Many people today need nothing more in life to finally become affluent (whatever their definition of loaded is), as well as a few individuals in life may rather not be bad, but couldnot appear along with a means to escape from poverty. Today there are individuals through the planet needing help. Certainly, In addition, you can find people who don’t wish to perform for it. Continue reading “It’s also a prime supply of added jobs.”
November 18, 2015
Seattle School District
Attention: Board of Directors
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165
Re: Lowell Elementary School Start Time
Dear Superintendent Nyland and School Directors,
We are writing to you today concerning the proposed school start time for Lowell Elementary School. As you know, Lowell is an extraordinary school that serves many of our district’s most vulnerable students. The start time for Lowell next year is 7:50 a.m. This is an hour-and-forty minute difference from the start time this year, which is 9:30 a.m. This will have a disproportionate impact on students who receive special education services at Lowell, especially those who are medically fragile. Lowell has a population which is comprised of 40% special education students, over 30 of which are classified as medically-fragile. Medically fragile students, by OSPI definition, are students with complex health care needs who daily face the possibility of a life-threatening emergency requiring the skill and judgment of a professional nurse. Many of these students have severe seizure disorders, mobility issues, and/or congenital/hereditary defects. They are dependent on their families for complex monitoring and administration of medications, as well as care around tracheostomies, gastric tubes and urinary catheterization. Many of these students use wheelchairs to mobilize. A morning routine for many of these students may last well over an hour and a half. This is fact.
All the bus routes for special education students who attend Lowell begin picking up students one hour and twenty minutes before the start of school. If the start time is changed to 7:50 am, bus pick-up for these elementary students will start at 6:30 a.m. This means that some of the children who are picked up at Lowell will have to start their morning routine at 5:00 am. This places undue hardship on both the parents and the students, but more importantly, it is very likely that children may arrive at school either underfed, overly tired or inadequately treated, which will impact their health and their ability to learn. For the same reason, many parents may decide to keep their children home until their child is awake enough, fed enough and treated enough to be able to benefit from their schooling. This is only possible for those families with wheelchair-accessible transportation. For parents who cannot afford a specialized van, the impact of a very early school bus time may mean that their child may completely miss many more days of school. Missed school time may lead to district liability for compensatory education for these children.
The difficulties with the proposed new start time of 7:50 am will cause parents to have to choose between keeping their very vulnerable kids healthy, or have them access their education under circumstances unconducive to learning. Bus trips of 1 hour and 20 minutes already do not conform to the spirit of the WAC. How can two rounds trips of this length be considered reasonable? Now compound that with a 5:00 am wake-up for nebulizer treatments, trach care, and enteral feeding.
The Special Education PTSA has heard from many parents of students at Lowell, who ask that the Superintendent reconsider his recommendation to place Lowell in the first tier. We are in strong support of these parents and children. This is a question of equity for our medically-fragile students. Do not harm them. Please direct staff to revise Lowell’s start time so that it allows parents to adequately care for their students and ensure they arrive at school ready to learn.
Cecilia McCormick, President
Mary Griffin, Legislative Chair
Lori Hiltz, Vice-President
Ayn McNutt, Treasurer
Janis White, Parent Advocate
 Washington State Nursing Care Quality Assurance Commission and Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Staff Model for the Delivery of School Health Services 9 (Apr. 2000, revised Dec. 2005), available athttp://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/6000/StaffModel.pdf.
 This is in excess of the time recommended by the Washington Administrative Codes, which states that wherever reasonably possible, no student should be required to ride more than sixty minutes one way. WAC 392-172A-02095.
Due to numerous costly legal settlements and the departure of Ron English, it seems Seattle Public Schools appears to have committed to following civil rights laws. Among these laws are: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Title IX of the Higher Education Act.
The new Civil Rights Officer for Seattle Public Schools was announced recently:
Kelli Schmidt is Seattle Public School’s student civil rights compliance officer. Schmidt is an attorney and has been actively involved in youth, education, and civil rights issues for 20 years.
