General education teachers seem to have very little understanding of learning disabilities, and almost no ability to recognize them, despite how common they are. Unfortunately, this lack of awareness permeates special education as well. This is compounded by the lack of any real critical self-reflection, vigorous opposition to any other points of view, parental or outside expert, bullying of parents (especially mothers), and a strong desire to avoid providing appropriate, critical services in a timely fashion.

Dr. Perry saying she is "eager to address parent's concerns" is bizarre, given that she has never shown any such desire previously.

I read the report, and agree that it's not enough. On a major issue, parent distrust, the report missed by a mile. It made it seem like parents were just clueless and just lacked information, when the reality is quite simple: employee untrustworthy behavior, lies, retaliation, failure to follow policies and law, lack of recourse when employees act in an untrustworthy and damaging manner -- that begets mistrust. A handbook is a laughable response. Seriously, after all these years, the OCR involvement, the district suing parents - and quite frankly putting the screws to many families to get them to leave before this review - we just somehow missed that we need a handbook? When the special ed department lies about having procedures at all, and overtly refuses to abide by its own "binding" policies with no parent recourse, how is a handbook supposed to help?

"Distrust" comes from untrustworthy behavior and even overtly false information from employees who obstruct any attempts to correct the problems (through aggressive legalistic behavior, deliberately stress-inducing strategies typical in adversarial legal proceedings, creating false histories that are impossible to correct because of illegal records practices and playing games to avoid complying with requests, sending families on wild goose chases, failing to follow even the most basic rules, or conduct required assessments, etc.)

Another glaring thing wrong with this report is that it deals not at all with the segment of families whose kids need 504s. Those children are somehow stuck under special ed, and are treated like fifth wheels in the same way that this report does, despite 504s covering so many students. When kids get sick for a long time, if they have a problem like diabetes, MS, or asthma, if they have an accident that affects their educational access, those accommodations come under 504s usually and are handled by special ed personnel. This has never worked well, and the omission of this major segment from overt consideration in the report is further evidence of it. The inclusion and educational issues for many students with 504s are quite different than for kids with learning disabilities. Were they included in the inclusion numbers while being excluded from analysis? If so, the pats on the back about inclusion need to be revisited. If the 504 students were completely shut out in every way from this report, why is that, when the special ed department handles the 504s and problems affect them, too?

Think about it - how many of the serious complaints, lawsuits, have involved students who have medical problems with 504s versus only/also learning disabilities? All of the major ones I can think of. Why were 504s and the special ed department's miserable handling of many so glaringly omitted from this report? I hope the board is reading this, because 504s should really be dealt with by an entirely different (and hopefully more trustworthy and helpful) side of the district office.

P.S. Anecdotally, parent satisfaction with special ed's handling of learning disabilities, despite the problems, is far higher than parent satisfaction with special ed's handling of 504s. They do not handle 504s well, and that works its way down to the school sites. Again, were the students with 504s included in the statistics for inclusion in this report? They shouldn't be, at least not without noting the difference. And why the glaring omission of 504 issues when that seems to be ahere special ed really goes wrong here.

Board: the district really must handle 504s in a completely different way with different personnel. The special ed people cannot handle 504s and aren't interested. The wait-to-fail model is downright damaging in 504 situations.

In our experience, the handling of a child with a 504 was totally dependent on the competence and involvement of the school Principal. We were fortunate to have an elementary principal whose view was exactly the opposite of the "wait to fail" option, instead identifying students at a young age and providing support, often without a classification of special ed. What we found in middle school was good intentions, but putting a student that just needed some 504 accommodations into a remedial class they did not need was extremely detrimental (as parents we were not informed ahead of time and it took a semester to get the child out of the class). What we found at Paly regarding 504's was that the teachers expected the students to approach them and inform them of the accommodations. And the accommodations were routinely ignored.

A family member is a grade school teacher in this area and she relates that the rights and inclusion of special ed students has totally destroyed the unity and rights of the others students to properly be educated. Often the special needs children continually are disruptive and out of control in the classroom and that their needs seem by the administration deserve greater attention. Everything is backwards and the regular student suffers because of it. [Portion removed.] Until these basic problems are addressed for what they are by the school system things will just get worse with the way too liberalized attitudes of the school system. We need to "get tough," in concentrating on the rights of the regular student and their rights to an education without disruption.

Over 90 percent of teachers can be informed and well meaning, but all it takes is a couple of ignorant and insensitive teachers to significantly damage a child's sense of self-worth. Administration knows who those teachers are and shrug it off. That's not okay. ALL teachers should be educated and enlightened. Also, I'd like to see more about extracurricular support and activities friendly to special ed students.

@Positive. I agree, per my comment, that systemic consistency is needed. Enlightenment all around. [Portion removed.]

[Portion removed.]

Thank you, Elena. This is a thorough and informative piece.

I will NEVER forget the day, when my first-grader was identified as having several learning disabilities, probably due to a long and difficult delivery that restricted his oxygen. The principal, teacher ( who I later found out was pregnant), district psychologist, the IEP specialist and I had just sat down to a meeting. The principal began the meeting with: "First, I think we all agree that ******* is slow."

