I just wanted to add some additional information that I got from another listserve that I belong to.
So, keep in mind a couple of things;
1) many, if not most, SD's need to be educated about the disability, and if you don't do it, no one will;
2) these people couldn't care a bit about your child, and their interest is saving resources (cost or time),
3) squeaky wheels are the ones that get greased - BE THE SQUEAKY WHEEL;
4) advocacy is an ongoing effort, and you need to be forceful. Let them know that you will take nothing less than what is appropriate in your mind.
The first child with autism that I represented entered pre-school with about a dozen words. As soon as the public school got their hands on him, he completely lost his ability to speak. Now he is in HS is a day program making little or no progress. They likely closed the window on his speech by not addressing it when he was young. Don't let that be your child.
As a parent new to the system, I believe it will provide you some insight that much of the other stuff you are seeing kind of ignores. Pete's (Pete Wright, From Emotions To Advocacy) got some great stuff out there to help parents understand the regs and laws that apply here, and even provide some guidance on dealing with the district. But many parents are dealing with difficult districts that could care less about the child, the law, or any ethics, and you need to be aware of that.
The book is "The Special Education Battlefield: A Guide to the Due Process Hearing and Other Tools of Effective Advocacy." It is not such a big seller as to be in bookstores, but is available on www.amazon.com where you can read some reviews, or from the publisher at www.andrewcuddybooks.com
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Letter To Superintendent
Dear Linda,
I am deeply saddened that Dr. McGehee has taken this position. I can understand his frustration because I deal with the same frustration twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. I understand that the district is frustrated with us. We are frustrated with the district, but this frustration is small compared to the anxiety that parents of a child affected by autism go through.
We wanted nothing more than a series of productive meetings with the district. It has been my personal passion since September, 2005. I freely admit that Dr. McGehee was the first in this district to offer us that opportunity.
I am afraid that there must have been a misunderstanding on his part. While the district continued to submit press releases to the Lee's Summit Journal, Lee's Summit Tribune, The Kansas City Star, the Lee's Summit R-7 email list, the newsletter and the website that were not completely accurate, I continued to come to the table with a hope that one day the district would truly make the changes that are warranted.
However, our children can't wait for opinions to change. Their lives depend on all of the people in their lives doing the right thing. It is our constitutional right to free speech and to voice our opinion, just as the district has the right to voice theirs. I did not stop meeting with Dr. McGehee simply because I was embarrassed or angered by the acts of the district. There were always hurt feelings and distrust on both sides of the table. I thought the district would return the same courtesy to us. We can not sit back and be quiet, hoping that the district will start doing what is ethically, morally, and legally right. I did not realize that Dr. McGehee thought that I would remain silent if he agreed to meet with me. I would never have agreed to that. My voice is one the only tool that I have to help advocate for the children that are affected by autism. There are sacrifices to be made on both sides. Our children are sacrificing their future potential and their future independence each day that we delay. We want to work with the district, but that doesn't mean that we are no longer entitled to our own opinions and that we are agreeing to no longer state our opinions. I was told that I didn't belong on the board, but that I belong at the podium. So, I stand at the podium of life and shout my message that our children could be more if they were given the right opportunities. The district continues to spread their opinion and we continue to spread ours.
The protest at the conference was just that. It was a protest of DESE and the fact that they picked two school districts to present their autism programs had no background, data, information, or criteria to warrant their selection. That is exactly what Heidi Atkins Lieberman stated. A few friends told her that it might be a good choice. The citizens of the state of Missouri deserve to know exactly how these decisions are made.
I truly hoped that we could work together. I am and have always been willing to give it a try. However, I can not be made to be quiet in the hopes that the situation will work out in favor of the children. It's a gamble that is too risky and too many lives are at stake. Our children don't have the luxury of time. If we spend three more years trying to come to an understanding, many more lives will be lost. I was not under the impression that our ability to work together was going to be paid for by our silence. I truly hoped that our children could benefit from our conversations. I hope that the time we did spend together might have opened your eyes and heart to what our children face every day of their lives and will continue to face if they don't receive the services that they so desperately need and should rightfully receive.
Sincerely,
Sherri R. Tucker
I am deeply saddened that Dr. McGehee has taken this position. I can understand his frustration because I deal with the same frustration twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. I understand that the district is frustrated with us. We are frustrated with the district, but this frustration is small compared to the anxiety that parents of a child affected by autism go through.
We wanted nothing more than a series of productive meetings with the district. It has been my personal passion since September, 2005. I freely admit that Dr. McGehee was the first in this district to offer us that opportunity.
I am afraid that there must have been a misunderstanding on his part. While the district continued to submit press releases to the Lee's Summit Journal, Lee's Summit Tribune, The Kansas City Star, the Lee's Summit R-7 email list, the newsletter and the website that were not completely accurate, I continued to come to the table with a hope that one day the district would truly make the changes that are warranted.
However, our children can't wait for opinions to change. Their lives depend on all of the people in their lives doing the right thing. It is our constitutional right to free speech and to voice our opinion, just as the district has the right to voice theirs. I did not stop meeting with Dr. McGehee simply because I was embarrassed or angered by the acts of the district. There were always hurt feelings and distrust on both sides of the table. I thought the district would return the same courtesy to us. We can not sit back and be quiet, hoping that the district will start doing what is ethically, morally, and legally right. I did not realize that Dr. McGehee thought that I would remain silent if he agreed to meet with me. I would never have agreed to that. My voice is one the only tool that I have to help advocate for the children that are affected by autism. There are sacrifices to be made on both sides. Our children are sacrificing their future potential and their future independence each day that we delay. We want to work with the district, but that doesn't mean that we are no longer entitled to our own opinions and that we are agreeing to no longer state our opinions. I was told that I didn't belong on the board, but that I belong at the podium. So, I stand at the podium of life and shout my message that our children could be more if they were given the right opportunities. The district continues to spread their opinion and we continue to spread ours.
