[FEAT BC Admin]

In this discussion area, please feel free to share your experience in implementing A.B.A. programs in the school system. We would particularly like to hear from those parents who converted their school teams to A.B.A. We’d like to hear the nightmares as well as the success stories.

Any insight that can be shared by school-based special education assistants to help parents would also be very meaningful.

Topic

[Karen Anthony]

Hi everyone,

In response to Sabrina’s eloquent thoughts. . .

We agree that School District Administration have a difficult job. We have also consistently felt that our child’s rights to be properly accommodated for his medically necessary needs have come (at best) second in the misguided consideration of staffing (aka perceived/legitimate? Union pressures), funding woes, and what appears to be power struggling.

We did not come by this opinion without many years of “torturous” personal experience. We have pursued our complaints, or perhaps more to the point “our child’s rights” not once, but twice under Section 11 appeals in our School District. The process left us physically, emotionally, and financially exhausted.

Was there true resolution in the outcomes of these School District 11 appeals? Absolutely NOT! Do we feel the Board truly understood the implications of their decisions on the fundamental rights of our child? NO. Is there a CERTAINTY for our child’s future to be properly accommodated within the district, including parental choice on the matters of Lovaas-type consultants and SEA matches for our child? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Will we once again be given no choice but to pursue this futile process in the future? Probably.

Are the unions fulfilling their mandate? Yes, that is their only mandate.

Although their may be a willingness by some within the district to attempt to address these issues, the fact remains that the system that purports to put the “child first” is so fundamentally structurally flawed that even “best intentions” will more then likely continue to put our child “at risk”.

For what it’s worth…

Karen and Andre Anthony (Ryan’s parents)
School District #61, Victoria

[Deleted User]

in regards to Jeans post;

Our child had help from POPARD in grade 1. The consultant (oops certified teacher) came to our school, observed our child, and made recommendations at our childs IEP meeting. Our childs 'certified teacher' stated that there was no way she would allow those recommendations to be implemented in her classroom. Everyone was powerless to change that, the principal, the POPARD consultant, the school district itself. Not one staff member from the district who was present said a word in opposition. Within weeks our childs behaviour deteriorated in that class to the point where self injurious behaviour and aggressive behaviour increased dramatically. We were forced to remove our child from school for the entire year thanks to that 'certified teacher'.
M. Brown is full of __it.

Jobs before our children is what she is all about.

[Mike & Jean]

ATTENTION EVERYONE!!!

Following is a copy of a very lengthy but very telling article which was printed in the May/June issue of the B. C. Teacher's Federation magazine. It was authored by Margaret Brown – a teacher with POPARD.

Every parent needs to read this article very carefully! It shows the BCTF's true agenda for our kids in the classroom! If they get their way – no LOVAAS-style ABA consultant or any other properly credentialed ABA person will be allowed in the classroom – unless they posess teacher certification. In case any of you don't know FEAT of BC has never been shown any evidence that POPARD is credentialed to implement LOVAAS-style ABA programmes.

If your LOVAAS-style consultant currently goes into your child's school – BEWARE because the teacher's union views this as "contracting out."

Any comments?

Regards, Jean

Teacher Newsmagazine Volume 15, Number 6, May/June 2003

——————————————————————————–

Does certification mean anything?

——————————————————————————–

by Margaret Brown
Let’s get modern! How about we let anyone who thinks he or she can do the job, come into your classroom, tell you how to run instructional programs, establish student learning outcomes, and, oh well, why not, teach the kids too? Unthinkable? A sick joke? Couldn’t happen in today’s schools? Think again; it’s happening now!

Individuals from "outside agencies" have had an increasingly active role in schools. Their involvement is most extensive for students with exceptionalities. The school community has been open to, has welcomed, the consultative input of others addressing student needs. The role of such individuals in the development of the IEP is supported in the Ministry of Education’s Special Education Manual.