Prior to working for Seattle Public Schools, Schmidt was an attorney for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (ED-OCR) in their Seattle Region Enforcement office, which serves six states and the Pacific Territories.
As a senior attorney advisor with that Federal agency, she was responsible for enforcing Federal civil rights laws, leading investigation and compliance review teams, and providing technical assistance and presentations to help K-12 school districts, colleges, and universities understand their legal obligations and achieve civil rights compliance.
In May of 2015, Schmidt received the U.S. Secretary of Education’s Teamwork award for her work as a Steering Committee member of ED-OCR’s Employee Engagement Advisory Committee. She also received performance and special projects awards from that agency every year from 1999 through 2015.
Prior to working for the federal government, Schmidt worked for nonprofit, legal services organizations. She represented youth that are involved, or at risk of involvement, in the juvenile justice system for both the King and Pierce county offices of TeamChild.
At that organization, she worked with young people, their families, and caregivers to secure appropriate education programs, mental health services, and safe housing for her young clients. While in law school, she worked with the dependency division of a public defender agency and for Columbia Legal Services’ Institutions Project which focuses on the rights of persons in prisons, jails, and mental institutions. She has also spoken extensively on education and civil rights issues to parents, educators, academics, and other attorneys.
As a first-generation college graduate, Schmidt is passionate about equitable access to education. She earned her Bachelor of Arts degree with honors from the University of California, Santa Cruz and her Juris Doctor from the University of Washington School of Law with honors.
She also earned a graduate certificate from the University of Washington’s Women Studies Program (now named the Department of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies) and has studied film making and worked on films.
She is currently the chair-elect on the Executive Committee of the Washington State Bar Association’s Civil Rights Law Section and also serves on the Advisory Board of the Metrocenter YMCA, a unique branch that provides family and mental health services, youth outdoor leadership programs, and youth violence prevention and recovery programs.
Schmidt lives in Seattle, has a child in elementary school in Seattle Public Schools, and, with her free time she likes to camp, see/hear live music, and watch movies.
Her contact information will be posted in the near future.
Attn: Special Education Section, OSPI
Re: proposed changes made to RCW 28A.155 and RCW 28A.600.485
Dear Dr. Gill,
The Seattle Special Education PTSA is the district-wide PTSA which represents families, special education teachers and staff, and students of the largest district in the state. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue. The proposed rules are a vast improvement over the rules that were proposed in June. However, two particular aspects of the proposed rules are still contrary to research and to the legislature’s intentions. First, the new rules inappropriately mandate that an Emergency Response Protocol be included in an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) if the use of restraint and isolation is planned. Second, the rules require staff to be trained in the use, but not the prevention, of restraint or isolation. As explained below, OSPI should amend these rules so that they are consistent with the legislature’s intent and with research on the use of restraint and isolation.
1. The Emergency Response Protocols provision should not mandate the inclusion of such protocols in an IEP when the use of restraint or isolation is planned.
OSPI should revise this Emergency Response Protocols provision for four reasons:
A. The text of the law does not have a mandatory construction. The text of the law, while vague, does not mandate that such a plan, if provided, be included in an IEP. Instead, it uses the words “must not,” and later, “unless,” which is a permissive construction.
B. The IDEA requires evidence-based interventions. The IDEA of 2004 (IDEA) requires that the IEP must contain a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child. There is no evidence that using restraint or isolation is effective in reducing the occurrence of the problem behaviors that frequently precipitate the use of such techniques.
C. Placing restraint and isolation language in an IEP legitimizes its use.
D. The new law applies to all students, not just students receiveing special education.. By creating rules which state that the planned use of restraint and isolation in an Emergency Response Protocol “must be incorporated into a student’s IEP,” OSPI will be reinforcing the notion that this law only applies to students with IEPs, which it does not. Making rules which apply the planned use of restraint and isolation only to students with disabilities may be violation of the American with Disabilities Act.
