 |
Main Menu |
|
|
 Home Community Members options Search Web
|
|
|
|
|
Survey |
|
|
How many children are on the spectrum in your family?
|
|
|
|
|
News- Page 7
|
Law : 'No Child...' law may leave schools behind
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Friday, January 16, 2004 (09:27:01)
Pioneer Local USA 15/01/2004
By Wynn Koebel Foster
When the federal legislation commonly known as "No Child Left Behind" was signed into law in January 2002, it was hailed as this generation's most significant policy initiative. No one argues its intent isn't good.
"We all want kids to achieve," said Superintendent Tom Zafiratos, of Pennoyer District 79 in Norridge.
But the goals of "No Child" are very specific and well-nigh unachievable, educators say:
· All students will be proficient or better in reading and math by 2013-2014;
· All students will be proficient in reading by the end of third grade by 2013-2014;
· All teachers will be highly qualified by 2005-2006;
· All students will graduate from high school; and
· Elementary, junior-high and middle schools will have an 88 percent or better attendance rate.
Academic progress will be measured by standardized tests. For the 2002-2003 academic year, at least 40 percent of students were required to "meet or exceed" scores established by the state. The next year's scores will be 5 to 7 percent higher, culminating in 2013-2014 at 100 percent.
At least 95 percent of students who fall into one or more of eight subgroups - whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, students with limited English proficiency, disabilities and/or low incomes - must be tested in reading and math. At least 37 percent of those must meet or exceed state standards in 2002-2003. Again, the percentages increase by 5 to 7 percent increments each year.
Federal Title 1 funds will be withheld from schools that fail to make "Adequate Yearly Progress," or AYP.
"It's bad academic policy to start with punishment and work backwards," said Ridgewood District 234 Superintendent Robert Lupo. "This law is punitive. It seeks to punish schools, districts and - by extension - students by withholding funds."
Each state provides its own interpretation of "No Child." Illinois was one of the first to approve it. Florida and Texas have still not complied.
Union Ridge District 86 Superintendent Ray Kuper calls "No Child" bad legislation.
"It will collapse on itself," he predicted. "In the long run, it will do more harm than good.
"I feel sorry for Chicago schools. They're caught in such a trap. Even New Trier is in trouble this year. And Texas, President (George W.) Bush's home state, has real problems with dropouts."
Lupo cannot understand "No Child's" underlying philosophy.
"It's generally acknowledged that different groups of kids have special needs - and probably different capabilities," he explained. "But 'No Child' is holding them all to the same standards.
"'No Child' doesn't even distinguish between a student with a learning disability and a student with a hearing loss in its Special Education section."
The law is based on the wrong assumptions, Lupo added. It supposes we really don't want our students to succeed, he said.
Lupo is also concerned with a number of critical-to-education issues "No Child" fails to address: home, family, nurturing environment, poverty and more.
"'No Child' doesn't deal with teacher training either," he continued. "Teacher training hasn't changed in decades."
Local educators are frantically lobbying their legislators for modifications to "No Child," Kuper said.
"Initially, 'No Child' had broad support from both sides of the aisle," Lupo admitted, "but just once I'd like to see some education legislation written by educators."
Both Lupo and Kuper are convinced the intent of "No Child" is the destruction of the American public school system.
"Look at the figures," said Principal Linda McElwrath, of Leigh School. "We just can't achieve 100 percent. Eventually, the impossibility of that will be realized."
This year's academic watch list will include schools like Highland Park and Evanston high schools, Lupo warned. Sooner or later, everybody will be on that roster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 4 comments |   |
|
|
|
|
Law : Our Legal System Hides From Bullies
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Friday, January 16, 2004 (09:11:26)
American Daily 15/01/2004
By Nancy Salvato
The judicial branch of the government stepped in to rule that all students are afforded first amendment rights as long as they don’t materially and substantially disrupt classes or other school activities.
The legislative branch of the government was also willing to step into the school’s domain when they were compelled to enact PL-94-142 which means “special needs†students are entitled to a free appropriate program implemented in the least restrictive environment.
