Dr. Tiegerman Speaks

There is very little that is complimentary about special education and/or nonpublic schools in the media. The complaints state “there are too many children in special education.”  As if to say that these children do not belong in special education and their parents placed them because they want additional services. Or, “there are too many children in nonpublic schools.” Meaning that there are public school options but parents effectively get more than what they are entitled to from the system.  The public is presented with a very negative representation of special education schools and parents of children with disabilities. If the very agency monitoring these programs is complaining, it must be true….a bloated system with manipulative parents. Where does the public see how NYS students are provided with extraordinary services by committed professionals in special education schools – public and nonpublic schools?  The special education system in New York now serves about 450,000 children with disabilities. It is one of the largest and most diverse systems in the country. Why then is there such a disconnect between the two parallel systems – public vs. nonpublic and general vs. special education?  The answer is money. Special education represents almost 20% of the states entire education budget. It becomes difficult to continue raising taxes to fund educational programs. This is clearly not a popular approach. It becomes much easier to go after the few and cast aspersions to develop a negative image creating a common enemy that everyone can blame for the failures in public schools.  This also creates a diversion to shift the focus from the real problem which is public school failures with nondisabled children.  Over time, there has been an ongoing campaign against special education. Not that there are not problems in special education. But the public school graduation rate of 68% in New York for the 2004-2005 school year is neither the fault of special education schools nor students with disabilities.  A study published in Education Week lists New York as number thirty-five in the nation, seven points ahead of Mississippi and Alabama.  How many times have I heard, “nonpublic schools are too expensive, they cost as much as a college education?” Maybe children need these therapeutic services? Perhaps you think that school districts and parents want to classify students as disabled?  The real tendency is for parents to fight and struggle against the disability label sometimes to the detriment of the child. So where are we? The field consists of the good programs and the bad programs. One picture portrays the public schools with nondisabled students and their parents. The other picture presented shows that the bad programs are the private schools with the disabled students and their parents. There is a two-tier system in New York State. Parents, students and teachers are treated very differently depending on which system they live in. It is not fair and it is cruel to make special education the demon and continue to blame parents, students and teachers who struggle every day to deal with the harsh realities of children with developmental disabilities.

Many public school officials have a tendency to blame problems within the present public school system on special education.  Special education costs too much is the first complaint.  There are too many children in the special education system is the second complaint.  Parents in the special education system manipulate the legal system to access private schools is the third complaint.  Are they right?  What are the real facts?

Firstly, we need to agree on the number and/or percentage of children in the special education system.  Let’s agree that approximately 10% of the public school population is classified to receive special education services.  Where are these students?  The overwhelming majority of students (98%) are receiving services within local public schools.  Only 2% of the special education population is attending nonpublic schools.  How convenient to blame the 2% for the failure of the public school system for educating about 98% of the total student population.

Secondly, students attending nonpublic schools are recommended out of the public school system because local schools admit that they cannot appropriately educate them.  Would you want public schools to keep students when they knowingly cannot educate them?  How would that benefit the 98% attending the same classes?  The system has been set up to protect and support the needs of students with disabilities who require a range of services and placements.  The child with a disability who requires a small highly structured therapeutic learning environment is not going to benefit from a general education classroom with 25 typical peers and a regular education teacher.  Look at the situation from the perspective of the students in the general education classroom.  The child with special needs may be disruptive, require the teacher’s constant attention and/or change the instructional pace for the typical children in the room.  Some students need separate and more intensive services.

Thirdly, what do you know about these nonpublic schools?  Well, they are chartered by the Board of Regents and public funding only goes to those schools that are approved by the State Education Department.  Who created these nonpublic schools?  They developed as voluntary agencies and charitable institutions because the public schools could not appropriately educate all of its students.  Are these schools regulated and monitored by state and local administrative agencies?  Yes, every year their tuition rates are audited.  If the State Education Department decides that it will not reimburse a school for a physician on staff then the school bears the expense.  Are they more expensive than the public schools?  If you compare teachers’ salaries, absolutely not.  The nonpublic schools are much more cost effective since they are not unionized.  These teachers are not part of the state pension system and they do not receive any of the benefits that public school teachers receive. Nonpublic school teachers unlike their public school colleagues are not treated comparably nor are they appreciated for their educational commitment to students with disabilities.

