parent request, but it occurred in the presence of the MO of a threat of disciplinary action against agency personnel for committing the agency to costs it didn't want to have to bear, and the consequence was still to escape/avoid honoring the parent's request. Sometimes you don't know what all the MOs are because the education agency personnel won't make them known to you. In many instances, the only way you know something is wrong is because the presentation of an antecedent results in a behavior that produces a consequence that doesn't fit what should be happening. In that case, you know something is wrong because the behavior doesn't fit the situation, at which point you have to ask yourself, “What is the function of this behavior?” It's pretty obvious that any “no” response you receive is an escape/avoidance behavior; it's just sometimes hard to know whether what is being avoided is cost, accountability, or both. For example, data collection practices in special education throughout the country are generally pretty unscientific and shoddy in spite of a federal mandate that special education be delivered according to the peer-reviewed research, which is all scientific, according to measurable annual goals. As black-and-white as the process is supposed to be, it often isn't because school personnel 1) have no idea how to do it correctly, and/or 2) are attempting to avoid accountability. In most cases, it's been my observation that the initial inappropriate behaviors are a consequence of incompetence, which creates a need to pursue accountability, at which point they engage in cover-ups to try to avoid getting into trouble for the errors of their ineptitude. You have to assume as a parent going in that not everybody on your IEP team knows everything they should and that they may respond unethically when they get called out on their errors. In other situations, public education agency personnel are just grifting the system for a government paycheck at taxpayer expense from the outset and see students as a means to their own financial ends, engaging in cover-ups when their self-serving behaviors become exposed. As a parent going into the IEP process, you have to be a shrewd negotiator. If you don't understand the functions of the behaviors of the other IEP team members, you are at risk of being robbed blind by unethical public servants and/or otherwise getting a poorly developed IEP from inept public servants. It's not on you to know all of the science and law that applies to your child's situation, but if you can develop your skills at reading the behaviors of the other IEP team members, you can often figure out whether they are acting according to your child's actual needs or not. At that point, how you respond becomes the next hurdle to clear. Every situation requires its own analysis and there is no way I can give you a one-size-fits-all solution, here. What I can tell you to do is pay attention, try to get a sense of the function of someone's inappropriate behavior as best as possible, and offer reinforcers in order to achieve the behaviors you want to see. For example, send a thank-you card to the school psychologist who actually threw down on an excellent report and you will positively reinforce legally compliant behavior. Or, withdraw a compliance complaint if the agency remedies the problem that compelled you to file it and you will negatively reinforce legally compliant behavior. They can earn a food pellet or stop their feet from getting zapped, metaphorically speaking, but, either way, they're going to have to pull the lever. If you can keep these concepts straight, you will be in a much better position to effectively participate in the IEP process.

  One of the issues that I haven't seen discussed anywhere else, but am seeing first hand every day, is the impact that the shutdown has had on my students with disabilities whose parents also have disabilities. Given that so many learning disabilities, physical impairments, Autism spectrum disorders, and mental health conditions run in families, it's not surprising to find children on IEPs whose parents also have disabilities. It would be shocking for a professional in this field to not see that phenomenon.   The shutdown negatively impacted students and their families from all walks of life. Students on IEPs were hit more hard only because they were already at a disadvantage and largely under-served before the pandemic hit. All shutdown did was magnify the pre-existing inequality.   To that end, parents with disabilities who were already getting jerked around by their local education agencies have been disadvantaged and exploited even further during school shutdowns. I've got two cases on my caseload, right now, that immediately come to mind. One is in California and the other is in Missouri, and in both cases I've had to serve as both a reasonable accommodation for the parent with disabilities as well as do my normal job of advocating for the student with disabilities.   In both cases, a bunch of goons from the respective school districts tried to railroad learning disabled parents who struggle to understand the relevant documents, saying one thing verbally, putting something else in writing, and hoping these learning disabled parents didn't notice. The parents' federally protected rights as per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process are additionally compromised by violations of the parents' rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).   Here's what I need everybody reading or listening to understand: The states involved here are Missouri, a red state practically overtaken by domestic terrorists bent on sedition, and California, a blue state with mostly progressive leadership. This is a non-partisan issue. There is no political party that seriously cares about people with disabilities, even though disability cuts across every swath of human existence that there is. It's beyond dysfunctional, but that's our profoundly sick society, for you.   So, what do we do about this? Well, on an individual basis, the steps of effective advocacy remain the same: get the truth on the record, request remedy, and file complaints if the local education agencies don't abide. The number one protection parents with disabilities have under the ADA relevant to this issue is their right to communicate via their preferred form of communication. Reasonable accommodation isn't limited to wheelchair ramps, and honoring a learning disabled person's communication preferences is just as important as honoring the communication preferences of someone deaf or blind.   For parents with disabilities, it is important going in from the outset that you make clear in writing that you require reasonable accommodations from your local school district, including what your communication preferences are. It doesn't hurt to add language like, “These accommodations under Section 504 and the ADA are necessary to insure my protected rights to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process pursuant to the IDEA.”   If you have been keeping your need for accommodations to yourself for fear of being judged by the school district members of your child's IEP team, something is seriously wrong. If you fear that people employed specifically to educate humans with disabilities are going to give you grief because you are a human with disabilities, either you're insecure, working with a-holes, or both. You do yourself and your child no favors by not putting your local education agency on notice about your need for accommodations; if they treat you poorly, that's on them for violating your rights as well as those of your child.   It's stronger to go in asking for reasonable accommodations as your legal right given that you are there to protect your child's right to reasonable accommodations. If you acquiesce on one, you're acquiescing on the other. You have to believe that all people with disabilities are equal in power and voice to people without disabilities, including yourself. You are not setting a good example for your child to become a strong self-advocate in spite of disabilities when you fail to advocate for yourself.   Aside from what individual parents with disabilities do on a situation-by-situation basis on the ground, at this point, the only mechanisms available that have any chance of broadly changing anything are judicial and political. Parents need to sue over the civil rights violations that undermine their advocacy for their children so that public education agencies are held to account under every letter of the law that applies. All parents of children with disabilities need to unionize and collectively bargain for improved special education laws and access to special education resources.   In theory, parents with disabilities involved in the IEP process for their children may be able to concurrently file 504/ADA claims in federal court purely on the basis of the discrimination against themselves while filing for due process under the IDEA to assert their children's claims. However, there's a kicker that my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar should weigh in on, here.   With respect to informed parental consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, the related civil rights claims may have to toll while due process is being pursued because a special education hearing officer has no jurisdiction with respect to 504/ADA but administrative remedies under the IDEA have to be first exhausted before related civil rights claims can be pursued. Basically, you have to do everything you can with due process before you can go on to federal court on related civil rights claims.   The reason civil rights claims often must toll pending due process is because the hearing officer in the due process case may order something to correct the special education violations that inadvertently cures the civil rights violations at the same time. This makes it unnecessary to get that same outcome from a federal court judge and, thus, a waste of judicial resources to try the same thing in two different venues. However, if the civil rights claims can stand alone on their own with no related due process claims associated with the same body of facts, it's possible to go forward on civil rights claims while other claims are being adjudicated via due process.   Again, this is a tricky question of law and I defer to my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar to speak to the particulars of 504/ADA claims versus IDEA claims, as well as the order in which issues are tried and by whom. The point is that there is recourse, one way or another.   Parents with disabilities should not feel compromised in the IEP process. No parent should fear that a body of public servants educated, trained, and employed to support the needs of individuals with disabilities in the school setting will use that knowledge to exploit the parent's disabilities to the detriment of the student. The very idea is reprehensible, but it happens every day.   Institutionalized biases have a lot to do with it. Even people employed to educate students with disabilities will regard a parent's disabilities as character flaws, more often than not. It's a learned, knee-jerk reaction that all of us have been raised with to one degree or another our entire lives. It's why people with disabilities are often also plagued with self-loathing and related mental health disorders. Most people with disabilities aren't born with self-loathing and mental health disorders; they are acquired from the experiences of being rejected by everyone else and seeing a world that is basically designed to exclude them from participation. Things that can be acquired can also be let go and replaced.   During distance learning, these issues became even more painfully apparent as schools shut down and children with special needs had to stay at home and participate in distance learning. Setting aside the degree of forgiveness due to actual teachers for not being given appropriate tools and support from their respective agencies to handle the situation, something cohesive should have been in place within the first few weeks, but I've still got school districts pulling ridiculous stunts and we've got partial campus re-openings going on around here, right now.   We're now more than a year into this thing and, not only have they not gotten their acts together, they're actively making excuses as to why the broke the law 40 million different ways before now. If they invested half the energy they've spent on making excuses and lying to the public into actually solving the problem, it would have been solved by now.   The politics of it all is at the heart of this issue, unfortunately. This is just as serious as domestic terrorism, because it's actually one of many expressions of that terrorism. When parents with disabilities are terrified of the people to whom they send their children with disabilities every day, often with the threat of criminal prosecution for truancy if they don't, they are being manipulated through fear to acquiesce on issues that, under the law, require their consent.   It is important for those of us who are working in the civil rights arena to recognize that we will find the students with disabilities we serve also among other marginalized populations that may have a stronger degree of activism already underway. For example, if a child with disabilities and African-American heritage is being jerked around, it may be more effective to bring a representative from the NAACP to an IEP meeting than a disability advocate. Likely, the best solution would to bring both.   This is an issue that child and family advocates need to address because it is vast, pervasive, and significant. When it comes to dumping the instructional responsibilities for a child with disabilities onto a parent with disabilities, the civil rights claims can easily multiply. I have had three cases this year involving parents with disabilities who were getting played by their local school districts until I said something. One case is resolved and the other two, which I mentioned at the beginning, remain active.   In every case, not only were the parents with disabilities being inappropriately burdened like all other parents during shutdown, they were not offered any reasonable accommodations to do so. In my mind, this is an enormous class-action issue that could result in entire state departments of education, which are ultimately responsible to the federal government for complying with the IDEA in exchange for federal special education dollars, getting nailed to the wall for failing to ensure local education agencies provided reasonable accommodations during shutdown to parents with disabilities who were attempting to instruct their children at home or who simply could not, resulting in a deprivation of educational benefits to their children.   I am very curious to get parent, advocate, and attorney input on this issue. If you have experienced anything like this, either as a parent or professional, and have ideas on how to lawfully resolve these issues with the least amount of trauma to the involved children and their families, we'd love to hear from you. For those employed within the system who want to do the right thing but are being prevented by others within the system, your feedback is appreciated as well.   The news is replete with evidence that far too many public servants can't be trusted to uphold the rules of democracy. Because the IDEA is so dependent upon the application of science to the lawful implementation of special education, it tends to be those who disregard science and law who pose the biggest threat to our children with special needs.   Given how many Far Right conservatives there are employed within public education, the fact that the domestic Far Right is the greatest terrorism threat that our country faces, and that neither science nor the rule of law mean much to the Far Right, it's not that hard to see why we need to get the Far Right out of our public school system. The Far Right is why civil rights laws are necessary in the first place. They're not going to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. They don't even understand what that means. They're going to do whatever serves their selfish motivations.   People who follow the extremes at either end of any social spectrum, including politics, tend not to have fully functional prefrontal cortices, based on my observations. They lack the deductive reasoning skills to understand the big picture. They lack the perspective-taking skills to see things from anyone else's point of view. They are egocentric in thought and grossly emotionally under-developed. They are prone to extreme actions and reactions based almost entirely on their own wants and needs.   In the special education setting, if you and your child's needs don't align with the agenda of people with this mindset, you don't even exist to them. You're like a person with a numbered ticket at the deli counter. They're going to interact with you briefly and smile to your face, then forget you exist five minutes later. You're a thing, not a person, to people like this. They don't think of anybody as another “person.” Everybody else are just things to conveniently access when they serve a useful purpose to people who think this way. That is why holding them accountable after the fact is more effective than logical or emotional appeals made in an effort to prevent something bad from happening.   All of this is, of course, disordered thought. So, basically, what this comes down to is a bunch of mentally ill, self-serving individuals getting paid six-figure annual incomes at taxpayer expense to manifest their untreated and unaccommodated symptoms at the expense of their constituents. What we're really looking at is the symptoms of untreated mental health disorders being manifested as public policy to the detriment of individuals who are not in denial about the fact that they have disabilities attempting to advocate for their children with disabilities.   The most apparent difference that I can see between the two sides of the issue is that the people within public education responsible for this situation don't think there is anything wrong with themselves; they think they are the chosen ones and everyone else exists just to give them an excuse to collect a paycheck. When the special education community finally addresses the degree to which schizoaffective, personality-disordered administrators and the like are behind the egregious abuses of disability-related laws it experiences, and we use our science to heal ourselves, we'll be able to actually use the science to heal our children and help them build productive futures for themselves.

Christine Priola, OT, on the right in the Vice President's Office of the Senate during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol in Washington, DC   On January 6, 2021, a group of people, radicalized by false propaganda generated by the 45th President of the United States and his co-conspirators, attacked the United States Capitol with the intent to kidnap and/or murder members of Congress and the Vice President. This is an event that will live in infamy for so long as America remains a nation, and be blamed for it if it does not.   I've been working in special education advocacy, helping parents protect their children with disabilities from physical, emotional, and educational abuse/neglect by the public sector, primarily the public school system, since 1991. By now, you would think there's nothing new for me to see when it comes to all the ways that adults can do wrong by those among us with disabilities. Clearly, I was wrong.   These recent events at the national level have left me with a whole new set of concerns that I believe are important to talk about, right now. Not the least of these concerns is the fact that a profoundly mentally ill president, along with his pathologically self-serving sycophants, exploited the suffering of some Americans with mental illness and the unfounded sense of entitlement experienced by other Americans with mental illness.   In the end, it's a bunch of people with mental health issues frenzying like piranha at the smell of blood in the water and taking down the rest of us with them. The inmates are literally running the asylum, right now, and the survival of us all rests on the shoulders of those of us intact enough to realize what is happening, and equipped to deal with it.   For the last 30 years, it's been my observation - and one I've repeatedly shared - that there are individuals employed within the public education system who believe children with disabilities are expendable and unimportant. In a sea of deprived students in general, special education students are uniquely further deprived because of their disabilities.   It's been my observation that these individuals see their constituents - in this case, our children - as a means to their own personal financial ends, and nothing more. When the costs of educating these constituents increases due to disability, they become a hated burden to those looking to profit off them.   It's not like the public education system is doing that great by any of our kids, right now. It's just that problems that impact education in general tend to have a magnified effect on our kids with special needs. Public school officials will say things like, "My heart is bleeding for your child. I wish there was something I could do," when there's totally something they could do. They just don't want to pay for it, which is unlawful.   Special education laws would have not become necessary back in the 1970s if it were not for the fact that people who do not believe in science or law were already employed in positions of authority within the public education system and engaging in unconstitutional conduct towards children with disabilities at that time. The public schools would refuse to enroll these students at all or, even if they did, let them languish in general education classes until they dropped out.   In spite of compulsory education laws, back in the day, it was totally okay to drop out of school if you couldn't keep up with the instruction and nobody would come after you for truancy. This was what happened to a lot of people with relatively mild challenges, like learning disabilities, who ended up reaching adulthood functionally illiterate and unable to find gainful employment except as factory workers, coal miners, and all the other dangerous jobs that don't require academic skills, in spite of their normal intelligence.   I provided adult literacy instruction to this population at a local vocational/technical college as a young adult in Arkansas. I've met these people. I've seen this play out, first hand.   This has led to a class of individuals who have increasingly lost the ability to support themselves, as robots take over dangerous jobs that don't require real thinking. While the laws that passed in the 1970s were the right place to start, it's foolish to think that enough has changed since then that the system isn't still biased against kids with special needs. If things had changed, I'd have worked myself out of a job a long time ago.   The public education system is biased against any kid who isn't white, male, and expected to inherit property upon reaching age of majority. It was created in its present form during the Industrial Revolution and hasn't changed much since.   For the longest time, public education agency administration was male dominated while the teaching staffs were female dominated, putting men in authoritarian control over women employees. Teachers unions grew out of the very real discrimination and abuse of women in the public education workplace by their male "superiors" around the same time that unions gained popularity among the laborers working ot inher dangerous jobs in factories and mines.   Students, however, have no collective bargaining power. Even though they are the reason the system exists, they are the last individuals served by it. They get whatever leftovers are left after public agency administrators bleed their agencies dry with undeserved six-figure annual salaries while teachers are buying classroom supplies with their own money. Students are just an excuse for politicians to pay themselves.   So, the idea that discrimination and abuse do not manifest in the public education sector is plainly inaccurate. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary, my caseload being only one such mountain. The judicial and legislative history of special education law is not the total point, here, but it's relevant in that it establishes that bad actors in public education have made it necessary to regulate public education to control for their inappropriate behaviors.   The evidence of bad faith in public education has been documented in the courts long enough that I don't have argue it, here. That's a done deal. So, when someone tells me they are worried about child welfare at the hands of government officials, I have to say, "Me too! That's why I'm a child and family advocate."   However, now when someone tells me they are worried about pedophiles in public education, I have to do a double-take and ask, "Why?" That's only because of the whacky Q-Anon and similar conspiracy theories, now going around about Satanic cannibals molesting and trafficking children.   It's not that human trafficking isn't real or horrible. It's that there is zero proof that it's being perpetrated by the people these conspiracy theorists are targeting.   There is proof, however, that the 45th President was pals with a known, convicted pedophile and wished this pedophile's co-conspirator well when she, too, got arrested. He's also been accusing of raping a 13-year-old who was made available to him by this same duo of pedophiles, but these conspiracy theorists are not going after him. They think he is the champion of their cause, which defies logic in every possible way.   Even if the allegations of child rape cannot be sustained against #45, he's sexually assaulted plenty of women and bragged about it on the record. How he's become the champion of a human rights cause given his history of sexual assault and his policies regarding the children of lawful asylum-seekers at our borders is beyond me.   We have all seen news stories of the occasional teacher, aide, specialist, or administrator who gets busted for sexual relations with their students. It's not that pedophiles are not employed within public education; we know some have slipped in and we do a poor job of screening them out, often only finding them after the harm has been done.   The more important point is that a ring of cannibalistic pedophiles do not run public education. The average school district administrator doesn't come anywhere near actual children. They don't appear to care for the company of children; they just want to exploit them for public dollars.   While I don't doubt that there are people employed in public education administration who would gladly traffic in humans if they thought they could turn a profit and get away with it, that's a whole lot of work to make happen within the public education system and not get exposed. It's easier to milk the broken system as it is without taking on that risk. They can get rich by lazier means than selling their students into slavery.   As soon as someone gets caught engaging in pedaphilia with students in the public education setting, most school districts are the ones that call the cops. If school district administrators come to an accused educator's defense, it's either because the educator was wrongfully accused or because the administrators don't want to be held accountable for the fact that they let a pedophile come work for their public education agency, so they're trying to convince everyone that they didn't.   It's not that public education isn't being run by a pack of corrupt jackals. By and large, like local police departments, local school districts get away with as much as they do because they only answer to their local constituents, most of whom don't know how to monitor and audit a school district on an ongoing basis for compliance issues. Jackals are in gross abundance.   Even the most ethical educators can be corrupted once they are promoted into administration, and I suspect most of that is economics. Once they start getting that six-figure annual salary, they start buying nice houses and cars, putting their kids through college, and going on expensive vacations. That quickly creates debt.   If you have a six-figure income, you can pay that debt, but if you lose that income and can't replace it fast enough, you're quickly screwed. This is how good educators get pulled into the Dark Side of the Force when they accept promotions into administration. It's the rare pure soul that sees what's really going on and refuses to be manipulated that way before it's too late.   The overarching problems I see in public school administration are about money, not pedophilia or cannibalism. I've yet to encounter cannibalism, actually, but it's only January 2021, so let's see if this year tops last year for the most disgusting conduct to be revealed among public servants for the whole world to see.   What prompts me to discuss this, now, is the recent resignation of Christine Priola, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from Cleveland Metropolitan School District, one day before she participated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection against the American government. Ms. Priola occupied the Capitol building with other insurrectionists and was photographed in the Vice President's office as part of the occupation.   In her resignation letter, Ms. Priola, who is currently out on bail pending trial, stated she was leaving her job as an OT for the District's special education department for three specific reasons:   She refused to take the Corona virus vaccine before returning to in-person learning; She disagreed with paying union dues because she believes that money is funding abortions; and She's embarking upon a fight against child trafficking by government agencies.   So, I'm going to pick these apart one by one, first, and then get into the rest of it.   First, it's unclear if Ms. Priola is an anti-vaxer opposed to vaccines in general, is against the current Corona virus vaccine because it was rushed to market so quickly and she questions its safety and efficacy, or just resents being told she has to take a shot before she can go back to work. Maybe it's a combination of those things.   We don't know why she was opposed to the vaccine, so I can't automatically lump her onto the science-denying anti-vaxer wagon with this limited amount of information, though her overall behaviors incline me to suspect that she could be an anti-vaxer. Because she's an OT, which is a scientific discipline that functions within the medical and educational realms, I don't want to assume too much, here. However, science is a fact-based discipline and Ms. Priola has not be operating according to facts.   When we look at her second objection, the total absence of logic casts an unfavorable light on the first objection, even further. How union dues, which pay for the administrative overhead of each union's operations, somehow funds abortions makes no sense.   The district may withhold those dues from educators' paychecks, but there is an audit trail that shows where that money goes. If you're worried about where the money is going, you do a request for public records asking for the accounting details and turn them over to a grand jury if you find that the money is being misappropriated.   The rule of law already provides a remedy for the misuse of public funds. You don't raid the Capitol with the intent of hanging the Vice President to death to resolve issues such as these.   The idea that the rule of law had collapsed to the point that it was ineffective cannot be argued, here. Ms. Priola did nothing on record to resolve the issue with where her union dues were going before resorting to the violent overthrow of the government and an effort to assassinate the Vice President.   The government already had a legal remedy that she chose not to access and the "remedy" she opted for instead did not fit the situation. This strongly suggests disordered thought. It also, however, goes to the degree to which legitimate remedies to harm done are often inaccessible to everyday Americans because they can't afford to lawyer up every time the government shirks its responsibilities and hurts people. When the appropriate options are closed off to people, they are only left with the inappropriate ones.   This is where peaceful protests for changes to the rules become such an important part of democracy, none of which involves insurrection or execution. Insurrection as a more expedient option to litigation speaks to the degree to which the legal system is often unavailable to most people because of the associated costs, but it's not a valid excuse for what Ms. Priola has done. Ease of access to remedy may have made it less likely that she wouldn't have done something literally insane, but that's speculative at this point.   The third justification for resigning given by Ms. Priola was that she's embarking upon a fight to protect children from abuses by government employees. On it's face, I can't take issue with that because I've been fighting to protect children with disabilities - the same students Ms. Priola served as an OT - from abuses within the public education system for the last 30 years.   Very often, though, I'm protecting them against people like Ms. Priola who are so divorced from science and, therefore, reality that they engage in violations that require me to file complaints with regulators. Again, the rule of law provides a remedy. The difference between Ms. Priola's efforts to protect children and mine is that I use science and law to protect my babies. She's trying to kill the members of Congress most likely to help her protect children from the real predators.   I've never had to violently overthrow a government agency or hang anybody to protect a child from government employees. Has the rule of law let my babies down, before? Yes, in hugely significant ways. Has the rule of law protected my babies when I've pursued enforcement of it? Yes, more often than it has not. It's not a perfect system, but insurrection on behalf of the people responsible for undermining it is not going to fix anything.   And, it's not like I haven't seen evidence of child trafficking in government agencies. I have, just not in public education. Specifically, I've been working on a separate justice project with our organization's founder, Nyanza, to address the egregious over-incarceration of African-Americans in Oklahoma that dovetails with what may be State-sponsored child trafficking.   Based on the publicly available research data we've gathered to date, it appears there may be an orchestrated mechanism in place in which officials in the State of Oklahoma incarcerates people of color and remove their children from their homes through the Child Protective Services (CPS) system, only to place these children in privately owned foster care facilities and/or adoption agencies that operate for profit.   It appears that at least some of the foster care and adoption agencies in Oklahoma that participate in this dynamic are owned, at least in part, by State officials responsible for passing and enforcing the laws of Oklahoma, from which they profit. It should be noted that Oklahoma's CPS system was found to have been responsible for the death, rape, and maiming of many children processed through this system via a federal class action lawsuit that resulted in a consent decree that is not being properly enforced.   CPS employees have come out as whistleblowers to advise that the "proof" of compliance with the consent decree is falsified information and Oklahoma isn't taking this federal court consent decree as anything other than one more thing to lie about. It should also be noted that all of the individuals involved in these behaviors appear to be Republicans, or they were at the time the data we collected were gathered.   From what we've seen so far in our data, it appears that Oklahoma lawmakers and judges are incarcerating people so they can steal their children and sell them for profit. If true, that's a legitimate State-sponsored human trafficking ring that needs to be shut down immediately. But, it isn't a Satanic group of Hollywood actors and Democrats eating and raping children.   While this possible human trafficking ring has not been investigated as such to my knowledge, thus far, it's one of those things that can't last forever without someone getting caught. Nyanza and I are working to get enough evidence together to get the situation investigated, and she's been filing documents this whole time, but that's how you address these things. We are availing ourselves of the mechanisms of our imperfect, but better than anarchy, democracy to fix this heinous problem. Whatever is responsible for Oklahoma's ridiculous incarceration and CPS numbers is a problem that needs to be fixed, regardless of what it is.   This is painful because we know of families suffering horribly because of what is currently happening until this gets resolved, but justice can take time. I've learned that lesson from 30 years of working cases from IEP meetings all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and you don't always win. But, you always make a difference, even when you lose on some technicality. I've had cases where we lost on an issue, but just barely. The involved districts knew the next time they pulled the same stunt, they wouldn't necessarily get lucky again, and have changed their practices as a result.   What I've learned from relying on the rule of law to address failures of the system is that you have to look at things in the aggregate. It becomes a measure of how many things I've prevailed on versus how many things I have not, and I've prevailed on more things than I haven't. Overall, my work is highly effective. On a day-by-day basis, it's a mixture of resolution and being obstructed by law-breaking public servants.   You have to get to the point where you can identify when it's time to negotiate and when it's time to collect evidence and file a complaint of some kind. We have processes and procedures already to address all of the concerns raised by Ms. Priola's resignation letter, none of which involve insurrection and execution of elected officials.   So, having said all that, now I have to turn to the issue of people who think like Ms. Priola who are still employed in public education. I first have to say that she may be in the minority, but we don't know how large or small that minority is because they have not been outspoken within the public education context, thus far.   Further, because I have been dealing with disordered thought on the part of school district personnel that results in harm to children for the last 30 years, I'm willing to believe that people whose thinking is as impaired as Ms. Priola's appears to be are still deeply rooted in special education, right now. Whether their disordered thought makes them vulnerable to Q-Anon and similar propaganda or not isn't anything I can answer. But, Ms. Priola's departure from science in spite of her scientific training is consistent with much of what I see in special education when things go wrong.   What this really comes down to is a concern that I've had for years and have spoken about with colleagues, but we haven't really figured out the most appropriate way to address it. What is happening now and the national dialogue around it may have finally opened a door to deal with this issue, and that issue is the societal impact of having so many members of our population who are apparently incapable of logical thought when it comes to abstract concepts like justice, democracy, and fascism. And, it circles back around to the quality, or lack thereof, of our public education system.   One of the tools I regularly use, or request that it be used, in special education is a standardized assessment called the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD). The history of what led to the SCOSD's creation is a story unto itself, but suffice it to say that it is a scientific way of measuring all the different domains of development according to Piaget's stages of development.   The SCOSD breaks development down by subtest into cognition, communication, adaptive abilities, social-affective functioning, and motor skills. It is possible for an individual to function at a higher developmental level in one area than other areas. Each person's outcome on the measure paints a picture of their relative strengths and weaknesses across the developmental domains. When working with children and young adults with developmental disabilities, this becomes important to designing effective programs for each of them.   What I've come to realize from the data I've seen produced by the SCOSD over the years is that it is possible for someone to have age-typical cognitive and communication skills, but then have below age-typical social/emotional functioning. What this means is that their emotional development is delayed while their abilities to acquire academic and job skills are intact. They can emulate adult behavior, but their motivations are child-like because of their delayed social/emotional functioning.   When otherwise intelligent people get whipped up into an emotional frenzy over things not supported by any credible evidence, this disconnect between intelligence and social/emotional functioning is apparent. When otherwise intelligent people argue against evidence that they did something incorrectly, this same disconnect is again apparent.   This disconnect is what I've been fighting over the years more than anything else. Any reasonably intelligent and socially/emotionally intact person would not engage in the kinds of crap I encounter in the public education system. Most of what I encounter in the public education system is the consequence of ineptitude, not a cabal of cannibals.   If any kind of cabal exists in public education, it's the same one currently running the American Presidency into the ground. All of this makes me think of the right-wing folks in Orange County, California, who started a non-profit membership organization, self-described as a "brotherhood," of school district officials who would all pay membership dues and then use that money to finance legal battles against parents of children with disabilities.   It also makes me think of Lozano Smith, a law firm that infamously (within special education circles) got eviscerated by a federal court judge after trying to lie, cheat, and steal in a special education due process appeal. The firm, the responsible attorneys, and the district it was representing all got sanctioned for jerking everybody, especially the court, around with their lies.   All of the firm's attorneys were ordered to participate in additional ethics training, in addition to the reprimand and sanctions meted out by the court. At the time, Lozano Smith had over 200 attorneys on staff statewide throughout California. Shortly thereafter, most of them jumped ship and went to different firms or started their own firms. It's quite reminiscent of what we are seeing in Washington, DC, right now, as cabinet members and other high-ranking personnel turn their backs on the outgoing President in the wake of all the destruction and death he has caused.   Lozano Smith is still around, but I haven't encountered them in the field in several years. The last big thing I saw from them was in 2013 when my colleague, David Grey, prevailed on a case at the 9th Circuit against two school districts engaging in the same violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At least one of the involved districts filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was shot down; the Supreme Court declined to try the case.   When the Supreme Court appeal was first filed, Lozano Smith, which had been uninvolved at that point, wrote an amicus brief that looked like something that could have been produced by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. It made nearly hysterical arguments about how the 9th Circuit's interpretation of the ADA would undo decades of precedent within the public education system, as though decades of an established practice of discrimination should be maintained.   The point is that the conservative "fringe" has never been the "fringe." To quote Stephen Colbert, "Lunatic fringe? There were tens of thousands of people in that murderous mob. The day after the riot, a poll found that 45% of Republican voters backed the attack on the capitol building. That's not a fringe! That's almost half the outfit! If you wore a suit that was 45% fringe, you'd be arrested for public indecency! But at least we'd be able to see through your pants to know you don't have any balls!“   Based on how scholars look at the political spectrum, conservatives have gone further and further to the right towards radicalization as the left has remained predominantly centrist. The far right looks at centrist politics and mischaracterizes them as the "radical left." Democracy is not the radical left.   Conservatism is no longer part of democracy in this country; it's become a movement towards dictatorship in which 45% of the population believes it needs to be led by the nose by a demagogue. When left to think for themselves, these individuals run towards authoritarianism, thinking these leaders understand their needs and will fight for them, rather than exploit them to help take over and then kick them to the curb when they no longer serve a useful purpose.   It's my suspicion that, once the people who participated in the insurrection realize that the 45th President will let them rot in jail for taking up his cause while he claims to have nothing to do with any of them, his base will finally get the backstabbing that has been coming their way this entire time and will realize he's not in their corner like they thought. We can at least hope getting stabbed in the back will have this effect.   We're going to have to watch the prosecuted go through this epiphany over time as we try each of their cases one by one. The stories we're going to hear from these people are going to reveal legitimate unmet needs, impaired problem-solving skills, and exploitation of those factors by Republican terrorists looking to radicalize them.   Those of these defendants with the mental wherewithal to realize they've been played and the emotional stability to own it will turn on those who exploited them, as have many former allies of #45, such as Michael Cohen. Those who don't have the emotional stability to own the fact that they made a mistake in judgment will continue to assert they've done nothing wrong and describe themselves as political prisoners rather than criminal insurrectionists and traitors.   In the minds of the insurrectionists, as they've reported themselves, they were responding to the call of their President to defend democracy. If that's what you're really doing, defending democracy isn't bad. But democracy relies on the rule of law. You defend democracy by participating in it and putting its mechanisms into constructive use, not trying to overthrow it.   If our democracy is not working for all of the people - and people of color, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ people, women of all stripes, and people challenged by disability can attest that it has not for a very long time - we need to fix it. What boggles the mind is that now that groups made up mostly of white males in this country are finally beginning to experience the lack of undemocratic entitlement and advantage they've historically known, their response to advocate for themselves is to engage in insurrection. This means that what they want is nothing a true democracy would ever give them, and that tells you all you really need to know about them.   There is absolutely a silver lining in all of this, and I rely on Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) to inform that determination. In ABA, there is a term that I've discussed in previous posts called "Extinction Burst," and that's part of what we are looking at with the current state of things. In an Extinction Burst, a behavior that had previously been reinforced is no longer being reinforced, and the organism tries to force reinforcement to come by escalating its behavior.   Think of it this way: If, every day, you put money in a vending machine and a candy bar comes out, the candy bar reinforces the behavior of putting money into the machine. But if, one day, the candy bar gets stuck and won't come out of the machine, what do we do? Walk away sad? No! We beat on the machine in an effort to make the candy bar dislodge and come out.   That's an Extinction Burst. If the candy bar dislodges and comes out, it reinforces the behavior of beating up the machine. If beating the machine doesn't work, then you walk away sad. After than, you're less likely to use the machine again. If you stop using the machine altogether, the behavior of putting money into it becomes extinct.   What is happening in this country with the radicalized right is an Extinction Burst. Behaviors engaged in by the right wing that were previously reinforced are no longer being reinforced. The behaviors of the 45th President, his co-conspirators, and his followers over the last five years, leading up to January 6, 2021, and what may still yet happen as the 46th elected President takes office, have been an extended Extinction Burst.   The most important thing about an Extinction Burst when you're trying to extinguish an inappropriate behavior is that you cannot allow it to produce the reinforcement being sought. If you want someone to give up on the candy machine, there can be no way to beat the machine until candy comes out.   We want the radical right to give up on trying to destroy democracy, so we cannot allow their behaviors to result in the reinforcement they are seeking, which, here, is to remain in power regardless of the will of the people. This includes holding them accountable according to the letter of the law. That's what I've been doing in my niche of governmental accountability for the last 30 years and it's the only way to preserve democracy going forward.   The other silver lining, here, is that in spite of all their efforts to overthrow democracy, it's our democracy that will ultimately prevail. When we apply the rule of law to what they have done, democracy will have the opportunity to defend itself.   What saddens and scares me the most is the number of people whose developmental weaknesses and mental health conditions are being exploited by the right wing to radicalize them into becoming domestic terrorists while convincing them they are upholding American principles through their terrorism. When we talk about the mental health problems in this country, we tend to point to homelessness and addiction issues, like this is the only way they can hurt us.   As an advocate for people with disabilities, I am torn between being sad for and fearful of these individuals. On the one hand, we absolutely need to hold them accountable under the law. But, we prove the point that the system is skewed towards specific demographics when mentally ill right wing radicals suddenly get criminal consequences and nothing to address the real-world problems that they couldn't solve that propelled them into radicalism.   In the end, once again, it's people with disabilities being used as political pawns by self-serving, undeserving, overpaid public officials looking to line their own pockets with taxpayer dollars as part of a grift. This is something I know all too well in special education.   I'm willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that decades of special education failures have produced an entire class of emotionally disturbed adults who are still vulnerable to the manipulations of public officials and that Ms. Priola and many of her compatriots are among them. I'm also willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that the people manipulating them are just as mentally ill; they just have money and power.   I will never pretend to have all the answers, here, but I do know a thing or two that can help. All of us do. We need to weave our efforts together to repair the fabric of our country and make it stronger than it was in the first place. It's not impossible. This country's founding was far more difficult than its current preservation and we can do this.

