Re: Autism Legislation for Education

[Guest guest]

would you be wiling to remain silent in your advocacy if it was

something you felt strongly about that it would do more harm than

good to our kids?

I don't believe you would, you are a passionate person and trust your

judgement and convictions, just like I am. Everyone has a voice and

convictions as to what will help the autism community, respecting

that is important.

If we are to work together for a common cause to help all special

needs children, it needs to be something that we can all agree on,

just as we started this conversation. It cannot be turned into

anything else, asking folks who oppose vouchers for valid reasons to

be quiet during the 81st session is not a reasonable request.

Nagla

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 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]

,

I agree football is not as important as special needs services, if it

was up to me, I would not care about it one bit. I was just pointing

out that some parents have siblings who play football and would

oppose the funding for that to go away in lieu of better services for

their other child. I gave a very real example of my friend and her

family.

, I also agree about the transportation thing for the drill

team, it is something they can give up. Again I am not arguing in

favor of using funds for football or drill team, just letting you

know that you will find families withing the autism community that

will disagree.

Nagla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Texas Autism Advocacy

> www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

>

> Texas Disability Network

> Calendar of Events

> www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

[Guest guest]

In addition to the previous issues mentioned. For us parents with children that

have " high

functioning autism " or PDD-NOS, it would be beneficial to those families or

all families

to have the initial FIE completed by the division of MMHR (division of

mental/health and

mental retardation). I have been writing senators on this for a while. The same

diagnosticians that report to Directors of Special Eds are in charge of running

the ARD

meetings. In my personal experience, the diagnostician completely wrote her eval

as if

there were NO issues, leaving out critical information provided by the parent

(Child Find

Diagnostician), if this initial evaluation was removed from the TEA and charged

by the

division of MMHR (who is a neutral party) with them being in charge of the

diagnosticians,

perhaps we might see less of a " conflict of interest " in these reports and

parents of special

need children would have a more unbiased accurate picture of their child's

educational

need. Now, I don't think every district runs the roost this way, however in my

region, it's

more common than not with the children that function higher on the spectrum.

Additionally, I believe it was Mark's testimony at the latest Senate Hearing

Committee on

education that suggested once a child receive an MD diagnosis for a disability,

that we

follow similar to the state of MO, and not allow the districts to override those

diagnosis.

This happened in my case as well.

Also, I think the scholarship program should be tailored to meet the child's

unique needs

for services. If the public school system fails to identify and teach the child

who has a

significant speech or social disorder, however the family is happy with the

academic side,

then the family should be able to apply for " scholarship " funding for those

specific

services and have the option of leaving their child in public school for the

educational

portion, or be given the option to remove their child all together.

In my situation my son had an MD diagnoses of High Functioning Autism and the

school

district did their FIE and said they " didn't think he had autism " and threw him

out of

services. For those of you who don't know my son, he is OBVIOUSLY on the

spectrum.

Even a later a school psychologist said, they didn't know how the original FIE

didn't see his

autism. I truly believe the diagnostician knew it, however she one sided her

report to

paint the picture of a perfect child with no issues at all. The later IEE showed

all of his

weakness's, which were extensive.

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for reading my submitted letter to the Texas State Senate

Education Committee. It is true that the Missouri State Blue Ribbon

Commission on Autism stated that a medical diagnosis should allow and

grant a family all educational benefits/services/therapies within the

settings of a public school. This would deny ISDs from picking and

screening what " they " thought was needed for our children.

Now, you can see why so many of our families struggle year

after year. Our ISDs refuse to recognize a medical diagnosis from a

practicing medical doctor/psychologist. It is so disturbing to me

that this occurs.

Then, we have attorneys and law firms that have unlimited access to

our taxes when ISDs decide that they will no longer address the needs

of a child without a fight. Of course, this kind of fight is pretty

lopsided. We, as parents, have limited funds, but the FOR PROFIT

law firms have unlimited access to funds. Yep ... truly

unlimited ... they can bill day after day until a family loses.

It happens in Texas way too much. I hope someday that this will

change. There are a lot of families that are just tired of this

treatment/BS.

We really need to reform how we treat Special Need families in Texas

and we must begin by telling our legislators this 81st legislative

session. Please talk to your Senator and House Representative.

Tell them you want change and reform that will best help your DS.

Mark

>

> In addition to the previous issues mentioned. For us parents with

children that have " high

> functioning autism " or PDD-NOS, it would be beneficial to those

families or all families

> to have the initial FIE completed by the division of MMHR (division

of mental/health and

> mental retardation). I have been writing senators on this for a

while. The same

> diagnosticians that report to Directors of Special Eds are in

charge of running the ARD

> meetings. In my personal experience, the diagnostician completely

wrote her eval as if

> there were NO issues, leaving out critical information provided by

the parent (Child Find

> Diagnostician), if this initial evaluation was removed from the TEA

and charged by the

> division of MMHR (who is a neutral party) with them being in charge

of the diagnosticians,

> perhaps we might see less of a " conflict of interest " in these

reports and parents of special

> need children would have a more unbiased accurate picture of their

child's educational

> need. Now, I don't think every district runs the roost this way,

however in my region, it's

> more common than not with the children that function higher on the

spectrum.