Let’s end this discussion by comparing graduation rates.  One would assume that since the public schools educate “normal” or typical students, the graduation rates in public schools would be higher.  But are they?  Typical students have a dropout rate of almost 40% in some schools.  The number of low performing schools has been increasing.  If public schools cannot effectively educate typical students, would you like to venture a guess on how disabled children are doing?  Actually, students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools who are more severely impaired than those attending public schools have a higher graduation rate.  We come back to the fundamental question what would you do as the parent of a child with a disability?

One of my favorite childhood stories is “Horton Hatches the Egg” by Dr. Seuss.  Horton the elephant sits on Mayzie bird’s egg with a dedication that is captured by the lines: “I meant what I said, and I said what I meant, an elephant’s faithful, one hundred percent.”  These schools make a significant contribution to the special education system and to students with disabilities.  As a final thought, consider whether typical students would be better served in the nonpublic schools as well.

 Ellenmorris Tiegerman, Ph.D.

Founder and Executive Director

School for Language and Communication Development

“Parents Trust Me, I’m From The Government And I’m Here To Help You” 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has a long history that provides an educational safety net designed to protect the rights of parents and their children with disabilities.  Procedural safeguards are intended to ensure that parents are involved with every aspect of the educational process concerning their children.  In the past 30 years, there have been hundreds of legal cases litigating issues related to special education placements, programs and services that are supposed to be provided to children with disabilities.  IDEA describes procedures that must be followed even when there is a disagreement between school districts and parents. 

One important issue within IDEA that has reached the courts is the role of parents of children with disabilities during the decision-making process.  Within IDEA, the importance of parent involvement is clearly stated.  But what does the term actually mean when parents attempt to participate in the assessment and placement process of their children?  Specifically, how and when should parents be informed?  Since the school district’s committee consists of many professionals and the parent, what happens when they do not agree?  Does the parent’s opinion carry more weight than the committee’s opinion? 

It is obvious that children with disabilities cannot advocate for themselves.  So parents play a critical role in ensuring that school districts provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).  But what if parents cannot advocate effectively because they do not speak English or they do not have access to information or they are not appropriately informed?  The importance of information to parents cannot be overstated.  In order for parents to function effectively as advocates, they must be formally trained to function in this critical role.  Parents need to know and understand the law, the educational procedures as well as their rights.  But who teaches them?  Unfortunately, school districts are only required to provide parents with a manual that has been written by the State Education Department.  Formalized training programs rarely exist in either public or nonpublic schools so parents are usually left to their own devices to access information either from other parents, the Internet or from parent advocacy groups. 

Another important issue is the need for transparency when changes are made to the special education system.  State departments of education are required under Federal law to hold public hearings prior to changing special education policies.  It is obvious why this is an important issue for children with disabilities.  If advocates for children do not have an opportunity to express their concerns and opinions about changes in educational policy, then those very changes pose a threat to the fundamental rights of both parents and children with disabilities.  The administrative agency has an inherent imperative to uphold the requirements of any Federal law established to protect the rights of the individuals it is mandated to serve.  Within the purview of any administrative governmental agency is the guarantee that the public trust, which it is duty-bound to uphold, will be respected.  What should happen then when the public trust is violated? 

In 1995, the public trust was violated when the New York State Education Department decided to change the special education system without holding the required public hearings.  The Department utilized, what is referred to as a Rule Making Procedure which did not require public hearings.  So, without public hearings and by means of a Rule Making Procedure, the entire special education system was changed without the knowledge of many parents and educators throughout the state.  The Rule Making Procedure allowed the State Education Department to introduce program CAPs limiting services to children with disabilities. Whereas in the past services were provided based on the individual needs of students, the program CAPs now require that placement considerations be made based on regional needs and not solely on student needs.  A great deal of time has passed and a question arises.  Is there a moral and/or ethical imperative to demand a review of the state’s actions?  What do we do about this system?  Do we dismantle it and possibly disrupt children, services and schools?  What is the appropriate remedy?  Do we hold public hearings now after that system has been in place for 13 years?  If we leave the system without redressing the legal violation, then we have legitimized it by longevity.

Consider the history of racial laws that were in place for many years.  Should the fact that they were in place serve to legitimize what they really were – discriminatory?  If we argue by analogy, we are left with powerful arguments that persuasively require some kind of challenge and action to the present system which was illegally manufactured.  As the parent of a child with a disability, what would you do?

                                                Ellenmorris Tiegerman, Ph.D.

