PUSD, the Special Education Task Force, and the Document We Wrote, but Which PUSD Staff Never Let You Actually See

We got a request last night for a document that was 32 pages long when it was written and submitted to Elizabeth Blanco. It was an Autism Audit. By the time she was through editing it, and it was handed down to the public, it was whittled down to 8 pages. We have the entire document. 

Because PUSD doesn't keep track of squat. We had to give a copy of it to someone who wanted it. We decided we would put it into pdf later and upload it for everyone who cares about it. But that got us to thinking about the document draft you will read in this post.

Last year, due to the events that culminated in our son's removal from school, Mary and I joined the Special education Committee and wrote the following document with Monica Watts. It was intended to give a blueprint reference point for PUSD. We donated our time and skills to produce it.

Of course, it was bastardized, and destroyed by the time the watered down and whitewashed version was taken over by and to PUSD- and then it was watered down and bastardized some more. 

Members of PUSD got into this file and tried to change and omit pieces of it. We called them out on it. One went so far as to say her cat magically deleted parts of it, haha. Nice try.

The bottom line is that this was written by parents, not by paid PUSD employees. The PUSD staff had nothing to do with it, and quite frankly, weren't capable of writing a document like this in the first place, and certainly not for free.

There were about seven sub-committees, and they each submitted a section of what would be the draft proposed to the Board of Education. This was one of them, but encompassed one of the largest segments of the final document. I served on a few others, most notably the Every Child, Every School subcommittee, but became disenchanted when I realized it was really designed for some, not all students, and that it would be at some, not all schools. 

I still offered input, most notably that they include Inclusion language from the NEA- the National Teacher's Association. I also suggested they based premises on outside research.

We put in a lot of time, research, and work into this, and PUSD staff tried to erase it after putting zero into it. When it was done, they put alot of excuses into not implementing it.

Here it is, the document we wrote, but that you were never allowed to see.

-Tony Brandenburg

*******************************************

*******************************************

COLLABORATION/ CURRICULUM & CLASSROOM

EVIDENCE BASED ASSESSMENT & PRACTICE

PRE-K to 12  

Mary Brandenburg, 

Monica Watts,  

Tony Brandenburg,

Warren Skidmore

*******************************

Special Education is a Service ....  NOT a Placement ...  and it’s  not an excuse for RE- SEGREGATION

*******************************     

Part 1: Educational Equity for ALL PUSD Students at ALL Schools

BACKGROUND & CHALLENGES
A number of common threads ran throughout the nine studies and audits conducted by the Special Education Department of Pasadena Unified School District. Among them was the concept of inclusion, the need for structured pre-assessments, a fluid 504 system that makes the appropriate provisions to support students as required by law, and structured and systematic program development to provide and promote learning in the general education program for children at pre-school through the adult training program. For many people inclusion has its own meaning, and among many people there is inconsistency on what it is. Before the goals from the Collaboration, Curriculum and Classroom, Evidence Based Assessments & Practices, Pre-K Group (an area that covered some 35 audit recommendations) presents its goals and objectives, it is necessary to offer definitions, documentation, and research to set the foundation for these goals and objectives.

In 1999 an Inclusion Task Force convened and made four recommendations: To identify two more inclusive elementary schools, develop a new inclusive middle school program, identify an inclusive high school program, and a preference for accommodating students at their home schools through the addition and diversification of inclusion programs at each school. This approach failed. Inclusion cannot flourish in segmented, partial implementations. Some schools cannot choose to include,  while others choose to exclude. Simply stated, this is  because exclusion promotes inequity. Separate is not equal (Brown v Board of Education, Topeka). 

Excluding some students at some schools, while including some students at other schools sends our communities mixed messages. Exclusion promotes social dysfunction and discrimination and cannot continue to serve as the foundation and rationale for another Task Force recommendation. Restructuring plans founded on partial implementation have resulted in failure; the plans were never implemented beyond the piloted programs. The Report of Special Education Task Force (PUD, May, 2000) again called for inclusive schools, this time to be implemented by 2005. Blended Inclusion programs were to be simultaneously eliminated, and developed according to the recommendations of the Special Education Review (School Innovations & Advocacy to PUSD, June, 2009)