>

> Additionally, I believe it was Mark's testimony at the latest

Senate Hearing Committee on

> education that suggested once a child receive an MD diagnosis for a

disability, that we

> follow similar to the state of MO, and not allow the districts to

override those diagnosis.

> This happened in my case as well.

>

> Also, I think the scholarship program should be tailored to meet

the child's unique needs

> for services. If the public school system fails to identify and

teach the child who has a

> significant speech or social disorder, however the family is happy

with the academic side,

> then the family should be able to apply for " scholarship " funding

for those specific

> services and have the option of leaving their child in public

school for the educational

> portion, or be given the option to remove their child all together.

>

> In my situation my son had an MD diagnoses of High Functioning

Autism and the school

> district did their FIE and said they " didn't think he had autism "

and threw him out of

> services. For those of you who don't know my son, he is OBVIOUSLY

on the spectrum.

> Even a later a school psychologist said, they didn't know how the

original FIE didn't see his

> autism. I truly believe the diagnostician knew it, however she

one sided her report to

> paint the picture of a perfect child with no issues at all. The

later IEE showed all of his

> weakness's, which were extensive.

>

[Guest guest]

Hilda,

Well said ... Autism parents " not have to pay for them at all " ....

" EVER " ... oh my god, I think I felt an earthquake when you wrote

this.

The Apocalypse is near :>)

Mark

>

> The only way to level the playing field if scholarships are not

going to be

> offered is for parents to have equal access to lawyers and not have

to pay for

> them at all...ever. That levels the playing field.

>

> Hilda

>

>

> In a message dated 11/10/2008 8:27:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> nagla_alvin@... writes:

>

> A voucher program is still a contested issue, we need to find

another

> solution that we can all agree on.

> I think Singleton suggested freezing special education

funds

> once parents file for due process, we can take this a step further

> and freeze funds once mediation is filed, this will give schools

an

> incentive to resolve the conflict before it gets to due process.

> Putting a cap or a celing on how much can be spent by an ISD is a

> good idea, but it would be a hard sell, not impossible just

difficult.

> Nagla

>

>

> **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and

all other

> Holiday needs. Search Now.

> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?

redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from

> -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)

>

[Guest guest]

Not quite. There's still the issue of the very limited available pool

of attorneys who represent the children, their degree of expertise,

experience, competence and the resources behind them. Then factor in

the biased judicial process, the deference given to schools, the

burden of proof on the families, the extensive professional resources

of the ISD's, the personal time and toll families must invest while

the ISD's do it on the clock, and we're not much better off. It's a

free pass to nowhere.

>

> The only way to level the playing field if scholarships are not

going to be

> offered is for parents to have equal access to lawyers and not have

to pay for

> them at all...ever. That levels the playing field.

>

> Hilda

>

>

> In a message dated 11/10/2008 8:27:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> nagla_alvin@... writes:

>

> A voucher program is still a contested issue, we need to find another

> solution that we can all agree on.

> I think Singleton suggested freezing special education funds

> once parents file for due process, we can take this a step further

> and freeze funds once mediation is filed, this will give schools an

> incentive to resolve the conflict before it gets to due process.

> Putting a cap or a celing on how much can be spent by an ISD is a

> good idea, but it would be a hard sell, not impossible just difficult.

> Nagla

>

>

> **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and

all other

> Holiday needs. Search Now.

>

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://\

searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from

> -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)

>

[Guest guest]

Hilda,

That is a very good and CRITICAL point in our State that

made. The Federal Courts rule against our families over and over.

It is truly a huge hill to climb. I am not sure even if we have the

free pass and passes that even then our District Courts would find

the heart and legal grounds to rule for our children.

It is just incredibly sick and unfortunate that our State has left us

with such limited options for moving ahead.

Granted, I agree with you Hilda that we should NOT have to pay a cent

anyways.

Mark

> >

> > The only way to level the playing field if scholarships are not

> going to be

> > offered is for parents to have equal access to lawyers and not

have

> to pay for

> > them at all...ever. That levels the playing field.

> >

> > Hilda

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 11/10/2008 8:27:27 P.M. Central Standard

Time,

> > nagla_alvin@ writes:

> >

> > A voucher program is still a contested issue, we need to find

another

> > solution that we can all agree on.

> > I think Singleton suggested freezing special education

funds

> > once parents file for due process, we can take this a step

further

> > and freeze funds once mediation is filed, this will give schools

an

> > incentive to resolve the conflict before it gets to due process.

> > Putting a cap or a celing on how much can be spent by an ISD is

a

> > good idea, but it would be a hard sell, not impossible just

difficult.

> > Nagla

> >

> >

> > **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes

and

> all other

> > Holiday needs. Search Now.

> >

> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?

redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from

> > -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" If we are to work together for a common cause to help all special

needs children, it needs to be something that we can all agree on, "

Here's my concern with this. It seems like what you're really saying

that you'll join in if it's on your terms, which means ISD's retaining

all the power and control. This sounds frighteningly reminiscent of

the ARD process in Texas, and I think most of us who support

scholarships have seen first hand how that's not working so well for

us. It also sounds like if what we propose transfers one iota of that

power (or dollar) to parents, then you'll fight it. Not just be

against it, but work as hard as you can to fight it.

