Below in black is an article from Texas Monthly. It is one of many published recently that paint special education in a very bad light. I’m quite certain that much of the stories are true… I’m also quite certain that it’s not the whole story. How would I know? because I live it every day. I’m not saying special education system is all unicorns and rainbows, but neither is it the spawn of satan out to ruin kids lives. the comments in colored font are mine and a colleague’s. I’d just like to have some sort of say so for the very few of you who will read this.
* DISCLAIMER * My comments made here are just that, mine. They are not a reflection of the district I work for. I mean, they might be, but i’m not consulting with or writing on their behalf. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Learning and Development (teacher), a Master of Education degree in Special Education (SPED teacher), and a Master of Arts in School Psychology (Licensed Specialist in School Psychology). I have worked in many different districts in many different positions. I have 12 years of experience in education. I say all that to make the point that I am highly educated and trained to work in the school system.
In May of 2009, an Austin mother by the name of Cheryl Fries filed a lawsuit against the Eanes Independent School District for denying her daughter, Claire, who suffered from cerebral palsy, what the Americans with Disabilities Act has mandated since 1990: a right to “a free appropriate public education.” Fries, who had been a schoolteacher, could never have imagined that the fight for her daughter’s rights would land them at the courthouse; all Fries had been asking for since 2004 was that her daughter be accommodated according to the law, which would have allowed her, among other things, to play with the rest of the kids during recess.
somehow I think there is much more to the story here. Eanes is a VERY affluent school district. why would they deny something so simple? yet, the school district’s perspective is not given.
Cerebral palsy is a neurological disorder that affects muscle control and, therefore, balance, posture, and coordination. Claire, then as now, was inordinately bright and outgoing, but she couldn’t walk; she used a wheelchair, and while the rest of the kids played during recess, her school thought it best to leave Claire on the sidewalk outside the playground—with the kids who were being punished for misbehaving. She was bullied and often came home in tears. In addition, the bathrooms lacked grab bars, so she sometimes fell onto the floor. She still fared better than some of the other disabled kids in the district, who would be left inside the classrooms during fire drills because the school lacked proper handicapped access. What the Frieses wanted was to make Claire’s school safer and more enjoyable for the disabled kids. But despite promises to help, Eanes ISD, one of the state’s wealthiest districts, always found a reason to refuse.
What she is asking for here is not considered FAPE it’s considered civil rights under ADA and has nothing to do with SPED. SPED does not make bathroom handicap accessible.
That is how Claire Fries, then twelve, ended up in an imposing law firm conference room, awaiting her deposition at the hands of the school district’s attorney, who was with the firm Rogers, Morris and Grover. Seated directly across from the superintendent, Claire was terrified that testifying would get her thrown out of school. The Frieses reached a settlement with Eanes in 2011, sometime after the Office for Civil Rights intervened. “Everything my kid needed cost about one hundred thousand dollars, and they ended up having to spend ten to twelve million dollars because I backed them into a corner, and they had to fix every school in the district,” Fries told me.
The Frieses’ victory, however, is not the norm. Houston Chronicle reporter Brian M. Rosenthal’s excellent ongoing series, Denied, has shown that school districts all across the state refuse special-education services to children in need. Since 2004, the percentage of kids in Texas schools receiving special-ed services has dropped well below the national average of 13 percent to 8.5 percent. While I don’t agree with the “8.5%” it is important to consider that other states include students with dyslexia as SPED students, while Texas is one of the only states that considers dyslexia as separate. I would be interested to see what percentages other states would have if dyslexia was taken out. The Texas Education Agency claims that this drastic drop is a result of commitment and better programs, along with a desire to stop schools from dumping minority kids, including non–English speakers, in special ed. We do not label students who are non-English speakers as disabled. That would not be appropriate nor ethical to do so. Speaking a language other than english is not considered a disability. There are other programs through general education which serve these students such as bilingual and esl classrooms. But the federal government agreed with Rosenthal’s reporting when he asserted that the TEA arbitrarily assigned the 8.5 percent ceiling during the $1.1 billion state budget cuts required around fourteen years ago.
Change might be coming. House Speaker Joe Straus has demanded that the agency overhaul the way it identifies special-education kids this session. The Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services held listening sessions last fall, and a federal investigation of the TEA was set to begin in late February. Earlier this year, advocates threatened suit against the agency, unless it abolishes the 8.5 percent benchmark.
While I agree that this “8.5% target” exists, I have never worked in a district that did not qualify students because they were “over” a certain percentage. If the kid met criteria, they were in.
The TEA deserves some sympathy. Public schools are fighting for their lives, trying to be all things to all children, with fewer resources from the state to do so. Wealthy parents want Mandarin classes while the poorest kids don’t have textbooks. In truth, kids with special needs have never been particularly popular in public schools; that’s why the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was created back in 1975. Special-ed kids can be expensive to help, and behavioral issues can be distracting to other students. Then too, the explosion in the identification of various learning disabilities has coincided with the growth of high-stakes testing; kids with learning issues can lower a district’s state-mandated ratings and, in turn, its funding.
This is the one paragraph that gives any perspective from the school district’s viewpoint.
But as parents of special-needs kids point out, the earlier the intervention, the better the outcome. Children with disabilities can learn using proven methods and can go on to lead productive lives. And, as Fries pointed out, a portion of a $53 million bond used to build new athletics facilities at Eanes could have gone to help some needier kids. The damage done by denying them an education can result in a lifetime of devastation.
That’s why we have child find. this is nothing that a parent has to point out to a school district. It’s the law. It’s what I do. I test the little kids. Get them into school or whatever it is that they need to be successful. I don't go to work with the outlook of trying to keep kids out of school. why would anyone do that. That’s just ridiculous.
Collaboration between families and schools is actually written into laws protecting the disabled. But in the eyes of parents like Fries, a handful of law firms specializing in education have made the process adversarial, working with school districts to deny services. Example of denial of services? Consider what FAPE guarantees and what that looks like. What is the parent asking for? Underwater basket weaving to help their child with anxiety? It can be hard to determine which tail is wagging which dog—school districts or their lawyers—but the situation many families find themselves in is comparable to that of a poor kid who gets entangled in the criminal justice system and discovers that all the power and wealth of the state is lined up against him. “This is what happened to educated parents in a wealthy school district,” said Fries of her experience. “So imagine how bad it is for those families who don’t have the tenacity I had, who don’t even know their rights.”
Again, parent perspective with no school perspective. These papers/ magazines just love to tell the dramatic story. Where are the success stories? All the good things schools have done? I guess that wouldn’t sell as many copies?
The average person may not even know that the practice of school law exists, though in our highly specialized society, it’s not exactly surprising. The field took hold during the days of integration and then expanded as the U.S. moved toward greater equality: with the creation of the Bilingual Education Act, in 1968; protections against gender discrimination with Title IX, in 1972; and the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has been revised over time. Today, the practice has a strong focus on special-needs children and determining what lengths schools and school districts must go to in accommodating them.
It’s a setup for conflict, and conflict was evident at an Austin listening session called by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in December. The purpose was to encourage community members to weigh in on the availability of services for special-needs kids in public schools. It became the verbal equivalent of total war. On one side were parents with horror stories of the tactics schools use to avoid educating their kids; on the other was Jim Walsh, who is a name partner in one of the most powerful education firms in the state, Walsh, Gallegos, TreviƱo, Russo & Kyle, which has offices all over Texas.
Walsh has a thatch of silver hair, sun-weathered skin, and the easy manner of a West Texas ranch hand. At the session, he tried to rebut claims that the state was denying an appropriate education to special-ed kids. “There is no evil plot at work, and no one in Texas has intentionally or systematically denied services to kids who need them,” he said. But the more he spoke, the more he was shouted down by jeering, hissing parents, who accused him of being a liar, of making millions off disabled children, of being the evil mastermind behind the ejection of needy children from public schools.
“We are not the bad guy,” Walsh told me later, in a steady voice that betrayed just a whiff of irritation. Indeed, many attorneys who have worked with or opposite the firm say that it is the most collaborative of several in the state. To Walsh, the controversy over the denial of services is just another story sensationalized by the media. The “more boring but far more accurate” story, he said, is that Texas schools are run by people who care about kids; many of them are parents of students with disabilities. Money is tight, so it’s hard to do the right thing, but that doesn’t mean there’s a desire to deprive kids of the education the law requires. “We are gonna help the people who help the kids,” he told me. “What parents don’t see are the numbers of phone calls [from school districts] we take every day in which we tell them, ‘Yes, you have to do that for the child.’ ”
THIS is the best paragraph in the whole article. Trump has made a phrase out of “fake news.” Some have taken it to mean he doesn’t believe any news that’s negative to him is true. I don't think that’s what he’s going for at all. this is a bigger problem with the media. Maybe a better term is “skewed news.” Not exactly telling all the facts. Just reporting on whatever will make your story sensational and get attention.
Indeed, the Walsh Gallegos website is a paean to public education. Members of the firm have served as the director of legal services for the Texas Association of School Boards. They serve and have served as special education hearing officers for the TEA. They host seminars all across the state on school law and are a go-to firm for school districts seeking legal advice. But it is precisely those connections that were most troubling to the parents at the listening sessions last year. The normal identification and approval of a child for special ed involves a series of near-endless meetings between parents, teachers, counselors, and administrators. Often, working together breaks down around the time a school’s opinion of a student’s status starts conflicting with a parent’s. Foot-dragging Foot dragging!! We have FEDERAL DEADLINEs. Come on. on the part of a school is common; the more aggressive a parent is on his or her child’s behalf, the more likely the parent is to be targeted as “difficult.” Retaliation, as evidenced by testimony during the listening sessions last year, is not unusual. Frustrated parents who hire educational advocates to help them through the maze (another growth industry) can discover that suddenly a $300-an-hour lawyer is attending meetings that have nothing to do with legal procedures. I’ve never heard of a district bringing in a lawyer for an advocate. They only ever bring one when the parent brings their own lawyer. In other words, the taxpaying parents wind up footing the bill for the school’s lawyer, whose very appearance could be perceived as an intimidation tactic. “They want to wear you down until you move on or move away,” said Fries. “They know that families with children with disabilities have a lot on their plates.” This is parent perspective and not fact. Where’s the story about the unreasonable parents forcing the taxpayers to pay for school lawyers to go through Due Process over something frivolous? Go through TEAs Due Process hearings and see how many times the district prevails in something that shouldn’t have gotten to that point.
School district's budget for legal expenses. lawsuits where they are at fault as well as frivolous lawsuits are going to happen. Where is the statement about the parent with a frivolous lawsuit and how THEY are wasting taxpayer money?
Educational advocates are, for the most part, a joke. There is nothing mandating what they can and cannot do at this point. Nor what their experience and training should be. I have seen MANY that are wasting families money and are not needed.
Then too, part of Walsh’s work involves advising hundreds of school boards across the state.* In fact, he told me he had been against attaching a specific number to special-ed enrollment. It’s particularly worrisome to parents that firms like Walsh Gallegos hold seminars on special-ed law that are open only to educators and that teachers and administrators from disparate districts can be heard to parrot the same jargon that appears in the firms’ training materials. “If you are a school leader, a principal, or a school board member and the only training you get about special-ed law is from the one voice who is also hired by your district to help you not provide services, that’s a conflict of interest,” said Fries. “It also creates a poisoned climate.” Nothing stops parents from educating themselves on school law. In fact, they are given a copy of the law and legal procedures at EVERY meeting.
What about the parents who bring frivolous lawsuits against schools? Are we not allowed to protect ourselves.
An overall lack of transparency prevails. Fries has spent years trying to trace how schools actually spend their special-ed dollars and what they pay their law firms. “I don’t think anybody in Texas believes their tax dollars should be paying for lawyers instead of teachers,” said Fries. That’s actually a debatable point these days. The unspoken fear—or that which is spoken behind closed doors in many school districts—is that serving one special-needs child will require schools to serve them all. Maybe someone should remind districts that that’s the law.
Where are the stories from all the parents who have loved their children’s special education teachers? How about the ones that have been happy with the services their children have gotten? You CAN NOT tell me there aren’t people who are pleased. I’ve seen them. I’ve worked with them and for their child and their family. But that’s not “news.” Who wants to read a good story? that’s boring. It’s so much easier and believable to go with the bad. That’s what our society has come to. and it’s sad.
Part of what I consider my job is to think “what would I want if it were my child.” and that does drive many of the decisions I make. and you can’t tell me I’m the only one. People do not get into education to ruin lives and keep kids from getting what they need. People don’t stay in education as administrators to make people's lives miserable. Even if this is what some are in it for, it’s not the majority.
I could go on, and on, and on. But i’m going to stop here because this is already longer than most will read. I'm not even going to proof read it any more because it's so long. Bless you for reading any of it. I guess my summary would be… don't believe everything you see in the news.

