If you have not signed on yet to support students with disabilities, add your name today: http://studentadvocate-nj.org/IDEIA2004_Petition.htm
Deconstruction of Gantwerk's Comments
By Bob Witanek http://StudentAdvocate-NJ.org http://APIECENJ.org Advocate@StudentAdvocate-NJ.org
This morning I put out a very quickly written initial response to Barbara Gantwerk’s what can only be described as inane comments in today’s Trenton Times. The following is an elaboration on my early morning quick reply. It is important for advocates to dissect her comments which could be her first publicly printed ones on the IDEIA 2004 implementation debate:
Gantwerk states:
”Gantwerk, however, said parents of special education students should not be alarmed about the pending changes. “
Here she is accusing those of us who are petitioning over our 11 points of alarmism. By suggesting that we would be alarmed to express our input she is expressing public disdain for parents who dare to make suggestions as to how these issues are handled. She is also telling us how to think by suggesting that we should not be alarmed. Whenever those with power over our lives and the lives of our children tell me how to think I get very nervous. It should not be her position to tell us what to think. After all – she is supposed to be working for us – is she not?
In her letter to the districts she did not tell the districts what to think, she asked for district feedback. She is treating us as if we are children who need to be calmed down by someone such as her who is much more tempered and wise. She is also belittling our concerns without even considering them.
Gantwerk states:
"There was a great debate at the federal level already about what changes should be in effect," said Gantwerk, confident that parent groups such as Witanek's already had a chance to weigh in.
Here she misrepresents what occurred at the federal level. Who hired the lobbyists to go to DC to pressure for changes? Board, district and administrator associations, teachers unions. State governments played their role as well. The fact is that while special education advocates worked ardently in the last year to try to offset the lopsided influence of these multi-million dollar lobbying efforts, the 20 million special education parents across the US are largely unorganized and do not have national dues paying organizations that can hire high priced lobbyists. Even if we did, we would not have financial motives like these other groups and thus would not be able to make a dollar green argument that drives so much of political power. The fact is that our children are the most vulnerable in the public school system and politically, we are the weakest in DC when it comes time to fight issues like this out. Gantwerk implies that there was some sort of level playing field game in DC. DC is a charade where power is bought and traded and is not based upon appeals to morals and ethics. Gantwerk knows this because she is a play-a on the state level.
Also it should be clear to the advocacy community now that Gantwerk will not give us the time of day when we raise our concerns. She implies that it is too late for our input. So any hearings that might be scheduled will be pro forma exercises but she has already admitted that our input will not be seriously considered by her. When she wrote to the districts, she asked them for input. Her letter was sent to the districts and the entire content of her letters were addressed to the districts. At no point in her letter did she suggest at all that she was at all interested in views of parents. Our organization A Parents’ Initiative for Every Child’s Education http://APIECENJ.org took her to task in writing in response. We were criticized by leaders in the advocacy community who pointed out that the Gantwerk letter did CC: advocacy organizations. That point did not change one iota our charge that the letters were addressed, both in the addressing and in the content of the body, to districts only.
Now Gantwerk makes it more painfully clear – hopefully for all who read today’s Trenton Times article, provided again below – that she is not at all interested in our point of view or input. After all we had our chance in the lopsided DC reaut massacre. We did not prevail then and now she says in the paper that we should hold our peace.
Gantwerk states:
"In almost all the changes, Congress has assured that parents must give their consent."
This statement is a blatant lie for the most of
the 11 points of the petition. Can parents veto the elimination of stay put
or the elimination of short term objectives and mid year progress reports? What
about the changes to manifest determination? What about the statute of
limitations, the forced state run resolution meeting and the change to when
transition services will be provided and the length of time a student can be
rendered to an alternative learning environment?
Gantwerk states:
Gantwerk said short-term objectives will be eliminated for all students except
those with severe cognitive disabilities.
Here she admits that she has already made up her mind on this issue - and tries
to disenfranchise parents from trying to gain impact on the issue of short term
objectives.
Gantwerk states:
The state's director of special education programs added that the streamlining of the IEP process will be welcomed by some parents of special education students who may already feel overwhelmed.
At public hearings held in Washington, D.C., parents have expressed displeasure with the excessive amount of paperwork generated by the IEP process. Documents with hundreds of short-term objectives can result, said Gantwerk.
As I petition folks in the field, about 19 out of 20 special education parents are signing the petition. One of the most popular points is the first one in the list, the elimination of short term objectives. Did a parent speak on the issue of too much paper work in DC? That’s possible. It is always possible for those with power to hire someone or convince someone to do their bidding. That’s the neo-colonial model. So what? She knows full well, the preponderance of our parents feel quite strongly about the first point of our petition. That is why we are approaching 700 signatures. Assuming that she knows that – that means she is lying – straight up and straight out. If she is not lying on that point, that means she is completely out of touch with what parents really believe.
On the topic of being overwhelmed – yes we are all overwhelmed – not by short term objectives but with directors who run district departments roughshod over parents and students just like she – as should be abundantly clear to us now if not before – plans to run roughshod over us in this IDEIA 2004 implementation debate.
