June 1, 2010

Special Education in New York City

A series of events has led me back to some special education work in New York City. This is an intense and emotional experience for me in many ways. I was a New York City school teacher who taught some special education classes in the 60s and 70s- before there was special education as we know it. The students were warehoused in a classroom all day. There was no such thing as a learning disability. As a teacher I never knew how it was that these kids got into special education. They were the children you felt sorry for, all having visible handicaps and not expected to learn anything. The job was just to keep them busy, happy, and disciplined. Then in 1968, I became the parent of a disabled child, Melody. There were no services, and because I was a single parent, had to beg for them at a reduced rate in a variety of hospitals. People were nice to us once she became three. I bartered my teaching in exchange for preschools’ willingness to work with her. But nobody ever told me anything about any laws or options that might help me help her. I kept her in preschool until she was almost 6 in order to give her time to grow.

When Melody started kindergarten, it was quickly evident that she was different from the others. But because I taught in a public school two blocks from her elementary school, and worked directly with her teachers, we were able to get her through the first grade in regular classes. By then it was 1975 when P.L. 94-142 was passed. We moved to Teaneck because of her needs. Over the years I continued to work periodically in New York, attending graduate schools and doing hearings. It was because of that that I discovered the unique system and history involved with special education in the largest public school system in America. It was an interesting time, especially the graduate schools within Manhattan. The last thing they wanted was someone with legal experience in their classes because the law was never taught to upcoming teachers. Perhaps the most problems were caused by people who became my professors, who had previously been witnesses for school districts when I represented the parent’s position. As a student I was to keep my mouth shut and complete the course work. I guess they viewed it as a fair trade-off for what they had gone through during cross examination.

So now I’m going back briefly as a guest lecturer. The history of special education in this immense, ungovernable city is also special education history in our immense, ungovernable county. What should special education teachers in New York City know?

1. Special education is an entitlement program. It is a process of referral and evaluation to a multidisciplinary team who is to test in all areas of suspected disability. If the results reveal that there is data matching one of the 13 categories of disability, the student meets the eligibility standard for receipt of the special education entitlement and related services. It is at that point that an IEP is written and, finally, a placement determined.
2. Is special education a civil right? No. Voting is a civil right. Anything you have by virtue of being a citizen is a civil right, but this does not include special education. No extra money is given to implement civil rights.
3. Is a local policy the same as law? Yes and no. The person in charge of a school or agency can develop policies that administer laws, often many of them found to be illegal when challenged in a court of law. An employee must follow policies of the employer, but should be aware that they may conflict with laws passed by federal or state governments.
4. 1973- The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was passed with its most famous Chapter- Section 504. This was a civil rights statute for disabled students and adults, having no funding source for implementation.
5. In 1974, New York’s Puerto Rican Congress, ASPIRA, filed a federal action against New York City to address the discrimination of Spanish speaking students in the city’s public school system. A decree was passed that required NYC to develop a plan that would meet the needs of English Language Learners (ELL). This was a civil rights case based upon a similar case in California.
6. 1975- P.L. 94-142 was passed, the Education for All Handicapped
   Children’s Act of 1975. This provided a set of specific procedures that schools and states had to follow if they were to be eligible for the additional funds allocated toward this new entitlement program. Central to these procedures was the development of an individualized program that met the specific needs of the student, as well as extensive parental involvement protections.
7. 1979- Present. A class action lawsuit, Jose P, was filed against New York City on behalf of disabled children, some of whom were also non-English speaking. A special master was appointed, with public hearings held yearly to determine the status of New York’s compliance with special education laws. This case has used millions of dollars in legal and administrative costs, without showing any improvement in the city’s special education system. In 2005, a report was published on the management of this case in Comprehensive Management review and Evaluation of Special Education, Heier et al. That report documents that the city and the plaintiff’s lawyers continue to fight over the lack of reliable data needed to show compliance with special education requirements. 31 years after the initial filing of Jose P, things are essentially where they started.
8. 2010- In January of 2010, the NYC BOE published “Implementation Plan for the Reform of Special Education: A Two-Year Phase-in Process Focusing on the Advancement of Student Learning and Achievement.” Guiding Principles, aside from the reflexive gag response, are:
   
   1. Every school should educate and embrace the overwhelming majority of students with disabilities. (Translation- We can no longer afford to educate them, so dump them back into general education.)
   2. Hold all schools and students with disabilities accountable for standards-based goals (Nothing is said about individual needs or programming.)
   3. All schools should have the flexibility needed to meet the diverse needs of disabled students. (How many years have we been doing this…?)
   4. Schools must be active partners with parents of students with disabilities. (Been to an IEP meeting lately?)
9. Inclusion is a special education and overall political philosophy pertaining to civil rights. It has nothing to do with least restrictive environment in special education.
10. Continuum of placement options- Based upon the ability to implement the IEP, a wide range of placement options are required to meet special education needs, all considered the least restrictive environment for the individual student. This does not have to do only with the most severely impaired, but with the implementation of the complete individualized program.
11. Parent involvement. A comprehensive set of notice requirements and procedural safeguards are available in law to help parents of disabled children. From a practical standpoint, very few parents know or understand these requirements and safeguards. Even fewer people are available to help them through this complex system that even the professionals who work in it do not fully understand.
12. Due process hearings in NYC. The City has different hearing offers (IHOs) and procedures than the rest of the state because of the continuing Jose P litigation. The quality of the IHOs ranges from terrible to excellent. Schools are not represented by lawyers unless the parents are.
13. The State regulations for special education are called the Part 200 regulations. Because they are written so poorly, my recommendation is to use the federal regulations for an introduction to special education, found at 34 C.F.R. Part 300.
14. The special education teacher in the City of New York. In the same way that every food chain has a top and a bottom, it is the special education teacher who is in receipt of all of the garbage, politics and agendas floating from the bureaucratic top. In order to keep the job, they must comply with their supervisor’s requests. In order to meet the needs of their students, they often have to go outside of the system or enlist the help of parents with the promise of confidentiality. They need to be aware of the laws in order to protect themselves. But in the end, it is only the students and the teacher when the door closes. A bond is formed. The hope is that the school family that develops inside that room each year can find the strength to help each other through scholarship, listening skills, empathy, humor, common interests, and extended family. Too often, it is just about survival. Help is hard to find. But for now, we are all that we have, only us, together, and it may be enough for now. Everything else is broken. Keep the faith.