Catherine Michael, attorney & author On November 4, 2020, I interviewed attorney and author, Catherine Michael, of Connell, Michael, Kerr, LLP, a special education law practice with offices in Indiana and Texas (https://cmklawfirm.com). Catherine's book, The Exceptional Parent's Guide to Special Education, will become available on December 1, 2020 and can be pre-ordered at https://amzn.to/38euWaD. The following is the transcript from the interview (transcribed using Otter): Anne Zachry 00:00 First of all, thank you so much for being on this podcast with me, I don't get to interview folks very often, and it's always fun when I get to. And it's always very informative, because I think having all of us who do this kind of work, you know, talking these things through out loud, and just speaking to what's going on and how we think that's going to affect the the students that we work for, and the families that depend on us, I just think it's a really constructive use of time. So I really appreciate you being here. If you could, just introduce yourself and give us just your background, your history of how you've come into this line of work and what it is that you do now. Catherine Michael 00:33 Oh, yeah, absolutely. So, my name is Catherine Michael. I'm the managing partner of a law firm called Connell Michael Kerr. And we work in a multitude of states and have attorneys licensed in in several states as well. And what I do is, and for the past 20 years, I've worked in education, law or representation of children. And, and a lot of that involves filing educational due process cases against schools, personal injury, tort actions against schools, and sometimes group homes, residential facilities, and also advocating for children with special needs, for instance, the legislatures in several states, and at a national level. And, you know, I got into this line of work. My background had been in hospital risk management. And I got into this, because we were seeing a lot of children who had really substantial issues, whether they had a diagnosis of cancer, and we're now getting cranial radiation or having a tumor removed. And we saw how uncooperative schools were. And back then it was really quite shocking to me that we would find a school district who wouldn't want to provide a child a homebound program or a school district that would claim that cancer is not a disability, and this child doesn't need to be eligible. Anne Zachry 01:51 Oh, my gosh! Catherine Michael 01:52 That was really - Right! That was really fascinating to me, because as someone who had not worked in education, at that point, and was working with hospital systems, that was really shocking, because I think all of us believe that our procedures, tools are supposed to be very pro child, they are there to ensure educational services for children. And, you know, the first case I took was a child who had cancer, and was just really, really surprised how hard it was to get that young man a program. And thereafter started taking cases involving children who had learning disabilities, and really finding how substantial a need this was. And it had a snowball effect and has kept me in it to this day. Anne Zachry 02:36 Well, yeah. And a lot of us come into this, who are professionals from these paths where we encounter these challenges. And we're like, "Wait a minute, what?" And then we see how the system is constructed, how it's been designed, and what the rules actually are. And so I would imagine coming from a medical scenario, I mean, in the medical realm, you bought insurance billing rules, and all those kinds of things until there's somewhat of a similarity in that you've got this compliance standard that has to be met, in order for things to happen. And when you look at what those rules are in special education, and, you know, and you understand what the intent may have been. But then, and you and I spoke briefly of this before we started the interview, that enforcement is really the question here. So if you could speak about that, that would be ... Catherine Michael 03:29 Yeah, enforcement is a huge issue. And I think that because there is so little enforcement of the laws on the books, we've have found that basically schools have run amok. And so for parents who are listening, the main law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and that is a federal law, which means that every state has to follow it. They can't have a state law that restricts any of the rights under a federal law. And every state in the United States has basically what we call "codified" that law into their own state laws, the only thing that they can do is add additional rights for parents. For instance, the state of Michigan actually extended how long the student can be in special ed. So it is age 22 under the federal law. Michigan made it 26. Other states change, for instance, when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation. California, basically has that if a parent request an independent educational evaluation, that the school gets a reasonable time to respond. Other states like Indiana say a school has to respond within 10 days. So there's some of these minor changes in the law that are that are supposed to in some states like Indiana or Michigan, give those parents additional rights. But also the way these laws are designed, is that the only enforcers of them are parents. That means the parents are basically their own private attorneys general; that parents are the equivalent of the cops on the road with the radar to catch the speeding cars. Your State Department of Education is not going to be looking over your child's IEP and saying, "Wow, your child has a lot of issues and they only have one goal," or "They're not receiving any direct speech services," or "They're not receiving any direct special educational services," or "Your child shouldn't be in a special education room all day long; that there's something called the 'least restrictive environment,' which says we need, to the maximum extent we can, have them with their general education peers.' So what I think a lot of parents don't realize is, your State Department of Education isn't doing that. Your federal Department of Education isn't doing that. No one has that obligation to enforce these laws, other than the parent bringing a private action called an educational due process complaint. So schools have all of these laws under IDEA. And just to give, you know, for parent, I'm sure if if you're listening to this podcast, you probably have a basic overview of it. But IDEA has requirements for what's called a free appropriate education. And that basically encompasses that your child is going to have an IEP, that has challenging ambitious goals, in light of their circumstances, that has related services. Related services would be counseling, social work services, parent training, speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy. The least restrictive environment: That if your child needs a one on one aide in order to be in a general education environment, they're supposed to do that versus moving your child to a resource room. If your child needs a therapeutic day placement or residential placement, that's also to be provided by the school. There are all sorts of procedural safeguards. If a school refuses your request, let's say for a one on one aide, or a specialized program for dyslexia, they actually have to provide you written notice saying what data they're relying upon to deny this, everything they've considered, and they have to provide this to you in writing. So there are all these laws on the books, okay. And regardless of where you live, when we say IDEA, it's that federal law, this applies to you, and it applies to your child in a public school. And as you know, going back again, but the only enforcer of this law, the only enforcer who can actually call a school to tap on it is you as a parent and that mechanism, as I said a second ago, it's what's called an educational due process complaint. And that's a complaint that is filed with your State Department of Education, a state appoints a hearing officer to determine if that program is in place. And you know, something we discussed before we started as well is that most parents have no idea that they have these rights. And that most of these laws are right now not being enforced. There are some states where there is less than one due process case a year. So when schools are developing these IEPs, being that there's no real enforcement mechanism, other than in some states like the timeline, they have to have it a yearly meeting, we're seeing really horrible consequences of that, I think across the states. Anne Zachry 08:27 Well and then now that with school closures and shutdowns, that certainly hasn't improved things at all. And so what are you seeing? Catherine Michael 08:36 It hasn't. Anne Zachry 08:36 What are you seeing now, that's different than before the shutdown started? Catherine Michael 08:40 I think the biggest problem I'm seeing is a complete lack of services. And that is where school districts, for instance, that have gone entirely virtual, have students who are just not able to access the services, they may be so cognitively impaired, they're not able to do a computer program Anne Zachry 09:01 Right. Catherine Michael 09:01 In some of those cases, I'm seeing schools basically just throw up their hands and say, "Well, you know, when we come up with a program, we'll let you know." And that's really contrary to law. And there are a lot of things that parents need to be doing right now. That is one of the biggest problems. The other one is where parents whose children are getting, for instance, speech therapy. The school's saying, "Sorry, we can't provide that right now." And in fact, they really can. I mean, virtual speech therapy has been done for years and it's something that should be being done. Anne Zachry 09:35 Right. Catherine Michael 09:36 And then lastly, I mean, we're seeing schools where kids are coming back to school, but we'll have a school that that, you know, I think for good reason has a mask mandate, but they don't understand that there are clearly going to be children who cannot wear masks, right? Anne Zachry 09:52 Right. Catherine Michael 09:52 They are too cognitively impaired or they have really significant health issues. And I've definitely seen a lot of those issues crop up, which is really quite shocking to me. Because some of these situations, you know, quite honestly, when we look at a child who for instance, has a tube down their throat, the fact that a school would even argue with a parent as to whether they're going to try and put a mask on this child is shocking. Anne Zachry 10:21 Right. Catherine Michael 10:21 They'll tell a parent that a child can't come to school. So that I think has been another one of the really big issues. Anne Zachry 10:28 Yeah. And we've what we've run into out here in California is it's hit or miss, it depends on the school district as to whether they're going to do the right thing or not. And but we have some school districts that are just flat out refusing to do any in-person services at all, under any circumstances, even though we have the governor's order that came out in April that said that any student that required in-person services in order to continue to learn and to receive educational benefits, just as a matter of FAPE, that those in-person services still had to be provided and the people who would do it would be considered essential infrastructure workers. But we have districts saying that, "Oh, no, there's something else that came out in July that says we don't have to do that." And it doesn't say that at all. And so they're just waiting until they get court ordered to actually do it before they'll comply. They're waiting for somebody to pull that trigger. They're not willing to assume the risk. It's a risk management decision. They don't want to assume the liability of choosing to do it, and then have somebody gets sick and say, "You made me go to work, and then then I got COVID." And then they're going to turn around and sue the school district as the employer. And so what we're seeing is that a lot of it has to do with human resources issues, and unionized employees and, you know, rightfully insisting on safe ways of getting things done, and satisfaction not being achieved at that level, which then impairs the system's ability to carry out its mandate, because the workers it relies upon, there's no agreement as to how they're going to do it. Until they get court ordered, they're just not gonna. And so that's what we're seeing out here. And it's weird. And I've also got OCR complaints and state compliance complaints as well pending because the due process system is now so flooded that, you know, the attorneys I work with can't file anything new until March. And so it's like, Okay, well, we got to find other avenues to still somehow enforce all of this and a compliance investigation, or an OCR investigation has a 60 day timeline. So at least that's something. Catherine Michael 12:27 Yeah, well, and I think that is, again, part of the big problem, here. It's just when we have schools that they know that the consequences to them are going to be really minimal, that's why we'll often see them wait for court orders versus getting creative. So when I say getting creative, we're seeing two are not able to serve, for instance, cognitively impaired kids, they have problems where they are not able to get the personnel in and not keep them safe. They can actually pay for a private therapeutic day placement, they can offer a parent sort of what we would call a continuum of services and placements ... Anne Zachry 13:02 Right. Catherine Michael 13:03 ... which is one of the requirements of federal law. And they can actually say to a parent, look, we do not have the infrastructure right now, or we don't have the ability to serve this child, here are four or five private placements that we can contract with, if that's something you're interested in. So and we see that happen in some places, and we don't see it happen in others. Anne Zachry 13:22 We're seeing that also with non-public agencies being able to provide in-home services like behavioral services. Catherine Michael 13:28 Yeah. Anne Zachry 13:28 Yeah, same thing. Catherine Michael 13:30 Yeah, I'm actually a big fan of that happening. When I see school districts that are really willing to think outside of the box to say, "Well, we have an absolute obligation to serve these kids. How do we do it?" Right? Where they're actually looking at it more along the lines of: "This is our job, this is our role, how do we perform it, even if we don't have the personnel right now?" Anne Zachry 13:52 Right. Catherine Michael 13:52 And so when I, certainly when I see school districts going above and beyond like that, and situations where, you know, you can see how difficult it is. I mean, I'm looking at those districts and saying, you know, at least they're making these attempts, but, you know, the, the problem we see over much of the country is school districts basically saying if a parent, if, after all this is done, brings a due process, our worst case scenario is we're just going to have to provide compensatory education. So I'm seeing some school districts, really, you know, as I said a moment ago, not provide anything. Anne Zachry 14:29 Right. Catherine Michael 14:29 And so, you know, if you're a parent who's listening to this, and you're saying, you know, my school district may be providing part of the program, or not any of it. I mean, the thing you need to be doing right now is documenting it. Anne Zachry 14:41 Yes! Catherine Michael 14:42 Because you are absolutely going to have a claim for those compensatory hours that your child should have been getting. So if your IEP had your child receiving 124 minutes a week of what we would call sort of direct special educational services like we would expect to see it you're talking about a child with a specific learning disability, who is getting some of that one on one reading intervention or math intervention, those are the minutes that are going to be ordered. If you have a situation where your child's not receiving that, or they were in a resource room, and we're talking about full time special ed placement, they're not able to access a computer, what you're going to want to do is just really document those hours that you're missing. Email the school, your child's school, and ask, you know, again, if your child's not receiving anything, what options are available? You know, if they don't have the infrastructure, are they going to offer a private therapeutic day placement or a home based placement at this point? And that's, you know, sending it for instance, a registered behavior technician, or if your child has autism, a BCBA, or you know, another individual who's trained in that, you know, behavior modification into the home to work on the child's behavioral goals, social skills goals, academic goals. What is the school able to do at this point? And you're certainly going to want to ask those questions. And you're going to want to push because, again, it's their absolute duty to be providing this right now. To the extent that they are unable, there are rural areas where, you know, there are no ABA centers are out there ... Anne Zachry 16:14 Right. Catherine Michael 16:15 ... no spec ial day placements, there are no private placements, quite honestly. And we have schools that are saying, you know, "We don't have enough staff," you know? It's really a very, very problematic situation for families in those places. And that's where the parent just really needs to be documenting to the best extent they can you know, what skills their child is losing how many minutes that their child isn't receiving, what they're doing, any costs that they are right now incurring. Like for instance, for parents who are having to go out and buy educational items, these are all things that you're going to want to keep track of as a parent so that as things return to normal, you can sit down initially with your school at an IEP meeting and say, we need to plan for the compensatory services, number one. Number two, here are the costs that I had to privately pay that I'm asking to be reimbursed for, Anne Zachry 17:05 Right! Well, and I don't know how other states are doing it, but in California, one of the things that we had a Senate bill pass over the summer, that now requires all IEPs to have a contingency plan and emergency plan for his schools shut down for emergency reasons for 10 or more days. And so now, and hindsight being 2020, obviously, that should something else ever arise, like another pandemic, or whatever that would, or, you know, a natural disaster that would require a school closure for 10 or more days, that there is already a backup plan of what to do for each kid ... Catherine Michael 17:40 Yes. Anne Zachry 17:40 ... on IEP. And so I don't know that other states have codified anything like that. But California has. And I think that's very valuable. And the same body of law that produced that I believe, also produced a requirement that there's going to have to be an analysis of how much compensatory education every special ed kid in California is due, because it's assumed that everybody will have suffered in some kind of way, and that everybody will have ... Catherine Michael 18:04 Yeah. Anne Zachry 18:04 ... lost services. And so it's, the IEP teams are now legally beholden to calculate that, once things, you know, once the shutdown is over. That ... Catherine Michael 18:12 Yeah. Anne Zachry 18:12 ... varies from community to community. And I, we now have like, I'm in Ventura County, where districts are not intending to open until January, at the soonest. And then you know, you go down into other counties, and they've already got campuses partially opened down in Orange County. And so and some campuses are reopening for their most severely impacted students who desperately need that in-person support. And so the families have to sign all kinds of waivers and everything, but then they can go back and they've got all of these empty classrooms that they can spread everybody out. Because not it's just a small number of students. And then those kids can get that individualized support. But that is like, you know, how much of this was working on social skills? And if they're all spread apart, can we really do that? You know, and so it's, it's still the challenge of how do we work on the goals. And what I've seen too, is some kind of distance learning program where, you know, the parents are expected to be the one-on-one aide and help their students login. And they do some kind of something on the internet, but it doesn't have anything to do with anybody's goals. It's just something to do. It's just to give them a sense of routine in the absence of, you know, an actual plan, and then they get very confused. And then eventually, the goals get worked in because enough people you know, make a fuss about it, then it starts to happen. And now you switched everything up on them again. Now, the instruction is a whole new novel experience, and you're transitioning them again, into something new that is unfamiliar. And so it just seems to me that it's very disruptive. And it's disheartening to see that there's this little coordination. I mean, as many milestones have been achieved, and as many things that have been accomplished with making some of the system work, this piece of it falling down is a real disappointment, you know? And ... Catherine Michael 19:53 Yeah! Anne Zachry 19:53 ... and it's disheartening, but I think that parents need to know that there are people like you and me out there who understand it, and we're trying to fight it, we're trying to help them. And it's not a lost cause; that there is help out there. If you could share about your practice, once again, that would be very helpful. Catherine Michael 20:12 Yeah, so my law firm is Connell, Michael, Kerr, and I am licensed in Michigan, Indiana, and Texas. And our website is www.cmklawfirm.com, and I also have recently, and I believe it's due out either in December or January, I'm not sure on the date. But I do know that we're having pre-orders. That's the Exceptional Parent's Guide to Special Education, where I basically have, you know, put all of my advice on how parents should navigate this system in one place. Everything that I go over with parents in consultations, how the process works, I've put that together and created that as a book. And so that will be due out, again, it's either in December or January, but parents can get it through Amazon, Kindle, I believe Barnes and Noble, a couple of the others. But I know that should be available shortly. And I'll send a link for that as well. (Note: It will become available on December 1, 2020, at https://amzn.to/38euWaD.) Anne Zachry 21:08 Very cool. Yeah, we'll include the link with our post so that people can access that. That's a good thing to know. Catherine Michael 21:14 Yeah. Because I, you know, I think the thing that parents need to remember is that they actually have power. When, you know, when I use the term, private attorney general, that parents are basically acting as though, you know, that is the main message I want to impart to families is that most accountability is going to come from families standing up together and saying,"No, we are entitled to appropriate services for our children," and doing their research and coming to unders tand the system and asking for the things they're supposed to be getting. Anne Zachry 21:47 Right. Catherine Michael 21:47 And it's only by asking for it, and schools really being held accountable that we're going going to see the system change. And I think a lot of parents, right, and this is all of us, right? It's difficult to challenge people that we want to like us and parents often want the teachers to like them, they want school staff to like them. And most people who go into teaching are very, very good people, but they're not taught the education laws, they're not ... Anne Zachry 22:11 Exactly. Catherine Michael 22:12 ... in a lot of situations, we find, you know, teachers don't know how to design the school for an IEP, they don't ... You know, I had a teacher in a due process hearing last week, they they didn't know that parent training, or counseling could even be part of an IEP. So it's really important for parents to take the horse by the reins, and learn how to navigate the system and start asking these things in a way that's diplomatic and kind. But at the same time is assertive enough that your child is going to get what they need, because quite honestly, you are your child's only advocate in the system. Anne Zachry 22:48 Right. Catherine Michael 22:48 And unless you're asking for these things, the schools simply aren't going to provide them. And in many, many situations, Anne Zachry 22:55 it's just a sad reality of it. But I mean, this also goes to the fact that in a democracy, we're of the people, for the people, and by the people, and the parents are the people, the students are the people and we shouldn't be afraid to take ownership of that responsibility. It's what we all agreed we wanted to live under. That's ... Catherine Michael 23:13 Yeah. Anne Zachry 23:13 ... the model we've chosen. And so I think, for me, what makes me upset most about the way it's designed, it's not just that it forces parents into litigation, because that's what the rules require, in order to resolve the dispute. It's the attitude that parents get from the school district personnel when they actually exercise that right. And the "How dare you?" and "Oh, you think you're ..." you know, whatever. And all of a sudden, the parent becomes the bad guy for simply exercising a right and following the rules, because that's the only mechanism available to them, not because they want to. Nobody wants to do that. But if they do, you know, as someone who works with families, if somebody comes to me and says, "I cannot wait to go to court," I'm like, "Well, okay, I hope you find somebody to help you with that, because it's not going to be me," You know, it's that you shouldn't be eager to go to court. It should be the last resort. And so when parents are forced into that corner, and that's the only option they have left, and they exercise that right, and then they catch grief for it, like somehow they're the bad guy, I think that's what bothers me the most. Because it's like you ... Catherine Michael 24:18 Yeah. Anne Zachry 24:18 ... said, you know, that the parents can be made out as, "Oh, they're just this this disgruntled person and they just aren't happy with anything. They're sad about being the parent of a special needs child." I've heard that one a lot. "They're having a hard time coping and they they're angry and they need someone to take it out on, so they're suing the school district." No, you broke the law and you harmed their child. That's why they're suing you. You know, it's frustrating. Catherine Michael 24:46 Yeah, and, to that end, like, I want, you know, schools as well as parents to I you know, I would so love if we could even stop thinking of due process as litigation or suing or something like that, because these parents cannot get damages under IDEA claims. Anne Zachry 25:04 Exactly. Catherine Michael 25:05 What you can get, right? You can recover your attorneys fees. But in these cases, I mean, if we look at them in their most simplistic nature, it's simply the parents asking their state Department of Education to appoint an independent hearing officer to make a decision as to the appropriateness of their child's program. Anne Zachry 25:23 Right. Catherine Michael 25:23 A parent doesn't need, although I certainly wouldn't recommend it, but a parent doesn't need an attorney. So, you know, I will often hear from schools that, you know, this is the litigious parent who filed a suit. And I'm thinking, number one, this person hasn't filed a suit against you. Right? A suit, you know, traditionally is a claim we would file in civil or federal court. Anne Zachry 25:46 Right. Catherine Michael 25:47 This is an administrative action that they filed with an administrative agency. It's not even ... so, and then we hear, you know, "a litigious parent." Parent's not asking for money, you know. They may be asking for what we call an "in lieu of FAPE" type of agreement where they can actually get the funds to place their child in an appropriate program. Anne Zachry 26:05 Right. Catherine Michael 26:06 But I think that is a mindset that we really need to have get schools over and also get parents again, thinking that if you have a problem with Social Security, or you had a problem with your child's Medicaid, you file an administrative action to get that corrected. Right? You file with, you know, your federal Social Security office, "Here, I need to get this adjudicated," or somebody who's disabled. We don't think about it the same way. Anne Zachry 26:31 No, not at all. Catherine Michael 26:32 I think if we could ... right? And so to me, that has always been fascinating as somebody who does this, when, you know, I have one that's in a hearing right now, where the, you know, the parents, quite honestly only asking for an appropriate IEP, and then assorted related services for her child. And now, you know, when the school's attorney is speaking to us, they're saying, you know, this is simply a litigious parent. And I'm thinking, you know, she's not asking for a dollar. Anne Zachry 27:00 Right. Catherine Michael 27:00 Just write an appropriate program. So I really want to even reframe how parents think about these things. Again, schools are basically performing a government function. Anne Zachry 27:14 Yep. Catherine Michael 27:14 When we ask for the enforcement of these laws, it's an administrative action. And you're asking, you know, someone from your state simply to make that decision. Certainly, they can be appealed to federal court. And there's all you know, all of the things that you and I often see. Anne Zachry 27:31 Yeah. Which Yeah, I've gone all the way to the Ninth Circuit on some of these things and it's just like, "Are you kidding me?" And something that you had said before we got started, as well as that how much money school districts are sometimes willing to throw in attorneys that they would never throw at services, I mean, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight over a $7500 education service. Catherine Michael 27:50 Yeah. And you know, I've even seen that when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation. In most states, those can go for around $3500. Some states that we're looking at California and New York, it can be higher. So I've seen schools go through an entire due process, arguing that their evaluation is appropriate, where they spent triple, quadruple, what it would have cost them to provide the parents the evaluation. And when you look at that, you're really what you're seeing is a school district saying, "We want to make this process so hard on parents that they don't even bother to ask." And they talk to their friends and they're like, "Yeah, this is what happened." And that's not the role of a government entity, right? We shouldn't have government entities making it so difficult for individuals to get their, you know, their legal rights met. Anne Zachry 28:23 Right. Right. Catherine Michael 28:38 They don't even want to start that process. And that's why I think it's really important for parents to feel empowered, and to realize that what they're asking for is supposed to already be being provided to their child. And again, it becomes their job to enforce that. And you can do so in a diplomatic way. Anne Zachry 28:55 Exactly. Catherine Michael 28:56 There are a lot of you know, yeah. And there are a lot of things you can do even outside of due process. But I don't want parents to be afraid of due process. Anne Zachry 29:03 Right. Catherine Michael 29:03 And, I want to reframe their thinking on that topic. Anne Zachry 29:07 I think that's a really healthy perspective. I wish we could reframe the thinking of the folks from the school district who come in and deliberately try to make it toxic in those instances where they do. And you know, when it isn't always that case, you're right. I have been in situations where we've had to file for due process. And it's almost one of these things where everybody in the IEP team knows that it was coming, and nobody's surprised by it. And they're waiting to see what happens. And it's almost like the administration is hoping the parent will file because then they can go to the school board and say, "Look, now will you listen to me?" And because, sometimes it's not that the department doesn't want to do it, it's that their hands are tied by, you know, whoever holds the purse strings, who's not part of the IEP process, even though the team is the one vested with the authority to make those decisions. So, the politics that are going on behind the scenes become a toxifying effect. And ... Catherine Michael 29:59 Right. Anne Zachry 29:59 ... then you Have the attorneys that these individuals will hire and certain individuals, you know, birds of a feather flock together, and you'll find people who are like minded in their view of these things. And I know that for from what I've seen the socioeconomic status of the community where the school district is, can have an influence over whether they will comply or not. In a school district where they don't have the money to throw at lawyers, they'll go ahead and pay for the service, they're not going to fight over it ... Catherine Michael 30:27 Yeah. Anne Zachry 30:27 ... because they can't afford to. But you get into an affluent community, especially when you're talking Southern California where you got these little pockets of nouveau riche and their big McMansions. And they're feeling all special because they have money and the school district people will tell them, "Oh, well, you don't want to go through public special education services. That's like a welfare service. You would do much better if you pay privately for the services yourself. You'll get much better results than what we can give you because ours is publicly funded." And so they play that ... Catherine Michael 30:58 Yeah. Anne Zachry 30:58 ... that mind trip on these wealthy parents whose identities are all wrapped up in their their newly accomplished wealth, and they play on that and these parents are taken for a ride, because then these parents are paying out of pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars for all of these specialists who were hovering, like vultures just waiting because they know it's coming. So you've got, you know, you've got all of these parties that are financially invested in enabling that mechanism to play out the way that it does. And then you have parents who suddenly realize after, you know, they've broken the bank, and they don't have all that money anymore, because it went all to private school and residential placement costs and things and to come to find out that they could have gotten all of that from the school district. But there's ... Catherine Michael 31:40 Yeah. Anne Zachry 31:40 ... only a two year statute of limitations and they've been paying out of pocket for the last 10 years. And so not until they're bankrupted by it that they realize the error in their judgment, and then they can't go back and fully recover. And it just there's all of these different games being played by people who seem to be similarly motivated to not serve, while taking public dollars to hold a public service position. And I think that this is as much a taxpayer issue as it is a parent issue, because like you said, we've already paid for these services to be provided. Those are our tax dollars. And in those are the laws that our Representatives passed in order to provide for these children. And yet, this is what we have instead. And so I think ... Catherine Michael 32:22 Yeah. Anne Zachry 32:22 ... that one of the parent advocates that I met a few years ago said she went up to Sacramento with a group of parents and sat down with state assembly members or state Senate, I'm not sure who all she met with. It was state officials, representatives. And said, you know, "When you take into account all of the people in California who have disabilities, and their immediate family members, like their parents, or you know, a spouse, do you consider them a constituency?" And he said, "No, the number is too small." And she said, "Well, okay, what about all the people who are employed to support all of these people with disabilities and their families and their extended families? When you add all those people in, does that become a constituency to you?" And he said, "Yes ..." Catherine Michael 33:08 Yeah. Anne Zachry 33:08 "... at that point, now you're talking about a significant number of people." And so what that really communicates is all of this divisiveness that we've been seeing in our culture where, you know, we've got people being pitted against each other for different ways of thinking about things and the things that make them unique from each other. And disability is no stranger to that experience. And what we're starting to realize is that the people who are trying to divide us are a minority. And they're easily identified, we all have a common group of individuals who are all trying to pit us against each other and turn us into special interest groups, when really we're just the majority. And if we all ... Catherine Michael 33:49 Yeah. Anne Zachry 33:49 ... weave ourselves together and collectively advocate for each other, then we're a constituency. And I think that ... Catherine Michael 33:57 Yeah. Anne Zachry 33:57 ... that is where we have to start thinking about these things now that it's not, "Oh, my disability rights versus your LGBTQ+ rights." It's not my "My race rights versus your gender rights." You know, it's not a "versus." It's no, everybody. Everybody has equal rights. And that's the whole point. Catherine Michael 34:16 Yeah. Anne Zachry 34:16 And so I think that our dialogue needs to shift in that direction. I know that I had this conversation in an IEP meeting the other day with a team, I had to file an OCR complaint. I'm like, "Look, this pandemic is not the apocalypse, you know? Zombies are not at the door." Catherine Michael 34:32 Right. Anne Zachry 34:32 "Democracy has not fallen, the rule of law still applies. And at no point did public health usurp civil rights, they are equally important. So what are you guys gonna do?" And they're just like "Uhhh!" because they don't know. I mean, but they understood why I filed a complaint. They weren't mad at me. They're probably ... they're actually they're like waiting to see what comes of it because maybe now they'll be given permission to do their jobs. You know? Catherine Michael 34:56 Right. Anne Zachry 34:56 Nobody was angry about it. It was like "Okay, well, yeah,. That logically makes sense. We'll just have to see what happens." And so I'm not necessarily, in my situations ... and of course, I have relationships with a lot of these people, because I see the same people in IEP meetings for different kids over the span of decades. So we all know each other. So it's not like ... Catherine Michael 35:17 Yeah. Anne Zachry 35:17 ... you know, I'm going into a novel situation, and then some stranger coming in and telling them what to do. Because that can be, you know, people can become defensive and adversarial when that happens. So I have rapport, but, you know, even still, you know, the fact that I can say something like that, and everybody's like, "Yeah, you know what, you're right. We still are not empowered to do what you're asking us to do." And so that that, to me, is very frustrating, because I know that there's people who want to do the right thing, and they can't; they're not being allowed to. Catherine Michael 35:45 Yeah. Anne Zachry 35:46 And I think that parents need to understand that too, that, you know, not everybody's the enemy, but you got to be paying real close attention these days. I mean, would you agree, I mean, the parents just need to be ... Catherine Michael 35:56 I would. Anne Zachry 35:56 ... very discerning about who they can trust? Catherine Michael 35:58 Well, absolutely. I think it's, again, it's being discerning. And it's also it's being educated as to what your child needs are, what you're asking for. And then also, you know, again, understanding that you are going to be the only one who really has your child's true best interests at heart. That's not to say that there aren't, you know, within school systems there are really dedicated teachers, dedicated administrators who are doing their very, very best to ensure children are being educated appropriately. But at the end of the day, and I don't necessarily like that expression, but it really does come down to, you are always going to know your child best. And it is going to be up to you to enforce these laws. Anne Zachry 36:43 Right. Catherine Michael 36:43 You know, you may have a great teacher one year and not another. And again, the school's interest isn't going to be the same as yours, right? Theirs is going to be on their budgeting, the union, you know, everything going on, your interest is going to be on "Is my child getting an appropriate program?" Anne Zachry 36:51 Exactly. Right. And, I mean, in terms of checks and balances, that's why the parents are such an important part of the team, and are afforded so many rights and the protected right to meaningful parent participation and ... Catherine Michael 37:11 Right! Anne Zachry 37:12 ... informed consent. I mean, all of those privileges and rights are there, because that's meant to be a check and balance against the rest of the system. And so, you know, if they if the parents are being bamboozled, and they are signing documents that they don't actually understand, then those enforceable rights are not being honored. And, you know, it's parents have to understand that they have recourse and they need to educate themselves as to what what that is. Catherine Michael 37:36 Right. Anne Zachry 37:36 And ask! I mean, my favorite thing is when parents say, "Okay, well, what are my rights under this circumstance?" and put it back on the school people ... ... to explain what their rights are, you know? And I think that that's a good strategy, because it is the burden of the school district to explain to parents what their rights are. They're supposed to be able to do that. And so you know, if they've put you the parent on the spot, the parents should feel comfortable saying, "Well, you know, what, I need to turn this around to put you on the spot for a minute, because I don't understand my right. And I'm not sure what I can do here." If you're savvy enough to know, in some states, you know, how the rules play out are different. In California, all you have to do is give 24 hour written notice, minimum, and you can audio record your child's IEP as a parent. You can't video record, but you can audio record, and the school district can't say no, but they also have to record as well so that there's a backup copy. And you know ... Catherine Michael 37:42 Yes! Anne Zachry 38:23 ... just for authenticity reasons. So different states have different rules about audio recording, but, you know, I audio record every IEP meeting. One, because I have ADHD myself, and I don't want to miss anything. And so it's just a ... it's more of a safety net, because I very rarely have to go back and listen for ... Catherine Michael 38:23 Yeah. Yeah. Anne Zachry 38:38 ... my own account. But just to know that I can make me less anxious during the meeting, but also because, you know ... ... it ends up getting introduced into evidence if we do have to go to a due process hearing. And it's been a very powerful tool. Catherine Michael 38:44 Well, yeah. Right. And you can be clear as to what you asked for, why you asked for it, what the school's response was. Anne Zachry 38:58 Exactly, Catherine Michael 38:59 I think that can be extremely helpful. Anne Zachry 39:01 And if, you know, when you go into an IEP meeting and you do have the, you know, you've legally made it okay to audio record - given written notice or whatever is required - and you're doing it lawfully, and then you go in and say, "I don't understand my rights under the circumstance, please explain them to me," and then the explanation they give you is either going to be a good one, or it's going to be a bad one. And if it's a bad one ... ... you know, the backup, you know, it's like, "Okay, well, I didn't get the right answer, but I got proof that they don't know what they're talking about. And I'm not crazy." And so it becomes evidence and I think the parents and, certainly as an advocate, when I go into the to the IEP process, I'm trying to solve the problem for real in the moment but I'm also making the record along the way in case it doesn't get resolved ... Catherine Michael 39:24 Yeah. Right. Anne Zachry 39:28 ... and so that by the time we arrive at due process, the trail ... the evidence trail is clear. If when they say no their explanations are, you know, are whatever they are. And, going back to what you had said earlier about prior written notice one of the things that I've noticed out here is that I would say, a good third of the time when I get a prior written notice, in response to something I've submitted for a family, it won't make a lick of sense. It will say prior written notice according to 300.503, blah, blah, blah ... Catherine Michael 40:14 Right. Anne Zachry 40:14 ... and have all that legalese at the top of it, and then they ... it's like a form and they'll populate the form with a bunch of gibberish that's just nonsense. It doesn't even explain why they said, "No." There's no real explanation. I'm like, "Okay, well go ahead and make the record that this is what you're sending out on a PWN form, and this is what you're going to represent as PWN," ... because substantively, it is embarrassing. And just because you put "PWN" at the top, and you cite the code that you're supposed to be following, the fact that you didn't is reflected the document itself. And it just, it blows my mind what people will put into writing because they think they're so clever. And it's like, "Okay." And so one of the things that I think is really valuable, that's helpful for parents to know, too, is that the regulations, it's 34 CFR section 300.320(a)(4) mandates the application of the peer reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education. When you have a bad IEP, you can say, "I want to understand the science that underpins this IEP. What peer reviewed research did you rely on to inform ..." Catherine Michael 40:34 Yeah. Anne Zachry 41:20 ... you know, and of course, they don't have anything. And then when I ask for something specific, and I know, I can reasonably anticipate that they're going to balk at it, because it's something they've not done before. And it's going to require them to create something new. I will cite the science that backs up the request that I am making and say specifically, the regulations require you to apply the peer reviewed research to the degree that it's practicable. So if you're not going to do this, when you send your prior written notice, please explain what it is about the science that is not practicable. Catherine Michael 41:20 Yeah. Yeah. Anne Zachry 41:23 And then they're, they're stumped, because they don't know how to reply to that. And again, it goes back to the fact that they don't actually have access to the peer reviewed research. I'll go ahead and ... Catherine Michael 42:02 Yeah. Anne Zachry 42:02 ... spend $70 on an article just to make my point, because I can ... Catherine Michael 42:06 Yeah. Anne Zachry 42:06 ... you know, but I shouldn't have to do that. And that's the problem, is that we have this paywall between our educators and the science that would tell them what to do. And what is the politics behind that? Why is there a paywall between our educators and the research that will tell them how to teach our kids right? How is that not part of the public domain? Why do teachers not have access to that? And then, especially when you have a legal mandate that requires it, you know? Catherine Michael 42:31 Oh yeah, and ... Anne Zachry 42:32 It blows my mind. Catherine Michael 42:34 It goes to the fact that, yeah, that because the laws are not enforced, right? We're just not seeing, for instance, when we look at health care, right, we have, you know, standards of care, best practices, we see checklists for everything with the doctors getting weekly reports on different new procedures, medications, right? We don't see that in education, because, again, there's so little penalty. We're not seeing teachers, sort of, you know, given a weekly mailer, you know, here are some of the programs that we're seeing coming out. Here are some of the best practices for working with a specific learning disability, you know, can you update off on how you're implementing this in your classroom? We don't see that because, again, there's so little importance level. Yeah, I really haven't felt the need to do that. Anne Zachry 43:23 Yeah, well, and I'm thinking we're overdue for a reauthorization of the IDEA. And one of the things that I would like to see in there is beefing up of that enforcement arm because they're supposed to be what 10 year audits or something like that? That we have some kind of audit procedure in California that every once in a while somebody pulls the short straw and ends up getting audited. And of course, every time they go through there and examine all the IEPs, it's just a disaster, but then nothing ever gets fixed. Catherine Michael 43:48 Right. Anne Zachry 43:48 And so it doesn't change anything. It's like, Oh, they just documented that it's a disaster and moved on to the next one. And nothing got rectified. And we need to speak to that. I mean, is we're looking at all of these broken systems that are just cracked open and expose raw and wide for the whole world to see now that there's no covering up that our social programs are flawed, and that we need to overhaul them. And we need to bring them kicking and screaming into the 21st century with best practices and not just best practices in teaching, but in best practices in operational standards, and efficiency, and ... ... and security and privacy. And I know I worked in IT for a few years in these huge enterprise class computing environments like Walmart and Sanyo, and Volkswagen and all of these big huge computing environments, where you have these global wide area networks in these supply chain automated pieces. Back in the day, I'm talking like 25-30 years ago, this technology has been around for a long time. And if you look at the degrees of efficiency, and the cost savings and the reduction in overhead that is experienced by the industries that adopt all of this ISO standards and these automated supply chain things and and the internal and the way they automate their internal business operations, that California is starting to head in that direction with respect to individualized person centered planning. That there is a pilot program that's being developed. And I don't know when exactly it's going to be deployed. But I know Ventura County as part of it, where, whether you're Department of Rehab, or you're special ed, or you're county mental health, or you're welfare, or you're food stamps, or you're Medicaid, or whatever, it's one individualized plan, one caseworker, and your plan calls out to all the different funding sources. So the consumer is not having to chase after the funding, the funding is following the consumer through a single individualized plan, which is only common sense. But it was only achievable by marrying all of these computer systems together, that all of these disparate agencies were working autonomously with, and making them able to talk to each other. And so now we're getting to the point where we can stitch all of our our computing resources together to create this inter woven supply chain so that we can streamline how we deliver public services and do it more cost effectively. But then what that also means is that there are no there are no dark shadows to hide in where funds can be misappropriated. There will be such a stringent degree of accountability that the cronyism and the back scratching that has gone on will no longer be enabled. It won't be possible. And so that also will free up a lot of resources. And that is another aspect of increasing the efficiency and the fiscal responsibility of the system and the fiscal management of it. And so there are people who financially benefit from the system being antiquated and broken right now. And they don't want those kinds of changes coming in. Because there goes all of their opportunities to exploit. We're starting to see that public service is going through this transformation that private industry went through when this happened decades ago, as these technologies come in. And as the public pushes for a greater accountability. And as we repair and we overhaul our systems, we're going to be using the most modern tools we have. And so I think that we can be encouraged that the future does hold a lot of potential for a lot of corrective action, and a lot of prevention of things like this happening again in the future. But we are not there yet. And I think it takes ... it's going to take all of us pushing for those reforms. Because as much as each parent needs to advocate for their child on a child by child basis, and not be afraid of the due process mechanisms, if that's what it takes, you know, but not think that it's like, you know, the panacea, like it's going solve every problem, we also need to be pushing collectively as a community of people for reforms that will fix the system in a way where these are no longer the problems we have to deal with. And that we have to repair the broken system, not only on a kid by kid basis, but we also have to make it better than it was in the first place. And so that the next time catastrophe comes, we're better prepared to roll with it. I mean, sadly enough, this was long overdue, where the system needed to be confronted on its failures. But I think that parents can take hope that we're part of history right now we're part of fixing it, we're part of making this better for our kids with special needs, because all of its going to have to be reformed, we can't just tape it back together and go back to the way it was. So I think that ... Catherine Michael 44:23 Yeah. Right. Anne Zachry 44:54 ... you know, there's, there's a lot of encouragement in what's going on here, there's a lot of opportunity, and we don't need to be so terrified of the changes that are coming. And we need to really embrace them, because it's our opportunity to make it better, I think. And it's going to take people like you and me going in there and one kid at a time, you know, saying, "No, this is ... these are the rules, and this is how they apply to this one child. And this is ..." " ... the individualized program, and and the individual person matters. You know, it's like every vote matters, every child matters. And whether that child has a disability or not, should not be a defining criteria of whether that individual matters or not, it shouldn't even be a question. Catherine Michael 48:39 Right! Yeah. Anne Zachry 48:55 And so I think that what we're doing is a very powerful thing. This is a very prescient area of civil rights law right now. And, you know, I think that, you know, regardless of how things play out with what other people do, what people like you and I are doing, we're on the right side of history with this, you know? We're enforcing civil rights. We're ... Catherine Michael 49:13 Yeah. Anne Zachry 49:13 ... we're enforcing democracy. It's we are of the people, for the people by the people doing the work to make sure the people are protected. And I think that families need to understand that they're not alone, that there are folks like that, like us out there. And we're not that rare, you know, and the fact that you're licensed in multiple states goes to the fact that you recognize the degree to which there's not enough representation in some places, and that you're making it ... Catherine Michael 49:36 Yeah. Anne Zachry 49:36 ... happen anyway. And so that's really powerful. I think the parents need to ... and I know that there are other attorneys who are licensed in multiple states as well. One of the attorneys I work with here in California is also licensed in Alaska. And let me tell you, going out into the middle of Alaska in the middle of nowhere ... ... and enforcing special ad law is not an easy thing to do. You're coming in on a like a bush plane and landing in, you know, somebody field, you know, and going to a one room ... Catherine Michael 49:53 Yeah! Right. Anne Zachry 50:04 ... school house to say," Okay, this kid needs speech and language. How are you gonna make it happen?" and they still got to do it. And so, you know ... Catherine Michael 50:09 Yeah. Anne Zachry 50:09 ... parents need to understand that even under the most bizarre and difficult circumstances it can be made to happen. There's always a way. Catherine Michael 50:17 Right. Anne Zachry 50:17 You know, and that it's not a hopeless situation. So I think that talking about this with you has been very enlightening and very encouraging. And I think that you've given us a lot of really good information. I do want to remind everybody that I'm going to include a link to your book with all of our, you know, the stuff below on the ... because what we'll do is we we do the podcast, but we also do a corresponding text only post ... Catherine Michael 50:39 Great! Anne Zachry 50:40 That way, all the links for everything are embedded in the transcript ... Catherine Michael 50:44 Yeah. Anne Zachry 50:44 ... so we'll have all of that and then ... Catherine Michael 50:47 Oh, that would be fantastic! Anne Zachry 50:49 Yeah, and that way folks know how to get ahold of you. And this has been a really good discussion, I really appreciate you doing this with me. Catherine Michael 50:56 You know, you've done a great job, as well, at trying to keep parents aware of their rights and helping them feel empowered. And I think that's the biggest thing that they need to know is that they have a lot of power in their hands. They just need to know that there are lots of us on their side trying to help them along the way. Anne Zachry 51:13 Right. And it means the world to us to be able to do it. It's such an honor to be able to be part of making somebody's life something that you know that they're they're happy and they're fulfilled and they're not living in misery ... Catherine Michael 51:26 Yes! Anne Zachry 51:27 ... or in crisis, you know, that that we can help people turn those kinds of corners with the kind of work that we do. I mean, it's an honorable thing that we do and I'm proud of what we do. So thank you, and thank you for doing this and for sharing your information with us and hopefully we'll get to do something like this with you again soon. Catherine Michael 51:44 Yeah, I would love it. And thank you again, so much and for all that you do.

