Data from Tourette Syndrome Plus.

Now is an historic time in New Jersey education. Parents—including parents of students with disabilities—should be aware of the opportunity to fundamentally transform New Jersey’s public school education system to the benefit of all students, including those with disabilities.

There are two major policy initiatives that champion better learning outcomes for all New Jersey students. Together, they can help shape the future of our state’s public school system and help ensure that there is an effective teacher in every classroom.

• “Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey,” or TEACHNJ, is a piece of legislation introduced by Senator Teresa Ruiz of Essex County. As the name suggests, the primary focus of the bill is to tie a teacher’s performance to how well kids are learning in the classroom. The bill proposes a new evaluation system that uses multiple measures to rate teachers along parameters of both student learning outcomes and the use of effective practices. Personnel decisions, such as tenure, would be based on those ratings. In short, the bill proposes bringing heightened accountability for student outcomes in a way that does not currently exist in New Jersey.
• “Excellent Education for New Jersey,” or EE4NJ, is a new teacher evaluation pilot program in ten school districts across the state, as well as in 19 schools with federal School Improvement Grants, and in Newark. Next year, the program will be expanded to an additional 20+ districts. Districts not in the pilot will be preparing for full statewide rollout in all schools in time for the 2013-2014 academic year.

The ten current pilot school districts are: Alexandria Township (Hunterdon), Bergenfield (Bergen), Elizabeth (Union), Monroe Township (Middlesex), Ocean City (Cape May), Pemberton Township (Burlington), Red Bank Borough (Monmouth), Secaucus (Hudson), West Deptford (Gloucester), and Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional (Salem).

Each of these districts must convene a District Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee (DEPAC) made up of teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, and other stakeholders, who will develop, oversee, and guide the implementation of the pilot program. The DEPACs provide feedback to the state-level Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee (EPAC) that advises the NJDOE, the state’s education department.

EE4NJ, like the proposed TEACHNJ legislation, helps ensure that high school graduation and college readiness are as important for students with disabilities as they are for all other groups of students. To this end, the pilot districts are determining how student achievement will be measured in non-tested subjects, like Art and Social Studies, as well as non-tested grades. EE4NJ offers a significant role for districts to shape a special education teacher evaluation protocol.

Under both initiatives, there is a great deal left to be decided in non-standardized-tested grades and subjects. Both the districts and the NJDOE have been given wide latitude to develop evaluation measures for general education teachers who serve students with disabilities, as well as special education teachers.

According to Lynn Holheide, an expert on special education teacher evaluations at Vanderbilt University’s National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, special education must be included at the earliest stages of the overall evaluation development process. Because special education has unique issues, and efforts to create fair and valid evaluations are nascent, a great deal of thought and planning must go into developing rubrics. There are resources available but they must be studied, informed input must be sought, and decisions must be made. In addition, because whatever system is initially introduced will not be a perfect product, a provision must be made for data collection for analysis, systematic feedback, and revision and refinement as part of an on-going process.

Developing and implementing a new statewide evaluation system for all New Jersey teachers is a massive undertaking and represents a significant change to the existing status quo. Consequently, there is a lot of consternation and fear of the unknown at every level of the state’s public school system. In such an environment, there is a natural tendency to avoid more difficult tasks because even simple tasks seem hard to complete. Thus, the work of developing a special education evaluation rubric could easily be put off until later in the overall implementation process. This has indeed occurred in other states. This is what the special education community should try to avoid by helping inform the process from the start.

That is where you and other special education advocates come in.

If you are in one of the pilot districts, learn about what your district is doing to create a special education teacher evaluation. Ask if there are special education teachers or parents of students with disabilities on the DEPAC.

If you are not in a pilot district, your district will begin to develop the components of your system this fall. Ask what your district plans to do regarding special education teacher evaluations, and seek to play a constructive role by getting involved and bringing a disability perspective into the process.

Finally, learn more about TEACHNJ, and get involved so that the issues and concerns of special education are well expressed and considered.

Most parents of a child with disabilities know the persistent and sometimes agonizing struggle to raise academic expectations for their child. The policy initiatives now before us create an opportunity for the special education community to help inform the evaluation system of the future: one that focuses on accountability for academic progress for all students, so that high school graduation and college readiness is as important for students with disabilities as it is for all other groups of students.

- Michael Lilley,

Michael Lilley is the Executive Director of Better Education for New Jersey Kids, PAC. Better Education for New Jersey Kids is a not-for-profit organization concerned with school reform.

Apraxia of speech (called verbal apraxia or dyspraxia) is a speech disorder in which a person has trouble saying what he or she wants to say correctly and consistently. It is not due to weakness or paralysis of the muscles of the face, tongue and lips. The severity of apraxia can range from mild to severe.

Q: What are the types of apraxia?

There are two main types of speech apraxia. Acquired apraxia of speech can affect a person at any age and involves the loss or impairment of existing speech abilities. The disorder may result from a stroke, head injury, tumor or other illness affecting the brain. Acquired apraxia of speech may occur together with muscle weakness affecting speech production (dysarthria) or language difficulties caused by damage to the nervous system (aphasia).

