The Science of Science Policy

I recently discovered the Science of Science Policy website, affiliated to the United States (U.S.) Office of Science and Technology Policy. The U.S. Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 1976 with a "broad mandate to advise the President... on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs". The goal of the Science of Science Policy community is to "provide a scientifically rigorous and quantitative basis for science policy. The website provides a central location with news, information and research to help inform the Federal Government's science management decisions".

Closely related, the Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program was established at the U.S. National Science Foundation in 2005 in response to a call from John Marburger III for a "specialist scholarly community" to study the science of science policy. The program has three major goals: "advancing evidence-based science and innovation policy decision making; building a scientific community to study science and innovation policy; and leveraging the experience of other countries. A recent Science article highlights some of the issues addressed by SciSIP researchers."

Seventy-five SciSIP awards have been made to date. The awardees include economists, sociologists, political scientists, and psychologists as well as domain scientists. Some recent SciSIP awards (full abstracts available) which might be of interest to readers include Applied Visual Analytics for Economic Decision-Making and Universities, Innovation and Economic Growth. A report in the New York Times, from a couple of years ago, highlights a dataset that SciSIP funded jointly with the Kauffman Foundation, noting that it "tracks government-sponsored research for science and engineering and links it with government start-ups, patents, and other data. One goal of the research is to identify the characteristics of star innovators, scientists who are most effective in ushering research advances into the marketplace."

Behavioral Economics and the Next Government

Barring a very unusual set of events, the next Irish government will be a Fine Gael/Labour coalition with Enda Kenny as Taoiseach. The party has put forward its plans for reforming government and addressing unemployment and, as Kevin pointed out, they seem willing to embrace some of the innovative ideas coming out of modern microeconomics, in particular devoting a reasonable amount of space to early childhood education including the PFL project which involves some of our colleagues here.

It would be worth the time and energy of the policy advisors to the new government to look at the literature emerging from behavioural economics for ideas on how to reform key aspects of the tax, welfare and pensions systems of the country. Both the Obama and Cameron administrations have put a lot of energy into taking on board insights from behavioural economics, and a new government will have the advantage of being able to observe successes and failures of countries farther down this road. One advantage of the tight economic situation facing the new government will be that it will force it to address issues head-on rather than ducking issues by handing out money. There is arguably a stronger momentum for real reform of the operation of the state now than in any previous time, with both a dramatic downturn and a substantially more educated population than before.

Some things that would really be worth having a full national debate on in Ireland include:

- The growing literature on the importance of default options in determining behaviour even in important life domains is perhaps the most relevant to policy. The literature on automatic enrolment plans, in part, motivated the current governments decision to move to a system of automatic enrolment for the private sector in 2014. This is one of the boldest moves in this direction anywhere in the world and it is worth examining closely the extent to which this achieves its desired objectives and lessons that might be learned for other aspects of policy. In particular, the design of universal health insurance systems may benefit from the results of these analyses.

- FG plans to move all employment-related services into a single point of contact. At first glance, this would have a lot of advantages from the point of view of reducing complexity and potentially improving the outcomes of unemployed people. Sendhil Mullainathan and colleagues summarise some of the potential insights from behavioural economics in designing the interfaces that uemployed people interact with.

- There is a growing literature on how behavioural economics could be applied to more flexibly design tax policies. I gave a few presentations on this during the last couple of years including here. The Irish tax system is far too complicated and every move the new government can make toward simplifying it will be a victory for common sense.

- I have provided reading lists on this topic before (e.g. here) and my teaching website has a lot of links. The book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunnstein Nudge provides an accesible overview.

- In general, the financial health and stability of Irish households will be a key concern over the rest of this cycle. The development of the role of the financial regulator as being an advocate for sensible household financial decision making would be bulked up a lot by taking on board this literature as a complement to the traditional financial capability literature.

Westminister Forum Projects

Westminster Forum Projects (WFP) operates a "group of influential, impartial and cross-party forums: the Westminster Education Forum; the Westminster eForum; the Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum; the Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum; the Westminster Health Forum; the Westminster Legal Policy Forum and the Westminster Media Forum."

"All the Westminster Forum Projects... enjoy substantial support and involvement from key stakeholders within Parliament, government, regulatory bodies, industry, consumer organisations and other interested groups. The forums organise senior level seminars on public policy in these sectors. None of the forums has a policy agenda of its own, other than simply to raise the quality of debate on public policy developments and so create opportunities for informed discussion."

The Westminster Education Forum aims to "provide the premier environment for policy makers in Parliament, Whitehall and government agencies to engage with key stakeholders. These include education professionals, parents and learners, industry representatives and their advisors, interest groups, local authorities, the voluntary sector and academia, along with members of the reporting press."

News: Stipulated TRO Issued In AB 3632 Case

Educationally-related mental health services to continue, despite Governor's veto and suspension of mandate

A class action lawsuit was filed last week by the collaborative forces of various public interest law organizations in Los Angeles in response to the Governor's line item veto of funding for mental health services and suspension of the AB 3632 mandate.

More information about this issue:
Our previous blog posts: News: AB3632 Suspended... Mental Health Services in State of Chaos: Part 1... Mental Health Services in State of Chaos: Part 2...
Press Release about the Class Action (on Disability Rights California's webpage)
Public Counsel's story about the class action (on Public Counsel's webpage)
The complaint filed in the class action

As part of the class action litigation, Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against various defendants. The Plaintiffs sought an order to require the state department of education (CDE) to take certain actions to monitor and track changes in local policies and practices related to mental health services, exercise its authority under the law to compel local education agencies (i.e. school districts) to ensure that students receive mental health services without delay or interruption, and disburse federal IDEA funds including those specifically delineated for mental health services on the same basis as they were disbursed prior to the Governor's actions on October 8th. Additionally, as to the "local" defendants, including the LA County Department of Mental Health, Plaintiffs sought a TRO requiring the continued provision of mental health services, including assessments, attendance at IEP meetings, and providing services and funding residential placements, at the same level as was previously provided in accordance with the procedures existing prior to the Governor's veto.

State Department of Education (CDE) Action and Agreement to Disburse Funds

On October 29, 2010, Jack O'Connell, State Superintendent of Schools, announced that CDE would be releasing $76 million in federal IDEA funds reserved for state level activities to county offices in order to fund educationally-related mental health services through county mental health agencies. Thus, these funds would be available to ensure the continuation of services mandated by federal law for students with disabilities.

