Welcome to
The Student Advocate Website
Advocate@StudentAdvocate-NJ.org http://StudentAdvocate-NJ.org
PO Box 1214, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 908-881-5275
Send message to NJSTRONGIDEA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to participate in our discussion group.
 

Responding to Barbara Gantwerk Letter on IDEIA 2004

Barbara Gantwerk
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
Department of Education
PO Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

Dear Ms. Gantwerk,

We have read with interest your letter dated March 23 and addressed to public school officials, college officials and administrators of charter schools and approved private schools.  We take issue with the assertion that you make about “several provisions that alter the procedures and mechanisms for providing special education and related services .”

The point we are making is that such changes in IDEIA of 2004 do *not* automatically change anything at all in the State of New Jersey.  Indeed it is perfectly appropriate and proper for NJ to maintain stronger special education law where the federal legislation would allow weakening.  You are entrusted by the NJ State Government and the people of New Jersey and specifically by the students with disabilities, their parents and families and supporters to be our top advocate and number one supporter.  You need to make clear in your communications to districts, public officials and other school administrators that the changes made by the federal government do *not* automatically apply to the NJ state level. 

It is telling to whom your letter was addressed and to whom it was not addressed.  Your letter was not addressed to the advocacy organizations like SPAN and ARC and dozens of advocacy agencies and organizations around the state.  Your letter was not addressed to students with disabilities and their families whose lives and full potential will depend on how you and your department implement IDEIA 2004.  Notably missing from your web pages on IDEIA 2004 is any at all information in Spanish.  Is that another community you would prefer to exclude from the review process for IDEIA 2004?

You are head of the biggest IEP team in New Jersey.  We as the students and parents, are your clients and we are also the most important members at the IEP table.  We call upon you to hold the line, to resist the temptation to relax NJ law just because the new federal law states that you can.

While you asked the districts and school administrators for guidance as to how to administer IDEIA 2004 in NJ, and not parents, we as parents are providing this unsolicited feedback:

1. We are opposed to the removal of short term objectives or benchmarks in IEPs.  Short term objectives and annual goals provide the action plan toward achieving any improvement and are the cornerstone of accountability needed to see if an educational program is meeting the elements of long term goals.
2. We oppose the possible election by NJ to become a pilot state for multi-year IEP review periods.  Regular self evaluation is integral toward greater success, lengthening the review period can lead to stagnation and apathy.
3. We are opposed to the weakening of the rules governing who must attend an IEP meeting and to the allowance of participation through written document, phone conference or telecommunication.  The current mutli-discipline decision process is critical to a global perspective of a students strengths and areas that need further development.  Face to face interactions are integral to high quality, open team work meetings that are in the best interest of the students progress.
4. We support mid-year progress reports that reference the extent to which a goal has been met and extent to which progress is sufficient to meet the goal by the end of the year.  Such reporting is an opportunity to be responsive to changing needs as well as being another measure of accountability that is essential toward the appropriate education of our children.
5. In disciplinary matters regarding students with disabilities, we are opposed to the shifting of the manifestation determination burden of proof to parents and call upon NJ to keep the current standards regarding when a behavior is a manifestation of the student's disability.  Families are already the powerless partners in such disputes, up against challenges from school districts with far greater resources.
6. The stay-put provisions in matters of dispute must be maintained.  The stay-put provision gives parents recourse to prevent district unilateralism.
7. We are opposed to the lengthening of the time for which a student with disabilities can be removed to an alternative educational situation.  Students with disabilities need to be protected from unreasonably long disruption to their free, least restrictive and appropriate public education.
8. We are opposed to any reduction in the frequency of notification of parents of their rights and safeguards.  Regulations are ever changing and parents need to have an up to date point of reference whenever new educational plan negotiations are transpiring.
9. We oppose the implementation of a statute of limitations on the rights of parents to hold a district legally accountable.  The effects of the actions of school districts with regard to children with disabilities last a lifetime.  Limits on accountability could encourage disregard for the best interests of our children.
10. We oppose the imposition of a state run resolution meeting once parents resort to due process proceedings.  Offering such resolution assistance on a volunteer basis could be beneficial but forcing parents into that practice could deter parents from advocating in the best interests of their disabled children.   If such sessions are to be offered or are made mandatory, the state must assure that they are meaningful by having them facilitated by a trained, independent and impartial mediator.
11. We oppose increasing the age of transition to 16 as many students with disabilities require several years to achieve the independent life and occupational skills needed once they move beyond the public education system.
     

We call upon you to address a new letter to the advocacy community, to the students and to the parents, families and allies of students with disabilities.  The letter should make clear that the those provisions that are weakened by IDEIA 2004 need not be weakened in NJ.  We call upon you to provide Spanish translation at the website of the IDEIA 2004 and a draft of the new letter to families and advocacy organizations should be provided in Spanish.  The letter should be mailed to all of the parents of IEP students in the state.

We call upon you to send a follow up letter to the districts and school administrators in which you make the point clearer that federal changes such as those highlighted in your letter: “procedures for evaluations and the effect if a parent refuses consent; objectives were eliminated as a requirement in most IEPs; meeting participants and the means to modify IEPs have been altered; several changes were made in the way dispute resolution proceedings are to be administered and decided; the discipline rules have once again been altered, including a change in the definition of a manifestation determination ; and pilot programs for paperwork reduction and multi-year IEPs were created.”

- are not a done deal and that NJ can apply these measures according to the higher standards of pre-IDEIA 2004.  The federal government provides the bare minimum standard – NJ’s standard could and should be much higher.

You need to show sincerity of interest in our input and not give the impression that you only want input from school administrators. Please consider this letter a first installment of our commentary and input on NJ handling of the IDEIA revisions.  We look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,
Bob Witanek http://StudentAdvocate-NJ.org
Jerome Carr
Renee Carr
Byron Jasper
all residents of Belle Mead, NJ and members of APIECE A Parents Initiative for Every Child's Education http://APIECENJ.org

 

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