State launches special ed review

@hmmm: No, not obviously district employees. Despite the chattering on these forums, there are dedicated, trained special education employees who do a very good job and often get no recognition.

Thank goodness Ms. Dauber was there. How could we maintain our drama levels without the unstinting contributions of the Daubers?

“personally aware of more than a dozen parents who received no notice of this meeting.”

Very odd comment. I personally know over 1,000 parents who were invited to this meeting.

The article says that there were about 50 parents present at this meeting. Does that mean the parents of twenty-five students, or one parent for fifty students. The article does not provide any information as to who actually called the meeting. Nor does the article say if it was intended to be for the parents of a select few students–or for all of the parents of Special Education services.

Aren’t there supposed to be about 10% of the PAUSD student body in special education programs? That would mean about 2,000 parents would have to be invited. Where would the PAUSD seat all 2,000 of those parents, who would no doubt want to participate in such a meeting?

All-in-all, not a very informative article.

Folks, you are to blame. You have helped perpetuate the notion that PAUSD employees are special just because they work in Palo Alto and get paid more than most other districts. The superintendent and his crew are highly paid, the principals run their schools like fiefdoms (site-based!), and the teachers union promotes a sense of entitlement among their members. In reality, we aren’t that special. In fact, we are mediocre in quite a few areas, and downright incompetent in others. Special education and all the other messes have happened for a reason. There is no bogeyman out to get us, not the Weekly, not the Daubers, not the Office for Civil Rights, not a few disgruntled parents. The PAUSD system is just not that good.

The survey’s available here: https://www4.scoe.net/seeds/index.cfm?fuseaction=AddSurvey&districtYearID=172
It isn’t anonymous and this was made available to the over 1,000 people I personally know received the information.

My child has an IEP and I didn’t know about this until another dad called me about this article, for what it’s worth.
75% of students not receiving the services on their IEP is a huge problem. I thought we were the only ones having trouble. This is an eye opener. Thanks for the article.

Ok you are lying. What was said at the meeting was that nothing was supposed to be sent home in the backpack. The notice was supposed to be via US mail and the first question was about whether there was appropriate notice given in accord with law. The first thing that was uncovered was faulty notice. That happened while Tabitha was still skulking in the back of the room rather than leaving per CDE instructions. This has now reached a new low.

Parents do not fill in the online link — an anonymous survey is available . Request it. CDE Procedural Safeguards office; 800- 926-0648.

Weekly, you’re obviously showing your bias with your removals. Try this link, it gets you to the same place. The Sacramento County office of Eduction: http://www.scoe.net/seeds/monitoring/verReview.html

– Click on the on-line survey at the bottom
– Scroll down and select “Palo Alto Unified”

It notifies you that you have missed the meeting and then asked you to complete the on-line survey. Link is directly available.
If you want to fill it in and send it in, try here: https://www4.scoe.net/seeds/cde_sesr_survey/index.cfm
It provides the survey in several languages.

You’d think the Weekly wouldn’t remove informative links.

I was at the meeting. Here are some more numbers I wrote down from the meeting:

70% said the results of the assessment were not used to plan the IEP.

65% said information and concerns parents had about their child were not used to plan and write the IEP.

70% said that teachers and service providers were not informed of specific responsibilities related to implementing a child’s IEP (so teachers did not even know what they were supposed to do);

75% said that there was no discussion of a variety of program options for a child at the IEP meeting;

65% said that IEP goals and objectives were not reviewed and revised at the IEP meeting based on progress and lack of progress. Many people pointed out the lack of data, benchmarks, and measurable goals.

The only number that I heard all night in which a majority answered in the affirmative is the number in this story that 65% said that their child’s strengths were taken into account. However this report is misleading because that report was very quickly followed by several parent comments indicating that they felt their child’s strengths were used against him or her in negating/denying services that were called for by the assessment results.

This meeting was good only in that I saw that I am not alone. It was otherwise very highly upsetting and depressing.

After elementary school, the special education in PAUSD is the pits, especially in the past two years. Our son was mainstreamed far too soon, and set up to fail. We have arranged for him to attend a special school for learning disabled kids starting in January.

Our objections to the mainstreaming were ignored by the special ed teacher, the counselor, the principal, and the superintendent. So were our complaints about bullying. It was never a problem until middle school and the reign of Kevin Skelly.

Has anyone noticed just how many teachers enroll their own children in private schools? Go figure.

Thank you for your question Gunn parent.

You asked two things. First, what is the connection between this study by the State of our education practices for Special Education students and the findings of Dept of Education Office of Civil Rights findings? and second, you ask what the reason might be that PAUSD is having so much difficulty with special education issues.

Both of these questions are important.

It appears to me that what might unite and explain both of these investigations is the lack of what you might think of as a “culture of compliance” within PAUSD. Many of the actions taken by PAUSD and statements made by its administrators evince the belief that rules exist to govern the conduct of bad actors. Since they view themselves as smart, elite, and good actors with good intentions, the rules are unimportant. One example of this belief system is the statement of Katherine Baker to the OCR attorneys investigating the bullying of a disabled student that her staff “was very sophisticated” and therefore did not need any training on disability harassment. Beyond the irony of this statement lies a hint about the view that rules are for other people.

Another example can be found in Kevin Skelly’s statement quoted in the Weekly that “People may be worried about getting a bullying policy, but I think they in general know that if their kid is not feeling comfortable at school, they should go and have a conversation with an administrator, and see how we can resolve things.” See:http://paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/06/new-school-district-bullying-policies-given-green-light-by-feds-and-state

Again as with Baker’s statement we can see in this the notion that rules are unnecessary because in PAUSD we can count on our administrators to know how and when to act without the guidance of rules. Rules are for people who lack sophistication or trustworthiness.

This is the wrong perspective on the role of policy and rules and it is one that is getting PAUSD into tremendous difficulty in the area of special education — a field that is extremely tightly regulated and in which rules and procedures are very important.

A second, somewhat less benign explanation for PAUSD’s particular difficulty around special education is that PAUSD has two specific problems in this area that are by-products of its stature as a high-achieving district. First, many of the students placed in special education are minority students and PAUSD has historically devoted little attention to the achievement or ability of these students. As the state found, PAUSD was disproportionately (and illegaly) dumping 50% of its black students and 30% of its Latino students into special education. Teachers were confusing “poor” with “learning disabled’ and these students were labeled, given up on, and miseducated for generations.

Only due to state intervention, is that practice now beginning to change. This provides of course a useful counter-case to the notion promoted by Baker and Skelly that PAUSD does not need the benefit of rules.

In addition to being comprised chiefly of minority students, special education students are those who struggle or have emotional problems. Some of these students are what you might consider to be the victims of a high-pressure, high-stress system. Anxiety and depression are very common among our students. These issues are triggered or exacerbated by high-stress classes, testing and homework loads. PAUSD rewards students who are good at “doing school” but not every student is. Some have trouble and struggle and these are not the students that PAUSD has typically rewarded and showcased.

These are students who typically are not paid much attention, and the fact that the district does not devote much attention to solving the problems of these families isn’t all that surprising perhaps.

You ask whether expense plays a role. PAUSD currently has a large surplus — so much that it is having difficulty deciding where to spend it all. There is not a lack of revenue. One place many dollars are currently being spent is on legal fees to press the district’s desire to cut expenditures on special education. A backwards example of this funding decision can be illustrated with respect to the district’s decision to contest, by going to a due process hearing (a form of court-like trial to determine a service for a special needs student).

Let’s say that a parent thinks that a student suffers from autism spectrum and needs help of some kiind. The district disagrees and produces an assessment to the contrary conducted by a school employee. The parent wants an independent evaluation. The parent is entitled under the law to request an independent evaluation at public expense (IEE), and then to have another meeting to consider the results of the new evaluation. That evaluation is to be conducted by an independent evaluator and therefore to be neutral and more reliable.

The typical cost of an IEE would be less than $2000 per child.

The district has lately been contesting these requests by taking parents to something called a due process hearing. The legal fees to litigate a due process case in PAUSD would generally run between $10 and $50 thousand dollars depending on complexity of the case, time to prepare, number of expert and other witnesses to be presented, and other factors.

The idea that the district is now spending $20K to avoid spending $2K suggests that there is a serious issue in the special education program that requires oversight by the board. Yet recently the special education director provided a board update that included only positive information and the board praised her and the department without asking any difficult questions.

That brings me to my final, and perhaps most important hypothesis as to the reasons for state and federal involvement in overseeing PAUSD. The state and federal regulators are engaged in a process of rule enforcement and oversight because our elected officials that are supposed to be engaged in that oversight are abdicating their jobs and not fulfilling that role. PAUSD is in the midst of a limited state and federal takeover of its special education program due to poor management by Dr. Skelly and Holly Wade, poor attention to rules and procedures, and no oversight by the board.

In that leadership vacuum, the federal and state governments are acting to protect the district’s special ed students.

When the district takes the rule of law and procedures seriously then we will see diminished federal and state oversight.

We have had an excellent experience with special education in PAUSD and in middle school in particular over the last 3 years as have many other parents we know. Perhaps we are not as vocal as those that are dissatisfied but we do need to make our voices heard. Our experience is that the school district and special education works hard to meet the diverse needs of their population.

Hi, I am a parent of a special ed student who knew nothing about the meeting. I also have noticed that the assessment (in house) was not used in planning my son’s IEP; in fact, the only services I ever got for my son were things I demanded.
I have since taken all my son’s records to an outside advocate agency who is advising legal action to get compensatory services.
I have taken my son out of a very dysfunctional classroom where the teacher, sweet as she may be, has no idea how to handle his needs. THere was no inclusion specialist or anyone even versed in the ideas of ABA (applied behavior analysis- something autistic kids benefit from), things I am learning about now The services he was receiving were minimal and patchwork. His mental health is suffering immensely from the punishment system in place at the school. After 7 days in a row of him being sent to the office, I have stopped sending him to school and filed a homeschool affidavit for this year. I want my kid in school, and I have to work. This is complete financial hardship on our family.
Thanks for reading!!!

