INITIAL RESPONSE FROM STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION TO THE NJ STUDENT ADVOCACY UNION ON STATE CODE IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Reported by Bob Witanek,
http://StudentAdvocate-NJ.org 908-881-5275
Below is a two-paged typed response from Arnold G. Hyndman, President, NJ State Board of Education to the letter that I sent to the board on behalf of the New Jersey Student Advocacy Union on February 4, 2006, the same date that we publicized our announcement of the foundation of our new parent and student advocacy union. The letter was received in the post office box of our organization and typed in so the information can be shared with all. A formal response will be sent to Dr. Hyndman, the Acting Commissioner Lucille Davy and the board.
We had received another correspondence via e-mail from the state recently announcing the cancellation of the March 15 hearing that had been scheduled. Here is the correspondence regarding the testimony session cancellation and some commentary on same:
http://www.studentadvocate-nj.org/NJDOE_reschedules.htm
http://www.studentadvocate-nj.org/analyzing_the_change_of_schedule.htm
The letter from Dr. Hyndman below is self laudatory of the State Board.
ASSESSING OUR GAINS AS PER THIS LETTER
1. To our credit, the NJ Student Advocacy Union, SPAN, many other organizations
and parents who have called for a more open, inclusive, collaborative and
democratic process, there are some achievements of our efforts highlighted in
this letter. Dr. Hyndman does not mention the cancellation of the March 15
hearing but he announces a new testimony session on May 17, 2006. The extension
of the process is at least in part due to our organized opposition to the
changes – although they could be doing it for many different reasons including
in order to give the other side on the issue more time to get their ducks in a
row.
[ The NJ Student Advocacy Union decided at our February 18 founding meeting that we will call for a demonstration outside the May 17 testimony session. We will invite all interested parties – individuals and organization – to participate. We hope that we can make the activity truly statewide in character. We will also work with all of the other organizations to mobilize for massive parent, guardian, student, advocacy, family and supporter testimony at the session. See minutes of our February 18 meeting: http://www.studentadvocate-nj.org/NJSAU_minutes_20060218.htm ]
2. Dr. Hyndman states that they “have arranged for the voice mailbox capacity to be expanded to allow for more messages in the event that our registrar is on another call or unavailable.”
3. The Board has established an e-mail address for submission of comments: statebd@doe.state.nj.us Dr. Hyndman pledges to update its website to announce the availability of such method of communication. Earlier communications I have made (and perhaps others have made) have called for such use of an e-mail address to receive comments.
WHAT STILL REMAINS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED:
1. Dr. Hyndman fails to state whether the session(s) on that date will be in the afternoon at 3pm as usual, when we need to be at the curb waiting for our children or at work, or in the evening, when more families and more working folk can participate. We need to continue to demand that the hearings be in the evening and that weekend hearings be scheduled.
2. As far as the expansion of the answering machine tape, that could be helpful. However, it will not address the issue if the state decides not to clear the message queue and not to answer the phone as was the case before the January 18 hearings. Parents tried to call through from Wednesday, January 11 through Friday January 13 to no avail until after this writer complained to another office in the Department of Education. We will need to be vigilant during the registration periods and we should recruit volunteers to each take a day and call in every hour. If the queue is full and nobody answers the phone, they can call the public relations office of the Department of Education to complain and make sure the line is reopened.
3. The letter below provides an excuse for not extending the registration process: “We must, however, adhere to the deadline for registration. It is imperative that our office staff have a final number of registrants in order to adequately prepare for the public testimony sessions”
What preparation is needed? If any is
needed, it can be handled in 1 day. Why would more time than that be needed?
Currently registration is cut off 5 full days before the hearing itself – a
preposterous amount of lead time. We need to continue to express the demand to
keep the registration period open up until the date of the hearings or at worse,
the day immediately prior to the hearings. Dr. Hyndman states that the 5 day
lead time is needed so that the staff can “have a final number” – basically to
count the number of registrants. For January 18, the count was 71 registrants –
and the count was available at noon on January 13. Since the count was known at
that time, why would you need another 5 days to “have a final number.” The only
purpose the lead time serves is to reduce the number of testifiers. We need to
continue to make the demand that the registration period be open until the date
of the hearing or at worse the date before the hearing.
4. As for the use of small rooms for the testimony, Dr. Hyndman fails
to acknowledge that on January 13, the state tried to shut down the registration
process (for the second time that day) when the second room was full. Martha
Brecher of SPAN had to cajole the Board staff to open up a third room. So use
of the tiny rooms in the state building, as long as the state continues that
policy, can continue to apply a limiting factor to our ability to testify en
masse. Use of public school auditoriums for the hearings would not only provide
a more inclusive and unifying means for us to provide our testimony, it would
encourage the board to get out of Trenton and into our communities for regional
hearings and take away the “rooms are full” excuse for cutting off
registration. We should continue to call upon the board to hold hearings in
large rooms.