Bottom line is that I believe Gantwerk has put her foot into her mouth and exposed her true cards. A wiser position – more devious and harder to deal with even – would be if she would have stated:
“The changes are here and we are going to need to do something. Of course I am going to consider the input from the parents. They are my clients. I also need to hear from the districts and the teachers. I am in a tough position and will need to make the tough decisions. I can’t expect everyone to be happy but will try my best to walk the tight rope to assure that our children’s needs are met and the spirit of the changes are implemented.”
Indeed I am glad she did not deal us out some unadulterated mess such as that. Now that she has let us know where she stands – we should see the score and recognize that our only effort is to mobilize the most massive input possible on the issue. Our goal needs to be no less than to speak with each and every of the 225,000 special education families in the state. While that is a tall order – at least striving in that direction will be the mindset we need to be in if we are to truly impact this debate. Let’s get busy!
- Bob
http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/111631715459380.xml?times?ngx
Special education facing changes
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
By LAURIE WHALEN
Staff Writer
Upcoming changes to the state's special education law could lessen schools' accountability for educating students and have other devastating effects, say concerned parents.
With federal changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 taking effect this summer, opponents say they still have at least another year to rally their cause since it will take about that long until the state brings its own regulations into conformity.
"Our goal is to get people interested and excited enough so that they're ready to take whatever step is necessary to communicate . . . with the state Department of Education," said Bob Witanek, a spokesman for Student Advocate-NJ, an organization dedicated to addressing the needs of children in special education programs.
Student Advocate-NJ and other special education advocacy groups fear a weakening of the law that guarantees certain rights and protections for special education students. The group says it has identified at least 11 areas where the change will harm special education students.
Witanek, a Montgomery Township resident, started a petition drive last month and has been in contact with Barbara Gantwerk, the director of the state's Office of Special Education programs and a key person who could help him bring about a different outcome.
Gantwerk, however, said parents of special education students should not be alarmed about the pending changes.
"There was a great debate at the federal level already about what changes should be in effect," said Gantwerk, confident that parent groups such as Witanek's already had a chance to weigh in. "In almost all the changes, Congress has assured that parents must give their consent."
On July 1 the federal law will be implemented and on certain issues where New Jersey doesn't have anything comparable the default law is federal law.
One of the federal changes would relax requirements for student plans, called IEPs, that spell out individual education programs.
Other changes would affect discipline and parental rights.
Witanek claims the pending modifications, such as the elimination of short-term objectives found in an IEP, will chip away at hard-won benefits.
Parents say the short-term objectives help to define concrete learning goals for students and serve as a useful guideline for parents and teachers.
But for Witanek, the elimination of goals also means a lessening in a school district's accountability.
A parent can "establish what progress is made and . . . call a meeting to go over some things you are concerned about and that need to be tweaked," he said.
Gantwerk said short-term objectives will be eliminated for all students except those with severe cognitive disabilities.
The state's director of special education programs added that the streamlining of the IEP process will be welcomed by some parents of special education students who may already feel overwhelmed.
At public hearings held in Washington, D.C., parents have expressed displeasure with the excessive amount of paperwork generated by the IEP process. Documents with hundreds of short-term objectives can result, said Gantwerk.
Witanek says he is afraid that the state will adopt the federal changes without careful review because less administrative work would be easier for school districts.
"It's harder to go back to a situation once it's changed," he said.
And, if the change is all about the bottom line and getting an upper hand with the parents, then the state is liable to consider the change a good thing, said Witanek.
Ask the Advocate
NJ Complaint Form (MS Word)
(PDF)
On Line Public Hearing on IDEIA 2004
Survey on NJ OSEP Complaint
Process
Past Activities
IEP Wkshp
Rec. Programs for
those w/ Disabilities
An Evening of Educational Advocacy
September 8, 2005 Edison, NJ
What The Student Advocate Has Done for Our Children
Lately . . .
NJ IDEIA 2004 Organizing Committee
Minutes of IDEIA 2004 meeting on Thu., May
26
Student Rights Radio
Discussion, October 31
Effort to
Reach Gubernatorial Hopefuls and Acting Governor / Candidates
IDEA: An Update
Dec. 5, 2005
Middletown
January 18,
2006: Hold a Candle Light for Our Children's Rights
50 Strong For Our
Children
No. Jersey Radio Interview Aired, 1/22
Petitioning for Rights Children: Legal in Princeton
Interview on NJ IDEIA Rights
- Racial Disparities in Sp-Ed
Call
is Heard in Montgomery Twp: Inclusive Recreation
NJSAU Minutes 2/18/2006
Playing and Singing for
Our Rights, 4/1/6
Better IDEA Laws for Special Education
Students?
Better IEPs? Anything is Possible!
April
1 Report: Student Advocacy Union - Fundraising Concert
Mobilization for Rights
of Our Children, May 17, 2006, Trenton
Nationwide Internet Radio Rally for Sp-Ed Parent Rights
9pm EST, Sat. May 20
Parents’ Rally @ Statehouse in Trenton Thursday, June 8, 2006
Piscataway Parents Mtg, June 19, 2006