Developmental apraxia of speech (DAS) occurs in children and is present from birth. It appears to affect more boys than girls. This speech disorder goes by several other names, including developmental verbal apraxia, developmental verbal dyspraxia, articulatory apraxia and childhood apraxia of speech. DAS is different from what is known as a developmental delay of speech, in which a child follows the “typical” path of speech development but does so more slowly than normal.

Q: What causes developmental apraxia?

The cause or causes of DAS are not yet known. Some scientists believe that DAS is a disorder related to a child’s overall language development. Others believe it is a neurological disorder that affects the brain’s ability to send the proper signals to move the muscles involved in speech. However, brain imaging and other studies have not found evidence of specific brain lesions or differences in brain structure in children with DAS. Children with DAS often have family members who have a history of communication disorders or learning disabilities. This observation and recent research findings suggest that genetic factors may play a role in the disorder.

Q: What are the symptoms of developmental apraxia?

Children with developmental apraxia of speech generally can understand language much better than they are able to use language to express themselves. Some children with the disorder may also have other problems. These can include other speech problems, such as dysarthria; language problems such as poor vocabulary, incorrect grammar, and difficulty in clearly organizing spoken information; problems with reading, writing, spelling, or math; coordination or “motor-skill” problems; and chewing and swallowing difficulties.

The severity of apraxia of speech varies from person to person. Apraxia can be so mild that a person has trouble with very few speech sounds or only has occasional problems pronouncing words with many syllables. In the most severe cases, a person may not be able to communicate effectively with speech, and may need the help of alternative or additional communication methods.

Q: How is it diagnosed?

Speech-language pathologists play a key role in diagnosing and treating apraxia of speech. There is no single factor or test that can be used to diagnose apraxia, and speech-language experts do not agree about which specific symptoms are part of developmental apraxia. The person making the diagnosis generally looks for the presence of some, or many, of a group of symptoms, including those described previously. Ruling out other contributing factors, such as muscle weakness or language-comprehension problems, can also help with the diagnosis.

To diagnose developmental apraxia of speech, parents and professionals may need to observe a child’s speech over a period of time. In formal testing for both acquired and developmental apraxia, the speech-language pathologist may ask the person to perform speech tasks such as repeating a particular word several times or repeating a list of words of increasing length (for example, love, loving, lovingly). For acquired apraxia of speech, a speech-language pathologist may also examine a person’s ability to converse, read, write and perform non-speech movements. Brain-imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may also be used to help distinguish acquired apraxia of speech from other communication disorders in people who have experienced brain damage.

Q: How is it treated?

In some cases, people with acquired apraxia of speech recover some or all of their speech abilities on their own. This is called spontaneous recovery. Children with developmental apraxia of speech will not outgrow the problem on their own. Speech-language therapy is often helpful for these children and for people with acquired apraxia who do not spontaneously recover all of their speech abilities.

Speech-language pathologists use different approaches to treat apraxia of speech, and no single approach has been proven to be the most effective. Therapy is tailored to the individual and is designed to treat other speech or language problems that may occur together with apraxia. Each person responds differently to therapy, and some people will make more progress than others. People with apraxia of speech usually need frequent and intensive one-on-one therapy. Support and encouragement from family members and friends are also important.

In severe cases, people with acquired or developmental apraxia of speech may need to use other ways to express themselves. These might include formal or informal sign language, a language notebook with pictures or written words that the person can show to other people, or an electronic communication device such as a portable computer that writes and produces speech.

Resource:
NIDCD Information Clearinghouse, Bethesda, MD (800) 241-1044.
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/directory

In the last two years, federal officials have launched dozens of new probes addressing civil rights issues that previously received little, if any, scrutiny.

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education opened 74 “compliance reviews” in states, school districts and institutions of higher education, since March, 2010, when Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, promised to reinvigorate the civil rights office. The promise came on the 45th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” when Alabama state troopers bludgeoned peaceful civil rights demonstrators.

The issues targeted for investigation are more substantive and complex than in the past. For the first time in its history, OCR is examining graduation rates at a community college. Fourteen of the office’s current reviews are focused on whether students have equal access to college-preparatory curricula, advanced courses, and other advanced-learning opportunities.

Nine reviews are examining the disproportionate use of discipline against minority students. Two reviews are delving into disparities in students’ access to charter schools.

Among OCR’s resolved cases are several in New Jersey. In August 2011, officials in a Mercer county school district agreed to eliminate requirements that parents provide medical documentation or prove discrimination before students with disabilities can be evaluated for services. Also in the same month, OCR found that school officials in a Burlington County district illegally required the family of a child with autism to pay for services.

Education Department staff members based in the OCR’s 12 regional offices take the lead in conducting the reviews through on-site visits to schools. They enforce federal civil rights laws in schools and universities by responding to specific complaints from parents, students and groups. In addition, the office reviews data to identify patterns of discrimination.

In the past year, OCR has conducted 700 “technical-assistance activities,” which include regional conferences for school officials to learn how to proceed when OCR launches a review. The agency has issued guidance documents to clarify how schools and universities can stay in compliance with civil rights laws, an approach that has helped OCR close more cases through voluntary agreements.

