A Call to the Community

Read through to the bottom to find out how you can help!

Review:

In January of 2008, as a result of a new, narrow interpretation of IDEA (federal special education law), the New York State Education Department sent a memo to all state school districts informing them that special education services to homeschooled special education students would have to be terminated no later than mid-March, 2008. Essentially: because IDEA 2004 does not specifically identify homeschooled students as possible recipients of IDEA funds and only identifies "public" and "private" students as eligible for these federal funds, transmission of services to homeschooled students (who are considered "other schooled" in the state of New York) could possibly put New York "out of compliance" with IDEA and could possibly jeopardize New York's continued ability to receive federal monies under IDEA.

This act was done despite:

1. The fact that these services had previously been budgeted for the year and had already been guaranteed to these students.
2. The fact that the families involved were provided with little notice or recourse to due process.

In response, a group of parents from around the state who were affected by this decision joined together to create a task force to reinstate services. They were joined in this effort by, among others, John Munson of NYHEN, Attorney Bridgit Burke from Albany Law School and Attorney TJ Schmidt from the Home School Legal Defense Association. The task force has convened weekly via conference call these past two months to strategize.

The task force was set up with two aims:

1. To re-instate transmission of services to homeschooled special education children.
2. To achieve goal number one in such a way that the homeschooling community at-large is impacted as little as possible.
   

Big News:

The Task Force to Re-Instate Services to Special Ed. Homeschooled Students has obtained a meeting with Dr. Rebecca Cort, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID), scheduled for this Friday. Dr. Cort is a high-ranking member of the State Education Department (SED) and it is the hope of the task force that this meeting will result in a "meeting of the minds" regarding the language to be used in an upcoming "program" bill. The task force has been advised that a "program bill" (a bill that is generated from within the state government infrastructure) would be our best hope for a successful outcome, as these bills are nearly automatic in their passage.

1. If this meeting goes successfully, we could be well on the road to reinstating services.
2. Dr. Cort has already made it clear to the task force that she is unwilling to accept either of the two bill-proposals previously generated by the task force. This means that the task force's best hope for success lies in respectfully tweaking the SED-generated proposal.
   

This is a point the task force feels the homeschooling community should be fully cognizant of: based on the realities of this situation, of the personally-held philosophies on homeschooling held by Dr. Cort and other members of the State Education Department, if we do not hew as closely as possible to the language previously proposed by the State Education Department, the task force has very little chance of achieving its primary mission. We have been invited as guests to the decision-making table. We are not, as it were, the hosts throwing the party.


The task force has three objections to the language of the SED bill to reinstate services to homeschooled special education students. They are:

1. Location of Services

• Dr. Cort's office wants to make sure that the language of the bill does not guarantee that services for homeschooled students take place in the home, but only that they may take place in the home, at the discretion of the district.

• The task force believes that the language in this part of the bill should be made more explicit. Additionally, the task force would prefer that the decision for location of services take place at the "Committee for Special Education" level and not at the district level, as the CSE would have specific knowledge regarding the needs and situation of the individual child. This issue is particularly worrisome for parents of medically fragile children and parents within the New York City school system (who often must receive services at home because the city schools do not have the space or time to accommodate homeschooled students).
  

2. The IHIP

• Dr. Cort's office wants to make sure that homeschooled students do not receive special education services unless they are in compliance with state law, so no child can receive services until an IHIP has been filed with the district.

• The task force is concerned that the language of this section of the bill will lead districts to believe that they have a "perceived duty" to more-closely scrutinize the IHIPs of special education students, and would like to add clarifying language to the bill to avoid that possible interpretation. Additionally, the task force is concerned that provision of services will be delayed until an IHIP is approved, as many districts do not review IHIPs over the summer when the majority of the staff may be on vacation.

3. Use of the term 'Homeschooled'

• Since the term 'homeschooled' is not defined elsewhere in the legislation, the task force is concerned that confusion might ensue between students that are homeschooled (most often by their families) and students that are home-educated (due to health issues, rule infractions, etc. and who are educated by the district). The task force would like to explore the use of other terms already established within the legislation.

What You Can Do:

Members of the task force have also been in touch with the media on this subject. For instance, a piece recently aired on ABC News (or copy and paste this hard link: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/education&id=6071194). By April 20, we should have posted a link on NY-Alert to a story in the New York Times on this issue as well. We encourage members of the homeschool community to visit these links and offer commentary in the discussion section of the story and also then ask that they encourage their friends and family to do the same. This will be one way that the State Education Department will see that ours is a relevant cause that is being followed by the public and that special education homeschooled students are not a vulnerable subset standing alone within the homeschooling community.