Assessments used in Pasadena Unified School District have been a catalyst for mis-identification and the failure to refer students for the appropriate services and programs. The district’s general and special education programs have failed to identify students for services that are proportionate to their needs. The audits identified flaws in the 504 process (Barber to PUSD, 1999; Special Education Task Force, 2000), as well as in the pre-referral Student Study Team process (FCMAT to PUSD, 2005). The failure of the Special Education Departments to stay informed on current practices and research in the area of autism, Serious Emotional Disturbance, as well as disability in relation to language and cultural differences have resulted in legal issues with affected families, as well as a disproportionate numbers of African American males identified in the Emotional Disturbance subgroup (California Department of Education Report, 2010-2011, PUSD, CDS Code 1964881). Failures to adequately address the huge increase in autism rates- which are estimated at 1 in 88 children, with higher incidences among males- including its relation to culture, language, socio-economic status, and familial incidence rates has opened the district to legal challenges, community and school discord, and as many as 200-400 children left unidentified for supports currently not served for necessary social skills supports and subjected to a number of punitive corrective measures that punish them for their disabilities. Individualized Education Plans that are overdue (136 annual, 57 triennial according to CASEMIS Certification Report of 12/01/11)  may suggest further discord and possible litigation.

Pasadena Unified School District’s Special Education Program is in Program improvement. This is due to more that 12 years of inconsistent practices and procedures that have been at the core of audit after audit. The former Director of Special Education began studies and program improvement that ended abruptly when the position went vacant. The Inventory of Services and Supports (ISS) for Students with Disabilities (PUSD, November, 2011) and its goals, based on state approved DAIT standards, as well as the obsolete Special Education Handbook, are important pieces that need to be revisited, reviewed, and updated. A paradigm shift in the responsibility of who will provide supports for all children needs to take place, placing the education of all children onto all educators. The collaboration component is a critical piece in the success of any educational design.

The current  PUSD plan and structure with its teachers is designed in such a way as to discourage the promotion of instruction toward special education students. This is multi-fold and includes flaws in the structure of IEP meeting days, the teacher staff development design, and thus,  the promotion of meeting the needs of all students. Presently, there are many challenges to the implementation of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings. Most disruptive in this process is the contract language between PUSD and UTP. As it stands, the contract language between UTP and PUSD locks IEPs into B Mondays along with Parent Conferences, SST Meetings, and 504 Meetings, and Parent Communications. These all fall under the umbrella term “Staff Development” (UTP/PUSD agreement, 6.3.7.1.) We suggest that these meetings do NOT fall under Staff Development as identified by NCLB Section 9101 (34). 

 NCLB Section 9101 (34) does NOT mention any activities which involve parents, and thus this clause in the contract contradicts the language of NCLB. However, IDEA is very clear in its Parent component as part of the IEP process, and the current contract between UTP and PUSD locks the parents of students with disabilities into a schedule that discourages parent participation in the process. It is therefore suggested that UTP and PUSD examine the language of their contract to accurately reflect the definition and activities that are defined as “Staff development” under NCLB. A second challenge to increasing teacher knowledge in the area of special education is the structure  of the staff development design. In its present form teachers are encouraged to pursue their own interests in education and structure staff development in that manner. While this is encouraging for the pursuit of personal knowledge, it conflicts with the needs of the communities being served if these designs do not include strategies for meeting the needs of all students. It is suggested that PUSD explore other models for staff development that better meet the needs of all students as opposed to the interests of all teachers. 

Teachers can pursue higher education interests , but perhaps the time they receive inservices and program development through PUSD the needs better suit the needs of the PUSD communities. Promotion of meeting the needs of all students is the third challenge in this area. PUSD is currently in program development, and this is affecting a number of populations within the district. In order to serve the communities and populations in PUSD, all programs must recognize and value a common goal, while honoring and respecting the needs  of all.  Meeting the needs of all  cultural backgrounds, the educational diversity, and socio-economic backgrounds  of all students begins with acknowledging and addressing that there is inequity,  that not all populations receive the extra funds that are critically necessary, and that  PUSD reach out to disenfranchised groups and families so that they are brought into the dialogue.

INCLUSION

Inclusive schooling is the practice of of including everyone, regardless of ability, disability, talents, cultural origin, or socioeconomic background- in supported mainstream schools and classrooms where the needs of all students are met. (Kargiannis, Stainback, & Stainback, 1996) Inclusive practices are student centered, and adapt to the needs of the children individually, as well as collectively. The instruction of students in separate settings is based on the functional limitations perspective (Hahn, 1989) in which students who do not fit into existing programs are thus removed- as opposed to the minority group perspective, in which the educational environments are adjusted to meet the needs of the populations being served. The previous PUSD inclusion programs fell into the former paradigm, that is, they allowed access for some students, while others were forced into segregated settings. In failing to address this paradigm shift, and to follow through on the audit recommendations of the Inclusion Task Force (PUSD, 1999) , inclusion could not succeed. If this current Task Force  (PUSD, 2012) follows the same format, it can be inferred that it will have a similar outcome. In other words, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it (Jorge Santayana, 1905, Reason in Common Sense.)