                                                Founder and Executive Director

                                                School for Language and Communication Development

                                                100 Glen Cove Avenue

                                                Glen Cove, NY 11542

                                                drt@slcd.org

Too Many Children in Special Education  

            The New York State Education Department has been reporting for years that there are too many children in the special education system because the percentage in New York is higher than the national average.  Why hasn’t anyone challenged that statement? Aren’t people paying attention? Here are some important facts to consider before the State Education Department starts to decrease the number of children receiving services.

            New York State is probably the most diverse state in the nation.  There are more minority groups and languages spoken in New York than anywhere else in the United States.  How could anyone possibly compare New York to Missouri or Virginia or Oregon?  If decisions are being made about children based on similarities between states, then New York is in a class by itself.  Decisions concerning the placement of children in special education should be based solely on the unique issues and problems faced by culturally diverse families living in New York, which brings me to the next point.

            New York is at a serious disadvantage in this mathematical comparison because averages are notoriously inaccurate. As an example, take ten men, nine who are each earning one thousands dollars and one who is earning one million dollars.  If you average their salaries it appears that nine men are earning significantly higher salaries.  That’s what is happening with the national average for special education, it is deceiving.  It inaccurately makes New York’s percentage of children appear to be higher than “it should be.”  Here’s something for all of you to think about, maybe the percentage should be higher because there is a real need in New York.

            What does the percentage mean for children who needed these services?  Why haven’t all of these factors been discussed in the press and discussed on the news?  Is it because no one cares or is it because no one knows? I think that very few people really know what’s going on in special education.  I think that the stories appearing in the press are critical of special education programs because the State Education Department is critical.

            Special Education has three separate systems with different rules, regulations and procedures that require parents to negotiate their way through complex meetings, evaluations and technical terms.  It is to say the least, stressful for parents, particularly for linguistically and culturally diverse parents.  Interestingly enough, these are the very families that access the system late, sometimes very late.  One significant criticism of the early intervention and preschool systems has been that outreach programs do not identify enough diverse families.  Putting notices in public libraries presents a significant barrier for parents who do not go to public libraries because no one speaks their language.   Many of these families do not have computers so they are going to miss the governmental websites that describe the programs and services that are offered. Many of these families do not even have primary health care providers.  It should not be surprising therefore that minorities are not “getting the message,” and as a result these children show up in larger numbers later on in elementary school. What does it mean? It means that there is a reasonable explanation why New York has a higher percentage of children in special education in elementary school-because they are not being reached soon enough in the early intervention system.

            Finally, all of the clinical research emphasizes the link between poverty and disability rates.  Did you know that New York State has one of the highest poverty and disability rates in the nation?  Since the poverty rate is so much higher, why hasn’t anyone take this factor into consideration? There has been an ongoing effort to reduce the percentage and number of children in special education. The justification has been that New York is above the national average.  The story that is not being told is about money.  Special education is not the problem. Children are not the problem.  We need investigative reporters who can tell the real story.

A CAP Is Not A Hat. 

The recent proposal of a 4% CAP to early intervention services relates to a legal case which has been going on in the Federal courts for the past several years.  What is a CAP?  It is a quota.  And what do quotas mean for children with disabilities?  We believe that any CAP or quota to special education children and services undermines both the intent and the specific language within IDEA.  As a result, this article should serve to warn parents of children with disabilities that if the CAP on early intervention services is not challenged, other CAPs on services and programs will follow shortly.

Assemblyman Weisenberg during a recent television conference with Evelyn Ain indicated that the 4% CAP to early intervention was generated by several County Executives and Department Bureaucrats.  The Assemblyman asked a very appropriate question.  “Were there any parents or educators present at this meeting?” And of course the answer was no.  But what is the background to New York State’s bold move to set a 4% CAP on early intervention services?  The answer to that question relates directly to the Federal court case which was initiated by the School for Language and Communication Development (SLCD) and 71 parents in 2000.  SLCD and the parents of special needs children (Plaintiffs) argue that the program CAPs which have been in place since 1997 on preschool and school age programs are illegal.  Consider the following issues:  Who sets the CAP?  Why is the CAP set?  And, what does the CAP mean for children with disabilities?

The CAP on preschool and school age programs was established by the New York State Education Department to reduce the number of children receiving services as well as the services being received.  So, despite the fact that a Committee on Special Education generates an IEP and determines that a particular program is appropriate, NYSED has the right to change a child’s placement, his IEP and his services.  This is simply accomplished by a regional associate contacting a Committee on Special Education and directing the school district to remove the child because the program has reached its CAP.  What does the IEP mean if it is no longer based on the individual needs of the child and the appropriate placement is not developed at an independent CSE meeting? 