In announcing this action, O'Connell stated "I refuse to let the Governor's misguided action prevent severely disabled students from getting the mental health care they need from qualified providers... The Governor's veto does not override federal law; School districts must still implement the IEP... yet most districts don't have the expertise to provide psychiatric and medical management of necessary medications and other mental health services..." See California Department of Education News Release; October 29, 2010 http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10rel122.asp

Stipulated TRO for Provision of Services by LA County DMH

Yesterday, November 2, 2010, the federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California signed a stipulated Temporary Restraining Order in this matter. Because of the assurances of disbursement of reserved funding by the CDE, funding would be available to LACDMH to provide services in accordance with the practices and procedures for distribution of funds existing before October 8, 2010. Thus, the stipulated TRO provided that LACDMH would "resume and continue to provide and monitor educationally-related mental health services... attend IEP meetings and authorize services, and complete assessments..." either until the "reserved" funding runs out or until January 14, 2011, whichever occurs first.

What does this mean?

The issue regarding funding for educationally related mental health services in California is by no means resolved. However, locally in Los Angeles County, the process for providing these services through a student's IEP will theoretically return to the same practices and procedures as before the veto by the Governor, and the subsequent chaos of the past few weeks, occurred. At least for the time being - the "reserved" funding will not last forever, and the long term problem still requires a resolution. For students and families throughout California, Mr. O'Connell's action is a step in the right direction towards ensuring stability in the provision of much needed services during this time of confusion. It means that funds will be disbursed for the provision of services through the counties. Additionally, CDE has continued to remind local school districts of their ultimate responsibility to provide students with a FAPE, and the CDE has agreed to issue directives regarding these obligations in an attempt to ensure and oversee compliance. Within the context of the class action, the Plaintiffs involved have agreed to inform CDE of any information that they obtain regarding non-compliance by a local school district of its obligation to provide or pay for related mental health services when a non-educational agency fails to do so.

For more information, please check out the following links:

Order on Stipulated TRO (as related to local defendants)

Stipulation and Notice of Withdrawal (as related to agreement with state defendants)

News: AB 3632 Mandate Suspended; Mental Health Services in a State of Chaos

Governor’s Line Item Veto Suspends AB 3632 Mandate for Mental Health Services in California

On October 8, 2010, Governor Schwarzanegger signed the state’s budget for fiscal year 2010-2011, while using his line item veto to cut billions of dollars to state funded programs. Among the programs affected are mental health services provided to students with disabilities under what is known as the AB 3632 Mandate. The Governor used his veto to eliminate approximately $133 million in funds apportioned for the state to reimburse County Mental Health agencies for mandated services they have already funded. At the same time, the Governor suspended the AB 3632 mandate going forward.

AB 3632 was enacted in 1984 in order to assign County Mental Health departments the financial responsibility for funding mental health services required pursuant to students’ IEPs. Under AB 3632, County Mental Health departments also funded residential placements for students who were eligible under the category of “Emotionally Disturbed” and required residential placement in order to receive an appropriate special education program.

The Governor’s action has been called “unconscionable” by many, and leaves school districts, SELPAs, County Mental Health departments, providers, residential treatment facilities, and IEP teams in a complete and utter state of chaos. Parents and students are unfortunately likely to be immediately and negatively impacted.

Suspending AB 3632 services does not eliminate mental health services or residential placements, but instead returns the responsibility for these state mandated services to the local education agencies (school districts). However, as each County Mental Health department and each School District reacts to the chaos individually and decides what action to take, there will almost certainly be disruption in services for many students.

Please read more in depth information on this blog at:

Mental Health Services in State of Chaos in California: Part 1 - What Happened? (http://a2zeducationaladvocates.blogspot.com/2010/10/mental-health-services-in-state-of.html)

Mental Health Services in State of Chaos in California - Part 2: What Happens Next? (http://a2zeducationaladvocates.blogspot.com/2010/10/mental-health-services-in-state-of_22.html)

Already, litigation on this issue has begun. On October 21, 2010, in Los Angeles, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court by Public Counsel, Disability Rights California, Mental Health Advocacy Services, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in order to "preserve lifeline services for more than 20,000 students." (You can find read the press release on Disability Rights California's website (http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/) as well as the complaint filed in federal court).

Mental Health Services in State of Chaos in California - Part 2: What Happens Next?

On October 8, 2010, Governor Schwarzanegger used his line item veto to cut billions from the state budget for fiscal year 2010-2011, including $133 allocated to County Mental Health agencies for AB 3632 services. Please read Part 1 in this Series on this blog for more information about the suspension of the AB 3632 mandate.

The Governor has made it clear that he intended to suspend the mandate for AB 3632 (mental health services) in California. AB 3632 allocated responsibility for the provision of mental health services pursuant to a child's IEP, as well as residential placements for emotionally disturbed students, to county mental health agencies.

Mental health services under AB 3632 included

• individual or group psychotherapy
• collateral services
• medication monitoring
• intensive day treatment
• day rehabilitation
• case management services

Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 60020(i).

Outpatient services are provided at a clinic or public DMH agency, or may be located on a school campus in some circumstances. "Intensive day treatment" and "day rehabilitation" services are intensive mental health services provided in community based or residential treatment program settings.

Additionally, residential placements were funded under the AB 3632 mandate for students who were eligible under the category of "emotional disturbance" and who required a residential educational placement in order to receive an appropriate special education program. (*note: residential placements for students under other categories of eligibility were already the responsibility of the school districts / local education agencies).

Residential placement is an out-of-home placement in a residential treatment facility with a school program certified as a Non Public School (NPS) and appropriate mental health and day rehabilitation services as part of the program. *Residential placements are on the "continuum of placement options" under the California Education Code.

The Governor's suspension of the mandate has caused chaos, confusion, and controversy throughout the state. Because mental health services are mandated by federal law (the IDEA) to be provided as part of a student's IEP if they are required for that student to access an educational benefit, the suspension of the California-specific AB 3632 mandate does NOT eliminate mental health services for students who require them. Nor does the Governor's action mean that residential placements will, as a matter of course, no longer be available for students in California.

The State of Chaos for County Departments of Mental Health

On October 12, 2010, the Executive Director of the state Mental Health Directors Association sent a memo to all County Mental Health agencies regarding the current state of AB 3632 services. The memo addresses questions arising from the suspension of the mandate, such as whether the Governor actually had the legal authority to suspend a mandate. Additionally, it indicated that there was uncertainty about factors such as the date on which the suspension was effective (October 8th or retroactive to the start of the fiscal year), whether / how counties will ever be reimbursed for the costs incurred from 2004 forward for providing services, and how funding will be accessed / provided for transition of services to school districts.