For all intents and purposes, when we say inclusion, we mean for every child who enters into the educational service area under the jurisdiction of Pasadena Unified School District, from the very first day of school. If a student moved into a school from another school district without an Individualized Education Program, that child would immediately be placed in his or her respective grade, and would begin school fully included in that classroom, or on that schedule. If fully included students transferred to a PUSD school, with an IEP, these students could find themselves placed into segregated special day classes, or forced to go to a different school that supports inclusion. If this was done for any other reason, be it ethnicity, language, gender, or any other factor, this practice of separation would be considered unacceptable.

These goals and objectives are designed for all children, at all schools and programs, and are presented on the same timeline, not in incremental pieces which promise inclusion someday. Special Education services that can be feasibly provided in a segregated environment can be presented in the general program according to the principle of portability (Roncker v. Walter, 1983). This Ohio case was echoed in California (Sacramento Unified School District v. Rachel Holland, 1994) which established standards promoting inclusive education.  In the spirit of the equity for all, not just for some, when we say all students, that means all students. We wish to see an end to systemic segregation against children with disabilities, and suggest a system in which the only children educated in private settings, whether it be at a non-public school, or in a segregated classroom site (special day class) on a Pasadena Unified school takes place only when initiated by parents or advocates. We believe that Pasadena Unified Schools can, and should provide the full continuum of services in house without the need to provide services in alternate non-public settings through the use of trained general and specialist staff, and with the support of the best educational practice models from both in the district and from independent private educational consultants as suggested by the California Department of Education for District Assistance and Intervention Team (DAIT). In determining programs for students, the needs of the student and the continuum of services must be considered. However, any policy that denies educational access to any group of students is not supported by law, and for this reason, it is the opinion of this committee that it is philosophically inconsistent, educationally unsound, and will lead to equity and access litigation if implemented.

The guiding principles of inclusion (see Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education http://www.mcie.org/ ) are Natural Proportions, a Zero Rejection Approach, Collaborative Leadership, Instructional Collaboration, Instructional Appropriate Programs and Learning Environments, and Professional Development. Natural Proportions refer to a mathematical number. The premise of natural proportions is that “students develop most when in the physical, social, emotional, and intellectual presence of non-handicapped persons in reasonable approximations to the natural proportions” (Brown et al., 1983, p. 17). If a school’s population has 12 % of its student enrollment receiving special education services, then each classroom should reflect of its enrollment as receiving specialized services. Zero Rejection The vision of inclusive education is to make classrooms “ready” for students, not to expect the students to be “ready” for the classrooms. In this approach, no students are excluded because of the type of disability they have, nor are they expected to meet certain criteria (e.g., reading on a third grade level, toilet-trained, etc.) before they are “allowed” to access the general education classroom. Placement decisions are not made on the basis of disability label supports are provided on the basis on individual needs. (http://olms.cte.jhu.edu/20477)    Collaborative Leadership Collaboration is utilized for clarifying issues, brainstorming ideas for solutions, establishing priorities, assigning responsibilities for actions, and reviewing progress toward defined goals at all levels- district, school, and instructional.  Teams share the roles of meeting facilitation, recording notes, encouraging each other’s participation, and being accountable for work to be done outside of the meeting. Nominal leaders (principals, supervisors, etc.) support the team with shared leadership and using brainstorming structures to solve problems. Instructional Collaboration General educators, who are experts in the curriculum content, and special educators, who are experts in adapting instruction to meet individual needs, work together to determine how each student can access grade-level content.  Instructionally Appropriate Programs and Learning Environments These environments are age appropriate, instructionally relevant and based on the same core curriculum same age peers receive, and delivered in the general education classroom. Students participate in general education activities as members of the classroom to the best of their abilities. This includes all students. Partial participation (Baumgart, et al., 1982) is a strategy for adjusting curriculum to facilitate the educational inclusion of students with severe disabilities . Partial participation, also known as multi-level instruction (Falvey, Givner, & Kimm, 1996), consists of allowing a student with a disability to participate in the same projects and instructional activities as the rest of their class, with specific modifications to the activity so that it suits a student's specific abilities and needs (Baumgart, et al., 1982; Falvey, et al., 1996
Professional Development. Collaboration among staff for joint curricular planning and individual student planning, as well as planning and delivering instruction Both general and special educators have responsibility for the delivery of special education services.