So, please, visit the ABC link and make a comment. Additionally, check NY-Alert next week for the Times link, as well!

On behalf of the the task force: Thank you!
Andrea Stolz

4th Iteration of Email to Gov. Spitzer: Getting Close to Done

I am a native Long Islander with two sons--an 11 year old dually-diagnosed with PDD-NOS (autistic spectrum disorder) and anxiety, and an 8 year old dually- diagnosed with ADHD and an autoimmune disorder called Hyper IgE Syndrome. I also happen to be a straight-A graduate student at Long Island University's School of Education, four classes short of a degree in elementary and special education.

I began home schooling both children last year after my younger son (whose diagnoses, according to research appearing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, is prone to both bullying [ADHD] and long-bone breakage [Hyper IgE]) was physically attacked two days consecutively by another student. These attacks ultimately resulted in bruising around the neck and the small of the back.

While the school's nurse called me both days to report what had transpired, the elementary school's principal would not return my concerned phone calls until days after I had subsequently placed a phone call with the superintendant of the P-M School District. Even after I explained to the school secretary that I would not be sending my children back to school until I had a verbal guarantee on my child's physical safety, the principal initially continued to ignore my calls. When she ultimately deigned to call, the principal opened our conversation by stating that she "could not GUARANTEE that my child would always be safe."

I am not paraphrasing that last quote.

At this point, my crisis of confidence in the public system was enough to overcome any concerns I might have had about home schooling. I will add: since we've begun home schooling, my older son has made great strides toward overcoming his severe math anxiety and my younger son has graduated to reading chapter books independently. What is more, both children are learning how to overcome the executive-functioning deficits that accompany their respective disabilities--due in large part to the extra one-on-one attention they are receiving.

This year, as home schoolers, both of my children were receiving social skills classes in their respective public schools, in accordance with their IEPs. Now, however, this service is about to abruptly end, due to a new, extremely-narrow interpretation of the federal IDEA legislation from the Board of Regents and NYS Ed. Dept. This new interpretation states that IDEA funds can only be used on public and privately schooled students, not on home schooled students.

My feeling is that the public school system, as it now exists, is not capable of providing my children with the level of care, attention and pedagogical scrutiny they require.

I am not a zealot. I am a concerned parent, who at great personal and financial sacrifice, is trying to provide her two exceptional children with the tools needed to become life-long learners and independent, creative problem-solvers capable of living their lives to the fullest their capabilities allow. I am of the belief that the state simply cannot provide services to all of the children who, with the recent rise in accurate disability-diagnostics, deserve them--not without making sweeping changes to how it collects and spends its funds.

This act by the NYS Ed. Dept. (revoking services to home schooled IEP kids) feels like a slap in the face for families whose financial and emotional resources are already spread thin to breaking. I would like to see Mr. Spitzer introduce legislation to protect the rights of special- education home-schooled students here in New York.

With regards to special education services received by home schoolers, this could be done in two ways:

1. By revising the current interpretation of the 2004 IDEA legislation (IDEA does not STATE that New York CANNOT provide services to home schoolers, it simply does not address home schoolers in New York at all, because New York does not legally identify home schooled children as "privately schooled," as is the case in many other states, including California). This option would require no further legal action on the state's part.

2. Alternatively, Mr. Spitzer could introduce legislation (that, given the political clout of the teacher's union, may or may not pass, but would at least open a forum for discussion on the topic) legally identifying home schooled children in New York as "privately schooled."

Personally? I'm hoping for option number 2!

Thank you for your time.
Andrea Sz

Picture #1: Home schooled kids at a "Wagons West" presentation at Stony Brook's Long Island Museum that gave students a "first-hand," "hands-on" lesson on the rigors endured by 19th century American pioneers.

Picture #2: Drama class with other home schoolers--reinterpretation of the myth of "Perseus and Medusa."

Picture #3: "What Have I Read Lately?" class with other home schoolers.

Why I Home School...Well, One of the Reasons...

Been quiet, right? But here's a very worthwhile Wall Street Journal article on the fickle financial forces of special ed., and, right behind it, a very complete thesis on the pros and cons of neurodiversity as presented by my all-time fave indie mag, Brain, Child.

The WSJ article, in particular, was interesting because it specifically dealt with the school district of Greece, New York--the school system that was in the news last year when a 17 year old autistic boy named Jason McElwain scored 20 points in the last four minutes of a varsity basketball game. McElwain had been the team's equipment manager. Team members had begged that the student get an opportunity to play in an actual game before he graduated--success beyond anyone's wildest dreams ensued. At the time, the media presented the event as an inclusion success story.

