Re: Autism Legislation for Education

[Guest guest]

I think this isn't going to happen. I'm not sure if a state can pass a law that prohibits schools from using lawyers in this way, especially since was a federally created law.

Just FYI

Hilda

I think we need to start with the smaller of the 2 ideas that doesn't include any money issues. This is more likely to pass, making it illegal for special education attorneys to train school personnel on IDEA interpetations.Putting it more positively would be requiring ISD's and regional centers to use objective sources not the same attorneys that represent them for training on IDEA law. Private placement needs to be under IDEA and FAPE.NaglaAOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

The only way to level the playing field if scholarships are not going to be offered is for parents to have equal access to lawyers and not have to pay for them at all...ever. That levels the playing field.

Hilda

A voucher program is still a contested issue, we need to find another solution that we can all agree on.I think Singleton suggested freezing special education funds once parents file for due process, we can take this a step further and freeze funds once mediation is filed, this will give schools an incentive to resolve the conflict before it gets to due process.Putting a cap or a celing on how much can be spent by an ISD is a good idea, but it would be a hard sell, not impossible just difficult.NaglaAOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

Nagla:

That is the whole problem. They are taking the money and NOT providing appropriate services to our kiddos.

Hilda

The funds are still there for that student, they are frozen as an incentive to make the mediation process quicker and give parents an edge make it possible for more resolutions at that level. The idea is not to take the money out of the school, but to use it as a reason to provide needed services. If the school loses that money, how will they be able to provide the needed services?NaglaAOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

I think a parent shouldn't have to pay one red cent for representation whether they can afford it or not. Then you get into all sorts of issues about who can "afford" it and who "can't." If it is tied to income, I'm doomed. It's tied to how much debt we are in having tried to get help previously for our son, including legal representation, then I'm among those at the higher end of the list.

Hilda

I think that is something we can all agree on ---- that we shouldn't have to do that taken into consideration --- but that time has not come...

So can we all agree that frozen funds need to be used for parent defense funds?AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

Scholarships is the way to go, but if aren't going to get that because the people on the other side of the issue won't meet us half way on this, then it starts the process of meeting somewhere halfway. Of course I think that paying lawyers is the wrong way to go because our kids are still suffering, but if there is no scholarships going to happen because of the other side's lobby (an just FYI, I'm an independent who votes all different parties), then we need something drastic and immediate including but not limited to

1. Full funding for the parents to take it to whatever level is necessary in due process regardless of outcome.

2. TEA needs to be fired and we need to bring in competent individuals from other states who have state-run agencies that actually function.

3. Hearings need to be removed from the current structure.

4. Allowing parents to go to all private-attorney-sponsored events at taxpayer expense to be the watchdogs.

5. Make the school district report to the public how much they are spending with the cost/benefit ratio stuff. Take an ad in a newspaper, send home flyers--whatever it takes to accomplish that.

6. All parent advocacy groups who take taxpayer money for funding should be required to be tell us every single cent they spend of our money.

And I'm sure a whole other bunch of things. So it's either scholarships, or all these multiple things that will have to be in place to help. I am actually of the opinion we can do both -- fix our schools and provide scholarships. But I live in utopia.

I think that if they (school districts) realize they are going to not only have to pay their legal expenses, but also the parents, they would have more incentive to settle, and they won't have to worry about that "you can't set precedence" issue.

Another alternative to scholarships might be for us to pass legislation that allows health care access for ALL insurance plans (not just self-funded) for children of all ages with autism up to $36,000 -- similar to what Pennsylvania pays. Then, we could actually use that money if we wanted to remove our kids, while those who want to fight to change the public schools could also do that (and I would still be on board to help fight that inequity because it just isn't our kids the schools are failing. Our state's educational system is horrible, needs replacing, and expectations need to be higher. The graduation requirement for when I went to high school in New York in 1982 was much bigger than Texas has. We are nearing a 50% drop-out rate which is disgusting. One of the people on the State Board of Education actually homeschools their child. Where is the personal investment there for her to make things any better for the kids actually still stuck there? Not so encouraging.

I just think that the way out of this is for both sides to agree to both issues that are valid -- 1) the other side allows scholarships and 2) we work with that side to make the public school system better.

Again, I live in Utopia.

Hilda

Not quite. There's still the issue of the very limited available poolof attorneys who represent the children, their degree of expertise,experience, competence and the resources behind them. Then factor inthe biased judicial process, the deference given to schools, theburden of proof on the families, the extensive professional resourcesof the ISD's, the personal time and toll families must invest whilethe ISD's do it on the clock, and we're not much better off. It's afree pass to nowhere.AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now.