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
There are many factors that can impact a student’s ability to access the general education curriculum. Among these are visual tracking and vision therapy issues (such as near and far point copying,) social skills, and communication.  Vision therapy (visual training) are non-surgical techniques aimed at correcting and improving binocular, oculomotor, visual processing, and perceptual disorders. Social skills and assertiveness training relate to the communication category as a functional outcome of communication (Bishop and Jubala, 1995.) Physical, social, and curricular access for ALL students is the most basic principle of the IDEA, as well as other laws like Section 504 of the Rehab Act and the ADA. (http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=20 ). At this time there is no social skills curriculum addressing the needs of students with disabilities, and the communication programs in PUSD do not necessarily meet those needs. Because e social skills and communication are integral for students to access general education curriculum, to deny supports in these areas is essentially  setting students up for failure, and thus is a denial of Least Restrictive Environment.

California Department of Education has listed a number of DAIT providers (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/daitproviders.asp) of which PUSD special education leadership has apparently adopted the Total Learning Solutions. This is reflected in the ISS plan. It is the opinion of this subcommittee that many of practices for special education program improvement and equity studies offered and suggested through the WestEd group may enhance the needs of PUSD students.   Because the State of California has removed the special education component in its teacher training programs, it is also suggested that PUSD enter a partnership with local universities to explore options for teacher training and opportunities for strengthening knowledge in the areas of curriculum modification, particularly for students with disabilities. An intern program for teachers to add a moderate/severe credential, a specialization certificate, or other incentives designed to increase knowledge in the field and that may also offer a pay incentive.

In conclusion, while we recognize that our goals, objectives, and time lines may be considered difficult to implement, we are trying to instill an understanding of the immediacy necessary to begin the process of program change- true change. Our children and our communities have not made the progress towards meeting the goals and spirit of inclusion, nor has the district made the necessary growth in this area to get out of Program Improvement. It is our belief that change cannot continue to be stalled and put off while bureaucrats split hairs and educational leaders try to define the intent of the law. By moving toward inclusion, PUSD can take the steps towards the changes that are required by law, and meet the challenges of Program Improvement in a productive, and proactive manner.

Part 2: BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS............. Opening doors for Everyone

2012-2013 School Year PUSD Educational Paradigm Shift and School Culture Change
1. District Wide Professional Development and Training to Support Inclusive Education Practices at ALL Schools, for ALL Children

• Universal Design For Learning training at all sites for all educators

• 504 Compliance training district wide
• School Wide Positive Behavioral Support Systems- Shift in Punishment Paradigm at all school sites
• Social/Emotional Skills Curriculum established district wide with site based training
• Address school culture at Sierra Madre Elementary with intensive interventions for students/staff/families supporting respect, diversity, acceptance, and inclusion of ALL students, including those with autism and behavioral differences.
• Assess School Climates at all PUSD school sites and determine needed interventions, including diversity awareness and anti bullying programs
• Redistribute Sierra Madre School Upper and Lower staff to share skills/expertise with lower performing schools in PUSD
• Evaluate labor agreements/policy and determine discrepancy with Federal law
• Remove barriers to inclusion, including segregated areas and buildings at all school sites
• Diversify blended inclusion options at school sites that have established classrooms
• Establish sensory regulation rooms at each school site available to all students
• Increase access to General Education curriculum 5% district wide for all Special Education students per 2012-2013 School Site Plan
• Begin the process of establishing partnerships and training for a Chime-like Direct Charter School to offer as a training model for PUSD staff
• Administrative staff tours of districts with strong academic performing special ed students: Val Verde and Upland Unified

               WestEd 2011 report common themes for success:  inclusion/core curriculum access, collaboration, continuous asses./RTI, targeted professional development.

• Immediately address District practices impacting the disproportionate number of African American males identified ED
• Immediately address District practices re: the disproportionate number of students with disabilities suspended out of school, including the number of African American males
• Train and implementation of DIS and Related services (OT, PT, APE, Speech) in inclusive settings and naturally occurring environments (e.g communication in class and recess)
• Explore and hire District Ombudsman to increase equity for families of students requiring support, promote collaboration, and decrease litigation, reduce need to retain law firms.
• Begin training district-wide RTI for English Language Arts

 Strongly suggest using WestEd http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/43 as a consulting agency for training/intervention addressing the achievement gap/educational equity/inclusion implementation

2013- 2014 School Year Establishing Educational Equity in Pasadena Unified School District
2. District Wide Designation that all  PUSD Schools are Inclusive