But here's the seamy underbelly of the mainstreaming philosophy:

Special-education budgets plummeted, too. Between the 1998-99 and 2004-05 school years, Greece reduced its spending on programs for disabled students by 26%, to $13.1 million from $17.6 million. Spending on special education dropped to 8% from 15% of total expenditures.

Upset at what they describe as the district's increasing refusal to provide services, a group of parents began meeting and comparing notes. They suspected that the district was effectively mainstreaming by simply capping the number of students eligible for services. Some children who were classified as special-education students were declassified and placed in regular classrooms with little or no additional help.

This kind of info...it's like Christmas coming early, ain't it?

More From My Universal Design for Learning Paper

...However, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer article previously mentioned, the philosophical tenets of UDL are now being combined with Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences with promising results. Additionally: the UDL/multiple intelligences juggernaut is positively affecting not just atypical learners, but general education children, as well.

"Students who put their heads down on their desks in the past got up and participated," asserted a principal in an elementary school that used UDL in all of its classrooms (Kleinerman, 2006).

This is because, just as architectural universal design promoted better physical accessibility for all to public structures, UDL provides intellectual accessibility to content for a broader range of the population. Student assessment is not limited simply to book reports and multiple-choice exams, as has occurred in the past. In UDL, authentic assessments—graphs, pictures, plays, songs, oral reports, and power point presentations (to name but a few of the many possibilities)--offer students the opportunity to show that they have internalized content. What is more, by allowing students flexibility in how they present acquired knowledge, they are encouraged to manipulate the information in their preferred modality (artistic, kinesthetic, visual, scientific, verbal, analytical, etc.) where they are going to be more comfortable stretching with the material and even, possibly, going farther with a lesson than their teacher could have predicted.

"I see higher levels of thinking emerging, not just rote facts," one teacher proponent in the Cleveland School District stated. Development of these “higher order thinking skills” (those that appear in the second half of Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy: analysis, synthesis, evaluation) is highly sought in today’s schools and from today’s parents, administrators, and politicians. Unfortunately, the recommended avenue for development of these skills currently focuses only on tweaking or revamping punitive, written-language-based, “high-stakes” standardized tests that critics claim do not provide an accurate assessment of student capabilities and actually stifle any other classroom activity beyond “teaching to the test.”

According to Margo Izzo, a strong proponent for UDL and a professor at Ohio State University, approximately thirty percent of learners excel with auditory presentations while just over seventy percent prefer visual. Yet many teachers still depend heavily on lectures as their main form of transmitting content to students while standardized tests rely completely on a language-based model of assessment (Kleinerman, 2006).

In light of Professor Izzo’s research, shouldn’t educators be searching for methods of content transmission and assessment that work with students’ preferred modalities of learning? Otherwise, don’t our public schools then become, as John Goodlad has asserted, nothing more than “sorting mechanisms” that filter out a minority group of students and label them “successful” while leaving the majority of students—including most special education students—with the belief that they are somehow inferior? If our goal as educators is not to “sort,” but in fact to create a population of life-long learners, shouldn’t the act of learning be intentionally designed to be a rewarding experience for as broad a cross-section of the student populace as is possible (Goodlad, 1994, p. 72)?

Additionally, literacy specialists and those that work with English Language Learners have long asserted (and empirically proven) that true written and oral fluency in a second language cannot be achieved until they are first firmly established in the primary language (Rief, 1996, p. 182). Would it not, then, be logical to also conclude that students might not comfortably manipulate content in their weaker learning modalities and reach for those higher-order thinking skills before their preferred learning modalities are fully up and running? What is more, if this is true, then wouldn’t the demand that teachers and students spend more and more of their class time preparing for more and more high-stakes tests--tests that will only accurately reflect the abilities and preferred learning modality of (according to Professor Izzo’s research) thirty percent of the student population--be an exercise in futility, and, in fact, result in boring and alienating the majority of our students instead of educating them?

A caveat: rewarding should not be interpreted as meaning the same thing as easy. Certainly students should be encouraged to stretch in all of the learning modalities, and as the verbal intelligence, in particular, is so valued in our culture and is associated with many of the most desirable careers, it should certainly be fostered and emphasized in any public school curriculum. However, the methods we are currently using to hone these verbal skills may possibly be counterproductive in that they may currently be doing more emotional harm than intellectual good.

A final point: A recent clinical research paper from the American Pediatrics Association emphasized just this point. Empirical evidence performed by the APA indicated that physical activities such as walking and running stimulated activity in the hippocampus of the brain, which in turn actually improved students’ abilities to read, write, retain content, and pay attention—all while simultaneously lowering anxiety levels. Furthermore, the rate of physical activity was directly proportional to the rate of task improvement (Ginsberg, 2006).