I'm only asking to agree to disagree, and not FIGHT. It is hard enough

for me to find the time and ability to get down to Austin once to

support something I know represents so much hope to parents and that

they truly NEED based on their personal experiences, I just can't

imagine investing ten times that time and energy to fight something.

So I think there's your answer.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 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]

Agree, agree, agree. This reads just like my last testimony to the

Senate Education Commitee - we can do these 10 things to reform due

process, or pass a single scholarship bill an accompish all of the above.

UTOPIA indeed.

As far as insurance, yes, part of the problem lies in that since

insurance is a joke, our ISD's have to pick up the slack in some areas

of overlap. So WHY are they not helping us as actively with seeking

insurance reform as they are fighting us on issues like scholarships?

I have a hard time being sympathetic to schools and their

representatives who cry about lack of funding, and dispute med. vs.

educational models and Dx's to escape providing services, but do

nothing to help us in other ways, or even bother to apply for grants

or spend the sp ed funds they do have. Then they spend all that money

litigating. The stories just don't mesh.

>

>

>

> Scholarships is the way to go, but if aren't going to get that

because the

> people on the other side of the issue won't meet us half way on

this, then it

> starts the process of meeting somewhere halfway. Of course I think

that

> paying lawyers is the wrong way to go because our kids are still

suffering, but

> if there is no scholarships going to happen because of the other

side's lobby

> (an just FYI, I'm an independent who votes all different parties),

then we

> need something drastic and immediate including but not limited to

>

> 1. Full funding for the parents to take it to whatever level is

necessary

> in due process regardless of outcome.

> 2. TEA needs to be fired and we need to bring in competent

individuals from

> other states who have state-run agencies that actually function.

> 3. Hearings need to be removed from the current structure.

> 4. Allowing parents to go to all private-attorney-sponsored events at

> taxpayer expense to be the watchdogs.

> 5. Make the school district report to the public how much they are

spending

> with the cost/benefit ratio stuff. Take an ad in a newspaper, send

home

> flyers--whatever it takes to accomplish that.

> 6. All parent advocacy groups who take taxpayer money for funding

should be

> required to be tell us every single cent they spend of our money.

>

> And I'm sure a whole other bunch of things. So it's either

scholarships, or

> all these multiple things that will have to be in place to help. I am

> actually of the opinion we can do both -- fix our schools and provide

> scholarships. But I live in utopia.

>

> I think that if they (school districts) realize they are going to

not only

> have to pay their legal expenses, but also the parents, they would

have more

> incentive to settle, and they won't have to worry about that " you

can't set

> precedence " issue.

>

> Another alternative to scholarships might be for us to pass

legislation that

> allows health care access for ALL insurance plans (not just

self-funded) for

> children of all ages with autism up to $36,000 -- similar to what

> Pennsylvania pays. Then, we could actually use that money if we

wanted to remove our

> kids, while those who want to fight to change the public schools

could also do

> that (and I would still be on board to help fight that inequity

because it

> just isn't our kids the schools are failing. Our state's

educational system

> is horrible, needs replacing, and expectations need to be higher. The

> graduation requirement for when I went to high school in New York

in 1982 was much

> bigger than Texas has. We are nearing a 50% drop-out rate which is

> disgusting. One of the people on the State Board of Education

actually homeschools

> their child. Where is the personal investment there for her to

make things any

> better for the kids actually still stuck there? Not so encouraging.

>

> I just think that the way out of this is for both sides to agree to

both

> issues that are valid -- 1) the other side allows scholarships and

2) we work

> with that side to make the public school system better.

>

> Again, I live in Utopia.

>

> Hilda

>

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 11/10/2008 10:55:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> emilyrhill@... writes:

>

> Not quite. There's still the issue of the very limited available pool

> of attorneys who represent the children, their degree of expertise,

> experience, competence and the resources behind them. Then factor in

> the biased judicial process, the deference given to schools, the

> burden of proof on the families, the extensive professional resources

> of the ISD's, the personal time and toll families must invest while

> the ISD's do it on the clock, and we're not much better off. It's a

> free pass to nowhere.

>

>

> **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and

all other

> Holiday needs. Search Now.

>

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://\

searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from

> -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)

>

[Guest guest]

Haul your trumpet. That's funny. I had a 15 pound French horn and a Tuba

weighs considerably more. We had 300 kids in our marching band in High

School. How many do you think would make it to the games if they drove?

Who would pick them up? My scholarship for my French horn helped me pay

for college so it wasn't just playing at a game every Friday night it

helped me be who I am. Who would stay to make sure they are safe when

mom and dad didn't show after the game? Now I think they could take

school buses for sure (and not the 7 or so Greyhounds we had for away

games) but some of that money that is spent in these activities is money

earned by the booster club. I have also heard that this year band

parents had to pay over $500 each for their children to participate in

band. Boosters are community members they love Football or Band or

whatever and donate lots of money to it. This is how we payed to go to

state marching competition and won in fact against a very wealthy Dallas

school. I would never want earmarked Special Ed funds to go to

extracurricular sports and I'd fight a mighty fight if I knew for sure

that was happening at my school and I think any parent would see the

greed in that.

