Thursday, July 25, 2013

Inclusive Information Right for Some

Inclusive Education: Right For Some

by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.

Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.

Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.

If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and over inclusion.

If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.

Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.

Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.

In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.

Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.

 

I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.

If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.

I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.

Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:

"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?

"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.

"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.

"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.

"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.

"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion.

"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.

"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.

"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.

Inclusive Education: Right For Some

Inclusive Education: Right For Some

by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.

Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.

Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.

If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and over inclusion.

If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.

Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.

Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.

In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.

Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.

 

I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.

If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.

I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.

Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:

"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?

"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.

"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.

"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.

"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.

"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion.

"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.

"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.

"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Information That The President Might Like To Know

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Information That The President Might Like To Know

The Lee's Summit School District has been investigated by the OCR for civil rights violations.  They were forced to enter into a resolution agreement.  Not too many of their residents are aware of the issues that this district is really facing.  Stay tuned for more.

Jeff Grisamore Not: Please Help Me Stop the Bullying of Children

Jeff Grisamore Not: Please Help Me Stop the Bullying of Children


Hello!

I've started the petition “Create a law that protects children from bullying by teachers" and need your help to get it off the ground.

Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/create-a-law-that-protects-children-from-bullying-by-teachers

Here's why it's important:

It is essential that all children are safe from every kind of bullying and school remains a place to learn and not a place to fear.

Did you know that the Kansas now has an Anti-Bullying Law that not only protects students from bullying by students, but also by teachers and other school staff?

We need a similar law in Missouri.  The children of Missouri need the same protection as children in other states.  Children’s lives are being destroyed every day.  We cannot keep them safe without legislation.  That has proven to be the case over and over again.

Teacher bullying gets little attention, say Stuart Twemlow, MD, a psychiatrist who directs the Peaceful Schools and Communities Project at the Menninger Clinic in Houston. But his new study, published in The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, hints that the problem may be more common than people believe.

In his anonymous survey of 116 teachers at seven elementary schools, more than 70% said they believed that bullying was isolated. But 45% admitted to having bullied a student. "I was surprised at how many teachers were willing to be honest," Twemlow says.

He defines teacher bullying as "using power to punish, manipulate, or disparage a student beyond what would be a reasonable disciplinary procedure."

While it is well-known that bullying by peers is commonplace, bullying by teachers can be even more harmful to children and represents an abuse of power. Studies show that bullying perpetrated by an adult, such as a teacher, can be even more harmful than bullying by a peer, quadrupling the child’s odds of suicidal thinking.

The bullying by a teacher effectively produces a hostile climate for the student that is indefensible on academic grounds; undermining learning and the ability of a student to fulfill academic requirements. It shares at its core the same attributes of other abuses of power such as sexual harassment or hate crimes. A hate crime is simply bullying by target selection based on characteristics of race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1195574


You can sign my petition by clicking here.

Thanks!
Sherri Tucker


 

Lee’s Summit schools to be highlighted in Obama speech | fox4kc.com

Lee’s Summit schools to be highlighted in Obama speech | fox4kc.com

This is an outstanding program and Lee's Summit should be pleased with their success.  However, they only put this much effort into programs that make them look good.  I wish that they had put this much time, money, and effort into my son's education.  He might have been a high school graduate instead of a high school dropout.  Lee's Summit will never put money or effort into those that will not make them look good.  Sad, but true.

LEE’S SUMMIT, Mo. – President Barack Obama will speak at the University of Central Missouri Wednesday to talk about the economy.

As part of his remarks, the White House said Obama will talk about the Lee’s Summit’s School District’s accelerated engineering program.

The program accepts juniors and seniors from 19 Missouri high schools and allows them to earn a bachelor’s degree in just two years after they graduate from high school.

Seventeen-year-old Matt Orson says the program allows him to get hands on experience by working with partnering companies to hone his skills before he gets out in the real world.

“I’m super, super happy that something like this could happen to me, not many people get this opportunity to get their college paid for and to get hands on experience with a job,” said Orson.
Dr Don Andrews, Assistant Superintendent for the Lee’s Summit School District, says there is no other program like it in the country.

