Re: Where Are The Best Services/Schools In The State?

[Guest guest]

How wonderful would it be to have our own full-time lobbyist to speak

on the behalves of children and adults with autism and camp out at the

Capitol? The obstacle I see is that a true lobbyist such as the one

Sen. is referring to commands a salary and costs a lot of

money, which is something autism families don't have lying around.

Factor in that the autism community as a whole can't seem agree

amongst ourselves which legislation we are for and against, and our

resources are further divided, not to mention adopting a single

position for the lobbyist to represent would be complicated,to say the

least. This kind of leaves us all in the " every man for himself "

advocacy position, which is ineffective when up against the TFN's,

TASB's, TCASE's, etc.

It would be great to have a full-time team of paid lobbyists to go up

against the hired guns who show up en masse to fight autism

legislation that would challenge and alter the present education

system. Teachers' union are mighty, millions strong and have endless

resources. Add the school law firms into the mix, related education

organizations and councils, and even some of our own advocacy agencies

that have somehow found it appropriate to use our federal P & A dollars

to cover salaries while they take active positions against the

self-advocacy efforts of a community they are paid to represent, and

it seems unlikely we could ever counter such a presence.

There is lobbying in the form of advocating, which each individual can

do, and then the hired gun full-time lobbyist job that requires deep

pockets and big money. Unless we can find that " pot of money " , we may

be left with the former.

> > > >

> > > > Magnet schools could help address these issues in the public

> > > > setting. On private placement, I think this whole arguement

> goes

> > > > away (for at least 99% of the combatants) if vouchers had the

> > > > following parameters:

> > > >

> > > > 1. They're funded from a source other than existing school

> > funds. I

> > > > think the biggest concern that anti-voucher folks have is the

> > > > reduction of already low education funds to support the

> > vouchers.

> > > > Have them supported by another means, and the idea may gain

> more

> > > > traction.

> > > >

> > > > 2. Have them available to all special education students.

> > > >

> > > > 3. A way for low income families to take advantage of them,

> > without

> > > > having to take on the burden of covering the gap between

> voucher

> > > > value and private school tuition.

> > > >

> > > > Changing topics, did Sentator offer any plans to reduce

> > the

> > > > Medicaid-waiver waiting lists in Texas?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks - Clay

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Mark, what in the world are you talking about? " My position? " , " Arc

wants to allow law firms to go unchallenged? "

I've never mentioned it on here, but " my position " is that school

systems should be required to make their private law firm payments

public. As far as The Arc wanting law firms to go unchallenged, that

is a complete fabrication of nonsense.

Absolutely no one is qualified to comment on another person, or

organizations, position unless that position is clearly stated. I

understand that some people may be viewing The Arc and Advocacy, Inc,

as interchangable devils because both were opposed to SB1000 two

years ago. To my knowlege, The Arc has not made any public

statements on vouchers recently. As far as I know, I don't think

I've ever met Jeff ...he could literally walk right up to me

and I wouldn't know him. To assume guilt by historic association is

unworthy of intelligent discussion.

Another tragedy is the 12 year waiting list for services in Texas. I

look forward to Senators Shapiro and working as passionately

on that problem as they are vouchers.

> > >

> > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS,

> > AND

> > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

ask

> > me.

> > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > train.

> > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to

> > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't

> > > reform the system.

> > >

> > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though

> > they

> > > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming

> and

> > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > >

> > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> > This

> > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> taxes.

> > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help

of

> > our

> > > legislators this session.

> > >

> > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

The

> > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

families

> > will

> > > suffer.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Clay,

You still are dancing around with words ...

The problem with your position is that you want to allow FOR PROFIT

law firms to have unlimited access to taxpayer money. I want the

money instead to go to Special Need families.

How more plain speaking can I make it?

Mark

> > > >

> > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

FUNDS,

> > > AND

> > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

> ask

> > > me.

> > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > > train.

> > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

to

> > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

won't

> > > > reform the system.

> > > >

> > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

though

> > > they

> > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

harming

> > and

> > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > >

> > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

IMO.

> > > This

> > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> > taxes.

> > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

help

> of

> > > our

> > > > legislators this session.

> > > >

> > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

> The

> > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> families

> > > will

> > > > suffer.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Mark -

You are fabricating a point of view and attributing it to me. In

Christian terms, you are " bearing false witness " and it is an absolute

abomination to the reason this Yahoo group exists, which is to share

honest and free flowing ideas and information.

I am going to set the record straight on three things:

1. I do not want to allow FOR PROFIT law firms to have unlimited

access to taypayer money, as you accusingly state in your post below.

2. I will gladly fight for vouchers if they are funded from a source

other than existing school revenues, cover all special education

children, and offer equal opporunity to low income families. This is

my personal point of view and is not reflective of any organization. I

feel zero obligation to explain why I feel this way, to either my

friends or anyone else.

3. During the debate two years ago, my goal was to get SB1000 modified

to reflect #2 above. Instead, my position, plus my association with

The Arc, was viewed as opposition to parents in need. As a parent who

is watching his family crumble around him, I plan to sit out this God

forsaken issue and focus on issues which unmistakenly help those with

the most severe disabilities. If an autism voucher is passed, I will

be truly happy for those parents and children who benefit.

- Clay

>

> Clay,

>

> You still are dancing around with words ...

>

> The problem with your position is that you want to allow FOR PROFIT

> law firms to have unlimited access to taxpayer money. I want the

> money instead to go to Special Need families.

>

> How more plain speaking can I make it?