According to the report, students placed in a district-operated special class program were not offered the same length of school day as their non-disabled peers. The school day for the intensive, ABA-oriented autism class ended one hour and 5 minutes sooner than the school day for all other students. The IEPs for the roughly two dozen students in that program did not provide any indication of, or rationale for, a shorter day.

The district provided a variety of explanations for the practice, from it being a “blanket decision for all students in the program,” to transportation issues. They further claimed that this time was devoted to parent training, but no such training had ever been offered.

State code and statute require that the length of the school day for students with disabilities be at least as long as that established for non-disabled students.

The NJDOE issued a three-pronged corrective action plan requiring the district to reconfigure the autism program such that the students receive a full-day program; reconvene an IEP meeting for each student affected to indicate the length of school day needed; and, provide compensatory education to students, as needed.

The “Keeping All Students Safe Act” would prohibit seclusion, as well as mechanical, physical or chemical restraints from being included in any child’s Individual Education Program (IEP), behavioral intervention plan or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP).

Under the bill, physical restraint would be prohibited except in an emergency situation, when there is an immediate threat of serious bodily injury. The bill bans life-threatening restraint that interferes with breathing or the ability of a child to communicate, as well as mechanical and chemical restraints.

If there is imminent danger of harm, school staff may use only the degree of force necessary to stop the threat of harm. It requires schools to collect data to improve decision-making, provide the public with information about seclusion and restraint practices, and notify parents within 24 hours of restraint. The bill also bans seclusion of children in locked rooms or rooms from which they cannot exit.
The measure would require school personnel who implement physical restraint to be trained and certified by a state-approved crisis intervention program. Failure to comply with the legislation would result in a denial of FAPE.

While many parent advocacy groups support the bill, school administrators have gone on record opposing it, saying it would be difficult for schools to comply with the reporting and training requirements, and that the bill has loopholes that could prompt legal action against schools.

The U.S. Education Department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has proposed changing certain rules to make it easier for schools to access Medicaid funding for special education services. Medicaid funds can be used to pay for related services and transportation if a child is Medicaid-eligible and needs services as part of his or her IEP.

Currently, more than $1.6 billion a year in Medicaid funding is used to pay for physical, occupational and speech therapy, mental health services, transportation and counseling.

According to the National Alliance on Medicaid in Education, schools could access billions more in Medicaid funding, but fail to do so because of paperwork required to claim it.

Current rules require districts to get parents’ permission each time they submit bills to Medicaid, which could be as often as twice a month.

Other agencies that bill Medicaid do not have to obtain parental permission so frequently. With recent budget cuts, districts report that administrative and postage costs associated with trying to secure parental permission so often are a serious deterrent.

OSERS’ proposal would allow schools to ask parents for permission only once in order to tap Medicaid for services listed in the IEP.

The case involves a boy with autism, now 15, placed at a private school by his parents. Initially, the board of education refused to provide an IEP because the boy was not enrolled in the public school.

The settlement was reached through mediation ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It lets stand a federal district court decision that found the school district had erred in failing to provide the boy—who lives within the district—an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) on the grounds that he was not enrolled in the local public school. The district argued that, given the boy’s enrollment status, he qualified for a lower level of evaluation and service plan, but not an IEP.

An earlier state court decision found that the boy should have been provided an IEP, but the district appealed that decision, as well.

The district court judge ruled that the boy was entitled to a full IEP from the district in past years, even though his parents had taken him out of the district’s public school and enrolled him in a private school. The decision may have an impact on students with disabilities beyond New Jersey.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia will review a case that has potential to undermine special education rights for students with disabilities. The case, D.F. v. Collingswood Public Schools, involves access to compensatory education.

Guaranteed by federal law, compensatory education is an award of special education programs or services, such as tutoring, speech or physical therapy, in order to make up for a school district’s failure to provide a “free and appropriate public education,” or FAPE. It is often the only remedy available to students to address past violations.

Last year, a New Jersey district court ruled that a child’s claim to compensatory education was moot because the child subsequently moved from New Jersey to another state.

The New Jersey-based Education Law Center (ELC) filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Third Circuit to reverse the lower court’s decision, and was joined on the brief by nearly a dozen national and statewide advocacy organizations. The document urges the court to uphold compensatory education awards to children who leave school districts that previously denied them special education programs and services.

The decision has implications for all students with disabilities, but particularly indigent students and others, who may move out of the district, including across state lines.

A class action lawsuit was filed in 2005 by parents of seven young children with disabilities, claiming the school district delayed or blocked services for their children. The ruling now requires the district to ensure that 8.5% of children between the ages of three and five are enrolled in special education and related services, as required by federal law. It also requires that at least 95% of all preschool children referred for services receive timely evaluations.

Recently, the district had been serving as little as 2.7% of these children. For infants through age three, the school district must ensure that at least 95% percent of children in this age group and older that are found eligible for services receive a smooth and effective transition by their third birthdays.

Although there are no deadlines in the judge’s orders, the ruling will remain in effect until its requirements are met.