"Fascism" is a scary word that is far too often slung as an insult by people actively engaging in it who don't understand what it actually is. In today's post/podcast, I want to talk about what fascism actually is and how it shows up in all aspects of public agency functioning, but particularly how to recognize it in special education. Unfortunately, these days, there are no better angels to appeal to within many public agencies, including public education agencies. It's not that the entire barrel of apples is spoiled, but enough of it is that the good apples either leave or go bad, too. Bureaucrats accustomed to gaming the system for their own financial gain at the expense of children with special needs have historically engaged in some pretty unscrupulous behaviors over the years, but they just could not resist the opportunity to exploit the pandemic to advance their self-serving agendas. They've become experts at seizing upon opportunities to escape/avoid their job responsibilities while still collecting their government paychecks. For far too many individuals, employment in public service has become a form of welfare fraud, only public agency employees get more free government money and perks in exchange for nothing than actual welfare recipients, who have to perform for the pennies on the dollar they receive by comparison. In California, for example, the average special education director is paid around $125K per year plus benefits with support administrators each being paid around $100K per year at taxpayer expense, regardless of whether their students receive educational benefits or not. So, how does that relate to fascism? And why is it such an inflammatory word when it simply describes a frame of thought? My theory is that either the people who find the terms "fascist" and "fascism" inflammatory are engaging in fascist behaviors and don't want to be called out on them, or they don't actually understand what fascism is and that they are actively engaged in it, thereby simply taking it as an insult. So, before we start talking about the fascists that have been employed in local government over the last 100 years, lets first arrive at an understanding of what these terms actually mean. Before we can talk about what fascism is, we first need to talk about what our democracy is supposed to be. The most basic summary of American democracy is that it is a system governed by the rule of law, which is created by legislators elected to represent the interests of their constituents wherein the majority rules. Being ruled by laws of which no one is above, rather than a dictator or an authoritarian regime, is an essential element of a democracy. Another essential element of a democracy is the belief that every person, regardless of what makes them unique, is afforded equal rights under the law. The fact that we need laws like the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA make clear that, if left to their own devices, our public schools cannot be trusted to afford equal rights to their students with special needs. They have to be regulated or they can devolve into little fascist regimes of their own, depending on the communities in which they are located. The last 29+ years of working in this field has convinced me that even those laws are not enough. Fascists who have been within the system since before these laws were passed made these laws necessary in the first place to ensure that democracy is afforded to every child in the public education system. One of the most historically significant pieces of litigation in IDEA history is PARC v. Pennsylvania, in which it was determined that denying children with disabilities equal access to education is unconstitutional.  The fact that our federal government has been kidnapping and locking up babies coming to our borders through the the legal asylum-seeking process with their parents speaks to the degree to which the rights of any child in this country are not honored in general, much less when children have disabilities. Recent feedback from the American Association of Pediatrics has described this conduct as institutionalized "child abuse."  The American Federation of Teachers has called this conduct "crimes against humanity" (see https://youtu.be/3lMhuv3EXLI). A government that disregards child welfare at all, much less to this degree is monstrous, hence today's discussion of fascism. fascism [ˈfaSHˌizəm]     NOUN fascism (noun) an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. synonyms: authoritarianism · totalitarianism · dictatorship · despotism · autocracy · absolute rule · Nazism · rightism · militarism · nationalism · xenophobia · racism · anti-Semitism · chauvinism · jingoism · isolationism · neo-fascism · neo-Nazism · corporativism · corporatism · Hitlerism · Francoism · Falangism antonyms: democracy · liberalism Source:  https://www.bing.com/search?q=fascism So, basically, anything undemocratic is fascism. Denying children with disabilities equal access to education has already been determined to be unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, is undemocratic. If it's undemocratic, it's fascist. Ergo, denying children with disabilities equal access to education is fascist.   Nazis are fascists. They do not believe that all people have equal rights and individuals with disabilities top their list of people who don't deserve to live, much less be given equal access to anything. All fascism includes biases against other humans on the bases of observable physical traits and/or behaviors.   In Hitler's Germany, it was the medical community that turned its back on individuals with disabilities, using science without ethics to justify mass killings and inhumane experimentation that were legitimized as "medical procedures." After Hitler purged the country of somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 Jewish doctors, more than 7% of all remaining German medical doctors joined the Nazi party, a much higher percentage than in the general population at that time. By 1942, more than half of Germany's medical doctors and professionals with PhDs in related fields had joined the Nazi party.   Doctors working for Hitler's Nazi State rather than patient welfare then embarked upon many of the most unethical human experiments conducted in modern history. Using Mendelian genetics to guide their decision-making processes, they saw extermination as the correct solution for developmental disabilities like Autism and Down's Syndrome, which they regarded as genetic defects. This abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm facilitated the Holocaust.   Murder and dismemberment in the name of science were visited upon every class of individuals captured by the Nazis, including people with disabilities, during the Holocaust. At the time, there were no international laws governing the behaviors of doctors. After the war, following the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Code was created in 1947, which established a set of research ethics for human experimentation.   In the early 1970s, when the special education and related civil rights laws were created, these ethical standards had long been established as a matter of law, but not necessarily common practice. The concept clearly did not generalize from the medical community to the education community, and much hell has been raised by school district officials and their lawyers about public education agencies not being liable for educational malpractice.   In my opinion, educational malpractice should be a criminal offense, complete with jail time and fines. Acts of unconstitutional conduct carried out under the color of public office cannot be tolerated in our democracy, whether we're talking about extrajudicial killings by police or denials of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as a result of malice and/or neglect.   These laws only became necessary, and were finally enacted in the 1970s, because the intrinsic educational and civil rights of children with disabilities were being denied all over the United States. Professional ethical standards alone were not enough to protect students with special needs. Just as with the Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code, laws had to be created after the fact to hold people accountable for their unethical treatment of individuals with disabilities, including school-aged children, here in the United States.   The laws that protect students with disabilities have always been difficult to enforce. In no small part, this is because the fascists already employed within the public education system who viewed children with disabilities as second class citizens continued to undermine these laws from within their public education agencies after these laws passed.   As a more visible example of what I'm talking about, consider one of the most famous "Karens" in our social awareness, Kim Davis of Broward County, Kentucky. While she got elected to serve the public, taking an oath to abide by the rule of law and fully knowing that the Constitution requires a separation of church and state, she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the landmark federal lawsuit Obergefell v. Hodges, because her religious beliefs require her to engage in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   This is fascism. She denied equal Constitutional rights under the law, refused to abide by the rule of law, and abandoned the separation of church and state in favor of her religious beliefs, which clearly do not align with the Constitution or democracy in general. She then claimed that she was being persecuted for her religion when she was put in jail for refusing to do her government job according to the rule of law.   This kind of behavior has been going on since the laws that protect children with disabilities were passed in the 1970s through to today. And, now, we have the consequences of this pandemic impacting an already unconstitutionally dysfunctional system and exposing all of its flaws for the whole world to see.   The thing about hard times is it quickly reveals who the fascists are. They are the ones advocating for a return to the previous status quo in which they were the beneficiaries of inequities while actively denying the existence of the obvious inequities in our publicly funded systems.   It has become the norm that agencies created by our democratic rule of law and funded with taxpayer dollars routinely violate those laws and misappropriate those dollars at the expense of the very constituents these agencies were created and funded by the taxpayers to serve. This has to stop or democracy is truly dead in this country.   Such is often the case in special education, just as a matter of routine. But, now this pandemic has really shown everyone's true colors and there is little that is beautiful to behold. Just as peaceful protests against police brutality are being met with more police brutality, parents advocating for remedies to address their children's special needs are being met with more frequent and egregious violations now that the circumstances have changed in response to the pandemic.   Clearly, public safety is of paramount importance and I will never dispute that plain fact. But, public safety does not require the end of democracy, and I'm not talking about masks. Don't be an idiot; wash your hands, wear a damn mask, and socially distance yourself from other people.   Public safety is equal in importance to the constitutional rights of children with disabilities, not greater. These children have a protected legal right to equal access to public education. Further, special education students have a protected right to individualized educational program designed and delivered according to the peer-reviewed research (34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4)).   Local government agencies performing according to their legal mandates is democracy in action. This pandemic is not so apocalyptical that certain classes of individuals suddenly cease to have legally protected rights. Fascism denies their rights, not a virus. Local education agencies refusing to perform according to their legal mandates is fascism in action.   Further, as I've previously reported here, none of the applicable federal laws have been waived as a result of the pandemic. States and local governments do not have the legal authority to waive the federal requirements; they can only describe with State law how the federal laws will be implemented within the State, and local education agencies can, at most, create policies about how they will individually comply with the State's implementation requirements of the federal regulations.   No local school district has the legal authority to refuse to abide by the laws, particularly those that regulate its purpose and existence. Nothing could be more undemocratic - more fascist - than that.   And, yet, here we are with our most vulnerable children languishing and regressing developmentally with every passing moment because a bunch of "tax-fattened hyenas," to quote the great Berke Breathed, saw fit to use the pandemic as an excuse to not expend public dollars on the members of the public for whom those dollars were intended, while continuing to collect six-figure annual salaries in exchange for nothing. This isn't just a civil rights issue. Just like police reform, it's a taxpayer issue.   What this pandemic has done, among other things, is expose every crack in every system throughout all our systems of governance. And, those cracks are the consequences of systemic non-compliance with regulatory mandates, as well as failures of those mandates to adequately describe courses of action that prevent non-compliance.   There is no proactive oversight of local education agency compliance with special education and related civil rights law; the burden falls to the shoulders of largely uninformed and/or unempowered parents to file complaints or litigate in order for the law to be enforced, which means it usually is not. It's a matter of "When the cat is away, the mice will play."   Without proactive oversight and enforcement, public agencies are adrift at sea, inventing their own ways of doing things while often unaware of their legal obligations. There is no real quality control in special education. There's just school district lawyers who jump in after the train has already wrecked to argue that it really didn't for ridiculous dollars per hour at taxpayer expense.   It's one thing to point this stuff out. It's another thing to do something about it. My thought process is that the IDEA is overdue for reauthorization. Presuming democracy is preserved with the upcoming election and we haven't descended into dictatorship, there is going to be a lot of public agency and legal reform coming down the pike for the next 10 years, at least.   Historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists will all be looking at the last four years and what led up to the current state of affairs in our nation under a microscope for the next 100 years, at least. The data they will be generating will inform vast improvements to our social systems and create systems for ongoing improvement as our society evolves and encounters new challenges, so long as the rest of us make sure that happens.   Right now, one of the most powerful things that parents of children with special needs can do is vote for the candidates they believe will take action to make sure that our publicly funded government agencies actually perform according to the regulatory requirements and achieve the purposes for which they exist, including the application of valid science to the delivery of services intended to benefit the public good. Maybe then we can finally become the democracy we're supposed to be.

This is our brief introductory trailer to our podcast, Making Special Education Actually Work.  See our original posts with links to other content at https://kps4parents.org/blog. Facebook:  https://facebook.com/KPS4Parents Donate:  https://paypal.me/learnandgrow  Contact us for more information:  info@kps4parents.org 

Photo Credit: Matthew Cipican   I'm pained to open with the platitude that these are unprecedented times. We all already know that and belaboring it for the purpose of a proper opening paragraph seems to belittle the magnitude of the moment.   The truth is that I've been having a hard time coming up with the right place to start the next conversation on this blog. I had developed a publishing schedule for Making Special Education Actually Work just before the pandemic hit and the schools in California, where we are headquartered, shut down.   All of that went out the window the moment the shutdown started and I've since published some bits about how to respond to the situation based on what was known at the time of each publication, but how things have continued to play out, or not, from one school district to the next has been nothing short of pandemonium. Some of my kids have done so much better with distance learning that they never want to leave their houses again. Others have regressed so greatly since the shutdown started that it's going to take years to undo the damage that has been done and catch them up to the degree its possible to do so.   Each kid, as a unique individual learner, has experienced the shutdown differently, but all of them are experiencing the same procedural violation at the hands of their Local Education Agencies (LEAs): Failure to implement the Individualized Education Program (IEP) as written. Or, framed in the language of the regulations, failure of the education rendered to conform with each student's respective IEP.   In California, the State has already assumed that compensatory remedy will be due to most, if not all, of its special education students because of the shutdown. None of the laws changed. There are permissible, though narrow caveats, in the law that provide for extenuating circumstances.   While the implementing regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandate the application of evidence-based science to the design and delivery of special education on a child-by-child basis, it is only to the degree that the application of the science is practicable. LEAs bear the burden of proving that the delivery of a special education service is not practicable before denying it and giving notice of such via a Prior Written Notice (PWN).   The real dispute, it seems, is over what is realistically practicable given the circumstances, but that first requires us to operationally define what we mean by practicable, and that's a problem. There is no legal authority or professional standard for what defines "practicable" within the context of 34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4).   I know this because the operational definition of "practicable" was one of the burning questions I had when I went back to graduate school in 2011 and had answered by the time I graduated in 2013. The truth is that there is no operational definition in the scientific literature or the case law as to what is meant by the term, "practicable."   Even Perry Zirkel was stymied by this question and ultimately concluded that most courts interpreted the definition of "practicability" as something to be left to the discretion of local education agencies - meaning, really, top administrators and board members, who are all politicians - get to decide what is and is not practicable as a matter of local governance. In those LEAs, "practicable" just means "if the LEA wants to."   This, of course, neglects the fact that 34 CFR Secs. 300.320-300.324 vests the authority in IEP teams, which include the parents, to make determinations as to what is educationally necessary and, therefore, the obligation of the LEA to provide to each given special education student. If that authority is vested in the IEP team, then no one from the LEA on the IEP team should have to go get the approval or permission of a superior outside of the IEP meeting, particularly when that superior has no direct knowledge of the student's unique needs or the IEP team's discussions about them. Whether or not something is practicable should be an IEP team decision, not an internal policy issue, yet the research that has been done suggests its a call to be made by top administrators, not individual IEP teams that include the students' parents.   Further, 34 CFR Sec. 300.321(a)(4)(iii) mandates that each IEP team include at least one LEA representative who is "knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency." Usually, this is an upper-level administrator from the main office who not only knows what resources the LEA has, but has also been granted the authority to commit the LEA's resources to a student's IEP. This can come in the form of committing existing resources to the IEP as well as procuring those materials and services that are not already available through the LEA.   I've been in IEP meetings during which such an administrator fills out and submits online requisitions for use of existing assets, as well as online purchases and purchase orders through their LEA's internal automated workflow system, during IEP meetings as the team agrees to things that are needed but not already on hand. It's not that uncommon and it goes a long way towards doing it right the first time.   Again, there should be no going to someone else outside of the IEP process for permission or approval. In one fairly recent meeting I attended, the school district's administrator on the IEP team shared her screen with the rest of us so we could all look at our options on Amazon together as an IEP team and make the purchasing decision right there. Then, "click," it was ordered and the student had his accommodations the next day. Easy peasy.   The law does not provide for the IEP team's authority to be displaced by or shifted to an uninvolved third party. If no one on the IEP team from the LEA knows whether the LEA already has the necessary resources available or will need to purchase stuff it doesn't already have, it's not a real IEP team.   Because these decisions are IEP team decisions, and not the decisions of removed administrators who are motivated by factors other than the individual needs of each special education student, deferring to top administrators to determine what is or is not "practicable," opens the door for a litany of procedural and substantive errors that will quickly create due process claims against the LEA. It behooves no one for LEAs to play this game, but plenty of them do.   Competent people have no motivation to do sketchy stuff and lie about it, so when you encounter this kind of behavior, it's because you're dealing with people who don't know what else to do and/or are crooked through and through. What we are all now going through as a nation under the current presidential administration is a reflection of the crap I've been dealing with for nearly 30 years in special education local governance. None of this is new to me, it's just now happening on a national scale. Maybe everybody outside of the special education community will finally believe me about this crap, now.   More often than not, what is deemed by an LEA as not being practicable is likely better framed as being something for which the LEA is simply not willing to expend the necessary funds. While it is unlawful under the IDEA to use fiscal considerations to determine the contents of a student's IEP, it happens all the time. The language of IEPs are often deliberately kept vague and weak so that they are difficult to enforce or so that it is otherwise difficult to say that the education rendered failed to conform with the IEP.   I'm seeing this happen in a way with 1:1 behavioral aide support services, right now. I've got families barely holding it together, stuck at home with their severely impacted children who have serious behavioral challenges arising from their disabilities. They'd give anything for in-home 1:1 behavioral services, right now.   And, that's the thing: they should already be getting it under the existing laws. On August 24, 2020, (the day before this post), the California Office of Administrative Hearings, which tries special education due process cases within the State, issued an order making clear that students who require in-person services in order to access and benefit from their educations, including during distance learning, must receive such services according to medically acceptable safety procedures regarding COVID-19.   Behavioral services are medically and educationally necessary, the California Department of Education (CDE) has advised that in-home services during the shutdown may be necessary in order for LEAs to comply with their IDEA requirements under the law, and, now, OAH has ordered a school district to provide in-home services as a matter of stay-put during the shutdown. This is huge! This settles the argument once and for all.   I know of at least one student who is currently getting in-home behavioral services through his health insurance, which is the only reason he was able to participate in distance learning during the last half of the Spring 2020 semester. The same agency currently serving this student through his health insurance had previously served him as a Non-Public Agency (NPA) under his IEP in the public school setting. Same people, different funding source, different willingness to send personnel to his house for in-home, 1:1 behavioral aide services.   His school district has offered to provide an aide online during distance learning, like somehow that's going to produce the same educationally substantive outcome of getting him to engage in the online instruction in the first place and remain engaged throughout each lesson. The boy needs an in-person 1:1 aide in order to access the instruction at all. How is he supposed to access online aide support when he needs in-person aide support to access any kind of online services?   And, he's one of many students on my caseload with similar needs; he's just the only one I know of currently living the experience of having the in-person 1:1 aide support during shutdown and being met with educational success because of it. Everybody else is asserting the need for it, but not getting it, and due process cases are popping up everywhere now, including among my students for whom I never thought litigation would realistically come to fruition.   The legal authorities favor special education students on this issue, and school districts in California are now having to weigh the risk of litigation from unionized employees against the risk of litigation from parents of students with special education needs as this whole debacle clatters forward in the absence of unified leadership across the State's public education system. Many districts are still clinging to outdated paint-by-numbers procedures and fill-in-the-blank on standardized documents and forms, aiming for procedural compliance without thought to the substantive considerations ... like providing 1:1 aide support via Zoom to a student who needs in-person support in order to access instruction via Zoom in the first place.   It's like they think conforming with the IEP in any way complies with procedure, even if it entirely fails to meet the instructional purpose it's supposed to serve from a substantive standpoint. The real tragedy, here, is that these paint-by-numbers bureaucrats don't understand how to act according to the substantive needs of the student; they just want to know which form they are supposed to use.   This significant subset of the public workforce may have memorized many of the procedures for the job and can usually find the right form to use, but don't ask them to actually engage in deductive reasoning, creative problem-solving, troubleshooting, or solution-seeking. They simply can't. They don't think that way. And, the human resources department didn't recruit for people who can think for themselves on purpose.   The middle management jobs require drones who respond to authoritarian hierarchies of leadership and do not question the orders they are given, if the system is going to function according to its bigoted design. And, that is how it has been functioning for the last few decades following the passage of federal civil rights laws, including disability-related laws that first started passing in the early 1970s, up through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990.   Those laws were necessary because the public education system, among others, was actively discriminating against children with disabilities, including denying them even enrollment. The public education system was already discriminating against students with disabilities or the laws would not have become necessary.   When the laws passed and the public education system was ordered to comply, those individuals who had been philosophically opposed to accommodating learners with disabilities were still employed by the public education system, by and large. They didn't all leave. Many stayed and have been sabotaging it from within this entire time. And, they recruit people who are too incompetent to realize they're being used and/or too afraid of losing their jobs to dare question what is really going on, so they can maintain positions of authority and control according to their own fascist belief systems rather than their mandates under the law.   One of the most powerful things to come out of the current state of affairs in this country is the cracks in the publicly funded systems that people like me have been squawking about to no avail for decades, but which can no longer be denied by the masses. As we move forward to rebuild a better America in the wake of the destruction currently happening all around us perpetrated by people with way more authority than they can responsibly handle, it is painfully obvious that we have a disturbingly large swath of the adult population that "pass" as competent adults but who actually are not.   These individuals occupy a great many niches of society, including in the public sector. Their approach to leadership, when they are allowed into offices that require more of them than what they possess, is destructive. It can ruin a child's future through educational malpractice at the local level or fan the flames of a global pandemic and domestic terrorism at the national level until it ravages the entire nation.   These individuals place cronyism over science because they are not smart enough for the science and, frankly, they're not smart enough to cover the tracks of their cronyism. They have simply had the power of money behind them and those without money have had to tolerate their malarkey as a matter of survival. But, now that tolerance doesn't even achieve survival for those without, so they aren't motivated to tolerate the malarkey anymore. Look out Marie; here comes the guillotine.   Society has finally had its fill of incompetent bullies acting like they are better than the rest of us to the detriment of us all and for no other reason than to stroke their own egos and line their own pockets. We have become aware that they are too dimwitted to realize the harm in what they are doing and too selfish to have any sense of compassion or empathy for the people they hurt.   These individuals are emotionally still children, trapped in their bodies for decades without maturing, thinking their chronological age and changing external appearance are all of what earns them respect as adults, and often unable to fully engage in adult-level problem-solving and critical thinking tasks, but able to develop academic and/or professional skills that can otherwise allow them to "pass" as competent.   These are high-functioning individuals with significant impairments in judgment who engage in intuitive rather than deductive reasoning. Intuitive reasoning is age-typical in young children. It's indicative of an impairment in adulthood. It co-occurs with egocentric thought, in which the individual is incapable of engaging in perspective-taking and appreciating the experiences and viewpoints of others.   An egocentric person is the center of their own personal universe. Everyone else is just an object in orbit around them who may or may not serve a useful purpose at times and is only accessed when the egocentric person thinks an individual is useful.   The egocentric person recognizes his/her/their own agency - that is, the ability to act upon the world to produce intentional outcomes - but they struggle to appreciate the agency of others. They tend to only perceive other people relative to their own thoughts and feelings and fail to consider that other people have their own thoughts and feelings that are each different from one person to the next.   Egocentric people tend to assume that whatever they are thinking and feeling is what everybody else is also thinking and feeling, and/or that everyone else's decisions are made with the egocentric person in mind. The egocentric person struggles with perspective-taking, which requires that they first understand the agency of others and that everyone is preoccupied with their own thoughts and feelings, not making the egocentric person the focus of their every decision.   Errors of omission and thoughtless, inconsiderate acts by others are perceived by egocentric people as deliberate efforts to cause harm or offense to the egocentric person. Because egocentric people assume that whatever they want and need is automatically understood by everyone else, which is because they assume everyone else is thinking and feeling the same things they are, if everyone else fails to deliver according to an egocentric person's expectations, the egocentric person attempts to force the desired response to present itself.   Because they lack the emotional intelligence to navigate many types of complex situations involving other people, whatever cognitive abilities they may actually have don't do them much good. They make errors in judgment when it comes to how they interact with other people; how well they can do math, design a building, or research historical biographies just doesn't matter in that moment.   When people like this become employed within the public sector and have to make policy decisions, they are incapable of putting themselves into the shoes of their constituents and engaging in legitimate representation and advocacy for services that meet the of needs of those they have been hired to serve. Because of their egocentrism, the job is a means to a self-serving end. Also because of their social/emotional developmental impairments, their ability to actually engage in adult-level problem-solving as required by their positions is equally limited.   Because they can't actually meet the performance requirements of the job, they find ways to socially engineer their ways to the top, including taking credit for the accomplishments of their subordinates while sycophantically leeching onto the coattails of those who have grifted their way up the food chain before them. They all keep each other's dirty little secrets about not actually being able to do their jobs and abusing their positions of authority to the benefit of the highest bidder, be the currency money, power, or both.   Eventually, an emperor emerges from the mix, some traveling salesmen weave him a in invisible robe from gold thread that, allegedly, can only be seen by competent people, and, as he's parading down the street in this magical garment, a child points out that he's actually just a naked guy played for a fool by a couple of con artists who have since skipped town with a fortune in gold thread. I'm paraphrasing the parable, here, of course.   The problem is that a public institution can become such a hopelessly dysfunctional system that it's really better to take it down the way the Attorney General (AG) of the State of New York is trying to take down the National Rifle Association (NRA), right now. When the corruption runs as deep in a public agency as New York's AG asserts is the case with the NRA, it's better to scrap everything and start over with all new people and a new method of operating that conforms to the appropriate standards.   Sometimes the well becomes so hopelessly poisoned that it's just time to dig a new well. I think America is at that crossroad in a very broad and general sense. We are at the tipping point of a crisis of conscience.   Who do we want to be? The cronyistic incompetents who stab each other in the back over superficial slights, engage in power grabs like reality TV show contestants, and are utterly detached from and incapable of living up to the responsibilities of the job? Or, the hard-working, methodical, responsible adults who understand and are humbled by the responsibilities before us, know that our efforts to do things right will pay off in the long run but we're going to have to struggle in the short term to clean up the messes we've collectively made?   So many people who came before us fought and died so that we could have the freedoms and legal tools to save our democracy, right now. I have been fighting this fight since the 1990s, but I have also lived the reason for this fight as a twice exceptional student who was never identified for any kind of services or accommodations for my processing disorder when I was a K-12 student. During the 1970s and 1980s, when Section 504 and what is now known as the IDEA were new, they were not being implemented by the overwhelming majority of public schools in the United States at the time, and certainly not in Louisiana and Arkansas, where I grew up.   I was briefly put on Ritalin in my early elementary years. But, who wasn't, back then? I was later diagnosed with "minimal brain dysfunction" in junior high as the result of a quest for a reason why I couldn't walk in heels (there was great social pressure on females in the Deep South at the time to wear pumps with everything, including jeans). I had to do physical therapy to stretch out my hamstrings and heel cords from all the years of toe-walking I'd done (which, by the way, toe-walking can be a neurological soft sign of autism).   My vestibular sense and my proprioception were jacked. My reflexes were/are abnormal. I can distinctly remember having visual processing issues that made it such that my brain couldn't piece together what I was looking at to make a picture of the world that made any sense. Abstract shapes would slowly resolve into a singular whole that then made sense, but I can remember having to wait for that visual resolution to occur at the brain level before I could start understanding what was happening around me. My eyes could see, but there was lag time between when I looked at something unfamiliar and my brain was able to put the shapes together in a cohesive way that I could understand. My last recollection of that happening to me was around 8 or 9 years old. I can remember it happening a lot prior to then.   I also had very bad vision, so it could have been that my brain didn't get the requisite practice at piecing together the parts of what I saw into a cohesive whole until I got glasses and could actually see everything clearly. I don't have ADHD; I have ADH - Oooh, shiny! I also have mild hearing loss due to a condition that runs in my family. My dad and many of my cousins have hearing aids. I haven't gotten to that point, yet, but it's coming, eventually and that's okay. Worse things could happen; hearing aides don't ruffle my feathers in the least. I'm just not spending the money until I have to.   The point is that I had a mixed bag of processing issues as a kid that was somewhat offset by my processing speed, but not enough to make me academically successful. I know what it's like to have my potential wasted by people who don't understand my needs as a developing child. The adults in my life cared, but were at a loss as to what to do because the science just wasn't that good or well known at the time, and certainly not where I grew up. They couldn't begin to abide by the relatively new civil rights and special education regulations; the science behind it was way beyond them. They didn't know any of that.   But, that was a long time ago. We don't have those same excuses, now. Adults like me who used to be those struggling students decades ago are everywhere now in public education advocacy, rights, and reform efforts. We know first hand why it's so important for the public education system to engage in person-centered planning for every student, not just those identified as having something "wrong" with them.   We also understand why it is so important to identify those who do have exceptional needs, and meet those needs, so these students have equal access to learning as that given to their peers without exceptional needs. We understand why it is so important to address the disabilities of our twice-exceptional students while simultaneously nurturing their gifts. Last year, Kodi Lee brought the point home to the lay public, which had not had any similar prior exposure to twice-exceptional people, and certainly not one so impactful.   No matter how impaired someone may present, the public learned to never assume that such a person's presentation accurately captures all of who that person is. Kodi humbles people in the kindest, most innocent, and inadvertent way, which is what makes him so powerful. He isn't trying to ram a message down anyone's throat. His existence is the message; he lives it for the rest of us to observe and copy.   Kodi is a powerful living metaphor to not judge a book by its cover, which has been a recurring lesson born over the last few years of these talent competitions happening around the globe that he simply drove home with an exclamation point. The cultural norms surrounding public opinion of people with disabilities have tipped strongly in the direction of inclusion by the display of capability and superior abilities by contestants with a wide variety of impairments in these competitions.   Leave it to the entertainment industry to be the agent of change. If we live in a shallow culture in which life imitates art, then art should model appropriate behavior, such as inclusion. I'll say this for Simon Cowell: he made inclusion marketable and profitable by allowing talented people to be defined by their acomplishments rather than their limitations. At the end of the video clip of Kodi Lee's first audition for America's Got Talent, after winning the Golden Buzzer, the judge who had awarded it to him, Gabrielle Union, told him straight to his face, "You just changed the world!" and she wasn't lying.   This is part of the brave new world that is to come as we rebuild our public education system to meet the needs of today's students in the 21st Century, including the flexibility to rapidly adapt to changing lifestyles, national emergencies, job market demands, and advancing technologies. All of these things will continue to collectively alter how we teach and manage the teaching process according to best practices, and continue to engage in ongoing research to continually improve those processes and their supporting administrative procedures.   Which circles us back around to the issue of stay-put and the recent stay-put order from OAH, linked to above. While the order is limited to California, it is germane to a federal district court case being tried in the Central District of California in which the plaintiffs, which include parents of children with extreme special needs who are not getting the 1:1 in-person services required by their IEPs, are suing the State over school shutdowns and attempting to get a federal court injunction that allows school districts to decide whether to reopen or not.   Not surprisingly, the case originates out of Orange County, California, which has a large extreme right population relative to the rest of the State and is, not coincidentally, also a COVID-19 hotspot within the State. COVID deniers abound and are having a deleterious impact on local governing decisions as they impact public health. For a lawsuit disputing the legality of school shutdowns over a legitimate public health crisis to emerge from this climate is not exactly a shock.   Not also surprising is the rampant special education violations and related scandals that have plagued Orange County for decades. Egocentrism is confused with personal civil liberties, and the welfare of others is beyond comprehension, resulting in extremist beliefs and behaviors. It is not shocking to me that school board members who have been actively violating special education and civil rights law convinced a bunch of parents who they were actively screwing over to join them in a federal lawsuit against the State to force the schools to reopen in order for their kids to access services.   If you read the plaintiffs' complaint compared to the legal authorities I've already cited previously in this post, it's plainly evident that these people don't know what they are doing. I spoke with the State's lead attorney on the case last week and shared the arguments I've now presented in this post with her.   While the judge has yet to decide the case, and, in fact, today is the filing deadline on briefs regarding the exhaustion requirements under the IDEA and the California Department of Justice (CADOJ) is on it, the nature of the questions the judge asked the parties to brief in his last minute order inclines me to believe that once those questions have been answered, we'll have a federal district court decision on the matter that will apply to every school district in California.   The CADOJ's arguments must naturally rely in part on the arguments I've asserted herein. The federal district court judge will likely defer to the OAH stay-put order that was just issued yesterday, given that OAH has the authority to try special education cases and is, therefore, authoritative on how the law applies to the rights of special education students, special education students must exhaust their due process rights through OAH before filing in federal court (generally speaking), and it is proper for the federal court to defer to OAH's judgment, which will mirror the arguments I've been asserting this whole time and which CADOJ will also be asserting. They are aware of yesterday's stay-put order, as well, just in time to meet their filing deadline.   Things are about to get a whole lot more okay for a lot of kids on my caseload. Whether their LEAs capitulate and provide the services or we end up going to hearing with the right kinds of legal authorities backing us up, either way, the rule of law is working slowly but surely and the application of the peer-reviewed research to the delivery of special education, now that reform is unavoidable, is about to enjoy a new era of advancement in the education of all students, not just our students with the most demanding needs.   It's always darkest before the dawn. An extinction burst of escalated behaviors always comes before a maladaptive behavior finally becomes extinct. We are riding out one heck of an extinction burst on the part of incompetent people whose cronyism and transactional relationships have defined their realities and ours, and who cannot function in a more advanced, emotionally intelligent society that is moving increasingly towards meritocracy in which actual ability and earned achievements promote social status. Hucksterism has become obsolete. The Patriarchy is now rightly seen as a pack of egocentric ghoulish caricatures, not as dignified elites worthy of worship by everyone else.   These moments will pass and we will have the power to make something new and better once we get to the other side. This latest stay-put order and, hopefully, the upcoming federal court decision, are incredible first steps in the right direction.

