 |
Friday, August 24, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Girls with ADHD more likely to self-harm, attempt suicide
A study out of the University of California at Berkeley conducted over a 20-year period and funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, researchers and psychologists found that girls who have ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD) show higher rates of self-inflicted injury and suicide attempts than girls who do not have ADHD. Researchers found that of the girls in the study diagnosed as both ADHD-inattentive and ADHD-impulsive, 22% reported at least one suicide attempt by the 10-year follow-up mark; of the girls diagnosed as only ADHD-inattentive, and 8% reported at least one attempt at suicide at some point, compared to 6% of the control group. In the category of self-inflicted harm, researchers found that 51% of the ADHD-combined group reported instances such as scratching, cutting, burning, or hitting themselves as compared to 29% of the ADHD-inattentive group and 19% of the control group. The study tracked 140 girls diagnosed with ADHD and 88 girls without ADHC from childhood to teen and young adult years. The study's lead researcher concluded that "ADHD is a highly genetic condition with a strong biological basis."
If your daughter has ADHD, you ought to bring this study to the attention of the school, 504 and/or IEP team, and ask them to be vigilant and note any concerns of such behaviors.
If your daughter has ADHD, you ought to bring this study to the attention of the school, 504 and/or IEP team, and ask them to be vigilant and note any concerns of such behaviors.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
New to Arizona? What you need to know about INTERSTATE TRANSFERS
When a child with an IEP in effect in another state moves into Arizona, the new Arizona school district (or charter school) is responsible for providing the student with FAPE. That means that the new school must provide services comparable to those described in the existing IEP from the former school until such time as the Arizona school district conducts an evaluation (if it determines that is necessary) and develops a new IEP, if appropriate, consistent with federal and state law. 20 USC 1414 (d)(2)(C)(i)(II). The new school must take reasonable steps to obtain the child's records, including the IEP and supporting documentation, from the previous school in compliance with FERPA. 34 CFR 300.323 (g)(1). To facilitate the transition, you as parents should provide the last/existing IEP and any other school records to the Arizona school district. Typically, the new school will schedule an IEP meeting within thirty (30) school days of your child's entry into the new school, but you may also request an IEP meeting. If a parent requests an "emergency" IEP meeting, it must be held within fifteen (15) school days (not calendar days) of the request. NOTE: The new school district must implement the existing IEP (the IEP from your out-of-state school) on the first day your child enters school. Of course, practically speaking, you should have provided the school with the IEP in advance of your child's first day of school so that all services, or equivalent services, could be in place. And make sure all communications with your new school are followed up with confirming emails.
http://www.azspecialeducationlawyers.com/
http://www.azspecialeducationlawyers.com/
Friday, August 17, 2012
Cheat Sheet of Acronyms
Print this out and use as a guide when reading through the special ed records (the REDs, METs and IEPs) and at RED, MET and IEP meetings:
ADAAA Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act
ALJ Administrative Law Judge
BIP Behavior Intervention Plan
ED Emotional Disturbance
ESY Extended School Year
FAPE Free and Appropriate Public Education
FBA Functional Behavioral Assessment
FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
IAEP or IAES Interim Alternative Educational Placement/Setting
IEE Independent Educational Evaluation
IEP Individualized Education Program
IFSP individualized Family Service Plan
ISS in-School Suspension
LEA Local Educational Agency
LRE Least Restrictive Environment
MDR Manifestation Determination Review
MET Multidisciplinary Education Team
OAH Office of Administrative Hearings
OCR Office of Civil Rights
ODD Oppositional Defiant Disorder
OHI Other Health Impaired
RED Review of Existing Data
SEA State Educational Agency
SLD Specific Learning Disability
SLI Speech and Language Impaired
SPED Special Education
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
What is Public about Public Education: Jim Strickland's Thoughts to the National League of Democratic Schools
Editor: Jim Strickland has been a long-time believer in an education for sustaining democratic life. He is also the former regional coordinator for the Western region of the National League of Democratic Schools and a special education teacher in Washington State. Jim has written several posts for us in the past and also has written for Dick Clark's blog, Community and Education, that we talked about in the memorial to Dick below. We welcome Jim's latest reflections on "Citizenship as Education," and thank him for his permission to reprint it here. Jim writes that it was a response to his reading of Benjamin Barber's Strong Democracy, and believes that "Barber's participatory understanding of democracy and citizenship provides a powerful context for our work in education." The National League of Democratic Schools in which the journal participates has become richer because of the work of both Jim and Dick.
The term “public education” can be understood in a couple of different ways. One common meaning is related to its funding source. Public education is education that is publicly funded, as in our public schools and other publicly financed educational programs.
Another meaning of public education, however, is related to its primary purpose. In this view, public education refers to our intentional efforts to create a public – that is, a body of citizens who have the inclination and the capacity to participate in the ongoing and responsible practice of self-government. This broader understanding of public education encompasses the work done by our public schools, but extends far beyond them to include the institutions and political, economic, and social structures of the larger community.
This kind of public education – citizenship education – is a community responsibility. And, as is the case with other types of learning, it is best learned by doing. In other words, the best way to become a true citizen is in the actual practice of citizenship. Citizenship is its own education. And to make this education possible, it is our job as a community to ensure that real opportunities for citizen participation are widely and continuously available, known to the community, and actively supported.
So what does the practice of citizenship look like? I like to think of citizenship as simply doing my part to make my community work. And in a democracy, that means participating at some level in the practice of self-government. Voting, yes, but much more than that. Democracy can be understood as a continuous process of mutual transformation. It is a respectful “give and take” that results in beneficial growth to all those involved.
And this process is driven by, more than anything else, ongoing and thoughtful dialogue. Yes, the foundation of democracy is the very human act of just talking with each other. It is through this never-ending public conversation that we come to understand each other, grapple with new ideas, enlarge our thinking, and ultimately solve problems and make decisions together. This kind of citizenship is the most transformative kind of education there is. You cannot emerge unchanged because continuous and responsible change is the name of the game.
But this kind of public education – citizenship education – doesn’t just happen all by itself. We have to intentionally create the forums for it to flourish. Here are a few suggestions to get us started. We could begin by:
1) Creating more opportunities for nonpartisan dialogue around issues that are important to us (this could include regular citizens’ forums and neighborhood assemblies).
2) Finding ways to integrate the practice of citizenship more seamlessly into our daily lives, even at the workplace (this could include an increase in workplace democracy and giving employees paid time off for participation in citizenship activities).
3) Raising expectations for citizenship by empowering citizen groups with real decision-making authority and promoting a culture of ownership.
4) Exploring new ways to increase participatory citizenship in our schools (this could include more participatory modes of school governance, regular civic action involving school-community partnerships, and making citizenship a primary measure of student success).
Citizenship, like democracy, is a way of living that stretches us to grow and brings out the best we can be. It is the common arena in which we define ourselves both as individuals and in terms of our relationships with others. Citizenship is how we hammer out a vision for community that works for us all – today.
But what works today may not work tomorrow, so this process can never stop. I want to live in a world where growth never stops, where learning never stops, where the human conversation never stops. And to me, that’s what public education is all about.
Citizenship as Education
by
Jim Strickland
The term “public education” can be understood in a couple of different ways. One common meaning is related to its funding source. Public education is education that is publicly funded, as in our public schools and other publicly financed educational programs.
Another meaning of public education, however, is related to its primary purpose. In this view, public education refers to our intentional efforts to create a public – that is, a body of citizens who have the inclination and the capacity to participate in the ongoing and responsible practice of self-government. This broader understanding of public education encompasses the work done by our public schools, but extends far beyond them to include the institutions and political, economic, and social structures of the larger community.
This kind of public education – citizenship education – is a community responsibility. And, as is the case with other types of learning, it is best learned by doing. In other words, the best way to become a true citizen is in the actual practice of citizenship. Citizenship is its own education. And to make this education possible, it is our job as a community to ensure that real opportunities for citizen participation are widely and continuously available, known to the community, and actively supported.
So what does the practice of citizenship look like? I like to think of citizenship as simply doing my part to make my community work. And in a democracy, that means participating at some level in the practice of self-government. Voting, yes, but much more than that. Democracy can be understood as a continuous process of mutual transformation. It is a respectful “give and take” that results in beneficial growth to all those involved.
And this process is driven by, more than anything else, ongoing and thoughtful dialogue. Yes, the foundation of democracy is the very human act of just talking with each other. It is through this never-ending public conversation that we come to understand each other, grapple with new ideas, enlarge our thinking, and ultimately solve problems and make decisions together. This kind of citizenship is the most transformative kind of education there is. You cannot emerge unchanged because continuous and responsible change is the name of the game.
But this kind of public education – citizenship education – doesn’t just happen all by itself. We have to intentionally create the forums for it to flourish. Here are a few suggestions to get us started. We could begin by:
1) Creating more opportunities for nonpartisan dialogue around issues that are important to us (this could include regular citizens’ forums and neighborhood assemblies).
2) Finding ways to integrate the practice of citizenship more seamlessly into our daily lives, even at the workplace (this could include an increase in workplace democracy and giving employees paid time off for participation in citizenship activities).
3) Raising expectations for citizenship by empowering citizen groups with real decision-making authority and promoting a culture of ownership.
4) Exploring new ways to increase participatory citizenship in our schools (this could include more participatory modes of school governance, regular civic action involving school-community partnerships, and making citizenship a primary measure of student success).
Citizenship, like democracy, is a way of living that stretches us to grow and brings out the best we can be. It is the common arena in which we define ourselves both as individuals and in terms of our relationships with others. Citizenship is how we hammer out a vision for community that works for us all – today.