However, what is now happening in practice goes beyond the expected role of consultation from outside agencies; non-teachers are taking on program planning, and wanting to take on the role of teacher for some of our most needy students: those with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

"Oh autism," you may say, "doesn’t affect me!" Hold on! Close to 1,800 students with autism are in B.C. schools now, and another 2,700 have been identified in the autism spectrum in terms of their programming needs; some research figures put the incidence of ASD at 1:250. A child with ASD is with you now, or soon will be. Autistic children may be low-functioning and perhaps non-verbal or highly gifted students pulling down top marks in math and science, but they all have needs unique to the ASD diagnosis.

Who are these non-professionals attempting to do the job of teachers and to tell you what to do with your autistic student? They are representatives of a number of agencies contracted by the Ministry of Children and Families as behavioural consultants, to provide home support to families with autistic children. They are also "behavioural interventionists" who are working on home programs with preschoolers and then bringing them into Kindergarten. As government funding for regular and special education services has decreased, as fewer support teachers are available in each school district, there has been increasing pressure from parents for these non-professionals to provide service to, and in, the schools. The non-teachers are there now—consulting, advising, setting IEP goals, teaching students with specialized, segregating programming. Because of this government’s agenda of privatization, one doesn’t have to look far down the road to see more non-teachers taking teachers’ jobs in the "business" of education.

Who can provide service if not these non-certified individuals? Who can help you? Who is qualified as a teacher and as a consultant in autism? At the local level, districts have itinerant support staff, resource teachers, and special education co-ordinators—but many of those positions have been undermined or lost to budget restraints. At the provincial level, the Ministry of Education has for 22 years funded the Provincial Outreach Program for Autism and Related Disorders (POPARD) for the single purpose of providing consultative support to your classroom and education in autism to teachers and teaching assistants. From an office in Delta, nine (FTE 5.4) educational/ behavioural consultants are providing service to 60 school districts and 680 students. http://www.pop.deltasd.bc.ca.

Consultants for POPARD base their student programming recommendations upon an experienced reading of the student’s school history and psycho-educational assessments, an understanding of schools and classroom resources, and knowledge of teaching methodology, curriculum, and classroom management. We believe that non-teachers cannot duplicate those essential components of a consultation. POPARD consultants also know that although many referrals are made because of concerns about student behaviour, it is the use of inappropriate curriculum that often lays the foundation for problem behaviour from the autistic student. We know that behaviour cannot be "treated" separately from curriculum. And we also believe that non-teachers are simply not qualified to advise teachers about student curriculum.

When you receive supportive consultation about your student’s needs, do you want a non-teacher giving you advice and determining student curriculum? Or do you think it’s important that your support come from an experienced teacher—someone who knows how classrooms work, who knows regular as well as special education, knows curriculum and learning theory—someone who has demonstrated knowledge at university and in the field to the point where he or she has qualified for teacher certification?

Here’s another important question to contemplate: If we have non-teachers advising and teaching those who have the greatest learning challenges, then why can’t we have non-teachers doing the same for those who learn more easily? Why not have non-teachers doing regular ed or gifted ed? Or do you think your university education, your experience, and your teacher certification represents a unique set of professional knowledge and skills that the non-teacher simply will not have?

If you believe that it is important to stand up for the value of teacher certification, if you believe that the most needy students deserve to have those with teacher credentials helping them, if you think public education is not to be "contracted out," please contact your staff rep or local teachers’ union office. Let them hear of your indignation; you have every right to feel it!

Margaret Brown is a teacher in Delta with the Provincial Outreach Program for Autism and Related Disorders.

[Deleted User]

Sabrina – for a "new" mom just learning about autism and the nightmares parents are facing with respect to having our needs met – and with my daughter about to start kindergarten in school – thanks so much for the information – this clearly helps me understand what lies ahead……

[Sabrina Freeman]

Hello everyone.