The Memo set forth "Issues/Actions" for counties to consider, discussing the pros and cons of each action. Subsequently, County Mental Health agencies across the state have each interpreted / implemented these "actions" individually, giving rise to a true state of confusion across California.

It appears to be fairly consistent that most County Mental Health agencies in Southern California are no longer accepting any new IEP referrals from school districts, stating that they do not have the legal right or responsibility to be involved in the IEP process. Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (LACDMH) and San Diego County Department of Mental Health have reportedly taken this position. Additionally, counties that have taken this action are in most cases refusing to attend IEP meetings or participate any further in cases in which the DMH assessment had already occurred but the IEP meeting had yet to be held.

Reportedly, County Mental Health agencies have also been communicating with school districts, SELPAs, and contracted-residential placement staff, with inconsistent statements made. In some reports, Counties have indicated that students already in residential placements will continue to be funded through the end of this year, but in other reports, Counties have indicated that students will no longer be funded in residential placements effective immediately.

What is truly the "unknown" is what action County Mental Health agencies have taken / are taking to work with SELPAs and school districts to determine how to effectively transition students' services to the school districts.

The State of Chaos for School Districts / Local Education Agencies

Related services and appropriate placements (even residential placements) must be provided to a student as part of a Free Appropriate Public Education in order to meet the child's unique needs and provide them with educational benefit. If mental health services are required as a part of FAPE, they must be provided. It has always been the case that even though California allocated funding-responsibility to county mental health agencies under the AB 3632 mandate, the state education agency (CDE) through the school districts / local education agencies remained ultimately responsible for ensuring that the child was provided with a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. sections 1400(8), 1401(22); 1412(a)(11)&(12); 34 C.F.R. sections 300.341, 300.360; California Education Code section 5600 & 56031; California Government Code sections 7570 et seq.

As courts have stated;

When disputes between agencies over funding arise, the school district must "ensure that the placement is at no cost to Parent, as provided for in 20 U.S.C. section 1412(a)(10)(B)(i). In other words, if there is to be a fight over payment, it is to be between the [school district] and [the other public agency], not between the parent and the [agency]."

School Board of Lee County Florida v. E.S., 561 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (M.D. Fl. 2008).

"Compliance with duties under the IDEA is a serious matter... Thus, it is not surprising that Congress would impose a duty on local education agencies to continue services to students if local a mental health agency refused to do so."

County of Tuolumne v. Special Education Hearing Office, James G, et al, 45 IDELR 15 (C. Ct. App. 2006) (citing 20 U.S.C. section 1412(a)(12)(B)(ii)).

All related services necessary for a child to benefit from special education / required for the child to make progress towards IEP goals, are the responsibility of the child's school district. Provision of an appropriate placement, including, when required, a residential placement, is also the responsibility of the child's school district. These responsibilities fall within the general duty of the school district to make a FAPE available to each child within its jurisdiction.

Thus, school districts in California are now left with the obligation and responsibility to continue to provide mental health services and residential placements, even though just a few weeks ago the funding responsibility fell on another agency. School districts are not permitted to refuse to provide services pursuant to an IEP, or to refuse to include services that are necessary in the IEP when it is developed, simply because a funding source is not identified. If the county mental health agency refuses to fund services, or ceases funding previously funded services, for any reason (such as the current suspension of the mandate), the school district must assume responsibility.

On October 18, 2010, the California Department of Education, Special Education Division, issued a memorandum to all SELPAs, County Offices of Education, the Advisory Committee on Special Education, Nonpublic School Administrators, and "Interested Individuals, Agencies and Organizations" addressing the present issues. In that memo, CDE called the Governor's actions "unconsionable" and indicated that the suspension of the mandate had created a "state of chaos" in California.

The intention of the memo was to "remind all special education local planning areas (SELPAs), county offices of education (COEs), and local education agencies (LEAs) [school districts] of their responsibility to provide mental health services to students with disabilities." The CDE cited to California Government Code sections and the IDEA. It stated "If a public agency other than an educational agency fails to provide or pay for the special education and related services... the LEA (or State agency responsible for developing the child's IEP) must provide or pay for these services to the child in a timely manner." (quoting 34 C.F.R. section 300.154(b)(2).

Despite this reminder, and the clear legal mandate from the federal law, a state of confusion has definitely ensued, and many school districts are reportedly telling parents that residential placements will no longer be offered, IEP meetings will not be held to discuss needed mental health services, etc.

The State of Chaos for Parents, Students and the Community

Many strange things have happened since the Governor's actions on October 8th. Some parents have been told by school districts (or by residential school staff, who were told by school districts or mental health agencies) that all residential placements would cease to be funded immediately. Other parents have reported that they have heard that the school districts won't continue to fund the residential placements if the child can "survive" outside of that setting. IEP meetings that were scheduled to review assessments by County Department of Mental Health professionals, and thus to determine necessary mental health services, are reportedly being canceled across the state.

School districts and IEP teams in California are so used to having the AB 3632 mandate, that they have forgotten the fact that residential placements and mental health services are not something "special" or "unique" to California. Thus, some school districts are understandably confused about how to make the determination of necessary services and placement under the genre of "mental health."

The community as a whole is certainly affected by the chaos, and litigation on these issues will likely be plentiful. It will take the collaborative efforts of non-profit legal services offices and the community of special education attorneys, advocates and parents, likely working with school districts, mental health agencies, etc, to address this issue in the long term. On October 21, 2010, in Los Angeles, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court by Public Counsel, Disability Rights California, Mental Health Advocacy Services, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in order to "preserve lifeline services for more than 20,000 students." (You can find read the press release on Disability Rights California's website, as well as the complaint filed).

Here are some final points to keep in mind if you are being told that services are going to stop, that placement is going to end, etc:

1. Most importantly, remember that ANY change to your child's IEP, including the placement and services he/she receives, cannot be done unilaterally / outside of the IEP process. At the least, an IEP meeting should be held and/or you should be given prior written notice of any proposed changes, after which you have the right to disagree with the proposal. You shouldn't sign an "administrative addendum" or other IEP document that is simply sent to you stating that residential placement is no longer available.

2. If a service is listed in an IEP already (i.e. outpatient mental health services, residential placement), that service / placement is, by definition, related to the student's education. No matter what agency was funding them before, services that were not related to a child's education and necessary for the child to make progress should not have been listed in the IEP. Thus, the school district's should not be able to argue that they are not responsible for mental health services or residential placement because those things were not "educationally related."