Trina

M. Guppy wrote:

>

> I think that is something we can all agree on ---- that we shouldn't

> have to do that taken into consideration --- but that time has not come...

>

> So can we all agree that frozen funds need to be used for parent

> defense funds?

>

>

> To clarify my point on football, drill teams, etc. -- it was from a

> funding perspective. Yes, those things add to the football experience

> and are good things -- but as an extra-curricular activity - the

> expense of transport must be weighed against the needs of services

> that are required.... So when we are asking how schools would pay

> for Special Education - that should be a consideration.

>

> Cheerleaders can car pool to games and band members can haul their

> trumpet there themselves. My son can't teach himself.

>

> I realize that is very opinionated, but when we are talking budgets

> and making cuts, that is the least critical cut one can make.

>

> I would love to drive to every resource fair, meeting, and church

> activity, but when the gas was high, I didn't do any of that....

>

> And I've seen the number of new trucks and cars and vans in the

> student parking lots at my school.... Those kids aren't hurting for a

> ride 3 miles away to a game.

>

> Team players, yes, bus them... Cheerleaders? Band members? Marching

> band? Cadettes????

>

> I'm not so sure.......I think they could find a way to get there..........

>

> * M. Guppy*

> *My autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's

> about learning to dance in the rain....*

> *Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

> <http://www.texasautismadvocacy.org/>*

> * " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to

> compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one

> should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

> education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who

> does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

> futures. All must. " *

>

>

>

>

>

> Subject: Re: Autism Legislation for Education

> To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

> Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 9:50 PM

>

> Using the frozen funds for parent attorney fees if they need to go to

> due process is definitely an incentive for schools to resolve issues

> during mediation.

> Nagla

>

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

Just a little FYI on the subject of schools funding band programs. I cannot speak for all ISD's, but ours have very little funding for the band programs. I have a son with autism and I also have a son in band so I have experience in both areas.

First of all, there is tremendous scientific data that shows that being in band or choir helps all students in other classes. Especially, in the science and math areas. Also, we have several students on the autism spectrum in our band and choir programs. There is also data to support that this helps students with their speech, social skills and discipline as well as academically. In fact, I saw an interview with the singer Carly Simon, in which she stated that she was a late talker. She actually sang before she talked. Music was a very big asset to my son with autism when he was learning how to speak. He did not speak until he was seven years old after we had been told he probably never would. Trust me, you wouldn't now that now!

Now as far as expenses, most school districts do not pay for band instruments with the exception of those that cost more than about $7,000. We paid over $2,000 for a trumpet for my son in addition to all of the books, accessories and uniform requirements needed. We also pay a band fee every year that covers travel expenses, meal expenses and any other expenses needed. Even meals are often provided by the parents. Each student also has the opportunity to fund raise to help pay for their expenses. At this point, the only thing it seems we are not paying is the band director's salary.

In regard to traveling, sometimes the bands do take charter buses to events. The reason is quite simple. The ISD transportation department charges each department that uses their service a fee for every event. The charge is a per mile charge. When our Jr. High went to Dallas last year, the quote from the ISD transportation department was higher than the quote from the charter company. Since the band staff needs to use their money wisely, they choose the charter buses. I would have done the same thing. It is the same with football games, band contest, etc. In fact, special education also gets charged for transportation for field trips. Many of our special education teachers have gotten their license to drive buses so they can reduce the cost of hiring a bus driver and only pay for the use of the bus. We have also driven in car pools to several events when only a small group of students

are attending. Something else to thing about - if every student in band, cheerleading, football, drill team, etc., came in cars, even carpooling, where would they park? I have yet to see a parking lot at a football stadium that would hold enough vehicles to support those participating in the event and spectators.

I, too, would not want to see funds earmarked for special education going some where else in our district. But I also understand that other programs are important and important to students on the spectrum as well.

Sorry if this is considered off topic. I very rarely comment on this site, but felt that everyone needs to understand that yes our children are important and deserve the best that can be given, but they need to understand that does not mean that other programs are not important also and that they can be of value to many on the spectrum.

Lori

>> From: asccnagla <nagla_alvin@ tx.rr.com>> Subject: [Texas-Autism- Advocacy] Re: Autism Legislation for Education> To: Texas-Autism- Advocacy@ yahoogroups. com> Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 9:50 PM>> Using the frozen funds for parent attorney fees if they need to go to> due process is definitely an incentive for schools to resolve issues> during mediation.> Nagla> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

Well said!

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Re: Autism Legislation for EducationTo: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 10:39 PM

The only way to level the playing field if scholarships are not going to be offered is for parents to have equal access to lawyers and not have to pay for them at all...ever. That levels the playing field.