My breath caught, I was in a temporary state of shock-- the principal had said made such a cruel statement in such a cold and unemotional voice that I knew this meeting would go badly, which it did. Blame was put on me: didn't I ever read to him? Have decent prenatal care (Kaiser was considered inferior)?

After THAT, I always took my husband with me to these meetings!

Our son ( who Is learning disabled) is 47 yrs. old and went through the Palo Alto School system. He has had tremendous help for all his school years and is now a partner in one of the best Commercial Real Estate Company's in San Jose. We formed a group for the parents to discuss the problems that the children would have to go through.
Our son could have not turned out better. The Palo Alto School teachers were great.

@Satisfied parent,
Thanks for chiming in. Your experience demonstrates what PAUSD could be, and more clearly points the finger at what is wrong. If you go to CAC meetings, there are parents who remember that PAUSD used to have a stellar reputation with special ed, as you experienced, and even long after your son graduated. And then it changed at an identifiable point in time. I think anyone who wants to look at the situation soberly will be able to see that the change coincided with certain personnel and policies that are still with us.

@Positive,
A lot of people have that experience - things work well a the elementary level because of the closer relationships and willingness of staff to work with families. Often people avoid much formalizing of the accommodations. Things change in middle school there is a noticeable antagonism by district employees when things have go be formalized. You can fight for accommodations that usually end up ignored if you grt them.

@Dennis's post, like the report, underscores what I said: everyone in the system treats 504 students like they are second class citizens. They are as important to accommodate as everyone else, sometimes it's a matter of life and death. It's completely inappropriate to handle the 504s under special ed. Just like Dennis and this report, the 504 students are just completely ignored. 504s do not belong under the purview of special ed.

Now that the CDC suicide report is out and showing just how damaging absenteeism from illness is, the district really must take more seriously the accommodations of students with physical disabilities. They should not be an afterthought or unwelcome duty for antagonistic special ed employees.

@Dennis,
I should clarify that I am not addressing your point because I have no experience at all with your experience. But the fact that you think the disruptive experience you relay is representative of special ed students in total, is a little disturbing. Special ed currently is a broad umbrella that includes 504 students who may not have learning disabilities at all but nevertheless need accommodations to attend school and get the same education. These disabilities are accommodated through 504 plans. 504 students (who may have no learning disability at issue, but rather, need other kinds of accommodations that you don't ever see, such as the ability to take insulin during the day) should not be handled by special ed. It's a disaster.

In reviewing the special ed depart,ent, it was a totally wrong omission to fail to deal with 504 problems. If the 504 students were in the inclusion data, but not otherwise dealt with, then that is an improper use of the data, and yet another failure to support 504 students.

@Dennis, you may be right about your experience, but the disruption speaks more to the disability being inadequately accommodated. I ahould think you would be supportive then of efforts to reform special ed, so that it works and we don't wasre money on too many overpaid chiefs and not enough braves.

[Post removed.]

Thank you Palo Alto for this article.
Dear Dennis, not sure if your are clueless, heartless, or ignorant but I hope with opportunities to interact with special needs kids and parents, you will show more thoughtful and generous comments in the future. I hope your kids who interact w spec ed students think differently than you!
The truth is the spec ed department is about dollars and cost saving and unfortunately lies and dodging the questions/delaying services. If they provided support you wouldn't see students fail, be distruptive, and teachers experience no support. Spec ed would rather deal with attorney fees thank pay teachers and support students.
Parents, you are wasting time thinking spec ed will give you things, follow logic, and support you. Count how many times dir of spec ed tells you they want to collaborate and gain trust. Then count their actions.

I was absolutely stunned when, in a meeting with my child's first grade teacher, the principal and the IEP teacher, the teacher totally lost it.

She was explaining how my child was incapable of learning even after she repeated things to him ten times or more. She slammed her binder and books down on the conference table and stormed out!

This teacher didn't even give me a chance to explain that my child did not breathe for nearly eight minutes after birth, had some mild brain damage as a result, and was deaf in one ear!

Two weeks later, my child was transferred to a new class with a tentative hired teacher whose English was not the best. He couldn't understand what she said, so her response was to load him down with so much homework that mat age 6, my child was doing homework from 3:30 until 9:00, with a break for dinner!

This silly woman tried to change the way he spelled his last name, told the class that Lincoln was the third president ( he was 16rh), and other false information!

Then, claiming he couldn't read she had my child held back in first grade an extra year, something he never really recovered from. Any confidence was gone, he was humiliated.

That summer we went to the library almost daily, and I could see that he could read-- he just hated what he thought were pointless, plotless readers the district required!

A little consistency would go a long way in helping my child. A different time for lunch every day? And now a fourth schedule in as many years?! He has to be glued to his phone (which we discourage) just to know where he needs to be.

I am a parent of two boys on the autism spectrum, so have quite a lot of experience, both good and bad, dealing with the special education department.