And Holly Wade will keep her job and will probably get a raise like most of the other administrators.

I was at that meeting too, and while I have some complaints regarding services in PAUSD, my experience has been generally positive. the meeting was definitely biased and dominated by dissatisfied parents, who obviously were more motivated to attend than satisfied parents. These dissatisfied parents seemed to be largely of older middle/high school kids with less severe special needs who are mainstreamed- I can imagine it is a harder and longer fight by them than for those of us with younger kids with more severe special needs/ more obvious disabilities, but I do have friends with older kids in nearby school districts and I do not think the grass is any greener in those school districts.
On the point regarding press presence- while the press can do a lot of good- for those of us that did receive the letter, it stated that it was a meeting for parents and guardians of kids in special education, it did not state that it was a public meeting and I was also personally shocked to find out that the press were invited by other parents or someone without the permission of everyone there, the meeting was for PARENTS and those parents that left because of the press, should not have had to do so in order to feel comfortable.
On another note, yes the translator was a district employee- she is a secretary at one of the elementary schools here.

Yes, let’s debate.

Resolved: PAUSD should fully comply with all aspects of state and federal civil rights law.

My opening: I do not believe PAUSD is funds constrained to do this but if it is I propose that the PR officer be fired and the money for that position be devoted to special education.

The calls for “Edmund Burke” to run for school board are amusing. You must realize that her husband ran last time – and finished fourth in a four person race.

Would “Edmund Burke” please acknowledge whether or not she has been an active participant in engaging these governmental bodies? Specifically, whether she has directly contacted them or personally sought their participation by contacting these agencies?

That would clarify this “discussion.”

@parent.

You are absolutely correct that many people who came to the meeting did so because they feel that they are not receiving appropriate and legally required services and they saw the opportunity to discuss that with a state auditor as a possible chance to receive those services.

It is not unusual for a survey like this one to receive responses from those who are highly motivated to respond, such as those having a quite difficult time who are hoping for some assistance.

That does not invalidate those responses. The state already has a basis, in the district’s own data as reported to the state, to believe that the district is systematically noncompliant with the IDEA. That is what triggered the review. The purpose of the parent meeting is to collect any other complaints that might inform their audit so as to ensure that they do not miss pertinent aspects of the district’s practices.

For this purpose, the parent information meeting is a useful event precisely for the reason you critique it: because it is likely to attract those who have experienced illegality and will help the auditors know what to look for in the records. The auditors are well aware that these meetings are not random samples and do not rely on them to gain an overall view of the district’s special ed program.

Your hypothesis is that essentially every single unhappy person who experienced illegality was present, making the proportion of unlawful conduct very low. If that is the case, then the records review, site visits, and randomized interviews will reveal that.

While it is likely that parent information meetings do lean toward more unhappy parents, it is very unlikely that their cases are unrepresentative of at least some proportion of cases. Organizations tend to repeat behavior, and there are rarely truly one-off instances. That is why litigation of a particular instance of harm resulting from a negligent practice usually yields records of many other complaints of the same injury due to the same practice handled in much the same way. That is why the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal wasn’t just about one rogue priest in one place.

It may be that the state auditors will discover no problems or areas for improvement in PAUSD. But there is no problem with them listening to the complaints of those who have had difficulties as they begin their review.

Please correct me if I am wrong! but I recall reading an article so ether in which Kevin Skelly claimed that each IEP student cost the PAUSD $8,000/year! This was his justification for mainstreaming as many IEP kids as possible as early as possible.

If this is true, wouldn’t this cause API scores to fall, as well as cheating IEP students out of what they need?

You families who stand for the rights of your children are courageous and benefit many. Fighting for documentation of the bullying in PAUSD schools and compliance to resolve them accordingly, are also benefitting the entire PAUSD population.

Many bullying incidents with mainstream children of PAUSD were not recorded and various tactics were used to make families “disappear” with their complaints. What Edmund Burke suggested is true from what I’ve heard from families who have children that are not in Special Education. The administrators took it upon themselves to use their “sophistication” to resolve the problem. The “sophisticated” process of resolution are the many ways families can be shamed, blamed, confused, intimidated, and misdirected from having their bullying situation properly documented and resolved within PAUSD system. It’s incredibly hurtful to witness what happens to an entire family when this happens – emotionally, financially, and mostly, for the child involved. Families learned to lie low and suffer than call attention to their situations for that type of “sophistication”.

The obfuscation PAUSD is allowed to practice under Skelly is hurting families, the children, and the community. Let mistakes stay in the past, Skelly. Skelly and administrators under Skelly, please put children first and you will make the right choices going forward.

As a stdent at terman, the special education classes have not changed one bit. In fact, students are sometimes neglected.