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

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more