Unfortunately, in education’s efforts to boost standardized test scores, many school physical education programs have actually been cut or down-sized in the last decade—are often seen as the most expendable programs in our schools--to allow for more “time on task” in reading and math. Ironically, the noble goal of improving the quality of education our children receive may have actually resulted, instead, in providing them with less opportunity for constructivist connections and personal growth. This narrowly defined use of learning modalities within the classroom stands in direct contrast to the diverse content transmission and assessment opportunities advocated by both multiple intelligence and universal design for learning advocates.

A La Carte

I've been going to lots of meetings lately. Most recently I attended one meeting for the new LIPC (Long Island Parent Center)--a state-funded parent and child advocacy and outreach center designed to connect members of the special education community with the knowledge and services it requires, it is set up under the auspices of VESID (Vocational Education Services for Individuals with Disabilities--a New York State educational bureau). In these days of tight budgets, knowledge absolutely is power and help from the state is always appreciated...

Then, a couple of nights later, I attended an organizational meeting to start up a homeschooling Waldorf collective here on Long Island.

And I came away from both meetings a little exhausted. Everyone's got an agenda and but no one shares miiiiiiiiiiiinnnnne!

One of the most challenging aspects of raising an atypical child is all of the extra choice and decision-making involved. If there was just A RIGHT ANSWER, you could do whatever that was and go to sleep at night thinking, "well, we've done it." We are on THE RIGHT TRACK. We are doing THE RIGHT THING.

Instead? There are choices. This is tough. Particularly for someone with perhaps the extra unresolved control issue or two. When I was pregnant with Ben I remember spending a couple of hours choosing just the right DIAPER BAG for him, for pete's sake. Changing pad: removable or attached? Insulated bottle holder: necessary? Backpack or over-the-shoulder styling? I like to research. Like to know all of my options. I can be PAINFUL to go out to dinner with. Big menus: how do you choose? How do you have time to read over and imagine all of those options before the waiter comes back with your drinks and asks for your order? BUT IS THE BRUSCHETTA MADE IN-HOUSE?????? Okay...well WHAT ABOUT THE VINAIGRETTE???

And that's just one meal. When it comes to my kids??? I want to, need to do what is best for my guys. Mistakes cost time. Affect development, self-esteem, opportunities for relationships and personal growth. Each choice echoes with that ticking clock that closed segments on 60 Minutes all those years ago. So I research. I go to meetings. I mingle. I listen. And then I sift through all of the options and perspectives. That's where I am now...sifting--with the clock ticking behind us.

Waldorf has some great ideas and methodologies. I like that in the schools teachers and students and parents come together as a family. Religions of the world are all introduced from a cultural literacy perspective so that students can ultimately be citizens of the world with tolerance for and understanding of others who are different from themselves. Teachers in Waldorf schools try to stay with their students for seven years, through an entire course of one of Rudolf Steiner's developmental phases. Students work in six-week modules where they are provided with the opportunity to do a deep-dive into the material they are learning. No textbooks or dittos--this is meaningful work because the assignments and textbooks are created by the students under the gentle direction of the teacher. Waldorf classwork is, by definition, multi-modal: there is drawing, dancing, music, movement, sculpture incorporated into all lessons...

However, Waldorf schools are also notoriously anti-technology. Children should not watch television AT ALL. There is no difference at all between the Planet Earth series currently on Discovery Channel and the latest installment of Ed, Edd and Eddie on Cartoon Network in these peoples' eyes. Computer use is severely frowned-upon before high school. And even then, it is considered antithetical to a student's development and whole-heartedly de-emphasized.

I've got a HUGE problem with that. I look at technology as the saving grace of education, the tool through which all students can be reached and taught to problem-solve.

Whenever you leave the purview of public education and delve into one of these alternative educational philosophies, there is another factor that comes into play--however subtly: If you don't like our philosophy, you can leave.

There's
the
door.

We're not here to educate everyone. We're here to educate people like us.

It is inspiring to observe a dedicated Waldorf adherent until you start to disagree or question their thought processes or philosophy. Then you become a full-fledged member of the 'losing battle' club. There is no reason for adherents to change what works. FOR THEM. And if something isn't working, it is the fault of the pupil, not the philosophy.

I've got a problem with THAT, too. Education is for the benefit of the child. If education is not working for the child then it is incumbent upon THE EDUCATOR to change the methodology to meet the needs of the child.

I can't help but think that the best methodology will take bits and pieces from a variety of philosophies and shape them so that they are deliverable to typical learners and special education students in a public education venue. And that this methodology will be a malleable, evolving school of thought open to evaluation, analysis and criticism.