My older son had a 504 plan, which was a waste of time. No funding, educational help, or requirement that teachers actually comply; vague goals, such as "more time on tests/homework", and a study skills class that did not really teach any skills. He graduated 10 years ago, so perhaps that program has changed, but from comments on this board, it seems just as ineffective. There was little attention to students' emotional issues and he is still struggling with depression and lack of direction, as do some of his friends from Gunn. High functioning children on the autism spectrum especially have often fallen through the tracks, because their issues are not academic and don't show up till later in high school. I believe that a more concerted effort at identifying and working with them at a younger age can make a real difference later.

My younger son is currently at Gunn with an IEP, after spending almost half of his school years in non-public schools. I was surprised the report gave a high grade to the district on inclusion. While that may be for students without behavioral issues, and Gunn has done a lot on that front since he returned to the district, it certainly was not the case before he trasferred out years ago. I fully realize how It is hard to integrate s kids with behavior problems, and a separate setting does allow both them and the other students to study effectively. But I felt that the district was too quick to ship off these students to more restrictive schools, and wash their hands off (except for funding), with an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude.
I have been told by friends that this is a one way street, and it's true - the students sent to the non-public schools rarely if ever succeed integrating back to the district, even when the issues that caused the placement out have been overcome. The non public schools serve student population from all over the county, and students suffer from multiple issues, such as mental health, learning differences, and cognitive. Naturally these schools are not able to provide the same academic rigor and opportunities that will allow our students to integrate back into the PAUSD schools successfully. I believe this is where the district must take an active role to ensure that students who are capable academically, not fall behind just because they are temporarily referred elsewhere.
I am blessed with a wonderful case manager at Gunn, and most (though not all) teachers are willing to make an effort to accommodate. Even so, it has been an uphill struggle, and we are fighting against the odds. None of the students I know who come back to the district graduate from PAUSD, and this seems the norm. You can't make up years of less rigorous learning and expect the student to just jump in. Had the district stayed involved with the transfer students education, provide the necessary academic and social enrichment, and provide time to make up the missed material, many more would have been able to come back and to integrate successfully and graduate.

Crescent Park and Duveneck Elementary Schools, JLS and Paly

Dear Neighbors,

In 1979 when I started kindergarten at Crescent Park Elementary School, my parents were specifically and directly told by PAUSD, and by Crescent Park teachers and administrators, that "We do not take 'Special Education children' into the 'Gifted Program.'"

I am most fortunate and always thankful, still to this day, for the empathy and stamina of my mother when she rallied for me, a five-year-old kindergartner. It so happened that PAUSD and Crescent Park Elementary did take this "Special Education" student into their "Gifted Program" in 1979. That was my early introduction to PAUSD, as well as an unintentional introduction to institutional prejudice.

This prejudicial behavior by PAUSD was spun positively by my parents with great grace. It was my mom and dad who turned this verbalized prejudice into a subtle life lesson of how perseverance and resilience can lead to life-long success. As Mrs. Elkins always said to each and every fourth grade pupil of hers, "There is no failure, except in no longer trying."

In sum, I empathize with today's PAUSD parents who continue to step up and tirelessly advocate for inclusive, equal, and fair access to education for their children.

Dr. Alexander

Don't ignore the real need of average student!

Don't overdo!

All,
I encourage you to Get Involved. Go to the Board meetings. Go to the Meeting on the 13th. Show up. And, if it's not on the Board Agenda, you can speak in Open Forum. This is a good place to vent, but you can't make changes here.
Get Involved.

@Involved,
I wish everyone who hasn't already been involved and been broken and scarred by it much better luck with it than those of us who have already tried. At least here, we can say the truth and it might be heard, and we can say it without the certainty of retaliation. The real problem is that there is no pathway to replacing key employees who are the real problem, or changing the administrative culture absent that, no matter the involvement. At least if the Weekly hears from us, they will keep an eye on this issue. The district on the other hand would love nothing better than to hammer down the nails that stick out and bury all the problems under yet more window dressing.

Where can we find a link to this report?

This link Web Link goes to the Board memo summarizing the report. The report itself, and a couple other documents, are attached at the bottom of the memo.

Perhaps it was coincidental, but, from my vantage point, Special Ed in the district nosedived when Carol Zepecki left at the end of 2009-2010. (followed by several other skilled and caring special ed staff.) Coincidentally, it seemed like the only thing that mattered for a while after that were standardized test scores and the number of AP classes taken by seniors.

Every student deserves an education appropriate for them, whether they are a future rocket scientist, or, waiter.

It seems that Special Ed gets cut back whenever there are budget cuts, for whatever reason.

They don't tell parents this outright, but they simply start mainstreaming kids out of Special Ed and into General Ed, whether they are ready or not ( and they never are).

A year later, there will be complaints about falling test scores! It is simply because learning disabled children are now taking tests alongside the general ed kids!

Get the word out - if you have special needs child: Do not come to Palo Alto. The worst place in Silicon Valley for your child. They may never recover.