The removal of a pupil with an educational disability from the pupil's regular class occurs only when the nature or severity of the educational disability is such that education in the pupil's regular class with the use of appropriate supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 guarantees that people with disabilities cannot be excluded from any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Though the mainstreamed student's primary placement is in a self-contained class for students with disabilities, they are taken out of this for specific portions of the school day and placed in classrooms with their non-disabled peers, often with no supports or accommodations, and with performance expectations similar to those of the typical students.
Mainstreaming is offered primarily to students with mild disabilities, and often involves only non-academic subjects, such as gym, art, music and lunch.
I am noticing that the above rulings and legislation assuring our “special education†students their educational rights has had an unfortunate bi-product. Although it is not supposed to occur, general education teachers often do not have the support they need to teach children with disabilities and be able to teach all children effectively.
The education of the general education children gets sacrificed so that children with disabilities can be included. Classrooms are less manageable for the teachers and the hallways and other non teaching areas are less safe for students.
Autistic children can swear and take swings at other children. Bullying has become a major issue in our schools.
I wondered if there was any Illinois law that would hold a school accountable for bullying that takes place on its premises. It seems that our state government draws the line when it comes to passing legislation designed to hold the schools responsible for maintaining an atmosphere safe from bullying. As Gary Avery, J.D. from the National Trainers for Law Advisory Group explained.
It is not a statute, per se. It is possible in both the state and federal courts of Illinois to state a claim if the school does not meet well-defined standards set up in a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases beginning with Meritor Savings Bank (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 1986, 106 S Ct 2399) and continuing through to more recent cases including ones called Lago Vista (Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 1998, 524 US 274) and Davis v. Monroe, 1999, 526 US 629. Liability results when the school does not have a policy against harassment (bullying is a form of harassment) which is reasonable and in which both the faculty and the student body are trained.
The ability to report harassment in a simple fashion without automatically becoming known to other students, particularly not to the aggressor, is another important element. And, finally, the school must be able to show that it actually follows up on complaints in a reasonable way.
This would explain the proliferation of anti bullying programs that surface in school districts when harassment gets “pronouncedâ€.
I wondered about the likelihood of winning a lawsuit against a school district for negligence regarding bullying. Mr. Avery said that school officials are allowed to use their discretion in deciding what, if any, punishment is proper in keeping with a U.S. Supreme Court case of long ago out of Illinois, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 1989, 109 S Ct 998.
So long as they are not so grossly stupid as to cause a reasonable person to term the behavior arbitrary or capricious, school officials' judgment will not lose just because there might have been a better way.
In addition to the above, in my research I read that a school doesn’t hold any “special status†with regards to the students that enter its doors. Schools are not guardians, therefore cannot be held responsible for the actions, of students’ in their domain.
While I understand the reasoning behind the legislation that guarantees “special needs†students an equal opportunity education, there is much difficulty in monitoring the actions of all students at all times. There should be more money available to hire and pay for hall monitors and additional playground supervisors whose sole job is to maintain the safety of the schools.
I’m of the opinion that since there has been legislative action to protect the rights of “special needs†students, there must be some legislative action that can be taken to guarantee that the schools assure an atmosphere conducive to learning for “all studentsâ€. Civil suits between families do not address the school’s responsibility for this inaction.
Certainly students being bullied are not getting “equal access to educationâ€. They are attending school in an atmosphere of fear. Some are the beneficiaries of physical and emotional scars that will last a lifetime.
The irony is that some of the students who are assured “equal access to an education†are the ones contributing to the atmosphere that makes the act of going to school a pretty scary venture for others.
Give fair and equal treatment to all groups if one group is to receive it. Students not classified as “special needs†have not been given equal voice. Our students who perform well remind me of those applicants who are more qualified but don’t get the job because of “affirmative actionâ€. Enough, already! The playing field will never be able to make up for the home advantage. Our home teams don’t have to play with a “handicapâ€. Why must the average student?
Following misinterpreted reaction from some readers to the above article, author Nancy Salvato has e-mailed me this statement:
"I feel that it is important to clarify what my article's point was since so many of those who wrote me got the intent entirely wrong.