The protest at the conference was just that. It was a protest of DESE and the fact that they picked two school districts to present their autism programs had no background, data, information, or criteria to warrant their selection. That is exactly what Heidi Atkins Lieberman stated. A few friends told her that it might be a good choice. The citizens of the state of Missouri deserve to know exactly how these decisions are made.
I truly hoped that we could work together. I am and have always been willing to give it a try. However, I can not be made to be quiet in the hopes that the situation will work out in favor of the children. It's a gamble that is too risky and too many lives are at stake. Our children don't have the luxury of time. If we spend three more years trying to come to an understanding, many more lives will be lost. I was not under the impression that our ability to work together was going to be paid for by our silence. I truly hoped that our children could benefit from our conversations. I hope that the time we did spend together might have opened your eyes and heart to what our children face every day of their lives and will continue to face if they don't receive the services that they so desperately need and should rightfully receive.
Sincerely,
Sherri R. Tucker
Something Is Wrong; No One Gives Back Money If They Know About It
http://susanohanian.org/atrocity_fetch.php?id=1614
Something is wrong; no one gives back money if they know about it.
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Data show states return millions to feds instead of spending it on schools
By Nancy Zuckerbrod / Associated Press Writer
A state-by-state look at federal funding for ongoing education programs that reverted back to the U.S. Treasury last year after states failed to spend it:
State Available balance
Ala. $1,517,152
Alaska 396,396
American Samoa 901,109
Ariz. 3,013,975
Ark. 56,241
Calif. 1,680,554
Colo. 912,933
Conn. 915,805
Del. 522,817
D.C. 3,077,389
Fla. 3,525,865
Ga. 3,643,267
Guam 968,860
Hawaii 229,132
Idaho 241,109
Ill. 1,052,991
Ind. 1,485,081
Iowa 337,920
Kan. 79,947
Ky. 374,989
La. 6,060,902
Maine 31,579
Mariana Islands 77,922
Marshall Islands 0
Md. 1,772,645
Mass. 126,313
Mich. 5,093,607
Micronesia 364,604
Minn. 116,408
Miss. 793,899
Mo. 4,696,297
Mont. 279,013
Neb. 271,161
Nev. 685,696
N.H. 233,702
N.J. 3,447,871
N.M. 6,215,135
N.Y. 1,653,779
N.C. 80,381
N.D. 1,062,722
Ohio 580,218
Okla. 451,311
Ore. 692,200
Palau 65,488
Pa. 3,457,847
Puerto Rico 38,636,034
R.I. 37,488
S.C. 372,997
S.D. 131,527
Tenn. 3,869,768
Texas 11,007,911
Utah 108,715
Vt. 18,258
Va. 3,452,832
Virgin Islands 2,038,587
Wash. 424,657
W.Va. 118,118
Wis. 465,247
Wyo. 386,579
Nation 124,438,947
Source: U.S. Department of Education
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
WASHINGTON -- While state officials nationwide say they need more money to educate children, newly released figures show states are returning millions to the federal Treasury rather than spending it in the hinterlands.
Last year, states returned $124 million to Washington that was to have gone toward large education programs such as special education and aid to poor children, according to Education Department data obtained by The Associated Press.
The states had more than three years to tap into the money before it reverted to the federal government on Sept. 30, 2003, said C. Todd Jones, a budget official in the Education Department.
The money was less than 1 percent of the $18 billion in federal funding that had been allocated to states on formulas in force during that period, Jones said Friday.
It could have been put to good use in the states, he said, and they have much flexibility in the money�s use. States, he said, �should seriously investigate why they are turning such large sums back to the federal Treasury.�
States and territories that returned the most were Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, the department said.
�We try to spend every penny that the federal government sends us,� said Debbie Ratcliff, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, which sent back $11 million.
Ratcliff said schools sometimes let federal money lapse or fail to satisfy requirements for it, but she said the state agency doesn�t always find out in time to send the money to alternative schools.
Tennessee, which returned $3.9 million to the federal government last year, is working to fix the problem by having budget officers work more closely with program experts, said Kim Karesh, a spokeswoman for the state education department.
�This is an area where we absolutely have to improve,� she said. �Should we be sending this money back? No, because we have a need for it in Tennessee.�
Karesh said Tennessee returned the money because costs for contracts came in lower than expected. She said the state then failed to seek out other ways to spend the extra dollars.
A range of critics, from governors to Democratic presidential contenders, say the 2002 No Child Left Behind education law is enormously underfinanced. The law places broad mandates on states, including a requirement for highly qualified teachers in all core classes, expanded standardized testing and data collection and reporting on student performance.
Jones said states have wide latitude in how they can use leftover money as long as it goes toward the intended program. For example, if a state should spend less than expected on special education teachers, it could use the extra money to hire physical therapists or pay for buses accessible by the handicapped.
Besides the $124 million in formula funding returned, states sent back $30 million last year that was supposed to have gone toward projects specific to a state. Jones said it is not easy for states to reprogram that unused money .
The money returned to the U.S. Treasury is different from roughly $6 billion in federal funding the Bush administration says states are sitting on that has not yet expired. The administration this week countered arguments that it was inadequately funding education by saying states are taking too long to spend billions of federal dollars meant for schools.