5. There is nothing in the letter below that addresses two of the most critical issues – the day and time of meetings and the location of meetings. The call for evening and weekend meetings and the call for regional meetings has been consistently raised from all quarters of the family and advocacy constituents. Dr. Hyndman omits all mention. The call for regional hearings needs to continue to be pressed.
6. As far as Dr. Hyndman’s statement:
“we do not possess capacity at this time to allow for registration via the website.,” my response is: Why not? As webmaster of http://StudentAdvocate-NJ.org , it takes me about ˝ hour to set up a form for registering for a meeting, joining the NJ Student Advocacy Union, etc. It is preposterous that the state, with all of its resources, would say that it does not have the capacity to allow registration via the website. The state has a DOE web input link at: https://www.state.nj.us/njded/parents/contact.htm . They can simply use that link to register testimony providers. The capacity is there and in use for other purposes. There is also a governor’s link for input at: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/govmail.html It clearly is *not* a matter of the state not having the capacity to set up on-line registration – which would serve to greatly increase the number of registrants and totally eliminate the phone shut down method of cutting off testimony – the state simply has chosen not to provide that capacity for testimony registration. Furthermore, if the state is making statebd@doe.state.nj.us available for written comments, why not use that e-mail address or another one for testimony registration? Once again, the whole telephone bottle neck would be reduced. We need to call upon the board to provide web linked testimony registration and e-mail registration. It is the 21st century – let’s get with the program!
The bottom line is that the letter below represents some important gains for our effort and a recognition of our NJ Student Advocacy Union as a representative force in bringing about some of these gains. Nevertheless, we need to escalate the pressure for an inclusive, collaborative and democratic process. Continue to get your letters out. See: http://www.studentadvocate-nj.org/call_for_inclusiveBOEHearings.htm
State of New Jersey
State Board of Education
February 15, 2006
Mr. Robert Witanek
NJ Student Advocacy Union
PO Box 1214
Belle Mead, NJ 08502
Dear Mr. Witanek,
I am writing in response to your correspondence regarding the New Jersey State Board of Education’s process of public input. The State Board has always utilized a process that allows for maximum participation from all member of the public in the development of education policy. It is unfortunate, therefore that you have chosen to characterize our efforts to accommodate all stakeholders as disingenuous.
All state agencies responsible for the adoption of regulations of any type are only required by the Administrative Procedures Act to allow for one 30 or 60-day written comment period for proposed code. The State Board of Education, however, in an effort to obtain as much input as possible on draft policy, has established a process that routinely includes a minimum of two public testimony sessions in addition to the continuous acceptance of written comments. In instances where additional opportunities are deemed necessary by the State Board and Department of Education, even more opportunities for public comment are provided in conjunction with the already extensive input process for public participation, hence the extra public testimony sessions for the draft amendments to the special education code. Further, not only did we schedule an additional public testimony session on January 18, 2006 we have planned another for May 17, 2006; we also have delayed proposal level consideration of the amendments to the special education code in order to provide for an additional discussion of the public’s comments on the amendments prior to publication in the New Jersey Register.
You have expressed disapproval concerning the practice of holding the public testimony session in separate rooms. In order to ensure maximum participation while still considering time constraints faced by many members of the public, we utilize as many meeting rooms as possible. Additionally, this practice has been applauded by many members of the public who want to present testimony to the State Board but may be intimidated by a larger audience. Also, all copies of the testimony provided at the public testimony session are distributed to all State Board members, the Commissioner of Education and appropriate staff members at the Department of Education.
You have also expressed frustration with the registration process for public testimony. I do apologize for the difficulties experienced by any member of the public attempting to register for public testimony. To resolve the issues of limited capacity of the voicemail system for registration, we have arranged for the voice mailbox capacity to be expanded to allow for more messages in the event that our registrar is on another call or unavailable. We must, however, adhere to the deadline for registration. It is imperative that our office staff have a final number of registrants in order to adequately prepare for the public testimony sessions. Moreover, although we do not possess capacity at this time to allow for registration via the website, we allow for public comment to be submitted to the State Board Office via email. Written comments can now be sent to statebd@doe.state.nj.us . A notice will be distributed and placed on the website to this effect. Thank you for your recommendation concerning this issue.
Although you have expressed dissatisfaction with the State Board’s process for public input, we have experienced great success in collaborating with parents, students, teachers, administrators and other stakeholders in the development of effective public education policy. The State Board has always valued the contributions of all members of the public. Our tradition of providing extensive opportunities for public participation allows for all sides of an issue to be expressed and considered. To that end, we are pleased that you have chosen to participate in the development of policy by submitting your perspective on the draft amendments to the special education code. We are also happy that you have encouraged others to do the same. Your comments along with those of other stakeholders are being considered by all State Board members and department staff.
Sincerely,
<Signature>
Arnold G. Hyndman, Ph. D.
President, NJ State Board of Education
c. Members, State Board of Education
Lucille E. Davy, Acting Commissioner of Education
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