While the 32 students enrolled in the program are getting a once in a lifetime opportunity to earn and four-year degree for free, they’re in for a another awesome experience because they’ll meet President Barack Obama when he speaks at the University of Central Missouri Wednesday.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Autism Speaks - Dreamvillain

Autism Speaks - Dreamvillain

Recently there’s been a trend that includes rappers saying something
offensive, only to be attacked for it in the media and pressured to
apologize. I have to be completely honest and say there’s a part of me
that resents that. I view rap similar to how I view comedy. It’s going
to ruffle feathers at times. It’s going to go “too far”. I do not
believe that an apology is needed every time someone is offended,
especially when that apology is really only for the sake of saving an
endorsement or cleaning up bad press.
With that said, this is not the case today. This letter is sincere.
This apology IS necessary.
In a recent verse on the song “Jodeci Freestyle”, I said something
highly offensive to people with Autism. Last week, when I first saw a
comment from someone outraged about the lyric, I realized right away
that what I said was wrong. I was instantly embarrassed that I would
be ignorant enough say something so hurtful. What makes the crime
worse is that I should have known better.
To the entire Autism community who expressed outrage, I’m moved and
inspired by your passion, and I’m amazed at how strong you are as a
unit. I have now read stories online from parents about their
struggles and triumphs with raising an Autistic child and I admire how
incredibly strong you have to be to do so. It’s touching. It also
makes what I said even more embarrassing for me. I feel real shame.
You have every right to be angry.
To anyone suffering from Autism, either mildly or severely, I am
sorry. I’m bound to make mistakes in my life, but in my heart I just
want to spread Love.
I want to educate myself more on Autism, and I’ll gladly own my
mistake and serve as an example to today’s generation that there’s
nothing cool about mean-spirited comments about someone with Autism.
People with this disorder and their loved ones have to go through so
much already, the last thing they need is to hear something as
ignorant as what I said. I understand.
To the parents who are fighting through the frustrations that must
come with raising a child with severe autism, finding strength and
patience that they never knew they had; to the college student with
Asperger’s Syndrome; to all those overcoming Autism. You deserve
medals, not disrespect. I hope you accept my sincere apology.
Much Love
-Cole

New law aids parents of special needs children in dealing with school districts | Tampa Bay Times

New law aids parents of special needs children in dealing with school districts | Tampa Bay Times

TAMPA — For three hours Kate Grantham faced a panel of school officials to hash out a plan for her daughter's education.
About half that time, the two sides discussed how much physical therapy the school would give Sarah, who has a condition that resembles cerebral palsy.
"I tried to use all the sales words I've learned along the way," Grantham said. "Like, if this were your child, would you be satisfied with 30 minutes? I was getting very irritated."
It is a task parents of special needs children sometimes dread: the summit to discuss a student's "individual education plan."
Held annually, or sometimes more frequently, the meetings result in a legal document, called an IEP, that outlines a child's learning goals and what educators will do to help meet them.
They can be daunting, confrontational affairs, as educators and parents often disagree on a course that works best for both the district and the child.
A new Florida law aims to give parents a leg up by helping them better understand their rights and limiting what districts can mandate without their consent. It affects roughly 350,000 students statewide, including more than 50,000 in Tampa Bay.
The measure was introduced by Republican state Sens. Andy Gardiner of Orlando and John Thrasher of St. Augustine. Both have relatives with Down syndrome — Gardiner a son and Thrasher a grandson.
It requires signed documents attesting that no one discouraged a parent from bringing an advocate or other adult witness to an IEP meeting.
It mandates parents give their consent before the district can place a student on a special education diploma track — something that happens as early as elementary school — or moves a child from a typical school to a special center.
Districts must disclose how much state funding they are getting for a child's services. And there is a mandatory 10-day notice to schedule the meetings, addressing the complaint that parents sometimes are called in at the last minute.
In addition to IEPs, the law applies to documents such as the 504 plan, which provides accommodations under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Especially significant, said Tallahassee attorney and advocate Ann Siegel: "We finally have a definition for inclusion."
The new law defines inclusion as an education in a regular class "reflecting natural proportions and age-appropriate heterogeneous groups" in core academic classes and electives.
What's more, it says, "a student with a disability is a valued member of the classroom and school community," and teachers and administrators must be equipped to teach all children.
To some degree, advocates say, the new measure clarifies provisions that already exist under federal law, which entitles disabled children to a "free appropriate public education" in the "least restrictive environment."
In reality, however, parents often feel overmatched at IEP meetings, especially if the child's issues require a large number of therapists and administrators around the table.
When told that funding limits make it impossible to provide all kinds of services at a neighborhood school, some parents agree to send their kids to centers instead.
"They try to make you feel like, 'We're all in it for the best interest of the child,' but there's always that feeling that it's you against them," said Grantham, whose daughter, now 6, recently was placed in a special center.
Roberta Moore of Tampa told the Hillsborough County School Board she agreed to put her child on a special diploma track so his FCAT scores would not hurt the school grade.
"There's a complete intimidation factor," said Scott Tobia of Apollo Beach, whose daughter has medical needs and motor deficiencies stemming from a mitochondrial disorder that affects her metabolism.
Tobia has waged several battles with the Hillsborough district since Laura, now 7, entered kindergarten.
"You have 10 different people around the table," he said. "If you take an advocate, they bring an attorney."
Opinions differ as to whether the new law will create slightly more paperwork or truly change the tenor of meetings.
Hillsborough special education advocate Claudia Roberts said she is encouraged by a provision that requires districts to assess every three years how well they are practicing inclusion.
Those assessments will provide important data, Roberts said, and "data that is measured and reported can be a very valuable tool in making changes to the way students are being educated."
In Pasco County, ESE director Melissa Musselwhite said her district already collaborates with the Florida Inclusion Network. Pasco allows parents to bring advocates and observers to IEP meetings and make audio recordings. "A lot of this will require us to make adjustments, but a lot of it also is work we already do," she said.
The most dramatic change, she said, will come from the requirement that the district allow private therapists to work with children in the schools.
But she said that's mostly a logistical issue, as school officials will need to make sure there is not too great a disruption to instruction.
Also unclear is how the state will reconcile testing provisions in the law with a federal mandate that all children, regardless of disabilities, take standardized tests for purposes of school accountability.
Marlene Sokol can be reached at (813) 226-3356 or sokol@tampabay.com.