-- -- --
On the Net:
U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml
— Nancy Zuckerbrod
Detroit News
Data show states return millions to feds instead of spending it on schools
2004-01-10
www.detnews.com/2004/schools/0401/10/schools-31658.htm
Something is wrong; no one gives back money if they know about it.
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Data show states return millions to feds instead of spending it on schools
By Nancy Zuckerbrod / Associated Press Writer
A state-by-state look at federal funding for ongoing education programs that reverted back to the U.S. Treasury last year after states failed to spend it:
State Available balance
Ala. $1,517,152
Alaska 396,396
American Samoa 901,109
Ariz. 3,013,975
Ark. 56,241
Calif. 1,680,554
Colo. 912,933
Conn. 915,805
Del. 522,817
D.C. 3,077,389
Fla. 3,525,865
Ga. 3,643,267
Guam 968,860
Hawaii 229,132
Idaho 241,109
Ill. 1,052,991
Ind. 1,485,081
Iowa 337,920
Kan. 79,947
Ky. 374,989
La. 6,060,902
Maine 31,579
Mariana Islands 77,922
Marshall Islands 0
Md. 1,772,645
Mass. 126,313
Mich. 5,093,607
Micronesia 364,604
Minn. 116,408
Miss. 793,899
Mo. 4,696,297
Mont. 279,013
Neb. 271,161
Nev. 685,696
N.H. 233,702
N.J. 3,447,871
N.M. 6,215,135
N.Y. 1,653,779
N.C. 80,381
N.D. 1,062,722
Ohio 580,218
Okla. 451,311
Ore. 692,200
Palau 65,488
Pa. 3,457,847
Puerto Rico 38,636,034
R.I. 37,488
S.C. 372,997
S.D. 131,527
Tenn. 3,869,768
Texas 11,007,911
Utah 108,715
Vt. 18,258
Va. 3,452,832
Virgin Islands 2,038,587
Wash. 424,657
W.Va. 118,118
Wis. 465,247
Wyo. 386,579
Nation 124,438,947
Source: U.S. Department of Education
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
WASHINGTON -- While state officials nationwide say they need more money to educate children, newly released figures show states are returning millions to the federal Treasury rather than spending it in the hinterlands.
Last year, states returned $124 million to Washington that was to have gone toward large education programs such as special education and aid to poor children, according to Education Department data obtained by The Associated Press.
The states had more than three years to tap into the money before it reverted to the federal government on Sept. 30, 2003, said C. Todd Jones, a budget official in the Education Department.
The money was less than 1 percent of the $18 billion in federal funding that had been allocated to states on formulas in force during that period, Jones said Friday.
It could have been put to good use in the states, he said, and they have much flexibility in the money�s use. States, he said, �should seriously investigate why they are turning such large sums back to the federal Treasury.�
States and territories that returned the most were Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, the department said.
�We try to spend every penny that the federal government sends us,� said Debbie Ratcliff, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, which sent back $11 million.
Ratcliff said schools sometimes let federal money lapse or fail to satisfy requirements for it, but she said the state agency doesn�t always find out in time to send the money to alternative schools.
Tennessee, which returned $3.9 million to the federal government last year, is working to fix the problem by having budget officers work more closely with program experts, said Kim Karesh, a spokeswoman for the state education department.
�This is an area where we absolutely have to improve,� she said. �Should we be sending this money back? No, because we have a need for it in Tennessee.�
Karesh said Tennessee returned the money because costs for contracts came in lower than expected. She said the state then failed to seek out other ways to spend the extra dollars.
A range of critics, from governors to Democratic presidential contenders, say the 2002 No Child Left Behind education law is enormously underfinanced. The law places broad mandates on states, including a requirement for highly qualified teachers in all core classes, expanded standardized testing and data collection and reporting on student performance.
Jones said states have wide latitude in how they can use leftover money as long as it goes toward the intended program. For example, if a state should spend less than expected on special education teachers, it could use the extra money to hire physical therapists or pay for buses accessible by the handicapped.
Besides the $124 million in formula funding returned, states sent back $30 million last year that was supposed to have gone toward projects specific to a state. Jones said it is not easy for states to reprogram that unused money .
The money returned to the U.S. Treasury is different from roughly $6 billion in federal funding the Bush administration says states are sitting on that has not yet expired. The administration this week countered arguments that it was inadequately funding education by saying states are taking too long to spend billions of federal dollars meant for schools.
-- -- --
On the Net:
U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml
— Nancy Zuckerbrod
Detroit News
Data show states return millions to feds instead of spending it on schools
2004-01-10
www.detnews.com/2004/schools/0401/10/schools-31658.htm
States Send Millions Back To Feds
Data obtained by AP show states return millions to feds instead of spending it on schools
(Note: That giant sucking sound is coming from the immediate vicinity of your pocketbook/wallet ... keep in mind that these are the same folks telling you that they care about your 'quality of life' and the economy. Whose quality of life? Whose economy? As our borders are being erased with a lot of help from politicians in both 'parties' and the jobs that formerly kept the backbone of America healthy -- the good-paying middle class jobs -- are being 'reborn' as jobs in India and other 'developing countries/nations.' And when did Puerto Rico become a state? "States and territories that returned the most were Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia...")
January 9, 2004
By Nancy Zuckerbrod, Associated Press writer
The Savannah Morning News
Savannah, Georgia
http://www.savannahnow.com
To submit a Letter to the Editor: mswendra@savannahnow.com
Washington, D.C. - While state officials nationwide say they need more money to educate children, newly released figures show states are returning millions to the federal Treasury rather than spending it in the hinterlands.
