special treatment for some families! | Autism PDD

This is an excerpt from an article in my small local "daily press" . I'm kind
of shocked. It seems like people (perhaps with means, education, and
tenacity) are getting "special deals" from the sp. ed. division of our
school district. Then they basically sign a confidentiality agreement, so
tht the special services they receive (that are above and beyond what
other kids get) don't get put on record--not on IEPs, or anywhere.
WHAT??!!
Please give me your feedback, I am very interested to hear what you think
of all this.

Also, please don't move this post to some obscure area, because I am
really looking to hear everyone's opinion, as well as "warn" people about
what is happening in one district. I have a feeling about the people who
are getting special treatment--but will comment later on that.


School board reviews request
calling for an independent
consultant to review practices
BY MELODY HANATANI I Daily Press Staff Writer
SMMUSD HDQTRS
Trying to act on a promise made to
the City Council earlier this year, the Board of Education
reviewed a request for proposals last Thursday to hire an
independent consultant to assess a controversial special
education program.
The council requested the school board to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of its program after several par-
ents of special education children raised concerns over so-
called secret deals that they said barred them from speaking
to a third party regarding the services their children received.
The draft RFP would ask the consultant to review several
elements of the special education program, including finan-
cial, programming, policies and the very settlement agree-
ments wherein the confidentiality agreements are said to exist.
The board in July temporarily pulled the plug on the prac-
tice ofconfidentiality agreements until the review is completed.
An estimated cost for the consultant has not been
determined,according to ChiefFinancial Officer Stephen
Hodgson. The review is expected to be completed prior
to the release of a final report due March of 2008.
Earlier in the week, the Special Education District
Advisory Committee reviewed the draft RFP and submit-
ted suggestions, including broadening the scope of servic-
es, which it felt were too narrow and would result in “yes”
or “no”answers. The committee also suggested that the
consultant should expand its scope ofthe settlement agree-
ments, asking questions such as whether other districts
conduct settlement agreements in a way that the services
received are not written into the student’s Individualized
Education Plan, which outlines the services the child
receives during the school year. Some SEDAC members in
the past have alleged that the secret deals do not leave a
paper trail of the special education services that were
received because they were not written into the IEP.

The school board seemed to generally
agree that the scope of services should be
broadened,some raising concerns that the
SEDAC recommendations should not be
brushed aside and should be implemented
into the draft. Many board members said
there doesn’t seem to be a huge gap
between what is listed in the RFP and the
wishes of the advisory committee.
Board members received a copy of the
recommendations shortly before the
board meeting.
“I hope it’s not put on the wayside and
are looked into,” said Board Member
Maria Leon-Vazquez.
Craig Hamilton, a member of the dis-
trict’s Financial Oversight Committee,
pointed out that the RFP is stretched out
into various areas ofexpertise and suggested
that whomever is chosen be given the option
of bringing in a consultant with a different
background. For example, if a firm with a
strong financial background is chosen, it
with expertise in program policy matters.
“We have eight potential providers,”
Hamilton said. “The question is whether
we can get that in any one entity.”
One of the eight providers being con-
sidered is the Financial Crisis &
Management Assistance Team,which con-
ducted an assessment of the school dis-
trict’s finances earlier this year.
Superintendent Dianne Talarico said
FCMAT would determine what the dis-
trict’s needs are before bringing in a team
of experts. One of the suggestions of
SEDAC in its review of the RFP was that
the consultant disclose whether they were
ever employed by the district in the past.
The draft RFP is expected to return to
the school board for another look at its
Oct. 4 meeting.
“I think it needs to be an open process
and I think that’s what we’re doing,”
Board Member Barry Snell said on Friday.
Ok maybe its exhaustion but I dont really understand this article Can someone explain it to me like Im a 3 year old please?I'm a little confused too.   Are wealthy families basicly slipping money to the district under the table for additional services which are then not formally documented?Basically it's about how the school district is complying with a request from
the city coucil to do a full investigation of some "fishy" special ed. practices.

They have been cutting "special deals" with some parents and then making
the whole thing confidential and "off record"

The rest of the article is just mumbo-jumbo, I guess, about the details of
looking for an outside investigative team. I think some are receiving special services that are not documented at all,
lest other families start asking for the same treatment.

I'm guessing there is no money involved, just some well-connected parents.

It was the parents who received these special deals that were apparently the whistle-blowers.  This is not a set-up they're happy with either:

"several parents of special education children raised concerns over so-called secret deals that they said barred them from speaking to a third party regarding the services their children received."

It sounds like the special deals might have been a compromise.  The school district gives a little, but puts the parents in a position where they can't seek advocacy or legal help.  I guess the school district probably found it more tempting to stretch their existing services a little further than to face a lawsuit.

But this is not the way schools should be operated in a democracy. 

I hope it gets resolved soon.

 

That is so wrong!

I have to tell you a story - last year a bunch of the "high society" moms at my sons school got together 7 bought his teacher a bunch of baby gifts because she found out she was pregnant. Expensive baby gifts. I did not have the money to go in on the baby gifts because we were really broke at the time they asked me. Well, she spent so much time with those moms at the class music show, thanking them & going on and on. It really hurt because I do not have money to do that stuff all of the time, and I had to wait like 45 minutes to be able to chat with her because she was trying to get to all the "popular" moms.
Or maybe it is all in my head & I am just neurotic?? But I think this kind of thing goes on in many ways at public school all the time.It also means they cannot discuss their child's services with any third party,
even if they need to. And that their "deals" are not being documented at all.
Not even on their IEPs.