• Implement District-wide RTI for English Language Arts

• Year two: continue year one recommendations and program development and trainings
• Universal Design For Learning ongoing checks for proper implementation
• 504 Compliance training and review for effectiveness
• School Wide Positive Behavioral Support Systems- Shift in Punishment Paradigm
• Social/Emotional Skills Curriculum
• Ongoing Assessment of  School Climate at each school site and determine needed interventions, including diversity awareness and anti bullying programs
• Establish staff attorney removing need for outside counsel
• Open a Chime or Chime-like Charter school
• Begin redistribution of student populations at Roosevelt and Focus Point Academy
• Begin redistribution of staff to and from Roosevelt and Focus Point Academy to meet needs of transitory populations
• Discontinue automatic renewal of enrollment to students at Sierra Madre Elementary and Lower, restart open lottery with new opportunities for families
• Sierra Madre Upper and Lower Lottery students must reapply every other year to open up and support equity for all PUSD students
• All Schools will offer diversified blended inclusion options to students at all grade levels (combination classes and looping are encouraged)
• Schools with existing blended inclusion classes will move toward year one full inclusion and will be compensated with increased staff and funding bonus.
• Schools that do not provide options for students with disabilities to attend their home-school will cover 25% of the transportation costs for sending them to an alternate PUSD school

2014- 2015 School Year Establishing Educational Equity in Pasadena Unified School District
3. Opening the Doors for Everyone: Year 1 District-wide Full Inclusion

• Year three build upon plans of years one and two recommendations and programs.

• Universal Design For Learning
• 504 Compliance training
• School Wide Positive Behavioral Support Systems
• Social/Emotional Skills Curriculum
• Assess School Climate at each school site and determine needed interventions, including diversity awareness and anti bullying programs
• All Schools will offer blended inclusion options to students at all grade levels

• All PUSD schools move to inclusive models offering both blended inclusion and full inclusion options based on parent request and IEP Team decision.

• Roosevelt and Focus Point Academy become fully functional, typical schools, any design (K-6, 6-12, or 9-Transition) whichever meets district need- No more segregated schools in PUSD
• Establish a PUSD based Chime like school, begin process of bringing model Chime School back into district in year 4.
• Program quality review RTI
• Students in SDC will spend a minimum of 35% of school day accessing  general ed as appropriate to IEP

2015- 2016 School Year Establishing Educational Equity in Pasadena Unified School District
4.  Opening the Doors for Everyone: Year 2 District-wide Full Inclusion

• Year three build upon plans of years one and two recommendations and programs

• Universal Design For Learning
• 504 Compliance training
• School Wide Positive Behavioral Support Systems
• Social/Emotional Skills Curriculum
• Assess School Climate at each school site and determine needed interventions, including diversity awareness and anti bullying programs

• All PUSD schools move to inclusive models offering both blended inclusion and full inclusion options based on parent request and IEP Team decision.

• Roosevelt and Focus Point Academy become fully functional, typical schools, any design (K-6, 6-12, or 9-Transition) whichever meets district need
• Model Chime School brought back into PUSD
• District Chime School Year 1
• Program quality review RTI year 2

SOURCES

Bishop, Kathryn and Kimberlee A. Jubala. Positive Behavior Supports. In Falvey, Mary. Inclusive and Heterogeneous Schooling. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing, 1995.

Brown, L., Ford, A., Nisbet, J.A., Sweet, M., Donnellan, A., & Gruenewald, L. (1983). Opportunities available when severely handiicapped students attend chronological age appropriate regular schools. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 8, 16–24.

The California Reading Initiative http://www.calstat.org/publications/pdfs/ca_reading_initiative.pdf

Crook, Pamela J. et. al. (2007) Measuring the Effectiveness of  Teaching Social Thinking to Children with Asperger’s and High Functioning Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities.
www.socialthinking.com/images/stories/pdf_files/social_thinking_published_jadd_2007.pdf

Giangreco, Michael F. , Chigee J. Cloninger, Ruth E. Dennis, and Susan W. Edelman. Problem-Solving Methods to Facilitate Inclusive Education. http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/archives/mgiangre/ProblemsolvingmethodsRestructuring.pdf

Introductory Guide on Behavioral Optometry. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, January 2012, Vol. 106 (1) p 58.

Knight, Victoria F.,  Bethany R. Smith, Fred Spooner and Diane Browder. Using Explicit Instruction to Teach Science Descriptors to Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Kurth, Jennifer, and Mastergeorge, (2010, 2012) Ann M. Impact of Setting and Instructional Context for Adolescents With Autism Journal of Special Education May 2012 46: 36-4.