[Guest guest]

I am thinking out loud, but if a Special Need family disagrees with

say a mediation meeting <well before Due Process>, then they should

be given taxpayer funds to avoid litigation. These funds could be

based upon the IEP and the funds that are being used for their child

in a public school setting. The money follows the children. This

cuts off the FOR PROFIT law firms from doing harm and quietly choking

the family out. This setting/option could then remain for the

school year. Before the next school year begins another mediation

could occur.

If the family still disagrees with the public school findings and

services, the family can elect again to avoid litigation and stay put

in a setting that will most help their Special Need child.

I would hope at some point the public schools would agree to

finding/providing/supplementing with better services. If not, then

private placement should be enforced in accordance with FAPE and IDEA

which are the Federal Laws for Special Need families. This would be

in keeping with what they do in NJ, Mass, NY and other more

progressive states.

This would prevent debt, loss of time and find services/programs for

children and families. Time is precious.

Just thinking out loud. I am not sure how receptive Democratic

Senators would be to a system that allows Special Need families this

type of access to taxpayer funds. Yet, I am hopeful. This gives

time for a family to find resources/options and a way out. This

gives time for ISDs to compete/find a way to provide services or face

providing for Private Placement.

I am also WORRIED that private placement may ever be allowed in

Texas. Even now families have to litigate for it and it is 99% lose

to 1% they win.

Just thinking out loud ... rambling

> > >

> > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS,

> > AND

> > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask

> > me.

> > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > train.

> > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to

> > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't

> > > reform the system.

> > >

> > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though

> > they

> > > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming

> and

> > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > >

> > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> > This

> > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> taxes.

> > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help

of

> > our

> > > legislators this session.

> > >

> > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

The

> > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

families

> > will

> > > suffer.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think we all agree that the use and funding spent on attorneys in

ISD's to deny services is obscene, also the practice of ISDs using

their special ed attorneys to train them on student rights and

interpetation of IDEA is a conflict of interest maybe we can start

with legislation addressing these 2 issues.

Nagla

> > >

> > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS,

> > AND

> > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask

> > me.

> > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > train.

> > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to

> > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't

> > > reform the system.

> > >

> > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though

> > they

> > > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming

> and

> > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > >

> > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> > This

> > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> taxes.

> > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help

of

> > our

> > > legislators this session.

> > >

> > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

The

> > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

families

> > will

> > > suffer.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

ok - let's do!!!!!!!!

So, for the 81st session - we all agree to support that!

Who among us is savvy to put some text to the need???

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Autism Legislation for EducationTo: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 6:40 PM

I think we all agree that the use and funding spent on attorneys in ISD's to deny services is obscene, also the practice of ISDs using their special ed attorneys to train them on student rights and interpetation of IDEA is a conflict of interest maybe we can start with legislation addressing these 2 issues.Nagla> > >> > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS, > > AND > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask > > me. > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy > > train. > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't > > > reform the system.> > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though > > they > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming

> and > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we > > > can "litigate our way to FAPE".> > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO. > > This > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our > taxes.> > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help of > > our > > > legislators this session.> > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig. The > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual families > > will > > > suffer.> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

I can think of someone :>) E

> > > >

> > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

FUNDS,

> > > AND

> > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

ask

> > > me.

> > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > > train.

> > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

to

> > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

won't

> > > > reform the system.

> > > >

> > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

though

> > > they

> > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

harming

> > and

> > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > >

> > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> > > This

> > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> > taxes.

> > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

help

> of

> > > our

> > > > legislators this session.

> > > >

> > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

> The

> > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> families

> > > will

> > > > suffer.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Will any of the Democratic Texas Senators allow money to go to

Special Need families to avoid litigation and allow a parent to make

the choice of their educational setting whether it be private or

homeschool? That is a huge question.

> > > >

> > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

FUNDS,

> > > AND

> > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

ask

> > > me.

> > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > > train.

> > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

to

> > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

won't

> > > > reform the system.

> > > >

> > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

though

> > > they

> > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

harming

> > and

> > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > >

> > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> > > This

> > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> > taxes.

> > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

help

> of

> > > our

> > > > legislators this session.

> > > >

> > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

> The

> > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> families

> > > will

> > > > suffer.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for saying this Nagla. The " use " and " funding " of

attorneys is obscene. I like your word choice :>)

> > > >

> > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

FUNDS,

> > > AND

> > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

ask

> > > me.

> > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > > train.

> > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

to

> > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

won't

> > > > reform the system.

> > > >

> > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

though

> > > they

> > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

harming

> > and

> > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > >

> > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> > > This

> > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> > taxes.

> > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

help

> of

> > > our

> > > > legislators this session.

> > > >

> > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

> The

> > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> families

> > > will

> > > > suffer.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I also would like Amy Sosa and Dianna Pharr to contribute to this

document for Senator if we get going.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

> FUNDS,

> > > > AND

> > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

individual

> > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

> ask

> > > > me.

> > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

gravy

> > > > train.

> > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

> to

> > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

> won't

> > > > > reform the system.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

> though

> > > > they

> > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

> harming

> > > and

> > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > >

> > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

IMO.

> > > > This

> > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

our

> > > taxes.

> > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

> help

> > of

> > > > our

> > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

pig.

> > The

> > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > families

> > > > will

> > > > > suffer.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, this is an issue upon I think we can all agree. How do we

legislate prohibition of the use and funding of attorneys to deny

special needs? You have to do this strategically, either through a

scholarship program which takes that ability away or greatly

diminishes it by giving parents a true role in the process, or a less

effective way to at least REDUCE the abuse of our tax dollars in this

way, by mandating a children's legal defense fund established BY the

ISD's, to create a self-imposed spending cap on these activities.

As great as it would be, it is a huge oversimplification to suggest we

can write legislation to directly stop this abuse. It has to be

achieved indirectly.

-- In Texas-Autism-Advocacy , " M. Guppy "

wrote:

>

> ok - let's do!!!!!!!!

>  

> So, for the 81st session - we all agree to support that!

>  

> Who among us is savvy to put some text to the need???

>

>

> M. Guppy

> My autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's

about learning to dance in the rain.... 

> Texas Autism Advocacy:  www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

> " There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to

compromise.  We cannot negotiate the size of an institution.  No one

should live in one.  We cannot debate who should get an inclusive

education.  Everyone should.  We cannot determine who does and who

does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own

futures.  All must. "

>

>

>

>

> Subject: Re: Autism Legislation for Education

> To: Texas-Autism-Advocacy

> Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 6:40 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I think we all agree that the use and funding spent on attorneys in

> ISD's to deny services is obscene, also the practice of ISDs using

> their special ed attorneys to train them on student rights and

> interpetation of IDEA is a conflict of interest maybe we can start

> with legislation addressing these 2 issues.

> Nagla

>

>

> > > >

> > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS,

> > > AND

> > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual

> > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask

> > > me.

> > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy

> > > train.

> > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to

> > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't

> > > > reform the system.

> > > >

> > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though

> > > they

> > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming

> > and

> > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > >

> > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO.

> > > This

> > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our

> > taxes.

> > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help

> of

> > > our

> > > > legislators this session.

> > > >

> > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig.

> The

> > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> families

> > > will

> > > > suffer.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think we need to start with the smaller of the 2 ideas that doesn't

include any money issues. This is more likely to pass, making it

illegal for special education attorneys to train school personnel on

IDEA interpetations.

Putting it more positively would be requiring ISD's and regional

centers to use objective sources not the same attorneys that

represent them for training on IDEA law.

Private placement needs to be under IDEA and FAPE.

Nagla

-- In Texas-Autism-Advocacy , " mark colditz "

wrote:

>

> Will any of the Democratic Texas Senators allow money to go to

> Special Need families to avoid litigation and allow a parent to

make

> the choice of their educational setting whether it be private or

> homeschool? That is a huge question.

>

>

> > > > >

> > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

> FUNDS,

> > > > AND

> > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

individual

> > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

> ask

> > > > me.

> > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

gravy

> > > > train.

> > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

> to

> > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

> won't

> > > > > reform the system.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

> though

> > > > they

> > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

> harming

> > > and

> > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > >

> > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

IMO.

> > > > This

> > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

our

> > > taxes.

> > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

> help

> > of

> > > > our

> > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

pig.

> > The

> > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > families

> > > > will

> > > > > suffer.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I disagree ... money first

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

> > FUNDS,

> > > > > AND

> > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

> individual

> > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if

you

> > ask

> > > > > me.

> > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

> gravy

> > > > > train.

> > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the

damage

> > to

> > > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

> > won't

> > > > > > reform the system.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

> > though

> > > > > they

> > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

> > harming

> > > > and

> > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

> IMO.

> > > > > This

> > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

> our

> > > > taxes.

> > > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

> > help

> > > of

> > > > > our

> > > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

> pig.

> > > The

> > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > > families

> > > > > will

> > > > > > suffer.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

A voucher program is still a contested issue, we need to find another

solution that we can all agree on.