It is important that the rules reflect the intent of the statute and clearly apply to all students. For these reasons, OSPI should revise the rules to require that Emergency Response Protocols be developed as a separate document that applies to all students. This document should include informed parental consent, as defined in the WACs.
Even if OSPI does decide to include planned use of restraint and isolation in an IEP, the new rule does not define the meaning of “advanced educational planning,” which is unclear. OSPI should amend this language so that the rule is consistent with the legislature’s intent to limit the use of restraint and isolation intent. The language should clearly indicate to school personnel that any planned restraints or isolation should be limited in either choice of type of restraint or isolation or limited in duration or both.
2. The training and certification provisions should require staff to be trained in how to prevent the use of restraint and isolation.
OSPI should amend the training and certification provision for two reasons. First, the provision is contrary to the intent of the legislature. As amended by S.H.B 1240, RCW 28A.600.485 requires that any staff member who has used restraint or isolation to discuss and report in writing “what training and support the staff member needs to help the student avoid similar incidents.” While the statute does not require training and certification, the plain language of statute indicates that the legislature intended staff to be trained in preventing the use of restraint or isolation. The legislature’s intent that school staff be trained in prevention is consistent with its prohibition of the use of restraint and isolation except as a last resort.
Under the proposed rules, staff could be trained in the use, but not the prevention, of restraint or isolation. Such training would have the effect of promoting the unnecessary use of restraint or isolation.
Second, OSPI is best positioned to create training requirements that are evidence-based and consistent with the legislature’s concern with prevention. OSPI is better positioned than individual districts and trainers to create training standards. Indeed, it is part of the mission of the agency. OSPI has the resources to design training requirements that are evidence-based and the authority to create rules that ensure all staff will be trained accord to such standards.
This is not to say that OSPI should dictate the extract training requirements to all school districts. Rather, OSPI should establish minimum training standards to ensure that all school staff members are trained in how to prevent the use of restraint or isolation. Requiring training in particular preventative strategies will be consistent with the legislature’s intent and with research. Education agencies from other states have created rules that could serve as a model for OSPI.
For the above reasons, OSPI should revise the proposed rules to so that the Emergency Response Protocol is a separate document that applies to all students. Additionally, OSPI should revise the proposed rules to require staff to be trained in the prevention of restraint and isolation.
Cecilia McCormick, President
Lori Hiltz, Vice President
Ayn McNutt, Treasurer
Lauren Feaux, Staff Representative
 Ryan, Joseph B., Reece L. Peterson, Physical Restraint in Schools, 29 Behavioral Disorders, 154, 164 (2004) (concluding after extensive review of research that training should include recognition of the cycle of aggression, verbal de-escalation strategies, and restraint and counseling procedures).
Dear School Board Directors:
The Transportation Standards for 2016-17 were introduced at the School Board meeting on October 21, 2015. They include a new provision that affects students receiving special education services. Specifically, the new Transportation Standards propose to create an exception to the District’s legal requirement of providing transportation for certain special education students. The following exception is proposed to be added to the Transportation Standards:
District transportation will not be provided for [special education] students that are enrolled in a school other than their assigned school by parent/guardian and/or student choice.
Special education students are entitled to transportation as set forth in the IDEA and as decided by IEP teams. Issues such as assignment plans, administrative convenience, and capacity management cannot interfere with an IEP team’s decision on appropriate placement. As past OSPI citizen complaints have noted, capacity management concerns and assignment of special education students can, and has, been shown to be arbitrary, not in the students’ best interest, and/or carried out without a proper IEP (e.g. Pinehurst/Licton Springs, and Old Van Asselt). A school district policy cannot override the district’s legal responsibility to provide transportation to special education students. The district is heading in the wrong direction with this proposal.
We strongly urge you not to vote in favor of the new Transportation Standards unless this provision is deleted. If the new Transportation Standards are adopted with this language, you should expect challenges from the families of special education students. Please request the Superintendent to remove this provision from the Standards.
Cecilia McCormick, President -Seattle Special Education PTSA
Janis White, Parent Advocate
Lori Hiltz, Vice-President
Ayn McNutt, Treasurer
Michael Minard, Secretary
Mary Griffin, Legislative Chair
Lauren Feaux, Staff Representative
There is a limited time window for individuals to comment on proposed rulemaking. Submit your comments to OSPI by November 12, 2015.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 392-172A – Proposed Rule Making to Address SHB 1240 and Other Proposed Rule Changes
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), Special Education Section, filed a notice of proposed rulemaking (CR-102) with the Office of the Code Reviser on July 1, 2015. A public hearing was held on the proposed rules on August 13, 2015. As a result of substantive comment on these proposed rules, the initially proposed rules were withdrawn and a new CR-102 was filed on October 2, 2015. The new proposed rules will be published in the Washington State Register on October 2, 2015. The newly proposed rules amend, add, and repeal sections under Chapter 392-172A WAC. OSPI is proposing these rules to address changes in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 28A.155 consistent with Substitute House Bill 1240, Laws of 2015, “An Act Relating to Restraint and Isolation of Students, Including Students with Disabilities in Public Schools.” OSPI is also proposing to amend WAC 392-172A-05125 so that it is consistent with the federal Department of Education rules at 34 CFR 300.518, which address a student’s status during due process proceedings.
The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to amend the special education rules so that parents of students eligible for special education, local school districts, and other entities providing special education and related services understand the strict limitations associated with the use of isolation, restraint and restraint devices in the State of Washington. The changes include adding definitions relevant to the limited use of isolation, restraint, and restraint devices, repealing certain sections of the current aversive intervention rules, and addressing advanced educational planning in the case of emergency response situations. In addition to these proposed changes and the proposed change to WAC 392-172A-05125, OSPI is also making changes to correct typographical errors or make other changes that are technical in nature.
OSPI has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed rule changes for November 12, 2015 at 1 p.m. at: OSPI, Old Capital Building, in the Brouillet Conference Room #430, Olympia, Washington. More information about the proposed rule changes, the public hearing, and how to submit comments is contained in the CR-102. A copy of the CR-102 and the proposed rules can be found at http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/Rulemaking.aspx. Please note that written comments have the same weight as public comments.
If you have questions about the rulemaking process, please contact Abigail Westbrook at 360-725-6075 or by email at email@example.com, the TTY is 360-586-0126. Otherwise, please provide comments consistent with the information provided in the CR-102.
Since there may be situations that currently impact the delivery of special education services in our state that are being addressed in this proposed rule change, the following resources from other states that have adopted similar rules are being made available to assist school districts and families in Washington.
- Changes to the use of Restraint and Isolation in Washington (PDF)
- Guidelines for the Development of Policies and Procedures for Managing Student Behaviors in Emergency Situations (PDF) – Prepared by the Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Student Services; September 2009
- Supporting Student Behavior: Standards for the Emergency Use of Seclusion and Restraint (PDF) – Prepared by the Michigan Department of Education; December 2006
- Supporting Student Behavior: Guidelines for the Emergency Use of Seclusion and Restraint for Students with Disabilities (PDF) Prepared by Alexandria City Public Schools, Office of Special Education Services, Office of Student Services; February 2013
Once the final rules are adopted, OSPI will revise the model state forms as appropriate, and create a Q & A document for our website. Please note that one of the major issues that resulted in this legislation was a strong perception of the over use of isolation and restraint as a behavior management technique.
Dear Dr Nyland and Board Directors
The Washington State Legislature passed new legislation in the last session to prohibit aversive intervention plans, and to limit the use of isolation and restraint to situations in which there is an imminent likelihood of serious harm. The new law went into effect as of July 24, 2015.
