Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008

On October 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, about an hour after the House of Representatives passed the act by a vote of 263-171. Congress joined the parity bill with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the legislation created to address the economic crisis. The Senate passed the same version of the act earlier. This is a huge victory for people affected by AD/HD and related disorders. It is important that Congress realized the importance of ending insurance discrimination against people with mental illnesses. This was a monumental day for citizens with disabilities. See how your Representative voted here.The mental health parity legislation signed into law today provides equity between medical-surgical benefits and mental health and addiction benefits in healthcare plans that offer mental health coverage. The bill prohibits health insurance plans sponsored by businesses with fifty or more employees from imposing day and visit limits or applying different deductibles, copayments, out-of-network charges and other financial requirements for mental health treatment. The act builds on the 1996 Parity Act, which provided limited parity for lifetime and annual dollar limits.The text of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act can be viewed here. The section on mental health parity is located on pages 310-344.

Bullies may target children with special needs

Students with ADHD or learning disabilities may be disproportionately targeted by bullies, educators say. But psychologist and author Maggie Mamen says, "It's not that they're more targeted, but they don't put up the expected defenses, they don't give that signal 'don't mess with me.' So it may go a little further." Yorkregion.com (Georgina, Ontario)

The Starfish Story

Today I want to share a story that is very inspirational to me. I can't look at a starfish without thinking of this story and it's significance to our work with children.

Once upon a time, there was a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work.One day, as he was walking along the shore, he looked down the beach and saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself at the thought of someone who would dance to the day, and so, he walked faster to catch up. As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, and that what he was doing was not dancing at all. The young man was reaching down to the shore, picking up small objects, and throwing them into the ocean. He came closer still and called out "Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?"The young man paused, looked up, and replied "Throwing starfish into the ocean.""I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?" asked the somewhat startled wise man.To this, the young man replied, "The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."Upon hearing this, the wise man commented, "But, young man, do you not realize that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can't possibly make a difference!"At this, the young man bent down, picked up yet another starfish, and threw it into the ocean. As it met the water, he said, "I made a difference to that one!"



Few stories have gained internet popularity the way "The Star Thrower" has. Most often it's sighted as "author unknown," but it is actually a classic from 1979 written by Loren Eiseley, who has been hailed as a modern day Henry David Thoreau.

Good Presentation on IDEIA

http://video.childpsychology.com/ideia2004/IDEIA2004.html

GAO Investigating the use of restraints, seclusion & aversives

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative arm, is seeking information about the use of restraints, seclusion, and aversives in day school programs. The GAO will be developing a report in preparation for hearings to be held by House Education Committee Chairman George Miller on the issue. Day schools are schools that are not residential. The GAO is interested in all kinds of cases, civil and criminal, cases in court and cases in due process/other administrative hearings. In addition, COPAA is collecting information about situations that didn't involve court or hearings.


CATEGORY ONE: Cases, Hearings, Criminal and CivilPlease provide the following information to Christine A. Hodakievic, GAO Senior Special Agent, email: HodakievicC@gao.gov We would also appreciate a copy to us at jessica@copaa.org but that is not essential.1. Information about any Court case, due process hearing or other administrative hearing involving restraints, seclusion, or aversives in a day school program. It does not have to be an IDEA case. It can be any kind of case, such as Constitutional, wrongful death or other tort action, 504, or any other kind of case/hearing. It can be a litigated case or a case that was filed and settled or otherwise concluded. 2 Information about any Criminal Matter involving restraint, seclusion, or aversives in a school. This can be a criminal case that went to a trial, a criminal case resolved without a trial, an indictment, an information, arrest, or any other kind of criminal matter. (Some of you have represented children who were witnesses in criminal cases against school staff who used aversive interventions. The GAO would be interested in these criminal cases, as well as others.)3. Information about complaints filed with a State Department of Education about restraints, seclusion, or aversives in a day school program. In your email to the GAO, it would be very helpful to describe the case, provide any identifying information such as a citation, describe what happened to the child, what happened in the case/hearing/complaint, and any other pertinent information. If you know whether the case is still pending or whether civil litigation has ended, please add that. The GAO would also appreciate receiving copies of complaints, hearing notices, pleadings, briefs, and decisions/orders, if you would like to provide them (its optional). Obviously, if you have a big case file, choose the most important documents. If you filed a complaint with your State Department of Education, but didn't file a court case or due process, please be very clear about that in your email to the GAO. It helps them sort out what they are getting, since they will be receiving many many emails.


