"the IDEA mandates individualized decisions, based on the unique needs of each student, made within the IEP team process."
- BD3 Chief of Staff, Silvia Martinez
As if raising children with Special Education needs is not challenging enough, many parents are saddled with the burden of fighting the LAUSD so that their children can receive the services and support needed to reach their maximum potential. My wife and I fought our battles with the District nine years ago when faceless bureaucrats downtown denied our two daughters services that their teachers agreed would benefit them.
Our family had the resources to hire a lawyer to assist us, but what about families who are not as fortunate? How many children are falling through the cracks because their parents cannot afford an attorney, do not have the time it takes to wage these battles, or have just been worn down by a system designed to force surrender? In a conference room high atop the District's Beaudry headquarters in a break during our mediation sessions, my wife and I agreed that the system needed to be changed and committed ourselves to making the path easier for other families.
During our journey, we have had other parents share heartbreaking stories of their battles with the District. Mothers like Vicky Maronyan, who was utterly exhausted from her fight to keep her child enrolled in the Aut Core curriculum. Her child was showing great success in this program but the LAUSD was eliminating it in an attempt to force mainstreaming. It did not matter what the parent's input was, the District wanted a one-size-fits-all approach.
I have also visited schools like the Lokrantz Special Education Center in Reseda. Here the most physically fragile students are provided the free appropriate public education that the law requires. One's heart would have to be two sizes too small to not see how special this school is, but every few years the school's community is forced to fight to keep its doors open. Starved by the District Bureaucrats for funding and students, it is a battle that will eventually be lost without a School Board Member willing to fight for its survival. Scott Schmerelson has unfortunately shown that he is not that representative.
During my 2017 campaign for the LAUSD Board seat then held by Monica Garcia, I released the proposed "Improving Special Education Within the LAUSD" Board Resolution that would protect families from these discriminatory practices. When the first pro-public education majority in decades took control of the LAUSD Board in last year's elections, I fine-tuned and updated this proposal and sent it to the board so that one of them could bring it before the badge for passage.
As my representative on the Board, it was my hope that Scott Schmerelson would eagerly support my proposal. He has long stated his support of those with Special Education needs and has voiced his support for elements of the proposed resolution in past elections. He also chairs the District's Special Education committee and I publicly supported his efforts to restart this committee during the COVID shutdown. Unfortunately, my first two attempts to have a discussion of the resolution were ignored. Before the Committee's last meeting of the year, I tried again. Finally, I received a response from his Chief of Staff:
Thank you for reaching out. We have received your resolution request. Unfortunately, due to new protocols, we will not be able to discuss this proposed resolution at our upcoming Special Education Committee Meeting. We have sent the language to the Superintendent's Office for their review. We will get back to you once we receive their input.
This response provided an example of why the Board has struggled to bring the changes needed after decades of control by those who seek to dismantle the public education system. The elected Board is responsible for setting the District's policies and then hiring a Superintendent to implement them. To give the unelected superintendent the ability to veto policy upends the system as it was designed.
Undeterred, I continued to lobby on behalf of these needed changes. When I was finally able to discuss them with Schmerelson face to face, I was told that its consideration was being blocked by the Office of General Council, whichhad taken the position that passage of the resolution would get the district sued. Since Schmerelson could not provide me with details as to what the lawyers found objectionable, he promised to set up a meeting with that office so that I could find out what changes could be made in order to move the proposal forward.
After waiting for the details of this meeting for weeks, I received a different response from his Chief of Staff. Despite his previous promise, the Board Member would not be moving forward with my proposal:
Thank you for your continued advocacy on behalf of students with disabilities in LAUSD. While we appreciate the thought behind the resolution you have proposed, the IDEA mandates individualized decisions, based on the unique needs of each student, made within the IEP team process. For this reason, your proposed resolution runs counter to and does not align with the IDEA, as a result it is not feasible for the District to pursue.
We appreciate your understanding and look forward to our continued work together for the benefit of LAUSD students.
Taken aback by this response, I reread the proposal as I could not believe that what I had written could have possibly had the effect of diminishing the choices of the families I was advocating for. The words I found would do the exact opposite, preserving or expanding the options available to the IEP Team as the Individual Education Plan is crafted:
- Resolved, that it is the policy of the LAUSD to recognize that "to the maximum extent appropriate" is a significant and important part of the Individuals with Disabilities Act;
- Resolved, that the District will allow parents to decide how the "maximum extent appropriate" applies to their child. District staff can advocate positions counter to the parent's wishes during the IEP process but cannot force them into compliance;
- Resolved, that the LAUSD recognizes that it is responsible for providing a high-quality education to all students, including those with special education needs;
- Resolved, the LAUSD affirms that its mission is to ensure that all students meet their full potential, regardless of their academic capabilities.
- Resolved, the LAUSD recognizes that all students do not have the ability to move on to college. The education of these students is also important to the District and it will provide high-quality, alternative programs for those students.
- Resolved, that the Special Education Centers will continue to be operated on specialized campuses, will be fully funded, and will not be moved to be co-located on general education campuses;
- Resolved, that Special Education Centers will continue to be offered to parents of children with disabilities during the IEP process and will not be denied to them as an option;
- Resolved, to achieve the important goal of inclusion, a magnet school will be created and operated on Special Education Center campuses. This magnet program will serve students who have an interest in careers related to special education;
- Resolved, that the LAUSD will continue to operate self-contained, specialized special education environments on general education campuses. Schools will not be dissuaded from operating these classes and they will receive the appropriate funding from the district separate from their general education budget;
- Resolved, that programs like AutCore will continue to be offered to parents of children with disabilities during the IEP process and will not be denied to them as an option;
- Resolved, to achieve the important goal of inclusion, the district will support programs like Peer Buddies that bring general education students into the special education classroom;
- Resolved, that the LAUSD values input from parents and encourages them to learn about the options for educating their students including unimpeded conversations with other parents;
- Resolved, that the LAUSD will discontinue the use of confidentiality agreements in resolving special education due process cases. Previously signed agreements will not be enforced;
- Resolved, classroom teachers are held accountable for ensuring that students are achieving their full potential;
- Resolved, classroom teachers, parents, and students should be given the ability to decide what methods work best in their classroom for their students and should not be forced to adopt methods suggested by District "experts." This does not preclude the District from stepping in to prevent harmful behavior or to remedy situations that endanger students, nor does it preclude parents and students from advocating for the needs of individuals;
- Resolved, Vice-Principals, teachers, aids, and other staff have the right to discuss all educational options with the parents and guardians in their school community. If their advice is counter to District policy, they must inform the parent of the District's policy but cannot be punished in any way for expressing their own opinion.
Schmerelson's refusal to move forward also contradicts statements made during the last campaign:
3. Under current policy, parents of children with special education needs must sign confidentiality agreements when negotiating settlements with the district. This prohibits parents from sharing information with other parents about services that are available to help students meet their full potential. Do you commit to eliminating this policy?
Scott Mark Schmerelson: "Honestly, I need to know more about the history and scope of this policy, when and how it is applied, and the legal authority that would control such confidentiality agreements. I commit to working closely with LAUSD OGC to understand and to modify any part of this policy (or practice) that is shown to be unfair to our most vulnerable students."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
