Special Education Today

6 March 2010

Connecticut’s Burden of Proof, Redux

Here we go again.

Last Spring, I wrote about how parents of children with special education needs in Connecticut, as well as their advocates and attorneys, organized to successfully oppose efforts by school districts to switch the Burden of Proof in Special Education Due Process Hearings from the school district, who has the burden now, to the party who initiates the hearing…which is, in almost all cases, the Parents.  That post ended with the following comment:

“Luckily, this latest effort by school districts to alter the Burden of Proof was unsuccessful, but those of us who care about the opportunity for parents to access their rights will likely need to remain vigilant on this issue, as I doubt it’s going anywhere for long.”

Well, it didn’t even take a full year.

This Monday, March 8, 2010, many of us will be back in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, once again, for a Public Hearing on this same issue.  If the school districts are successful in changing the Burden of Proof in this legislation, they will be be making a process that is already so very difficult for parents that much harder, and upending a State practice that has been in effect for over a decade.

istock_000010663577xsmall

Taking on a school district in a special education Due Process Hearing is an incredibly difficult task, even when parents are represented by experienced counsel, and have the means to hire experts to testify on their behalf!  The parents who fall into that category, however, are by far the minority.

Most parents can’t afford lawyers or experts.

Such parents are already facing an uphill battle, as their school district has special education teachers, school psychologists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, physical therapists, social workers, regular education teachers, and administrators, all on their payroll, all of whom can testify on the school district’s behalf.  And remember, all of the education records and most of the evidence is within the possession and control of the school district.  Doesn’t it make sense that the Burden of Proof would fall properly on the school district, whose obligation it is to offer a Free and Appropriate Public Education?

The information as to how you can voice your opinion on H.B. 5425 follows, including how to write your legislators if you can’t be present.  The portion of the bill which affects the Burden of Proof in Due Process Hearings is found in section 3.  

The Education Committee will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 8, 2010 at 3: 30 P. M. in Room 1E of the LOB. Please email a PDF copy of your written testimony to chris.calabrese@cga.ct.gov by 10: 00 A. M. on the date of the hearing and include the word “TESTIMONY” in the subject line. Written testimony will be accepted in Room 3100 of the LOB until 12: 00 P. M. on the date of the hearing. Please submit 50 copies. Written testimony submitted after 12: 00 P. M. will not be distributed in hard copy form. Sign-up for the hearing will begin at 12: 00 P. M. in the First Floor Atrium of the LOB, will be conducted by lottery, and will conclude at 1: 00 P. M. The first hour of the hearing is reserved for Elected Officials. Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes of testimony. Unofficial sign-up sheets have no standing with the Committee. All testimony will be available at http://www.cga.ct.gov/ed/.

If you care about the rights of children with disabilities, it would be best if you could be there Monday afternoon to express yourself and let your voice be heard, and join me in opposing Section 3 of H.B. 5425!

Fifteen states, D.C. are Race to the Top finalists

Filed under: DC Public Schools, WTU — Maria Angala @ 12:40 pm
It was announced this week that fifteen states and Washington, D.C., have been selected by the Department of Education as finalists from a pool of 41 applicants in the federal Race to the Top grant competition. They are now closer to obtaining a piece of $4.35 billion for education. Other finalists are Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee. Officials expect to announce no more than six winners next month. A second round of competition will take place this year. (also check out The Wall Street Journal)

As soon as my RSS feeds received the news, I immediately checked the Race to the Top application of our district. I found that it is "bold and brave" and it states many of the necessary ingredients for 21st century education that if implemented effectively and collaboratively has the potential to transform the school district's culture of teaching and learning. Who wouldn't want quality and job embedded professional development for teachers, innovative classroom resources, and world class instruction taught by effective educators in every school in DC? We all want to see this happen!

But what is wrong in the picture? The application ties up 50% of the student test scores to teacher evaluations.

Part of the application states: "DCPS worked with the Washington Teachers Union (WTU) to obtain its support for the Race to the Top application, but the WTU opted not to sign on. The application - including its initiatives and goals - is bold, aggressive, and uncompromising, and while the union opted not to support the proposal, the Distict strongly believes that a broad base of reform-oriented teachers and leaders support the DC RTTT plan".

I commend our WTU President George Parker for not giving his support to something that is going to hurt our teachers and students in the long run. Our educators do not deserve all the blame for low school performance because there are other factors that contribute to a school's failure that even the highly qualified and the most effective teachers cannot overcome. Teachers should not be held solely accountable for poor student test scores. I wish we have the right evaluations that measure what our diverse learners and exceptional needs students know and are able to do. I feel that we are also setting up our students to fail when we don't have the right evaluations that measure what they are learning while considering their strengths, weaknesses and special needs.

I believe that the goals as stated in the application are great but overall is based on false assumptions, and having them implemented effectively is another story. I wish our policy makers had deeply involved the educators and sincerely listened to us (and to those who represent us) when making decisions on what is best for our students that we, teachers, truly understand.

Powered by WordPress

Bad Behavior has blocked 314 access attempts in the last 7 days.