But what works today may not work tomorrow, so this process can never stop. I want to live in a world where growth never stops, where learning never stops, where the human conversation never stops. And to me, that’s what public education is all about.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Presentation August 15, 2012: Overview of Special Education Law
In this overview of special education law, a school attorney alongside two “parent attorneys” will present the framework and concepts of federal and state special education laws (IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, NCLB, FERPA, the Rowley S. Ct. decision) and discuss defenses in special education litigation and how to avoid litigation in the first instance. You will gain perspective from both sides of the aisle, and learn the legal avenues available when students’ educational rights have been violated, and how schools can avoid violations in the identification, evaluation, eligibility and placement of students with disabilities, and disciplinary procedures when a student has an IEP or 504.
Who should attend: Attorneys who defend public, charter and private schools, including nursery and pre-schools and colleges and technical schools; Judges who may have special education students appear before them.
Earn 1.5 CLE credits.
Date/Time:
Wednesday, August 15, 2012, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
Location:
Lewis and Roca LLC, 40 N. Central 15th Floor
To Register:
https://www.azadc.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2335&mid=4280&ctl=Register&eventid=1807
Speakers:
Denise Lowell-Britt is an equity partner at the law firm of Udall, Shumway & Lyons where she heads the firm’s education law practice group. Her practice is devoted entirely to representing school districts, charter schools and other public educational institutions in matters that include: special education, student disciplinary hearings, employment and personnel, student records, governing board liability and open meeting issues. In November 2006, she was named a “Top Education Attorney” in Phoenix Magazine. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, she was selected by her peers as a “Best Lawyer in America” in the specialty of Education Law. Ms. Lowell-Britt is a member of the National School Board Association, Arizona School Boards Association and Arizona Council of School Attorneys. She has also been an adjunct faculty member for Arizona State University, teaching graduate level Education Law classes for the College of Education, Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. She has been on the steering committee for the Arizona School Administrators “Principal and the Law” conference for approximately 14 years. In March 2009, Ms. Lowell-Britt was presented with the Laura Ganoung Award, which is the Arizona Council of Administrators of Special Education’s (CASE) highest award recognizing leadership in the area of special education.
Hope Kirsch and Lori Kirsch-Goodwin are the founding members of Kirsch-Goodwin & Kirsch, PLLC, which has an education practice devoted to representing students and their families in disputes with public, private and charter schools, and secondary education institutions. Hope is a 17 year veteran of the New York City Board of Education where she was a special education teacher, Crisis Intervention Teacher and Unit Coordinator in self-contained classes, public special education day schools and psychiatric hospitals before embarking on law, and earned her B.S. and M.A. in special education and completed post-graduate work in in educational supervision and administration. Lori has navigated the special education system first-hand as the mother of her now teenage son who is “on the spectrum.” Hope and Lori have worked collaboratively with Denise for the past several years in the due process arena and with disciplinary matters.
Who should attend: Attorneys who defend public, charter and private schools, including nursery and pre-schools and colleges and technical schools; Judges who may have special education students appear before them.
Earn 1.5 CLE credits.
Date/Time:
Wednesday, August 15, 2012, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
Location:
Lewis and Roca LLC, 40 N. Central 15th Floor
To Register:
https://www.azadc.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2335&mid=4280&ctl=Register&eventid=1807
Speakers:
Denise Lowell-Britt is an equity partner at the law firm of Udall, Shumway & Lyons where she heads the firm’s education law practice group. Her practice is devoted entirely to representing school districts, charter schools and other public educational institutions in matters that include: special education, student disciplinary hearings, employment and personnel, student records, governing board liability and open meeting issues. In November 2006, she was named a “Top Education Attorney” in Phoenix Magazine. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, she was selected by her peers as a “Best Lawyer in America” in the specialty of Education Law. Ms. Lowell-Britt is a member of the National School Board Association, Arizona School Boards Association and Arizona Council of School Attorneys. She has also been an adjunct faculty member for Arizona State University, teaching graduate level Education Law classes for the College of Education, Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. She has been on the steering committee for the Arizona School Administrators “Principal and the Law” conference for approximately 14 years. In March 2009, Ms. Lowell-Britt was presented with the Laura Ganoung Award, which is the Arizona Council of Administrators of Special Education’s (CASE) highest award recognizing leadership in the area of special education.
Hope Kirsch and Lori Kirsch-Goodwin are the founding members of Kirsch-Goodwin & Kirsch, PLLC, which has an education practice devoted to representing students and their families in disputes with public, private and charter schools, and secondary education institutions. Hope is a 17 year veteran of the New York City Board of Education where she was a special education teacher, Crisis Intervention Teacher and Unit Coordinator in self-contained classes, public special education day schools and psychiatric hospitals before embarking on law, and earned her B.S. and M.A. in special education and completed post-graduate work in in educational supervision and administration. Lori has navigated the special education system first-hand as the mother of her now teenage son who is “on the spectrum.” Hope and Lori have worked collaboratively with Denise for the past several years in the due process arena and with disciplinary matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)