3. If a school district has made a referral for assessment by County Mental Health under AB 3632, and now that assessment will not go forward because of suspension of the mandate, the obligation to evaluate the child in this area falls back onto the District. The school district is obligated to evaluate a child in all areas of suspected disability, and the referral can be argued to be indication that the district acknowledges this as an area of suspected disability / an area that needs to be assessed.

4. A district's unilateral determination to stop services or placement due to the lack of funding through the department of mental health may give rise to a compliance issue, which can be addressed through a compliance complaint filed with the CDE, or to due process issues, which can be addressed by requesting a due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Likely, there will be an influx of these types of cases in the coming weeks.

Finally, this is certainly all confusing and chaotic, and school districts, mental health agencies, providers, and parents are left to figure out on a case by case basis what will happen next. If you are impacted by this and fear that services will be eliminated, you should consult with a special education attorney for assistance.

Call to Action on the Truancy Bill: Part 2

Truancy Bill Part 2: How to get involved and make yourself heard on this issue

Please read Call to Action on the Truancy Bill: Part 1 for information about why this bill would be unjust for parents of students with disabilities.

Contacting the Governor: For this "call to action," Parents, advocates, attorneys and others in the special education community are encouraged to send a letter (see sample in Part 3) by either email or fax, or call one of the office numbers below to provide your input.

1. Email: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email

2. By fax or phone call to Governor's office in Sacramento:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-445-2841
FAX: 916-558-3160

3. By fax or phone call to District office across CA

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
PHONE: 559-477-1804
FAX: 559-445-5328

Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
PHONE: 213-897-0322
FAX: 213-897-0319

Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
PHONE: 951-680-6860
FAX: 951-680-6863

San Diego Office
1350 Front Street
Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
PHONE: 619-525-4641
FAX: 619-525-4640

San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
PHONE: 415-703-2218

Part 3 of this posting will include a sample letter for your use, courtesy of the California Association of Parent Child Advocacy.

Call to Action on the Truancy Bill: Part 1

Truancy Bill Part 1: Why the call to action is necessary

Over the past couple of months here in California, Senator Leno's "Truancy Bill" has been a big topic in the world of public education. The bill's well-intentioned point is to "improve efforts to fight truancy," and as an effect of those efforts, hopefully do something to prevent kids from becoming juvenile delinquents. As noble as this sounds, and as much as we need to combat truancy issues in our schools, as written, the serious negative consequences for truancy (including jail time for parents or hefty fines) could be applied in circumstances involving students with disabilities in a harmful and unjust manner.

Take for example some of the following scenarios:

* Parents disagree with the school district's offer of placement and services because they believe that the child requires intensive 1:1 instruction or an ABA (applied behavioral analysis) based program. They remove their child from school for part or all of the school day, providing appropriate notice as required under special education laws, and place their child in a private program at their own expense. Case law recognizes the importance of allowing Parents the opportunity to fund private placements and services, and take the financial risk of seeking reimbursement for those programs, rather than requiring Parents to leave their child in a "potentially inappropriate" setting. This right would be virtually stripped if those Parents would face jail time as a penalty for invoking this process.

* Child with a disability has serious anxiety and depression, and refuses to go to school. Although not physically "sick" in a traditional sense, the child's health and well-being may be affected if he/she attends school with such extreme levels of anxiety, and Parents keep the child home until alternatives can be agreed upon or supports can be put into place. Parents will not be able to make these decisions about their child's welfare under this bill.

* Child with a disability has social/emotional and/or behavioral difficulties that include school refusal. Parents are doing everything they can to attempt to get the child to school or encourage school attendance, but school district officials don't believe they are doing enough. Those Parents may face the penalties called for under this bill.

* Child with a disability has been seriously harassed or bullied by other students because of his/her disability, and Parents have reported the bullying to school officials, who have done nothing in response to prevent the bullying from occurring. Parents do not feel the school is a safe environment because of the physical harm being caused to the child. These Parents would not be able to keep their child home until safety is ensured. Effectively, school personnel who "ignore" such reports of bullying would be empowered to do so.

These are hypotheticals based on scenarios that special education attorneys, advocates and parents see and experience on a regular basis. There is no language in the bill to provide an exception for such scenarios, and the language that is included is vague and easy to misinterpret, misapply, and even abuse. Most alarmingly, perhaps, is the lack of clarity as to what constitutes a "chronic" truancy problem giving rise to the penalties it imposes. Because these penalties are triggered by missing 10% of the school year to date, without further clarification, interpretation could lead to imposition of penalties for a very small number of dates depending on the time of the school year. (For example, 30 school days, or approximately 6 weeks, into the year, a child who had missed only 3 days would be considered chronically truant.)

The current state of this bill is that it has passed the state Senate and House, and is awaiting the Governor's action on it. Thus, this "call to action" is for Parents, advocates, etc in the special education community to contact Governor Schwarzenegger and request that he veto SB1317, the "truancy bill."

Parts 2 and 3 of this posting will include contact information and a sample letter.

Learning Disabilities Awareness Month

October is Learning Disabilities Awareness Month here in the U.S. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation designating Learning Disabilities Awareness Month, and stating

"Awareness of learning disabilities is one of the most important advances in education in recent years. As more and more Americans become aware, our citizens with learning disabilities will have greater opportunity to lead full and productive lives and to make a contribution to our society."

Increased awareness - better educational programs - greater opportunities! That's the idea, and we can all play a role in making it a reality. For Learning Disabilities Awareness Month, we encourage all of our readers to participate; here are some ideas:

• Increase your own awareness - educate yourself about different types of learning disabilities, programs that are appropriate to remediate learning deficits, etc. Check out LD Online, the Learning Disabilities Association, and the National Center for Learning Disabilities as good starting place. Or go to your local library and check out books on learning disabilities. Each of the websites listed above has "recommended books," and I recommend Overcoming Dyslexia - even though there are more current books out there, it provides a very comprehensive overview.
• Talk to your child. If you have a child with a learning disability, this may be a great time to talk to him or her about his/her disability. Understanding your own learning needs is the first step to learning to self-advocate! There are children's books and other resources available that can help open the door for communication about these issues. Check out, for example, I Wish I Could Fly Like a Bird, a great story that teaches children to understand and accept differences. This is also a great book to share with your child's teacher as a way to introduce the topic of learning disabilities and other differences to classmates. And if you have a child who is non-disabled, this book is a great tool to increase his/her awareness of learning differences as well.
  
• Share with your family and friends. Awareness happens because people who know and care about the issue talk about it with others. Talk to your friends about learning disabilities. Share your personal stories and insight and help them to understand why awareness matters.
• Find local events. Find your local Learning Disabilities Association chapter, parent support groups for parents of students with learning disabilities, or other community groups. Many groups may be having local events to promote awareness throughout October that you can get involved in.