Last year, states returned $124 million to Washington that was to have gone toward large education programs such as special education and aid to poor children, according to Education Department data obtained by The Associated Press.
The states had more than three years to tap into the money before it reverted to the federal government on September 30, 2003, said C. Todd Jones, a budget official in the Education Department.
The money was less than 1 percent of the $18 billion in federal funding that had been allocated to states on formulas [that were] in force during that period, Jones said Friday.
It could have been put to good use in the states, he said, and they have much flexibility in the money's use.
States, he said, "should seriously investigate why they are turning such large sums back to the federal Treasury."
States and territories that returned the most were Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, the department said.
"We try to spend every penny that the federal government sends us," said Debbie Ratcliff, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, which sent back $11 million.
Ratcliff said schools sometimes let federal money lapse or fail to satisfy requirements for it, but she said the state agency doesn't always find out in time to send the money to alternative schools.
Tennessee, which returned $3.9 million to the federal government last year, is working to fix the problem by having budget officers work more closely with program experts, said Kim Karesh, a spokeswoman for the state education department.
"This is an area where we absolutely have to improve," she said. "Should we be sending this money back? No, because we have a need for it in Tennessee."
Karesh said Tennessee returned the money because costs for contracts came in lower than expected. She said the state then failed to seek out other ways to spend the extra dollars.
A range of critics, from governors to Democratic presidential contenders, say the 2002 No Child Left Behind education law is enormously underfinanced. The law places broad mandates on states, including a requirement for highly qualified teachers in all core classes, expanded standardized testing and data collection and reporting on student performance.
Jones said states have wide latitude in how they can use leftover money as long as it goes toward the intended program. For example, if a state should spend less than expected on special education teachers, it could use the extra money to hire physical therapists or pay for buses accessible by the handicapped.
Besides the $124 million in formula funding returned, states sent back $30 million last year that was supposed to have gone toward projects specific to a state. Jones said it is not easy for states to reprogram that unused money.
The money returned to the U.S. Treasury is different from roughly $6 billion in federal funding the Bush administration says states are sitting on that has not yet expired. The administration this week countered arguments that it was inadequately funding education by saying states are taking too long to spend billions of federal dollars meant for schools.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles/data_obtained_by_ap_show_states_.htm
Copyright 2004, The Savannah Morning News.
http://ap.savannahnow.com/pstories/us/20040109/1788876.shtml
(Note: That giant sucking sound is coming from the immediate vicinity of your pocketbook/wallet ... keep in mind that these are the same folks telling you that they care about your 'quality of life' and the economy. Whose quality of life? Whose economy? As our borders are being erased with a lot of help from politicians in both 'parties' and the jobs that formerly kept the backbone of America healthy -- the good-paying middle class jobs -- are being 'reborn' as jobs in India and other 'developing countries/nations.' And when did Puerto Rico become a state? "States and territories that returned the most were Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia...")
January 9, 2004
By Nancy Zuckerbrod, Associated Press writer
The Savannah Morning News
Savannah, Georgia
http://www.savannahnow.com
To submit a Letter to the Editor: mswendra@savannahnow.com
Washington, D.C. - While state officials nationwide say they need more money to educate children, newly released figures show states are returning millions to the federal Treasury rather than spending it in the hinterlands.
Last year, states returned $124 million to Washington that was to have gone toward large education programs such as special education and aid to poor children, according to Education Department data obtained by The Associated Press.
The states had more than three years to tap into the money before it reverted to the federal government on September 30, 2003, said C. Todd Jones, a budget official in the Education Department.
The money was less than 1 percent of the $18 billion in federal funding that had been allocated to states on formulas [that were] in force during that period, Jones said Friday.
It could have been put to good use in the states, he said, and they have much flexibility in the money's use.
States, he said, "should seriously investigate why they are turning such large sums back to the federal Treasury."
States and territories that returned the most were Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, the department said.
"We try to spend every penny that the federal government sends us," said Debbie Ratcliff, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, which sent back $11 million.
Ratcliff said schools sometimes let federal money lapse or fail to satisfy requirements for it, but she said the state agency doesn't always find out in time to send the money to alternative schools.
Tennessee, which returned $3.9 million to the federal government last year, is working to fix the problem by having budget officers work more closely with program experts, said Kim Karesh, a spokeswoman for the state education department.
"This is an area where we absolutely have to improve," she said. "Should we be sending this money back? No, because we have a need for it in Tennessee."
Karesh said Tennessee returned the money because costs for contracts came in lower than expected. She said the state then failed to seek out other ways to spend the extra dollars.
A range of critics, from governors to Democratic presidential contenders, say the 2002 No Child Left Behind education law is enormously underfinanced. The law places broad mandates on states, including a requirement for highly qualified teachers in all core classes, expanded standardized testing and data collection and reporting on student performance.
Jones said states have wide latitude in how they can use leftover money as long as it goes toward the intended program. For example, if a state should spend less than expected on special education teachers, it could use the extra money to hire physical therapists or pay for buses accessible by the handicapped.
Besides the $124 million in formula funding returned, states sent back $30 million last year that was supposed to have gone toward projects specific to a state. Jones said it is not easy for states to reprogram that unused money.
The money returned to the U.S. Treasury is different from roughly $6 billion in federal funding the Bush administration says states are sitting on that has not yet expired. The administration this week countered arguments that it was inadequately funding education by saying states are taking too long to spend billions of federal dollars meant for schools.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles/data_obtained_by_ap_show_states_.htm
Copyright 2004, The Savannah Morning News.
http://ap.savannahnow.com/pstories/us/20040109/1788876.shtml
The Fight Continues
The Fight Continues
Parents protest R-7 official’s autism presentation
By Brett Dalton, The Journal Staff
A series of meetings that may have eased the tension between the R-7 School District and the Lee’s Summit Autism Support Group have been put on hold after members of the LSASG protested a conference at which an R-7 official was speaking.
After Sherri Tucker, co-founder of the LSASG, was unsuccessful in her bid for a seat on the R-7 Board of Education earlier this year, R-7 Superintendent David McGehee reached out to Tucker in hopes the two groups could find at least some common ground.
Tucker and other LSASG members have been consistently outspoken about what they feel is a lack of proper services and programs within the school district for children with special needs. In fact, Tucker admitted freely that she ran in the April election solely on the issue of benefiting students with special needs. And she pulled no punches when criticizing the school district.
While McGehee said there are some issues on which the two sides will always “agree to disagree,” he had hoped that meeting with Tucker on a somewhat consistent basis would help each side understand the other and perhaps common ground could be met — and it worked for a while.
“We had met a couple of times and there were even a couple things that came out of those meetings and we’re now looking into how to get better at those things,” McGehee said. “So I think they were productive — to a point.”
However, on Aug. 4, LSASG members, Tucker included, protested the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Cooperative Conference for School Administrators, which took place at Tan-Tar-A, a family resort in Osage Beach.
Tucker said they protested because Jerry Keimig, R-7’s director of special services, was chosen to speak at the conference based on the school district’s “outstanding programs for students with autism.” Tucker said she was appalled not only to hear that Keimig was chosen to speak but also because of the reason he was chosen. She even accused the school district of lying about why Keimig was chosen.
“They said it was because of their outstanding programs,” Tucker said. “That’s not why they got picked.”
To back up her claim, Tucker points to a recent article in The Pitch detailing the ongoing struggle between the R-7 School District and members of the LSASG. According to the article, which published July 10, Heidi Atkins Lieberman, assistant commissioner of special education for DESE, said she chose Keimig to speak after talking to “people who were very knowledgeable about autism education, and they all said Jerry would be great.”
“So basically Heidi Lieberman asked a few friends about who should speak at the conference,” Tucker said.
Lieberman told the Journal on Thursday that she chose Keimig based on several recommendations from reliable sources.
“Based on recommendations we received from numerous sources, I selected the Kirkwood School District (St. Louis County) and the Lee’s Summit School District to outline their programs,” she said. “Both districts have well-established programs, and they have in-district autism consultants who were trained by Project Access.” Last Monday’s protest was peaceful and consisted of parents, including Deb Shaumeyer and Joyce Lindsey, sitting in lawn chairs for six hours in front of a large sign that read, “Lee’s Summit R-7 & Mo. Dept. of Education Are leaving our Autistic Children Behind.”
Tucker said the protest was perfectly legal and the parents did receive permission from Osage Beach’s chief of police.
But while the protesters were greeted somewhat positively by cars passing by, R-7 officials weren’t amused.
McGehee said he decided to “take a break” from his meetings with Tucker following the protest because he thought the protest proved their meetings to be unproductive. He said he didn’t expect the meetings to end Tucker’s criticism of the school district, but he was hopeful that by gaining a better of understanding of each other, the public attacks would no longer be necessary.
McGehee said the two sides may revisit their discussions in the future, but added that at this time, he doesn’t want to take time to hold meetings that aren’t accomplishing their objective.
“My time is limited, all of our time is limited,” he said. “This is just one of many, many issues we deal with. And it is a very important issue and one I’m continuing to try to learn more about and gain a better understanding of. But at this moment, it’s time to take a break because they didn’t seem to be very productive.”
Tucker said she appreciated the chance to meet with McGehee, but never intended to “remain silent” as a result of their discussions.
“My voice is the only tool I have to help advocate for the children that are affected by autism,” Tucker wrote in a reply to the school district’s letter informing her that the upcoming meetings have been cancelled. “I truly hoped we could work together. I am and have always been willing to give it a try. However, I can not be made to be quiet in the hopes that the situation will work out in favor of our children. It’s a gamble that is too risky and too many lives are at stake.”
bdalton@lsjournal.com
Parents protest R-7 official’s autism presentation
By Brett Dalton, The Journal Staff
A series of meetings that may have eased the tension between the R-7 School District and the Lee’s Summit Autism Support Group have been put on hold after members of the LSASG protested a conference at which an R-7 official was speaking.
After Sherri Tucker, co-founder of the LSASG, was unsuccessful in her bid for a seat on the R-7 Board of Education earlier this year, R-7 Superintendent David McGehee reached out to Tucker in hopes the two groups could find at least some common ground.
Tucker and other LSASG members have been consistently outspoken about what they feel is a lack of proper services and programs within the school district for children with special needs. In fact, Tucker admitted freely that she ran in the April election solely on the issue of benefiting students with special needs. And she pulled no punches when criticizing the school district.
While McGehee said there are some issues on which the two sides will always “agree to disagree,” he had hoped that meeting with Tucker on a somewhat consistent basis would help each side understand the other and perhaps common ground could be met — and it worked for a while.
“We had met a couple of times and there were even a couple things that came out of those meetings and we’re now looking into how to get better at those things,” McGehee said. “So I think they were productive — to a point.”
However, on Aug. 4, LSASG members, Tucker included, protested the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Cooperative Conference for School Administrators, which took place at Tan-Tar-A, a family resort in Osage Beach.