Hilda

In a message dated 11/10/2008 8:27:27 P.M. Central Standard Time, nagla_alvin@ tx.rr.com writes:

A voucher program is still a contested issue, we need to find another solution that we can all agree on.I think Singleton suggested freezing special education funds once parents file for due process, we can take this a step further and freeze funds once mediation is filed, this will give schools an incentive to resolve the conflict before it gets to due process.Putting a cap or a celing on how much can be spent by an ISD is a good idea, but it would be a hard sell, not impossible just difficult.Nagla

AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

Well they can use a lawyer - they just have to provide one for the parent as well.

That -- or neither side gets to have one!

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Re: Autism Legislation for EducationTo: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 10:38 PM

I think this isn't going to happen. I'm not sure if a state can pass a law that prohibits schools from using lawyers in this way, especially since was a federally created law.

Just FYI

Hilda

In a message dated 11/10/2008 8:20:46 P.M. Central Standard Time, nagla_alvin@ tx.rr.com writes:

I think we need to start with the smaller of the 2 ideas that doesn't include any money issues. This is more likely to pass, making it illegal for special education attorneys to train school personnel on IDEA interpetations.Putting it more positively would be requiring ISD's and regional centers to use objective sources not the same attorneys that represent them for training on IDEA law. Private placement needs to be under IDEA and FAPE.Nagla

AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

You're joking, right? :-) You didn't steal my ideas. I couldn't care

less where and who the ideas come from as long as they are implemented

and result in immediate positive changes for those struggling under

the present system!!!!

>

> I'm sorry . I didn't mean to steal your ideas. I guess two

people can

> think alike.

>

> As far as the insurance, I think perhaps by taking the insurance

data that

> fully funded insurance companies have gotten on the 3 to 5 year olds

that was

> passed after much hard work of and others, that if they show

our

> legislators that it did not bankrupt them, and by showing them that

other states

> are doing this and their insurance companies are not complaining,

going

> bankrupt, etc., that might be something we can build bigger on.

>

> Just some thoughts. Our kids lose when we all fight. Compromise is

going to

> be necessary. So let's figure out how to give autism scholarships

and fix

> public schools and is enough to satisfy both viewpoints so we can

get behind

> each other, knowing time is not on our side since our our

legislators only

> meet once every 2 years, which is an eternity for our kids. Once

they see

> autism scholarships work well, then extend that to all special

needs kids.

>

> It's like healing the diseased tree from both the ground up and

> spot-treating the branches.

>

> Hilda

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 11/10/2008 11:26:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> emilyrhill@... writes:

>

> Agree, agree, agree. This reads just like my last testimony to the

> Senate Education Commitee - we can do these 10 things to reform due

> process, or pass a single scholarship bill an accompish all of the

above.

>

> UTOPIA indeed.

>

> As far as insurance, yes, part of the problem lies in that since

> insurance is a joke,

>

> **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and

all other

> Holiday needs. Search Now.

>

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://\

searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from

> -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)

>

[Guest guest]

One thing I think we could all agree on AND get lots of

support with and actually get passed is a bill that would provide REAL

transparency into the school budgets. Right now, they have this great shell

game going on where they can hide money from one pot under a cover and then

move it later to the pot they really want to spend it on. Collecting SHARS

money, moving it around, and then spending it on football or something else has

GOT to stop. We need a bill that makes school budgets just like business budgets

where there is no way funds can be hidden, re-allocated without a transparent

accounting, etc.

I dare anyone now to go look at your district’s budget

and try to make heads or tails out of it! No for-profit business would ever get

away with accounting procedures like the ones our public schools use…not

even ENRON. It is ludicrous! This would be one thing that we could work to

change. Then, normal folks could actually look at these school budgets, see

where money comes from and understand where it is going…AND ensure that

it is going where it should. And, all the wasteful spending could be tracked

and alleviated. And, excessive attorney expenditures would be obvious.

When a district like Dallas ISD LOSES $84 million out of

their budget and can’t explain how, why, or where it went, you KNOW it is

time to rethink accounting procedures. The taxpayers should be viewed as

stockholders, and any one of us should be able to pick up our district’s

budget and clearly see what is going on.

nna

[Guest guest]

AMEN!

>

> One thing I think we could all agree on AND get lots of support with and

> actually get passed is a bill that would provide REAL transparency

into the

> school budgets.

> accounting, etc.

>

>

> When a district like Dallas ISD LOSES $84 million out of their

budget and

> can't explain how, why, or where it went, you KNOW it is time to rethink

> accounting procedures. The taxpayers should be viewed as

stockholders, and

> any one of us should be able to pick up our district's budget and

clearly

> see what is going on.

>

>

>

> nna

>

[Guest guest]

I don't think anymore is against football, etc. I think people are more upset by the state-of-the-art facilities of multimillion dollars that are districts are building. People in the northeast where education has more of a focus than sports, do just fine with their existing facilities and their people still get sports scholarships. After all, it is about talent, and not about what building is built for them. Down here, football and other stadiums and other expenses that you normally see on a college level are more of a priority than education. After all, they could use their money for the stadiums and spend it on education all our children more so our kids in Texas can be more prepared for a college education and compete with other students across the country for scholarships tied to grades.

Hilda

Just a little FYI on the subject of schools funding band programs. I cannot speak for all ISD's, but ours have very little funding for the band programs. I have a son with autism and I also have a son in band so I have experience in both areas.

