Re: Autism Legislation for Education

[Guest guest]

I’m not sure about the time line given for

complaints. Federal law trumps state law. That means a state can

offer more protection, but not less.

Tonya

20 U. S. C. 1415 ((6)(

(6) An opportunity for any party to present a complaint

(A) with respect to any matter

relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the

child, or the provision of a

free appropriate public education to such child; and

( which sets forth an

alleged violation that occurred not more than 2 years before the date11 4 the

parent

or public agency knew or

should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the

complaint,

or, if the State has an

explicit time limitation for presenting such a complaint under this part, in

such time

as the State law allows,

except that the exceptions to the timeline described in subsection (f)(3)(D)

shall apply

to the timeline described in

this subparagraph.

[Guest guest]

That's my point. Having more bodies on the parents' side doesn't

result in an ISD entrenched in its position to deny services to

suddenly start collaborating. Why would the addition of a neutral body

in the room be any different? All an ombudsperson would be is another

body with no more power than the parent, and an IEP dispute step

another layer to prolong the navigation of the resolution process and

exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The climate and courts are the way they are in Texas. Unless this is

fundamentally changed and the courts start ruling more hospitably

towards the children (which would require doing away with the mock

court of due process and replacing a whole bunch of life-termer

appointed federal judges) and some real penalties are put into place

for lack of compliance and malicious litigation, all of this is just

smoke and mirrors to preserve the present system of siphoning

tax-payer education funds to private law firms and the status quo of

the SEA's and LEA's in total control to selectively comply with the

IDEA at their discretion.

Shifting the burden of proof is great, but the ISD's are already

considered supreme in their recommendations, and judges must defer to

the administrative decision. In practice, this means that parents can

have all the documentary evidence to support their case, but if the

ISD's oral testimony states otherwise, they win, burden shift or no

burden shift.

Tweaking rules regarding this abusive process of putting families and

their kids on trial to prove the child's worthiness for an appropriate

education is not where the focus for real reform needs to be in Texas.

Reforming due process does not change that this resolution channel is

devastating to Texas families and tantamount to putting a price tag on

children's worth, with the worst outcome for the ISD being that they

would just have to do what they should have in the first place. No

penalty, no punitive damages.

It's sidestepping the issue that there is a rampant denial of FAPE

going on, which is enabled and sustained by a cottage industry of law

firms who feed from the trough and profit from the fanning the flames

of this contentious set-up, and further reinforced by the Texas

judiciary who continue to choose their legal colleagues and local

ISD's over lives.

>

> 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

>

[Guest guest]

Federal law left it up to the states to establish their own SOL,

assuming they would act in good faith and improve upon the federal

guideline. Leave it to Texas to find a loophole to further infringe

upon the rights of families.

>

> I'm not sure about the time line given for complaints. Federal law

trumps

> state law. That means a state can offer more protection, but not less.

>

>

>

>

> Tonya

>

>

>

> 20 U. S. C. 1415 ((6)(

>

> (6) An opportunity for any party to present a complaint

>

> (A) with respect to any matter relating to the identification,

evaluation,

> or educational placement of the

>

> child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such

> child; and

>

>

>

> ( which sets forth an alleged violation that occurred not more than 2

> years before the date11 4 the parent

>

> or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that

> forms the basis of the complaint,

>

> or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for presenting such a

> complaint under this part, in such time

>

> as the State law allows, except that the exceptions to the timeline

> described in subsection (f)(3)(D) shall apply

>

> to the timeline described in this subparagraph.

>

[Guest guest]

,

I agree with you and all the ISDs have attorneys in their hip

pocket. They control the destiny of our children and this is

DISGUSTING. How can we say parents control the destiny of their

child in a public school when the ISDs can pay attorneys to oppose us

with our own taxes.

I think this is just nonsense to hope an ombudsman is going to stop

parasites like Borreca, WABSA and other attorney firms from

beating the snot out of our families one after another.

The system needs to be reformed in a major way.

Mark

> >

> > 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

> >

>