TESTIMONY REGARDING NECESSARY CHANGES TO NJAC

Prepared for The State Special Education Advisory Council

Thursday, May 19, 2005

National Conference Center at the Ramada Inn

399 Monmouth Street, East Windsor, NJ 08520 609-443-8000

My name is Ilise L. Feitshans and I am a long-time resident of Haddonfield New Jersey. I represent several families in Southern New Jersey and my own gifted disabled son. I teach law of health and I publish a treatise regarding compliance with federal laws that is available on Westlaw.com. I have been a lawyer for nearly a quarter of a century and I have a Masters of Science in Health Policy and Management from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

I. BUDGETARY CONCERNS: ENDING PREJUDICE IS FREE

When I created two recent conferences designed to open up discourse about federal civil rights to inclusion for disabled students, I stumbled upon an unmet need shared by parents, students administrators teachers and the community. Everyone needs more information about laws protecting people with disabilities, and about treatment or support for people with disabilities. I did not ask to learn this: spending time trying to solve this problem was not part of my career path or my legal or public health training. But the tools in my own personal education have been surprisingly necessary and helpful; every second of meeting the challenge of educating my learning disabled son has required using all my training.

I have learned by representing at least a dozen different families at various IEP meetings and other special education functions in Southern New Jersey that my situation is not unusual and that FAPE is not really “free of charge”. The simple goal of educating a learning disabled person should not require the amount of time and effort it has taken me to enforce civil rights to learn under US law. Some may erroneously argue that I need no help, and it is the parents with less education and therefore less empowerment who deserve to be heard instead. To them I would say, there is no such thing as too much knowledge. If all my professional knowledge and attention cannot get my son the very best education with little effort, I shudder to think of the situation of parents I have not met, to whom both disability and the legal system are new. By helping individual families with their IEPs and a class action regarding enforcement of civil rights for education, I have come to understand that millions more may be similarly situated and need similar help. By writing articles and holding conferences at my own expense and writing books, I have feedback from parents that convinces me I am not alone in these complaints about the present system of education, but that each of us is so busy in the trenches trying to support our families, understand disabilities and fight a broken system that it is as if we were each all alone.

From my professional training, as applied to my experiences as the parent of a disabled student I have realized that the present educational system is broken. There has been a fundamental break in communication, and there is a concomitant lack of trust resulting from that disconnection. Information does not adequately flow from school districts to the public and private schools in communities that surround them. Information doesn’t flow from the federal government to states; nor to school districts from state legislatures. Taxpayers and students and parents who do not perceive themselves as having disabilities do not understand the fundamental precepts of inclusion; students who have a label of disability do not receive adequate support services with goals for high achievement. Thus, there is no accountability in the system and no check on the resulting pattern of practice of segregation between disabled and non-disabled student populations. This problem remains consistent across the spectrum from independent to public schools, and seems to vary only slightly by SES or geography.

I believe that the State of New Jersey can do more with the existing resources without spending a dime. The abridgement of civil rights for disabled students impedes the achievement of every student’s Right to Learn. I believe that embedded prejudice against the disabled, as perpetuated by the existing text of the NJAC is an overarching obstacle to realizing every child’s right to learn. For this reason, NJAC should be changed. Significantly, none of the proposed changes discussed below require major funding or additional appropriations in order to achieve these goals. The list below reflects many of the items discussed in my testimony at the state and federal level, before the Haddonfield Board of Education, NJDOE, USDOE OCR, and representing students at IEP meetings, or speeches and published articles.

II. Proposed changes to the NJAC:

Existing regulations that may be perceived as impediments to inclusion efforts and regulations that work against Inclusion in NJ Schools.

1. Teachers are undercredentialed; adequate teaching requires additional credentials compared to the training in multi-sensory learning and special needs that is part of the existing training structure.

There is no annual minimum requirement for in-service regarding inclusion. As I testified the NJ DOE in Trenton Dec 1999 and again to the federal monitors in Sewall in 2000, the teachers doe not have a requirement for a Masters as a pre-condition to tenure (as in several other states) and thus do not get the latest information on mulit-sensory learning, use of AT, needs of students, or trends in education that reflect solid social science research about new methods and measures of effectiveness.