Tucker said they protested because Jerry Keimig, R-7’s director of special services, was chosen to speak at the conference based on the school district’s “outstanding programs for students with autism.” Tucker said she was appalled not only to hear that Keimig was chosen to speak but also because of the reason he was chosen. She even accused the school district of lying about why Keimig was chosen.
“They said it was because of their outstanding programs,” Tucker said. “That’s not why they got picked.”
To back up her claim, Tucker points to a recent article in The Pitch detailing the ongoing struggle between the R-7 School District and members of the LSASG. According to the article, which published July 10, Heidi Atkins Lieberman, assistant commissioner of special education for DESE, said she chose Keimig to speak after talking to “people who were very knowledgeable about autism education, and they all said Jerry would be great.”
“So basically Heidi Lieberman asked a few friends about who should speak at the conference,” Tucker said.
Lieberman told the Journal on Thursday that she chose Keimig based on several recommendations from reliable sources.
“Based on recommendations we received from numerous sources, I selected the Kirkwood School District (St. Louis County) and the Lee’s Summit School District to outline their programs,” she said. “Both districts have well-established programs, and they have in-district autism consultants who were trained by Project Access.” Last Monday’s protest was peaceful and consisted of parents, including Deb Shaumeyer and Joyce Lindsey, sitting in lawn chairs for six hours in front of a large sign that read, “Lee’s Summit R-7 & Mo. Dept. of Education Are leaving our Autistic Children Behind.”
Tucker said the protest was perfectly legal and the parents did receive permission from Osage Beach’s chief of police.
But while the protesters were greeted somewhat positively by cars passing by, R-7 officials weren’t amused.
McGehee said he decided to “take a break” from his meetings with Tucker following the protest because he thought the protest proved their meetings to be unproductive. He said he didn’t expect the meetings to end Tucker’s criticism of the school district, but he was hopeful that by gaining a better of understanding of each other, the public attacks would no longer be necessary.
McGehee said the two sides may revisit their discussions in the future, but added that at this time, he doesn’t want to take time to hold meetings that aren’t accomplishing their objective.
“My time is limited, all of our time is limited,” he said. “This is just one of many, many issues we deal with. And it is a very important issue and one I’m continuing to try to learn more about and gain a better understanding of. But at this moment, it’s time to take a break because they didn’t seem to be very productive.”
Tucker said she appreciated the chance to meet with McGehee, but never intended to “remain silent” as a result of their discussions.
“My voice is the only tool I have to help advocate for the children that are affected by autism,” Tucker wrote in a reply to the school district’s letter informing her that the upcoming meetings have been cancelled. “I truly hoped we could work together. I am and have always been willing to give it a try. However, I can not be made to be quiet in the hopes that the situation will work out in favor of our children. It’s a gamble that is too risky and too many lives are at stake.”
bdalton@lsjournal.com
The District Claims That The State Recognized Them
Ms. Tucker,
Attached to this message you will find a copy of the Special Education Determination letter for Lee’s Summit school district.
Below is the state-wide breakdown for Special Education Determination letters:
518 school districts/responsible public agencies received “Meets Requirements”
6 received “Needs Assistance”
3 received “Needs Assistance” for 2 consecutive years
None received “Needs Intervention”
None received “Needs Substantial Intervention”
Sincerely,
Dana Desmond
Data Specialist III
Missouri Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Education
Special Education Compliance
Phone: 573-751-0186 / Fax: 573-526-5946
http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/Compliance/
Dr. David McGehee
Superintendent
Lee's Summit R-VII
301 N.E. Tudor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64086-5702
Re: “Determination Category” for your school district/responsible public agency
Dear Dr. McGehee:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your public agency’s determination
category is Meets Requirements in Implementing the Requirements and Purposes of
the IDEA, and to provide a brief summary of the regulatory requirements related to these
determinations as well as information about the data that was used to make this
determination. The determination category is based on an evaluation of your progress on
some of the State Performance Plan (SPP) indicators and targets.
The categories states must use for annual determinations of local agencies are established
by the U.S Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and
are the same four categories OSEP used in identifying each State Educational Agency’s
determination category:
• Meets the requirements and purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
• Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
• Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
• Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
Missouri was recently notified that it was placed in the category “Meets Requirements of
the IDEA,” and more information is available regarding Missouri’s determination in the
SELS messages dated June 10 and July 15, 2008.
This year when making local determinations, states are required to review local
performance in these areas:
• Compliance under SPP Indicator 12 (Part C to Part B Transition Timelines)
• Compliance under SPP indicator 15 (Correction Of Non-Compliance)
• Compliance under SPP indicator 13 (Secondary Transition Planning)
• Compliance under SPP indicator 11 (Initial Evaluation Timelines)
• Compliance under SPP indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionality)
• Timely/Accurate Data
• Special Education Audit Findings
When making determinations about local education agencies, states have been given the
discretion to consider data related to additional SPP performance (results) indicators; to
be consistent with our focus on the areas of transition and elementary achievement, we
felt it was important to include a review of performance indicators on graduation rate,
dropout rate, and MAP assessment in elementary communication arts.
Attached you will find a description of the criteria DESE used in making the
determinations for districts this year. In addition, the chart shown below provides
information about your district’s scores in each area reviewed as well as the overall
determination score.
DETERMINATION AREA DISTRICT SCORE
Special Education Audit Findings 4
Timely/Accurate Data 4
Graduation Rate 4
Dropout Rate 4
Assessment Participation 4
Assessment Performance 4
Disproportionality 4
Initial Evaluation Timelines 4
Part C to Part B Transition Timelines 4
Secondary Transition Planning 4
Correction of Noncompliance 4
Determination Score 4
It is important to keep in mind that in some cases these determinations are based on a
different set of data and criteria than the data and criteria used in making compliance
decisions or Improvement Plan recommendations during the cyclical monitoring process.
It is our hope that this process, along with the other processes Missouri DESE uses to
meet its responsibilities for general supervision and monitoring will not only lead to
increased compliance with the requirements of IDEA, but ultimately, and most
importantly, will help improve outcomes for students with disabilities throughout our
state.
If you have any questions, please contact the Division of Special Education, Compliance
Section 573-751-0699.
Sincerely,
Heidi Atkins Lieberman, Assistant
Commissioner
Division of Special Education
dd
Enclosure
cc: D. Kent King, Commissioner of Education
Bert Schulte, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Tony Stansberry, DESE Area Supervisor
Jerry Keimig, District Special Education Contact
Kathy Whited, Kansas City RPDC
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Division’s services are primarily supported by federal funds appropriated in accordance
with provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
webreplyspeco@dese.mo.gov
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Criteria for Local Determinations
2008
The criteria used for issuing determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) for each responsible public agency in Missouri are described in Table A. The determinations are based on
2006-2007 data except for the areas of Initial Evaluation Timelines, Part C to Part B Transition Timelines,
Secondary Transition Planning, Disproportionality and Correction of Noncompliance. For these areas, districts
reviewed in 2005-2006 received a score ranging from 4 to 1, depending on their review findings and correction of
noncompliance. All other districts received a score of 4 unless they had continuing longstanding noncompliance, in
which case they received a score of 1.
The district’s determination was based upon the average of its scores in the eleven categories listed in Table A in
accordance with the ranges shown in Table B.
Table A: Criteria Used to Make Determinations
Audit Findings
• 4 - No Findings
• 3 - Findings – reconciled timely (6months)
• 2 - Findings – reconciled untimely (+ 6
months)
• 1 – Findings – not reconciled
Graduation Rate (SPP Indicator 1)
• 4 – Within 5% of State Target
• 3 – Within 15% of State Target
• 2 – Within 25% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 25% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Timely and Accurate Data
• 4 – 3 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
• 3 – 2 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
• 2 - 1 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
• 1 – 0 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
Dropout Rate (SPP Indicator 2)
• 4 – Within 1% of State Target
• 3 – Within 2% of State Target
• 2 – Within 4% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 4% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Disproportionality (SPP Indicators 9 & 10)
Initial Evaluation Timelines (SPP Indicator 11)
Part C to B Transition Timelines (SPP Indicator 12)
Secondary Transition Planning (SPP Indicator 13)
Correction of Noncompliance (SPP Indicator 15)
• 4 – In compliance or timely correction of non
compliance (within 12 months)
• 3 – Untimely correction of non-compliance
(greater than 12 months and less than 18
months)
• 2 – Untimely correction of non-compliance
(greater than 18 months)
• 1– Longstanding uncorrected non-compliance
Assessment Participation (SPP Indicator 3b)
• 4 – Within 5% of State Target
• 3 – Within 10% of State Target
• 2 – Within 15% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 15% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Assessment Performance (SPP Indicator 3c)
• 4 – Within 10% of State Target
• 3 – Greater than 15% of State Target
• 2 – Greater than 25% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 25% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Table B: Range of Scores Used to Make Determinations
Needs Substantial Intervention 1-1.999
Needs Intervention 2-2.749
Needs Assistance 2.75-3.329
Meets Requirements 3.33-4
From The District's Website and Newsletter
R-7 RECOGNIZED BY STATE FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS IN IMPLEMENTING INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
The Lee's Summit R-7 School District recently received the top designation for its successful implementation of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district was notified by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that Lee's Summit R-7 had met the requirements for implementation and the purpose of this federal law.
The categories that states must use for annual determination of local agencies are established through the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The R-7 School District earned the highest determination category offered in this evaluation process. In all 11 categories related to the determination category, Lee's Summit R-7 scored a "4," the highest ranking available. Categories evaluated include special-education audit findings, timely/accurate data, graduation and drop-out rates, assessment participation and performance and transition planning.
Attached to this message you will find a copy of the Special Education Determination letter for Lee’s Summit school district.
Below is the state-wide breakdown for Special Education Determination letters:
518 school districts/responsible public agencies received “Meets Requirements”
6 received “Needs Assistance”
3 received “Needs Assistance” for 2 consecutive years
None received “Needs Intervention”
None received “Needs Substantial Intervention”
Sincerely,
Dana Desmond
Data Specialist III
Missouri Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Education
Special Education Compliance
Phone: 573-751-0186 / Fax: 573-526-5946
http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/Compliance/
Dr. David McGehee
Superintendent
Lee's Summit R-VII
301 N.E. Tudor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64086-5702
Re: “Determination Category” for your school district/responsible public agency
Dear Dr. McGehee:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your public agency’s determination
category is Meets Requirements in Implementing the Requirements and Purposes of
the IDEA, and to provide a brief summary of the regulatory requirements related to these
determinations as well as information about the data that was used to make this
determination. The determination category is based on an evaluation of your progress on
some of the State Performance Plan (SPP) indicators and targets.
The categories states must use for annual determinations of local agencies are established
by the U.S Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and
are the same four categories OSEP used in identifying each State Educational Agency’s
determination category:
• Meets the requirements and purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
• Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
• Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
• Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
Missouri was recently notified that it was placed in the category “Meets Requirements of
the IDEA,” and more information is available regarding Missouri’s determination in the
SELS messages dated June 10 and July 15, 2008.