>

> Mark

>

[Guest guest]

Clay,

It seems you still can't say that parents deserve the taxes they PAID

for their child as they go through public schools instead of these

FOR PROFIT law firms.

I want the funds to be given to parents to help their children and

cut off the FOR PROFIT law firms. Why is this such an abomination?

SB 1000 would have done this and more IMO. It would have provided

options and empowerment for Special Need families.

Mark

> >

> > Clay,

> >

> > You still are dancing around with words ...

> >

> > The problem with your position is that you want to allow FOR

PROFIT

> > law firms to have unlimited access to taxpayer money. I want the

> > money instead to go to Special Need families.

> >

> > How more plain speaking can I make it?

> >

> > Mark

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Mark -

You clearly are not paying any attention to what I'm saying, and are

simply posting imaginary and fabricated thoughts for your own

benefit.

Of course I would prefer to have money spent on education than on

law firms. To suggest otherwise is unbelievably rediculous.

Helping children and families is too important to be diminished by

those who lack the ability to engage in truthful discussion. I

genuinely hope your friends will reach out to you and offer the

assistance you clearly need.

Clay

>

> Clay,

>

> It seems you still can't say that parents deserve the taxes they

PAID

> for their child as they go through public schools instead of these

> FOR PROFIT law firms.

>

> I want the funds to be given to parents to help their children and

> cut off the FOR PROFIT law firms. Why is this such an abomination?

>

> SB 1000 would have done this and more IMO. It would have provided

> options and empowerment for Special Need families.

>

> Mark

>

[Guest guest]

It just seems to me there are so many reasons and strings attached to

parents NOT being able to receive funds, which you indicated -

1. funded from a source other than existing school revenues

2. cover all special education children

3. and offer equal opporunity to low income families

but where are your restriction and limitations on FOR PROFIT law

firms who have unlimited access to taxpayer funds. It seems all the

weight and focus is against Scholarships, but these law firms can do

anything they want.

I am glad you agree parents should have access to this money, now

there needs to be a system or Bill to allow it to happen <and you

wonder why I wanted SB 1000 ...ugh> I have not seen any ideas

suggested by the Coalition that provide MONEY or OPTION to parents to

escape harm. Still waiting ...

> >

> > Clay,

> >

> > It seems you still can't say that parents deserve the taxes they

> PAID

> > for their child as they go through public schools instead of

these

> > FOR PROFIT law firms.

> >

> > I want the funds to be given to parents to help their children

and

> > cut off the FOR PROFIT law firms. Why is this such an

abomination?

> >

> > SB 1000 would have done this and more IMO. It would have

provided

> > options and empowerment for Special Need families.

> >

> > Mark

> >

>

[Guest guest]

How about a bill in the next legislative session that limits

districts to a certain amount or percentage of their total funding that can be

spent on attorney fees?

I bet that would encourage districts to find compromises

much more often than they do now….

nna

[Guest guest]

There is NEVER going to be one single answer that supports

the needs of all individuals with autism and their families. There is likely to

not be even 5 answers that cover all the needs. But, what we do need are

OPTIONS.

And, until we all understand and agree that more options are

what is important to ask for, we will never be able to hire a lobbyist or

anything else, because our voice is just too fractured. We have far too much

infighting amongst ourselves for legislators to take us very seriously. And,

the poor lobbyist who is trying to represent us…he would NEVER know which

way to go.

We have just got to start conversing in tones of what we can

agree on, NOT WHAT WE DISAGREE ON. We will never have a single voice, but we

need to agree, at a minimum, that what is needed is more OPTIONS.

Just my .02 worth,

nna

[Guest guest]

I think the first step is fighting the for profit law firms that

proliferate her in Texas is for people to hold their superintendents and school

boards responsible for expending tax payer’s funds on these types of

expense.

Tonya

[Guest guest]

One thing that has always baffled me in the voucher debate is

why do people think that a state voucher will be any easier to obtain or

enforce than the mandate that is already in IDEA at 20 U. S. C. §1412

(A)(10)©

Tonya

  

[Guest guest]

The Winlkemans are a perfect example of why school vouchers won’t

work. Here they are in a state that offers vouchers (that many have held

up as a shining example) and are still having to fight to obtain what is

mandated. Call me dense, but I fail to see how that helps.

Tonya

[Guest guest]

A scholarship law would be a state enforcement mechanism of this

federal law. It takes the school district's autonomy away by enforcing

the delivery of FAPE through private placements, intra and

inter-district transfers, which are routinely denied due to

administrative convenience and configuration of the delivery model.

>

> One thing that has always baffled me in the voucher debate is why do

people

> think that a state voucher will be any easier to obtain or enforce

than the

> mandate that is already in IDEA at 20 U. S. C. §1412 (A)(10)©

>

>

>

> Tonya

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for bringing this up!

As I posted a while back and again recently, the Winkelman's son,

, was under an IEP that was contested before the Ohio Scholarship

Bill was passed into law. His ongoing litigation stems from that.

Their other son who is on an IEP subject to the scholarship law has

not had a SINGLE problem in achieving FAPE from Parma ISD. Sandee

Winkelmna has said it is like night and day, between the same school

board that fights the one son they don't have to provide a scholarship

for, and collaborating for the son they do have a scholarship option for.

NIGHT AND DAY.

Perfect example of the importance of options and how a scholarship

bill would improve our public school's compliance with IDEA.

>

> The Winlkemans are a perfect example of why school vouchers won't work.

> Here they are in a state that offers vouchers (that many have held

up as a

> shining example) and are still having to fight to obtain what is

mandated.

> Call me dense, but I fail to see how that helps.

>

>

>

> Tonya

>