When the State Education Department has the ability to establish CAPs which are not based on children’s needs but rather on an arbitrary number or percentage, IDEA no longer protects the rights of parents and children with disabilities.  A CAP is not a Hat.  And if any of you remember the children’s story “CAPs For Sale” by Esphyr Slobodkina, then you know that CAPs will proliferate.  IDEA means nothing without an independent CSE and an IEP that is based on your child’s needs.  The law means nothing if quotas proliferate from school age to preschool to early intervention services.  And of course, if successful, nothing will prevent CAPs and quotas from being used by other governmental agencies for social service and mental health programs.  Just remember the title of the children’s story. 

                                                                                    Ellenmorris Tiegerman, Ph.D.

                                                                                    Founder and Executive Director

                                                                                    School for Language and

                                                                                    Communication Development

            As the parent of a child with a disability, I have been faced with the dilemma of identifying medical and clinical experts to help my child and my family over the past two decades.  It is true that my son is an adult at this point but there is also a reality that his specialized needs have not changed just because he is older.  Families who are faced with either medical or clinical crises have long term needs that are presently not being met by insurance companies and the existing health care system.  This is not just a problem in the United States, it is a world wide issue for consumers searching for specialists and experts to meet their health care needs.  If you have medical insurance then you are provided with the standard health care directory which gives you name, address and telephone number.  If you have access to the internet and the time to do an online search you can certainly find more detailed information about clinical practitioners.  The problem that I see is that there needs to be a centralized data base of information which is much more comprehensive than the existing Blue Cross Blue Shield medical directory. 

            As a consumer, what would you want to know about a medical or clinical practitioner?  Many people that I interviewed indicated that they wanted more personalized information about therapeutic practices, techniques, and procedures.  Over 50% of the people interviewed, indicated that they wanted some background information concerning educational training and published research.  A smaller percentage was also interested in information concerning the practitioner’s personal interests and beliefs about patient care.  My generalized sense was that consumers wanted to know about the more personal side of the physician or therapist who would potentially be taking care of them.  To me, this highlights the importance of the interpersonal relationship between the practitioner and the client creating a working alliance which provides the frame work for clinical care.  Most consumers want to feel not only cared for but cared about.  So, the more comprehensive the information provided to consumers about their practitioners, the more comfortable people feel about the choices they make.   What kind of a choice do you have when the information you are provided with involves only name, address and telephone number? 

            Healthcare on the internet is going to explode within the next five years.  Consumers are addicted to information and some internet businesses are capitalizing on the growing trends within the healthcare industry.  Understand that healthcare represents one of the largest sectors in federal, state and local budgets.  Within healthcare, mental health services will continue to grow at an increasing rate given longer and healthier lifestyle trends in the baby boom population.  It is clear from the research data collected by healthcare professionals that mental health is a key component to physical longevity.  The growth of services within the area of gerontology highlights the increasing needs of consumers who are living, working and playing longer. 

There will be great opportunity for investment in businesses which are internet based and focus on healthcare information for consumers.  For example, Theramatch Registry is an interactive online service directory highlighting licensed professionals in communities throughout the United States.  If you cannot find a mental health practitioner, someone from Theramatch will help you.  A real person will actually get back to you in real time. The Theramatch Directory is the wave of the future and Blue Cross Blue Shield along with other healthcare providers would exercise good business sense by linking up with this kind of internet business.  In addition, from a public relations point of view most consumers do not have a positive opinion of their healthcare providers.  Consumers feel that insurance companies are not honest and forthcoming given many bad experiences with claims reimbursement.  It would help the insurance industry to promote information about medical care and clinical providers for consumers.  Helping consumers make clinical choices would change the image of the insurance industry. 

            Finally, as a parent of a child with disabilities, I have always traveled to find the right specialist.  At times of crisis most people will search and travel to connect a loved one with the best possible practitioner.  For the poor, the hospitalized, and the physically disabled, Theramatch Registry can also reduce barriers such as distance and weather.  There are many communities where the access to service providers is very limited.  With internet healthcare services, a soon to be reality will be telehealth by computer, television and cell phone.  The technological advances are around the corner.  Theramatch Registry is the future of the healthcare industry.  So check out this site for your family and email your friends with the information.  Someone is always looking for a mental health specialist.