First of all, there is tremendous scientific data that shows that being in band or choir helps all students in other classes. Especially, in the science and math areas. Also, we have several students on the autism spectrum in our band and choir programs. There is also data to support that this helps students with their speech, social skills and discipline as well as academically. In fact, I saw an interview with the singer Carly Simon, in which she stated that she was a late talker. She actually sang before she talked. Music was a very big asset to my son with autism when he was learning how to speak. He did not speak until he was seven years old after we had been told he probably never would. Trust me, you wouldn't now that now!

Now as far as expenses, most school districts do not pay for band instruments with the exception of those that cost more than about $7,000. We paid over $2,000 for a trumpet for my son in addition to all of the books, accessories and uniform requirements needed. We also pay a band fee every year that covers travel expenses, meal expenses and any other expenses needed. Even meals are often provided by the parents. Each student also has the opportunity to fund raise to help pay for their expenses. At this point, the only thing it seems we are not paying is the band director's salary.

In regard to traveling, sometimes the bands do take charter buses to events. The reason is quite simple. The ISD transportation department charges each department that uses their service a fee for every event. The charge is a per mile charge. When our Jr. High went to Dallas last year, the quote from the ISD transportation department was higher than the quote from the charter company. Since the band staff needs to use their money wisely, they choose the charter buses. I would have done the same thing. It is the same with football games, band contest, etc. In fact, special education also gets charged for transportation for field trips. Many of our special education teachers have gotten their license to drive buses so they can reduce the cost of hiring a bus driver and only pay for the use of the bus. We have also driven in car pools to several events when only a small group of students are attending. Something else to thing about - if every student in band, cheerleading, football, drill team, etc., came in cars, even carpooling, where would they park? I have yet to see a parking lot at a football stadium that would hold enough vehicles to support those participating in the event and spectators.

I, too, would not want to see funds earmarked for special education going some where else in our district. But I also understand that other programs are important and important to students on the spectrum as well.

Sorry if this is considered off topic. I very rarely comment on this site, but felt that everyone needs to understand that yes our children are important and deserve the best that can be given, but they need to understand that does not mean that other programs are not important also and that they can be of value to many on the spectrum.

Lori

>> From: asccnagla <nagla_alvin@ tx.rr.com>> Subject: [Texas-Autism- Advocacy] Re: Autism Legislation for Education> To: Texas-Autism- Advocacy@ yahoogroups. com> Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 9:50 PM>> Using the frozen funds for parent attorney fees if they need to go to> due process is definitely an incentive for schools to resolve issues> during mediation.> Nagla> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>> AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

:

I don't like to plagarize intellectual property. LOL. Give credit where credit is due. Amen to your statement below.

Hilda

You're joking, right? :-) You didn't steal my ideas. I couldn't careless where and who the ideas come from as long as they are implementedand result in immediate positive changes for those struggling underthe present system!!!! AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

One group has a good start in their issue brief.

Tonya

DPC Issue Brief

…promoting

progressive public policy

for

Texans with disabilities.

THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE

PROCESS SYSTEM

The Texas Special Education Due Process

System needs reform. The system is biased against parents, and

parents rarely win on the substantive issues. Furthermore, it is

increasingly difficult for parents to find private attorneys to represent

them in special education due process hearings.

When parents see schools spending large

sums of money on legal fees in due process hearings, while children are not

receiving needed services, parents tend to give up, take their child out of

school or go through a due process hearing unsuccessfully.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on

the fundamental premise that parents and schools, when working cooperatively

together, are uniquely suited to make the best decisions regarding the

appropriate educational decisions, including placement decisions, for

students. In this process, disputes are inevitable and normal.

In these cases, the IDEA provides the right to the due process

hearing system to resolve disagreements. Unfortunately, the current

system is broken, biased against parents and it is difficult for parents to

find or afford private attorneys to represent them in due process

hearings. When a parent cannot find an attorney, their choice is to

represent themselves “pro se,” or withdraw their request for a hearing.

Because of the inequity in the system parents rarely win on the

substantive issues.

The Disability Policy Consortium recommends that the Texas

Legislature make the current Due Process Hearing system fairer by:

o Moving Due Process Hearings

from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to the State Office of Administrative

Hearings (SOAH);

o Reallocating the burden of

proof to school districts in due process hearings;

o Extending the statute of

limitations to two years;

o Allowing Lay Advocates to

represent parents who are unable to find and/or afford an attorney;

Requiring

the state auditor’s office to audit the Special Education Due

Process and Complaint systems ; and

o Instituting alternative

dispute resolution activities, such as Facilitation of IEPs and the use of an

Ombudsperson Program, for IEP development disputes.

[Guest guest]

What is the statute of limitations now?

Pamela Andrade

----- Original Message -----From: "Tonya Hettler" To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Subject: RE: Re: Autism Legislation for EducationDate: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:24:13 -0600

One group has a good start in their issue brief.

Tonya

DPC Issue Brief

…promoting progressive public policy

for Texans with disabilities.

THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS SYSTEM

The Texas Special Education Due Process System needs reform. The system is biased against parents, and parents rarely win on the substantive issues. Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult for parents to find private attorneys to represent them in special education due process hearings.

When parents see schools spending large sums of money on legal fees in due process hearings, while children are not receiving needed services, parents tend to give up, take their child out of school or go through a due process hearing unsuccessfully.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on the fundamental premise that parents and schools, when working cooperatively together, are uniquely suited to make the best decisions regarding the appropriate educational decisions, including placement decisions, for students. In this process, disputes are inevitable and normal.

In these cases, the IDEA provides the right to the due process hearing system to resolve disagreements. Unfortunately, the current system is broken, biased against parents and it is difficult for parents to find or afford private attorneys to represent them in due process hearings. When a parent cannot find an attorney, their choice is to represent themselves “pro se,” or withdraw their request for a hearing.

Because of the inequity in the system parents rarely win on the substantive issues.

The Disability Policy Consortium recommends that the Texas Legislature make the current Due Process Hearing system fairer by:

o Moving Due Process Hearings from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH);

o Reallocating the burden of proof to school districts in due process hearings;

o Extending the statute of limitations to two years;

o Allowing Lay Advocates to represent parents who are unable to find and/or afford an attorney;

Requiring the state auditor’s office to audit the Special Education Due Process and Complaint systems ; and

o Instituting alternative dispute resolution activities, such as Facilitation of IEPs and the use of an Ombudsperson Program, for IEP development disputes.

<< image001.jpg >><< image003.jpg >>

-- Be Yourself @ mail.com!

Choose From 200+ Email Addresses

Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

[Guest guest]

I find it interesting this acknowledges the bias in the system, when

of AI, a member of the DPC, was only willing to testify

that parents " perceived " this bias. in fact, it reads almost verbatim

like his testimony. Perhaps he's starting to concede the problem does

not lie with the parents and our lack of knowledge.

Unfortunately, four out of the five recommendations are ways to

maintain the paradigm of funding private law firms and litigating our

way to FAPE. What baffles me is why the addition of an ombudsperson is

perceived as any different than bringing advocates or private

therapists and teachers to meetings. As long as the schools have total

autonomy, there are no penalties for non-compliance and our courts

don't enforce IDEA, they will continue to overrule families if given

the ability to do so.

>

> One group has a good start in their issue brief.

>

> Tonya

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> DPC Issue Brief

>

>

>

>

>

> .promoting progressive public policy

>

> for Texans with disabilities.

>

>

>

>

>

> THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS SYSTEM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> The Texas Special Education Due Process System needs reform. The

system is

> biased against parents, and parents rarely win on the substantive

issues.

> Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult for parents to find private

> attorneys to represent them in special education due process hearings.

>

>

>

> When parents see schools spending large sums of money on legal fees

in due

> process hearings, while children are not receiving needed services,

parents

> tend to give up, take their child out of school or go through a due

process

> hearing unsuccessfully.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on the

> fundamental premise that parents and schools, when working cooperatively

> together, are uniquely suited to make the best decisions regarding the

> appropriate educational decisions, including placement decisions, for

> students. In this process, disputes are inevitable and normal.

>

>

>

> In these cases, the IDEA provides the right to the due process hearing

> system to resolve disagreements. Unfortunately, the current system is

> broken, biased against parents and it is difficult for parents to

find or

> afford private attorneys to represent them in due process hearings.

When a

> parent cannot find an attorney, their choice is to represent

themselves " pro

> se, " or withdraw their request for a hearing.

>

>

>

> Because of the inequity in the system parents rarely win on the

substantive

> issues.

>

>

>

> The Disability Policy Consortium recommends that the Texas

Legislature make

> the current Due Process Hearing system fairer by:

>

>

>

> o Moving Due Process Hearings from the Texas Education Agency

(TEA) to the

> State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH);

>

> o Reallocating the burden of proof to school districts in due process

> hearings;

>

> o Extending the statute of limitations to two years;

>

> o Allowing Lay Advocates to represent parents who are unable to find

> and/or afford an attorney;

>

> * Requiring the state auditor's office to audit the Special Education

> Due Process and Complaint systems ; and

>

> o Instituting alternative dispute resolution activities, such as

> Facilitation of IEPs and the use of an Ombudsperson Program, for IEP

> development disputes.

>

[Guest guest]

Federal 2 years. Texas one year.

>

> What is the statute of limitations now?Pamela Andrade

>

> RE: Re: Autism Legislation for

> Education

> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:24:13 -0600

>

> One group has a good start in their issue brief.

>

> Tonya

>

> DPC Issue Brief

>

> …promoting progressive public policy

>

> for Texans with disabilities.

>

> THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS SYSTEM

>

> The Texas Special Education Due Process System needs reform. The

> system is biased against parents, and parents rarely win on the

> substantive issues. Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult for

> parents to find private attorneys to represent them in special

> education due process hearings.

>

> When parents see schools spending large sums of money on legal fees

> in due process hearings, while children are not receiving needed

> services, parents tend to give up, take their child out of school or

> go through a due process hearing unsuccessfully.