I’ve been following with interest the thread in recent days on the special education assistant topic; I’d like to add some thoughts.

First, I want to sincerely thank the anonymous SEA for contributing to this group and for bringing up the topic of public special education and the province-wide autism controversy surrounding it. These discussions present a very good opportunity to talk about the special education structure as it relates to ABA and the issues that are at the heart of the long running conflict between the school system and parents of children with autism who are in medically necessary, home-based treatment programs.

Before I discuss the flawed public education structure for children with autism and the systemic conflicts it spawns, it’s important to recognize the tremendous stability of the organizational culture we are facing in the public school system. In the case of the current discussion on this board, we have an EA who has been newly hired and is employed by a system that has quickly resocialized him or her to think the way THEY do i.e., that parents are somehow the problem in the autism controversy at school, rather than the system itself. This speaks to the power of education’s influence over the way ‘inductees’ in special education think and perceive the world, in particular about the legitimate concerns of parents of children with autism regarding the harmful, systemic autism discrimination that characterizes the BC special education system.

The alacrity of this resocialization process frankly takes my breath away — and I’m all too familiar with the harmful dynamic of intransigent government bureaucrats and wholly self-interested unions doing what is their mandate: putting the rights of workers first.

For new parents who have a need to know and for all well-meaning SEA's who may be either misinformed or misled, here's a thumbnail sketch of the exceedingly dysfunctional structure we face in special education.

The school district is comprised of three groups:
1) Board of Trustees (elected officials)
2) Administration (career bureaucrats, technically hired by the Trustees)
3) ‘Partners’ (a friendly euphemism for unions i.e. the folks that represent – and fight for — the SEA’s … against YOU in any dispute)

Make no mistake; the people who really call the shots in your school district (99% of the time) are the unions: BCTF (the teachers’ union) and CUPE (the support workers/janitors’ union), and there are others.

The School District Administration has a difficult job. They need to keep the unions happy, otherwise they have nasty labour trouble; however, they also have to keep the Board of Trustees happy. Walking that fine line, school administration bureaucrats often use the threat of union ‘trouble’ to make sure the Board of Trustees does what is expedient to keep labour harmony. This is typically operationalized by doing all possible to squash ABA related complaints – as quickly as possible. During this last election, the union even infiltrated many Boards of Trustees to a greater extent than before. Today, many Boards are actually union strongholds (democracy under special interest attack?).

If you are a parent of a child with autism, why should you care about all this? Well, if you have a problem with an untrained and/or lazy, dangerous EA or SEA, your ultimate recourse will be to hire lawyers and pursue a complaint under Section 11 of the B.C. School Act. Using this procedure, you will go in front of the Board of Trustees (who are the de facto judges in the complaint) to plead your case. The school district administration will then do all possible to convince the “judges” that they cannot get rid of the SEA because the union will, in the vernacular, “go nuts.” So, this kangaroo court known as the Section Eleven complaint process will never actually adjudicate properly because either the Board is too scared of the union or the union has stacked i.e. infiltrated the Board. In addition, in the unlikely event the Board of Trustees is good and decent, they do not have the expertise to sit in judgment where a Charter challenge is at issue. The autism controversy in health and education is intertwined with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And after the parent invariably loses the Section 11 hearing as a matter of preordained School District necessity, then the matter is closed. There is no mechanism in the B.C. School Act that allows the complaint to move forward to be heard before a REAL judge in the B.C. Supreme Court. It’s worthwhile to emphasize that since I entered the B.C. Autism Wars in 1995, I have never heard of a child with autism winning a Section 11 complaint hearing — ever. Not even once. Regrettably this has been the case even when world-class lawyers (the best in the biz) have represented the child. In short, there is no legitimate due process for children with autism in the school system. The complaint mechanism is hopelessly flawed and can fairly be characterized as a 'Kangaroo Court' designed to prop up a morally bankrupt special education system.