Throughout October, we will be posting various blog articles about Learning Disabilities, particularly focusing on special education issues related to students with learning disabilities. Check back later for more information and updates, and feel free to leave a comment if there are particular issues related to this topic you want us to talk about!

Senator Kennedy's Inspiration and Call to Action for Advocates

Last year, I was volunteering for the Obama Presidential Campaign as a Precinct Captain in my neighborhood, and also with the national call team. I was pretty fired up about the election as a whole, and watched and read the news every day avidly. Among all of the great moments, two moments at the top of my list of "important moments" both involved Ted Kennedy. The first was the day of the announcement during the primaries that Kennedy was endorsing Obama. The second was the speech given by Kennedy at the convention.

I guess, for me, those two moments were inspiring because I have always been such an admirer of Senator Kennedy, especially (as a student of rhetoric) in terms of his skill as an orator. I remember hearing that he was endorsing Obama and feeling so proud that I was involved in something he too believed in. I remember listening to the speech and comparing it to all of those I had read and heard from the earlier days in his career, and thinking about how admirable it is to see a person who is so consistent with his passion, devotion and message throughout his life.

I studied Speech Communications in my undergraduate studies at the University of Georgia. We studied various forms of rhetoric, reading speeches given in the context of social movements, from the Woman's Suffrage Movement to the Civil Rights Movement and beyond, orations given during political campaigns, and in moments of national crisis or disaster. Ted Kennedy was one of the great orators of our time. Now we can debate as to what was the greatest speech of his life, which speech was most moving, inspiring, or most important. There are many to choose from; the most notable perhaps being "The Dream Never Dies" speech from the 1980 DNC, in which Kennedy talked about all of the issues he had championed throughout his career, and ended with the rousing words "the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." Then of course, there is the emotional and inspirational speech given at Bobby Kennedy's funeral, when he spoke of the hopes of his brother for a better world, saying the moving words "Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world."

If you study the speeches and interviews of Ted Kennedy, it is statements like these that sum him up so well. These statements speak to the hope that he envisioned for America, the dreams and causes he believed in and fought for, and the endurance of those hopes.

For me, one of the speeches I love is not from a great moment like a funeral or a convention. It was an interview in the early 1970's in which Kennedy talked about why he believed Health Care Reform was necessary. He spoke frankly about his families struggles with medical issues, and talked about the fact that they were fortunate to have access to quality health care when they needed it. He talked about Health Care as being a right, not a privilege, and about his vision for an America in which any family would have access to the medical care they needed.

This is why I admired Ted Kennedy as a Senator, a leader. He saw issues that affect us at our most fundamental levels and looked for ways to make the world a better place. He championed the causes of the disadvantaged, and inspired others to do so likewise.

As a disability advocate, I owe much to this inspiration, and his work. Senator Kennedy introduced the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in the workplace, and requiring reasonable accommodations and accessibility which literally opened the doors to people with disabilities in places like theaters, shops, museums, hotels and restaurants. He was instrumental in the Family Opportunity Act, opening up access to Medicaid for families of disabled children, even if they were not in the "low income" status; the Help America Vote Act, requiring polling places to provide a machine that ensured access and privacy for voters with disabilities; and the Mental Health Parity Bill, which required mental health and substance abuse coverage to be on par with other coverage. Other important disability legislation included the Fair Housing Act Amendments, the Air Carriers Access Act, the Civil Rights Commission Amendments, the Comprehensive Services and Developmental Disabilities Amendments, the Crime Victims and Disabilities Awareness Act, the Employment Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act and countless others.

And of course, as an advocate in the special education field, I must be eternally grateful for Senator Kennedy's work on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind. He passionately believed, in his own words, that "all children deserve a quality education." He was an original co-sponsor of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, which later became the IDEA, recognizing the fundamental importance of ensuring that students with disabilities were given the right to a free appropriate public education. He was also an original co-sponsor of the Handicapped Children's Protection Act, allowing for prevailing parents to recover attorneys fees, which was an important early step in ensuring a level playing field. Senator Kennedy remained committed to the cause of special education, sponsoring and negotiating the re-authorizations of the IDEA throughout the years, and he continued even through the last year to push for legislation that would promote a fair and level playing field and hearing process to protect the rights of children with disabilities.

A lifetime of work on these important issues does not come to a halt now. Now the burden is on us, the advocates and attorneys, the parents and loved ones of persons affected by disabilities, the teachers and educators, the law makers, and the community as a whole. Perhaps none of us can live up to what he has accomplished on behalf of persons with disabilities. But we must now strive to ensure that the cause goes on, and that the dream doesn't die.

Reminder: IDEA Fairness Restoration Act

A reminder that today is a national call-in day for the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, H.R., 2740.

Call your Congressional Representative to ask him or her to co-sponsor the Act and help level the playing field.Dial 202-224-3121 (TTY 202-225-1904) and ask for your Representative. You can also find direct dial numbers for your Representative, including local numbers (if long-distance is too costly), on your Representative’s web page at http://www.house.gov/.

How to Find Out Who Your Congressional Representative is: If you do not know who your Congressional Representative is, go to http://www.house.gov/ and put your zip code into the box in the upper left corner.The IDEA Fairness Restoration Act will override the Supreme Court's decision in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy (2006) and allow parents who prevail in due process or litigation to be reimbursed for their expert witness fees.

When prevailing parents cannot recover expert costs, the playing field is neither level nor fair, and children are denied a free appropriate public education and other fundamental IDEA rights.For more detailed information about the Act click here and to read the Act in its entirety click here.

Civil Rights in Education

Today is the 45th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance, including public schools. Ten years prior, in 1954, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, finding that "racially segregated schools are inherently unequal."

Education has been called the civil rights issue of our generation. Although we have come a long way since Brown, the Civil Rights Act, the subsequent Education of the Handicapped Act, and other legislation, there are still disparities in education that affect minorities, children living in poverty or homelessness, and children with disabilities.

Disability advocates should always be aware of the civil rights movement as the foundation for what we now do. Following Brown vs. Board of Education, courts began to recognize that other types of segregation and seclusion also existed, and the issue of access to education became an issue for persons with disabilities. Parents began raising equal education opportunity as a right that existed for their children, who had been prevented from even attending schools because of their disabilities. In 1972, a consent order was entered in a case involving the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children, requiring the public school system to ensure a free public program of education and training to children with "exceptional" needs. In the same year, Mills v. Board of Education was decided in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and found that exclusion from publicly supported instruction was unconstitutional. The Mills case established a substantive entitlement to a free and suitable publicly supported education. These two cases were based upon the principle that if a public education agency undertook to educate all of the children in its area, it could not then exclude children with exceptional needs simply because they require greater resources to educate. Within these foundational cases was also established the idea of a "preference" for placement within a regular, public school placement.