At the Special Education PTSA meeting on Monday, September 28, 2015, SPS administrators were asked what training the District had provided to staff over the summer regarding the new law. We were concerned about the response as it indicated that SPS did not want to get ahead of itself implementing the new law until OSPI had issued final rules explaining what the new law means.
While the OSPI rulemaking process will provide additional guidance, the law is in effect now and needs to be enforced now – in fact, OSPI has advised districts not to wait for OSPI rulemaking.1
On behalf of all parents in SPS who have children receiving special education services, the Seattle Special Education PTSA urges you to immediately ensure that all principals, assistant principals, security personnel and special education staff, at a minimum, are fully aware of the new law and its significant restriction on the circumstances under which school staff are legally permitted to use restraint and isolation. In addition, we believe it is incumbent upon the Special Education Department to audit IEPs, identify all IEPs that include aversive intervention plans and call IEP team meetings to remove those plans and ensure that restraint and isolation are not used as methods of discouraging undesirable behavior when there is no imminent risk of harm – as required now by Washington law. This is a major compliance issue.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to partnering with you in the implementation of the new law, and in the identification of proactive, positive behavioral supports to replace the use of restraint and isolation in non-emergency situations.
1. http://www.k12.wa.us/bulletinsmemos/Memos2015/M050-15.doc “In the meantime, districts are encouraged to review existing IEPs and 504 plans and remove restraint and isolation provisions or aversive interventions, unless there is a likelihood of an emergency situation that may result in serious harm (emphasis added)”.
The Justice Department also urged the court to consider whether the officer’s decision to handcuff little kids was “punitive, rather than necessary to ensure safety.” It pointed out that the officer had told the child “to behave the way you’re supposed to or you suffer the consequences,” a statement that indicated the handcuffing was punitive.
The department also said that an “improperly implemented [school resource officer] program can unnecessarily exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline and cause significant harm to students.”
School resource officers, DOJ lawyers wrote, “must respect the constitutional and statutory rights of the citizens they serve. This is particularly critical in the school context, where the impact of a police interaction on a child can last a lifetime.”
Video of what NOT to do is here
The District has said it is working towards training administrators, teachers, and staff on how to appropriately respond to our kids’ actiing out behavior. It has also promised to engage parents to learn how best to help their children during these episodes so we all work to help our kids the best way possible.
Please Tell Us About Your Child’s First Month of School in SPS Special Education.
The Seattle Special Education PTSA is asking families of children served by special education to take this quick survey. All information will be kept strictly confidential. The PTSA will use the data points collected to highlight problem areas, success stories, and other aspects of the current service delivery model in place in Seattle School District schools. Please feel free to forward this survey to other families with children served by special education in Seattle. (You may fill out one survey for each child in Special Education) *Please respond as soon as possible, but no later than Oct. 15th. Thank you!
– Access special ed ratios in middle and high school are now 13:1:3 (MS is up from 10:1:3)
Special Ed preschool ratio lowered to 10:1:2 (students: cert: IA)
Distinct (soc/emo) classrooms lowered to 7:1:2
Sped Taskforce will review special ed costs. Savings will be redirected
to reduce employee workloads.
Special Ed Team to decide on IA deployment when students are grouped
across classrooms in a building (IA maintains primary classroom assignment)
ESA Caseloads Enforceable caseload ratios for the first time ever! Staff must be allocated
and hired, and if not able to hire, contractors will be hired to meet
caseload limits. Strongest enforcement in Puget Sound and possibly the state.
- Physical Therapists: 35 students
- Occupational Therapists: 40 in 2015‐16, 36 in 2016‐17
- Psychologists: 1:1050
- Audiologists: 1:15,000
To meet caseloads, District expects it will need to hire at least 7 staff in 2015‐16, 16 staff in 2016‐17, and more in 17‐18 as enrollment continues to grow.