Cross posting from Second Opinion blog:

It's not just a matter of private school reimbursement - everything about special ed requires a savvy parent with the resources to navigate the system and seek legal aid when you hit an impasse. The special ed students of Baltimore have received such poor services for so long that even the most modest improvements (primarily better book keeping and just delivering the services that are in the student's plan) are hailed as monumental achievements. No one looks at the realities of the massive number of non-public placements that happen in the city. Or how many students are being segregated in more restrictive settings than they would be put into in other school systems.

Systemic solutions that bring improved services to all special needs students are the right answer. Until that happens the court's ruling at least makes it possible for some parents to save their kids from the tragedy of a poor and inappropriate education.

"some parents" - only those that proably could have afforded private school to begin with... To be reimbursed you would first have to pay...with private placement running in the 10s of thousands just how many of the truly needy to afford to pay before they are reimbursed. Seem like just another example of the well-to-do and well connected playing the system.

@OTT
Similarly, some parents can help their kids with homework because they had a decent high school education.Or some parents can afford to send their kids to tutoring. Sure would be nice if kids were all taught so well that the ones without these supports wouldn't be at a disadvantage.

Should we make a rule that says if you can help your kid you don't need public education? And here I thought if public schools served all socioeconomic levels they would get better. Should we have an income test for being in public schools?

Or is your comment just about getting wealthy special ed kids out of public schools? How about if you're wealthy enough to front one year of tuition, but not a whole 12 year education? How about if you can afford that one year of tuition by cashing out your retirement and getting a second mortgage on your house? Are these the the elitists that are playing the system that you are talking about?

And what about the fact that when one kid gets that placement it makes it all that much easier for the next kid to get a similar placement without the same level of legal wrangling?

Non-public placements should be a last resort that proves the system is broken and unable to provide the services that these kids need. Baltimore has lots of non-public placements (none of which required parents paying tuition up front, as far as I know). Lots of the kids in non-public placements are not wealthy, but generally someone (not always a parent) had to do a good job advocating for them. The kids without advocates, like the kids with parents that didn't have a decent high school education, are at a terrible disadvantage. That's a shame, but the solution is not to put everyone at a disadvantage. The solution is to give everybody an advocate that can fight for them. Even if their parents don't know their kids deserve a decent education they should have one.

Emotional subject for me, sorry have written such a long comment.

@ AP - My concern is that parents who have been able and willing to send their children to schools such as Odessey(sp), Lab and several others will now be reimbursed for what was before a personal choice and I would think that you would see flight from the public schools from parents who are willing to take the second mortgage with the knowlegde that the money will be refunded thereby creating pool of money that could be used to fund 12 or 13 years of private school.

So what does that leave behind .. the same issues that cities have with middle class flight.. a popualtion poorer and more disadvantaged because those who would be the advocates have left.

So it begs the question does it beneift you to gain the world if you lose your soul? If one knows that by abandoning the system you take away a voice for the voiceless, are we not being selfish and thereby using the system for personal gain with little regard for others?

While you may be driven by emotion on this, I still wonder who exactly benefits.

@OTT -

So why would anyone who cares about the state of City Schools seek a non-public placement?

- You've fought through IEP meetings for years to improve the school (for everyone and for the better) and seen no change...
- You've asked for accommodations that are affordable and that would benefit (or at least not harm) everyone in the school and been told "that's not the way we do things here."
- You've emphasized that the plans agreed upon in IEP meetings are not being followed and basically been told that those were written down to get the meeting finished, but there's no way they will really be followed
- When the safety of your kid is being threatened by "one-on-one" aides who are often not with the child that should be their sole focus
- When it becomes blatantly obvious that your child will always be seen as a pain in the a** by teachers and staff as opposed to the joy that you (and his classmates) know he/she is

Sometimes you have to move on. If you have read my posts or blog over time you probably know my special kid is not in a non-public placement at this time, but if we get into the situation detailed above and there are no system schools to transfer to that don't have the same issue...Well, we'll do what we have to do to assure my child a "Free Appropriate Public Education" as it his/her right under the law.

I know, and love the fact that the presence of my kids make schools better. I know that sounds arrogant, but there are things in the three schools that my kids attend that are improved by them being there. The staff at the school that my special one attends has been the most vocal about saying how his/her presence has improved the school for everyone. On the other hand, there are schools that don't see it that way. If, after arguing your points and seeing that you aren't being listened to, and that nobody wants you around, it's time to figure out a way to move on.

AP--For every story like yours, there are several that have parents who milk the system for their personal gain. Students who don't come to school for days upon days and, when the parent is repeatedly called, the parent says that he/she is being kept home because they are ill. Upon a visit being made to the home (which my school does), the child is at the mall or the movies or at a friend's house playing games. I am all for appropriate education for everyone but those who abuse the system need to be ferreted out and dealt with. Only then will there be a system where resentment over special education funding not take place.

And another thing...

When someone gets to the point that they punt on City Schools and take their kids elsewhere, do you think that any of the people who are forking over the money for non-public placements ever say (made up numbers and situation used to illustrate my point) "You know, if we had made those $5,000 worth of accommodations on the playground and paid $2,000 for some decent training, we would prevented spending $60,000 for this placement for a savings of $53,000."? I guarantee that that simple analysis is never made because the accommodations and training are seen as impossible. And, if you ask me, the people who are being selfish and are damaging the City Schools are not the parents who decide that tilting at windmills is changing nothing and permanently damaging their child. It's the administrators (and possibly teachers) who refuse to follow the law and generally have no interest in figuring out how to educate special needs kids if it means having to do something different and innovative and actually having to work for a living.

@AP - Help me see, were do students go when they are in "non-public placement"? And if they are assigned to non-public placement does the system pay up front? Is there any expense on the part of the parents? And what determines that a students gets an 1 on 1 aide?

This blog was started on a legal decision that guarantees REIMBURSEMENT... so my original point was that you must be able to pay in order to be reimburse... so who does this ruling benefit?

Disclaimer - these are my understandings from personal experience and from talking to other parents. I am not a lawyer or even a professional advocate. Feel free to distrust what I say and look it up on your own.

non-public placement = the school system pays to send a child to a private school. This is an admission that the school system does not have the ability to provide a "Free Appropriate Public Education" (FAPE) in any of their schools and are unable/unwilling to make the changes in the school that would be necessary to make it appropriate. That means they are giving up and sending the child and their money to a private school. As long as everybody agrees to this path the parent is not required to pay money upfront, although having an advocate of some sort makes this easier, but that can be free if you can show economic need. So, for this to work you need to know your rights and be "savvy", but money is not a requirement.

What the court ruling means is that if you as parent/guardian have looked at what the school system has to offer and you unilaterally think it's inappropriate you can pay for the private school on your own and if a court determines that your decision was right (i.e. the school system did not have any appropriate placement for your child) you will get reimbursed. If a school system is not fighting tooth and nail about admitting their weaknesses this ruling has no affect. If a school system is fighting and you can pull together some money (loans, grandparents, whatever) the ruling means that your child will not have to languish in an inappropriate placement for however long the school system wants to fight. There are probably rules about how long this can be and how many appeals etc, but I think it might be a very long time. The problem is that inappropriate placements can harm a child and I think most caring parents would do whatever is needed to find a way to keep a child from harm. My interpretation of what this ruling means is that more parents will feel they have options and are not stuck with taking what the school system is willing to give them, regardless of legality and fairness. This is because there are many more people who can afford to pay for private school for the short term than those who can afford to pay for 12/13 years. I'm not saying everybody can afford this option, but I think you're going from the top 10% to maybe 80%. Is it totally fair? no, but I see it as more fair.

The determination for the need of a one-on-one aide is made by the IEP team as a whole based on a child's needs - it's really no different than deciding if a kid needs speech therapy. You do tests, you look at the results, you work together to come up with a plan, you evaluate how your plan is working, repeat as required - that's the IEP process in a nutshell.

@vetern teacher -
I'm not sure how your story of poor parenting relates to special education funding. Do you end up having to do more of these home visits for kids that are special needs? And how does not sending your kid to school equate to "milk(ing) the system for their personal gain."?

If you're arguing that kids with poor parents are a drain on the system - I'm sure they are, but I don't know why they make you resent special ed students who are getting non-public placements. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't see the connection.

Here is, perhaps, the more pressing point: The recent Supreme Court ruling gives families of special-needs children hope. The prevailing trend, for the past decade or so, has been for courts to rule in favor of the public schools instead of the families. This ruling says “the families are in charge.” It also rules in favor of the law. The law calls for “the continuum of placements.” It does not say that children have to be educated in the public schools.

The Maryland Public School system is now #1 in the nation (before NY and even Massachusetts), according to the well respected annual Education Week survey. But our top-notch public school system is failing our special-needs children. The method that the schools insist on for finding the “right fit” for a special-needs child is based on failure. First, the child and his family have to endure a long period of time as the child makes no or little progress and as he becomes increasingly miserable in a school environment that is wrong for him. A special-needs child who has to be put through this often traumatic and time-wasting exercise can potentially become more and more disabled.

At The Gateway School, a non-public school for ages 3 to 12, we see children who have been poorly served in public school settings for years as their parents were repeatedly reassured by school officials. By the time these children come to us, we are sometimes skeptical about how much we can really help them. So many windows of opportunity for learning have been shut. If the child is bright, we work hard with him and can sometimes get him back on track. But in these cases, damage has been done.

The “failure first” method is nowhere in the law. Parents who are proactive enough to get their children evaluated and get good, professional advice about what teaching environment would be best for their child should have every right to make a decision that is best for the child. After Forest Grove School District v. T.A., we have reason to hope that schools will have less incentive to hang on to children for the $60,000 each they bring to the school budget. They may as well let these students go to environments that are better suited for them, since the parents are likely to make that happen sooner rather than later, and get reimbursement from the school system anyway.

AP--Didn't make myself clear--sorry. The students who we visit (and yes most of them are special ed) are also the ones whose parents at IEP meetings say such things as "I want to know where my money is" or "Why can't I get a one on one for my child even though his IEP doesn't demand one" or, better yet, don't come to meetings at all unless threatened with removal of services. It is those parents who cause bad feelings about others. Of course, special education students get more attention because there are more and more of them in BCPS. Why--because we have fostered an environment where almost anyone can be labeled special education. Initially, the law was to be applied to gifted and talented students as well but that has gone the way of all flesh. BCPS may not have done what it has needed to do for students in the past but, now--because of budget concerns--special education runs the whole system. Is that fair to other students? No but no one seems to care. We had a case this year of a parent who was "proactive" for her child. She demanded his IEP be followed; that he receive extra assistance; and she talked with his teachers regularly. He had co-teachers in each class and was regularly given additional support for testing, etc. What was his response? He cut class, left the building, cursed out teachers, broke a window, and when confronted about his behavior (along with pictures and other things), mom said we were picking on him. So she transferred him to another county where he could get an appropriate education. First day there, he walked the halls, cursed a teacher and sexually harassed one of his peers. That system didn't have to tolerate that sort of behavior as they don't have a consent decree. He was removed from the school immediately as a disruption to others. So who was at fault there? I have lived through other similar examples but that is enough. People flock to BCPS with special education students who are borderline because we HAVE to take them and deal with them. Enough!

@VT -
These parents are sure different then the ones I meet at special ed parent support groups. There are always very few City School parents and many of the county school parent are former city residents who moved to the county to get better special ed services. You can look at the recommendations on Yahoo groups for what county you should move to if you have a disabled child. Howard County is usually at the top. Baltimore City is always at the bottom.

It's pretty similar to how great numbers of people who can afford to move to the county do so once they have school age children.

There's a reason why only City Schools are under a consent decree when it comes to special education.

Sometimes I think about moving out of the City for my special needs child - because of my other children and my job this is not a good option for our family. Also I have issues with contributing to urban flight and urban sprawl. If my only concern was Special Education services I would be foolish to stay in Baltimore City.

@Jill -

"But our top-notch public school system is failing our special-needs children."

You made me look.... your school has less than 75 students, with class sizes in the single digits. Is Gateway charging $60K per student that BCPSS schools want to hold on to? What is Gateways expected outcome? How many of your students go on back to traditional schools, get into college or are gainful employment? the fact that you have a 12th grade implies that some of your students are not ready for the real world. What makes school like yours better suited and don't they run counter to the move toward inclusion?

@ VT - I have heard similar stories about students with IEPs acting up because they know they cannot be expelled...And have I have been at community information meetings were the paid professionals talking about how to "work" the system to get what you think your child is due..... The audience is typically low income single moms looking to get theirs... sad but true.

@OTT -
I suppose I should let Jill Beire address your comments, but there are a few things that occur to me:
- Gateway goes to 12 year olds, not 12th grade. The goal was to transition into middle school, not college or employment
- When I toured Gateway the classes were not single digits - perhaps the teacher to student ratios make it look that way, but the class groups were not that small. That was several years ago, so things might of changed. Also, it seemed like there were more than 75 students - MANSEF lists it as serving 120.
- Inclusion as a goal should come after finding the best education for the child. Students do have legal rights for Least Restrictive Environments, but what parent wants to send a vulnerable, special needs child into an environment where a teacher resents them and harassment by other students is the norm? I'm not saying this is always the case in City Schools (or even usually the case), but sometimes your choice is between a segregated special ed only school where the staff likes your child or inclusion where your child is unwelcome. In that case, no matter how much you believe in inclusion, it might be better for your child to get a non-public placement.

@ AP - I have tried to make it clear that I know little about this and am trying to learn.

I got my info from another website that gave enrollment not capacity and I may have misread the grade thing BUT it still begs the question... if a child parents could afford to do this for their child should the taxpayers have to reimburse them?

I am still trying to determine were out placed student go.

Also off topic but did anyone see the Jay Mathews article on KIPP and the BTU... interesting.

@OTT -
" if a child parents could afford to do this for their child should the taxpayers have to reimburse them?" - why are you limiting this to special ed students? It seems to me the next logical step would be "if you can afford private school why should taxpayers pay for your child's education?" That is the path that leads to public schools = poor kids & poor education. That in turn leads to a segregated society. I believe that justice starts with a decent free education for all and if I want decent public education being personally involved is the first step. The fact that I can or can not afford to pay for private school does not enter into the equation.

Students who can not receive a Free Appropriate Public Education in any of the City Schools have their tuition paid for in a State certified school that can meet their needs. In other words the school system pays for school that is appropriate and therefore makes it free to the student. You can go to MANSEF to see the list of non-public special education schools in the state. Some of these schools do not take private paying students, i.e. all of their students come from school systems and no parent can pay tuition for a student there. I believe Kennedy Krieger on Fairmount Ave is one of these types of schools. There are private special ed schools that are not on the MANSEF list (the Odyssey School for dyslexia comes to mind). I have no idea which schools from the MANSEF list have City School students attending. That would be a question for the Office of Non-Public Placements. I do know that City schools would prefer to minimize transportation costs so that if a school is located in the City (such as Gateway or Kennedy Krieger) it is more likely to have City School students.

@ AP - I would not limit my affordably comment to Special Ed but that is the topic of this post. I sent my oldest to a private school were the parent support group supported vouchers as a way to reduce out of pocket tuition cost. I did not support that effort but was in the minority.

Your comment: "public schools = poor kids & poor education". I just read an editorial in one of the business journals, written by the head of NYC schools who asserts that too many people make that assumption... he goes on to state that poverty = poor teachers = poor schools = poor education. I agree, it does not and should not start with the children. BUT there has to be a realization that the metrics of success are in favor of those with resources

Thanks for your link .... I am trying to learn..