CATEGORY 2: Other Situations--no filed case or hearing.COPAA is also seeking information about any other situations in which children were subject to restraints, seclusion, or aversives but a case or due process/administrative hearing was not filed. We have set up a computerized survey form for you to report it. We will be sharing this information with the GAO and as otherwise explained in the survey. This computerized form simply allows us to collect all of the information together and sort it so that we can do this quickly. If you wish to complete the survey, click here (If the link doesn't work, the full link is http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kbizom_2bCU27wrYCCRv7R7w_3d_3d


IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION IN WHICH A COURT CASE, HEARING, CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, or other litigation, court filing, or case ensued, please report it directly to the GAO as stated in Category 1. Please use the COPAA survey form only for other situations in which restraints, seclusion, or aversives were used.Thank you and feel free to contact us with any other questions. Again, please feel free to repost or otherwise share this information with others.


Jessica Butler
Congressional Affairs Co-Chair
Council of Parent Attorneys & Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)A National Voice for Special Education Rights and Advocacy
www.copaa.orgemail: jessica@copaa.org

What is RTI?

RTI is a tiered process of instruction that allows schools to identify struggling students early and provide appropriate instructional interventions. Early intervention means more chances for success and less need for special education services. RTI would also address the needs of children who previously did not qualify for special education.RTI Should be a School Wide ModelAlthough each school's model may look different, there are several essential and necessary components that parents need to be aware of:a.. Scientifically Research Based Instruction b.. School Wide Screening c.. Continuous Progress Monitoringd.. Fidelitye.. Procedural SafeguardsRead more about what RTI can mean for our kids in A Parent's Guide to Response to Intervention.RTI TiersRTI is a delivered to students in tiers or levels. There is much discussion about how many tiers should be in RTI models. The three-tiered model is the most common. This means there are different levels of intervention, based on the needs of the student. The level of intervention increases in intensity if a child does not respond to instruction.IDEA does not specify how many tiers an RTI model must contain. IDEA does not specify how long a child must remain in one tier before moving to the next level. The US Department of Education has left this to the states to determine.What RTI is NOTa.. Special seating in classroom b.. Shortened assignments c.. Parent-teacher conferences d.. Suspension e.. Retention f.. "More of the same" general classroom instruction
What IDEA Says about RTI and Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Section 300.307 of the federal Special Education Regulations says that states must adopt criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. States must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement model. States must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention.When IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, RTI was added in an attempt to bring IDEA in line with NCLB and Reading First. In the Commentary to the Regulations, US DOE acknowledged that identification "models that incorporate RTI represent a shift in special education toward goals of better achievement and improved behavioral outcomes for children with specific learning disability (SLD).
Concerns about the RTI Process
I agree with the experts who say that many children are identified with specific learning disabilities because they do not receive adequate instruction in reading and math. In other words, these children are not making sufficient progress because they receive poor instruction, not because they have a learning disability.I also believe some children have specific learning disabilities.RTI Should Not Delay a Necessary Evaluation My fear is that school districts may use RTI as an excuse to delay, or worse, to not evaluate children suspected of having specific learning disabilities.In the Commentary to the federal regulations, many people expressed these same concerns.US Department of Education added language to the federal regulations to ensure that parents are notified of their right to request an evaluation at any time.
Accurate Identification? Appropriate Instruction? Ask These Questions!The Commentary to the federal regulations (p.46646-46647) describes what the Essential Components of Reading Instruction are and references what the ESEA (NCLB) says about appropriate reading instruction including: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary Development, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension Skills.When should a parent be notified of their right to request an evaluation?In general , when the child moves from a tier 1 general education (class wide intervention) to a tier 2 (more targeted small group interventions), parents should be informed about what is happening and their rights.Parents should be advised that their child is not making expected academic progress, the services that will be provided and strategies used to increase their child's progress, and other options that are available to them i.e., the right to request an evaluation under IDEA at any time.There are specific questions parents should ask to ensure that their child will be accurately identified, and is receiving appropriate instruction to begin with.a.. How many tiers are included the RTI model?b.. How long will my child remain in a tier before moving to the next tier?c.. What scientifically research based form of instruction will the teacher use?d.. What documentation demonstrates the effectiveness of the program?e.. What education journal documents this form of instruction as "peer reviewed"?f.. Does the reading program include the elements defined as "essential components of an effective reading program" set forth by the National Reading Panel ?g.. How often will the school monitor my child's progress?h.. What type of progress monitoring will the school use?i.. ...more in the Parent's Guide to RTI Read Susan's Success Story about charting the numbers on test results.. From Victim to a Mighty Force: The Numbers Do Not Lie.