My interpretation of the article is that perhaps some of the parents arrived at compromise "deals" with the district - when they speak of "settlement agreements" that usually implies that some form of legal action was being taken and the settlement was reached in compromise... in which case both sides can be legally bound not to discuss the terms of the settlement. 

It sounds as if the whistleblowers are concerned that other parents (who are not as well-educated regarding their children's rights) are getting shafted because the school district is playing on their ignorance and not making them aware they have the right to the same services as those who took action and got the settlements.  In that case, kudos to them and shame on the district.

If that is the case, that is so wrong.

I don't cut any special deals, but I have found doing things to volunteer in the classroom has helped me in getting more info about my son and more direct access to the teacher. Not that that's the only reason I'm doing it! But, it is a side benefit I have found. I do things at home to help the class but I have to communicate with the teacher occasionally about it. I've done this for years - it's something I enjoy doing (volunteering) and then I sometimes talk briefly to the teacher about my ds during the conversation. I try not to take too much advantage of this, because that's not my purpose in doing it - but there are times I do.

I am amazed that these parents did the whistle-blowing - what great people!

Oh, EDUCATION IS politics!!!  Totally politics.

The School Board members DO NOT have a background in education ... and they often use school board membership as a jumping-off point!  And yet ... these are the people who establish the DISTRICT CURRICULUM.

This story seems sadly typical to me.

Is this Education or politics?  Everyone involved should be fired!Yes, I think it's great that the original whistle blowers were some of the
parents themselves. But, I do wonder how this practice got started in the
first place, and who (besides the district) benefitted from it. There are
probably some folks who didn't complain because the system was
working in their favor.

The area I live in, while it has a reputation for being a very expensive
place to live, actually serves families of all different means. There are
several subsidized community housing develoments here, rent control,
and several different types of neighborhoods. What I'm saying is that we
normal people share the district with some VERY wealthy, and sometimes
VERY famous folks.

So, I worry about things like getting private placement with full services
for some, and not for others. I worry that anyone who understands the
system, or can afford to pay an advocate to fight for them ends up
getting more than anyone else OFF THE RECORD.

I'm glad parents have stood up and said this is wrong. And I hope it
wasn't just for personal reasons, but for the general good, too. (yes, I'm a
hopeless idealist)

I don't really know what's going on--but, I'm gonna find out!!
People are scared that they will lose what ever services that they receive
from the SD. So I am impressed that parents spoke out about this
arrangement. They risk losing what ever great services which were
provided to them. That is one of the biggest problems with having a
child with autism. With such scarce resources, with such waiting lists for
ABA, once you start receiving services, where do you turn to if services
are not provided to your satisfaction? A lot of politics are involved. Are
the SD making the right choices for my child? I do not believe it, it is
more of an adversarial relationship, it is all about the money.

Teachers on the other hand is placed in an awkward position because
they often times want to see a child succeed but they are also district
employees.

I just think we will see alot more of this going on.

Ok, this may not be popular, but here goes....as a mom, with an autistic child - I would do whatever I needed to get her help - if it meant signing an agreement to keep it confidential I would - not to deprive other parents of services, but to get my child the help she needs.  

I am quite sure that if each parent in here looked into their hearts, and the offer was on the table, most on here would do the same thing to help their child - I fight and advocate for my daughter, and it is hard, and it is emotionally draining and some days I just want to cry - any help offered at all would be a relief...I don't think it has anything to do with who has more money - I think it is simply that some parents found the loopholes and the way to get the help, and quite frankly, my hat is off to them!!  Is it "fair" - nope - but then neither is autism.

 

You're right teresamay - it's not fair.  And you're also right that life is not about being fair, and that as parents we would all do what it legally takes to get our children what they need.  At the same time, the governmental phrase of "justice for all" doesn't just apply to criminal issues -- it's about getting it ethically right, and that includes the district providing services they are legally required to provide to any and all children who qualify for them, not just the ones who agree to keep their mouth shut about private deals.  Therein lies the rub - unless the districts are held accountable, then they will keep doing just as they please and getting away with it.  And, ultimately, it is the children who are the ones caught in the crossfire and pay the price for the school district's politics.

It is not fair and equitable that the school district has effectively silenced the parents who have accepted the agreements to the point that the district is getting away with not documenting those services on the children's IEPs... and that's one of the things that needs to be investigated.   If it's not documented in the present IEPs, when the next evaluation ARD comes up, the school can deny it provided those services and refuse to continue providing them even though necessary... or if the parents move, the documentation provided to the next school district is, in fact, bogus and they'll be fighting all over again to obtain what their child is legally entitled to and had been receiving under the table.  I wouldn't call that provision within the settlement agreements anything other than one-sided - and in the district's favor.   

It's called accountability, and governmental entities - including school districts - should, IMHO, be almost completely transparent.  That's what it takes to keep them honest - or at least as close to it as the government ever comes
Copyright Autism-PDD.net