Today, inclusion in a regular public school placement is still an issue of contention for many students with disabilities. The right to placement in the "least restrictive environment" is a contentious issue in many cases. Separate public schools exist where students with disabilities are placed separately from their non-disabled peers, which some argue is tantamount to segregation. On the other hand, because publicly supported education must be appropriate for the unique needs of the individual students, sometimes a separate specialized setting is required.
In the extreme, some students are still denied access to school because of the severity of their disabilities. In my own career, I have known a child whose parents' only wish was for him to be able to attend his neighborhood school, and he was never allowed to do so.

The right to equal educational opportunity and access has come a long way since 1954 for the groups of persons who have historically been denied that access. Unfortunately, on a daily basis I am reminded how far we still have to go as a society to reach the point where exclusion, discrimination, and the denial of meaningful educational benefit, be it on the basis of race, disability, or poverty, no longer exists in our schools. Only when we eliminate discrimination in schools and ensure truly equal access to a meaningful education will society as a whole move towards greater inclusion of all persons.

IDEA Fairness Restoration Act

In 2006, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Arlington Central School District vs Murphy finding that parents who were prevailing parties in a due process hearing or subsequent litigation were barred from recovering expert witness fees. Around the same time period, the Supreme Court issued a decision in another case that clarified the burden of proof in special education disputes; a ruling that has subsequently placed that burden onto parents in almost all cases arising under the IDEA.

The Unfairness Problem

School Districts can spend tax dollars to employ and hire experts to provide testimony in due process hearings and litigation. School Districts use their resources to fund psychologists, specialists, technical experts, etc to provide testimony related to programs, placements, services, assessment findings, and a child's unique needs.

Most parents don't have the resources to access expert witnesses and bear that financial burden. Experts are necessary to be able to have a fair change at prevailing in a due process hearing and litigation! If the School District is putting on testimony by psychologists and specialists, and the parents are unable to, it will be extremely difficult for parents to meet their burden of proof.

This makes due process unfair and often not affordable. Advocates and Attorneys see this problem in real life on a daily basis. We see parents who are watching their child struggle and fail in a program that is not appropriate, with insufficient services, or without proper supports in the classroom. The school district has psychologists and specialists who are "backing" the program. Parents need access to experts who can testify about what services and programs are required to meet those students' unique needs. We see kids who are completely denied eligibility for services. Parents cannot possibly challenge that determination without an expert who can testify about the child's diagnosis and how it impacts their ability to access their education. We see kids who are on their way to expulsion, and school district "experts" who claim that their behavior was not related to their disability. Parents need the ability to utilize experts to testify as to how and why the behavior is a manifestation of the disability.

If the due process proceedings under the IDEA are not affordable, and therefore not accessible, then parents are denied their rights and children are ultimately denied a FAPE. The underlying IEP process and decision-making regarding a child's program becomes more and more unfair and one sided, because the parents' right and ability to challenge the IEP and the school district's decisions becomes meaningless.

The Solution?

The IDEA Fairness Restoration Act seeks to override the Supreme Court's ruling in Murphy, and thereby restore the ability of parents who prevail in due process or litigation to be reimbursed for expert witness fees incurred during the process.

The Act will level the playing field for parents, enabling them to have a fair chance in a meaningful process to seek a remedy when a child is denied FAPE by the school district.

For more information about the act, including the full text and a brochure, check out http://www.copaa.org/news/IFRA_intro_2009.html. Over 185 disability organizations support the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act, which is a bipartisan bill. You can also read more about it at http://www.wrightslaw.com/nltr/09/nl.0630.htm

What you can do

Call your congressperson and ask them to support the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act. July 9th is the national call in day! You can call your representative and tell them why the Act is important, and why it needs to pass to ensure that parents have meaningful access to due process procedures.

Find out who your congressperson is and how to reach them directly at www.house.gov. You can also call the switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to speak to your congressperson. Remember to ask for the Education Aide in order to speak to a person who is interested in this issue! Leave a message, and call back, if you need to!

Goals Related to General Education Curriculum

I hear lots of interesting things at IEP meetings, and recently I've heard several comments on the theme of including goals in an IEP to address general education standards.

In one meeting, a district resource teacher stated that "the law prohibited the IEP team from including goals in an IEP that were based on what would be taught within the general education curriculum."

Another teacher stated that goals related to general education were never appropriate for a student who is "severely disabled."

A district administrator stated that if all of the goals were based on regular education standards, rather than below grade level, this meant that the child should be exited from his IEP because clearly he didn't need special education.

Yet another claimed that "this district doesn't write IEP goals related to Science because no one has a Science disability."

At each of these meetings, I have patiently explained that the law requires IEP goals to address a child's unique needs in order to enable that child to make progress towards and participate in general education curriculum, and that if a child is expected to reach regular standards, but will require specialized instruction or related services to do so, then it would be appropriate to have a goal in that area. More and more, I am seeing IEP teams dismiss this request and insist that IEP goals cannot be written to address regular education standards. So, I've been compiling some information about this issue during these last few weeks of "IEP season" and I wanted to share that information with you.

What does IDEA say about this?

The IEP document must include a statement of measurable annual goals designed to meet the child's unique needs that result from the child's disability, to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. See 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(2).

In Appendix A to Part 300, at Question 4, the Office of Education stated that a public agency is not required to include in an IEP annual goals that relate to areas of general curriculum if the child's disability does not affect the child's ability to be involved in and progress towards the general curriculum in that area.

Nowhere in the law is there a statement that a child's IEP cannot or should not include goals related to the general education curriculum. Further, there is no disclaimer stating that the requirement that goals be included to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general educaiton curriculum does not apply if the child is severely disabled.

When should the IEP address general education curriculum standards?

An IEP should include goals for areas related to the general education curriculum if the student requires special education or related services in order to make progress or participate in that specific area.

Remember that the IDEA defines special education as specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the child. Specially designed instruction is defined as adapting as approrpiate to the needs of the child, the content, methodology or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. 34 C.F.R. section 300.39(a)&(b).

Look at your state's or district's expected standards for each grade level. (Click here for California Content Standards). Each state has content standards for each grade level that define what students are expected to learn in each academic content area. The question is not whether the ultimate goal is for your child to reach the same level at the end of the school year as the other students; the question is whether your child's disability impacts his/her ability to reach that level. If it does, then it may be appropriate to include a goal for that skill. Look to current evaluation data to determine what areas of the curriculum may be affected by your child's disability.