Latest Federal Regulations - Parental Consent: Part I

The federal Office of Special Education Programs made several changes to the federal IDEA regulations effective on December 31, 2008. The the analysis of comments to the proposed regulations by OSEP is available online at this link.
Among the changes were the following:

Parental Consent
34 C.F.R. Sections 300.300 and 300.9 were amended to provide that parents are now permitted to revoke in writing their consent for the continued provision of special education and related services after having received services. School districts are no longer able to use mediation or a due process hearing to seek to override or challenge the parents' lack of consent. School districts will not be deemed to be in violation of the ACT for denial of FAPE where the parent has revoked consent to the continued provision of special education and related services. First I'm going to quote some of OSEP's analysis. remember that comments by an agency are entitled to "some deference," but not the force and effect of law as a regulation would get.
In response to comments that the IEP Team and not the parents should make such decisions, OSEP said:
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the IEP Team (defined in § 300.23, which includes the child's parents) plays an important role in the special education decision-making process. For example, through the development, review and revision of the child's IEP, the IEP Team determines how to make FAPE available to a child with a disability. However, the IEP Team does not have the authority to consent to the provision of special education and related services to a child. That authority is given exclusively to the parent under section 614(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) of the Act. The Secretary strongly believes that a parent also has the authority to revoke that consent, thereby ending the provision of special education and related services to their child. Allowing parents to revoke consent for the continued provision of special education and related services at any time is consistent with the IDEA's emphasis on the role of parents in protecting their child's rights and the Department's goal of enhancing parent involvement and choice in their child's education. We expect that after a parent revokes consent for the continued provision of special education and related services, the parent will continue to work with the child's school to support the child in the general education curriculum. Parents of nondisabled children serve as partners in their children's education in the same manner as parents of children with disabilities. We agree that an IEP Team meeting should be convened if any member of the IEP Team, including a parent, believes the child is not progressing. Section 300.324(b)(1)(i) and (ii)(A) requires each public agency to review a child's IEP periodically, but not less than annually, and revise the IEP as appropriate to address any lack of expected progress. However, the review of a child's IEP by the IEP Team does not replace a parent's right to revoke consent for the continued provision of special education and related services to his or her child.Concerning the comment that revoking consent should be treated differently than refusing to provide initial consent because the parent is seeking to terminate special education services that are presently provided, thus seeking to change the status quo and the comment expressing concern about revoking consent for a child whose current placement is in a residential setting, we appreciate that there are differences between consent for special education and related services and revocation of such consent. However, at their core, both issues entail a parent's decision of whether a child will receive special education and related services. Thus, section 614(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) and (ii)(II) of the Act,which provides a parent unilateral authority to refuse special education and related services, informs our decision on the related issue of revocation of consent for the continued provision of special education and related services.
73 Fed Register No. 231 at page 73009 (12/1/2008).

We'll continue with more OSEP analysis in a future post. What do you think of this change so far?