This year when making local determinations, states are required to review local
performance in these areas:
• Compliance under SPP Indicator 12 (Part C to Part B Transition Timelines)
• Compliance under SPP indicator 15 (Correction Of Non-Compliance)
• Compliance under SPP indicator 13 (Secondary Transition Planning)
• Compliance under SPP indicator 11 (Initial Evaluation Timelines)
• Compliance under SPP indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionality)
• Timely/Accurate Data
• Special Education Audit Findings
When making determinations about local education agencies, states have been given the
discretion to consider data related to additional SPP performance (results) indicators; to
be consistent with our focus on the areas of transition and elementary achievement, we
felt it was important to include a review of performance indicators on graduation rate,
dropout rate, and MAP assessment in elementary communication arts.
Attached you will find a description of the criteria DESE used in making the
determinations for districts this year. In addition, the chart shown below provides
information about your district’s scores in each area reviewed as well as the overall
determination score.
DETERMINATION AREA DISTRICT SCORE
Special Education Audit Findings 4
Timely/Accurate Data 4
Graduation Rate 4
Dropout Rate 4
Assessment Participation 4
Assessment Performance 4
Disproportionality 4
Initial Evaluation Timelines 4
Part C to Part B Transition Timelines 4
Secondary Transition Planning 4
Correction of Noncompliance 4
Determination Score 4
It is important to keep in mind that in some cases these determinations are based on a
different set of data and criteria than the data and criteria used in making compliance
decisions or Improvement Plan recommendations during the cyclical monitoring process.
It is our hope that this process, along with the other processes Missouri DESE uses to
meet its responsibilities for general supervision and monitoring will not only lead to
increased compliance with the requirements of IDEA, but ultimately, and most
importantly, will help improve outcomes for students with disabilities throughout our
state.
If you have any questions, please contact the Division of Special Education, Compliance
Section 573-751-0699.
Sincerely,
Heidi Atkins Lieberman, Assistant
Commissioner
Division of Special Education
dd
Enclosure
cc: D. Kent King, Commissioner of Education
Bert Schulte, Deputy Commissioner of Education
Tony Stansberry, DESE Area Supervisor
Jerry Keimig, District Special Education Contact
Kathy Whited, Kansas City RPDC
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Division’s services are primarily supported by federal funds appropriated in accordance
with provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
webreplyspeco@dese.mo.gov
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Criteria for Local Determinations
2008
The criteria used for issuing determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) for each responsible public agency in Missouri are described in Table A. The determinations are based on
2006-2007 data except for the areas of Initial Evaluation Timelines, Part C to Part B Transition Timelines,
Secondary Transition Planning, Disproportionality and Correction of Noncompliance. For these areas, districts
reviewed in 2005-2006 received a score ranging from 4 to 1, depending on their review findings and correction of
noncompliance. All other districts received a score of 4 unless they had continuing longstanding noncompliance, in
which case they received a score of 1.
The district’s determination was based upon the average of its scores in the eleven categories listed in Table A in
accordance with the ranges shown in Table B.
Table A: Criteria Used to Make Determinations
Audit Findings
• 4 - No Findings
• 3 - Findings – reconciled timely (6months)
• 2 - Findings – reconciled untimely (+ 6
months)
• 1 – Findings – not reconciled
Graduation Rate (SPP Indicator 1)
• 4 – Within 5% of State Target
• 3 – Within 15% of State Target
• 2 – Within 25% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 25% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Timely and Accurate Data
• 4 – 3 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
• 3 – 2 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
• 2 - 1 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
• 1 – 0 out of 3 data submission points, data was
submitted timely and accurately
Dropout Rate (SPP Indicator 2)
• 4 – Within 1% of State Target
• 3 – Within 2% of State Target
• 2 – Within 4% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 4% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Disproportionality (SPP Indicators 9 & 10)
Initial Evaluation Timelines (SPP Indicator 11)
Part C to B Transition Timelines (SPP Indicator 12)
Secondary Transition Planning (SPP Indicator 13)
Correction of Noncompliance (SPP Indicator 15)
• 4 – In compliance or timely correction of non
compliance (within 12 months)
• 3 – Untimely correction of non-compliance
(greater than 12 months and less than 18
months)
• 2 – Untimely correction of non-compliance
(greater than 18 months)
• 1– Longstanding uncorrected non-compliance
Assessment Participation (SPP Indicator 3b)
• 4 – Within 5% of State Target
• 3 – Within 10% of State Target
• 2 – Within 15% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 15% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Assessment Performance (SPP Indicator 3c)
• 4 – Within 10% of State Target
• 3 – Greater than 15% of State Target
• 2 – Greater than 25% of State Target
• 1 – Greater than 25% from State Target
• NA – n less than or equal to 10
Table B: Range of Scores Used to Make Determinations
Needs Substantial Intervention 1-1.999
Needs Intervention 2-2.749
Needs Assistance 2.75-3.329
Meets Requirements 3.33-4
From The District's Website and Newsletter
R-7 RECOGNIZED BY STATE FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS IN IMPLEMENTING INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
The Lee's Summit R-7 School District recently received the top designation for its successful implementation of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district was notified by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that Lee's Summit R-7 had met the requirements for implementation and the purpose of this federal law.
The categories that states must use for annual determination of local agencies are established through the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The R-7 School District earned the highest determination category offered in this evaluation process. In all 11 categories related to the determination category, Lee's Summit R-7 scored a "4," the highest ranking available. Categories evaluated include special-education audit findings, timely/accurate data, graduation and drop-out rates, assessment participation and performance and transition planning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)