Start addressing this in the Present Levels of Performance (PLOP), and use that information to determine if a goal is needed. The IEP's statement of PLOP must include the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance including how the student's disability affects the student's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(1). For each area under PLOP, there should be a statement of how the student is currently performing as related to the grade level expectations based upon the content standards. This information can come from a variety of sources, including assessment data, classroom records, standardized testing, teacher input, progress reports, etc. Look at the PLOP to determine where there are areas where there is a "gap" between the grade level expectations and the child's functioning level.

What is the importance of including general education expectations in the IEP?

There is a preference in law and policy for including students with disabilities to the maximum extent possible in the regular education setting. Addressing general education curriculum expectations for students with disabilities, however, goes beyond the LRE debate. This issue is about the underlying goal of the IDEA to end the practice of "lowering expectations" for students with disabilities. Its about the ultimate goal of ensuring that students are educated in such a way that they are prepared for the world when they leave high school.

The IDEA "findings" state that "the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by... having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible, in order to meet the developmental goals and the challenging expectations that have been established for all children and... be prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives..." 20 U.S.C. section 1400(c).

No Child Left Behind reiterates this finding, noting that its purpose is to "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments." It goes on to indicate that this purpose can be achieved by "meeting the educational needs of low-achieving students, including students with disabilities." 20 U.S.C. section 6301.

Reflect on these considerations as you consider the appropriateness of IEP goals related to general education curriculum. A district team member once told me that the only way she would write an IEP goal related to a grade level math standard for a particular student was if the expectation was reduced from learning 30 numbers (as stated in the standard) to learning 15 numbers. When this kind of determination is made arbitrarily because of a misguided belief that grade level goals are not permissible, rather than based on any information about the child's actual levels of functioning, it is not conducive with meeting the purposes of the IDEA. Certainly, an arbitrary assumption that simply because a child is disabled, he could not possibly be expected to reach the grade level standard, is not "having high expectations for such children."

Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is the "I" in "IEP." The IEP must be individualized for the specific child based on his/her specific unique needs, strengths and levels of functioning, and considering information regarding how that child's specific disability affects his/her ability to progress in and participate in the general curriculum. The IEP must ensure that the child is able to make progress and receive a meaningful educational benefit. We should all be wary whenever we are told that "this district doesn't write those goals" or that inclusion of general education standards would "never be appropriate." Ultimately, whether the IEP should include a goal that is related to a general education content standard is an IEP team decision, and should be based on the specific scenario rather than any preconceived notions about the issue.

Budget Cuts, Summer School, and Your Kid's IEP

On May 28th Los Angeles Unified School District became one of many districts across the country to announce that it was cancelling summer school due to budget cuts. Students who would normally be able to attend enrichment programs or intervention programs to address reading or math deficits will be denied such opportunities this year, and most likely next year. LAUSD's cuts mean that only credit-replacement classes for high school students (at a limited number of campuses) will be offered as "regular education summer school."

LAUSD will still of course be offering Extended School Year ("ESY") programs for students whose IEPs include such a program. ESY is mandated in the federal regulations and in California special education laws, so while summer school can be "cancelled," ESY cannot. However, Districts across the country are "limiting" ESY, and more and more parents are hearing for that a program is not available, ESY would not be appropriate, or their child does not require it. We are hearing from parents that say the District checked off a box that says the student "does not require ESY" without even discussing it, or that say that Districts are suddenly making it very difficult for students to "qualify" for ESY.

Here are some ways the budget cuts and summer school cancellations could affect your special needs child:

1) If your child is in an inclusion program (general education) during the regular school year, the District may not have a similar setting available during the summer because regular summer school has been cancelled.

* This is probably the biggest way that parents are going to see a direct impact of the cancellation of summer school. If the school district is only offering SDC's over the summer, and your child is typically in a general education setting, it may not be appropriate for him/her to attend the district's ESY program.

* The lack of an appropriate ESY setting isn't the end of the discussion, however. The IEP team needs to first consider whether the student requires ESY. If the student requires ESY to prevent regression in skills, then the IEP team needs to look at what should be offered and what will be appropriate. Deciding a student doesn't qualify because the District's program isn't appropriate is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

* If the District agrees that the student requires ESY, but admits it has no appropriate setting to offer, then the District is in a difficult position. You may be able to locate a private regular education program for summer school that will provide the continuation of stucture and interaction with peers that your child requires, and you may then be able to advocate for the District to fund such a setting.

* Furthermore, just because the District's placement option doesn't work for your child does not mean that the child is entitled to nothing over the summer. Look at the specific areas in which your child may regress, and see if he/she requires continuation of related services, even if he/she is not attending a summer school classroom setting. Speech therapy, occupational therapy, etc can be available even if the student does not attend ESY.

2) If your district has limited ESY participation by applying a difficult "standard," you may have a difficult time demonstrating the need for a summer program.

* The typical standard is California cases is that ESY must be provided if the student requires instruction / services during the summer in order to prevent regression that is beyond what a typical student would experience during the break from school. Another possible standard include looking at the nature and severity of the disability, for example considering the fact that a student with autism may need a continuity of structured participation in a classroom setting.

* School districts are applying a more stenuous analysis for the "regression/recoupment" standard. Parents may be faced with IEP teams that say there is "no proof" that the child will regress more than what is typical, or may use indications that the child is meeting IEP goals during the regular school year as indication that ESY is not needed.

* Parents are going to need to come to the IEP meetings armed with information and recommendations to assist them in advocating for ESY. Does your child have an extremely difficult time transitioning to new environments? Argue that this is an indication that the nature of his / her disability requires continuity of services during the summer, and that without ESY the transition to the following school year will cause serious regression. How did your child do after winter break? Previous summer breaks? Use this information as support for ESY this year. Remember that educational benefit is about more than academics, it encompasses "nonacademic" areas like social skills, behavior, etc, and these areas may be good focal points for articulating how your child will regress if not provided appropriate ESY support.

Finally, in general parents should anticipate that this may be happening to their child, and review the IEP document before school gets out. Unfortunately, you may find that the IEP already says your child is not eligible, or the previous IEP may not even speak to ESY. If you need to call another meeting to discuss ESY, now is the time to do it in order to ensure that this issue is brought up before it is too late for this summer.