2. There is no Tolerance training for nonclassified or mainstream Students.

Classified and non-classifed must live together and in fact these are fluid, not static populations, as students are remediated, illness is cured and maturing people develop new illness or disease. There must be peer support groups that deal with the questions of disability

3. Increase the Woefully inadequate regulatory incentives for CHILDFIND

There is no adequate mechanism for CHILDFIND. every child should be screened regarding milestones. How is it possible to have students identified en masse in seventh or eighth grade? Pre-k is the screening place, as the federal law suggests but does not fund. NJ has no such mechanisms in place to mandate screening in a manner that racks the suggestions but not requirements of federal laws. Penalties can be increased for failure to identify the disabled and failure to engage in childfind; publicity regarding these requirements can be obtained using existing conduits of communication within the OSEP infrastructure and the New Jersey State Department of Education.

4. REVIEW AND IMPLEMENT FORTHCOMING AT GUIDELINES DEVELOPED BY THE STATEWIDE WORKING GROUP

AT guidelines, such as those that Jay Feitshans, Fred Chang and Karen Gilmartin have developed for the state should be reviewed and in place. the recommendations of their statewide working group should be in place by the commencement of the 2005-2006 academic year.

5. Teachers are not required to participate in IEP.

This is simply a disaster and the resulting breakdown in communication within the infrastructure hurts students and creates friction within the administration. See in-service discussion above. This will be the subject of a US Supreme Court case in the October 2005 term.

6. Gifted Disabled Must have Accommodations

Gifted Disabled programs must be folded into existing regs to promote both equal opportunity and inclusion. Gifted-disabled programming is allowed by the regulations but not discussed in detail

7. Create an Office of Parent Advocate within the BOE structure with oversight for compliance with inclusion and outreach to new parents.

A Parent advocate is needed in every school district as per the recommendations of the conference at the Haddonfield Middle School March 8 2003, "ID: Identifying Gifts and Disabilities so No Child Is Left Behind". This requirement enables parents to obtain information without requesting due process and ensures outreach for Childfind, for in-serivce and for a host of inclusion regulations that either exist or are dormant in New Jersey or exist in other states but do not exist in New Jersey at all.

8. REGULATIONS MUST DISCUSS WITHIN THEIR TEXT THE OVERLAP WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING TRANSITITON SERVICES

Link between ADA and IDEA is not fully discussed under the regs as it impacts transition services for students. Transition services should begin before middle school (current regs are age 14). this is too late for most students, (unless of course they are not identified until eighth grade because of inadequate CHILDFIND). Mandatory student attendance at IEPs should begin at age 12, with student right to attend encouraged and openly recommended at any time at any age.

9. STATEWIDE REVIEW OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Consistent with the changes described above, I therefore urge the passage of S 2417,. AN ACT establishing the Special Education Review Commission currently before the NJ Senate and soon to be before the entire state legislature. S 2417 therefore provides a clear chance to explore further the broken system; to try to figure out why it is broken as well as how it can better use existing resources, if not totally overhauled and repaired. Parents, teachers, students administrators and members of the general public must have the courage to examine closely, from the inside, the systemic reasons for this communication breakdown, in order to improve this situation. Under the auspices of the proposed review commission, the impasse in the present situation can be remedied by changing attitudes, and also by requiring every school district to hire lawyers as parent advocates who would serve as a conduit for public information, by developing programs for parent and student self-advocacy training regarding: due process procedures, civil rights, FAPE and the use of assisted technology.

10. INCREASE THE MANDATE FOR SELF ADVOCACY TRAINING FOR IDENTIFIED OR CLASSIFED STUDENTS

Regulations to promote student self-advocacy in the form of coursework about self-advocacy is woefully inadequate and should be mandated under the regs within two (2) academic years of the student's classification or identification (whichever is sooner).

III. Summary: The Unmet Need To Fix A Broken System

Winning Civil Rights is not a spectator sport and the system itself is a player on this field. The root cause of the widening separate but extremely unequal system of education is not about money. The cause is garden variety prejudice: attitudes that have been ingrained for centuries suggesting the need to provide charity to the disabled while overlooking or denying their human potential. Consequently, all of society suffers by bearing the cost of low expectations that educators have for anyone who is labeled disabled. Conversely, I believe few people will deliberately violate laws when compliance is the social norm. Few people will wake up in the morning with the mindset to state a racist comment, break laws or deliberately hurt a disabled student once they have been taught the rights and obligations regarding equal opportunity under law. This social change can only occur when parents, administrators, teachers and all students (regardless whether they have a 504 Plan under Rehab Act, or an IEP or bear no label under federal law) have access to good data from schools and administrators. Embedded parent advocates could foster work to end prejudice, by providing detailed information and outreach to the public, as a requirement for accountability under law.