I think Singleton suggested freezing special education funds

once parents file for due process, we can take this a step further

and freeze funds once mediation is filed, this will give schools an

incentive to resolve the conflict before it gets to due process.

Putting a cap or a celing on how much can be spent by an ISD is a

good idea, but it would be a hard sell, not impossible just difficult.

Nagla

> > > > >

> > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

FUNDS,

> > > > AND

> > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

individual

> > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

ask

> > > > me.

> > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

gravy

> > > > train.

> > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

to

> > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

won't

> > > > > reform the system.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

though

> > > > they

> > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

harming

> > > and

> > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > >

> > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

IMO.

> > > > This

> > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

our

> > > taxes.

> > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

help

> > of

> > > > our

> > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

pig.

> > The

> > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > families

> > > > will

> > > > > suffer.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I want the parents to have the frozen funds then.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

> FUNDS,

> > > > > AND

> > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

> individual

> > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if

you

> ask

> > > > > me.

> > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

> gravy

> > > > > train.

> > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the

damage

> to

> > > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

> won't

> > > > > > reform the system.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

> though

> > > > > they

> > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

> harming

> > > > and

> > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

> IMO.

> > > > > This

> > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

> our

> > > > taxes.

> > > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

> help

> > > of

> > > > > our

> > > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

> pig.

> > > The

> > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > > families

> > > > > will

> > > > > > suffer.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not trying to be argumentative - because I'm not legislatively inclined...

But what is the difference between freezing funds so no one uses them and the student doesn't benefit from them; and making those same funds available for the parent to use for the student to learn elsewhere?

Ducking my fins,

Guppy....

LOL

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."

Subject: Re: Autism Legislation for EducationTo: Texas-Autism-Advocacy Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 8:26 PM

A voucher program is still a contested issue, we need to find another solution that we can all agree on.I think Singleton suggested freezing special education funds once parents file for due process, we can take this a step further and freeze funds once mediation is filed, this will give schools an incentive to resolve the conflict before it gets to due process.Putting a cap or a celing on how much can be spent by an ISD is a good idea, but it would be a hard sell, not impossible just difficult.Nagla> > > > >> > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS, > > > > AND > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a

brutal, denial of services for individual > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask > > > > me. > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy > > > > train. > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to > > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't > > > > > reform the system.> > > > > > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though > > > > they > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming > > > and > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we > > > > > can "litigate our way to FAPE".>

> > > > > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO. > > > > This > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our > > > taxes.> > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help > > of > > > > our > > > > > legislators this session.> > > > > > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig. > > The > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual > > families > > > > will > > > > > suffer.> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Oh - I like the defense fund funded by the ISC

M. GuppyMy autism journey isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.... Texas Autism Advocacy: www.TexasAutismAdvocacy.org

"There are some aspects of a person's life that we have no right to compromise. We cannot negotiate the size of an institution. No one should live in one. We cannot debate who should get an inclusive education. Everyone should. We cannot determine who does and who does not get the right to make their own choices and forge their own futures. All must."> > From: asccnagla <nagla_alvin@ ...>>

Subject: [Texas-Autism- Advocacy] Re: Autism Legislation for Education> To: Texas-Autism- Advocacy@ yahoogroups. com> Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 6:40 PM> > > > > > > I think we all agree that the use and funding spent on attorneys in > ISD's to deny services is obscene, also the practice of ISDs using > their special ed attorneys to train them on student rights and > interpetation of IDEA is a conflict of interest maybe we can start > with legislation addressing these 2 issues.> Nagla> > > > > >>

> > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY, FUNDS, > > > AND > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for individual > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you ask > > > me. > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the gravy > > > train. > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage to > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions won't > > > > reform the system.> > > > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even though > > > they > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is harming > > and > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we > > >

> can "litigate our way to FAPE".> > > > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system IMO. > > > This > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to our > > taxes.> > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the help > of > > > our > > > > legislators this session.> > > > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a pig. > The > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual > families > > > will > > > > suffer.> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Good ... the funds need to be in the parents possession and

as soon as no agreement can be reached, the parents should then be

able to use the money for their child. Whatever the mediation

period is fine, as long as the child is going to be supported with

funds as soon as the tuition requirements are due. In other words,

the parents have right and access to the funds if no agreement can be

reached with the ISD. Thus, the frozen funds are given to the

parent until an agreement is reached, but in no way is the education

of the child jeopardized if placement or a better educational setting

is in the private school setting.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

> FUNDS,

> > > > > AND

> > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

> individual

> > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if

you

> ask

> > > > > me.

> > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

> gravy

> > > > > train.

> > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the

damage

> to

> > > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

> won't

> > > > > > reform the system.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

> though

> > > > > they

> > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

> harming

> > > > and

> > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

> IMO.

> > > > > This

> > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

> our

> > > > taxes.

> > > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

> help

> > > of

> > > > > our

> > > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

> pig.

> > > The

> > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > > families

> > > > > will

> > > > > > suffer.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

No need to duck , freezing the funds still makes them

available to the ISD to recoupe once the conflict is resolved. They

won't lose the funds, they can have them all back as a motivator to

provide needed services.

Nagla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

> FUNDS,

> > > > > AND

> > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

> individual

> > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if

you

> ask

> > > > > me.

> > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

> gravy

> > > > > train.

> > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the

damage

> to

> > > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

> won't

> > > > > > reform the system.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

> though

> > > > > they

> > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

> harming

> > > > and

> > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

> IMO.

> > > > > This

> > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

> our

> > > > taxes.

> > > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

> help

> > > of

> > > > > our

> > > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

> pig.

> > > The

> > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > > families

> > > > > will

> > > > > > suffer.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That's something that we can definitely agree on.

Nagla

> > > > >

> > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide MONEY,

FUNDS,

> > > > AND

> > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

individual

> > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if you

ask

> > > > me.

> > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

gravy

> > > > train.

> > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the damage

to

> > > > > individual families, but year after year your suggestions

won't

> > > > > reform the system.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

though

> > > > they

> > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

harming

> > > and

> > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way we

> > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > >

> > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

IMO.

> > > > This

> > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access to

our

> > > taxes.

> > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with the

help

> > of

> > > > our

> > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

pig.

> > The

> > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > families

> > > > will

> > > > > suffer.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

However this gets dressed up it is still in essence a voucher and a

contested issue that is not agreed on.

Nagla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide

MONEY,

> > FUNDS,

> > > > > > AND

> > > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

> > individual

> > > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice if

> you

> > ask

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail the

> > gravy

> > > > > > train.

> > > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the

> damage

> > to

> > > > > > > individual families, but year after year your

suggestions

> > won't

> > > > > > > reform the system.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly, even

> > though

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in is

> > harming

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way

we

> > > > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the system

> > IMO.

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access

to

> > our

> > > > > taxes.

> > > > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with

the

> > help

> > > > of

> > > > > > our

> > > > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on a

> > pig.

> > > > The

> > > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and individual

> > > > families

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > suffer.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yep, it is all about money huh ... not the Special Need family. I

was sure you would change colors as soon as parents had access to

their taxes they PAID.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide

> MONEY,

> > > FUNDS,

> > > > > > > AND

> > > > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

> > > individual

> > > > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word choice

if

> > you

> > > ask

> > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail

the

> > > gravy

> > > > > > > train.

> > > > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE the

> > damage

> > > to

> > > > > > > > individual families, but year after year your

> suggestions

> > > won't

> > > > > > > > reform the system.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly,

even

> > > though

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in

is

> > > harming

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no way

> we

> > > > > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the

system

> > > IMO.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited access

> to

> > > our

> > > > > > taxes.

> > > > > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated with

> the

> > > help

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick on

a

> > > pig.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and

individual

> > > > > families

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > suffer.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This is not productive. Can we continue being civil.

Nagla

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Yep, it is quite obvious ... anything but provide

> > MONEY,

> > > > FUNDS,

> > > > > > > > AND

> > > > > > > > > OPTIONS to escape a brutal, denial of services for

> > > > individual

> > > > > > > > > families. You are very selective in your word

choice

> if

> > > you

> > > > ask

> > > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > I doubt the ARC and this coalition wants to derail

> the

> > > > gravy

> > > > > > > > train.

> > > > > > > > > You are advocating keeping it the same, MINIMIZE

the

> > > damage

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > > individual families, but year after year your

> > suggestions

> > > > won't

> > > > > > > > > reform the system.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are allowing families to be beat down quietly,

> even

> > > > though

> > > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > believe that the environment that their child is in

> is

> > > > harming

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > denying them better options/services. There is no

way

> > we

> > > > > > > > > can " litigate our way to FAPE " .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The real issue seems to be the protection of the

> system

> > > > IMO.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > system allows FOR PROFIT legal firms unlimited

access

> > to

> > > > our

> > > > > > > taxes.

> > > > > > > > > I say the system should be reformed and defeated

with

> > the

> > > > help

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > legislators this session.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think your suggestions are just putting lipstick

on

> a

> > > > pig.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > legal firms will CONTINUE THEIR BILLINGS and

> individual

> > > > > > families

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > suffer.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>