Unless an EA physically assaults your child or does some other criminal act, you cannot get in front of a real judge, even if your child is in danger! So, for anyone who thinks that there is a way to work with the system, please think about this:

– The special education system only cares about job security and union seniority
– There is no legitimate complaint process (feel free to speak to me after your failed Section 11 complaint)

Truth is that the schools are breaching our children’s Section 15(1) Charter Rights each and every day, and children with autism have absolutely no formal rights, regardless of how “nice” and “friendly” the parents are to ‘powers that be’ in the system.

To ‘Anon EA,’ if I can leave you with only one thought to ponder in all of this: please don’t blame the victim in this ugly autism war — the onus isn’t on the victim to play nice.

Sabrina
(Miki’s Mom)

[Deleted User]

To Anon who posted:

By Anonymous on Sunday, June 8, 2003 – 09:06 pm:
This is getting petty guys,

You may not like the feedback you have gotten from your post but you did set yourself up for it. In your last post you wrote:

" If you choose to follow my advice and speak
kindly to those in power, great; if not, that's your decision."

Now let me show you how that statement will grate on the parental nerve;
I have a child in an ABA program. We had to fight tooth and nail to have our school district do anything to accomodate the ABA program which is literally salvaging our childs life. This included pulling him out of school for over 6 months, countless letters, meetings, professional recomendations, and appeals to the school board. So now our program is accomodated but we are threatened by the school district with losing any support from the school district for our childs ABA program if we tell any of the other parents what support the district is giving us. In a nutshell we are on a gag order or we may lose services and cooperation. These people in the school district are those 'powers' to whom you would have us speak to kindly?

The idea that we would get what we want by licking up to our local school districts is so preposterous it goes beyond ridiculous.

Besides sounding arrogant and condescending your viewpoint is simply not steeped in reality. Think about your audience before you post.

I don't think parents on this board are Pirahnas waiting to devour the unlucky non parental poster who posts their viewpoint. However some are not very receptive to being dictated advice from people whose prime stakehold in this is the almighty buck. (you did state you were employed on some level by a school district doing ABA and 'mediating' and i must say you are not showing great proficiency in the mediating so far by what you have posted) Now if you really care about our kids getting ABA in school and want to convince us do something helpful like write a letter to your employers and make sure it contains some strong language to the effect that districts need to talk kindly to parents! Then post the letter on this board. You will likely get a warmer reception and the warm fuzzies you seem to be seeking. Currently it seems your mediating is already weighted heavily to the side of those poor brow beaten powers that be.

I am also posting anon because the govt. monitors this list and is gunning to deny my kid treatment at great expense to tax payers.

[David Chan]

Truth my dear,

It isn't about YOU, it's about the KIDS.

Almost never Anonymous

Dave
Mr. P's Dad

[Deleted User]

This is getting petty guys,

I remain anonymous because of such silliness and because I was asked to remain so by my employer. I will stop attempting to prove myself to you because this is not about my credentials, the government, or anything else you feel you need to blame your behaviour on, this is about us achieving a goal, ABA in the classroom. Granted I made a mistake in not explaining my views about the unfairness of what is going on in our province; however, I've attempted to recify that. If you choose to follow my advice and speak kindly to those in power, great; if not, that's your decision. I will answer constructive emails at this point but if this is going to be about attacking me, then I will bow out.

[Deleted User]

What I would like to know is why the anonymous "ABA ???" person hired for the Anonymous school board is either too ashamed or too embarrassed to give her name, and why she feels she must hide behind an ANONYMOUS label? I certainly do not want anyone who is too ashamed or too embarrassed, by the view they advocate, to even sign their own name to their views to be working with my child. Perhaps ANONYMOUS "ABA ???" would like to email me and explain her motives in remaining ANONYMOUS, as I am certainly interested in knowing the answer.

[Louise Watson]

Cheers to the last post(6:03)I agree fully

[Author]

Replies