A furor over change to state anti-bullying rules

A furor over change to state anti-bullying rules

The wording is buried deep in the Christie administration's latest regulatory changes for public schools, a notation calling for removal of a single sentence from current regulations referring to certain required services and "corrective actions."
But the words in question have to do with anti-bullying measures and the responsibilities school districts have to address the problem. Needless to say, the change has touched off a bit of a tempest. Three of the main sponsors of the state's Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights (ABR) - two Democrats and a Republican - last week wrote to state Education Commissioner Chris Cerf objecting to the change, saying it would all but gut the spirit of the historic law. Enacted in 2011, the anti-bullying measure put in place strict procedures and requirements for schools to combat harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). "While we appreciate the department's effort to reduce 'red tape' and increase flexibility, removing a school district's minimum response from the administrative code would decrease protections currently afforded students," read the letter signed by Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D., Bergen) and Sens. Diane Allen (R., Burlington) and Barbara Buono (D., Middlesex), the gubernatorial candidate. "We sponsored the ABR to increase, not decrease, protections and assistance for all students affected by HIB," the letter to Cerf continued. "Implementing the proposed change would set New Jersey back in combating HIB, an effort for which you have shown great support." The sponsors also asked Cerf to postpone any other changes to code related to anti-bullying efforts until a state task force reviewing the law's implementation could make its own recommendations. The language proposed for deletion is included in an expansive proposal to ease requirements for schools in dealing with student support and other mostly noninstructional services. In the section about anti-bullying efforts, the current code speaks to the programs and services that districts must offer in response to bullying incidents, both to the individual victims and to address any larger "systemic problems." On Page 184 of the 208-page document, the language reads: "The response at a minimum shall include support for victims of harassment, intimidation or bullying, and corrective actions of documented systemic problems related to harassment, intimidation and bullying." In the department's written introduction to the code changes, submitted to the state Board of Education, it says that language was to be removed because the new law does not set such minimum requirements for "support of victims" or "corrective actions for systemic problems." On Thursday, Cerf downplayed any disagreement, saying he would meet with the legislators to hear their objections. "We take these concerns seriously," Cerf said. "Our only intention is to fully and faithfully implement the intent of the law." The legislators' letter called the department's written reasoning "grossly inconsistent with both the intent and the language of the law." They have found some vocal supporters, including Garden State Equality, the gay-rights organization that proved to be a powerful player in the final crafting and passage of the law. Shannon Cuttle, managing director of the organization's anti-bullying programs, said Thursday that the language at issue was critical in requiring districts to set up frameworks for dealing with bullying both individually and throughout a school. "Those frameworks can only be achieved if that language stays in place in requiring districts create an inclusive and safe school environment," Cuttle said. Luanne Peterpaul, a member of the organization's board of governors who worked on the bill, said she was curious about why that specific language would be singled out. "It underscores what is the whole spirit of the law, the climate and culture of the school," she said. The debate comes as the law moves into its third full school year, with schools beginning to settle in how to comply with its requirements. The first year was tumultuous, with a rapid rise in reported incidents - more than 35,000 statewide. Figures are not yet available for the past year, but school officials continued to cite worries and confusion over definitions in the law and their own capacity to respond to and investigate each reported incident. To help districts, the state Legislature this year added $1 million to the state budget for fiscal 2014, the first time a specific line item related to the anti-bullying law was included in the budget. An appropriation of $1 million was made last year, but it was separate from the budget and was made only in response to a ruling that the state needed to provide at least some funding for the new mandate. The use of the fiscal 2014 money has yet to be determined, but Cerf said it was likely it would be made available to districts in grants, like the original $1 million. Garden State Equality representatives testified before the Legislature asking for additional funding to school districts, and Cuttle said the $1 million was a start. "We'd like to see that increase, but we are very pleased that it now has a line item in the budget," Cuttle said.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20130722_A_furor_over_change_to_state_anti-bullying_rules.html#B21cp29hFXc1zYBe.99

Monday, July 22, 2013

Disabilty and Civil Rights: Choose to Stand On the Right Side of History

Disabilty and Civil Rights: Choose to Stand On the Right Side of History

Disabilty and Civil Rights: Standing On the Right Side of History
"If we were to go back to the 1960s and we were to talk to those leaders who were vehemently against desegregation, we would hear the conviction in their voices of them stating why they believe their decisions and what they were doing to those children were just. Just as I believe that some of you and some of the board members that have spoken believe that their decisions are just. But, I fear that the Hillsborough County School Board is standing on the wrong side of history."
I fear that Hillsborough County School Board is standing on the wrong side of history.
Good morning, my name is Tonya Whitlock. I have four children currently in the
Hillsborough County School District.
I am here because I am very, very concerned with the decisions that are being made for our students in the ESE population and and I feel it’s very important
that the parents who are actually within the system and have children who are dealing in the system speak out about the current things that are going on.
I’m going to kind of start with going over some laws that I’m very sure that most of you here know, but because of the recent changes to ESE and busing children from their neighborhood schools and the segregation children of in this school district I felt like it was pertinent to kind of give us all a refresher of some of these laws.

The first one I am going to start with is Brown versus the Board of Education,
again I’m sure that we’re all familiar with it.
The United States Supreme Court declared states laws establishing separate public schools for students based on race unconstitutional. The court’s unanimous decision stated that separate education facilities are inherently unequal.
Again, separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Section 504 extends civil rights to individuals with disabilities and allows accommodations so that they may fully participate in school, employment and other settings that receive federal funding. Section 504 guarantees all students the right to a free public education regardless of a disability. Schools must afford students with disabilities with equal opportunities to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, to reach the same level of achievement, as students without disabilities. I want to stop there for a second,
this is my son Tres and he’s going to be talking to you in a minute.
We’re not from here, we were blessed to be able to live in different states and
I’m so grateful that Tres’ was allowed inclusion in the states that he lived in
through his elementary years. I can’t imagine at five years old stifling him into a classroom and saying that I’m going to, that I don’t believe in your potential, that I don’t believe in your growth. And basically when your placing a child in an ESE placement that’s what you’re saying, because we all know that the standards are drastically different in an ESE setting than they are in a typical classroom setting .
Tres went through his elementary school through fifth-grade and he did amazing.
He was on the honor roll, he loved being be part of his community and the kids that were in his classes. But the amazing thing was it wasn’t about just Tres. His teachers every year would tell me, the students are amazing with Tres. He’s making an impact on them. He made an impact on them. He made an impact on them as much as they made an impact on Tres.
Tres grew up with wanting the same kind of goals. He wanted to be on the honor roll. He wanted to make As. He didn’t see himself as a child with a disability because we didn’t allow it to happen. If we would have placed him in an ESE classroom, that’s exactly what we’ve been doing, you have a disability, we’re going
to confine you and we’re not going to allow you to grow.
In 1975 Congress enacted the Education for all Handicapped Children Act,
later as we all know the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
IDEA. It states that children with disabilities must be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment, and I know that that phrase has become very subjective with many people, but if you go on to read it states that children with disabilities need to the maximum extent, ok , and to the maximum extent, be educated with children who are not disabled. This placement must be as close as possible to the child’s home and in the school that he or she would attend if non-disabled. I’d really likes to stop and ask the School Board, are you really actually telling us that you are trying to educate our children and follow these guidelines to the maximum extent possible?
I would have to question if it’s even being done at the minimum extent possible, because we’re transporting them away from their neighborhood schools .
We’re placing them in classrooms where their standard of education
is the same across the board.
Was that buzz to tell me I’m almost done?
30 seconds.
Okay.
So, quickly I just want to say if we were to go back to the 1960s and we were to talk to those leaders who were vehemently against desegregation, we would hear the conviction in their voices of them stating why they believe their decisions and what they were doing to those children were just. Just as I believe that some of you and some of the board members that have spoken believe that their decisions are just. But, I fear that the Hillsborough County School Board is standing on the wrong side of history.
Thank you.

People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults — SFARI.org - Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative

People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults — SFARI.org - Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative

People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults

Popularity tracker
Deborah Rudacille
8 September 2011

Blurred boundaries: Social skills have a greater impact on quality of life for people on the autism spectrum than do any specific diagnoses.
Contrary to popular assumption, people diagnosed with so-called mild forms of autism don’t fare any better in life than those with severe forms of the disorder. That’s the conclusion of a new study that suggests that even individuals with normal intelligence and language abilities struggle to fit into society because of their social and communication problems.
In fact, people diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) are no more likely to marry or have a job than those with more disabling forms of autism, according to a Norwegian study published online in June in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders1.
Early intervention has the potential to alter this trajectory, say experts. But until today’s children with autism reach maturity, it will be hard to say how much behavioral intervention at a young age can alter the course of their lives.
“The implication of our findings is that the consequences of having an autism spectrum disorder with profound difficulties in communication skills and social impairment can’t be compensated for by either high intellectual level or normal language function,” says lead investigator Anne Myhre, associate professor of mental health and addiction at the University of Oslo in Norway.
These findings provide support for the proposed merging of pervasive developmental disorder into the autism spectrum in the DSM-5, the edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) set to be published in 2013, the researchers say.
The new edition of the manual takes a spectrum approach, absorbing the separate categories of childhood disintegrative disorder, Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS into the broad category of autism spectrum disorder. The draft guidelines note that symptoms must appear in early childhood and affect everyday functioning.
“I’m glad that the authors see this as support for the DSM-5 proposed definitions,” says Sally Rogers, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis’ MIND Institute. Rogers is a member of the neurodevelopmental working group revising the diagnostic criteria for autism.