Miller, Amy (2004)  The Double Interview Task: Assessing the Social Communication of Children with Asperger Syndrome. Department of Speech-Language- Hearing: Science and Disorders, May 2004. www.socialthinking.com/what-is-social-thinking/social-thinking-research/96-the-double-interview-task-assessing-the-social-communication-of-children-with-asperger-syndrome
Prizant, Barry, et. al. (2010, 2007) The SCERTS Model: A Comprehensive Educational Approach for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (Brookes Publishing) (www.scerts.com, www.scerts.com/docs/SCERTS_EBP%20090810%20v1.pdf )

Vincent, Claudia G.; Tobin, Tary J. (2011) The Relationship Between Implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) and Disciplinary Exclusion of Students From Various Ethnic Backgrounds With and Without Disabilities. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, December 2011, Vol. 19 Issue 4, 217-233.
Wilkerson, Kimber L., Joseph Calvin Gagnon, Macid Ayhan Melekoglu and Orhan Cakiroglu Remedial and Special Education 2012 33: 78 originally published online 16 March 2010
http://209.169.7.42/pdf/Miller_Coll.pdf

A number of WestEd documents which outline why we think highly of this group.
http://www.wested.org/cs/eac/print/docs/eac/home.htm
http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/155
http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/43
http://www.wested.org/cpei/1Manual1TOCAcknow.pdf
http://www.wested.org/cpei/4Manual1Chapter2.pdf

Universal Design for Learning.
http://www.projectforum.org/docs/UDL-PolicyChallengesandRecommendations.pdf
http://www.nea.org/tools/29111.htm
http://www.csun.edu/education/ctl/PublicationTexts/Spencer/IJTL%20Vol.%201,%20No.%201,%20Summer%202011%20(pp.%201-59)%20(1).pdf

Segregation/exclusion minority students
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2001/speced03022001.html
http://pdffinder.net/Tools-of-Exclusion:-Race,-Disability,-and-(Re)segregated-Education.html

Re: African amer. male students and equity concerns, suspension rates, etc.- free webinar on May 7th that all admin., principals should see.
http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/we_e/1246

Autism An Inside -Out Appproach Donna Williams

41 Things To Know About Autism Chantal Sicile-Kira

Helpiing Autism Through Learning and Autreach (HALO) Soma Rapid Prompting Methond

Temple Grandin Ph.D.

Curriculum frameworks provide guidance for implementing the standards adopted by the State Board of Education. Printed publications can be purchased from CDE Press Educational Resources Catalog.

Links to downloads of all curriculum frameworks.

• Career Technical Education Framework
• (PDF; 9.8MB; 484pp.)
• Foreign Language Framework
• (PDF; 2.6MB; 73pp.)
• Health Framework
• (PDF; 2MB; 264pp.)
• History-Social Science Framework
• (PDF; 3MB; 249pp.)
• Mathematics Framework
• (PDF; 4MB; 411pp.)
• Also broken-out into multiple files for easier printing.
• Physical Education Framework
• (PDF; 4MB; 342pp.)
• Reading/Language Arts
• (PDF; 6.9MB; 386pp.)
• Science Framework
• (PDF; 6.3MB, 313pp.)
• Visual and Performing Arts Framework
• (PDF; 4.1MB, 294pp.)

The Day of the Masks

Introduction

Why the Masks? The masks worn by the supporters of the Brandenburg family symbolize the anonymity which we have been forced to face on a daily basis since October, 2010. Because of Ed Honowitz and his refusal to disclose the anonymous bullies who he met with on January 11, 2011, our family lives in a constant state of fear and agitation because we do not know which of our school community neighbors we can trust. 

Absention VS. Recusal

As a delegate to the good ole boy club, CSBA (California School Board Association) you really should know the difference between Absention and Recusal, but you seem to be confused by the terms. Many people have difficulty differentiating between censor and censure, so it is understandable, I suppose. Still, since you ARE a delegate to the CSBA, maybe I can help you clear up the difference between recusal, and absention. You see, Mr. Ed, Absention is a term in an election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote or, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Absentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively. On the other hand, Recusal or to recuse oneself means to remove oneself from participation in a decision so as avoid a conflict of interest. Removal means to leave the room; for example, a judge who recuses herself does not sit on the proceedings and influence the proceedings.

Our family was there the day of the deliberation and the vote. We sat outside the room, watched Mr. Honowitz enter, and leave with the rest of the vote. He was present for the vote, and influenced the vote with his presence. So, how, exactly, did Mr. Honowitz recuse himself? To believe that the presence of Board Vice President Honowitz could sit in on a vote that was brought about partly due to him, and not influence its outcome with his presence is truly remarkable. 

Mr Honowitz, was it recusal, or an abtention? Oh, and don’t worry, I won’t tell the CSBA that you don’t know the difference.

Request to Consider: Censure of Ed Honowitz

Part 1: Violation of Bylaws

We assert that Board Member Ed Honowitz violated the following Board Byaws

(1A) Violation of Bylaw 9271: Code of Ethics; 

Board Members have a responsibility to the Community, to other members of the Board, and to the Superintendent. We assert that Board member Honowitz violated the Code of ethics in his duties to all three subgroups named.

1. Honowitz violated his responsibility to Community 

• Thinking always in terms of "Children First."

On a number of occassions Mr. Honowitz violated his ethical responsibility to the Sierra Madre Community. Mr Honowitz did not affor all children equity; that is some children first, some children not at all.

• Understanding that the basic function of the School Board Member 

is "policy making" and not administrative.

Mr. Honowitz overstepped his role by organizing a meeting with a group of parents in order to guarantee the child would not return to school He was advised by both Kathy Onoye and Liz Blanco that he should not meet with the parent group.

• Refusing to "play politics" in either the traditional partisan or in 

any petty sense. 

Mr. Honowitz saw an opportunity to win over a large group of parents and staff by stepping in and removing what was alleged to be a disruptive child from school. This was done in order to secure political supports and favors from the parent group, many of whom had political clout and status.

• Representing at all times the entire school community. 

Mr. Honowitz refused to meet with the Brandenburg Family. Some members of the community are represented, and some are not. Honowitz showed bias against, and failed to provide equal access to, the Brandenburgs.

2. Honowitz violated his responsibility to other Board Members 

• Recognizing that authority rests only with the board in office 

 meetings, and that the individual member has no legal status to 

 bind the Board outside of such meetings. 

Mr. Honowitz established, organized, and executed a meeting regarding a special education student, excluding all members of the Board except for himself, excluding all administrative staff from the district office, and which has left the BOE tangled up in a legal mess for the last two years. 

3. Honowitz violated his responsibility to the Superintendent 

A Governing Board Member should maintain desirable relations with the 

Superintendent of schools and staff, by: 

• Giving the Superintendent full administrative authority for properly 

 discharging the Superintendent's professional duties, and by also 

 holding the Superintendent responsible for acceptable results.

• Referring all complaints to the proper administrative office and by 

 discussing them only at a regular meeting after failure of 

 administrative solution. 

By meetng with the parent group and superceding the authority of the former superintendent, Honowitz breached ethical guidelines in regards to the authority of the Office of the Superintendent. In doing so, he has overstepped the professional duties of the office of the Superintendent, and brought a legal challenge to the district that has caused difficulty for both the exiting, and current superintendents. It was a disrepectful show of power on Honowitz’s part, and brought legal challenges, and discredit to the office of the Superintendent.

4. Honowitz  Breached the Code of Ethics by violating Federal Law

It is the policy of the Governing Board that all of its members shall abide by federal and state law that are applicable to members of the Governing Board, as well as to Board Policies or Bylaws.

Board member Honowitz violated the Brandenburg child’s right to due process, by refusing to allow his side of the story to be told, and violating his rights to confidentiality as stated in IDEA and FERPA.

Honowitz withheld documents during a federal investigation of the Office of Civil Rights, and withheld documents during an investigation by PUSD for Uniform Complaint, both filed by the Brandenburg Family.

Furthermore, Mr. Honowitz Interfered with the appeal process of a federal agency by withholding evidence as requested through a PRA by the Brandenburgs, by hiding the evidence until the statute of limitation for appeal had expired.

(1B) Violation of Bylaw 9011: Disclosure of Confidential/Privileged Information; 

Confidential / privileged information which is produced for, or which comes out during, closed sessions of the Board shall not be divulged or released unless a majority of Board members agree to release the information, subject to applicable laws regarding closed sessions. 

On March 3, 2011, Ed Honowitz reported to the Pasadena Star News/ Mercury News that he recused himself from the vote. In so stating, Honowitz not only disclosed his vote (Recused) which is a violation of vote disclosure, but also disclosed information that was not made public. At no time was a statement released by the BOE granting Mr. Honowitz permission to disclose any information regarding the vote taken, nor any disclosures regarding the decison to deny the investigation. 

(1C) Violation of Bylaw 9321.1: Closed Session Actions & Reports. 

The Board shall reconvene in open session before adjourning and report closed session actions, the votes or abstentions thereon, and other disclosures required by Government Code 54957.1. 

On February 28, 2012 President Renatta Cooper reported , “The board voted in closed session to deny  the Brandenburg request for several investigations, however, the board has directed the Superintendent to continue to work with the Brandenburgs to address their specific concerns......

At no time did President Cooper report the votes, nor the absentions of closed. This is a violation of the disclosure clause of Government Codee 54957.1

On March 3, 2011, Ed Honowitz reported to the Pasadena Star News/ Mercury News that he recused himself from the vote. In so stating, Honowitz not only disclosed his vote (Recused) which is a violation of vote disclosure, but also disclosed information that was not made public by Board Member Cooper; Ms. Cooper did not disclose any recusals, nor abstentions.

