SAU hires “apprentice” Special Ed. Director…who needs “mentoring” ??????

HENNIKER BROKEN SCHOOLS Henniker tax payers beware…”Burbank joins SAU 24 student services staff….” July 13, 2018 Volume 23 number 28 article This article raised many questions in the minds of folks who write to the staff here at onlyhennikerbruce.

“As the Field of Special Education becomes more complex….”

  1. “Why are we hiring administrators to run programs, [snip] that are the most litigated aspects of public education, that we publicly declare they are not qualified to do?”
  2. “I wonder if the geniuses who approved this realize that the first question that will be asked at the “assistant directors” first deposition will be, “ is it correct that you are currently being mentored in your position?”
  3. “After an entire paragraph extolling the extensive background of this individual in the area of special ed we get paragraph two which outlines how difficult it is to find a director.
  4. Which begs the question, What will it cost us for the individual who will be “mentored” and our just retired director who will work “one to two days a week”?
  5. “Are we creating a cottage industry-promising to provide comfort to school districts and parents alike-by spending more money lining the pockets of recently retired administrators?”

Now…. the Background:

  • The 1973 Rehabilitation Act (RA) especially (Section 504), the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) — which guarantees students with disabilities a “free appropriate public education” and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), unquestionably have improved the lives of countless numbers of children and their families.
  • All the statues listed above are indeed Civil Rights. Therefore, Congress has provided a due-process mechanisms allowing for legal course of action to enforce their provisions. In1986, Congress amended the law to also allow the prevailing parents in hearings and court filings to obtain attorneys’ fees… Today, IDEA, Section 504 of the RA, and the ADA are some of the most litigated federal statutes in existence. 
  •  March 2017; The United States Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District,  affirmed a more ambitious standard for setting goals for students with disabilities, At issue is Individualized Education Program (IEP). This case involves a Colorado boy with autism, the Supreme Court held that a school must offer an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The Court also wrote students should have the chance to “meet challenging objectives.”

Currently, this bitterly adversarial private enforcement system-along with a Federally imposed unfunded mandate for IEP’s to comply with the more ambitious review standards established in the Endrew Supreme Court decision-has had a toxic effect on American public schools.

It now appears that school districts are exercising extreme caution cautious when making funding decisions regarding regular education services, anticipating possible legal actions by disgruntled parent of a disabled student. In many of the current legal actions in this regard, claims are made that the budget decisions for regular services  negatively impact special education services.

Clearly this will have an impact on both the school budget and the Town’s administrative budget:

  1. Will these increases in SAU spending increases our school budge?
  2. With these increases in the school budget will we have less funds available for infrastructure projects?

Everyone needs to understand, the budget process for  2019 has begun….please stay engaged!

OHB…keeping it real… making it easier for you to find the facts so you can draw your own conclusions…..

“There are things public officials would never do if they thought somebody might call them out on it.”