National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day

Today, May 7, 2009, is National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day. This year's theme is "Thriving in the Community," and the awareness campaign has a special emphasis on how high school youth who receive the services they need are more likely to have positive outcomes, such as better grades, and less likely to have negative outcomes, such as involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

So many students who receive special education and related services require mental health services to address behavioral, social and emotional needs. We see a wide range of these issues, from kids who need school based counseling services to address their social skills deficits, to kids who require outside therapies to address their mental health needs, to kids who require residential placements because of the severity of their needs.

Here in California, we have what is referred to as AB3632 services, which are services and supports provided by the Department of Mental Health when a child on an IEP requires mental health services in order to access their curriculum. Read more about AB3632 here: http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Services_and_Programs/Children_and_Youth/AB3632.asp

Mental health issues need to be destigmatized-especially for kids and within the special education system. Why is it that parents are so reluctant to accept special education eligibility if the "category" is Emotional Disturbance (ED)? It's because of the stigma attached to these types of disabilities, the stigma that follows the child and unfortunately leads to misunderstanding by teachers and others who then often just assume "this is a bad kid." These issues can only be addressed by increased awareness on a large scale within school systems and communities.

One problem with mental health disabilities is that there are kids who are never identified as having a disability, but are merely "labelled" as being a disipline problem, so they never recieve the supports and services that they need. It is so true that if kids recieve the supports and services they need, they are more likely to have positive outcomes and less likely to end up on the juvenile or criminal system. As advocates, parents and educators, we have a "window of opportunity" to push for interventions and services for these students so that they can succeed and become productive participants in society.

Another equally concerning problem, however, is the overidentification of students as having "ED." In many instances, students with other disabilities, such as Learning Disabilities, Autism, etc, have related mental health needs, like anxiety or depression. Sometimes these needs are exasperated in situations where these children have not recieved the appropriate educational interventions or supports, and so they are flailing in a program where they are overwhelmed or feel "stupid." More awareness and education needs to take place to truly help parents and educators understand the existence of mental health needs that are related to other disabilities. The core disability may not be ED, but the child still may require mental health services in order to meet their needs.

There are also issues with systemic problems within school systems in terms of placing and servicing children with an "ED" label. Organizations all over the country are attempting to fight the "schoolhouse to jailhouse pipeline" by advocating for systemic changes in how students with emotional and behavioral difficulties are served within the special education system. (read: http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=282) Too often, these kids have been "wharehoused" into special day classes without true individualization of their programs. Too often, comprehensive behavioral evaluations have not been conducted, or behavior plans have not been based on positive interventions, or haven't been approrpiately implemented. These systemic issues need to be addressed if the educational system is truly going to meet the needs of these kids, increase their positive outcomes and decrease the negative outcomes. An interesting article about these systemic issues can be found at the Southern Poverty Law Center's website at http://www.splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?aid=189&site_area=1.

National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day is a good step in the right direction for addressing the issues that face children with mental health needs. Awareness, community education, decreased stigmatization, and systemic change are all necessary to truly begin to meet the needs of these kids so that they really can thrive in their communities.

Foster Care and Kids with Disabilities: My Journey to Special Education Law

May is National Foster Care Month, which is intended to provide an opportunity to focus attention on the year-round needs of children and youth in foster care in America. Foster Care Month focuses not only on promoting awareness and community education about issues related to foster care, but also acknowledges the work and commitment of the people involved in the lives of foster care youth - foster parents, social workers, and organizations.

As I have been reading information on the website for this campaign (www.fostercaremonth.org), I am struck by the relationship between issues facing foster care youth and those facing kids with disabilities, and I'm reminded of how I got involved in special education law in the first place.

I always knew I wanted to go to law school, and that I wanted to focus my career on being an advocate for people who were disadvantaged, vulnerable, and needed a voice. During both of the summers while I was in law school, I went back to my home state of Georgia and worked in the Office of the Child Advocate as a legal intern. The OCA is a state government agency that acts as an "oversight" to the Department of Family and Children's Services offices throughout the state of Georgia. As an intern, I was involved in investigations of cases in which an individual alleged that the system had failed to follow procedures for child protective services cases or foster care cases. In this capacity, I worked on many cases in which the child involved was an older foster care youth, and I started to notice a pattern: many of these kids had disabilities, including learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, developmental disabilities, etc. Many more were probably experiencing disabilities, but were labelled as "behavior problems" or "defiant" instead. I knew nothing about IEPs or what the school districts were legally obligated to provide, and it wasn't my job to look into that. But I started to realize that these kids were being failed by multiple systems; sometimes their family system, the child welfare agency, unfortunately sometimes their foster care placements, and even the school system. They "disrupted" their placements (both school and home) again and again because their needs were not being met.

I'll never forget one situation in particular. The youth in this case was a teenager who had a diagnosis of Bi-Polar disorder. She had been in and out of various foster homes, and returned many times to her parents' home only to then be removed a few months later. The department had been investigating allegations of abuse and neglect, and meanwhile she was in and out of attending school, switching schools, often truant, and failing. The school was aware of her disability (there was a psychoeducational evaluation in her file from her school district). When I spoke with someone who was involved in her foster care case, that individual opined that there was not "abuse" happening in the house because it was just a "volitile relationship." Then later, when I was trying to get information from her school, and asked what was being done to support her, I was given the same opinion - this is just a "volitile student," what can we do. This was a huge shock and wake up call to me. I wanted to scream - but she has a DISABILITY, she's Bi-Polar and not being treated by a doctor for that, or recieving therapy, she has no services or supports at school, of course she is truant and failing and disrupting her foster placements.

It was then I realized the vulnerability of students with disabilities and the need to advocate for services within the school system. My third year in law school, I discovered that Pepperdine was offering a special education law clinic, and I signed up right away. The clinic and the special education law class provided me with the knowledge and understanding about the rights of students with disabilities that I had not previously been exposed to. I learned that students were entilted to Individualized Education Plans, and that students, like many of those I had previously dealt with who had behavior difficulties, had legal protections. I went to IEP meetings with families, and started learning about various disabilities, about the assessment process, and about interventions and services that were available.

Eight years after I worked on those foster care cases, I'm now representing students with disabilities and assisting parents in obtaining appropriate services and supports from their school districts. Although my job does not currently entail representation of foster care youth, I never forget what I experienced and learned those two summers. I found special education law because I was looking for a way to help affect change in one of the systems that is supposed to be supporting these students. Kids with disabilities are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and to have that overlap with being in the foster care system or the child welfare system increases that vulnerability thousands-fold. This Foster Care Month, I hope that advocates and attorneys for children all over the country - whether they directly represent kids in foster care or not - promote awareness about all of these issues so that as a whole, our community can learn and affect change.