Part 2: Violation of Protocols

We assert that Board Member Ed Honowitz violated the following Board Protocols

(2A) Violation of Board Protocol 6: Board Member Response to Complaints; 

Principle 

c. Board members need to stay within their function and not attempt to personally “fix” the problem.  There are staff members whose job it is to remedy or deal with 

community, student and staff issues and concerns. 

Board Member Honowitz took sides, and refused to meet with the Brandneburgs. He personally attempted to fix the situation by supporting the removal of the Brandenburg child from public education, and then passed that infrmation on to parents at the meetion of January 11, 2011.

d. The board is potentially the “court of last resort” and members who have been too involved early in the situation may have to recuse themselves if they cannot be impartial, or be perceived as impartial. 

Honowitz did not recuse himself from proceeding and had input and prescence in all discussions regarding the investigation of the Brandenburg’s allegations. At this time he was in possession of a number of documents which he withheld until after the BOE voted to deny the Brandenburg’s request for an outside investigation.

Protocol / Agreement 

a. The board will consider its judicial review responsibility, and staff and student confidentiality rights and due process issues. 

b. The board will use empathetic listening skills when approached by a member of the community or staff with questions or concerns. ...... Confidential information will not be divulged, as students and district personnel have legal and due process rights that must be honored.....  

Honowitz denied the Brandenburg child due process rights by withholding evidence in the form of a number of documents, and refusing to allow the child’s side of the issues be explained. Honowitz allowed a number of allegations to be leveled at the Brandenburg child, and allowed the parent group to meet and discuss the child, though the child had had been absent from school for three months, and posed no threat to anyone. Honowitz withheld a letter which contained a veiled threat directed at the child by an adult. Honowitz allowed a discussion to take place which identified the child, and violated the child’s right to confidentiality as outlined in IDEA and FERPA.

(2B) Violation of Board Protocol 9: Board role in Public.

  

Principle 

 b. Board members have been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the district.  The board shall ensure that the district is responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community. 

c. Board members represent the board in what they say and do and will set an example of professionalism. 

If this is to be believed, then by the actions of Ed Honowitz, Pasadena Unified School District and Sierra Madre Elementary School advocate withholding documents during uniform complaints and Federal invstigations, violating student confidentiality, providing equity to students as long as they don’t have disabilities, supporting the allegations of mobs as long as they are led by members of law enforcement, and providing information to the media that compromises the integrity of the superintendent and the integrity of the other members of the Board of Education.

Mr. Honowitz has withheld documents during two investigations, disclosed priviledged information to the press, allowed confidential information to be disclosed regarding a disabled child, and overstepped his role as a public servant by substituting one of an educational leader- which he is not. His role is policy, not admistration. 

Protocol /Agreement 

a. Board members will strive to educate the public about their role as public servants, entrusted with the education of all the children in the district. 

d. Confidentiality will be maintained in communication with members of the public regarding matters prescribed as confidential by state law and board by-laws.

Please refer to Part 3.

Part 3: Violation of FERPA

We assert that Ed Honowitz violated student confidentiality protections as outlined in The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records........

(3A) Violation of Confidentiality

By meeting with the Sierra Madre peer parents three months after the Brandenburg child had left the school, thus beyond the parameter of what would be described as an emergency - and then disclosing, and accepting documents that discussed personal and educational information, made accusations which were not supported by evidence and which denied the child due process, and which was done with the common knowledge of who was being discussed, regardless of naming the child specifically

(3B) Violation of Family right to amend records

By denying the Brandenburg family access to records which Honowitz was withholding from he Brandenburgs thus denying the Brandenburgs their right to request that records be amended

(3C) Violation of family’s access to school records.

By refusing to meet with the Brandenburgs to discuss the documents or any matters related to the January 11, 2011 Meeting.

Conclusion: 

We the Brandenburg Family, and supporters and friends

1. Request for Censure of Board Member Honowitz

2. Request PUSD revote on the Brandenburg’s request for an external investigation which was denied on 2/28/12 based on the witholding of evidence by Ed Honowitz. 

3. Request for Recuse of Ed Honowitz and Renatta Cooper in this discussion and votes due to the wrongful reporting by Ms. Cooper, and the witholding of evidence by Mr. Honowitz. It is not our intention to criticize, nor to seek a censure of Ms. Cooper on the erred reporting item. However, because Ms. Cooper’s error could warrant a formal action, it is our belief that her participation in these matters may demonstrate a conflict of interest.