Photo Credit: Mike Cohen  I know that everyone in special education is scrambling to try and make things work during these unprecedented times, but a lot of parents and advocates are struggling to find the language necessary to move things in the right direction and keep entire IEP teams from coming apart at the seams. Our kids who require expert behavioral interventions appear to be losing the most ground.   I want to speak to the families and advocates working with students who have behavioral needs by sharing the language of a communication that I recently had to submit on behalf of one of our families. It's altered, of course, to protect the identity of the student, but I think a lot of parents and advocates may be able to recycle this language to fit their own situations.   Because so many families are in this same boat without an oar, we all need to share resources with each other so that we can be effective IEP team members. It shouldn't be on us to keep school district people from spinning out, but humans are humans regardless of who employs them and, particularly if you're a parent dealing with this on behalf of your kid, it in the best interests of your child to be the anchor that keeps the rest of the IEP team from drifting off course.   Just to put things into perspective, this student is in a Special Day Class (SDC) with embedded mental health and behavioral supports, including a Positive Behavioral Intervention Plan (PBIP) in his IEP that identifies his target behaviors as: Refusing to follow staff directions by either not responding, putting his head down, making statements such as "this is stupid," "why do I have to do this?" or engaging in a different activity. Not surprisingly, this is what he is now doing at home during his school closure instead of participating in the online instruction.   Below is a copy of the email exchange that includes the language you can hopefully repurpose if you are having to argue similar points on behalf of your own children or clients. The first bit is an email that the parent and I received from the student's special education teacher/case manager. The second bit is the reply I sent, which has now been forwarded to the district's main office and we're awaiting Prior Written Notice (PWN).   For more information about PWN, please see the ad-free early release of our informative Quick Fix video on Patreon by clicking here. This video will be released on YouTube for free, but with ads, in a couple of weeks and run for 30 days on YouTube before retiring to our Quick Fix Video Archive on Patreon, but for the $2.99 monthly pledge to our Quick Fix Video Archive on Patreon, you have immediate and indefinite ad-free access to that information plus all of our other Quick Fix Videos.   Because we've already published content on PWN, I'm not going to belabor it, here. I'm just going to get right into these emails and the language I hope at least some of you are able to repurpose and tweak to your own situations.   So, here is the email that I and the parent received:   Good morning, I hope ALL is well and you guys are staying safe and well. I was hoping you could help me with [Student's] participation in our weekly Google Meets. He declined the meeting again for tomorrow   I really need to speak with him at least once a week. Thank you VERY much for your help. Be Well, [Case Manager]   Now, here is what I wrote in response:   [Case Manager], We would appreciate the District's help with this, as well.  Behavior modification is supposed to be embedded in [Student's] specialized instruction as part of his placement, but that component is not being implemented in the home and no one who lives there is specifically trained, credentialed, or certified in the necessary expert disciplines.  The District is responsible for FAPE, even now.  The fact that [Student] is not receiving the behavioral interventions necessary to afford him equal access to education as that given to his peers without disabilities is directly reflected by his refusal behaviors in the absence of his social/emotional and behavioral supports from his SDC. The parent is not in any position to implement an expert level of positive behavioral interventions to facilitate [Student's] participation on her own.  She is relying on the public agency funded by the taxpayers to deliver these interventions under a federal mandate to provide him with a FAPE, that being the District, to come up with these solutions.  The parent requests an offer of appropriate behavioral interventions as part of a prospective offer of FAPE that addresses these immediate concerns or an offer of compensatory services that will be provided to remediate this behavioral and academic regression once school starts back in the Fall and the campuses are re-opened. We understand that these are difficult times, but regardless of the difficulties, [Student] still has a legal right to a FAPE and he isn't getting it.  You asking his mother for help to facilitate his compliance with online learning given his unique circumstances inclines us to worry that the District doesn't know what to do and is grasping at straws.  Any IEP team member that actually understands the complexity of [Student's] needs would already know that [Student] requires supports beyond what an average lay person would know to provide. While [Student's] mother absolutely wants to be part of the solution, she cannot be expected to deliver any kind of home instruction on par with what [Student] was previously receiving in the SDC, which was a step down in restrictiveness from his previous placement, and in which he had been participating for only a few months before the campuses all shut down.  There is an overtly apparent need for an increased level of support to [Student] in the immediate present to avert significant behavioral and academic regression during the shut-down.   The lack of an appropriate response from the District right now will create a significant compensatory education claim that [Student's] family will have to pursue in order to make him as whole as possible.  We're not looking for a lawsuit, but if that is the only procedural mechanism the family has left to protect [Student], I will refer them to a qualified attorney.  It is the District's burden to offer and render a FAPE.  We remain ready to collaborate with the rest of the IEP team to come up with an appropriate solution, here, and avoid the need to involve attorneys.  We would much rather sort this out than have to litigate.  We want to see [Student] appropriately served as quickly as possible. [Student's] family will participate in IEP implementation during the shut-down to the degree they are able, with the full understanding that they do not have the training, experience, or professional expertise needed to competently support [Student] behaviorally and academically at home on their own.  If his mother tells you that something that needs to be done is something they cannot do, they will expect the District to propose viable solutions to each such task.   [Student] continues to require the expert services from which he was previously benefitting in the SDC and the effects of the absence of those expert services is apparent to all of us.  We understand that these difficult times call for out-of-the-box thinking.  So long as there is a viable plan for how to deal with this situation in place, whether it's through the immediate increase and/or modification of how current IEP services are provided, a plan for compensatory services upon the campus reopening, or a hybrid combination of these two options, the family can trust that everything will come out okay in the end, but we can't leave things so open-ended.  That lack of predictability is part of what is causing [Student] to experience increased school-related anxiety and avoidance behaviors.   The District has a legal obligation to make a firm offer of FAPE based on [Student's] present levels of performance in the immediate moment, as well as plan ahead for the next 12 months via the IEP process.  We're not asking for anything other than what the regulations already promise and we're willing to be creative about how we achieve that as an IEP team given the unique circumstances.  We await the District's PWN in response to the request made herein. Kindest regards, Anne M. Zachry, M.A. Ed. Psych.   So, there you have it. What I see in all of this is a case manager who hasn't been given the tools and authority to do what needs to be done. I'm not frustrated with the case manager. I feel bad for him because he's being expected to somehow pull this off without the support of his employer.   I wish I had the PWN to include, here, because I think it would be equally informative. That may become a future post topic. In the meantime, if you think you can recycle this language to create your own request letter to address similar issues with your own children or clients, please feel free. It isn't the work product of an attorney and I'm not putting this out there as formal legal advice. It's just a tool that might be useful to some people, but if it helps even one family, it's worth sharing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/04/28/betsy-devos-gets-mixed-reaction-decision-leave-intact-law-educating-students-with-disabilities-during-pandemic/   It's now official: There will be no waivers of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) during any time of sheltering-in-place and resultant school closures. Thanks to the efforts of many people, most notably the Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys (COPAA), a national non-profit professional and volunteer organization of advocates and attorneys, working with the United States Department of Education, (USDOE), Secretary Betsy De Vos determined that no part of the IDEA should be waived at this time.   This is important because it's no secret that most students, just in general, are going to regress in their learning because of the sudden school closures, putting them behind relative to the grade-level standards. Special education students are even more vulnerable to regression, but only special education students have a legal right to assert demands for compensatory education to make up for regression.   This suddenly creates inequity in favor of the special education students with respect to compensatory education, when is an unexpected turnabout. It's usually the other way around that the general education students have advantages over the special education students. What was originally meant to level the playing field for kids with special needs has now become an unfair advantage over the general education students with no enforceable right to compensatory education. That's something that needs to be addressed and rectified.   The degree to which a court may reduce the amount of compensatory education due to a special education student in light of the need for sheltering in place remains to be seen. In my lay opinion, there is an obvious need for some leniency. None of this was within any public education agency's control and its commendable how so many educators stepped up their game during this crisis and continue to give us their best.   There is no way I could possibly diminish from that. It moves me in my heart and gives me faith that we can all somehow pull it together for all of our students, regardless of how each of them learns, if we all just collectively put forth the effort.   There is also the matter of the “snapshot rule.” In special education litigation, it is commonly known among attorneys and paralegals that an IEP cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. It has to be judged according to what was known or should have been known during the time at issue. This requires the trier of fact to look at the period at issue as a “snapshot” of what was known or should have been known during that time.   Given the unprecedented unique nature of the sudden school closures, and the pre-existing lack of a contingency plan in the event of something like it, what was known or should have been known by public school officials will require an unprecedented degree of scrutiny. This is because unforgivable errors are being, and will continue to be, hidden among the forgivable ones, and a few bad apples are already seeking to exploit the situation to get away with things for which they would otherwise normally be more likely to get caught.   So, how the law will be applied to the facts in the months and years to come ahead is something only time will tell. Given how conservative our Supreme Court has become, there is still cause for concern as to how the law will be enforced. The innovations that are happening around the country in response to campus closures are inspiring and shaping our understanding of what is realistically practicable.   This is important because the federal regulations require the public schools to deliver special education according to the peer-reviewed science to the degree that it is practicable to do so. Those who are innovating in public education, right now, are establishing the education community's professional standards with respect to practicability in many regards.   In the effort to determine what was reasonable, given what was known or should have been known in light of the evidence, the innovations being reported around the country by clever educators should have shown up in the research of any educator searching the internet for solutions. This goes to what should have been known.   I am the last person to advocate for litigation unless there is just no other way to resolve the problem. I'm thinking about these things from a preventative standpoint, considering the consequences of what will happen if IEP teams don't work together to figure things out, now. I am trying to think ahead and consider what can be done to prevent worst-case scenarios.   My motivation is envisioning what the worst-case scenarios would look like. That prompts me to consider what would have to go wrong to arrive at those outcomes, then backwards-chain the process to basically reverse engineer it and come up with preventative strategies that will hopefully steer things in a better direction. So, I don't want to be all doom and gloom, here.   I am happy to celebrate the champions in all of this, but we still have a lot of work to do. Everything we do right now to prevent regression will be heartache we spare everyone in the near future when school starts back up, again, in the Fall. I want to encourage everyone impacted by school closures to do everything they can to prevent educational regression in their students.   The generational Cohort Effect of this pandemic will be something that affects our species for generations to come. How history remembers our responses to these sudden changes in our world depends on our collective decisions in the present.   We're going to have children who have lived in trauma for one reason or another throughout this period who will be re-entering our school system in need of supports that they would have not otherwise needed. Our kids already in the special education system are going to have more demanding needs upon their return. The more wisdom we can exercise today, the less regret we will have tomorrow.

  Photo Credit: Dan Gaken   One of the many populations of individuals directly negatively impacted by the current quarantine is the special education population. Among those students are those whose impairments are significant enough that any significant disruption in their school routines will cause them to regress, which is to lose learning they had previously acquired.   Regression happens for students such as these during lengthy breaks, like summer, which is why we give them Extended School Year (ESY). By extending the school year through periods of normal breaks, we prevent them from losing ground. When kids regress from disrupted instruction, once the instruction resumes, that time has to be spent on recoupment, which means re-teaching what was forgotten. That means time spent re-teaching previously known information instead of adding onto it with new information. For kids already behind in the first place, this puts them even further behind.   Compensatory education can be used to make up for regression and can take different forms. Sometimes its intensive services over a summer break so the student is where they should have been by the time school starts back in the fall. Other times, it's supplemental services being provided outside of the regular school day in addition to the instruction being provided during school, though that can be pretty tough on a lot of kids. Sometimes, it takes putting the student into a more restrictive, but more intensive instructional placement for a period of time so they can catch up in their learning before being returned to the public school setting with services in place that will prevent them from regressing again.   Compensatory services can be provided in other contexts, as well, regardless of whether regression has occurred or not. When families find it necessary to take their Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to due process to achieve remedies for the deprivation of educational benefits, compensatory education is the likely remedy, though the form it takes varies from case to case.   From a procedural standpoint, if an IEP calls for a specified number of service minutes for a particular intervention and not all of those services minutes are provided as they should be, a minute-for-minute compensatory remedy is due simply as a matter of procedure. The regulatory procedures require that IEPs be implemented as written and, if they aren't, whatever services that weren't provided according to their mandatory statements of frequency and duration remain due to the student.   An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a legally binding contract that obligates LEAs to deliver on it as written, so if they don't, they have to make up the services minutes to which they committed themselves as described by the affected student's IEP. When compensatory minutes are ordered following a state-level compliance complaint or due process case on the basis of procedural violations, the compensatory services are minute-for-minute as described by the IEP because the number of service minutes the student should have received are documented in the IEP, which the LEA is legally obligated to implement as written as a matter of procedure.   However, compensatory education can also be ordered by a judge in due process on the basis of substantively inadequate IEPs. In such instances, a student's IEP does not contain services that it should, so they can't be enforced as a matter of procedure. When necessary services are left out of an IEP such that the student suffers a deprivation of educational benefit, or when services in the IEP are not delivered as the result of a procedural violation and the student then regresses, now you're talking about substantive harm.   Failing to follow the rules and owing something previously promised is one thing, but causing further loss of learning by failing to implement the IEP as written such that regression occurs is a much bigger issue. Failing to teach necessary instruction because it was left out of the IEP is just as big of an issue, if not bigger.   When special education students are deprived of educational benefits by their LEAs, how much of what kind of services they get to make up for those deprivations has to be figured out on a case-by-case basis. Judges rely on expert testimony and evidence, usually assessment reports, to figure things out when these cases go to hearing. How well a student's attorney argues the case has a lot to do with how much compensatory education that student will get for any sustained allegations of substantive harm.   Those are the basics of how and when compensatory education can be ordered. Compensatory education can also be negotiated as conditions of settlement to prevent any kind of regulatory and/or judicial intervention. I've even had situations in which procedurally owed compensatory service minutes are written into IEPs at IEP meetings without lawyers and lawsuits even coming up in the conversation. This latter action has usually occurred when there was a temporary lack of a qualified provider and the service minutes had to be made up once the position was filled.   All of this is based on how things were before the quarantine and, at least for right now, no waivers of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have been authorized by Congress. Parents and educators are still waiting to find out if any waivers will be passed in the near future (sign our petition to ask Congress to not authorize waivers), but for now, the law still stands as it always has.   Any child whose IEP is not currently being implemented as written, right now, is going to be owed compensatory minutes purely on the basis of procedure. If a kid's IEP calls for 30 minutes per week of speech/language services and that kid has been in quarantine for six weeks without those services, that kid is now due 180 minutes of back-due speech/language minutes, and that number will continue to grow for so long as that kid continues to go without those speech/language services.   Dealing with procedurally required compensatory services along these lines is going to be burdensome enough on LEAs after people adjust to quarantine and new ways of doing things are put into place, as well as once the quarantine is over. Both state and federal education agency officials have already started talking about how they're going to tackle that.   Dealing with kids who are due compensatory remedy because they were deprived of educational benefits during quarantine because necessary services weren't in their IEPs in the first place and/or they regressed in the absence of services that were written into their IEPs but not provided, is going to be a whole other thing that is likely to burden our due process mechanisms and take money out of the classroom, virtual or otherwise, to pay lawyers. The substantive compensatory education claims are going to be significant and the reality is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.   Compensatory remedies are never as effective as the instruction students receive as a matter of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). For one thing, IEPs are based on present levels of performance when they are written. Those present levels establish where the student was performing at the time the IEP was written and the IEP goals target learning outcomes for a year down the road, relative to the baselines established by the present levels.   When kids regress from lack of instruction, their present levels of performance move backwards, not forwards. When kids fail to learn for lack of appropriate IEP goals and, thus, a lack of appropriate IEP services, further deficits are induced on top of the deficits that were already there as a result of their disability. When these same kids sit at home not getting appropriate special education, they fall further behind and no amount of compensatory services will ever restore them to where they should have been had their services been appropriately provided in the first place.   Many special education students were facing IEP implementation failures and/or poorly constructed IEPs before the quarantine. Now, many more are joining them in the "Deprivation of Educational Benefits Club," as they sit at home without adequate services to see their IEP goals met and/or without adequate IEP goals to drive the provision of necessary services. Further, because their learning environments have dramatically changed, many of these children now have new needs specific to learning at home that are not addressed by their IEPs.   Behaviors in response to parents' attempts at instruction top the list. Parents without any kind of training in delivering specialized instruction are attempting to nonetheless do so without the support of behaviorists that would otherwise be provided to credentialed special education teachers. Most parents give up in exasperation because they have to decide between the lesser of two evils: behavioral regression or academic regression.   Recoupment of academics is usually a lot easier to achieve than remediating a big behavior problem. Remediating a behavior problem requires the student to unlearn maladaptive strategies and replace them with adaptive ones that have to be taught.   Remedial academics just involves new learning; kids generally don't have to unlearn something inaccurate, first. At worst, they'll have to be retaught something they learned previously but forgot, before they can pick up with new stuff, again.   Parents who have the means, right now, are working their health insurance to get online speech/language services, consultations with specialists like Occupational Therapists (OTs), and online social skills groups. They are paying out of pocket for online tutors and classes to give their kids some kind of academic routine. Many of those out-of-pocket costs are going to be recoverable as a matter of compensatory education.   There are two ways that compensatory education gets funded:   If it is agreed-to or ordered first, it is provided thereafter at the expense of the LEA. Either the LEA pays for it directly or the parents pay for it and the LEA reimburses them, as agreed to by the parties or as ordered by the judge in due process. If it is not agreed-to or ordered first, parents pay out of pocket for the services, then request reimbursement after the fact. If that's the case, either their LEA will agree to reimburse them, usually via a confidential settlement agreement, or the parents will have to file for due process and prove to a judge that they had to pay out-of-pocket for the services because the LEA failed to provide them, they were educationally necessary, and their child would have likely regressed or otherwise been denied a FAPE without them.   That's something that some families should seriously think about, right now. Not everyone is out of work. Not everyone is without resources. If savings or lines of credit can be used to provide services in the home, now, while waiting for the local LEA to get its act together, parents can sit on their reimbursement claims until the dust settles. Due process claims come with a two-year statute of limitations. A denial of a FAPE that began on March 1, 2020 will remain viable until February 28, 2022, for example.   Families that have the means to privately fund what their children with special education needs are not currently getting should do so just because it needs to be done, regardless of whether they can recover those monies from their local LEAs or not. But, because the taxpaying public has already paid the LEAs to render a FAPE but they aren't, parents should still keep their receipts in case they are able to recover their out-of-pocket later. The focus should be on keeping your kids moving forward in their learning and preventing regression. You can worry about the money later, given that you've got two years to act on your reimbursement claims.   However, for families that do not have the means to pay out-of-pocket for now, there is a tremendous need for immediate intervention. As LEAs scramble to come up with solutions, one that seems obvious to me but which might not occur to others is to open up the provision of related services by private providers that are not currently licensed as Non-Public Agencies (NPAs).   There are more qualified providers that are not licensed as NPAs than there are providers that are licensed as such. The barriers to entry into the NPA arena are ridiculous and multitudinous, plus they get paid at Medicaid rates, which is usually less than what it costs to deliver the services, so providers can't keep their doors open by operating as NPAs.   Most NPAs are also set up to do business with other agencies and private insurance, which offsets the shortfall created by their NPA business. In many states, becoming an NPA is more of a marketing expense to get the agency's name out there in front of people, build up a trusted reputation as a provider, and then dump the NPA status to carry on with private insurance and other agency contracts in exchange for payments that actually keep their doors open.   While NPA licensing requirements may have been created to keep the sketchy people out, they actually achieve keeping most of the really good people out, too. Now is the time to reform that process so that we have more providers that can reach into the homes via whatever safe means possible of the special education students who are currently being denied a FAPE and regressing at this very moment.   In-person services can be provided with adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and safety protocols. Not every special education student is able access instruction online. Those who can, should, but that still takes a lot of skill and expertise to facilitate. When you've got a kid at home with a parent refusing to participate and no in-home behavioral services to facilitate their participation, the parent sits there helpless as the parent/child relationship suffers and no learning occurs.   By relaxing the NPA licensing rules and letting non-NPA providers that are otherwise qualified with the proper professional certifications, such as Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) and OTs who are medically certified, a great many students can still receive services at home who otherwise wouldn't due to LEA staffing limitations.   The goals that were determined to be educationally necessary by each child's respective IEP team are still educationally necessary. The services determined necessary to see those goals met in a year's time are still necessary.   The only thing that has changed is placement, and now IEP teams need to figure out how to deliver services in the current placement such that the goals are still met. This is the same line of inquiry every IEP team has to pursue when normally making placement decisions. Placement is driven by what learning environment is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in which the services can be delivered such that the goals are met. That's best practices according to educational science, plus it's the law.   Now that placement changes have been forced on everyone because of quarantine, it's time to back up the conversation to that point, again, where services necessary to see the goals met in the current placement have to be identified. That said, new goals may actually be needed to address how the student functions in the home learning environment. New evaluations may be needed to inform what those goals should look like.   One thing is certainly clear from all of this: the next time the IDEA gets reauthorized, it will need to include language that describes how it will be implemented during a national crisis. The absence of any such language automatically puts LEAs out of compliance when disaster hits, which benefits no one; leaves students stranded without a contingency plan, deprived of a FAPE and actively regressing with each passing day; and creates compensatory education claims that will become a greater burden on the public education system than serving these students appropriately during a crisis in the first place.

    As much as special education in general is all up in the air in most quarantined school districts, with unlawful conduct being perpetrated by school officials who have never believed in the IDEA seeing this as an opportunity to get rid of its obligations while still collecting federal special education dollars, there is a subpopulation within special education that is even more affected by this than others. That subpopulation is made up of the students whose educational and civil rights were already being violated by their local education agencies (LEAs) prior to the quarantine.   There is huge debate going on right now about Betsy DeVos, the Trump Administration's appointed Secretary of Education, and the waiver power she does and does not have under the law to exempt school districts from delivering a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to students with disabilities. Congress has now asked her to testify as to what parts of the IDEA she thinks needs to be waived and we don't know how it will vote on the matter.   More and more comes out on this topic each day. The Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys (COPAA), the national nonprofit professional organization that advocates and, where necessary, litigates on a national level on topics like these has published its own policy statement about the current situation, which can be found on the COPAA website.   Currently, there are no waivers of the IDEA in place. The only exemption right now is that LEAs that are not providing distance learning options to their general education students don't have to provide education to their special education students, either. Until there are actual Congressionally approved waivers, nothing has changed with respect to implementing the IDEA for those special education students served by LEAs that are currently providing distance learning to their general education students.   Nonetheless, I have four families with students in one particular school district that is currently providing distance learning to its general education students and something half-baked in terms of online options for its special education students. All four of these families received generic Prior Written Notices (PWNs) over this last weekend advising that it's impossible to implement IEPs under the current circumstances, even though it very often is possible and the administrator sending these things out has a decades-long history of throwing money at lawyers to defend her decisions instead of actual services for students. Three of those families already have due process cases filed or about to be filed.   Just like everything in special education, PWNs are supposed to be individualized to each student, but she sent the same PWN to the families of everybody in her district in special education, telling them all that implementing their IEPs under the circumstances is impossible with no examination of each student's unique, individual situations. She may have finally dug herself into a hole that she can't get back out of.   This administrator made unilateral decisions on behalf of her district outside of the IEP process during a time when the IDEA has not been waived in any kind of way, in part or in whole. It's a systemic violation of the law memorialized in writing on district letterhead to the family of every special education student in her district. She may have well just created a class action lawsuit against her employer.   Children with disabilities from low-income, single parent, immigrant, and non-white households were already getting the short end of the stick when it comes to special education. Being white and affluent doesn't necessarily protect you, but it does increase your odds of avoiding at least some FAPE violations.   That said, the aforementioned administrator sending out PWNs that break the law on her employer's behalf worked most of her career for an affluent school district where the only way to get a decent IEP was to sue the crap out of her district. Her department would play to the egos of affluent parents and tell them special education was a welfare service and they would be better off privately paying for services, thereby collecting federal IDEA dollars without actually having to spend them on services.   Now she's working for a district in an economically depressed community with a largely Latino population and is preying on low-income, non-English speaking, families of color. Maybe she thinks they aren't going to stand up to her taking advantage of the pandemic to bring in IDEA dollars without having to deliver on IDEA obligations. She's wrong.   I already had cases that were pending due process on my caseload when this pandemic hit. The students involved in those cases were already being under-served, if served at all, and now they're sitting at home with even more nothing. One student's parent has an elderly parent in a nursing home she can't visit and is working from home (or at least trying to) while her adult autistic child who is still eligible for special education has one meltdown after another because of the sudden disruption in routine and her inability to go out and do anything (trips into the community were being used as reinforcers as part of her behavior program, as well as community-based instructional opportunities, before all of this hit).   This parent is understandably furious. All that she's gotten so far from her daughter's teachers is a useless Google classroom link that takes her to a page full of nothing to do with her daughter's IEP goals. And, while her daughter's IEP makes clear that she requires "highly trained staff" to meet her goals, all she's got right now is her frustrated mom and useless downloaded worksheets that her mother doesn't know how to teach to her and she doesn't know how to complete. There is no support from the teaching staffs to help this parent engage her daughter in the distance learning option, such as it is, that they've been given.   This student is from the same district mentioned above that is sending unlawful F-You letters on PWN forms to its special education families. I have three other students in this district, two of them already with litigation pending for violations that occurred before the quarantine. They were already being denied a FAPE before quarantine, and they sure as hell aren't getting a FAPE now.   I've already written about the impact of the quarantine on special education before to some extent, but I want to hammer a particular point once again: Many special education students are at risk of significant regression, which is the loss of previously learned knowledge and skills, during lengthy breaks from instruction. These students are eligible for Extended School Year (ESY) services for this very reason; summer breaks, and sometimes winter breaks, are just too long for them to go without services or they have to make up for lost ground once they return to school, which makes them unavailable for learning anything new.   The impact of the current situation on these students in particular stands to compound an already egregious denial of FAPE. If they were already being denied a FAPE before this all happened, additional regression on top of that will create deficits that will never be overcome.   As of right now, no IDEA waivers have been permitted. Congress is waiting for Mrs. DeVos to tell it what waivers she wants to push through in response to the pandemic and mass quarantines. There is significant fear that the waivers Mrs. DeVos will request will include exemptions from implementing all or part of the IDEA.   The consequences to students if Mrs. DeVos is successful in getting IDEA waivers are obvious. What is not quite so obvious is what becomes of federal special education dollars to school districts if she manages to get any or all of the IDEA waived. While some school districts may be ready to embrace reduced duty and accountability, do they realize that IDEA dollars are tied to complying with the law? Does Mrs. DeVos intend to use IDEA waivers to not only reduce accountability for the public schools, but to also reduce their special education funding? How many school districts are willing to walk away from special education dollars in order to get out of having to implement IEPs?   Parents of children with disabilities, their extended families, their friends, and any taxpayers who otherwise get it need to act on this right now. You need to reach out to your representatives in Congress to tell them that any IDEA waivers are unacceptable. There is a way to deliver a FAPE to most special education students right now; it just takes cleverness and ingenuity, things most government agencies are not particularly known for. Clever problem-solving is generally unaccepted in institutions built on political corruption.   So, here's your call to action: Contact your Congressional representatives and tell them that no IDEA waivers are acceptable or necessary. Look up your Senators here, and your Representatives here. You can also use our easy-to-use form letter generator or sign our online petition. If you are listening to this as a podcast rather than reading it as a blog, you can find the links in the text-only portion of this post.   It shouldn't be necessary to have to fight to keep civil and educational rights in place for our nation's children, but it is. Many LEAs are pushing compulsory education laws by threatening families with truancy proceedings if they don't participate in distance learning options, but then are looking for any and all excuses to not actually deliver a real education, particularly to their special education students.   These distance learning options are all about keeping those Average Daily Attendance dollars coming in, I assure you. LEAs can't live without that money and its based on attendance, which is why they are threatening to criminally prosecute parents who don't implement their half-assed distance learning options for truancy. But, to actually deliver a real education in exchange for those dollars seems too much to ask, and it's a thousand times worse for students with special needs.   It may quickly become the case that the only way for families of special education students to protect themselves against unjustified truancy charges, which are tried by local superior court judges who know nothing about how special education is actually supposed to be delivered, is to file for due process and make the record that the education being offered to those special education students during quarantine is inappropriate to their needs and they are unable to access learning as a result.   Parents should not feel forced to make their kids do something that will not help or just make things worse out of fear of being criminally prosecuted for truancy if they don't. The sad reality, however, is that so long as they log or call in every day to whatever distance learning platform has been made available to them, even if their kids aren't learning anything, they will not be prosecuted for truancy because those logs will be used as proof of attendance so schools can get their Average Daily Attendance dollars. That still does nothing to ensure their receipt of a FAPE, though.   Now is the time to reach out to advocates and attorneys if your child with special education needs isn't getting appropriate instruction and related services while sheltering in place. You can find people to help you by searching online for “special education advocates near me” and “special education attorneys near me.”   Just be careful of the con artists out there, though. There are lawyers who will claim to represent families but then cut backroom deals with the attorneys representing the LEAs in which they convince the family to sign settlement agreements that short-changes their kids and eliminates their claims against the LEAs. There are also lay advocates who mean well, but don't know the applicable science or law.   You should be leery of lawyers who have been in practice for years but have no litigation history. If they could actually litigate, they'd do it. But, if they can't, they'll get a few thousands dollars in fees for selling out their clients via backroom deals cut with school district lawyers and administrators. There are sleazy people on both sides, so parents do have to be choosy about who represents them.   Your state should have some kind of online database of due process decisions that you can search by an attorney's name. If no due process decisions come up with that attorney's name, and they've been in practice for years, that's a red flag. If you search the decisions by attorney name and the results produce only cases that the attorney has lost, that's another kind of red flag.   The good lawyers' caseloads already get impacted by this time of the school year, but this situation just takes it to a whole different level, so parents should find someone fast if they think they even might need the help. One source that helps parents find advocates and attorneys is COPAA. It has guidelines to parents for choosing a special education attorney and/or advocate, as well as a searchable directory of COPAA members by location.   You will note that I am not listed. I am not a COPAA member and with good reason. As much as I appreciate what COPAA does on a national level, particularly with respect to its amicus briefs, it has no membership options for paralegals. This isn't about bashing COPAA because there are things about it that I genuinely love, but there's also things about it that I find wholly unacceptable.   I'm speaking to my truth, not disparaging an organization that I am, here, deliberately telling parents they should check out as a valuable resource. My issues with COPAA are mine, but I'm sharing them here for the benefit of those who search the database I've referred them to, don't find me on it, and wonder why.   If I go to the COPAA conferences, I can only attend the workshops for parents and other advocates, where I spend the whole time either biting my tongue or correcting the presenters because they're disseminating misinformation, and I never learn anything I didn't already know. I'm not allowed to attend any of the attorney sessions, even though I totally could use the MCLEs for my paralegal status.   I can't even subscribe to the COPAA listserv for attorneys, even when it contains information that would benefit my supervising attorneys for me to have access to it. My supervising attorneys are not even allowed to share it with me, even if it pertains to a task they are delegating to me. Until COPAA makes a space for me and people who work in the profession as I do, I can't justify the expense of a COPAA membership or its conferences.   Besides, when I've gone to the conferences, I've walked through the tables and booths between sessions and, every year, there sits a table set up by a non-public school that broke one of my student's arms during an unlawful restraint several years ago. When this issue was raised with COPAA the first time I saw this bunch at a conference, they ignored my supervising attorney on that case and continued to take money from these child abusers for the table space each year after that. I'm not okay with that.   Given the poor instruction options available to me at the COPAA conferences, the presence of known child abusers at the conferences, and the overwhelming evidence I've observed that far too many people only attend it so they can drink to excess and cheat on their spouses for a week, I don't find the COPAA conferences worth the thousands of dollars in fees, hotel and travel costs, and lost billable time to be worth it. Plus, they hold it in the middle of the busiest time of the school year, which makes no sense at all. I've always got way too much work happening when the conferences are held to attend, anyway.   So, while I don't have a high opinion of the COPAA conferences, I have a very high opinion of the brilliant legal minds that write COPAA's amicus briefs and I've agreed with every one of them I've ever read 100%. Nothing is perfect and COPAA is a good resource for many. The actual work COPAA does, aside from its annual conferences, is stellar and I can look past the conferences for the sake of the bigger picture, which is legally protecting children with disabilities from educational and civil rights violations.   COPAA has taken on the U.S. Department of Education with bold, accurate words in legal proceedings that make my heart want to burst with pride in our profession. That's what matters to me about what COPAA does. That is, in my opinion, the most important thing COPAA does.   If you are looking for an attorney or advocate, the COPAA membership directory can be a good resource for many parents. Just know that there are a lot of other professionals out there who are really good at their jobs who are not members, there are members who aren't that good at their jobs, and there a non-members who haven't signed up because they're crooked and don't want to get caught by those of us who are doing this work for the right reasons. Like everything else in life, it's a mixed bag.   Being on the COPAA membership directory doesn't automatically mean someone is good and not being on it doesn't mean someone is bad. It's just a list of people who work in this field and pay membership fees to COPAA, but it's the only national directory of advocates and attorneys that I know of and it's foolish to not regard it as a valuable resource. Just take it for what it is and don't think that hiring a COPAA member automatically means you don't have to put much thought into it.   As I stated before, the membership directory page includes links to COPAA's guidelines for finding a qualified attorney or advocate, which is pretty sound advice. Regardless of whether an advocate or attorney is a COPAA member or not, COPAA's guidance as to how to vet attorneys and advocates is still good.   If you are the parent of a child with special needs who is not receiving a FAPE while in quarantine and your LEA is providing alternative learning options to its general education students, as of the time of this writing, there are no waivers of any part of the IDEA and it is still fully in force. This isn't about kicking your LEA while it's down; this is about protecting your child from being kicked by his/her LEA while your child is down. LEAs have millions apiece of taxpayer dollars intended to pay for the education of our children and that damn sure better be what it's spent on, regardless of the situation.   Students who were already being denied a FAPE before the pandemic are now further compromised. How this is going to play out in litigation remains to be seen. If the rule of law is followed, there are no exceptions to providing a FAPE right now. Any FAPE violations that were already going on before quarantine have not been made better by it and families in those situations very likely need to consult with a qualified special education attorney sooner rather than later, if they haven't already.   This is a difficult time for everyone, but the true measure of a society's health is how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members during times of crisis. While some fascist LEA administrators may see this as an opportunity to finally carry out their bigoted agendas and terminate special education like they've been wanting to since 1975, those of us who still prefer democracy to fascism have to stand up and enforce the laws that have been part of the fabric of our country for the last 45 years.   As soon as one civil rights law falls, all the rest of them fall, the tenuous thread that our democracy is holding onto right now will snap, and we will find ourselves suddenly living in a real oligarchic regime. The moment it becomes okay to violate the civil and educational rights of children with disabilities, it will become okay to violate everyone else's rights, too. Every protected class – women, minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, low-income families, single-parent households, etc. – will lose rights one by one thereafter until no one has freedom anymore, except the wealthy oligarchs.   While I am focused on the individual needs of the children and families involved, I can't help but appreciate the over-arching ramifications for democracy at large. We protect everyone's rights, or we protect no one's. True democracy means everyone is equal, including special education students.   And, regardless of whether IDEA waivers get approved, no one is contemplating waivers of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If the IDEA is no longer enforceable, those laws still are and Betsy DeVos has no control over them. So, if she manages to get IDEA waivers passed by Congress, families will still have recourse under 504 and the ADA, which can have harsher ramifications than the IDEA on LEAs.   The IDEA diminishes “equal access to education” but expects no expense to be spared in the pursuit of that watered down version of equal access; the ADA says “equal access” must be 100% equal, unless it creates an undue burden on the responsible party, which it has to prove. We've not had civil rights litigation under 504 or the ADA since either of them passed that sets a precedent for what we're dealing with right now, but I can promise you that what special education students are getting at home during quarantine doesn't come close to equal access to education as that being given to their non-disabled peers.   These are uncharted waters and only time will tell how this is going to play out, but it's up to those of us who do this work and the families we serve to do everything we can to protect our children with special needs. Please contact your Senators and Representatives, tell them that no IDEA waivers should be granted, and let's all keep the pressure on until we have an answer. In the meantime, nothing has changed and the law is still enforceable, so we need to enforce it.   While many courts have moved to a work-from-home model (I recently watched a federal court trial in which Google was accused of aiding and abetting the Taliban that allowed me to see into the homes of three federal court judges and the Plaintiffs' attorney), some state special education hearing offices have closed down, ceased operations except to issue continuances and stays, and are accruing a backlog during quarantine that is going to explode with new cases from all the FAPE claims arising from school district misconduct currently going on. Parents may need to use this time to find an attorney, start organizing their evidence, and file to preserve their timelines, even if they aren't going to get in front of a judge right away.   For families that were already facing due process before the quarantine, if their states are operating their complaints and due process hearings according to a work-from-home model, which Texas is doing, then there should be some kind of mitigation in place to prevent that huge of a backlog. If three federal court judges on a panel can hold a trial to determine if Google was complicit in the Taliban's use of its technologies to engage in acts of terrorism from their homes, special education due process cases can be tried the same way.   If you have a due process case that was pending before the quarantine, then you've likely already been communicating with your attorney about what is going on. If you haven't, yet, do it now. You need your attorney looking into what due process mechanisms remain intact in your state and what the procedures currently are. Any competent attorney will have already done this, but may be so overwhelmed by the sudden explosion of casework that is starting to happen that they haven't had a chance to talk with you about it, yet. Don't overwhelm them by stalker dialing ever 5 minutes, but do reach out and make an appointment to discuss how all of this impacts your case.   There is never a good time to participate in litigation. For most parents, "litigation" and "good time" generally don't go together. But, this is definitely a worse time to be pursuing due process in a system that was already glutted with cases. The sooner you act, the better.

    During these unprecedented times of both urgency and delay, I'm finding that the ways in which I share relevant information with our audiences depends on the nature of the information that needs to be shared. Nuanced issues in which science and law become inextricably intertwined and live on as continuing issues, whether we're in quarantine or not, remain appropriate for our Patreon patron-supported video channel, The Nexus of Special Education Science and Law, while time-sensitive updates and guidance to our audiences as to how to respond to various developments as they happen are more appropriate for our blog and corresponding podcast, Making Special Education Actually Work.   The reality is that producing the videos are way more involved than producing blog posts and podcasts. If we're going to invest our limited resources into making a video, it has to address an issue that will remain an issue for some time to come and live a long and purposeful life before having to be replaced with a more current version. This is why our most involved video productions are only for our patrons on Patreon.   That's fine for what it is. It's highly technical stuff for a highly technical audience. Similarly, we have a podcast specifically for serious lay advocates to build their representation skills, but that is again highly specialized for a specific audience and patron-supported by its paying subscribers.   For information that is too time-sensitive to take days to be made into a decent video around my busy caseload and needs immediate attention from all our audience members for the sake of the general good, our regular blog posts and podcasts through Making Special Education Actually Work are much faster methods of getting the word out, and a great deal of that content is free. So, with all that in mind, today I find it necessary to use Making Special Education Actually Work serve as our most immediate method of getting the following information to the front lines as soon as possible. Some of my worst fears are being realized across my caseload and, presumably, across the country.   It's necessary for me to remind everybody that special education is individualized to the unique needs of each student. Now, suddenly, hundreds of thousands of special education students have experienced radical changes to their educational programs that each require an individualized response. How they continue to make progress towards their IEP goals while sheltering in place must be individualized just like all the rest of their respective IEPs.   The scope of this issue is unprecedented. Suddenly, every kid in America on an IEP in a quarantined community needs an IEP meeting to modify their respective IEPs to fit the current circumstances. Conforming to the IEP timelines under the circumstances is going to be incredibly challenging for school districts and they may end up engaging in the educational equivalent of triage, figuring out who is at most risk of regression and allocating resources to those students first before moving on to the kids who are likely to recover lost educational benefits by way of compensatory services later on and aren't at risk for as great an amount of regression as those that require the most immediate attention.   Chances are, the kids with the most costly and involved programs are going to be the ones most at risk of regression if their services get interrupted, so starting with those students is probably the most logical place to begin. These are also the cases in which local education agencies are most at risk of doing something that denies a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), simply because the needs of our most severely impacted students are so significant and any small exclusion can create significant harm, even if accidental.   The most severely impacted students tend to be a relatively small number and figuring out how to deliver individualized services to them that can be reasonably calculated to achieve their respective IEP goals can be resolved first, when the most flexibility among the available resources is necessary. Then, students with less intensive needs can follow, stepping down to the students with the least demanding special education and related service needs at the end of the process.   Trying to shoe-horn a student with severe special needs into a solution using whatever is left over after everyone else has picked the resources clean is discriminatory. Solving the hardest problems first also creates conduits through which other solutions can be implemented, making it easier to solve the more numerous less challenging tasks, and makes them even less challenging to solve. Local education agency dollars previously spent on facilities may need to be reinvested in technology, additional personnel, and plenty of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), to keep up with the federal mandates to provide a FAPE to every eligible student.   How much leniency the various triers of fact will be willing to give to local education agencies in special education due process hearings and appeals over the two years that follow this pandemic will depend on the unique factors of each situation, including the reasons for any delays that occurred, as well as the unique needs of the student for which individualized responses were necessary but for which resources were not readily available. Regardless of how much leniency is reasonable under the circumstances, the expectation is still that a FAPE will be provided to each eligible student, in accordance with both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).   Congress did not build any specific contingency plans into the IDEA or Section 504 with respect to implementation during times of emergency, and certainly none that make it acceptable to suspend the protections offered by either Act. There is nothing that says these civil rights laws, or any other civil rights laws that protect people with disabilities, cease to be in force under any circumstances. They are in force at all times, even times such as now.   Anything less is humanity devolving into the Lord of the Flies, and there is absolutely no need for that, but advocates for people with disabilities are having to argue for equality in health care, right now, which is reprehensible! At this moment, the shortages of medical supplies in the areas most severely impacted by COVID-19 are forcing health care providers to decide who lives and who dies, just like in a war zone. The elderly and disabled are the least likely to receive life-saving care, at this point, and it's unacceptable that our health care providers are being put in the position to have to think this way. Whether or not a person has autism should not determine whether or not they receive life-saving care.   We're going to lose tens to hundreds of thousands of Americans unnecessarily because of the poor federal response to this situation since it first began. Disability and/or a complex medical history doesn't automatically make a person unemployed or unemployable. We are losing great minds and true talents to this disease among younger individuals who were compromised by pre-existing conditions. Further, we're losing people of all ages who had no pre-existing conditions at all, making the unfair distribution of resources in favor of those without disabilities even less justified.   The fact that we are having to actively enforce civil rights law through litigation and formal complaints with respect to access to healthcare during a global pandemic is disheartening. It means that, now more than ever, we can't neglect the other areas in which civil rights violations against people with disabilities are also occurring, which includes special education. There has to be a unified voice on behalf of individuals with disabilities across all domains to stand firm on the civil rights protections that are already on the books and expect everybody else to also play by the rules. This is no time for anarchy.   With respect to individualized instruction and specialist services, I have to point out that very few students with significant special needs are going to benefit from online instruction. As medical supply production starts to ramp up, now that various industries are retooling their assembly lines to produce enough masks, gowns, latex gloves, etc., to keep all necessary personnel adequately protected and safe, it's going to have to be accepted as fact that some students simply require in-person services in order to receive educational benefits under the current circumstances, and the staffs who need to provide such in-person services will require adequate protection to stay well and prevent the spread of disease.   Given the immediate shortage of PPE, it's understandable that this time right now can probably best be used to lay the administrative foundation for how in-person special education services will be deployed once the protective equipment becomes available. But, it also means that many students will be due compensatory service minutes for any time lost, particularly if they are already showing signs of regression by the time in-person services finally start.   Given that states are deciding to close down their schools through the end of the Summer 2020 break and start again in the Fall of 2020, this is going to be a long-term temporary period of interim special education and related services that will have to be tailored to each individual student affected, just as it was supposed to have been done for each student in their normal school settings. If school districts move quickly and strategically enough, they can get something in place and make up lost service minutes before way too many compensatory service minutes are owed to each student.   The good news is that the only things that should have to be changed, provided the goals already tackle every area of unique student learning need and are written in a measurable manner, are services and placement. The goals shouldn't change. The learning outcomes that the IEP has been pursuing shouldn't suddenly become inappropriate because of a forced change in placement in response to a national emergency. The quarantine has nothing to do with whether a student's IEP goals target appropriate learning outcomes.   If you are a parent doing an IEP meeting (by phone or video conference, please!) and somebody from the school suggests eliminating a goal or putting it on hold, don't go for it. Your child didn't suddenly experience a reduction in the need to learn what that goal targeted. If they're trying to get rid of it, it's because they are struggling to come up with an inexpensive way to teach or provide therapy to it and they don't want to have to pay what it's going to cost to legitimately pursue it, which is not cool. It's also totally unlawful.   It is my sincere hope that public education agencies will respond to the needs of their special education students timely enough to prevent regression and the need for compensatory services as much as possible. The faster and smarter they move on this, the less responsible for compensatory education they will be. If the education agencies go straight to each child's IEP goals and ask, “Given the limitations with which we are currently faced, what services are going to have to be delivered either in home or in some other 1:1 instructional situation in order to still see these goals met?” they'll cut to the chase and be as efficient as anyone can be under the circumstances.   IEP teams don't have to start over at the beginning. They just have to go back to the point where they are trying to decide what services are necessary to meet the goals and how they can be delivered in the placement options currently available. When this conversation was last had for each student on an IEP, the placement options were more plentiful, so that conversation fit what was then the context. But, the context has now changed, so IEP teams need to return to the services and placement portion of the IEP process to address the fact that placement options are now very limited and a fair amount of creativity is going to be needed to work around the limitations that are now imposed by this quarantine.   The current situation also requires school nurses to come up with health care plans to go into each student's IEP and tailor them on a case-by-case basis for students with unique needs that may require hands-on support for medical equipment, physical positioning, hand-over-hand instruction, and other close contact instructional methods and support services for which PPE will be critically necessary. It is important to include guidance to anyone having to implement an IEP in person as to how to conform to appropriate safety practices in the health care plan section of each special education student's IEP.   Now is the time for strategic thinking. It's all hands on deck for those of us who have critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and some of us are way better at things like that than others. I gladly defer to those who can understand things that are way beyond me, like sophisticated mathematical models. We need to defer to those who come up with the most effective and efficient methods of meeting public agency obligations regardless of their titles or training. We need to be working collaboratively rather than competitively. All of us who are trying to make public education work, regardless of the roles we each individually play, have to keep the timbers of the system from being rent apart, right now.   I know one of my students is, thankfully, already receiving in-home instruction from a credentialed special education teacher supported by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) for three hours a day, using safety protocols as per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). However, I also know another one of my students is sitting at home having one meltdown after another while her mother pointlessly tries to access Google Classroom in the absence of any special education instructional or behavioral support services.   These students need specialist supports and services from experts with advanced degrees. Almost no parents knows how to deliver this kind of highly specialized instruction. When it comes to specialist-provided related services, like speech/language services or occupational therapy (OT), parents are even more at a loss.   The educational needs of most special education students, because of their increased risk of regression during lengthy breaks from effective instruction, are as significant to their development as is their medical health. Particularly when you are talking about students with developmental disabilities, disruptions in routines and services are likely to lead to educational losses that will take time to recoup; the longer the period of disruption, the longer the period of recoupment.   Recoupment comes at the cost of new learning. Time spent relearning lost knowledge is time not spent learning new information. Regression and recoupment always mean a student falling even more behind same-grade peers, even after lost learning is recovered. Further, developmental windows of childhood development narrow and close as time goes on. When children miss developmental milestones because they are kept in deprived environments, it stunts their developmental growth and it is very difficult to overcome the knowledge deficits later in life.   There are adults everywhere today who are maxed out at Concrete Operations, according to Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development, and that's enough to get them by for the most part, but they don't understand big picture concepts and tend to subscribe to magical thinking when it comes to things they can't deduce from direct observation of physical objects and phenomenon.   Adults like these may be very accomplished at things that involve the manipulation of tangible items, such as using tools to make and/or repair things, or representations of tangible items, such as visual computer models. But, try to get them to explain the differences between democracy and fascism, or love and need, and they can't do it. These are abstract concepts that require a fully functional pre-frontal cortex, which they don't have.   And, that is the kind of thing that has me worried about all the students doing some kind of home school thing during this quarantine. We have inexpert parents, the older bunch of which were raised during a time prior to the Common Core and without the types of cognitive stimulation that come with it.   I'm middle aged and I can remember that, in my early adult years, adult literacy was still a big deal. Illiterate but employed adults bemoaned the idea of employers requiring a high school diploma for a job like carpenter, cook, truck driver, or factory worker, which were the types of jobs that large numbers of Americans were pursuing and occupying at the time. A high school drop out could make a truly comfortable living plucking chickens at the local chicken plant, back when I was a teenager and young adult, especially if working the graveyard shift. That was $20 per hour back in the late 1980s.   So, when I say that there are parents out there who are ill-equipped to home school their children right now, I'm not just whistlin' “Dixie.” There are still a fair number of people my age or close to it who grew up surrounded by adults with a gross under-appreciation of the value of education and now have school age kids or grand-kids for whom they are responsible. They may appreciate the value of a good education, but since they never got one, they don't have the knowledge necessary to home-school their children.   And, that doesn't even begin to take into account all of the dysfunctional parents with actively manifesting mental health issues, which can include drug and alcohol addiction, who are now stuck at home with their poor kids and expected to teach them skills they never mastered, themselves. How many of them are actively using in front of their kids to deal with the stress of this situation? How many of them have lost income because of the current circumstances, can't afford to re-up, and are now experiencing withdrawals while stuck at home with their kids?   You add special needs on top of an already weak family system and then put that family unit through a quarantine made necessary by a global pandemic, and something bad is bound to happen. For a lot of these families, their kids going to school every day is good for everybody involved. It gets the kids away from toxic adult behaviors and around more appropriate role models during the majority of their waking hours, while giving their parents a break that can facilitate peaceable interactions later when the whole family unit is together. For those kids from difficult situations at home who also have special needs, school-based specialist services and individualized instruction can be their lifeline to a better future and they need that lifeline now more than ever.   To the degree parents can be effective parts of an IEP implementation team under the current circumstances, parent counseling and training as related services are going to become increasingly necessary. Whether it's done online, in person, or a hybrid delivery model of both, the parent has to be trained on how to implement those portions of the IEP for which he/she can assume responsibility during quarantine, which is an IEP team decision. 34 CFR Sec. 300.34 lists parent counseling and training as a related service that can be provided by an IEP.   Qualified personnel will have to make up the balance of the IEP services that cannot be delivered by a parent in consultation with special education and related service personnel. It is not educationally appropriate to delegate 100% of the implementation of an IEP to an inexpert parent. Specialist personnel are still required in some capacity and that has to be determined on a student-by-student basis, just as with any other aspect of an IEP.   While the IDEA does not include a contingency plan specifically for pandemics, it does have rules that provide structure as to the outcomes public agencies are expected to achieve and the mechanisms by which they can be achieved, even as they adapt to ever-changing situations. Public education agencies are just having to rely on these rules and tools to respond in a way never before anticipated. The fact that we can keep these institutions going under the current circumstances speaks to the construction of the enforceable laws, the tenacity of the American people, and the collective belief of our majority in preserving our institutions.   This is not the worst that things could be, as bad as it is for some people, right now. The majority of us will survive the virus, though those of us who survive are likely to lose people we know before it's over. It's up to those of us who are not willing to descend into anarchy to continue enforcing the laws that make us who we are, even under these distressing circumstances. We're needed now more than ever. Human lives, whether they are disabled or not, are worth more than money, and we need to make sure that message remains resoundingly clear in the times ahead to come.