Single and disabled:

Myhre’s team investigated marital status, mortality and criminal records, and disability pension awards for 113 individuals who would meet contemporary criteria for autism. Of that number, 39 fall into the PDD-NOS category. More than half the participants — including 23 of the 39 with PDD-NOS — have an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or less.
All were treated in the children’s unit at the National Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Oslo, Norway, between 1968 and 1988. The researchers tracked these participants using government-issued identification numbers.
They found that by age 22, 96 percent of the group had been awarded a disability pension from the government. Nearly all were unmarried — 99 percent of those with autistic disorder, compared with 92 percent of those with PDD-NOS. The crime rate for the group as a whole was little more than half that of the general population, although more individuals with PDD-NOS than autism had been convicted of a crime.
The study’s comparatively bleak findings are a surprise, say experts.
“The PDD-NOS group is generally better functioning, at least in childhood, so we would expect them to do better as adults,” says Sigmund Eldevik, associate professor of behavioral science at the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, who was not involved with the study.
In July, Eldevik reported that young children with autism who receive behavioral interventions in preschool have higher IQs and adaptive behavior scores than those who do not receive the intervention2.
However, the individuals in Myhre’s study grew up during a time when autism was typically diagnosed later in childhood, and there were few early intervention programs.
For example, autism was not classified as separate from schizophrenia until the release of the third edition of the DSM in 1980. And Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS were not included until the DSM-IV’s release in 1994.
To address the diagnostic changes, the researchers used detailed descriptions of symptoms, psychological test results, school performance and other records to retroactively diagnose autism or PDD-NOS in the study participants according to DSM-IV criteria.
Eldevik says the changes in DSM subcategories would probably not affect the study’s findings, however, as clinicians in Norway generally use the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
“The PDD-NOS diagnosis from DSM-IV is very similar to the ‘Atypical Autism’ diagnosis from ICD-10, which we are using in Norway,” he says.
What’s more, other studies of individuals with PDD-NOS have turned up similar results. A 2009 European study reported that few individuals with PDD-NOS, autism or Asperger syndrome live independently3. That study found that antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse are more common in the PDD-NOS group, together with the mood and anxiety disorders shared by all the subgroups. Although all 122 people in the study have normal IQs, only 40 percent were employed at the time of the study, and 84 percent had never been in a long-term relationship.

Limited opportunities:

Relatively few long-term studies report on individuals with PDD-NOS but, in general, research on social and employment prospects for people on the autism spectrum are not encouraging.
For example, a study published earlier this year found that in the U.S., young adults on the spectrum who do not have an intellectual disability are in some ways worse off than those who do, as there are fewer programs to support their needs. They are at least three times more likely to have no structured daytime activities, for example4. Another study by some of the same researchers showed that 70 adults with Down syndrome enjoy higher levels of independence, more social opportunities and receive more services compared with 70 adults who have autism5.
This picture of limited opportunity for social engagement and growing isolation in adulthood for those on the spectrum is replicated by a study in April, which showed that more than half of young adults with autism had not gotten together with friends in the previous year6. Another study in February found that close to 40 percent of young adults with autism in the U.S. receive no services whatsoever after high school graduation.
In Norway, people on the spectrum are eligible for a government disability pension at age 18. Although only 5 percent of the Norwegian population as a whole receives this pension, 89 percent of individuals with autism in the new study receive it, as do 72 percent of the PDD-NOS group.
The higher level of intellectual disability in the autism group may explain the lower levels of disability awards in the PDD-NOS group, says Rogers. “This suggests that interventions that increase intellectual abilities will lead to better outcomes,” she says. Although most studies suggest that those with higher IQs don’t necessarily fare better in life, those individuals did not benefit from the kind of targeted early interventions now available, which address both intellectual and social functioning, she says.
High-quality early intervention is the only treatment that has shown improvement in intellectual functioning in people with the disorder, Rogers says. As more individuals with the disorder are diagnosed and receive treatment early on, future generations may face better outcomes.
Early intervention is already leading to markedly better intellectual functioning in children with autism, says Amy Wetherby, professor of communication science and disorders at Florida State University.
“The whole landscape of autism is changing because we are better at identifying the cognitively higher-functioning individuals,” she says. “With good early intervention, most end up within normal limits [on intelligence tests].”