In my family, it is nice that I have attended law school, and that I have happened to study disability in public health school, and that I studied ADA as part of an NIH grant while teaching at a law school. But none of this should be required of every parent in order to be sure that a child’s civil rights have been protected. And, attention to these issues in the classroom are swiftly rendered meaningless if a student emerges from school, only to find a world riddled with stigma and low expectations for the disabled. Indeed, there is something terribly wrong with the existing broken system if my son, who is a child of privilege, whose Great-Grandfather was a professor and who has every educational opportunity cannot be treated fairly and be consistently given an equal educational opportunity to succeed. There is good reason to question therefore, how to fix system, I submit that the present broken system benefits no one.

The mission of public education is to produce Nobel Laureates and Supreme Court justices. The independent schools also have an obligation to free themselves of closeted prejudice. Although there is no such thing as spending too much money on education; at the same time when billions and billions of dollars have been spent, whether for public or private education, it is fair to question whether those dollars have been spent wisely or equitably. In fact, it should not drain any family’s financial and emotional resources nor take any more time than the equally vital task of educating any other child, to educate a disabled student.

This social problem impacts everyone in society, and can be cured by rewriting the existing NJAC to uproot the embedded prejudices that are the weeds, overtaking and destroying our beautiful education system. I remain available to answer questions, lend my time, expertise and assistance in any capacity that this Committee may wish.

Thank you for your consideration and time.

Sincerely,

Ilise L. Feitshans JD and ScM

Prof. I. L. Feitshans JD and ScM

120 Warwick Rd Haddonfield NJ USA 088033 856 428 0605 ilise@prodigy.net

APPENDIX LISTING OBJECTIONS TO IDIEA

Fight efforts to weaken special education laws
To the editor:
    It is time for special education families, relatives, friends, advocates and other supporters to organize and converge to protect our rights, which are being whittled away.
   IDEIA 2004 is the federal revision to special education law that allows states to weaken rights of — and support for — special education students and parents. States with stronger law in areas where the federal law allows weakening can opt to keep the laws stronger. The good news is that special education families and allies across New Jersey are joining together to call upon the Department of Education, acting Gov. Codey and state legislators to stand with our children by foregoing the most offensive changes.
   Part of the effort is being coordinated from the Student Advocate Web site, http://StudentAdvocate-NJ.org, where a petition drive has already garnered support from over 600 NewJersey residents. The petition calls upon New Jersey to hold the line on 11 points that are important to special education students and their families:
   1) Elimination of short term objectives;
   2) The changing of an IEP period from one year to three years;
   3) Regular education teachers would no longer need to attend IEP meetings;
   4) Midterm assessments of progress toward objectives can be eliminated.
   5) Stay-put provisions prohibiting unilateral district placement change while an issue is in dispute can be eliminated;
   6) Manifest determination rules can be weakened, making it easier to suspend or expel a child with a behavioral disability;
   7) Increasing the time for which a child can be removed to an "alternative learning environment";
   8) Decreasing the frequency parents must be notified of their rights;
   9) Imposing a statute of limitations for holding a district legally accountable;
   10) Imposing a state-run resolution meeting on due-process procedures; and
   11) Increasing the age for transition service from 14 to 16.
   If you are concerned about these issues, visit the Student Advocate Web site to sign the petition and learn of other efforts around the issue. You can get more information by calling (908) 881-5275. The Web site provides tips on letter-writing and other actions you can take. While the petition has been launched by A Parents Initiative for Every Child's Education, it is being supported by organizations and individuals throughout New Jersey. You can learn more about the issue and this effort at a meeting 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 26, at Mary Jacobs Library, 64 Washington St., Rocky Hill.
   In New Jersey, there are 225,000 special education students. There are between 300,000 and 400,000 parents of such children. Add in our relatives, advocates and other supporters and we could represent a million voters. Imagine if we converge our efforts and resources. We can prevent the weakening of these laws that are so vital to the survival and realization of the full potential of our children.

Bob Witanek

Ask the Advocate

NJ Complaint Form (MS Word) (PDF)

On Line Public Hearing on IDEIA 2004

Survey on NJ OSEP Complaint Process

Suggestions

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