>

>

> The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on

> the fundamental premise that parents and schools, when working

> cooperatively together, are uniquely suited to make the best

> decisions regarding the appropriate educational decisions, including

> placement decisions, for students. In this process, disputes are

> inevitable and normal.

>

> In these cases, the IDEA provides the right to the due process

> hearing system to resolve disagreements. Unfortunately, the current

> system is broken, biased against parents and it is difficult for

> parents to find or afford private attorneys to represent them in due

> process hearings. When a parent cannot find an attorney, their

> choice is to represent themselves " pro se, " or withdraw their request

> for a hearing.

>

> Because of the inequity in the system parents rarely win on the

> substantive issues.

>

> The Disability Policy Consortium recommends that the Texas

> Legislature make the current Due Process Hearing system fairer by:

>

> o Moving Due Process Hearings from the Texas Education Agency (TEA)

> to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH);

>

> o Reallocating the burden of proof to school districts in due process

> hearings;

>

> o Extending the statute of limitations to two years;

>

> o Allowing Lay Advocates to represent parents who are unable to find

> and/or afford an attorney;

>

> * Requiring the state auditor's office to audit the Special

> Education Due Process and Complaint systems ; and

>

> o Instituting alternative dispute resolution activities, such as

> Facilitation of IEPs and the use of an Ombudsperson Program, for IEP

> development disputes.

>

> << image001.jpg >>

> << image003.jpg >>

>

> --

> Be Yourself @ mail.com!

> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses

> Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

>

[Guest guest]

Count me in!!

Tonya

From: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

[mailto:Texas-Autism-Advocacy ] On Behalf Of nna

Bond

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:42 AM

To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

Subject: Re: Autism Legislation for Education

One thing I think we

could all agree on AND get lots of support with and actually get passed is a

bill that would provide REAL transparency into the school budgets. Right now,

they have this great shell game going on where they can hide money from one pot

under a cover and then move it later to the pot they really want to spend it

on. Collecting SHARS money, moving it around, and then spending it on football

or something else has GOT to stop. We need a bill that makes school budgets

just like business budgets where there is no way funds can be hidden,

re-allocated without a transparent accounting, etc.

I dare anyone now to

go look at your district’s budget and try to make heads or tails out of

it! No for-profit business would ever get away with accounting procedures like

the ones our public schools use…not even ENRON. It is ludicrous! This

would be one thing that we could work to change. Then, normal folks could

actually look at these school budgets, see where money comes from and

understand where it is going…AND ensure that it is going where it should.

And, all the wasteful spending could be tracked and alleviated. And, excessive

attorney expenditures would be obvious.

When a district like

Dallas ISD LOSES $84 million out of their budget and can’t explain how,

why, or where it went, you KNOW it is time to rethink accounting procedures.

The taxpayers should be viewed as stockholders, and any one of us should be able

to pick up our district’s budget and clearly see what is going on.

nna

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the information!! Pamela Andrade

RE: Re: Autism Legislation for> Education> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:24:13 -0600> > One group has a good start in their issue brief.> > Tonya> > DPC Issue Brief> > …promoting progressive public policy> > for Texans with disabilities.> > THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS SYSTEM> > The Texas Special Education Due Process System needs reform. The> system is biased against parents, and parents rarely win on the> substantive issues. Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult for> parents to find private attorneys to represent them in special> education due process hearings. > > When parents see schools spending large sums of money on legal fees> in due process hearings, while children are not receiving needed> services, parents tend to give up, take their child out of school or> go through a due process hearing unsuccessfully. > > > The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based on> the fundamental premise that parents and schools, when working> cooperatively together, are uniquely suited to make the best> decisions regarding the appropriate educational decisions, including> placement decisions, for students. In this process, disputes are> inevitable and normal. > > In these cases, the IDEA provides the right to the due process> hearing system to resolve disagreements. Unfortunately, the current> system is broken, biased against parents and it is difficult for> parents to find or afford private attorneys to represent them in due> process hearings. When a parent cannot find an attorney, their> choice is to represent themselves "pro se," or withdraw their request> for a hearing. > > Because of the inequity in the system parents rarely win on the> substantive issues.> > The Disability Policy Consortium recommends that the Texas> Legislature make the current Due Process Hearing system fairer by:> > o Moving Due Process Hearings from the Texas Education Agency (TEA)> to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH);> > o Reallocating the burden of proof to school districts in due process> hearings;> > o Extending the statute of limitations to two years;> > o Allowing Lay Advocates to represent parents who are unable to find> and/or afford an attorney;> > * Requiring the state auditor's office to audit the Special> Education Due Process and Complaint systems ; and> > o Instituting alternative dispute resolution activities, such as> Facilitation of IEPs and the use of an Ombudsperson Program, for IEP> development disputes.> > << image001.jpg >>> << image003.jpg >>> > -- > Be Yourself @ mail.com!> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses> Get a Free Account at www.mail.com>

-- Be Yourself @ mail.com!

Choose From 200+ Email Addresses

Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

[Guest guest]

Brining advocates and private teachers to meetings is already

allowed. I’ve brought them to my son’s meetings and attended

in the advocate role for other families.

Tonya