My article Our Legal System Hides from Bullies was intended to be a message about how the law has stepped into the schools in certain cases yet says the schools are not their domain in others. I listed a host of problems that are occuring in our schools. I said that some of them were a result of the law that says that every child is entitled to an education in the least restrictive environment. The schools are giving every child the opportunity to attend school in the least restrictive environment but they are not giving enough resources to the teachers, not giving teachers proper training, and not staffing enough teachers to meet all the demands. One result it that special needs kids can act out against regular kids and the schools are not held accountable for not creating a safe environment for all children. In no way was I stating that autistic kids were bullies. I made a short list of problems that I have seen and went on to say that bullying isn't being addressed (!)
in the court system and schools aren't being held accountable. I thought that I wrote my article in a succint fashion and I thought I made my argument clear. There has been a gross misunderstanding."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 2 comments | |
|
|
|
|
Law : It's Time to Deliver to Kids With Disabilities
|
|
|
Posted by Sylvia on Thursday, January 08, 2004 (10:50:18)
All Africa.com Kampala 07/01/2004
The year 2004 should be designated by national governments throughout continental Africa as the year to write laws which guarantee the rights of children with disabilities to equitable education, and translate into practice those policies that will bring change at the classroom level.
The need for such a massive collective effort has never been greater in light of the realities which this forgotten group of children face daily, many of them abandoned, segregated and discriminated against.
Yet, while almost all 54 African nations, at least on paper, seem genuinely committed to the goals of EFA by 2015, especially for girls, few countries have legislations and policies governing the provision of basic resources and opportunities for educating children with disabilities in regular classrooms.
For example, according to the latest available data, only a handful of countries have legislations and policies which specifically govern special needs education for children with disabilities although often in segregated settings.
Algeria, Capo Verde, Tanzania, and the DRC have legislations that define the areas of disabilities and specify how the children will be educated. Article 90 of the Algeria's 1976 legislation on education and training requires that special school be established for children and young adults with disabilities.
In Capo Verde, Article 32 of the Law of 29 December, stipulates that "young people with mental or learning deficiencies benefit from appropriate educational provision and initiatives which will permit their rehabilitation and social and educational integration.
In Tanzania, the 1978 Education Act affirms the right of every child to attend school from age seven to 13. Zimbabwe's 1993 Disabled Persons Act requires that no disabled person be denied any service or amenity ordinarily provided.
The DRC's law No. 86-005 of 1986, articles 35 to 40, on General Education, requires a non-discriminatory policy toward children with disabilities and stipulates that special education will be provided in "special institutions, in special classrooms and in regular schools at pre-primary, primary, secondary and higher levels".
Meanwhile, countries like Uganda and Ghana still rely on outdated education legislations which barely mention the education of children with disabilities.
Moreover, policies mentioning special needs education are often vague and evasive with no clear guideline to what resources should be allotted for the task. Consequently, the education of children with disabilities is left to the benevolence of non-governmental organisations, overseas charities and the family.
Unfortunately, families often do not have the resources to educate all the children, so they opt to educate the able-bodied ones, leaving those with disabilities to their own resourcefulness.
On their own, children with disabilities face many insurmountable hurdles in society including blatant discrimination based on ignorance. There are many reasons for placing the inclusion of children with disabilities at the top of national priority this year.
Foremost, 13 years have passed since Education for All (EFA), a UNESCO initiative was launched at the Jomtien Conference in Thailand in 1990, nine years since the Salamanca Statement was issued in Spain and three years since the principles adopted at Jomtien were reaffirmed at the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal in April 2000.
One of the six goals adopted at Dakar stated: "The inclusion of children with special needs, from disadvantaged ethnic minorities and migrant populations, from remote and isolated communities and from urban slums, and others excluded from education, must be an integral part of strategies to achieve UPE by 2015". In other words Dakar, like all the previous conferences, recognised that a society can only progress when there is provision for the welfare of and contribution from those with disabilities.
Secondly, the experiences in the US, EEC countries and here in Canada have shown that the education of children with disabilities will work better when it's spelled out in great detail through legislations and policies.
