Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
counter-argument
January 16, 2009
Special ed advocate: Wrong person leading DOE’s review
Kim Sweet
Special education advocates are planning to criticize the Department of Education’s choice of official to spearhead a comprehensive review of special education in the city schools.
Kim Sweet, the executive director of Advocates for Children of New York (where I used to work when I wrote for Insideschools), told me this morning that she’s worried about what the review could mean for special education services, especially in light of the current economic conditions.
One major concern is that Garth Harries, who has been appointed to conduct the review, doesn’t have experience in special education. “The special education system is a complex system that to address a diverse and complicated set of student needs,” Sweet told me. “Garth Harries unfortunately does not have the experience to make decisions about it in an intelligent and sensitive way.”
She said the ARISE Coalition, which advocates for children with special needs, will speak out against Harries’ appointment.
Another issue, Sweet said, is that given the current budget shortfall, the department might be taking a hard look at special education simply to save money.“The Department of Education under Klein and Bloomberg has not paid sufficient attention to special education and the importance of that system,” Sweet said. “My fear is that this new effort is not at all about improving the system but merely about cutting costs.”
(Harries told me yesterday that this is not the case.)
Sweet said she has similar concerns about changes brewing at the state level. A state commission to figure out how to narrow the gap between how much the state spends on schools and how much it earns from property taxes suggested cutting education costs by weakening some special education rules. The State Education Department rejected some of the commission’s suggestions but then suggested changes of its own, she said. Some of those proposed changes, such as to reduce the amount of time families have to lodge complaints about special education services, are ones the state “has been pushing for years” but which could hurt children, she said.
“There is a danger that regulators will use this budget crisis to get rid of programs that they don’t like,” Sweet said. “We’ll have to make sure that the programs that are slated for elimination are in fact not serving kids.”
And she said that while special education can be a tempting target for budget cuts, it might not yield as much savings as officials hope. “The special education system is an expensive system,” Sweet said. “The problem is, it’s expensive for a reason: Because it’s serving kids who by definition need lots of help.”
-
January 16th, 2009 3:41 pm
There’s nothing wrong with an outsider taking an objective look at what is, we have to all admit, a terribly broken bureaucracy. Clearly it is a cost-cutting move, but if it makes the system more efficient and work better for the kids, then all the better. And having worked with Garth on some tough issues in the past, I think his reputation of being fair and judicious is deserved.
-
February 1st, 2009 12:26 pm
I believe the problem of money short-fallings lays in the hands of administrators. Why is is that a school with merely 600 students, has a principal and two assistant principals that together take a chunk out of the schools budget. I find it ridiculous that these people get paid an intense amount of money, money that could be better used in the school. One principal and one assistant are enough to run a school effectively without cutting corners. If money is going to be cut it should be at the hand of administrators that in many instances are not doing enough for the students in their schools. Teachers are needed. Three or four top aides running the school are not.
-
March 13th, 2009 11:04 am
I totally agree with Vilmary. what a waste of taxpayer’s money to have a clown with 2 assistants…and why the DOE appointed someone with no Special Ed experience…..they should send this person to D75 to start for a month and then move it along to others site.lets see if this person will get a good sense as to what parents are struggling about………..
-
June 10th, 2009 7:21 am
[...] has endured some tough criticism here in New York. Advocates for children with special needs challenged his special education appointment, saying he lacked experience in the field. When the city’s [...]
-
January 15th, 2010 11:35 am
Still reading your blog and the information it provides is enlightening.
In your work with AfC we would hope you or your connections are familiar with Impartial Hearings. For Impartial Hearing decisions have you received, read, looked at decisions attributed to being written and signed by Impartial Hearing Officers.
How many did you notice that, be it interim or final decisions, are true signed?
In our experience NONE are true signed.
We will be working to research the entire case records database to see what information is there.Notwithstanding, please forward Case Numbers of any and all cases such that we may obtain any in the public record. Or please send a copy - redacted if you must. As part of our research, we are most interested in seeing which Impartial Hearing Officers have ever true-signed decisions of which therefore a final decision has really been rendered and for the State Review Officer can move to examine on appeal. If the decision is not true-signed then we have more questions.
Additionally we have been impeded to access the true records of appeals at the State (New York) level which should we gather include the alleged IHO true signed acceptance document and true signed appointment document - both of which are … repeating, true signed.
Would the SRO action to rule upon a IHO decision that is NOT a decision - in that it was not written by the alleged IHO, IHO not duly appointed to be on a case, or not signed by the alleged IHO - be a criminal act. Willful blindness as it were. And a determent to parents of disabled children or to districts paying for decision rulings which were not legitimate decisions.
So when the SRO rules either for or against a parent or for or against a school district - resulting in either to lose money or pay money based on a fraudulent and knowingly fraudulent action or document … then the question is how do you hold the SRO accountable?
Thank you in advance for your response and cooperation.
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
5 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack