Helicopter parent thread at the Atlantic

The possibly-inevitable helicopter parent thread has erupted at the Atlantic, so if any of you has the time or inclination to leave a comment, I hope you will.

I've just left this one:

I'm Catherine, a 'character' in the book (for the record, I tutored my own son for SAT math & took the test myself, once.)

Reading this passage I see that a fairly important section of the chapter has been omitted, and that is Debbie's attitude toward her son's grades.

The problem wasn't the Bs.

The problem was that her son was sliding by. He was underachieving, as his math teacher says.

Actually, I have a copy of the manuscript - here's the section that appears in the book but not in the excerpt:

"For me–and this was where I parted ways with the school–the issue wasn’t grades. I would have been proud of Ethan’s B’s if the math teacher had bounced in and said, “Ethan’s a hard worker.” But that’s not what he said, and it wasn’t what I was seeing. Ethan was taking the easy path, and the school was in his camp. The administrators thought Ethan, a happy-go-lucky, disorganized middle school boy with ADHD, should determine his own academic goals."

The boy whose parents were told they should be happy with Cs (in high school) is a friend of my family; I contributed his story to the book. That boy also has ADHD and his case was one of very significant underachievement.

With both boys, the school's approach to an underachieving student with ADHD and a 504 plan was to push back against the parents instead of providing the "accommodations" the boys needed to function as well as their peers (and which the school is obligated to provide).

And in both cases, too, the boys ended up transferring to Catholic schools where they did much better without any SPED 'services' at all. (Neither family is Catholic.)

Judging by some of the emails Debbie's been receiving, parents of kids with ADHD seem pretty often to be the target of 'helicopter parent' judgments made by school administrators.

I'm love to know how many parents have this experience.

Debbie has now had several emails from parents with the same story: an underachieving child with ADHD, a school administrator conveying the message that a) parents shouldn't "push" and b) they're the only parents who are pushing.

I'm now wondering how many people with kids on 504 plans are explicitly told, by school personnel, that "letting" their child "fail" is a good motivator for children with ADHD.

OK allows disabled students vouchers for private schools

Getting the vouchers, though is a "whole nuther ball of wax".

From Jay. P. Greene's blog post: Violators of OK’s Special Ed Voucher Law Get Good Mocking

a grandfather takes a stand...

...for his Grandchildren's Education

Increase In Special Education Enrollment: Funding Driving Rise, Or Real Increase?

Greene and Foster wrote a Pajamas Media (PJM) article that alleges that the increase in special education enrollments is a result of a "bounty" schools get for SpEd students, rather than an increase in need.

Laura McKenna, who blogs at 11D, strongly disagreed with that analysis, first with Disability Witchhunt, then a longer article at PJM: Special Education Looks Different From the Frontlines

Foster and Greene maintain that schools have a financial incentive to label kids as learning disabled. In fact, schools actually have a disincentive to diagnose kids. The money that they receive from the federal government is a fraction of the money that they actually spend on special education. The federal government only pays for 17%
of the expenses for special education. State and local governments must pick up the rest of the tab. In our town, nearly half of the local school budget is devoted to special education.

I agree with Laura's thesis that much of the rise in SpEd enrollment arises from disabilities that weren't recognized in earlier eras.

The issue is also being discussed at Joanne Jacobs' blog, where the commenter Margo/Mom writes:

But, beyond that, yes, many things have changed since the 1980’s. The definitions of LD have been refined in the law, as well as the diagnostic criteria. In the 80's the criteria were primarily discrepancy based (performance below ability), which meant that a low IQ score (if it was too high to qualify for MR/DD criteria) excused low performance. There was also the two standard deviations below the mean criteria–also not current. And, as I pointed out, the incentives may have changed. Where labelling a kid was previously a way to move them out of the accountability system (as well as the classroom, or even the school), there are more protections now that disincentivize that option. In fact–wasn’t there a school in California that was relabelling kids as non-disabled to get below the “n” size for required reporting?

Previously at I Speak of Dreams:

• Underdiagnosed? Overdiagnosed?
• ADHD--Overdiagnosed?

May 6: Call (Don't E-Mail) Your Congressional Representative: Please Co-Sponsor the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act

(a version of this post appears at Special Education Law Blog)

Back in 1986, Congress passed the Handicapped Children's Protection Act, which (a) recognized that parents of handicapped children might disagree with schools over effective education of handicapped children, (b) recognized that parents, compared with school districts, had smaller resources, and (c) leveled the parent/ school district playing field, by allowing parents to recover their expert witness.

But then in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that parents cannot recover expert witness costs, in the ruling costs, in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy (2006).

The Murphy ruling was a real blow to most parents of disabled children. Why? Approximately 36% of children with disabilities live in families earning less than $25,000 a year; over 2/3 earn less than $50,000 a year. Those families can't afford the expert witness costs.

There is an act before Congress that needs your Congressional Representative's support.

The IDEA Fairness Restoration Act (H.R. 4188) would override the Supreme Court's decision in Arlington v. Murphy (2006) and allow parents who prevail in due process or litigation to be reimbursed for their expert witness fees. H.R. 4188 is important to level the playing field and protect the rights of the 7 million children with disabilities.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2008, please call your Congressional Representatives (202-224-3121) and ask them to cosponsor H.R. 4188, the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act. Have friends and family members call. It will only take 2-3 minutes!

If you do not know who your Congressional Representative is, go to http://www.house.gov and put your zip code into the box in the upper left corner. (You usually only need your five digit zip code.) You can also use http://www.congress.org to look up Representatives and phone numbers.

It helps if you ask for the Education Aide, but you can also talk to the person who answers the phone. You can also leave a voicemail message. Tell them you are a constituent and would like the Congressperson to co-sponsor H.R. 4188, the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act. Congress needs to hear from as many parents, advocates, attorneys, and others as possible.

Allowing parents to recoup their expert fees simply restores Congress' original intent, as expressed in the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986.

Why Is This Act Necessary?

School districts use tax dollars to employ and pay for psychologists and other paid experts at IEP meetings and hearings.

For parents, hiring qualified medical, technical, and other expert witnesses can cost many thousands of dollars. Few parents can afford this high cost, putting due process out of reach for most parents, who struggle to afford what their children with disabilities need.

When prevailing parents cannot recover expert costs, the playing field is neither level nor fair, and children are denied a free appropriate public education and other fundamental IDEA rights.

Introduced by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) and Pete Sessions (R-Texas), H.R. 4188 will restore Congress’ original intent and allow parents to recover their expert fees.

Why Is It Important For Your Congressional Representative to Co-Sponsor the Bill?

This is bi-partisan legislation, and the more co-sponsors, the more likely the passage of the act.

Why You Need to Call Your Congressional Representative:

In some ways, children with disabilities are invisible Americans (see, for example, Michael Bérubé's analysis of the Presidential candidates' positions on disability, Disability and Democracy)

Calling your Congressional Representative serves to put Congress as a whole on notice that educating all students with disabilities--as required by law--is a deep concern for the American public.

If due process is not affordable, the IEP process becomes even more one-sided and unfair. School personnel control the IEP process and often vastly outnumber parents. When the right to due process is meaningful, it helps ensure that school districts provide appropriate educations to children with disabilities.

Most parents turn to due process and litigation only as a last resort. In 2003, the GAO reported that there were only 5 hearings per 10,000 special education students. But when parents are forced into due process, they should be able to afford expert witnesses.

Over 100 disability organizations, including the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, Arc, Easter Seals, the Council of Parent Attorneys & Advocates, Inc., National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome Society, National Down Syndrome Congress, Learning Disabilities Association, National Center for Learning Disabilities, CHADD, and others support H.R. 4188.

Read the text of the letter sent by disability organizations at The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)'s website: http://www.copaa.org/news/organizations.html

Want more detailed information?

Download COPAA’s complete brochure on the IDEA Fairness Restoration Act and enabling parents to recover expert fees, http://www.copaa.org/pdf/MurphyBrochure.pdf

There is also a Spanish language version, http://www.copaa.org/pdf/MSSpanish.pdf

(Lea aqui en Espanol: Murphy y los derechos de los padres para recuperar el costo de los expertos: http://www.copaa.org/pdf/MSSpanish.pdf )

You can read H.R. 4188 here: http://www.copaa.org/news/IRFAct.html

For more information about H.R. 4188 and this alert, please contact Bob Berlow and Jess Butler of COPAA at protectidea@copaa.org Together, we can make the difference and restore a balanced playing field for children with disabilities.

About COPAA:

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA) is an independent, nonprofit, §501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization of attorneys, special education advocates and parents. COPAA's mission is to be a national voice for special education rights and to promote excellence in advocacy. Our primary goal is to secure high quality educational services for children with disabilities.

Vote for: Which of the following is the most bogus reason for refusing to provide effective instruction to students?

John Wills Lloyd, at the Teach Effectively! blog, has a new Bogus Bowl up. Go and vote.

In this one, we’re examing reasons that educators give for shirking what I’ve sometimes called the “instructional obligation.” It’s your chance to consider alternative rationales for not teaching.

If you’re a teacher, you might have heard colleagues advance explanations such as these. Which is the most bogus? If you’re a parent, you may have heard one (or more) of these justifications for your child’s learning problems. Which one drove you the most batty? If you’re an administrator, I hope you haven’t suggested to your faculty that members use any of these.

The choices are:

• That kind of instruction may be good for some students, but it just doesn’t fit my teaching style.


• Nobody can teach students who come from bad homes.


• Students will learn it when they’re ready.


• Some students just have crossed wires in their heads.

Like I said, Go and vote.

John is also looking for suggestions for future Bogus Bowl competitions. Help him out. Leave suggestions in the comments.

Which of the following education reform movements is the most bogus?

Over at Teach Effectively, John Wills Lloyd has opened the Education Bogus Bowl, asking:

Which of the following education reform movements is the most bogus? (Listed in alphabetical order):

• Block scheduling for classes at the secondary level.
• Brain-based instruction
• Differentiated instruction
• Inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings

You can only choose one. There will be other flights. Go and vote.

cross posted at I Speak of Dreams.

“the kiss of death”

During a meeting with my daughter’s teacher last week, she told me that a spiral curriculum (used in our school, of course) is “the kiss of death” for a child such as my daughter who requires a lot of practice and needs to master a lesson before moving on to the next one. What typically happens, this teacher said, is that when the class revisits the lesson 6-8 weeks after the first introduction, it’s “like she never learned it”.

These comments followed my explanation that C. had been achieving great success doing Kumon, which follows a logical cumulative sequence of topics, provides abundant practice and applies formative assessment to ensure mastery at each level. The classroom teacher agreeably observed, “Oh, that’s good” before she made the comment about spiraling. And the resource teacher, also present at this meeting and apparently trying to demonstrate how helpful he would be this year, told me he’d be happy to talk with the tutor anytime if it would help.

[The sound you don’t hear at this point is a suppressed scream from mom.]

This is the second year that I have explained to the school about the type of instruction that enables my daughter to excel. And, apparently, this will be the second year that they will inform me they will not change the way they teach my daughter. Worse yet, this year the school is implementing a new constructivist math program, complete with group discovery and spiraling that I expect will only impede my daughter’s learning more than ever.

But, here’s the kicker. My daughter has an IEP! Isn't that supposed to ensure that the school provides an individualized education plan that will meet the specific learning needs of the student????

[Another suppressed scream.]

I’m not sure what I must do to make the school teach my daughter in a way that works for her. I can be more forceful in explaining to the IEP committee that the school should use methods employed in direct instruction and precision teaching because they meet my daughter’s specific learning needs. Maybe I can try having them incorporate mastery at each step within the IEP goals. Really, they should just pay for her Kumon and be done with it.

To me, this crazy situation is just another example of how it’s frequently the parents taking up the slack when the illogical methods that pass for “quality education” let our children down.

EM and special ed

from anonymous:

My daughter is classifed with a learning disability in math. It has never been established to my satisfication that she actually has a disability. But she was doing horribly with Everyday Math, so I agreed to classify her because she needs the help.

This year, I worked with her using Saxon and Kumon, and she scored advanced proficient on state standardized tests.

The school thinks that she is disabled. The school will not even consider the possibility that she's just a weak student who is completely befuddled by Everyday Math.

She has attention issues as well, but do these issues amount to Attention Deficit Disorder? I don't know. The doctors think she has ADD, but they don't think it's a severe case.

If we were poor, my daughter would be so far behind right now, she would never catch up.

Christian (attended Mamaroneck schools until junior high, then went to school in Yonkers) was classified SPED for his entire school career. He's one of the smartest people I know; his reading tests college level and clearly is college level.

His math tests end-of-3rd grade on the Saxon Math placement tests.