  Avoiding the spread of disease is obviously the most important consideration, these days, but life hasn't ground to a halt; it's just changed. Everyone is doing what they can, right now, to curtail the spread of disease so that we can all live our lives in peace, which doesn't mean stopping the living of lives while we ride this out.   The whole point of the measures we're all collectively taking as a planet right now is to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, with all of these sudden changes, there is a lot up in the air, right now, with respect to our students with disabilities who require services during extended breaks so as not to regress in their learning.   Even more concerning are our students with special needs that affect their behaviors who are cooped up at home with their parents, who are likely on the verge, already, without any behavioral support services. Those parents are at an increased risk of developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from this whole shelter in place situation.   There are funny memes going around right now about parents trying to home-school their general education children and learning to appreciate their general education teachers, but nobody is making a meme about the mom of an autistic young woman who enjoys regular outings into the community as part of her special education program and is melting down on a regular basis, now, because she can't leave the house, go to school, hang out with friends, or visit her grandmother in a nursing home. These are the families that are already slipping into crisis while all the rest of us are riding this out and complaining about inconveniences.   For our students with developmental disabilities who require ongoing services in order to make reasonable strides towards a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), disruptions in services mean developmental stagnation and regression. That means the current school closures are particularly impactful.   Staying at home is important. If you can stay at home, you should. But, as millions of Americans figure out that they can actually still do their jobs, or at least a significant portion of their jobs, from home, and continue to work remotely, our society is finding a way to adapt on the fly to this situation in ways heretofore not possible because of our technology.   As awesome as that is for many private and public entities that are actively figuring this out, one area in which it has evidently not yet been figured out is special education services, or at least a triage solution for our kiddos who will regress, lose significant ground, and miss critical windows of developmental opportunity in the absence of ongoing special education services. Once again, our kids with the most demanding special needs are the last ones to get consideration by stakeholders in this situation.   I've been doing this long enough to know how the system tends to respond to certain things. There are predictable patterns in the behaviors of public education agency personnel in response to certain types of situational factors.   Sometimes, when the people in charge don't know what to do, you just have to give them suggestions about what they could do to get them jump-started. It's something similar to “Bystander Effect.”   In situations in which the Bystander Effect, occurs, if there are lots of people around when something horrible happens, everybody expects someone else to step up with a solution, so no one does anything. When there isn't anyone else to respond or just a few people, individuals are more likely to respond in the moment to a crisis.   Here, it appears that everyone is frozen in place waiting for someone else to do something when it comes to meeting the needs of our students with special needs during this current crisis. Rather than waiting for someone to step up and do something, I'm choosing to do what science says we should do when the Bystander Effect has gripped the crowd and everyone seems frozen in place – impose structure.   Imposing structure to overcome something like this isn't about telling people what to do so much as to signal their brains that the time of waiting for someone else to do something is over and they need to act, as well. Right now. Proposing a solution in a situation like this isn't about cramming a particular agenda down anyone's throat; it's about snapping people out of it so they stop looking at the car crash by the side of the road as they slowly drive by and actually stop their car to get out and help.   We can't ignore the needs of our students who are at risk of regression and loss of windows of developmental opportunity to learn because of factors beyond their control. These students are the least able to do anything about the deprivations they are experiencing at the moment. They are at our mercy and we can't afford to be bouncing off of each other like a bunch of hysterical ninnies in panic because we don't know what to do to help them. We do know what to do. Each child in this situation needs his/her respective village to get its act together and work in a coordinated fashion.   So, in the interest of imposing some structure onto the conversation and planning that now needs to happen, here's what I am proposing for our students who may need or who already receive special education, so as to prevent a denial of FAPE:   Pending Referrals & Assessments Child Find [34 CFR Sec. 300.111] – This one is going to be difficult because most public schools are terrible at child find, in general, and most parents don't even know about it.   Teachers identifying the kids who may need to be referred for special education assessment on the basis of suspected disability will be even more difficult under the current circumstances, depending on how school officials are providing instruction, if at all, during this time of sheltering in place. Parents may have increased cause for suspecting disabilities when they attempt to assist their children with their school work at home and discover their kids have challenges in processing certain types of information, but they aren't necessarily expert enough to recognize those challenges as evidence of suspected disability. Further, emotional trauma can cause a child to become eligible for special education under the Emotional Disturbance (ED) category. Parents may find it necessary to refer their children for special education evaluation if they perceive challenges with mastering certain types of concepts in their children while attempting to assist them at home with instruction and/or if their children experience emotional trauma that interferes with their access to education now or upon returning to school once it is safe to do so, again. Pending Referrals - None of the timelines applicable to referrals for special education assessments plans should be disrupted by the current state of affairs. The only thing that needs to happen in response to any referral is the provision of an assessment plan, pursuant to 34 CFR Sec. 300.9 and 300.300. This is a document-driven administrative process. This has no in-person requirements that would otherwise delay processing. Given that so many people in administrative positions are able to still do their jobs if given the proper tools, there is no physical barrier to carrying out the duties of this step of the process and, therefore, there should be no delay in the applicable timelines just because of the current shelter in place situation. If a referral was made in writing prior to a student's school shutting down, an assessment plan should still be provided to the parents within the mandated timeline. Erring by one to five business days may be understandably forgivable given the circumstances and may result in a procedural violation that nonetheless results in harmless error, so parents shouldn't be threatening lawsuits over something like this. If a referral is submitted in writing via a manner that is accessible by school personnel, such as via email or through a web portal, during this period of sheltering in place, the local education agency should still act on the referral within the applicable mandated timeline. As a purely document-driven administrative process, this isn't going to put human beings into physical contact with each other in way that holds up the timeline for the provision of an assessment plan. Parents who want to make such referrals can use our free form letter generator on our site. Pending Assessments – If a referral for assessment has already been made, an assessment plan has already been signed by a parent, and now the assessment timeline is ticking down, some public education agencies may declare that the timeline is disrupted by the break from instruction due to everyone staying home and sheltering in place. However, that's not entirely true. For example, the assessment timelines are disrupted under California law for regularly scheduled school breaks and vacations of five or more days, but this shelter in place business isn't regularly scheduled or a vacation. Understand that assessment, whether it's an initial evaluation or a re-evaluation, is considered a related service pursuant to 34 CFR Sec. 300.34. Both 34 CFR Sec. 300.103 and 300.323(c) make clear that a related service cannot be subjected to any unnecessary delays as a matter of legal procedure, as this would delay the provision of services according to an IEP, and, thus, deny a FAPE. Unnecessary delays include sitting around and freaking out instead of acting. If public education agency officials claim to be working on a solution and weeks go by, they're not working on a solution; they're freaking out and wasting everyone's time. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has already set up mechanisms to keep its complaint and due process systems going; evidently it understands that each State is ultimately responsible for making sure its students get educated, even if their local education agencies waffle under the pressure. If State education agencies can keep their systems going by having their personnel work from home on these administrative duties, the schools they regulate have no excuse for not doing the same, and I suspect State officials will see it that way, too. Necessary delays would include taking measures in order to otherwise comply with the regulations under the current unique circumstances. If it takes a week or two to put the necessary resources into place, that's forgivable. Any longer than that without additional extenuating circumstances and all you've got is poor leadership within the agency creating unnecessary, and potentially actionable, delays. It is entirely possible to assess a student who is not medically fragile using the everyday preventative actions being recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Most special education assessments require at least some standardized testing that is administered in a 1:1 testing situation. An assessor can arrange to conduct standardized assessments in a 1:1 testing location at a school site via prior arrangement without risking an entire classroom or exposing an assessor to either an entire classroom of potentially infected students or household of potentially infected family members of the student being assessed. Acceptable reasons for delays of any component of assessment in these instances can include illness within the student's family or that of the assessor that puts them at risk of exposing each other to COVID-19 and a shortage of other assessors to otherwise conduct the assessments or other unique circumstances that might otherwise make a substitute assessor educationally inappropriate, but the delay should not be greater than what the situation actually requires based on what is known at the time. Public education agencies may need to enlist the support of assessors in the local community to stay on top of assessments as much as possible, and States may need to waive non-public agency licensing requirements under the current circumstances just to make sure everybody who needs ongoing speech/language services, for example, actually gets it. Classroom observations are going to be the obvious problem for many assessments. Even if an assessor comes to observe a student who is sheltering in place at home, that will not be entirely representative of how that same student functions in a classroom under normal circumstances. It may make more sense to wait until the student returns to school, but the assessment timeline may be ticking down while the child re-acclimates to the school setting, which could include emotional factors that were not present before but which could continue and are, therefore, relevant to the assessment process. Consultations with teachers and parents regarding in-class performance before and after quarantine will become imperative to supply accurate information for the assessment report. Regardless of how a student functioned in the classroom before quarantine, going forward post-quarantine is going to look and feel different for everybody after all of this. Post-quarantine classroom observation data is probably going to be more useful than pre-quarantine classroom observation data. In an effort to achieve compliance to the degree possible, but with the understanding that some unavoidable delays in the assessment process can legitimately occur because of the current situation, I am strongly recommending to parents and public education officials that short-term individualized response-to-crisis assessment schedules be developed using available technologies to arrive at a plan for each student who is pending assessment so that parents know what to expect by when, school personnel know how to allocate assessment resources, and the process can be kept moving along in a relatively timely manner so that, by the time students return to school, if they need an IEP, the IEP team can have an appropriate one in place for them upon their return. Otherwise, the team can finalize the assessment process once the student returns to school so that IEP team decisions can then be made as intended. It may be necessary for parents to negotiate timeline extensions with their local education agencies as part of an individualized response-to-crisis assessment schedule, but I am strongly advising parents against agreeing to any such extensions without also including something in writing that describes exactly what is being delayed that necessitates such an extension. For example, if all of the standardized testing can be conducted prior to a student returning to school, but the IEP team agrees that a classroom observation shouldn't happen until two weeks after the student returns, then the team can agree to keep the assessment process open until the observations can be done, shortly after which the report can be finalized and the IEP team can convene to discuss the results. It may be appropriate for some students in situations like these to complete the evaluation report during this period of quarantine based on what is available so that an appropriate IEP offer is made to the student as soon as possible, with the understanding that classroom observation data will be collected once the student has settled back in and may be used to amend the IEP if it reveals something not already otherwise identified by all the other assessment data on record. So long as parents and schools document their arrangements to get through pending assessments during this situation and the parents give informed consent to any such alternative arrangements, parents will not be inclined to file lawsuits, nor will they have the evidence necessary to argue against delays to which they have, knowingly and with full understanding, consented. Taking these steps will reduce a lot of anxiety about loose ends and what comes next for everybody involved. Pending IEP meetings – This stands to be one of the biggest procedural challenges simply because of all the IEP meetings that were already on calendar and subject to mandatory timelines at the time that everyone started sheltering in place, but it is still nonetheless one of the easiest situations to solve. 34 CFR Sec. 300.322(c) and Sec. 300.328 require that local education agencies facilitate meaningful parent participation in the IEP meeting process, even if that means using alternative means of participating other than attending meetings in person, such as telephone and video conferencing. While some delay as education agencies get their people set up with the technologies necessary to work this way from home might be within reason, this isn't something that should cause an IEP meeting scheduled for two weeks from now from not being held at its originally scheduled time without IEP team member agreement. It doesn't take that much technology to do a conference call and email the paperwork to meeting participants. The law already provides for accommodating the fact that parents and educators can't always meet in person to conduct IEP meetings, and those laws remain in force, right now. IEP implementation – This is the grand-daddy of all special education issues facing families of students with special needs, right now. And, it's a hotbed for lawsuits if local education agencies don't respond appropriately to the situation. Online learning options – These options are being proposed for general education students and will work for many special education students, as well, at least in some areas of learning. Where it will usually not work is with students who have: Poor task initiation, task maintenance, and/or task completion Impaired executive functioning and/or attention Severely delayed communication skills Severely delayed cognitive development Vision loss or severe visual disabilities that prevent them from accessing what is on the screen (for students with these challenges who are also receiving speech/language services via a virtual model, it might still work so long as the therapist can see their mouths when they speak, depending on the nature of the therapy) The forms it can take include: Video conferencing with teachers and/or therapists Using online learning games and apps Conducting research Watching educational videos Direct in-home instruction – It may be necessary for teachers to provide home/hospital instruction to students at serious risk of regression on a 1:1 basis in their homes. The law already provides for this option, as well. If it is medically inadvisable for a child on an IEP to go to school, home/hospital is an appropriate placement option under normal circumstances. However, it's probably fair to say that a judge would not find the current times normal and that every special education student cannot be reasonably provided with in-home 1:1 instruction. This is going to be the area in which education agencies are most likely to get themselves into trouble. If there is any way for teaching staff to use the everyday preventative actions recommended by the CDC to provide 1:1 instruction to those students most at risk of regression, it should be done. Small group instruction of no more than 8 students is still achievable, even if done for fewer hours of the day than normal. One teacher could instruct two or three different groups of no more than 8 students for a couple of hours each day in rotation at a school site and manage to stave off regression and actually continue progress towards FAPE. Individual and small group therapies could also be provided while special education students are on campus, rotating students out so that there are never more than ten people in one place at a time. Transportation & Other Related Services – Some related services may become unnecessary during alternative teaching arrangements. For example, a student may not need a 1:1 behavior aide to receive 1:1 in-home instruction, but would totally need the aide at school while trying to participate among all the other students. Transportation may not be needed for students who are being served at home but would be needed for those who need to travel to a school site for any direct instruction and/or therapies that cannot be provided any other way. If alternative arrangements are made to serve special education students at risk of significantly regressing while sheltering in place, unusual but temporary transportation services may become necessary in order to implement such an alternative plan. Local education agencies cannot place the burden on parents to transport their children with special needs to school for alternative services during this time, particularly if parents have no way of transporting them. The whole point of special education transportation as a related service is to overcome that very obstacle. If special arrangements have to be made to prevent a student with an IEP from regressing during these current times, those arrangements will have to, by necessity, include an offer of transportation services if the parents cannot otherwise transport the student. Whether or not such related services are necessary really comes down to the individual needs of the child, as always. It's not like somebody bombed the bus lot; the vehicles are there and the drivers still need their jobs, so, as long as everyone follows proper sanitation and social distancing protocols, transportation services can be provided. This is by no means a comprehensive plan. That's more than one advocate sitting at home on lock-down can develop. It will take State agencies working with their local education agencies to come up with a comprehensive plan. At this point, I have to believe that people are scrambling behind the scenes all over the place to come up with a plan, but the public is still waiting to hear what it is. The families I represent are sitting at home wondering what is going to happen over the next few months. All the information about the schools going around is general in nature and none of it is specific to their children with special education needs.    To the extent that what I've shared can impose some structure on the dialog that needs to be happening right now between parents and special educators, my contribution, here, is food for thought. It's not my intent, here, to tell anybody what to do. My intent is to break the frozen stance of this quasi-Bystander Effect and stop waiting for someone else to say or do something.    In a real Bystander Effect situation, if you're in a crowd and someone suddenly falls to the ground or otherwise experience harm that requires intervention, most people will freeze and look around to see if anybody else is going to do something. In those moments, people who understand what is really happening have to snap out of it and do something.    The guidance that psychologists are given if we find ourselves in such a situation is to point at the person right in front of us and say, “You! Call 911!” then approach the person in trouble with appropriate caution and, if they are conscious, tell them help is on the way. There's something magically triggering about issue a command like that because, unless the person you just commanded to make the call has no phone, the call will be made. Suddenly, instead of frozen with uncertainty, that person has a job to do. There's an action he/she can take to make things move in the right direction.   Initially, until someone barks a command, everybody is either a deer in headlights or otherwise assumes someone else will take care of it and don't think they have a role to play. There's something about barking that initial command that gets everybody working together in unison and it usually doesn't take more than that. Humans just sometimes need an environmental cue before we know whether, when, and how to act.    So, that's basically what I'm doing. Me barking “Call 911!” to someone standing on the other side of a fallen human body isn't me being bossy. The suggestions I've made in this post isn't me being bossy, either. This is my effort snap all the stakeholders and decision makers out of it so they aren't standing in a virtual crowd waiting for someone else to say or do something. It's now been said, public education system. So act.

        Prior Written Notice (PWN) pursuant to 34 CFR Sec. 300.503 gets a fair amount of general discussion among special education stake-holders, but, in today's post/podcast, I want to look at it more in-depth. Today's discussion looks more closely at the regulatory requirements and the types of special education contexts in which PWN becomes necessary.   I pulled a couple of examples from old case files that I can use to illustrate a number of points. These are old, closed cases from school districts where I currently have no active casework that happened years ago, but one of them involves bad players that I know are still out there.   The first one involved a student of an independent study charter school that had contracted with a third-party provider to deliver its special education and related services. Charter schools are often the worst at special education compliance, and online and independent study charters are usually the worst of the worst; for more information about that, see our prior post, "California Charter Schools & Special Education." This case was no exception.   To put this example PWN into context, first I have to explain what was going on at the time. Our autistic student with high cognition also had debilitating anxiety that, combined with his autistic perseverative thoughts, could spiral his behaviors out of control, requiring intensive Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) services.   This student also needed interventions to address his anxiety, for which the parents, through me as their advocate from our agency, had requested a referral for a mental health evaluation as part of the IEP process. At the time, what we were requesting was provided by the local County Behavioral Health (CBH) agency under contract with the local Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA), of which the chartering school district was a member.   So, while we were requesting a referral to the local CBH, it was under the auspices of an IEP-related assessment for the determination of IEP goals and services. In response, the third party special education contractor, using the local SELPA's PWN form, replied with the following:   Description of action proposed or refused by district: In a letter dated [DATE] and received by the charter on [DATE] the parents requested the school refer [STUDENT] to [CBH] Explanation of reason for proposal or refusal: Parents can make individual referrals themselves without the involvement of the school.   The PWN goes on to explain how parents can make their own community-based referral outside of the IEP process to the local CBH. In an effort to try and make it look like it was complying with the law by replying with official forms and filling in the blanks with words, what the charter's third-party contractor actually did was commit a substantive violation of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).   First of all, the request was for an IEP-related mental health evaluation and possible IEP goals and services. Going through the community-based referral process does not tie any mental health services provided to IEP goals and the delivery of a FAPE. Regardless of what our student may have or have not received by way of community-based mental health supports, none of that alleviated the IEP team from the mandated responsibilities of assessing for and providing any needed special education-related mental health services.   Further, the charter's response on official SELPA forms was issued by its third-party contractor, which had no direct legal obligation to our student to offer and deliver a FAPE. The third-party contractor issued PWN on behalf of the charter, which was supposed to be acting on behalf of its chartering district, the latter of which being the entity that was actually legally responsible for FAPE but had no idea any of this was going on.   What this was really about was the charter's third-party contractor not wanting any other entities involved over which it couldn't exercise any kind of control. Because CBH would have been directly funded by SELPA and the State, the charter's third-party special education contractor couldn't lord payment over its head to control how it conducted itself like it did with its contracted teaching personnel and service providers.   If anything, it put the third-party contractor's questionable conduct in the path of scrutiny to have an outside agency like the local CBH get involved. The third-party contractor denied the referral and pushed it back onto the parents in order to prevent CBH from becoming part of this student's IEP and implementation teams. It was out of fear of accountability that the third-party contractor denied the referral and pushed it back onto the parents to pursue through community-based resources outside of the IEP process.   Measurable annual mental health IEP goals with the local CBH as the responsible provider would have likely meant CBH personnel in the home, where additional special education services of all kinds were needed but not being provided. Having CBH come on board to provide mental health services under this student's IEP would have created outside, impartial witnesses to all of the other special education violations going on with this student's case at the hands of the charter's third-party contractor.   Adding CBH to this student's IEP would have made the chartering district answerable for making sure the mental health goals were implemented as written, which would have required CBH to actually do its job, putting the third-party contractor's scam operation at risk of exposure. Needless to say, this case ultimately went to a lawyer who filed for due process, the matter settled, and I can't talk about what happened after that.   Prior to and at the time of settlement, this kid was in no way ready to enter the brick-and-mortar school setting, which is far less restrictive than being educated at home. This was one of those situations where the independent studies charter school kept insisting that the student's living room was the general education setting because that's how it was for all of their students, without regard for the fact that the only reason his living room was the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for him was because he couldn't handle a traditional classroom.   If this student had been enrolled in a traditional school district at the time, but still was receiving instruction at home, it would have been regarded as one of the most restrictive placement options possible. His in-home placement was light years from a general education classroom in a brick-and-mortar setting, which everybody knew he couldn't handle. It was a technicality that in-home instruction was the norm for independent studies charters, such as his. His situation wasn't about family educational choice; it was about individual educational need.   Educating him at home was an accommodation. His parents would have preferred to send him to school, in all honesty, but they made the choice to home-school because of his demanding special needs. He needed intensive autism and mental health services to get to the point where he was able to access the world outside his home with success.   The charter was effectively trying to turn him into a well-educated hermit, which often seems to be the case with students with these types of needs in independent study programs. Bringing the instruction to students who are challenged to function successfully outside of the home may seem to be prudent, but if it doesn't include related services meant to increase the student's independence and access to less restrictive learning environments, it's not a FAPE.   Preventing the provision of such services in order to avoid accountability is a despicable breach of ethics, as well as a monstrous denial of FAPE. First, in this case, the denial to refer for IEP-related mental health services as requested by the parents interfered with meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, in addition to violating procedure with respect to referrals for evaluations and reevaluations.   Secondly, it denied a FAPE because it meant the student's IEP was informed by insufficient assessment data. As a matter of FAPE, the student had a federally protected right to assessment in all areas of suspected disability and learning need. That right was denied when the charter's contractor chose to deny the mental health assessment referral and push the burden back onto the parents to pursue through community-based resources unrelated to the IEP process.   Further, the contractor's efforts to circumvent the IEP process not only undermined meaningful parent participation in the IEP process as promised by federal law, it also meant that the student's IEP was not reasonably calculated to render meaningful educational benefits in all areas of unique student need, which also denied a FAPE. As such, the student was being deprived of meaningful educational benefits in the areas of mental and emotional health, which was negatively impacting his behavior and, thus, access to education, which also denied a FAPE.   So, just on the basis of this misuse of an official PWN form, the charter's third-party contractor made the record of its efforts to circumvent the IEP process, indirectly on behalf of its charter school client's chartering district, thereby denying a FAPE in at least four different ways:   Denial of meaningful parent participation in the IEP process Failure to assess in all areas of suspected disability Failure to design IEPs that are reasonably calculated to render meaningful educational benefits in all areas of unique student need Failure to deliver meaningful educational benefits in all areas of unique student need   The point I want to get across is that, just because you get a PWN on official paperwork, it doesn't mean the education agency has actually followed the law. It's not just the matter of complying with procedure by sending something out titled "Prior Written Notice." What is written in the notice matters, and is regulated by federal law.   In my second example, also from years ago, and also ultimately settled after the family brought in an attorney, the situation was different. Our student had lived with his parents in the attendance area of a school district near the Southern border of California. Shortly before I became involved, this child's mother had passed away, leaving his father alone to provide all of the in-home support his autistic son with demanding needs required while holding down a job as a traveling engineer.   As difficult as it was, the most sensible thing to do under the circumstances was for the student to live most of the week with his grandmother in another community far to the north in the San Joaquin Valley. The student's grandmother, his late mother's mother, was available to be a full-time primary caregiver and his uncle, his late mother's brother, was available to help with any kind of important decision-making, such as with IEPs and regional center services. The student's father shared his educational decision-making authority with his mother-in-law and brother-in-law so that they could take on these serious responsibilities.   In anticipation of the student moving to his grandmother's and becoming a student of the local school district, his uncle went to enroll him and shared with the District the student's IEP. The IEP from his incoming school district included a significant amount of Non-Public Agency (NPA) services that were provided during and outside of the school day because of the intensity of the student's needs.   These services were not typical for most IEPs, but IEPs are supposed to be individualized. Based on the evidence it had at the time, the IEP team at his previous school district had determined that these services were necessary based on his unique circumstances to provide him with a FAPE.   The receiving school district nearly had a fit when it saw this student's incoming IEP. It utilized every procedural tactic at its disposal to argue that it didn't have to implement the incoming IEP as written. That's one of the issues that was addressed by the settlement, so I can't talk about it, here, which is a bummer because the legal arguments around this issue were total fireworks.   The bigger point that almost got lost over the arguments over procedure, which was likely the District's intent by arguing over procedure, was what the student substantively required as a matter of FAPE. The receiving school district simply had no intention of paying for NPA services and insisted on stripping out all of the individualized supports described by the student's IEP, which had him placed in a general education setting with age-typical language and behavior models, and placing him in a Special Day Class (SDC) for students with autism.   This student was mainstreamed with a 1:1 NPA behavior aide to keep him involved in the instruction and facilitate his language, social, and classroom behavior skills development. The receiving school district proposed to put him in a full-time classroom filled with other students with needs like his own and no models of age-typical language and behavior. He was being successful in his previous placement with the configuration of services described by his IEP.   The receiving school district had never met the student, much less assessed him, and therefore had no educational or legal basis to place him in a more restrictive setting. Regardless of whether procedure required the receiving school district to implement the incoming IEP as written or not, it was still obligated to offer and provide a substantively appropriate FAPE. It had no data to inform its offer of services and placement, and certainly nothing that suggested his needs had changed such that a more restrictive placement was educationally necessary.   After articulating the request for the receiving school district to implement the incoming IEP as written, this was the District's response, crafted with the assistance of its attorney, as I understand it:   Description of the Action Proposed or Refused by the District   The [District] and [County Office of Education (COE)] are refusing to provide BCBA supervision of the BIP dated [Date]. The District and [COE] are denying the request for 1:1 instructional aide support to be provided by a NPA. The District and [COE] are also denying in home support, parent training, and direct speech and language services provided in the home. The District and [COE] continue to offer a [COE] operated special day classroom located at [Campus] as an interim placement for 30 days ...   Explanation Why the District Proposes or Refuses to Take Action   ... you requested that [Student] be provided with a BCBA to oversee the BIP. The District and [COE] offered 60 minutes per month of consult behavior intervention services to address the implementation and training of the BIP ... to be provided by a [COE] program specialist with ... required training for Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA) and BIP ... the District and [COE] feel that the program specialist would be able to implement the strategies and recommendations of the BIP.   ... you requested that a NPA provide the direct 1:1 instructional aide services. At the meetings, you indicated that the NPA instructional aide is essential to the successful implementation of the current IEP. The District and [COE] recommend intensive individualized services daily ... Intensive individualized services are provided by [COE] instructional aides ... The District and [COE] feel that [COE's] trainings, in addition to the support and oversight provided by the program specialist, provide enough knowledge for [COE] to successfully support [Student] and fully implement the current IEP.   The District and [COE] are refusing to provide these additional services and continue to recommend 360 minutes per month of direct speech and language services and 30 minutes per month of consult speech and language services. Given that the in home services that are being requested are now embedded in the categorical program in a way that his prior placement in a non-categorical program did not provide, in home services are not needed.   So, that's a lot, but here again is an example of a school district complying with procedure by sending a PWN, but, in doing so, making the record regarding its substantive denials of a FAPE. As stated previously, the receiving school district had conducted absolutely no assessments that indicated that this student needed to be placed in an SDC instead of supported in general education with push-in supports. This was an LRE case.   Basically, what the receiving school district was doing was making a placement decision on the basis of what it was willing to spend rather than what was necessary to educate the student in the LRE. The only guidance it had as to what the student required was the incoming IEP. It had no idea whether what it was offering as a 30-day interim placement would completely derail this kid or not (which it would have).   The language that jumped out at me that really chapped my hide were the statements about what "the District and [COE] feel" is best in the absence of any evidence. Basically, this was the District and COE admitting to basing their decisions on opinions rather than the facts that the regulations require.   It's a violation of both the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to to change the type of placement a student with disabilities receives without first assessing to determine that student's current placement needs. Placement decisions are based on what is the LRE in which the services can be rendered such that the goals are met. There was no data demonstrating that an SDC placement was suddenly the LRE for our student, after he had been successfully placed in general education with push-in supports under the IEP he already had.   Like I said, this case was ultimately settled and it happened several years ago. But, these kinds of things continue to go on all the time. I'm only citing old cases, here, because I don't want to talk about anything currently being litigated or potentially litigated. The regulations for PWN have been the same for a long, long time, so there's not some recent change in the law that would make older cases irrelevant.   As a parent, if you get a PWN in the mail denying a request you've made, don't assume that the explanation you're being given is a good one. Just because it's on official letterhead or official form doesn't automatically make it proper.   Really, it all boils down to 34 CFR Sec. 300.503(b)(2), which requires any PWN to include, "An explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action." The explanation as to why a parent request is being denied better be a good one, or all the District accomplishes is using a procedural requirement to document its substantive denials of a FAPE on the record. If that's the case, it's evidence that parents can use in due process to achieve appropriate educational outcomes for their children with special needs.

  If you've read or listened to our past posts and podcasts, or have otherwise been educating yourself on the special education process, hopefully by now you understand that special education is supposed to follow a particular procedural flow. This is not only the method supported by best practices, but also the method required by federal law.   To recap, assessment data provides the present levels of performance and baselines necessary to formulate educationally appropriate IEP goals for an individual learner. The goals describe what the IEP is supposed to make happen. Once the enormous milestone of developing the IEP goals has been achieved, then it's time to figure out what services are going to be necessary and where they can be delivered in order for each goal to be met. This is where things can suddenly go off the rails.   It does no good to articulate sensible outcomes in measurable terms if effective services aren't put into place to actually work on them and make them happen. Goals are just hopes if you don't have a plan for the services you will need to meet them, and hope is not a strategy. But, this is often where things can get tricky in developing an IEP.   There are two common reasons for why things can go wrong at this stage: 1) everybody means well, but they don't know what they're doing; or, 2) something fishy is going on. In the first instance, it's usually a matter of training. In the second instance, somebody is gaming the system in pursuit of an agenda in which the student is ancillary, but not the point.   In many instances, where this process gets tripped up actually starts with the development of the IEP goals. When the IEP goals are improperly written and/or necessary goals are excluded altogether, determining what services are necessary to deliver appropriately ambitious educational benefits to each student becomes compromised.   I've had many parents come to me over the years saying things like, "My kid needs more speech and language. He doesn't know word meanings, can't follow instructions, and can't express himself, but he's only getting 20 minutes of speech per week." They look at increasing the service minutes in speech as though that's going to somehow magically translate into working on all areas of his speech/language needs, when the real issue is that there is only one speech goal in the IEP for articulation and the rest of their child's speech/language needs have no goals.   Because there are no goals for anything else, the number of speech/language service minutes is limited to how much time is reasonable to pursue the one goal that is there for articulation. 20 minutes per week to work on nothing but articulation isn't automatically off-base.   What these parents really mean, when they say their kids need more speech and language services, is that the IEP is not targeting all of their speech/language needs. If that's true, then the IEP team has to go back and look at the data to determine what other areas of speech and/or language should also be targeted by explicit intervention, then write goals to those specific areas of intervention need.   Once those new goals are written, the IEP team can then look at how many service minutes will be necessary to meet each goal. In addition to service minutes, which are expressed in terms of frequency and duration, the location of where the services will be delivered has to be determined.   It isn't automatic that related services, like speech/language or occupational therapy (OT), get delivered in a pull-out setting. The location of services, like all other parts of an IEP, must be individualized to the unique needs of the student.   Pull-out services require the student to be removed from the classroom, often during instruction, and can interfere with learning. It's a balancing act to find the right time to pull a student out of the regular class routine to go participate in direct pull-out services.   Push-in services bring the intervention into the student's classroom and make it part of the classroom experience. Sometimes, this can be small group instruction with a reading specialist when the general education class is broken into small reading groups as a normal matter of instruction. This weaves the special education into the general education situation so that students with reading challenges are facilitated in participating with everyone else.   Embedded services are much like push-in, but they are intertwined with the instruction throughout the entire school day as a matter of instructional design for the classroom. An example of this would be embedded speech/language instruction and Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in the program design of a school specifically for students with autism who cannot successfully function and learn on an integrated campus.   In this example, because it can be reasonably expected that all of the students in such a special school will need these supports according to the research and evidence-based practices, they are woven into the instructional design of the program. They are part of how the instruction is delivered on a continual basis.   In such cases, the integration of speech/language and ABA have to be used to describe the placement rather than parsed out as individual related service minutes, because they are part of the placement design that makes that particular placement appropriate for certain students. In this instance, they are not discrete services provided outside of or in addition to what is otherwise happening in the classroom.   Which leads into the next phase of the process, which is placement. Placement is the last decision to be made by the IEP team. There's a really good reason for this. Placement is supposed to be determined by what is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in which the services can be delivered such that the goals are met.   Special education is a service, not a place. The whole point of the IEP is to meet the IEP, but it is discrimination on the basis of handicapping condition to automatically remove kids from the general education setting for instruction just because they have disabilities. Unless removal to a more restrictive setting is the only way for the goals to get met, it's not the LRE.   LRE is relative; what is restrictive for one student may be empowering for another. A student with autism who can nonetheless function in the general education setting with push-in ABA supports, for example, would be inappropriately placed in a school for students with autism.   Sometimes parents mistakenly think a special school is better because it's focused on the specific types of needs their child has. But, it's only better if the student cannot otherwise be successful in a less restrictive setting. Restrictiveness of setting is directly related to the severity of the student's needs and the intensity of instruction necessary to meet the IEP goals.   Sometimes, creating an appropriately hybridized placement offer for a student who needs some pull-out services, but can otherwise participate in general education the rest of the school day, is such a difficult thing to coordinating in a particular school's pre-existing culture that special ed staffs find it more convenient to put kids in more restrictive settings. This gives special ed staffs more control over the quality of the instruction and allows them to prevent their kids from being harmed by discriminatory general education practices, but it segregates their students on the basis of handicapping condition.   Sheltering students with disabilities from abuse by sequestering them from bigots inadvertently reinforces discriminatory practices that keep people with disabilities from equally accessing the world at large. Preventing the abuse of students with disabilities through diversity appreciation instruction, as well as proactive, research-based Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on a schoolwide basis, makes far more sense.   The LRE laws exist for this reason. Rather than sequester students with traits in common to prevent them from being bullied by the rest of the students, it is more appropriate to teach all of the students how to get along with each other. Appropriate programming results in general education students looking out for their peers with special needs rather than picking on them and mocking them. It facilitates unity in the school community.   Because LRE is relative to each student, no parent should go into the IEP process demanding a placement because somebody else's kid got it and they're doing great there. Somebody else's kid is not your kid. You don't base IEP placement decisions for your child off of what somebody else needs or gets; you base it on your own child's unique, individual learning needs as targeted by the IEP goals.   Most school districts will tell you that the "continuum of placement" for special education is whatever they already have. That's only partly accurate. What the school district already has is part of the continuum of placement, but if the placement the student needs doesn't already exist within the district, the placement has to be outsourced or created.   It's appropriate for the school district to describe the types of placements it already has. These can include, but are not limited to: general education placement with push-in supports; pull-out to a special education class and/or therapies for part of the school day for targeted specialized support, with placement in general education for the rest of the school day; full-time placement in a special education class; and placement for all or part of the day in a non-public school.   But students are not limited to the types of placements already put in place within a school district. Sometimes, the closest appropriate school is so far away that the child and a family member live in a nearby apartment or other local housing arrangement during the week and go home on weekends, with their local school district funding the housing and travel expenses as related transportation services in the student's IEP. There's caselaw around this issue in favor of students (see, for example, Ojai vs. Jackson).   There is no master list of all the "types" of placements that can be offered to a special education student. Like every other part of an IEP, placement is supposed to be tailored to the student, only with the LRE requirements relative to what services it will take to meet the goals in mind. Sometimes, IEP teams have to get creative to meet highly unique individual student needs.   Other times, the types of supports a student needs are relatively common such that there are entire classrooms that provide those kinds of supports to all of their students. Resource Specialist Program (RSP) services are the most commonly delivered special education services. These are the least intensive forms of special education services provided.   Most students on IEPs have relatively mild learning disabilities that make RSP support a useful tool in helping them maintain grade-level performance. They are usually mostly in the general education setting with some special education supports and plenty of them go on to college and successful careers.   Many of these students glide through the K-12 system with an IEP that no one knows about but their families and teachers. Most of their peers have no idea and their closest friends realize it's no big deal and don't care.   Further, it is becoming less stigmatizing to be on an IEP than it used to be, so students are being more forthcoming with their peers about their special education statuses, just as matters of fact, without judgment entering the picture. If only the adults could follow their lead.

