Comment in Black, My Responses in Red.
Joanne,
I appreciate that you've taken the time to share some context behind DSBA's decision. However, I take issue with some of your reasoning:
1) The HB 328 attempts to equalize the expectation of special education students to that of general education students.
Because of the nebulus term "potential" as attached to a special needs student--we have no choice but to ask for a cleaner, more finite threshold of deciding (and really mandating) requested services. Isn't it the expectation that school boards will enact policies that support developing the potential of every child? "Potential" for general ed students is based on scientifically established developmental milestones. In the case of special needs children, the map of milestones becomes illegible and intangible. Services, therefore, are based upon what we know about potential at any given moment in development. We create, add, subtract, and accommodate based upon "potential." As least, we say we do. H.B 328 will make us mean it, too.
No one will argue the need for accommodation, personnel, assistive devices etc., to enhance a learning environment for any special needs child. Actually, you'd be astounded by the number of families that have to argue for everything on this list. There are districts and schools that are responsive and proactive, but I believe there are far more districts and schools that are not responsive and at times are deliberately evasive, arbitrary, and malicious. The Lt. Gov. would not have chosen to put his personal support behind this very bill if there was not substantial evidence of egregious errors in the realm of special ed. in Delaware.
However, placing school districts on the hook for "potential", becomes limitless and ill-defined as to intent. With that being said, a child in a gen-ed setting also has potential, yet we often fall short of meeting or maximizing that uncharted territory also. Yes, we often fall short of developing potential for general education students, but not for lack of wanting! Cultural discrimination towards those with disabilities is so ingrained and insidious that we have established such low educational expectations that many of the programs we have developed for children with disabilties do not even include the option of a high school diploma nor provide sufficient vocational training to successfully compete for a job.
Elizabeth, the fidelity is to be "free and appropriate education" for ALL children of Delaware. The "special needs" tag was not to entitle funding/access to uncover, discover or hope that potential is actualized. Actually, that's exactly why the "special needs" determination was developed. These students need and are entitled to funding/access to uncover, discover, and hope that potential is actualized. As an example: The category of "Mentally Retarded" has all but been eliminated from educated society because we have learned that special education students can and do learn when appropriately accommodated and engaged. If the goal isn't to discover and maximize potential, why then do we require special education degrees? Why do we hire speech pathologists, physical therapists, school psychologists, occupational therapists, and ASL translators?
Our goal is progress. If progress delivers potential--it's a great day. However, for most parents, thankfully---hope springs eternal, and their child always has more potential than what" the darn school district did for them". It's human or parenting nature. I just find this statement blatantly insulting and offensive.
I would ask you reread HB328. We did as a legislative group. Deciding, if we left out the word "handicapped" (we had draft copy--yours may say special needs), and it just read "person"--we could no way support this type of nebulus mandate, full well knowing EVERY CHILD in Delaware has potential--and every parent has ideas of what their child really responds to---but do we employ it? No--it's a free and APPROPRIATE education--not an "all call" to fund potential thru a parents' eyes. Helen Keller, Temple Grandin, Alexander Graham Bell, Michael Phelps... Thank Goodness that their parents saw things differently and insisted that their children had potential despite what educators believed.
Agreement was reached w/ this line of reasoning at that legislative meeting by all districts present. There was one abstention. We asked for some wordsmithing--Rep. Q. Johnson was present. The bill ran anyway, and Sue Francis brought concerns forth. Unfortunately, the emotion of this legislation overrode the scrutiny.
No one is against special needs children, nor their needs. We are against "potential" being used as an indicator for services--and used against districts, who cannot educate ALL children to that same standard. Free and appropriate already includes special needs students--why does "potential" and HB 328 exclude gen ed? Because somewhere along the way, policymakers realized that children with special needs were being warehoused and abused. And because these crimes were so pervasive that the Federal Government had to enact a law to ensure that these children were given access to education. And, because despite the Federal law, IDEA, the educational bureaucracy in Delaware still fails to prepare special education students for a life outside of their classrooms. The purpose of HB 328 is to equalize the expectations of both groups, in this case raising the bar for special ed to that of general ed students!
Just some thoughts to you on the thinking of DSBA Legislative on this one--we went beyond emotion, because we are gatekeepers of education. In that regard DSBA went so far they turned the wheel backwards. If we are follow DSBA's logic, separate would be equal, and warehousing and institutionalization would be acceptable alternatives to an actual education.
No comments: