Thoughts for the School Board Meeting 4/20/10

Anti-violence
I gave a version of these quickly to the Board on 4/20/2010 -- 3 minutes is definitely not enough time when district staff and requested speakers have no limit and public comments can be VERY LATE on the agenda making it hard for normal people (those with school age kids) to participate.  Thankfully this meeting for us was shorter.

• Glad to report things have calmed down for my family.  It appears at least for the moment the message was received by the youth involved.
• To be clear the attacks this school year (there were 8 + 2 more after the attempted beating) were legally physical assaults that came only after years of bullying on school property that finally bled online and into the community – but the issues were all playground / passing period based. To only call them bullying, especially the events of the last year, since the district's removal of the safety officer is to degrade/downplay the seriousness.
• While I have not had time to closely review the new policies I’m sure they are approaching 90-95% of what is needed up from about 75-80% but the issue has always been more a problem with procedures and practices – reporting, investigation, tracking, cross site/student issues and effective interventions. This is then further hampered by a lack of serious focus on school safety as REAL issue for the district.  If I need to be the squeaky wheel -- I've now accepted that.
• The bias is still to protect and treat each case/incident individually -- all school district staff had the EXACT same position on this at the last board meeting. This attitude diverges from the written policy, which should be the basis for guidelines to be drawn with discretion being allowed but requiring documentation when that discretion/mitigating circumstances are used to deviate from the guideline.  These exceptions could then be reviewed (possibly by a committee, Ombudsman or AUSD School Board in private session) vs. every incident.
• Kids need limits and consequences – treating each incident uniquely every time leads to significant inequalities and potentially civil rights violations.
• I firmly support the idea of a Detention Classroom or School with linked in services to social workers, counselors and teachers trained to assess kids for special education needs. Part of the funding might be found in the allotment the district does not receive because of at home detentions.
• Efforts of supporting tolerance, diversity and anti-bullying that are currently being done and so wonderfully talked about last board meeting are insufficient, incomplete and likely completely ineffective. Outside of the freshmen class – every student I spoke with since the last meeting called them a joke from the lunchtime diversity events being the most ridiculed. They may make people feel better -- but only the adults.  Whatever programs are put in place they need VERIFIABLE data collected before, just after training and then again in a few months/end of the year to see if there was any impact.
• When issues arise they must be dealt with immediately and in a “Teachable Moment” type approach. Stop things, explain how serious it is, explain the golden rule (would you want this type of thing done to you or your friend?), ask kids to reflect, allow them to ask questions, comment and dialogue and then move on. The adult needs to have a very serious tone vs. playing it off as a joke or kids being kids.
• Lack of a racially / culturally diverse workforce including teachers and administrators makes situations EXTREMELY problematic for the district. The district really needs to work with a recruiter to find qualified candidates from all racial and ethnic backgrounds to better reflect the community and student body specifically in frontline teaching positions.

Special Education
I was unable to deliver these at tonight’s meeting but below are my opinions based on mine and other parents experiences with the district over the last 4-5 years at least as things have gotten worse.

• The centralization of Special Education case management and control at the district level vs. each principal having a say on staffing and focus has lead to many problems and a lack of accountability for district level staff and the teachers & para-educators they hire and manage.
• Special Education within the district now appears to be being treated as a cost center to be reduced with less and less concern to the law (and related rights) or the child’s needs and how that impacts the child, their classroom and the teachers.
• Not enough time is spent even in Triennials to actually diagnose underlying conditions and disabilities and then come up with sufficient goals to address performance gaps before they become permanent. District counseling/testing staff are not present at every IEP meeting and requests for testing are ignored or tabled. Give me the data has become my mantra -- it should be the districts. But having the data means the district may have to outlay more resources to meet the undiagnosed needs.
• There are a few key years/transitions that need to be handled with increased attention -- possibly K, 5, 8 are the key years to make sure that a student is prepared to advance. To me this would be a set series of at least 3 IEP meetings (1 month into the school year, half way through the school year and 1 month before the end of the school year). This would allow for the transition to be planned, ensure kids are on track to be promoted to the next grade and services are allotted for the following year and school site.
• Special Education has moved from high quality early interventions to follow the "Oakland model" which is what is the bare minimum required and do not help parents navigate the system to get the services their child needs or should be offered without the need of “magic words.” This certainly reduces your special education budget over time but does not serve the student, fellow classmates or the teachers.
• The district has lost the I for Individual in IEP. At the middle school they track the special education caseloads into certain courses and teachers often to the lowest common denominator of other special education students. I hear the word "No" so often even when there are specific and quantifiable deficits including official district benchmarks not being met. In those cases additional services to ensure a student's academic success is required.
• I have been told D's and F's are ok for special education students -- that it is a matter of motivation and that the child does not fit into the Albany mold then they can't ensure success.
• There is a lack of teacher interaction at the middle school -- specifically to attend meetings and work effectively with the Special Services case manager. This includes the need for all general education teachers to cancel other appointments so that they can be both physically and mentally present for all IEP meetings. If teachers need to be reimbursed for lost income or someone else needs to step in to help in their other duties -- that needs to be covered by the district.
• There is need to focus on general education teacher training to review the IEP laws, accommodations, rules and compliance with rights like Least Restrictive Learning Environment.
• I have been personally told by a teacher that they have a case load of over 100 different students a day and that they can only provide my son 1% of their time and attention.  We need to look at the overall number of students a teacher is managing and reduce that as much as possible.
• The district has apparently moved against teachers and some are afraid to speak their mind freely in IEP meetings in regards to services they think a child needs this includes having to check in with the district personnel before and after scheduled IEP meetings for "feedback." My understanding is that this pre-meeting and provision of services is not allowed under the due process rules.
• Based on my conversations with other parents, it appears that district staff have moved systematically on several cases in a coordinated fashion to reduce services that children were receiving and which would then allow them to eliminate positions or programs at school sites for next year.