  Every state has its own rules and regulations regarding charter school organization, configuration, and authorization. In California, charter schools are public schools that take Average Daily Attendance (ADA) dollars away from the school districts their students would otherwise attend. It is unlawful for charter schools in California to charge tuition to their students for this reason.   Like all other public schools in California, charters are obligated to abide by the same standards of compliance as any traditional local education agency (LEA) with respect to civil rights and special education law. While charters often like to think of themselves as "schools without rules," that really isn't true.   The truth is that some regulations are made easier for charter schools in California, while others are exactly the same as those that school districts are required to follow. The problem is that a lot of charter operators and their contracted vendors either don't know that, or they know it but don't care.   Understanding the charter rules for a single state, much less all states and territories, is confusing enough. Recognizing the abuse of those rules can be even harder for parents of students with special needs who require accommodations as a matter of civil rights, which can include an Individualized Education Program (IEP). In my experience, trying to enforce procedure in California's charter school universe usually ends in inter-agency political backstabbing and lawsuits.   To understand charter school compliance versus the climate of charter school politics in California, one needs examples. The one that most recently prompted my return to this issue was recently covered by The Camarillo Acorn in its February 7, 2020 article, "Online charter school faces laundry list of violations."   Online charter schools are even more challenged to comply with education law than brick-and-mortar charter schools. That said, for the chartering LEA in this particular case, Pleasant Valley School District (PVSD), to squawk about a lack of legal compliance on the part of the school to which it issued a charter, that being Peak Prep Pleasant Valley, is a grievous instance of the pot calling the kettle "black."    I can imagine Peak Prep's violations must be pretty egregious for PVSD to make a fuss about them in the media, and there is truly a fuss to be made as you can see from the article. But, the reality is that the Doctrine of Unclean Hands, at least as I understand it as a lay person, may preclude PVSD from saying a whole lot, which is possibly why it's addressing this situation in the media rather than a courtroom. So basically, black pots throwing stones at black kettles in glass houses, to mix metaphors.   I've had four cases from my advocacy caseload in the last couple of school years that have required due process filings, and three of them have been in PVSD. I have an active caseload that averages 20 students throughout the State, mostly in Southern California, at any given time.  These are raw statistics; take them for what you will.  But, to think these amoral jamokes are concerned about anything with this charter situation other than going down with the ship is foolish.   Read the article and you'll see there isn't a single, solitary concern expressed by PVSD for the welfare of students, parents, and community members. The only sentiment expressed is on behalf of allegedly overworked and underpaid district administrators who don't have time to clean up messes made by their charters. Not that imposing on district personnel to do what a granted charter requires of the charter school's staff is okay, but I get the same arguments from PVSD in response to asking it to give a kid with disabilities a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).    This district gets itself into enough trouble on its own. A visibly non-compliant charter that won't get its act together, for which the district is ultimately responsible as the chartering LEA, can only shine a stronger spotlight of scrutiny upon the chartering district. In California, the chartering LEA is ultimately responsible for the conduct of its chartered entities.   In special education in California, if you have to file a compliance complaint or due process request for a charter school student, you have to name the complaint against the chartering LEA, not the actual charter school. This is because the LEA is ultimately responsible for the charter school's procedural compliance with special education law and providing FAPE to its special education students, regardless of how the charter school configures its special education services.   In California, when it comes to special education, charters can either be "schools of the district" for the purposes of special education, in which case the chartering LEA delivers all special education, or charters can be "LEAs" for the purpose of special education and take care of it themselves. Even if they organize themselves as LEAs for the purposes of special education, there is supposed to be oversight by the chartering LEA to make sure its obligations are met, but I've never seen that happen proactively. It's always a knee-jerk fit of hysterics on the part of the chartering LEA that had no idea what the charter school people were doing until a complaint came over the transom.   Based on the sordid history of charters in California thus far, I'd think that any school board reviewing a charter application that claims to organize the school as an LEA for the purposes of special education would exercise ten times the scrutiny as it would if the charter application sought to remain a school of the district for special education purposes. In my experience, the charters organized as LEAs for special education are only organized that way to keep the eyes of their chartering LEA out of their business.   Organizing the charter as an LEA for the purposes of special education is, in my experience, an effort to reduce oversight, not increase compliance. I've heard more than one charter operator claim over the years that they didn't want to be taken down by a non-compliant school district's special education department, so they chose to do it themselves, but then they have fewer resources than their chartering LEAs and can't actually deliver.   These are the charters that tell parents to take their kids with special needs back to their districts of residence instead of ponying up the resources to actually deliver on functioning as an LEA for the purposes of special education. Nothing prevents a charter from going to its chartering LEA and saying, "We have a unique situation and need your help," to address unusually demanding special education services, such as full-time nursing support for a medically fragile student, for example, but I've never seen a charter organized as an LEA for special education purposes do anything of the sort.   When you as a parent are jumping ship to a charter school because your kid with special needs is already getting shafted by your district of residence, this really doesn't help you out. Parents changing schools to avoid having to litigate their children's special education cases often find themselves tumbling over the edge of the frying pan and falling into a blazing fire. It's usually a lateral move at best, and a downgrade at worst. See our previous post, "Parents Who 'School-Hop' Risk Making Things Worse," for more on that.   However, PVSD seems to be the one shining the light on Peak Prep, here, which in my experience, usually means there is a fair amount of misdirection going on. By acting as the accuser, PVSD is diverting eyes away from its initial decision to charter Peak Prep in the first place. The last thing any school district wants, including this one, is an official inquiry into how they conduct their business, so when a charter draws this kind of attention, it's usually not good for the LEA that issued the charter.   But, it's not like Peak Prep's organizers' questionable history was unknown or that the quality of the charter application wasn't apparent at the time it was made. To quote PVSD's superintendent, "... the cast of characters is not new by any stretch .... The same group has done this before. They should and do know better." I say the same thing to myself every time I help an attorney draft language for a due processing pleading against PVSD on behalf of a child with disabilities.   The District's hypocrisy, here, is absolutely wretch-worthy, for sure, but this whole public display over proper education agency conduct is critically informative, and voters should be paying close attention to it. While the PVSD/Peak Prep situation is just one more log on the blazing fire of charter school politics in California, it's also a loud message for voters in Camarillo who are looking at the school board and wondering what it thought it could gain for the local community by chartering an online charter school in the current charter climate. Based on the behaviors of other districts, chartering online schools is about generating charter fees from students in other communities, not improving the options for local families.     There are two directions in which this story takes my mind, both of which are relevant and equal in importance. First, there is the litigation of the charter school wars that played out in the Santa Clarita Valley a couple of years ago. But, also, there is a privately owned outfit based out of the San Diego area that claims to help charter schools comply with special education law. In my experience, that's not actually what they do. When we start getting into the history of this issue, you will see San Diego come back up again later in this discussion.   First, I have to point out what happened in the Santa Clarita Valley, citing the publicly available evidence, but also sharing some first-hand information. That matter involved Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District (AADUSD) as the chartering LEA and Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts, and Sciences (AEALAS) as the charter school, which has no website because it went out of business due to fiscal insolvency at the end of the 2017-18 school year.   During the period of the Santa Clarita Valley charter school debacle, one of the students on my caseload was an AEALAS student, and nothing in the articles I can find online will ever come close to describing the hell that student and his family went through. All of the articles online are about fiscal mismanagement, which aren't untrue, but none of them speak to the horrific special education violations that were going on. We had to involve an attorney who, over several years, had to file for due process against AADUSD for AEALAS's improper conduct on multiple occasions.   The Santa Clarita Valley story is revealing and opens up many lines of inquiry for voters of all stripes. These issues affect the lives of our children, families, communities, and public education officials throughout the State. One of the most informative articles I've seen on that whole mess is, "How a tiny California school district sparked calls for a charter crackdown," by CalMatters.org.   Rather than belabor all of it here, I encourage you to read the article. The infographic it includes is incredibly helpful. While it doesn't go into details about the special education issues per se, they aren't left ignored. The charter's inadequacies with respect to special education planning briefly identified in the article played out into absolute travesties in real life, before AEALAS ultimately closed down.   For example, none of the articles mention the AEALAS official who drank too much at his place of worship one night early during the school's first year, and basically told everyone there, most of whom were AEALAS charter school families, that our student's special education program was going to bankrupt the charter school and close its doors in the first year. This prompted the other charter parents from the same place of worship to send anonymous hate mail (signed with simply "Albert Einstein parents") to our student's family telling them they should pull out so his special education program wouldn't cost all their kids their charter school. So, way to go, religious people, for scapegoating a handicapped child to cover corrupt charter administrative fiscal mismanagement.   Clearly, no one had explained to the drunken administrator's constituents that categorical special education dollars can only be spent on special education costs, and none of that money could be spent on general education students in the first place. Our kid came with extra money above and beyond the ADA dollars that all students bring to a charter or LEA on a per-pupil basis, specifically to defray his special education costs.   What was really happening was that AEALAS was financially mismanaged from the start. That's why it couldn't get chartered by the six districts and two county offices of education to which it had applied before AADUSD granted it a charter. So they targeted a kid with costlier than normal special education needs, blamed the lack of funding on him, and sicced a pack of misinformed, emotionally underdeveloped adults on him and his family. It was an act of misdirection to make the charter's supporters think AEALAS was otherwise financially solvent all but for our student's special education program, when the evidence is pretty clear that it never was financially solvent at all.   Our anti-bullying efforts had to start with the adults at AEALAS, not the students. A non-public agency (NPA) bowed out early on and refused to do further business with AEALAS because the assistant principal at that time refused to abide by the scientifically designed behavior plan created for our student by the NPA, preferring instead to tackle him to the ground and scream in his face (our student was 7 at the time). He then attempted to treat the NPA's professional staffs in much the same way when they tried to get the charter to use positive behavioral intervention strategies, instead.   After the NPA's Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) tried to explain the science of what they were trying to do, the assistant principal became verbally abusive of them and physically threatening. He scared the crap out of them, actually. They took the matter to their NPA's ethics committee, which wrote a letter withdrawing from service on the basis of AEALAS's ethics violations, of which the NPA refused to be a part. I've never seen anything like it before or since in my entire career.   The real issue was cost. An NPA-designed and -implemented behavior program isn't cheap, though it's a heck of a lot cheaper than a lawsuit, and the taxpayers had already funded it. AEALAS was just woefully fiscally mismanaged; it was all about playing games with taxpayer monies provided for the purpose of educating children - a point that keeps getting lost in all the inter-agency infighting that's going on.   Also helpful, and linked-to in the CalMatters.org article, is a report published by the California State Auditor in October 2017, in which the players in the Santa Clarita mess featured prominently, titled, "Charter Schools: Some School Districts Improperly Authorized and Inadequately Monitored Out‑of‑District Charter Schools." I mean, they don't even wait until the opening summary of their report; they call it all out in the title.   You would think that other school districts in the State would have taken better notice of these developments and the outcomes they've produced. Maybe, however, that's one compelling reason why PVSD is reacting so strongly, now. If so, I have to give PVSD some credit for dealing with the situation within less than a year of issuing the charter, even if it does add to the smarmy politics of the issue.   These things, among many others, need to be sorted in public education. Ideally, PVSD wouldn't have issued a charter to an outfit capable of performing this poorly in the first place, but second best is admitting your mistake before it's too far gone, which PVSD appears to be doing, now.   Secondly are my concerns about the bad things creeping out the San Diego area with respect to charter school non-compliance with special education law. These charter violations place chartering LEAs in violation, whether the LEAs realize it or not.   In the PVSD/Peak Prep matter, one of the players in the current matter from the charter school was previously employed by another charter school that was shut down last year following charges filed against the owners of its parent organization, A3 Education, for pocketing $50M in taxpayer funds by the San Diego district attorney's office. For more information on that, see "How an alleged charter school conspiracy netted $50 million."   And, here's where it gets super creepy/interesting, depending upon your point of view. If you look on the Peak Prep website, it opens up by telling you that enrollment is closed. I would imagine so, because another page on the site lists all of the schools shut down by the court-appointed Receiver following the A3 lawsuit.   Now, supposedly, Peak Prep has nothing to do with A3, which is the company busted in the $50M charter scam. But, the Peak Prep Pleasant Valley principal, Shalen Bishop, is listed as the principal of University Prep, which is one of the schools listed as closed on the Peak Prep site. It and the other schools listed are A3 schools.   So, if that case isn't related to Peak Prep, why is that information on their site? That creates a link between shenanigans in the San Diego area to what's happening in PVSD. This supports PVSD's superintendent's previously quoted statement about this particular "cast of characters" having done this before and knowing better.   But, it gets richer. Also in the San Diego area is a privately owned company called Special Education Assistance and Technical Support (SEATS). SEATS doesn't have a website. The closest thing I could find was the LinkedIn profile for the wife of the husband/wife team that own and operate SEATS. There are also some job listing sites that come up when you do a search for SEATS, indicating that the agency is looking to hire resource specialists and speech-language pathologists.   But applicants be warned, SEATS reportedly does not cover travel time or mileage to dispatch their special education staffs all over Kingdom Come to serve students in independent studies and online charters. Even if a school is virtual, if a special education student of such a school still needs 1:1 specialist support to participate in instruction, or otherwise needs specialist services in person, the law requires the school to meet the needs of the child, not expect the child to warp themselves to fit the charter school's pedagogy. The whole point of special education is to individualize the program to meet the unique needs of the student.   SEATS has a reputation for making special education service decisions on the basis of how much they are willing to spend rather than individual student need. They also have a reputation of short-paying their vendors and speaking to them disrespectfully in IEP meetings and/or screaming at them outside of the meetings if they dare to recommend anything SEATS hadn't already approved for expenditure in advance of the meeting.   Needless to say, none of SEATS's employees are in a union of any kind. It's also not a coincidence that the teachers' unions in California are backing current efforts in Sacramento to take on this whole charter mess. Most of the charters in California, virtual or otherwise, do not have unionized certificated personnel, which has contributed to high turnover rates and disclosures among professionals about what they have been experiencing.   In the course of developing this post, I spoke with a colleague still employed by a virtual charter and she's just waiting for the State to come after her employer. All of the virtual charters are apparently starting to freak out because of all the accountability that is now coming their way. While she needs a job, she is also morally outraged by what she sees on a daily basis.   The stress of working for this charter is affecting her health and she has no union to turn to, but she also recently had to take her local school district to due process on behalf of her own child with special needs and it's not like they're going to hire her to work for them, after that. I've received similar feedback regarding work-related stress from former contractors of SEATS over the years that mirror what my colleague at the virtual charter was expressing to me the other day.   SEATS alleges to help charter schools comply with the special education regulatory requirements, but I've seen them mostly help charter schools try to dodge the special education regulatory requirements. SEATS personnel have been alleged to tell families that the charter school they chose cannot support their children's special education needs because they don't offer "those" kinds of services, so the families need to go back to their regular school districts.   The owners of SEATS once emailed me while they were on a cruise to tell me that the charter school in the case we were discussing didn't have the money to pay for the services we were requesting. Forget that the charter was paying SEATS to make sure they were provided.   As best as I understand it, SEATS basically tells its charter school clients, "Give us your entire special education budget for the year, and we'll make sure you don't get in trouble." However, the owners pay themselves out of that money, they have multiple charter clients, and they go on a whole lot of trips and cruises while kids with disabilities go without special education services that SEATS is supposed to provide, but "can't" because their charter clients don't have the money to pay for them.   From what I've seen, it's not that SEATS is trying to keep charter schools from making mistakes; it's that SEATS is participating in and profiting from the same charter money scams that are going on all over the State to hide mistakes, if not outright corruption, from authorities. They simply occupy the special education niche within this whole shameful legislative disaster.   One of the other charter systems being scrutinized, now, is the Inspire chain of charter schools. I had a student on my caseload a year or two ago who was an Inspire student. His online/independent study program was chartered by none other than AADUSD. Inspire also has programs chartered in the San Diego area, where the A3 $50M matter was tried. Now Inspire is under scrutiny for, among other things, lack of transparency, and I'm not the least bit surprised.   Like most of my other special education students accessing in-home instruction through independent study and/or online instruction, my Inspire student's situation wasn't about school of choice. The brick-and-mortar setting wasn't accessible to this student because of his disabilities, making his living room the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in which he could receive and benefit from instruction. He had previously been in an independent study charter that used SEATS for special education and, when that didn't work out, they went to Inspire.   When things get so extreme that instruction in the home is the only way for a student to access education in a regular school district, you get a doctor's note stating that it's medically inadvisable for the student to attend a regular school and the IEP placement can be changed to home/hospital. The only placement more restrictive is a 24/7 residential facility with a school on its grounds. But, because every kid's living room is the general education classroom in an online or independent study program, it's not considered restrictive at all.   Because the general education "classroom" and special education "classroom" are the same thing in an online or independent study program, trying to write an IEP for a kid in such a program is generally a nightmare of technicalities and questions of procedure. Then there are the fights over where special education and related services will be provided.   Even though school districts will hire staffs to provide in-home services as needed to facilitate access to instruction, almost every online and independent study program I've ever encountered refuses to send anyone to the home for any special education purpose other than assessment, and even then, sometimes not. So, even if you've got a kid whose disabilities make it impossible to get them to participate in instruction and they need in-home BCBA support to overcome that behavioral challenge, most independent and online charters won't even think of sending over a BCBA or will only do it upon threat of complaints or litigation.   These online and independent study programs will try to get IEP services pushed out into the community rather than into the student's home, which mostly has to do with the insurance costs and the related liability of sending teachers and specialists into people's homes. They'll try to make the parents drive their kids to meet teachers and specialists in the community when these kids are only in home instruction because getting them out of the house is often so hard. One of my past clients would drive to the next town over with their kid to accommodate the fact that SEATS wouldn't pay their special education teacher mileage or time to drive to their community.   Instead of individualizing the instruction, online and independent study schools tend to use their pedagogy as their excuse for not tailoring the IEP to the individual student, as required by law. So, the bottom line to all of this is that parents of children with special needs in California need to think long and hard about whether a charter school is appropriate for those children, particularly an online or independent study charter.   It's not that charter schools, even the online and independent study ones, in theory, are a bad idea. It's that they are improperly regulated in California, so they are becoming something other than what they were intended to be. In no small part, this is because certain elements out there don't want their kids going to school with "those other kids," and are trying to twist the charter system into a system of segregation.   Whoever happens to be "other" relative to the parents practicing such bigotry and teaching it to their kids, with the help of the dysfunctional charter system for profit, depends on the parents. Sometimes it's racism. Sometimes it's religious extremism. Other times it's socio-economic classism. Sometimes it's people who don't want to be criminally prosecuted for not sending their kids to school and couldn't possibly care any less than they already do about education.   There are enough people out there who don't want to abide by public education's true intent and will try to twist the system to fit their ill-intentions to do obvious harm. Such has been the case with charter schools in California, which is finally prompting a louder call for more appropriate regulations. The concern for many is all kinds of vendors profiting from the existing dysfunctional system without delivering actual educational outcomes, which circles us around back to SEATS.   The situation with Peak Prep Pleasant Valley speaks to the running concerns I've had for years about how SEATS is funded. PVSD is asserting that Peak Prep violated the California Education Code and the State's labor laws by giving away its control of "hiring and termination decisions" to a third party contractor, called Educational Staffing Services (ESS). It is further asserting that Peak Prep "engaged in fiscal mismanagement" by giving over its administrative operations to yet another 3rd party contractor, Accel Schools, which is owned by the same guy who signed the contract between Peak Prep and ESS as ESS's CEO.   According to PVSD, Peak Prep gave Accel control of its funds and failed to complete requested financial documents. PVSD can't see how Peak Prep is using its funds because its operating budget is "obscured by a lump sum payment in exchange for the program services, all delivered by Accel." This is, to the best of my understanding, the same model as how SEATS gets funded.   Like Peak Prep giving its money to Accel in a lump sum, which then shows up in its budget as a single line item with no detail on how that money was spent, SEATS's clients are giving it lump sums that represent their entire special education budgets for the school year. I have to wonder just how many details they are sharing with their charters and how many of those details the charters are sharing with their chartering LEAs about where that money is going. I have reason to suspect that it's paying for cruises rather than special education services.   To be fair to vendors and contractors who serve charter schools in California, it's honest to say that the laws are a mess and even the most well-intended vendor is at risk of getting into trouble over finances just because of how poorly regulated charter schools are in California. Rabbi Mark Blazer, who spearheaded the failed AEALAS endeavor in the Santa Clarita Valley, was quick to point out "bad charter policy" in California, and he's not wrong that California's charter policies are bad.   It's just that most of the charters out there, in my experience, see the bad policies and weak regulations as exploitable opportunities for profit. The children and families horribly affected by their actions are just collateral damage, not the intended targets. Students are just a means to a financial end to these people. The harm done is all the same regardless of intent, and it's far-reaching.   A whole bunch of very crooked people have now stolen way too many taxpayer dollars in California that were invested by the public into education. California has created a charter school system that is more about moving money around, mostly into the pockets of the wrong people, than educating students. While Betsy De Vos may find that acceptable, most Californians - heck, most Americans - do not.   A system like this entices the least savory people on the planet to parasitically attach themselves to it wherever there is an exposed spot, such as the loophole-laden charter laws in California, and suck the system dry before it realizes how much it has hemorrhaged. The cases making it to media make that clear. The chief perpetrator in the $50M A3 scandal is an Australian national.   The unspeakable number of dollars spent on litigation, whether its families suing to get special education services or school districts suing each other over ADA dollars, takes funding out of the classroom and creates overworked and underpaid certificated personnel. This is a voter issue that isn't getting enough attention, but with the election coming up later this year, Californians will have the chance to hold the State and their local school boards accountable and elect or re-elect officials who will clean up these messes in a timely, responsible way.

In memory of Cedric Napoleon   I wasn't going to write on this topic quite yet, but I'm working on a case right now that has me upset over public agency mismanagement and misconduct that has resulted in the physical abuse of our nonverbal student with severe special needs and God only knows how many other students within this public education agency. It reminded me of a lot of things, including our organization's founding and the protective purpose KPS4Parents has always served as student and family advocates.   I maintain my list of topics to write about as draft posts on the backend of our site, sometimes just as a title, sometimes with a brief description, as the ideas come to me and, when I go to write, I have them more or less organized in my head in the order I want to write them. But, sometimes, like now, something happens that makes one of the topics leap up to the top of the list.   I am currently providing paralegal support to an attorney on a case in which our student has gone for years without behavioral interventions in her IEPs after previous years of successfully benefitting from such IEP interventions. She has regressed to the point where she was behaviorally 10 years ago, before receiving any appropriate behavioral interventions at all.   The educational neglect in this case rises to the level of physical abuse. The school district's bumbling ineptitude at the expense of our student's welfare has been nothing short of galling. Our student is now sitting safely at home waiting for her case to be either adjudicated or settled but without the benefit of any instruction or related services until it's resolved.   Which takes me back to the founding of KPS4Parents and the event that was the last straw that compelled our founder, Nyanza Cook, to start KPS4Parents. In 2002, I was a lay advocate in private practice helping families of students with special needs, and Nyanza hired me to help her with her step-son's case, which is a story unto itself for another day. It's how we met and these were the early days. It was the context we were in at the time.   Nyanza hails from Killeen, Texas near Fort Hood, the largest U.S. Army base in the continental United States. While diversity has been tolerated, if not embraced, within the U.S. military in many instances, outside of the military base in the rural areas of Texas, diversity is not so much appreciated. Killeen Independent School District (KISD) has historically operated separate schools for students with "behavioral problems," most of whom have been African-American or Latino. The quality of special education in KISD has been historically abysmal, particularly for students of color, which is how it's misconduct led to our organization's founding.   In 2002, a young man named Cedric Napoleon was attending a Special Day Class (SDC) at one of KISD's special schools for students with "behavioral problems." Cedric was a foster child living with his foster mother, Toni Price. He had experienced severe trauma in early childhood, including deprivation of food for days that led to a food hoarding behavior and other behavioral challenges. He was in special education under the Emotional Disturbance (ED) category and his SDC was supposed to be configured specifically for students with ED issues.   Also in the classroom at the time was Nyanza's nephew. On one fateful day in March 2002, Cedric was suffocated to death by his classroom teacher during a prone restraint. He was not being violent towards others, trying to run out of the classroom, or hurting himself when she restrained him. He was being non-compliant and she took it as an affront to her authority. She pinned him face down on the floor out of hostile rage and when he said, "I can't breathe," she replied, "If you can speak, you can breathe." He expired shortly thereafter as Nyanza's nephew and his classmates watched on in horror.   That night, Nyanza got a hysterical phone call from family members gathered at her parents' house in Killeen. They knew she was talking about starting a special education advocacy organization and had been advocating for her step-son in California. They put her nephew on the phone with her and all he could say in a dazed voice was, "They killed him, Auntie. They killed him." He was terrified to return to school after that, and never did. His life has been one of despair and tragedy ever since.   The day Nyanza's nephew witnessed Cedric's murder in his classroom by his teacher, he was already there because he had his own ED issues. To add the trauma of witnessing Cedric's murder to his own pre-existing special education needs, in the place that was supposed to help him overcome his pre-existing special education needs and at the hands of the person who was supposed to help him, was just too much.   More than one life was destroyed that day. Cedric's classmates witnessed his murder in that ED SDC and were affected for life in ways that could only lead to more suffering for them. The District's students most vulnerable to trauma were severely traumatized by one of the most grotesque abuses of their trust possible. They witnessed their teacher kill a classmate for daring to defy her authority.   Nyanza called me that night as soon as she got off the phone with her family and told me what they had told her. She and I agreed that when teachers were murdering our babies in plain sight of our other babies (we have an it-takes-a-village mentality, which makes all babies our babies), we couldn't stand idly by. The death of Cedric Napoleon was the final straw that compelled Nyanza to go through with starting our organization, she asked for my help, I said "Yes!" without hesitation, and we had our paperwork in order by June of 2003.   In Cedric's case, to make matters worse, once his life had ended, so had his foster mother's legal authority to act on his behalf as a parent. She could not pursue justice for him because she lacked the legal authority and the foster care system did little to nothing about it. Cedric's killer was never tried for murder. She was never subject to any disciplinary action by the public education system in Texas.   On May 19, 2009, Toni Price finally got her chance to do something about what had happened to Cedric. The Education and Labor Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives was being presented with a report of the findings of an investigation the Committee had previously ordered to have done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the use of seclusion and restraints in public schools. There had been a fairly recent similar study conducted of private schools that produced shocking and horrifying disclosures as bad as Cedric's or worse, and the Committee had wanted to know if these problems were also pervasive in our nation's public schools.   The GAO report started circulating among those in my professional circle online shortly after the hearings and ultimately found its way to me. I remember reading through it and getting to the section describing what happened to Cedric and going, "Wait a minute. I've heard this story before ... OMG! This is the kid from Nyanza's nephew's class!" I immediately forwarded the report to Nyanza and either called or texted her to follow up. At some point we ended up on the phone and she was flabbergasted to see Cedric's story spelled out in the report. It was the same student she had told me about back in 2002.   In the course of conducting its investigation, out of all of the cases of problems with seclusions and restraints that GAO examined, Cedric's stood out as particularly horrifying, in no small part due to the fact that his killer had never faced any serious consequences for killing him at the time of the investigation. The investigators searched for this teacher when their investigation revealed that she had faced no consequences and, shortly before the date of their presentation to the Committee, found that she had relocated to Virginia and was running an SDC on a public school campus that was only a 45-minute drive away from where the Committee was convening to hear the presentation of their report.   There was no effort to conceal the outrage that several Committee members expressed over the fact that this woman had not only killed an ED student in the ED SDC where she was supposed to be helping him get better, but that she faced no consequences and was able to get credentialed in at least one other state because the fact that she had killed a student didn't follow her on her record. They openly referred to Cedric's death as a murder.   The Committee's disgust is exposed during the hearing (Her testimony was compelling; even now, it still makes me cry.   Toni argued for a national, if not global, directory of teachers found guilty of child abuse for education agencies to use for screening teaching applicants, and she did so from the most informed position possible. She spoke as the primary caregiver of a child with mental health needs killed by the person entrusted to address them every day at school, but with no legal recourse to do anything about it, leaving advocating for that child and protecting others like him to no one. Only the fluke of a Congressional investigation at the right time on the right topic exposed what happened, and Toni took the opportunity to say what needed to be said.   Which brings me back to the topic of this post and podcast, which is the use of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in special education. Subsequent to the May 2009 hearing, GAO began gathering additional information and the U.S. Department of Education began promulgating guidance and technical information regarding PBIS. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education produced the Restraint and Seclusion Resource Document.   In February 2019, after 10 years of collecting data on the use of seclusion and restraints in our public schools, GAO produced another report and another hearing was held during which the last 10 years' worth of data collected and analyzed were presented to the Committee. Witnesses gave testimony, provided additional evidence, and answered questions. You now can look up the CRDC data for your own school district on the CRDC site.   Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Department of Education announced an initiative to address the inappropriate use of seclusions and restraints in our public schools. Just this last December, four members of the U.S. House of Representatives proposed a bill, HR 5325, referred to as the “Ending Punitive, Unfair, School-based Harm that is Overt and Unresponsive to Trauma Act of 2019” or the “Ending PUSHOUT Act of 2019," which seems like way too poor of a word choice for a name just to create an acronym, but the body of the bill still nonetheless prohibits seclusions and restraints and includes other regulations pertaining to behavioral interventions.   HR 5325 is still a bill pending before the Education and Labor Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. It was introduced just last month, so obviously nothing has happened with it, yet. Congress has been a little busy lately and the last time the Committee tried to pass legislation to address seclusion and restraints in 2009, it passed in the House only to never see the light of day in the Senate. That's likely to happen again, now, with our current configuration of Congress, but the effort still needs to be made.   What GAO reported in the most recent hearing was that there wasn't enough data in, yet, regarding the efficacy of Education's efforts to promulgate PBIS technical information and guidance among the public schools or the degree to which the schools that availed themselves of it found it beneficial. In controlled research situations in which implementation fidelity was maintained, PBIS was proven to work, but how well public schools actually implement it with success in the absence of researcher oversight and fidelity checking remains to be seen.   What seems to be the case, and the whole reason this issue is before the House Education and Labor Committee, again, is that there is an obvious need for federal oversight and regulation, here. There is a lack of consistency from state to state as to how behavioral interventions are to be implemented in schools. Some states have regulations regarding seclusions and restraints in schools and others do not. Even those states that have laws in place don't provide for adequate enforcement of those laws.   The lack of built-in accountability has made it possible for horrible situations to happen. And, they continue to happen. The only way the public school system is held accountable in situations like these is when individual families take legal action. Hence, the case I'm now working on that has made these issues spring to life for me, once again, much to my deep disappointment.   Educator and support staff training, or a gross lack thereof, more specifically, is often at the heart of these cases. But, so is the lack of teacher accountability and the degree to which educators tend to cover up each other's tracks, even if it means a child dies in the process.   The fear of talking usually goes to fear of losing their jobs, fear of reprisals from their co-workers, fear of being held accountable for the actions of others, fear of getting in trouble for the same thing for which someone else is getting in trouble because they've done it, too, and has to come with a tremendous amount of internal conflict. Only sociopaths could smoothly walk that rocky landscape without being troubled by the experience.   The willingness of school administrators to let something as horrible as student traumatization, physical injury, and/or death by the hands of teaching staff and aides in the learning environment get swept under the rug and hope nobody notices, if not actively seek to conceal it, is repugnant. There is a lack of professional integrity in the public education system that can reach sickening proportions, and these cases are examples.   So, I really don't have an upbeat ending for this post and podcast. I'm pretty not okay with what I'm still seeing going on with respect to seclusion and restraints in public schools in California, which is supposed to be the most progressive state in the country. It's particularly bad in rural communities far away from specialists and adequate facilities, particularly when those communities are mostly made up of low-income households.   In some cases, like the one I'm working on now, the student has experienced nothing short of absolute barbarism. It shouldn't take people like me helping to hold the public education system accountable after the fact. The answer is prevention. In the absence of any guidance in the student's IEPs as to how to address her behaviors, she was repeatedly secluded and restrained by teachers and aides who didn't know what else to do.   This was all just up until a few weeks ago, which is why she's now safely at home but without any instruction or related services until her attorney, in collaboration with me as his paralegal and the experts we're bringing onto the team, can get this mess cleaned up. It just sickens my heart that after all the years that I've been doing this work - 29 years this coming June, mind you - this is where things are still at. In the most progressive state in the Union, we're still secluding and restraining non-verbal students who are struggling to communicate their wants and needs. It puts bile in the back of my throat.

Image credit: Elco van Staveren   Special education is heavily regulated to protect the rights of eligible students to individualized educational planning, but complying with the regulations is easier said than done. The operational design of most public schools is over 150 years old and based on the mass production mentality of a factory, having been created during the Industrial Revolution. By contrast, the applicable special education laws were first passed in the 1970s, accounting for only the last 1/3rd of the current American public education system's history.   Trying to implement the individualized educational planning called for by special education law in an environment created for the purpose of mass instruction is like trying to build a custom piece of furniture on a moving assembly line. In the early days of special education, this meant removing students from the general education setting to special education classes, effectively choosing to build a custom piece of furniture in a specialized workshop rather than on the pre-existing assembly line.   The problem, however, is that pieces of furniture do not have civil rights. It's one thing to segregate inanimate objects according to how they are constructed. It's another thing to segregate human beings according to whether they need changes in how they are instructed due to disability.   Because special education students have legal protections against being segregated out of the general education setting simply for having a disability, integrating individualized educational planning into a mass instruction environment becomes that much more complicated for special education students who are educated with their general education peers for all or part of their school days. The complexities of individualizing educational programs for each student are seemingly infinite, given all of the relevant disability-specific considerations plus all of the ecological factors involved in each instructional setting.   However, science - specifically research conducted by educational psychologists and their colleagues - has been attempting to keep up with the demands created by various types of unique student needs, including disabilities of all kinds. While it all hasn't been figured out for every situation by any stretch of the imagination, there is still a wealth of information from education research that never makes its way into the classroom, much less into individual IEPs.   That's a problem because Title 34, Code of the Federal Regulations, Section 300.320(a)(4) mandates the application of peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education on an individualized basis, unless it's not practicable to do so. No one has yet defined what "practicable" actually means, so it's still up for debate.   The history of how all this science ended up being codified within the implementing regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has been summarized in our last blog post, "The Fundamental Flow of IEP Creation," so I won't repeat it here. You can review the impact of PARC v. Pennsylvania in that post to inform references to it, here.   The point is that the applicable science has always been written into any serious redress to the educational needs of students with disabilities after having been deprived educational benefits by the public school system. In PARC v. Pennsylvania, a psychologist with extensive experience working with children with intellectual disabilities and an attorney committed to representing the interests of children with intellectual disabilities were jointly appointed by the federal court to serve as special masters to oversee the implementation of appropriate interventions to students with intellectual disabilities in Pennsylvania's public schools as part of the settlement that was negotiated between the parties. The settlement included federal court oversight by way of the court-appointed special masters.   The historical foundations of the requirements for measurable annual goals in IEPs pursuant to 34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(2) and the application of the peer-reviewed research to the delivery of special education as mentioned previously can be traced directly back to PARC v. Pennsylvania. There has never been a time when the law did not expect the delivery of special education to be informed by anything other than evidence-based practices developed from the peer-reviewed research.   From the moment the first laws were created to provide special education to all eligible children in the United States, science was built into its design. Federal Supreme Court case law has established that Congress expected procedural compliance with the IDEA to all but guarantee compliance with the substantive requirements of the law when it authored and passed what is now the IDEA. Specifically, the case law states, "...the Act's emphasis on procedural safeguards demonstrates the legislative conviction that adequate compliance with prescribed procedures will in most cases assure much, if not all, of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP." (Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982))   Congress intended for the applicable science to guide the special education process for a number of good reasons. First, using science means using what everybody can agree actually works under a given set of unique circumstances, to the degree such is known. There is evidence - proof - that under the explicit conditions that were tested, a particular method of intervention works or doesn't.   Because every special education student presents as a highly unique individual such that their learning needs do not conform to conventional instruction, they require highly individualized instruction that is tailored to each of them, respectively. There is no one-size-fits-all method of intervention proven to work in special education contexts. What is proven to work is writing up a unique program of instruction for each individual student. That is the evidence-based applicable science, that is the bottom line requirement of the applicable federal law, and this has been known and federally regulated since 1975.   This, therefore, begs the question as to why so much of special education is based on subjective opinions, ballpark estimations (often underestimations), and fad theories about learning rather than science. There's been a lot of research into why the research isn't being promulgated for use in public education and politics has a lot to do with it.   Applying the research means upgrading facilities, retraining teachers and their support staffs, buying new materials, and paying for more specialists. Further, it's often necessary to purchase all of the research materials necessary to inform any kind of evidence-based program design and hire someone who knows how to translate the research into a data-driven educational program. For highly paid top agency administrators who get compensated on the basis of how much money they don't spend rather than how many students they do get educated, applying the research means spending money, and that's no way to get a raise in that kind of institutional culture.   Another concern of many public education agencies is accountability. When using evidence-based practices in the delivery of special education, one can't ignore the body of research that supports that the data collection and analysis methods used in Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) are the most reliable methods of data collection and analysis used in any special education context (Drasgow, Yell, & Robinson, 2001; Kimball, 2002; Yell & Drasgow, 2000). The problem for some education agencies is that valid data collection means all their missteps will be captured by the data. If they aren't actually implementing the IEP as written, the data will reflect that, exposing the agency to legal consequences.   People often mistake ABA for a treatment for autism, but this is not the case. It is true that behavioral interventions using ABA can be effective at addressing behavioral challenges with students who have autism, as well as any other human beings with behavioral challenges, but it can also be used as an instructional methodology and as a tool to determine if learning has occurred and, if so, how much. That is, it is excellent at measuring progress towards a clearly defined outcome, such as a measurable annual IEP goal.   The Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) data collection methods used in ABA naturally lend themselves to measuring progress towards IEP goals. This is how it works: a stimulus (Antecedent) is presented to which the student responds with a specific Behavior, which immediately results in an outcome (Consequence) that either increases the likelihood of of the behavior happening again (reinforcement) or it doesn't (absence of reinforcement or punishment).   Most people in special education are at least familiar somewhat with using this approach to dealing with inappropriate behaviors. You don't want to deliver a reinforcing consequence when an inappropriate behavior occurs. Instead, you want to reinforce a more appropriate replacement behavior that still meets the student's needs; the behavior was happening for a reason and you can't leave its function unaddressed or a new behavior will just develop around it. Treat the cause, not the symptom.   You only resort to punishing the undesired behavior when reinforcing the desired behavior is not sufficient at extinguishing the undesired behavior. Presenting reinforcement for doing what is expected and withholding reinforcement for doing what is not expected is usually a pretty powerful strategy for positive behavioral interventions.   When using ABC data collection and analysis on the fly during instruction, your thought process is a little different. When you're looking at whether a student is learning from the instruction you are providing, especially when working with students who have significant impairments that limit their expressive communication skills, sometimes it's the raise of an eyebrow, the turn of a head towards you with eye contact, or the smile or grin that tells you whether or not you're getting through. There is still an Antecedent (the delivery of your instruction and/or check for understanding), a learning Behavior (the student's response to your instruction and/or check for understanding, whether verbal or not), and a Consequence (praise for learning or encouragement for trying) that increases the likelihood that the student will remain engaged and continue to participate in the instruction.   When using ABA-based data collection methods to measure for IEP goals, so long as the goals are written as math word problems based purely on observable learning behaviors, it's pretty straight forward. Take for example this goal, which is purely made up for illustrative purposes: "By [due date], when given 10 calculation problems using multiplication of double digit numbers per trial, [Student] will calculate the 10 problems with at least 80% accuracy per trial in at least 9 of 10 consecutive trails within a semester, as measured by work samples."   This is easy. There are 10 problems per trial. The student needs to get at least 8 out of 10 problems right per trial (measure of accuracy) in at least 9 out of 10 consecutive trials (measure of consistency) within a semester (measure of time) in order to meet the goal. Nothing is left to guesswork. Everything is represented by an increment of measure.   What ruins a goal out of the gate is basing any part of it on internal thoughts and feelings experienced by the student. Never start a goal with language like, "... when feeling anxious or angry ..." or "... when presented with a non-preferred task ..." You can't trigger the onset of measurement based on something you can't observe. You only know what the student is thinking or feeling once they express it in some way.   There is no way to get in front of the student's expression of their thoughts or feelings to prompt their behavior in an appropriate direction because there is no way to know what the student is thinking or feeling before they act. Other people's thoughts and feelings, including those of special education students, cannot be observed or known by other people. No credential in special education imbues special education personnel with clairvoyance. By the time you know what the student is thinking or feeling, it's too late to influence how they act on those thoughts or feelings; you only know because they've already acted.   The same goes for preference. Preference cannot be observed and it can vary from day to day, or even moment to moment, for a lot of special education students. What is preferred at one time will often not be preferred at others. Eventually it is possible to have a good idea of what is not preferred by a student, but then confirmation bias can enter the picture and you see what you expect to see, not realizing you're prompting it according to your preconceived expectations.   What makes more sense is to write goals that do not target what are referred to in ABA as "private events," but rather to expected behaviors. For example, a common behavior targeted in the IEPs of students with challenging behaviors is work refusal, which is to say non-compliance with task demands. A teacher will assign a task and, if the student is non-compliant, they will either passively sit there and just not perform the task; do something else passive instead, like doodle or read a book; engage in distracting or disruptive behavior, like play on their phone or talk to their neighbors; or engage in outburst behaviors, possibly accompanied by leaving the room (eloping).   It's usually pretty easy to figure out if there is a pattern to the types of tasks assigned and when non-compliance occurs such that preference can seem easy to identify. But, trying to rely on that for the purpose of measurement is like trying build a house on shifting sands because someone's preferences can change so quickly.   The language that I see most commonly used in goals that work around the issue of private events reads more or less like this: "By [due date], when assigned a task, [Student] will either initiate the task, ask for help, or request a 2-minute break within 60 seconds of the task being assigned in at least 8 of 10 consecutive opportunities as measured by data collection."   This makes things easy. Regardless of whether the student has a personal preference or not for the task being assigned, they will either start the task, ask for help with the task, or take a short break and get it together before they come back to the task.   Some students have processing speed delays that interfere with their ability to get started right away. They need extra time to process the instructions so they understand what you want them to do. Sometimes that extra little break is all they need to get there independently. It just takes them a little longer to think it through and make sense of what you want from them before they know what to do and can start. Other students get emotionally overwhelmed and just need to go get a grip before they tackle the expectations being placed on them. Yet others take longer to stop one activity and transition to another one. That short little break can buy them the time they need to process the mental shift of set and orient themselves to the new demands being placed on them. Other times, students just don't understand the expectation being placed on them and need clarification.   In any event, if there's a problem, the goal provides a solution; otherwise, the student just needs to perform the task as assigned. Further, the language of this example goal can be modified for a student to provide for alternative acceptable responses and/or a different response time.   With respect to measurability, there is no guessing about what anybody is thinking or feeling in a goal formatted this way. Measurement is triggered by the delivery of a task demand (the assigned task) and is based on whether any of the described acceptable outcomes occur within 60 seconds. All of the elements of the goal are measurable.   Further, a goal written this way follows the ABC format of ABA. First an Antecedent is presented (the task demand), then one of three acceptable Behaviors (task initiation, request for help, request for break) occurs, then an appropriate Consequence (completion of the task, delivery of help, or receipt of a short break) is immediately forthcoming. Everything that needs to be measured can be observed. The observable criteria are easily represented in increments of measure. It's black-and-white without making any assumptions about a student's thoughts, feelings, or preferences.   So, having said all of this, how does this get us to the point of the article, which is how parents can successfully advocate for the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and implementation of their children's IEPs? Well, first, I needed to be clear as to what I mean by applying the peer-reviewed research, hence everything I just got through explaining.   Parents first need to understand what they are asking for and how it impacts the design and implementation of their child's IEP. Further, any professionals reading this for the purpose of further developing their skill set may not have all the background information necessary to make sense of all of this, either.   A foundation first had to be laid. Having now done that, parents need to keep the information I've just shared in mind when participating in IEP meetings and reviewing IEP documents for appropriateness.   If you live in a consent state like California, I usually suggest signing only for attendance at the meeting and taking the document home for review before signing agreement to any of it. In California and other states, you can give partial consent to an IEP and the education agency has to implement the consented-to portions without delay while the non-consented-to portions remain subject to IEP team discussion and negotiation.   Anything that can't be resolved via the IEP process must go to due process for resolution, whether you are in a consent state or not. Just because you are not in a consent state doesn't mean that an education agency won't change the language of an IEP at your request. An IEP meeting would likely be called to discuss your concerns and, if you back them up with facts and logic, the education agency isn't going to have a good reason to say, "No." Not everyone is outlandishly unreasonable in special education; there are some definite bad apples, but they don't account for the entire barrel. Due process is your only resort if your efforts to resolve things at the IEP level are not met with success and your child is increasingly compromised because of the unresolved matters.   If you are unfortunate enough to have to rely on due process to see things resolved, the fact that your denied requests were supported by facts and logic will only help your case once you get in front of a hearing officer. Understanding the underlying arguments of what makes something legitimately measurable and the federal requirement that special education be delivered according to what science has already proven works makes you a far more informed IEP participant than at least some of the other people at the table.   As a parent, the more you can support your requests and arguments with peer-reviewed research, the better. Once you frame your requests according to the proven science and make it as black-and-white as possible, you eliminate all kinds of silly arguments. This means not only asking for goals that are truly measurable, though that goes a long way towards solving and preventing a lot of problems, but also understanding the nature of your child's disability(ies) and what the research says can be done to teach to learners with such needs.   Gathering the necessary research data to inform a request for a particular assessment, service, curriculum, methodology, technology, or placement requires accessing the peer-reviewed literature and understanding what it means. A lot of it is really dry and technical, as well as expensive. This isn't a burden parents should have to take on, but if it's one that they can take on, it will only help them become better advocates for their children. Google Scholar can be a good place to start.   In truth, it should be education agency personnel doing this research, but if parents want to see the science applied, they may have to push for it, themselves. Parents can also submit published research articles to their local education agencies that appear to apply to their children's educational needs and request that the approaches used on those articles be used as part of their children's special education programs, including being written into their children's IEPs. If the local education agency declines to honor any request, 34 CFR Sec. 300.503 obligates it to provide Prior Written Notice (PWN) explaining why to the parents.   Conversely, if the education agency proposes a particular approach and the parents are unsure about it, the parents can request an explanation of the peer-reviewed research that underpins the education agency's offer. Either it honors the request or it provides PWN explaining why it won't. If it's the latter, it better be one heck of a good explanation or it will only reveal that the education agency has no research-based explanation for its recommended course of action, giving the parents a good reason to dispute it.   If what you are asking for as the parent is backed up by facts, logic, legitimate measurement, and credible research that all directly apply to your child, and the education agency still says, "No," then you will either end up with no PWN because the agency doesn't want to put the denial in writing, which violates the law and only makes your case stronger in hearing, or you will end up with a PWN full of malarkey that won't stand up in due process. If what you are asking for makes total sense and the education agency won't do it or something else equally or more appropriate, the education agency will have some explaining to do in hearing.   So long as what you are asking for is necessary for your child to receive an appropriately ambitious amount of educational benefits (meaning as close to grade level or developmental norms as possible), there's not a lot of good reasons for a public education agency to turn down your request. It's illegal for the public education system to use fiscal considerations to determine what should be in a special education student's IEP.   Just be sure to submit all of your requests for changes to your child's IEP in writing. It is the education agency's receipt of your written request for changes that triggers the PWN requirement. In the instance of requesting assessments, many states allow for a public education agency to decline to conduct assessments for special education purposes upon parent request, but the agency must provide PWN when doing so. For more information on special education assessments, see our previous post, "The Basics of Special Education Assessments."   If it doesn't decline a parent's written request for assessment, the education agency must provide the parent with an assessment plan to sign that authorizes the agency to conduct the requested assessments. State law regulates the provision of assessment plans; in California, local education agencies have 15 calendar days to get an assessment plan to the parent, regardless of who made the referral for assessment. Submitting the request for assessment in writing is not only important for triggering the PWN requirement if the request is declined, it's also important in establishing when a state-mandated timeline starts counting down.   You as a parent can encourage the application of science in special education by insisting upon it. If you live in California or another consent state, you can use your authority to withhold your consent to anything that looks sketchy in an IEP being given to you for your signature. You can consent to instruction in the areas targeted by IEP goals but not to using the language of the goals for the purpose of measuring progress if they aren't actually written in a measurable way. You can consent to everything in an IEP except a change in placement. If you can't resolve all of the issues you have with an IEP this way, those left unresolved become due process issues.   Even if you are not in a consent state, you can still make the record in writing that you disagree with the sketchy portions of your child's IEP, explain why using math and science, and request appropriate changes. The local education agency will likely call an IEP meeting and change those things it's willing to change and give you PWN on those things it is not willing to change. The things left unresolved at that point are due process issues.   Understanding how to use math and science to solve everyday problems is a solid skill to have, but not everybody has it. It's a skill necessary to developing a sound IEP for any special education student. Parent education can be provided as a related service under a student's IEP if the purpose of the parent education is to help the parents understand their child's disability and/or to help them be equal participants of the IEP team. There is absolutely nothing wrong with parents asking to be trained on how to write measurable annual goals and the IEP process in general as part of parent training as a related service under their child's IEP. Parent training is specifically named as one of many possible related services that can be provided to a student with an IEP by 34 CFR Secs. 300.34(a) and 300.34(c)(8)(i)).   If you're distrustful of the quality of instruction you might get from parent training through your child's IEP, you may have to result to self-education by reading everything you can find about your child's disability, as much of the peer-reviewed research about instructing learners with the types of needs your child has as you can digest, and simplified reports of the research findings in trusted publications from credible sources. You may need to periodically consult with experts for hire, but what you invest in informing yourself you may save many times over by preventing yourself from getting duped.   The bottom line is that parents can protect their children's right to evidence-based special education planning and implementation the more they understand how to use measurement and evidence in the planning and implementation processes. By knowing what to look for, they know what request when they don't see it. Informed parents can monitor the situation for education agency compliance.   In those areas where parents have not yet mastered the knowledge necessary to know whether an approach is appropriate for their child or not, they are encouraged to ask questions like, "Can you explain to me how this fits my child?" and "How can we measure whether this works in a meaningful way?" By shifting the burden back onto the education agency to explain how and why its recommendations are supported by the peer-reviewed research and written in an appropriately measurable manner, parents rightly shift the burden of applying the science to the appropriate party.   Parents are not, and should not, be required to become experts in order to participate in the IEP process. But, for the sake of protecting their children's educational and civil rights, and their own rights to meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, it behooves parents to become as knowledgeable as possible. It's more difficult to get tricked or misled the more you know, and the more dry and technical you can keep things, the less hysterical drama you're likely to experience in dealing with your local education agency.   References:   Drasgow, E., Yell, M.L., & Robinson, T.R. (2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Education 22(6), 359-373. doi: 10.1177/074193250102200606 Kimball, J. (2002). Behavior-analytic instruction for children with autism: Philosophy matters. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10883576020170020101 Yell, M. & Drasgow, E. (2000). Litigating a free appropriate public education: The Lovaas hearings and cases. The Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 205-214. doi: 10.1177/002246690003300403

Image credit: Justin Lincoln   Trying to piece together the actual special education process from the implementing federal regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a lot like trying to create origami from paper shredder cuttings. However, it's been done and, when laid out in proper order, the special education process totally makes sense.   When followed as intended, the special education regulations are a marriage of law and science. It is further assumed that procedural compliance with the regulations is likely to result in the provision of the Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to each special education student by the IDEA. The specific language comes from what is known in special education circles as "The Rowley Decision," which specifically states, "the Act's emphasis on procedural safeguards demonstrates the legislative conviction that adequate compliance with prescribed procedures will in most cases assure much, if not all, of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP. "   In order to understand why the regulations require the things in special education they do, it helps to first understand the history of the language in the regulations. Prior to Congress enacting the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, which ultimately became the IDEA during a later reauthorization, there were no laws that specifically promised any kind of education to children with special needs.   Prior to the EAHCA, children with disabilities were routinely denied enrollment into the public schools. In the beginning, it was an accomplishment just to get a public school to open its doors to a child with special needs, and there was nothing that made it mandatory to educate the child according to any particular standards once the doors had been opened.   Then, in 1971, disability advocates took the matter of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court. The settlement and resulting consent decree produced much of the language that is now found in the implementing regulations of the IDEA, particularly with respect to FAPE and individualized educational program development.   In PARC v. Pennsylvania, a class of individuals who all had intellectual disabilities (IDs), which at the time were described as "mental retardation," were being denied access to public school on the basis of their diagnosed "mental retardation." They were either languishing without any education or receiving privately funded education at their parents' personal expense. PARC filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of itself and the child members of the class, sued for injunctive relief, settled with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and obtained a consent decree overseen by the U.S. District Court, which it later enforced through the Courts to compel Pennsylvania to enroll children with IDs into its public schools and provide them with appropriate programs.   Quoting page 8 of the May 5, 1972 Opinion, Order and Injunction from PARC v. Pennsylvania, "The lengthy Consent Agreement concludes by stating that '[every] retarded person between the ages of six and twenty-one shall be provided access to a free public program of education and training appropriate to his capacities as soon as possible but in no event later than September 1, 1972 ...' To implement the agreed upon relief and assure that it would be extended to all members of this class, Dennis E. Haggerty, Esq., a distinguished member of the Pennsylvania Bar who has devoted much of his energy to the welfare of retarded children, and Dr. Herbert Goldstein, an eminent expert in the education of retarded children who is Professor and Director of the Curriculum Research and Development Center in Mental Retardation at the Ferkaus Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Yeshiva University, were appointed Masters at the expense of the Commonwealth ... Next, the Consent Agreement charges defendants with the duty within 30 days, to formulate and submit to the Masters a plan to locate, evaluate and give notice to all members of the plaintiff class ... Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Agreement states that: 'The defendants shall formulate and submit to the Masters for their approval a plan to be effectuated by September 1, 1972, to commence or recommence a free public program of education and training for all mentally retarded persons . . . aged between four and twenty-one years as of the date of this Order, and for all mentally retarded persons of such ages hereafter. The plan shall specify the range of programs of education and training, there [sic] kind and number, necessary to provide an appropriate program of education and training to all mentally retarded children, where they shall be conducted, arrangements for their financing, and, if additional teachers are found to be necessary, the plan shall specify recruitment, hiring, and training arrangements.'" [emphasis added; internal citations omitted]   Here, we see the language of FAPE (34 CFR Sec. 300.17), the marriage of law and science in the creation of the program design, the precursor to the federal "child find" requirements (34 CFR Sec. 300.111), and language that effectively describes creating what amounts to an IEP. PARC v. Pennsylvania laid the foundation for what ultimately became the IDEA, which specifically mandates that the peer-reviewed research be applied to the delivery of special education to the degree it's practicable to do so (34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4)).   The appointment of the masters in PARC v. Pennsylvania is important to note because it marks from the outset the need to combine the efforts of legal professionals and psychologists to come up with evidence-based approaches to special education instruction that conform with the regulations. While there have been many efforts over the years by those of a particular ilk within the public education system to minimize the science and place undue emphasis on legal maneuvering, they have never been successful at eliminating the science.   Now, we are seeing the courts rely more and more on the dry, neutral facts of science rather than the hysterical budget shielding that typically goes on in special education. As more and more people become more fluent with using math and science in everyday life, the public is increasingly expecting to see science rather than politics in the delivery of public instruction.   It has always been the intent of the applicable law to use the applicable science in the delivery of special education. The arguments for relying on facts and evidence in designing and implementing IEPs are too compelling to be overcome by cronyistic politics altogether. Politically speaking, the science has never carried as much weight in special education as it does now, which is tragic in that it's taken this long but it's also inevitable. The truth is the truth and no amount of political spinning changes what a child's unique learning needs actually are or what research has proven actually works.   So, that being the case, when we look at the logical flow of how an IEP is supposed to go together, it's important to understand how the law and science become inextricably intertwined as the IEP process goes forward. To start, a child cannot be found eligible for special education without first being assessed. Assessment determines if the child has a qualifying disability and, if so, what to do about it.   Competent special education assessment is a highly scientific process. People with special credentials and licenses are brought in to collect expert data, analyze it, and provide expert opinions to the IEP team as to why a child is struggling in school and what can be done about it. This process can become compromised by internal public education agency politics, however. See our previous blog post, "The Basics of Special Education Assessments," for more information about this step of the process.   In an ideal world, a child's initial assessment for special education is thorough and competent. It measures all of the student's unique learning needs and assesses in all areas of suspected disability. The data it produces is then used with input from teachers and parents to create an IEP, presuming the child is eligible for an IEP. This is where things can get really messy.   There are two ways things can go badly at this stage:   The assessments were poorly done and now there isn't good data to inform the development of the IEP, or The assessment data is fine but the IEP offered to the student doesn't match what the assessment data says the student needs   Parents need to understand what is supposed to happen at this stage of the process or they can be quickly bamboozled by seasoned bureaucrats with their own agendas. The information gathered by the IEP team about the student's learning strengths and needs is supposed to result in measurable annual goals that describe what the IEP is supposed to make happen in each area of unique learning need.   Where things often break down is in translating all of the baseline data into measurable annual goals that target appropriate learning outcomes in every single area of unique learning need. That's a tall order. It's one thing to measure what already is, but it's another thing to use that data to project where things should be in a year.   IEP teams often struggle to identify all the areas in which goals are needed, much less write the goals they come up with in a measurable manner. In my experience, the average special education professional would fail the 4th grade under the Common Core if their IEP goal-writing skills were used to measure their abilities to apply math and science to solving everyday problems.   A lot of the guidance given to special education professionals during the 1980s and 1990s about IEP goal-writing was a bunch of preemptive legal defense hooey that was utterly devoid of any kind of valid science or math. These approaches provided teachers with formulas and supposed hacks that they usually didn't understand and usually used incorrectly in the field.   There was no sincere effort that I ever observed back in the day to teach special education professionals the technical nuts and bolts of goal-writing, and I still assert now that the training being done is grossly inadequate. A half-day workshop for continuing education units is usually about it for most special ed staffs, and most of what such a workshop instructs is usually garbage.   These are the workshops that taught teachers to write the measurement for every goal as "... with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials ..." even if it makes no sense. For example, it's highly inappropriate when used here: "By [annual due date], [Student] will cross the street safely with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials as measured by observation."   First, try to make the math work, which you can't. Then ask yourself what an 80% accuracy rate of crossing the street safely must look like, however it might be calculated, and whether it could possibly be educationally appropriate. It's supposed to be a free and appropriate public education and there's nothing appropriate about being run over in the street like a bug as a result of participating in publicly funded instruction.   My brief advice to school district administrators is to not let your attorneys develop your employee training for any aspect of special education that requires scientific rigor. And, unless you are qualified yourself in the applicable sciences, if you are an administrator, don't think of developing that training yourself, either. Use actual experts; don't be a chump.   Doing sound assessments only to toss the science and math out the window when it comes time to write the IEP makes no sense whatsoever. But, there is a political game that sometimes get played with parents in which public education agencies will deliver a decent assessment, but then offer a garbage IEP and act like the garbage IEP is what the data and law say the agency can do for the student. It's a lie.   In reality, the IEP is based on how much the education agency is willing to spend on the student, but the agency's administrators can't admit that, so they try to run a con on the parents in which they use valid assessment data to argue for a garbage IEP. They're effectively gaslighting the parents because the data doesn't support the IEP at all, but the parents are usually too confused to understand what is really happening and just let it go, thereby allowing the education agency to get away with shortchanging a kid.   The parents get an assessment report that describes their kid, but then they get offered an IEP that is weak relative to the kid's actual needs and they figure that's the most the schools must be able to do for them. In truth, their kid is getting robbed. If the IEP doesn't match the assessment data, something is really wrong. This can be particularly the case with IEP goals.   The data can make clear what the areas are in which goals are needed, but then only a few goals get put into the IEP by school personnel. This is a problem because the services that are offered to a special education student are supposed to be driven by what is necessary to meet the goals. If you don't have goals in each area of need, there's nothing to compel all of the services that are needed. Missing goals mean missing services. Schools that want to prevent spending on services can accomplish this by leaving goals out of IEPs.   Goals describe what the IEP is supposed to make happen. Services describe what it takes to meet the goals. This includes service frequency, duration, and location. For example, a student may receive 30 minutes per week of individual speech/language services to address their communication goals.   Accommodations are tools and strategies that make access to the grade-level content possible for a child with special needs. They are not the same things as modifications. Modifications actually change the learning expectations for the student to something less rigorous than the grade-level standards so that the instruction is accessible to the student.   For example, the accommodation of being able to dictate one's answers rather than write them down doesn't change the nature of the material being studied or the questions that have to be answered. The only thing that changes is how the response is produced, but a grade-level response is still expected.   In another example by contrast, a student with developmental delays may participate part of the time in general education math where students are calculating the hypotenuses of triangles, but the work is modified to cutting out different sized triangles for the student with developmental delays. In this example, the instruction has been scaffolded towards the grade-level expectations by modifying it to the student's level of learning.   Before one can understand what a hypotenuse is, one must first understand what a triangle is, so instruction on triangles in general lays a foundation for the eventual instruction of the calculation of hypotenuses. Scaffolding towards the grade level standards and developmental norms is a critical method used in special education as per the peer-reviewed research to adapt the instruction to learners who cannot perform at grade level because of their disabilities. There still has to be a way to measure their learning and push them as close to grade level as possible.   Once goals, services, and accommodations are identified, the IEP team then determines the student's educational placement. This is usually not a specific classroom or campus; it's the type of classroom and/or campus required. Placement is decided at the end of the process because it is impossible to know where is the best place to deliver the services and accommodations such that the goals are met if the goals haven't been written and services and accommodations haven't yet been determined.   In addition to these critical steps, an IEP can also include an Individualized Transition Plan (ITP), which is basically a plan within a plan that describes what will be done for a teenager or young adult with an IEP to prepare them for life after high school. Students exit special education either by graduating with a regular diploma or aging out, usually at age 21 or 22, The ITP is supposed to be the driving force of their IEPs from at least age 16 forward, though nothing prevents IEP teams from starting younger.   Another component that an IEP may include is some kind of Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). They can go by a variety of names, but they're all basically the same thing, and usually loosely based on Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). This is another science that gets grossly watered down in special education, sometimes to the point of becoming ineffective if not harmful.   Good ABA is a wonderful thing, but there are way too many programs operating these days that are "ABA-based," meaning they aren't fully adhering to the science and only have borrowed those parts from it that they find most easy to use. They take a fluid science, try to turn it into something formulaic, and ruin the whole damn thing. It's right up there with crossing the street safely with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials.   To be clear, when I talk about ABA in this blog/podcast, I'm talking about the actual science, not some hokey fly-by-night scam trying to take advantage of the autism community. I have plenty of colleagues who operate completely legitimate, scientifically rigorous ABA programs that save and change lives for the better, and they are just as disgusted as I am by the charlatans ruining the good name of a credible science for the sake of making a buck off of autism. These charlatans who have corrupted the legitimate science are the ones with whom the autism community takes such issue when they complain about ABA.   There is no way to have a conversation about the IEP process and the degree to which science plays a role in it without discussing ABA. ABA is the most reliable method of data collection currently used in special education, even when not done that well. This is because the field is dominated with people teaching their students to cross the street safely with 80% accuracy in 4 out of 5 trials as measured by observation. Even shoddily done ABA-type data collection is usually better than that.   It's my argument that, if the science has to be applied to the degree it's practicable to do so, and ABA-type data collection is the most reliable, then IEP goals should be based on ABA-type data collection methods. If IEP goals were actually written according to scientific method like they were supposed to have been from the start, we would naturally default to ABA-type methods of data collection because that's the only thing that will work.   This becomes particularly important for IEPs with BIPs. Real ABA, not the half-baked version that is peddled by some agencies, should be used to develop measurable annual goals and any BIP in an IEP. This will allow for legitimate measurement of actual progress. Here, it's not exactly about the instructional approaches of ABA so much as how to accurately measure learning. By using ABA-based teaching and measuring approaches, it's a lot easier to tell if a student is actually learning anything or not, which is the whole point of measurable annual goals and measurable BIP criteria.   When you understand that there is a logical order to the sequence of the special education process that the law describes from what it has taken from science, the parts of an IEP start to make more sense. An IEP is not an arbitrary document. It's an enforceable contract that describes what a public education agency is supposed to do to tailor the instruction to a student with special needs. It includes what it includes for logical reasons.   Congress organized how IEPs are supposed to go together based on the advice of attorneys and psychologists who worked very hard to come with with a marriage of law and science that will work so long as the public education system pays equal attention to both the science and the law. There needs to be more training for professionals in the special education community as to the scientific origins of IEP design and the scientific rigor actually necessary to deliver special education according to Congress' intent.   Parents need to understand the importance of the science, as well. They are the most important members of any IEP team and if they don't understand what the data means, they can't give informed consent to anything.   Parent education is a related service that can be added to an IEP to help the parents understand their child's special needs as well as help them better participate in the IEP process (34 CFR Sec. 300.34(a)). If you feel as a parent like you don't have enough information to be an equal member of the IEP team, it's your right to request parent training as a related service so that your rights to meaningful parent participation in the IEP process and informed consent are honored.

Image credit: Alan Levine   One of the situations I commonly encounter in working with students with special needs and their families in the public education system is a phenomenon that I've come to refer to as "school-hopping." Sometimes, parents who do not understand why their children are struggling assume that the problem is with the school, and, very often, there is a problem at school. But, quite often, the real issue is that the school is responding poorly to a disability-related need experienced by the student, so it's not just that there is something wrong at the school, there's something wrong with how it is responding to a special need that requires unique accommodations.   Put another way, there are two problems to resolve: 1) how to address the student's unique needs in an educationally appropriate and legally compliant way, and 2) how to address the internal problems at the school that are preventing this from happening. Parents will sometimes jump from a charter school to a district-run independent study program to a home-school group to a ... you name it ... trying to find the right fit for their child.   The problem with doing that is, unless a parent knows what specifically to ask any school to do for their child, they're just rolling the dice with every school change and hoping this one will finally be the one that fits. The whole purpose of special education is to impose structure on how education is tailored to each individual student. That way, it shouldn't matter so much where they are so long as the supports and services described by the student's individualized program are being delivered in that setting.   The guidance to the school site personnel as to how to do this comes in the form of a legally enforceable document called an Individualized Education Program (IEP). An IEP is created by a team of individuals described by federal law (34 CFR Sec. 300.321) according to specific criteria, also described by federal law (34 CFR Sec. 300.324). What the IEP says it what the responsible public education agency must do for the student for whom it is written.   It doesn't matter how many times a student with special needs changes schools if the IEP that follows them is garbage. Even when a student changes to an entirely different public education agency, the incoming IEP is what informs the new school team as to how to support the newly incoming student with special needs. If the IEP does not describe appropriate supports and services, then the new school is legally obligated to implement the garbage that the IEP describes, instead.   My point, here, is that changing schools under these kinds of conditions tends to just make things worse. Every school change means at least some part of a kid's file, if not the whole thing, gets lost in transit between one public education agency and the next. Assessment reports and old IEPs disappear from the record with frequent moves and school changes, so those items aren't there to inform a records review like they normally would as part of a new assessment conducted by a new education agency.   That makes it very hard for the new school to know where to begin with a new student with special needs. The parents are hoping the new school will somehow magically fix everything but each successive new school gets put further and further at a disadvantage as to where to even begin every time a new change in schools happens and records have to be shuffled around again.   I have yet to figure out why so many people start at the end rather than the beginning when it comes to individualized student planning. Placement - that is, the type of classroom setting(s) in which a special education student receives instruction - is determined by the IEP team as the last matter of properly conducted IEP planning for very important, logical reasons. There are a whole lot of other decisions that have to be made, first, before a placement determination can be made.   IEPs start out with identifying a student's present levels of performance, which seek to answer the questions, "What can the student already do?" and "What does the student still need to be taught relative to the grade-level standards and/or developmental norms?" On the basis of the answers to those two questions, goals are written that target measurable, annual outcomes.   The goals describe what the IEP is supposed to make happen. Until you know that, you don't know what all you need to actually educate the student.   For this reason, the IEP team next determines what services are necessary to see the goals met. On the basis of the frequency, duration, and location of the services necessary to meet the goals, in combination with the student's right to experience the least amount of segregation away from the general education population as possible, educational placement is then determined.   Parents who school-hop interfere with how the federally mandated process is supposed to work, usually without realizing the harm they are doing. Until the IEP describes goals in each area of unique student learning need in meaningfully measurable ways, it doesn't matter where the student goes to school; following a bad IEP in a new, good setting will still go wrong.   That said, I've seen plenty of situations where changing schools, even moving to entirely new school districts, has saved a kid's life. The challenge, though, was to get the IEP as good as we could get it before the student changed schools so the new, receiving school had something worth implementing once the student started attending there.   And, in California, where I do most of my work, whether a special education student moves during the school year or summer break has bearing on what is enforceable in terms of a transfer IEP. This added layer of complexity, which isn't the same in all the other States, makes the timing of everything that much more imperative when it comes to changing to a different school district or charter school. Parents who school-hop in California can do even more harm than they realize because of the odd State laws about transfer IEPs.   What's often more heartbreaking are families that are school-hopping because their child has never been offered an IEP and when they've asked about it, they've been shot down by school personnel who insist that their child would never qualify. In reality, it can be the case that the school personnel are just waiting for the family to pick up and move the student, again, at which point whether or not the student needs an IEP won't be that particular school's problem, anymore. There are unfortunately those in public education who will facilitate eliminating a problem rather than solving it, even if it comes at the expense of a child.   Parents who school-hop can call unnecessary attention to themselves as easily exploited by school staffs who would rather see them move along to the next school than stick around and insist that the current school do its job. At some point, school-hopping parents have to figure out that the school-hopping isn't working and, instead, they need to stand in one spot, dig in their heels, and get a decent IEP from whatever agency is responsible right at that moment. That might mean filing a lawsuit just to get an initial assessment, but if that's what it takes, that's what it takes.   Without a legally enforceable IEP document that describes something worth enforcing, no placement can be made to work. Federal law mandates that the education rendered to a special education student be in conformity with that student's IEP (34 CFR Sec. 300.17). If the IEP is garbage, then the school is legally obligated to implement the garbage until such time as the IEP can be made more appropriate.   As a parent, your number one objective when it comes to advocating for your child with special needs is to make sure that the services and supports provided are actually appropriate to your child's needs. Just having a document that says "IEP" at the top of it doesn't magically bestow educational benefits onto anybody. The contents of the document matter and, as a parent, you need to know how to look out for language in an IEP that could undermine your child and any exclusions of language that are important to meeting your child's needs from the IEP. More harm can be done by what is left out of an IEP than what is put into it.   Once you understand why placement is the last decision that should be made by an IEP team, you can understand why changing placement when things aren't going right doesn't always make sense. Unless you've got an amazing IEP and the people at the school site just aren't implementing it as written, there's a really good chance your problem is with the plan more than the placement.   Plans of any kind fail for only one of two reasons: 1) design flaws, or 2) implementation failures. Design flaws can sometimes only be identified when you try to implement the plan and something goes wrong. If you never implement the plan according to its design, you'll never know if the design was flawed or not because you weren't following it in the first place. If the design is great, but no one is following it, what's the point?   This analysis of plan success and failure came to me by way of my training in Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), which, by the way, is a science, not a treatment methodology. There are a lot of ABA-based treatment programs out there, but those programs are not what actual ABA is. They are based on ABA, some with more scientific rigor than others. The actual science of ABA can be applied to anything that behaves, including animals, plants, and computers.   From the absolute, parsimonious perspective of ABA as a science, everything is based on objectively identified behaviors, only, which are framed in quantifiable terms and rendered into emotionally neutral pieces of data. Further, not only is data taken on how the individual responds to efforts at changing its behaviors, data is taken on the fidelity with which those implementing the plan are actually adhering to it.   Taking data on the fidelity of the implementation of the program design is one of the most critical pieces of the science that often gets left out of school-based ABA-type programs. It's my assumption that this is for political and/or preemptive legal defense purposes because no school district that I know of wants data taken on the degree to which their staffs are actually adhering to any part of the IEP.   That's way too much accountability on the record and way too much risk of it capturing somebody doing it wrong that could then be used to prove a denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in hearing by the parents and achieve an order for compensatory education to make up for the lost instruction. Even though the science is abundantly clear that ABA data collection methods, when followed according to the science, are the most accurate, reliable, and valid data collected in the public education system for special education students (Drasgow, Yell, & Robinson, 2001; Kimball, 2002; Yell & Drasgow, 2000), I have yet to see that degree of scientific rigor applied to any part of a student's IEP in the public schools, whether it's through their measurable annual goals or any behavior plans that their IEP might contain.   As parents, your primary goal has to be the quality of the IEP's design because, if it doesn't describe what your child actually needs, it doesn't matter where you try to implement it and no placement will just magically fall in love with your child and imbue them with knowledge through emotional osmosis. Hope is not a strategy. Pursuing a scientifically informed, legally compliant IEP is a strategy that gives you way more likelihood of having a meaningful say in the quality of your child's education, regardless of where they attend school.   References:   Drasgow, E., Yell, M.L., & Robinson, T.R. (2001). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate IEPs. Remedial and Special Education 22(6), 359-373. doi: 10.1177/074193250102200606 Kimball, J. (2002). Behavior-analytic instruction for children with autism: Philosophy matters. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10883576020170020101 Yell, M. & Drasgow, E. (2000). Litigating a free appropriate public education: The Lovaas hearings and cases. The Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 205-214. doi: 10.1177/002246690003300403