When I asked, at the Regional School Committee last night, for an explanation of the Bridges program and how many new students they were expecting into the program next year, this is what I was told. There were nine students entering Bridges next year. I asked if this meant that there would now be 17 kids in the program or if any of the currently-enrolled 8 were going on to the high school. They didn't know. So, even if we think that none of them are leaving (an unrealistic assumption, in my mind, especially since this year's 8th grade is substantially larger than either this year's 6th or 7th grades), we would then have 5 FTE serving 17 kids.
Maria Geryk did provide a description of Bridges. Basically, is it a "therapeutic program" where kids may be separate from the classroom but may also be taking regular classes. By her description of therapeutic, it seems to be a program where any need of these kids is met by a trained professional. Autism specialists, specialists in anxiety, special ed teachers, etc. I'm sure it is a complicated program.
When I challenged the need to spend an extra $128,000 next year for this program (at most, nine more students) when we were in a serious budget crisis and talking about decimating world languages and cutting a team for the rising 8th graders (a move that brought Principal Cresto to tears talking about it), I was essentially told by Superintendent Geryk that "it isn't a numbers game and you can't think of it as a certain number of FTEs for a certain number of students" and by Elaine Brighty that "there are kids with IEPs so we can't touch it." Basically, "STOP ASKING."
Again, I will repeat...I have nothing against Bridges. I have nothing against these kids, nor do I doubt that they may have special needs. What I do have a problem with is listening to the School Committee and the school administrators repeatedly saying that part of the rationale for cutting Russian and German is "low enrollment" but not seeing them apply that same logic to programs like Bridges. If they are going to apply that logic (which, I will admit, is sound logic in these economic times), they should at least be willing to consider those same standards for special education programs.
As Catherine Sanderson has repeatedly stated in her blog, in reference to the proposed closing/keeping open of Marks Meadow, "by choosing to keep Marks Meadow open, you are also choosing to decimate/eliminate the instrumental music program for all elementary schools." I would argue that the same thing is happening here. In all honesty, our school administrators and School Commitee should stand up and admit to the parents of all middle school students, "we are decimating the world language program in the middle school and cutting into the core academics by eliminating one team in part so we can add services for the 17 [or whatever the actual number is] students in the Bridges Program." Because, in choosing to fund one thing, you are choosing not to fund another.
29 comments:
Alison, What are the costs of each of the alternative high school campuses and how many students do they serve? Could these programs be located in space at the high school or a single building?
Jennifer, thank you for your post! I have attempted to answer your question in a separate blog entry since you are not the first person to ask me this, or a related question.
In your recap of the answers you received last night about Bridges, you failed to say that 1) these are mandated services that HAVE to be provided!! 2)If we do not provide them in the schools, these parents can take their children out of the public schools and put them into PRIVATE schools which specialize in these services, at the tune of $40,000-240,000 PER CHILD which the schools will then have to pay for!!! Think about what numbers like that would do for our schools? The teachers, staff and administrators work very hard to come up with the most efficient IEPs possible for these children. You really need to respect that fact. Yes, I understand and share your frustrations with the dollar amount attached to this, but it could be A LOT worse than what we are currently looking at.
I also want to add a comment about the SPED and instruments. Most kids on SPED plans take instruments because they are usually very good at them!! If you talk to any of the instrumental teachers, they will explain more, but this really helps kids with lots of learning difficulties.
I must ask that you stop pitching SPED kids against main stream kids. This is an incredibly unfair battle to start. You are going after kids who need help, really need HELP!! They are not asking for extra services. They are asking for a chance to learn, get back into the classrooms and perform at the level as their peers. They never asked to have troubles learning. It is truly unfair, unacceptable and frankly hurtful that you continue this comparison.
One more piece: The district gets reimbursed for most of the SPED expenses. Some from MassHealth, State funding, Federal funding, Title 1, etc.
Anonymous 9:34PM:
In my original post, I did say that Elaine Brighty's comment to me was that these were kids on IEPs so this program could not be touched. By this, I did assume she meant that these services were required by law, but I have heard elsewhere in the district (even by special ed teachers who don't wish to come forward) that not all the services we are currently providing to students are required by law. Now, I don't doubt that these kids might be best off with ALL of these services, but I also know that in tough budgetary times, we don't all get everything.
For every parent who might place their child out of our district because they cannot have a one-on-one para, for example, there might be another parent who chooses to choice/charter their child into a middle school that does guarantee languages. So, that argument that we are providing things so that parents don't remove their kids from our system doesn't really work to convince me. Any parent CAN take their children from our system at any time but now many actually will? There is great value in having kids attend a school in their home town. As a parent seriously considering school choice for mine next year, I understand this very well. It is a tough decision to change your child's school, even when their needs are not being met.
Anonymous 10:07PM:
Your point about SPED kids and instruments mirrors one I have also been trying to make--cutting things like instrumental music and languages also affects special education, not just regular education! In other words, those cuts hit ALL kids and, as you point out, the loss of instrumental music might hit special ed kids harder.
I am not trying to "pit" special ed against "main stream kids" (and, in fact, isn't one of the stated goals of special ed to mainstream the kids?!). What I am trying to point out is the relatively large amount of money that is being spent on a relatively small number of kids.
Again, I am not trying to argue that these kids wouldn't function best with one-on-one paras, class sizes of 5, etc. In fact, what child wouldn't perform better under those circumstances? What I am trying to do is to get our school administrators and our School Committee to look carefully at every addition and cut before they make a decision. These are hard times and hard choices must be made.
I would love to hear more about your point regarding reimbursement for SPED services. Can you provide us a link that details to what extent our district is reimbursed? In the revenue line of the proposed budget for FY10, I see:
--Chapter 70 (I assume part of this is for special ed as well as regular ed but it is not broken out)
--Transportation reimbursement (for regional school districts)
--Medicaid (again, I assume a proportion is for special ed as well as regular ed students)
--Charter reimbursement
--Choice reimbursement
--Indirect cost reimbursement (I don't know what this is but it is only $15,000)
--Interest revenue
--E&D
--Town Assessments
If I am missing any specific special education revenue streams, please let me know. Or if you have a breakdown of what proportion of Chapter 70 and/or Medicaid reimbursements go to regular and special ed, please post. I think that would be a great addition to the conversation.
I don't think you get it Alison. For some SPED kids, its not just that they function best in small classes or one on one paras. Its that they can't function at all without the small classes or one on one paras. We are talking about kids who are so learning disabled that they cannot learn at all without the small classes or one on ones. Until you have a SPED child of your own you will not understand the very real challenges these kids face each and every day. What comes easily and naturally to your kids and other reg ed kids comes to these SPED kids only after much struggle and hard work. Its not that they learn best in small groups. Its that they are able to just learn in small groups. Without the small groups they would not be able to learn at all. Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of these kids who already have a numnber of strikes against them.
Believe it or not, anonymous, I do get your point. You see each and every one of the services provided as necessary for special ed students to learn at all. I know there are others that share your view and others (many of them special ed parents and special ed teachers) who do not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on these programs. Like you, I also believe that some of our SPED students cannot function in "mainstream" classrooms and do require intensive services but also know many who can and do.
And you are fooling yourself if you think that everything comes "easily or naturally" to my kids--or for any other regular education kids for that matter. Every kid has their struggles but some parents don't request IEPs to help deal with these struggles; they handle them on their own or pay for outside tutors, therapists, etc. Many of these kids might well end up in special ed as middle school students once they eliminate a team (increasing class sizes) and reduce world languages, potentially creating more of a financial problem than the cuts aimed to solve.
No, I do not have a child who is labeled "special ed," but that doesn't mean I don't understand the struggles of children in school. What it does mean is that I am not as aware of the inside information on the pros and cons of the current special education programs in Amherst as someone who has experienced them. Which is why comments from people inside the special ed system are very welcome in this conversation, whether or not they agree with me.
I just want to say that I was one of the posters from last night about the SPED programs, and it was someone else who posted today. So , you can say that you have hit a place where you should probably stop. What you are saying about the kids in SPED services and the amount of services they require, and then comparing it to regular ed kids, is wrong on many levels.
You must respect the fact the the teachers and administrators work very hard to provide the most important services these kids need. if you ever sit through an IEP meeting, you will understand that they DO NOT add in extra services these children don't require. This is an area where the schools are very conservative about.
The classes/ services that really need to be looked at are the non core classes. We need to come up with solutions there. Not focus on the absolute neediest kinds in our district.
For the record, I am not saying my name because I don't want this to effect my children.
Anonymous 12:44PM, anonymous posting is definitely encouraged--I understand not wanting your name out there. Sorry I confused the two anonymous posters. People could also post under "Dear Abby" type names if they wanted which would avoid some of the confusion.
I am sorry you don't like my suggestion of reducing the number of additional teachers for the Bridges program next year. But just because you and one other poster have asked me to stop looking into this doesn't mean that I should. Every cut to our programs cuts to the heart of some child and some family. What I am hoping our School Committee will do is to look closely and see what cuts will hurt the fewest students. I am sorry if you disagree with this approach.
One point you and I definitely agree on is the need to look at non-core courses! I was shocked to see how many elective choices my daughter had when signing up for a ninth grade curriculum (Are 10 tech ed choices really necessary? Especially when kids interested in that program of study could go to either Franklin Tech or Smith Voc?) yet she was not able to sign up for Biology or a second language! I definitely think our regional district should be focusing on the core academics (including world languages)--both for regular ed and for special ed students.
Alison, what is that old saying re. walking in someone's shoes? Your blog certainly fails to demonstrate compassion, let alone understanding of the Sped student. Of course, why would it? It's time to keep your thoughts and arguments, although pragmatic as they may be, to yourself on this issue.
Anon 10:59, this is HER blog so she has every right to post HER thoughts on any issue she sees fit! She's putting her name right there for all to see, agree or disagree. Much gutsier than the rest of us doncha think?
If you want to have a blog with things only you approve of go ahead and start one and censer it. Please.
I appreciate the openness of the discussion here, and value Alison's approach to our fiscal crisis. I share her goal of considering all aspects of the school budget as relevant to the discussion.
What I hear in some of these posts is fear. We all have that fear, to greater or lesser degree, about something that the schools provide now that might not be there in the future. Talking about those fears is helpful. Making decisions based only on fear is cowardly.
Anon 10:59: Since I don't know who you are, I have no idea whether or not you know me personally well enough to judge whether I am compassionate. In any case, if you don't like my thoughts or opinions, please feel free to avoid my blog.
Anon 11:58AM: Thanks, but after comments like the one posted above, I wonder if I am actually just more foolhardy than others for willing to raise such issues!
Anon 1:00PM: You are right--we are all a little afraid. Parents are afraid of what kind of education their children are going to have in the coming years, kids are afraid of losing their favorite classes, their favorite teachers, and maybe even their school, and teachers are afraid of losing their jobs. All understandable fears. Thank you for putting this into words for us.
Should 'regular' education kids shoulder all budget cuts? And a separate question: Why are people not allowed to question special education funding, when it consumes a huge amount of our budget? If it is necessary, then it should be able to withstand the scrutiny. I think it's really easy for people to scare off or intimidate those with legitimate questions by accusing them of not being compassionate, as an earlier poster did. Cheap tactics, and, unfortunately, effective.
"I must ask that you stop pitching SPED kids against main stream kids. This is an incredibly unfair battle to start."
"Stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of these kids who already have a numnber of strikes against them."
"What you are saying about the kids in SPED services and the amount of services they require, and then comparing it to regular ed kids, is wrong on many levels."
"Your blog certainly fails to demonstrate compassion, let alone understanding of the Sped student."
Please include me as one who shares these views. Thank you.
Anon 1:37PM: Will do. And, as I advised another poster, please feel free to avoid my blog if you do not like what you read.
Alison, you write "Some parents don't request an IEP to help their children deal with their struggles'. Parents cannot simply request an IEP and, abracadabra, it is presented to them. Rather, a parent may request a series of tests and an evaluation for their child. If the result of that testing and evaluation warrants an IEP, then, and only then, is one offered. Did you truly not know that?
Secondly, are you so out of touch with reality that you believe all a parent of a Special Needs child has to do is #1: "deal with the (child's) struggles on their own", and/or #2: "pay for outside tutors", and/or #3: "pay for a therapist", and/or #4: "etc.". You might consider the very strong possibility that many parents are themselves dealing with an extraordinarily difficult financial situation and cannot afford the "solutions" you so sensitively propose.
I am embarrassed for you, Alison.
Anon 3:13PM: No need to be embarrassed for me! I am sorry for you that you misinterpreted my line as indicating that I thought it was easy to get an IEP for a child! I know it is not and that it is often a long road for parents (and kids) to get the right IEP that meets their needs. I also know that many parents cannot afford outside tutors, therapists, etc. if their children need extra support.
What I DO know, from personal experience and from the stories of others, is that some parents do not choose to pursue IEPs for their children, even if they really need extra help. Some are unaware that they can use this resource, others are worried that their children might be "labeled" if they pursue an IEP, some have gotten turned-off by an intial experience or experience with one of their other children, and others choose another route for entirely different reasons.
What I was really trying to say is that the students with IEPs are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to students and families that might be experiencing difficulties and struggles. Some of these students never get counted the traditional way because they receive their resources outside of the school setting.
Alison, it seems as if you've stirred up quite a hornet's nest. And it is obvious that those experienced with SPED, either professional and/or parental, feel very strongly about the subject. My suggestion or maybe even "wish" is that you use your energy, intellectual abilities, and objectivity to become an advocate for the SPED program. The children, parents and professionals would welcome that.
Alison, you are outdated, outnumbered, out on a limb, and out to lunch. We have spoken.
Wow. To me it looks like the advocates for special education are really mean people. At least on this blog. Why can't Alison look into special education costs without being pilloried? A lot of people have the same questions, but are afraid to ask them -- now I know why. You guys are dreadful.
I am one of those parents who decided against an IEP. The reasons were many and personal. I have been happy with the help I have gotten from the school for my child and no, I do not have money to pay for a tutor. I am amazed at some of the services demanded and given. And amazed that people are attacking Alison for raising some simple questions of accountability. Typical behavior in Amherst.
Wow! To me it looks like the advocates for regular education are really mean people!!! At least on this blog. Why can't the SPED parents explain the reason for the costs of the SPED program without being pilloried. Alot of people have answered questions about the SPED programs and the students populating them and I am afraid that the answers have been ignored, misunderstood or discounted out of hand. You guys are unbelievable!
The SPED parents who are explaining the reasons for the costs are not being pilloried and I'm sure their input is welcome by Alison - it's my impression she is looking for information like that (hence the questions.) It's the people making personal attacks on her who are objectionable. And people like Anon. 5:28, with a nasty, mocking post, typifies that.
Anon 6:44. Did you read the post that Anon 4:54 left? It seems to be that the post left by Anon 5:28 was a parody on what 4:54 left. 4:54's post is the one that seemed nasty, mean and uncalled for.
Its time for all of the nasty mean-spiritedness to stop. Everyone is going to be facing painful cuts and both sides should stop attacking each other and take for granted that everyone wants the best for their child and for their child to get the best education possible. With the budget cuts that are looming every child in the school will be impacted in a negative way - there's just no way around it.
I read both. I thought the second post was much meaner (and mocking - it wasn't parody - pretty juvenile.) The first poster (4:54) was pointing out how people were attacking Alison and calling them on it. I agree that some posters are being mean. For example, the person who calls her 'outdated, out to lunch' -- what's with that?! Who does this help? It just further polarizes people. I have two kids who benefited from SPED services, and I find this reaction from other SPED parents really unhelpful. The people whose children don't need SPED services perhaps need some things explained ... let's do it civilly. People shouldn't be afraid to ask questions. It's also totally possible that SPED spending is awry. If it's not, then - no harm done in looking, right?
Alison, I wanted to commend you on raising a sensitive issue in a very logical and polite manner. You (and we all) have every right to ask questions about whether money is well spent.
I think a lot of people here are overly sensitive and think that by asking questions, you and other question-askers are suggesting that we cut SPED services. That is not at all what I read from your blog postings. What I read is that you are asking is whether the money is well spent (which is a legitimate question to ask of ANY organization, person, business or program.)
No one is questioning the need for the services that each SPED kid has been allotted. That is between the SPED adminstrators, teachers, parents - the group that creates each kid's IEP.
What people are questioning is (if I am interpreting all the posts correctly) -- is if the money is being well spent to provide those services. The same services could be provided in many different ways - with one administrator, 5 administrators or with 10 administrators. Just because the SPED services each kid requires is provided does NOT mean that it is provided in a fiscally-responsible and effective way.
Many people are accusing Alison of being insensitive to SPED - but I don't see that at all. I see her bending backwards to make sure she is not offensive to SPED parents. She has not in any case suggested a cutback of services, I have not seen that anywhere in her posts.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions about whether the money is effectively spent. Especially when so many SPED-insiders are directly or indirectly suggesting that there are issues with these programs. What is wrong with evaluating these programs and asking whether there is a more effective and fiscally-responsible way to provide these services?
Alison, again, a huge thanks to you for not being afraid to ask questions and giving the rest of us a forum to ask them ourselves (in a wimpy, anonymous way). But I wouldn't be here on this blog if I didn't want to know the answers, if I weren't truly concerned about our schools.
Anon 11:06PM: Thank you for putting that more eloquently than I could have! You have captured the essence of my original thoughts exactly.
Post a Comment