Special Education Change Coming?

Back in November 2006, I wrote a post called: Special Education Students to Be Dispersed?

Now, as I belatedly comb through e-mails from blog readers over the summer, I find that a similar proposal is once again being discussed.

According to one blog reader,

The staff at Lowell Grade school have informed me (in June of 2008), that they have been informed by the Seattle School District administration, that Lowell Grade school will be broken up, with all special education staff and children then being scattered through Seattle general education schools, following the spring 2009 school quarter.


He continues...

NOTE: The Seattle School district administration now classifies each individual "special needs" classroom as a "program", which has removed the classrooms from Seattle School district School Board control and oversight.


Does anyone else have more information about what is being proposed?

Comments

AutismMom said…
Last year the school board passed it's earth-shaking policy on special education. It stated with a lot of verbiage:

"SPS will follow all special education laws."

Wow. What a breakthrough! At the time Colleen Stump, special education manager, said the policy was "powerful". Presumably, she recognized that they were not currently following the laws. So, following the law would be a powerful step forward.... and also that the school board wouldn't be tempted to pass special education policy which broke the law. Really, nothing has changed on that front, and the district is not more compliant with any regulations.

SPS has ALWAYS administered special education service as a "program" (for students with significant disabilities). And, it isn't new. IDEA requires very specifically that special education be a service and not a place or placement; that's at least one incompliant issue. I'm not sure that it means the School Board has no oversight though. As near as I can tell, the board doesn't have or, at least doesn't use, much oversight over anything.

The status of Lowell has been up in the air for quite a while... the district doing their best to kill those programs, without telling anyone. Of course nobody complains; they aren't informed of any decisions until they are already a done-deal. It was a miracle that the community rallied and saved the Lowell programs last year, after the secretive decision to kill them.
9/2/08, 10:38 AM
SolvayGirl said…
OK...
The District is calling the APP Program at Garfield special ed so the students can qualify for state funded transportation. If they're special ed, then the APP students at Lowell are special ed. Does that mean that they too will be dispersed? I doubt it. Can the District have it both ways?
9/2/08, 10:44 AM
hschinske said…
Special needs, not special ed. I believe special needs is a broader term and includes ESL and so forth.

Helen Schinske
9/2/08, 11:11 AM
SolvayGirl said…
Ahh...the power of semantics. That does make sense, thanks for the clarification.
I do know some Washington families (not APP) whose children have been kicked off the yellow bus to make room for Garfield students. I was surprised to see the District putting middle-schoolers on Metro.
9/2/08, 11:47 AM
Charlie Mas said…
The transportation policy is really very clear about who gets yellow bus transportation and who does not. Students who are not specifically entitled to yellow bus transportation can receive it on a "space available" basis.

What students were "kicked off the yellow bus" to Washington "to make room for Garfield students"?

What neighborhood are they coming from? What program are they in at Washington? Were they riding the bus on a "space available" basis or do they live in the Central Region and outside the walk zone for Washington?
9/2/08, 7:52 PM
Teachermom said…
I would certainly hope that any changes would wait until our new Special Education director comes in and starts leading the department.

Right now, there appears to continue to be no district leadership of Special Ed., so I would worry about any attempt to implement change.

I am not saying that the changes based on the audit should not happen, but please, goddess, may they happen planfully.
9/2/08, 8:57 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?

Why You Should Care Mr. Crabill has found quite the acolyte in Director Chandra Hampson. In the course of discussions over SOFG, she says his name over and over, "A.J .says we...." Now that's not too surprising given the direction the district is heading and that it is Mr. Crabill's work with the Council of Great City Schools is how we got here. But it appears that Mr. Crabill is working very closely with Hampson and we know she wields some amount of power over the majority of the Board. Mr. Crabill is going to continue to work with the Board as SOFG is instituted in SPS. In fact, his role may become more public as it did at one SPS Board meeting in the spring where he was on the phone during the meeting and suggested the Board stop the meeting to "self-reflect." I also noticed that in a district in South Carolina, when things weren't going to plan, he blamed the Board for not following SOFG to the letter. Look for that to happen here if Board members w
Read more

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong.  It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Read more