Furthermore, the role of the various levels of government should also be well articulated so that there is no duplication of resources.
For example, in 1975, the US Congress, in order to further clarify who was responsible for the education of children with disabilities, and ensure that millions were receiving the education they deserved, passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), or Public Law 94-142 which came with increased funding which guaranteed children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).
In 1990, EAHCA became known as the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and with it came many prescriptive policies which favoured inclusive education.
Among others, IDEA required that to receive funds, the state and local education authorities were to implement a system of "child find" to locate children with disabilities, produce an individualised education plan (IEP) and more importantly, to devise the least restrictive environment for educating the children. All the 10 Canadian provinces and three territories have laws which guarantee the education of disabled children, preferably in the regular classroom.
Only where the child's exceptional needs cannot be met in the regular classroom is an alternative setting provided. The time has come for African governments to either put up or shut up about how good UPE is being implemented.
There is need to put into place legislations and policies which define disabilities, create opportunities and allocate resources for education of children with disabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 6 comments | |
|
|
|
|
Law : Autistic man wins court fight
|
|
|
Posted by Sian on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 (12:49:17)
(Greenwich Mercury)IC South London 24/12/2003
AN AUTISTIC man is set to receive substantial damages from Greenwich council after it failed to give him the education he needed.
At the High Court on Friday, Judge Sean Overend accepted the man, now 23, was not given an appropriate education.
If he had, he might have been able to work and lead an independent life. Instead, his "fire-setting tendency" has seen him compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. The judge said an educational psychologist who examined the man when he was aged 10 "should have appreciated that he did not present or have the profile of a child with emotional and behavioural (EBD) difficulties".
Although his condition was undiagnosed at the time, he suffered from Asperger's Syndrome - but was placed in a school for disturbed youngsters which was inappropriate to meet his needs. The expert's "failure in that regard fell below the standard of a competent educational psychologist", the judge ruled.
He added: "It was not necessary at the time he wrote his report for the expert to have diagnosed Asperger's Syndrome, or autism in any form, for him to have appreciated the unsuitability of sending this boy for placement in an EBD school."
Judge Overend also said there had been a two-year delay in placing the boy in a specialist school and he found the explanations for that unacceptable. But he added he was unable to say whether that had been negligent. The judge's ruling guarantees the man - named in court only as "W" - a payout from the council.
Unless settlement terms are agreed, the amount of his damages will have to be assessed at another court hearing. W's schooldays were marked by expulsions and failure. He descended into a spiral of disturbed behaviour, culminating in him pleading guilty to a string of arson offences in 2001 and being sent to a mental hospital where he is detained.
Judge Overend said W's future was "bleak". Once released from the mental hospital he would need to live in a sheltered environment and sheltered employment for the rest of his life.
However, Judge Overend said there was a possibility that W's "fire-setting tendency" might have developed even had he received an appropriate education and that would have to be taken into account when assessing the amount of his payout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... (15 Bytes) | 10 comments | |
|
|
|
|
Law : PARENTS WILL CHALLENGE WITHDRAWAL OF LEGAL AID TO FIGHT MMR BATTLE
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 (17:01:20)
The Guardian, 07/10/2003
Hundreds of British parents who claim their children were damaged by the MMR triple vaccine are to challenge the decision to withdraw legal aid funding for their court battle.
Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC, representing the lead cases in a group action involving around 1,000 claimants, told Mr Justice Keith at the High Court in London on October 6 that an action was being launched to challenge the decision of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to withdraw support. The judicial review application will go ahead only if the commission grants legal aid for the action against itself.
Stuart-Smith said the trial to decide whether the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine caused childhood autism could no longer go ahead next April. He asked for the case to be stayed pending a decision on funding.
The barrister mother of one of the affected children stood up at the back of the court and offered to represent other claimants. Jennifer Horne-Roberts said she wanted to pursue the claim whether there was funding or not.
The LSC withdrew funding after reviewing the scientific evidence in the case, which has cost an estimated £15 million, and could cost up to £10 million more to bring to trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 3 comments | |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest: 
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 11466
Members: 0
Visitors: 5
Total: 5
1: