One must ask ...how many other 'backroom deals' have been going on behind closed doors? Boy, we don't hear much talk about these kinds of expenses during budget season. I can no longer support this administration. I wish Miles the best of luck at UNH and thank you to his mother, Lisa, for being so forthcoming in sharing her story about her struggles with the district. I am just sorry that this could not be resolved amicably between the family and our school district.
Now the school district is breaking promises to students? Our administration must think we have a lot of money to burn. They don't appear to have any fiscal spending conscience!!!
Cou de gras!!!!!! yes.. schools have no fiscal responsibility when the taxpayers aren't payin attention and they hit the most vulnerable....Congrats to Miles, his parents and the DRC. Shame on the SD and its employess who perpetrated this atrocity.... these stories are our modern day holocaust!
I can only pray that Fosters catches wind of this story. In order to expose the incompetence of the administration, lack of leadership, and arrogance of breaking special education law; this story needs to be read by all of our community members, not just the concerned ones who read the blog.
"It was more cost-effective for the school district than to litigate," he said. "When our insurance carrier agreed to share the cost, it became an easier decision for us."
Isn't it nice to hear such words of educational wisdom from our so called leader.
How much more evidence is needed that Colter is not the leader for our district? When will people begin to ask for his resignation? How dare he direct his employees to do anything but look out for the best interest of every child. Best wishes to Miles and his family. Please know our real community, not the one Colter thinks is real, is behind you and would never have stood for this. Please further note the board goal of cultivating trust, not sure how this will fly in the face of this news. The only way to cultivate trust is to show you are listening, and get rid of Colter.
My son had an IEP and I have spent years fighting the district for this, as well as for what should occur within the IEP. I know a lot of people are angry about how much is spent on special ed services. I have always argued how much it would cost to not provide services. My son is now a productive member of society, no thanks to ORSD. We long ago realized his real help would not occur at the school. This was not due to his caring teachers, who fought each step of the way for him. It was due to the arrival of Colter who has made it almost impossible for them to do their job. The teachers help these kids despite the lack of support from administrators, and the tools they need to support our kids. When will the board realize this and help us? Yes, I will not sign my name for fear of retribution. Yes that is sad, and should not occur, but I have seen what happens to those that do sign their name and I need to protect my son. Thank you.
Perhaps the school board should authorize a survey money in regards to how many parents have 1)fought for services 2) been denied services despite documentation making the student eligible 3) child has had an IEP but services were not provided 4) transition services not provided as required by law 5) been told students had to leave as they have the required # of credits (like the Brady family) 6) how many have gone to mediation and/or due process 7) been lied to by the experts in the name of wanting the best for your student 8) were aware that special education law was being broken but lacked the resources to fight the case in Concord ( something that I think 'they' bank on and are cocky enough to think they won't get caught).
I second the kudos to the Brady family for thinking outside the box and finding someone to help them expose the unprofessional behavior of the new special education director. Due to the monies she is being paid, one can only assume that she knows special education law, she just doesn't care to follow it. Perhaps she and Howard can resign together.
What no one has addressed yet is what type of monies did the district pay to their attorney to fight this case! If $50,000 was paid to the Brady lawyer, it needs to be pointed out that there was also a bill submitted by the district's lawyer. Anyone know how much that one was for?
Also, we are only hearing about the Brady case. How many more cases went to Concord. How much were those bills for? There should be accountability for monies spent frivolously that were not being used to educate the students of the district.
Anyone up for a walk down Coe drive. I'll make the signs.
This blog continually complains about the amount we taxpayers are dishing out but now they are complaining about NOT paying a huge bill because someone's (19 no less) parent wants a glorified babysitter at our expense? Make up your minds.
To the Anonymous poster above....you misunderstand the goal of creating a blog like this. I believe that a majority of folks DON'T mind the taxes IF they are spending the money to create top notch education. However, over the past several years we have witnessed wasteful spending, lack of budget understanding, and an administration that does not want public input.
So, I have no problem fulfilling the mission statement of "engaging every learner" using my tax dollars. I just want those dollars spend wisely and the money trail documented effectively.
What people have called the board to answer is how do other districts do it at a lower cost? No one has documented the legal expenses of suits like this. Why would the administration fight this? They basically gave up and just paid out a lump sum to make the problem go away. I would also like to see our renewal on the insurance policy after this payout AND what we spent on our attorneys for this!!!
Colter needs to go. Period. Plain and simple. We just need a board with a backbone to hold his feet to the fire. As of right now, Colter is still calling all the shots.
Anonymous above. Thank you for explaining that. I agree with your thoughts of paying to educate our children and am 100% for it. But, I also think that sometimes the Special Education laws are taken too far by some parents. I have kids who have an IEP too. I fight for them but I know where to draw the line between needed for education and excessive "perks". Some parents don't. I have listened to them at support groups and I don't like paying for some of their outrageous notions. I just think that some of the people that have commented above about this situation think about it for a minute.
Having said that. I agree with you in regards to the leadership in the District and believe you are right in regards to Colter and wish you luck.
It's this type of post and comments that REQUIRES anonymous commenting. I appreciate the ability to write here and not suffer retribution by my peers and administration.
I too share the same feeling that Colter needs to go. He has done NOTHING but create rifts in the district. I know some people like him...a lot. However, most don't! Perhaps it is a 75-25% split. In any case, that is just an assumption.
The point is we need a superintendent that doesn't create this rift and can collaborate, communicate, and listen to everyone! He is not a leader and I question the sole remaining board member for approving him for that position. It's a good thing Ms. Portalupi's term is up in 2011. She has lost my vote and I voted for her in the past. Anyone that continually defends and supports this administration blindly and unconditionally is not a good board member.
I am all for supporting the administration but not when it comes at a high cost as documented here in the past few years.
Mr. Colter...do the right thing and move on. You don't seem to care about us anyway so just retire early.
The comment above from the person complaining about the parent wanting a baby sitter, you appear to support the administrators decision to file an expensive lawsuit over a half a year of schooling. It doesn't sound like the parent wanted a baby sitter. It appears, like most parents in our district, she wanted her son to go to college. The student is going to live at UNH in a dormitory and to comment that the parent is looking for a baby sitter is just plain ignorant!!!
More to the point, the person complaining about the Brady's request for a babysitter, doesn't get the fact that the school had already stated in an IEP ( a legal document that all parties agree to) that Miles would stay a 5th year. To back pedal on a legal contract is demonstrating the lack of professionalism by the special ed. director. Furthermore, it clearly shows the hypocrisy of our superintendent of not supporting 'engaging every learner'.
I concur w/the blogger who wants the monies for both lawyers deducted from the pay of them both. I am outraged and saddened that these two individuals hold positions of power and yet are not acting prudently and legally within the realms of their profession.
I actually believe the school board should look into breech of contract by the superintendent and the special ed. director. They knowingly broke special ed law. They gambled that this family wouldn't find a way to pay the attorney costs ( in the event they lost). Since this tactic has worked in the past for them ,as the majority of families don't have $50,000 to prove a point and hold the SAU accountable for breaking the law. It is about time that the law breakers have been exposed. When will the board get rid of them. They are a liability to our children and the taxpayers of this district.
This tax payer thanks the Brady family for their efforts. It is too bad that education law doesn't provide for emotional pain and suffering in the civil courts. I can only imagine this journey was not an easy path to choose.
Excuse me, but since the word ignorace was stated before it seems relevant at this point to point out that ignorance would be commenting on something without all the details, as with many people who have commented above. Where does it state that the district filed the lawsuit? I suspect you are mistaken. Also, since the district does follow the FERPA laws and can not comment on this situation as well as others, it may be wise for the public to withhold judgement without knowing the complete story. In addition, to withholding comment when it is clear that many who have commented have little knowledge of Special Education law, especially in relation to this situation. However, as one of the anonymous posters above demonstatrated, (as is often the case on this blog) why let the facts get in the way when it comes to ranting and raving. For example, above someone posted "over the past several years we have witnessed wasteful spending, lack of budget understanding, and an administration that does not want public input" - well the facts appear to show that infact the budget, since Mr. Colter arrived, has seen a much more gradual increase than the numerous years before, The administration appears to understand budgets as it has continually come in under what the default budget would have been as well as had numerous budget cuts reinstated by the board or public, and as to the claim that the administration does not want public input; they have held numerous budget presentations, i.e. each year at each school, however, the public turnout was next to nil at most of them. Perhaps if those of you here, on this complaint blog, and in the public were so curious about the contents of the budget, one would make and effort to actually attend and have a discussion with the administration and board you may find the information you seek.
Not to change the subject but to demonstrate another instance where it appears facts do not appear to match the rhetoric and are often missed is the continuous assertion about the "public outrage about the budget". The fact that the budget continually is passed by a huge margin. When only approximately 10% of population votes and less than 20% percent voted against the budget it would appear that a majority has been supporting the budget, therefore the claims about what the public is calling for seems to be contradicted by reality and the facts.
I understand that it is much easier to just complain and ignore the facts and reality when using any instance to attack, however it makes it very difficult to take any comments or positions seriously when they are not based on any facts or any semblance of reality.
Perhaps taking the time to gather all the facts, and then offering constructive input would be a more positive approach and yield greater results.
I did forget one other point, I do agree as to one point above about legal fees. I am extremely eager to know how much is spent on "frivilous" right-to-know requests.
When a school district loses a due process hearing, they are responsible for paying the parent's attorney fees. If administration was concerned about NOT paying a huge bill, they just should have followed the student's IEP.
Well, when you have nothing constructive to offer it is usually good productive practice to resort to name calling. Now I am sure you are going to detail what was in the IEP and how exactly the district did not follow it; That in addition to the frameworks of the due process complaint or complaints and the findings associated with those filings. While I do not know any of this pertinent information as it certainly is not in the article, I suggest it is best practice to withhold judgement if one does not have all the facts and the context. An incomplete story hardly serves as the basis for formulating judgement; but why let the lack of the whole story get in the way of rushing to judgement.
"officials wanted him to take classes online and to graduate in January despite promising him he would get a full year of Spanish. The dispute landed before the state Department of Education, which ruled in Brady's favor in January."
Without having all the facts, readers can infer from the article that "promising" the student amounted to including the information in the student's IEP. This would explain why the hearing officer ruled in the families favor. I agree that name calling is not productive however; the blogger is correct in stating that a school district is liable for attorney fees incurred by parents who prevail at a due process hearing. The article also mentions that other goals on the student's IEP were not met as well, which, I assume is why the parent felt the student was not quite ready to graduate in January. Of course, we do not have all the facts but it does appear to be a lot of money spent for six months of school.
The post above would be correct if one choses to blondly accept the article as completely accurate without prejudice or journalistic liberties. Inferring only from the article is precicley the type of judgement I wsa referencing. If you would like to infer without having all the facts and rely on one individuals perception of what was contained in the IEP and whether or not there were grounds to go to due process. Considering the publilc (meaning those on here as well) do not have any history or knowledge of the situation and what was discussed and how it was implemented, when it was implemented and to what extent. In addition, we do not know how many, if any complaints may have been brought to due process and if the district had been successful in any of those. Was this a continuous occurrence or one time event? So it may not be only the six months the district was agreeing to settle. The point is that without history and context and only one side of the story it appears premature to make such judgements. I would even go so far as irresponsible on the part of some to go so far with such negative attacks. I understand that it is pretty much the MO of many that comment here to use any information, no matter how accurate or complete, to twist to fit their agenda.
In general, I suggest that instead of always attacking the staff of the schools and district we set an example for the very students we supposedly are trying to serve and be respectful even when disagreeing and also engage as problem solvers, not just hide behind anonymous postings and negative rhetoric.
The facts as we know them from the Union Leader state the following:
"officials wanted him to take classes online and to graduate in January despite promising him he would get a full year of Spanish."
"They chose to spend thousands of dollars to do what was not in the best interest of the student rather than do what was already in the IEP (individual education plan),"
I don't need to have all the facts, just the ones made public in the newspaper that involve our school district blowing our tax dollars. You can choose to not have an opinion, but, please forgive those of us that are concerned about our district's spending, which, appears to be out of control and lacking oversight.
Some of our top administrators in town haven't had raises in the past couple of years. Shouldn't we all be a little concerned about wasteful spending??
Sometimes negative rhetoric can be the impetus for change and sometimes negative rhetoric can be seen in a passive aggressive form, case in point above. Everyone has a perspective and you are invited to share it on this blog. I enjoy hearing the opinions of all who post, even if I do not always agree.
Americans see negative rhetoric in politics and we all seem to tune into this on a daily basis. When you perform a service for the public, you are subjected to a certain amount of scrutiny. Don't ask people on this forum to stop scrutinizing.
C. King: Your alternative theory is amusing, but it is a work of fiction. Do you really expect us to believe that the Union Leader, with its staff of editors and fact-checkers, somehow got it all wrong, while your view, which you admit is not based upon any particular knowledge of the situation, is correct? I don't suppose you have any prejudices yourself, like perhaps being a member of the school board or the administration, publishing your thoughts under an assumed name?
I am not either a member of the school board nor a member of this school administration, and unfortunately I believe in a responsible, informed public. I do not believe I ever stated that the Union Leader got anything wrong. I was just pointing out that there are numerous unaswered questions and a history of which none of those on here appear to have any knowledge of, therefore the prudent thing to may be to withhold judgment until one gathers the full story. For example, the 19 year old's opinions, or maybe the district thought he was ready earlier. I do not know the answers to these questions either but again more questions which are pertinent to the discussion. In addition, As to the poster two spots above, I did not ask to stop scrutinizing, I was only asking for having all the facts before judging. You used quotes from the article, which if I am not mistaken were from the mother, which may be her position, however, there obviously is an opposing side to the story, (not too mention the various missing items, I referred to earlier) which needs to be established before any fair evaluation of the events may be reached. You even commented about the district "blowing" money, but without all the context and history that is just an opinion statement not based on any fact or at most incomplete facts. We may diagree about what was a good move, but I think you would have to agree that without more information it is rather difficult to determine whether the settlement was a wise prudent position to take nor do we know how much in the long run the district may have actually saved in this or other cases.
I am curious about how the part about town administrators is prudent to the discussion, if only in respect to being on watch for wasteful spending, then wouldn't it be prudent to include in that statement the fact the central office administration also did not take raises this past year. I understand your issues with spending, however, I think if you look at the facts and the numbers you see that the spending is on the decline or I should say rate of growth has slowed considerably (as a matter of fact, the school districts rate of growth is less than that of the towns) and considering that many people are opposed to any staff cuts any substantial decrease in spending is most likely a few years away, until some of the older staff members retire. There is a price to pay for having one of, if not the top, highest paid district.
I will add that, one other area we will disagree on is the idea that negative rhetoric is ever beneficial. Criticism may be productive and positive suggestions may move change but negativity does not breed anything but a poisonous climate. To sum up I agree we that everyone is entitled to disagree, reasonable people will disagree, I only wish that we could be respectful and keep in mind that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts!
By the way, just a point of reference, the board and much of the administration is at the school board meeting tonight. I am not one of them, but does make one wonder, why so many other who have such an interest are not at the meeting also?
This blog allows for thought provoking discussions that might make some feel awkward in the face of public exposure. I prefer to use the term “dialogue,” rather than “negative rhetoric.” We cannot foster change without some form of critical dialogue. Some people may use the term “passive aggressive,” while others prefer “down-player.” While I do understand that some people need absolute proof, I am not naïve. As Thomas Szasz once said; “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive, but do not forget. I am happy the issue with the school district and the family has resolved. I forgive our administration but I will not forget. I am a retired banker and concerned about my property taxes and school spending.
To C. King: Point taken. I would like to have all the facts before us before making a judgement. How do we get that to happen? Your suggestions? And, there was a school board meeting tonight? Great! It wasn't televised on DCAT. Was it recorded? Will it be shown and repeated? Many of us would love to be able to spend the time to physically be at the meeting, but find it hard to take time away from our families in the evening. We rely on DCAT for the live broadcast and repeats to keep informed. Where was the broadcast of tonight's meeting?
Mr. King, yes the adminsitrators did not take raises this year. However, it should be noted that they did receive an increase in their health benefit coverage. The equivilant in most worlds, of a raise. The complete facts indeed are always important to state prior to stating any opinion.
Dismissing for a moment the rather sexist presumption, I agree with the idea that complete facts are important, however, I was not stating an opinion about anything related to raises, just establishing a baseline of facts from which the dialogue may continue. Now as to the facts, you may want to double check your assertion as it pertains to the prior comments. Also, I must ask the reference to "most worlds", are you implying that education is somehow a different world? Would it be those worlds where one presumes that anyone taking part in thoughtful dialogue must be a woman? Not only are complete facts important to state but as has just been demonstrated it is very important to have complete facts and not infer or assume without them.
I just went onto the district website & could not find a "Director of Special Education." There are two "Directors of Instruction" and a "Special Education Administrative Assistant" listed. Who is in charge of Special Education? And why are there two "Directors of Instruction"?
It seems that district residents (employees?) such as King think that others should quietly go away and never question anything. Questioning should not be considered negativity. And I love King's statement that "unfortunately I believe in a responsible, informed public." Unfortunately? Really?? You are right, there are "numerous unanswered questions." These questions need to be answered.
It is pathetic that a culture has evolved in this district where "questioning" is considered "negative rhetoric" and troublesome. The words "transparency" and "accountability" are not swear words. The question of why our cost per pupil rate is so incredibly out of whack with other comparable districts is NOT a bad question. I realize that this has evolved over a period of years (probably the years that coincide with Portalupi's rein), but it needs to be addressed. The fact that no one seems interested in answering this question is what is worrisome. This question will not go away.
And the fact that the budget vote always passes isn't that impressive when we sometimes have a default budget that is higher than the budget that we are voting to approve.
And Mr./Ms. Hamilton... I would love to have attended the budge presentation, but I received the postcard notice of the meeting the day AFTER the presentation. It really made me wonder whether this was an honest mistake or a strategic decision to discourage people from attending. I won't judge, because I don't have the facts, but I will always wonder.
Back to the original blog topic... Lisa Brady should be applauded for being the advocate for her child. Apparently ORCSD does not advocate for "every learner." Congratulations Lisa for standing up for your child. I "wonder" how many other families have been beaten down with process or not had the financial resources, and given up in similar situations. [Again, I am not "judging," I am "wondering," and this is allowed]
I would like to know what the total payment ORCSD made for attorney fees last year. Is there a budget for these fees? Or is it a bottomless pot? Are we charged every time that ridiculous e-mails are sent to the lawyers trying to discredit School Board members? How much did the Townsend fiasco (set in motion by Howard Colter) cost the district. Maybe it is time to realize that Colter's attempts to cut costs are costing us money. Stop trying to help us Howard! You are making a mess of things. You planted a seed with Townsend, thinking that it would effectively get rid of Henry Brackett. Classic Colter... plant a seed & then step back & let someone else do the dirty work & take the blame. It was beautiful how that one backfired in Colter's face. But how many other manipulative decisions have cost us in attorney fees.
$50,000 spent on lawyer fees? ...that is the salary of a teacher. I would rather have the district follow the education laws so that our money can be spent on teachers and instruction.
Bottom line... Howard Colter needs to go. How does a person request a vote of no confidence?
Can anyone explain why DCAT isn't showing the SB meetings live anymore??? Someone mentioned the fact that few people show up for the meetings. Well, we don't need to if we can watch it on DCAT. Why crowd that little studio if you don't plan to speak at the meeting?
To C. King again: How do we get all the facts before us? What are your suggestions to make that happen? Do we hope local newspapers will investigate? Do we make "right to know" requests? Do we go to the board meeting and ask questions directly without much hope of an answer? How, C. King, do we get the facts before us? I ask again: What are your suggestions?
King inadvertently supports the idea that the superintendent's office should be more forthcoming with information. Or is King saying that we don't deserve information? Hmmm. After all, we only pay Colter's salary.
To quote our mighty "King," I challenge you to "engage as a problem solver" and help to find the facts. We will wait patiently.
C King- In case you hadn't noticed, the Brady family won the due process hearing up at the State Department of Education. The facts also support that the district committed to letting the student finish a full year of Spanish. We do have enough information to draw an educated opinion based on facts. 50,000.00 dollars is a mighty expensive Spanish class. I might add that the 50,000.00 was a settlement deal and obviously significantly less than the actual bill.
Civil matters do not require an absolute burden of proof. The burden of evidence that C King seems to be insisting on would make more sense if this were a criminal matter. Civil matters do not require absolute proof. In fact, if a jury thinks there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. C King should lighten up, this is not a criminal case!!
Add to the $50,000 Spanish class the cost of the district's lawyer fees in this fiasco. It seems that Colter gets the district into trouble on a monthly basis now.
Correction--$50,000 was the cost the District has to pay to the family. One can only assume that our costs were as much if not higher!
Here is a fact--whether we think it was justified or not does not matter a single bit. The decision makers in this process heard the evidence from both sides and sided AGAINST the District. Clearly the they know a lot more about SPED laws then anyone on this blog and I trust that they considered all the evidence and made an appropriate decision.
The question is, when does this bleed stop? Not until Howard Colter and his rank and file are given their walking papers.
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.
Since Mr. Colter arrived: 1. Don Maynard almost lost his job. 2. The drama program was almost lost 3. Assistant supt lost his job, and new structure that does not work or make sense created. 4. Long time principal leaves, yes because of him. 5.teachers live in fear, and a culture of mis-trust is strong. Despite best efforts of building principals. 6. Tech and stuff are prioritized above staffing. 7. Staff cuts are made without true analysis of how the children will be affected. 8. A culture of mis-trust is created within our community, for the infraction of asking questions. 9. An SAU office that used to be an open door, is now a place where a citizen is met with suspicion for asking questions. 10. Lawsuits 11. Questionable contracts. 12. Questionatable spending practices. 13. Inability to communicate with the public 14. Creating a culture of mis-trust on the board. 15. Resignation of 3 board members. 16. Resignation of long time staff member, Blaine Cox. These are the infractions that have occured over the past 4 years. When will this board have a real conversation about the direction of our district? When will the board realize that until a new leader is put in place, divisions will continue and our district will be stuck. Howard has lost the majority of respect in our community, throughout our buildings, and if he will not step down on his own it is time for him to be asked to leave.
Oh that it were as easy as asking. With the fat contract Portalupi signed for him, he will never go without a fight. Although, if he is costing us in lawyer fees because of his ineptness, it might be cheaper to buy out his contract.
Used to be, Colter got rid of it and created a new structure. Someone does oversee it, but I can't remember who it is. Not a director like is seen in most districts.
Oh yes, that was the deal that he shuffled through quickly, right after he negotiated his own plum contract. We went from an assistant super to two assistants in his "new structure." Thank you again JoAnn Portalupi. Does Howard really need two people under him? Even with all of that help, he is still messing things up.
The blogger who wrote about parents wanting a babysitter (19 no less) is obviously ignorant as he/she does not know about special ed law to make such a statement. Children with disabilities can be educated up to the age of 21 under federal law. It's not about "babysitters." Parents in general want their kids to be independent and productive members of society. Unfortunately when you have a kid with disabilities, especially certain disabilities, it's not so EASY to accomplish that goal like their typical peers do. There are rights under IDEA (Individuals with Sesabilities Education Act). Also does one really think parents want to get lawyers and do all this fighting unless it was really needed for the child? I think not. It sounds like there was a commitment the school made and with this new administration, they tried to get out of it. Shame on them. The Dept of Ed found in the favor of the parents which I read does not happen too often. I applaud Lisa Brady for fighting the fight for her child. That's what parents are supposed to do for their kids if need be.
It is a huge mistake. You didn't hear about these type of matters when Carmen Young was a full time Special Ed Director. Also I believe Carmen Young knew how to "work" and "collaborate" with parents versus the individual we have now who is sometimes involved with special ed but paying more attention to curriculum instruction and does not know special education law.
Special Ed is a good part of the budget. Doesn't it make sense to have someone who knows and understands special ed law and carries it out "full time" as it was in the past years? Something has changed here and not for the better.
It makes no sense to restructure administration if, as a result, we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. Why did we eliminate the director position? We don't need two curriculum instruction directors.
It was all part of the new administrations "restructuring" which is self serving to those in those positions. Big fat pay raises. You can blame it again under the hand of Colter. No, we don't need two curriculum instruction directors, I agree.
The way that whole restructuring came through was pretty sneaky. Colter slid it through when the Board was buried in the budget. It seemed to come from no where (or Colter's head -- same thing). And one of the people elevated to the curriculum position had only been with the district for six months (part of which was a maternity leave). Don't they advertise for applicants when a new position is created? It just seemed like it should have been better thought out & not rushed.
Check out the actual due process hearing listed on the NH Department of Education website at the following link: http://www.education.nh.gov/legislation/documents/1008007OysterRiver.pdf
Interesting highlights: On cross-examination, Ms. Therrien acknowledged that SD1 (the 2008/2009 IEP), at page 23 provides for the transition plan which includes a year long Spanish class, yet the 2009/2010 IEP calls for the Student to complete education in January, which would not allow for the full year class. She did acknowledge that the IEP that was actually offered provides for additional Spanish instruction. It is also clear to the Hearing Officer that the District agreed that the Student would have a full year of Spanish and that the proposal to graduate the Student in January would not allow for it.
Meredith Sumner Nadeau, Director of Instruction for the School District testified as the last witness. She oversees the special education programs in District. She began this position in July, 2009 and previously was the Director of Special Education beginning July, 2008. She attended team meetings and was involved in meetings relative to amendments to the IEP. She felt that the mother participated meaningfully in the team meetings. The issue of transition to UNH first became an issue in June, 2009. She indicated that the Student initially did not want to return to the high school but would if required to. The Student does not need any additional credits to graduate. However, she acknowledged that the team agreed to extend the education to January because the Student may gain some additional benefit. There was no significant cross-examination.
Decision. The Hearing Officer is persuaded that the Student should be allowed to matriculate until June, 2010 and graduate at that time. The District made a commitment to provide a full year for the Spanish course and graduation in January, 2010 would not allow that to occur. In addition, the physics lab/science class must be completed in order to meet the Student’s needs. The transition goals outlined by Gail Luerssen should be fully incorporated into the IEP. While there appears to be some discrepancy in the testimony relative to the Student’s abilities to socially engage with peers and in everyday out of school activities relative to the transition plan, it is clear to the Hearing Officer that the Student has virtually no interaction with peers either in or out of school. In addition, the transition plan goals and objectives have not been met including independent living goals, community participation goals, prevocational goals, vocational goals such as securing employment. Under the circumstances the Hearing Officer finds in favor of the Parents and Orders that the Student be allowed to complete the Spanish and Physics classes with the Student’s peers at the local high school and that the transition goals recommended by Gail Luerssen be implemented in the IEP.
This was posted above: What no one has addressed yet is what type of monies did the district pay to their attorney to fight this case! If $50,000 was paid to the Brady lawyer, it needs to be pointed out that there was also a bill submitted by the district's lawyer. Anyone know how much that one was for?
Also, we are only hearing about the Brady case. How many more cases went to Concord. How much were those bills for? There should be accountability for monies spent frivolously that were not being used to educate the students of the district.
Anyone up for a walk down Coe drive. I'll make the signs.
Response: I agree, I would like to know what the district spent on THEIR attorney fees to fight the Brady due process. That amount has not been provided in the newspapers. There must be other due processes as well with other families that we are not aware of? Wouldn't this info fall under the right to know that everyone is talking about? Has anyone asked for this dollar amount?
Does anyone find this interesting? I never knew about "due process" hearings and what parents went through for special education. I have children who do not need these services.
Personally, I can't get past what the district spent in total versus giving a child on an IEP (under federal guidelines) 6 more months of "public education" that it sounds as if he was entitled to. What is the per pupil per year amount? In the range of 13K? I think $50,000 and whatever other costs are not listed is outrageous and frivalous by the district.
Yet another reason to fire Colter
ReplyDeleteOne must ask ...how many other 'backroom deals' have been going on behind closed doors? Boy, we don't hear much talk about these kinds of expenses during budget season. I can no longer support this administration.
ReplyDeleteI wish Miles the best of luck at UNH and thank you to his mother, Lisa, for being so forthcoming in sharing her story about her struggles with the district. I am just sorry that this could not be resolved amicably between the family and our school district.
Now the school district is breaking promises to students? Our administration must think we have a lot of money to burn. They don't appear to have any fiscal spending conscience!!!
ReplyDeleteCou de gras!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteyes.. schools have no fiscal responsibility when the taxpayers aren't payin attention and they hit the most vulnerable....Congrats to Miles, his parents and the DRC. Shame on the SD and its employess who perpetrated this atrocity....
these stories are our modern day holocaust!
I can only pray that Fosters catches wind of this story. In order to expose the incompetence of the administration, lack of leadership, and arrogance of breaking special education law; this story needs to be read by all of our community members, not just the concerned ones who read the blog.
ReplyDelete"It was more cost-effective for the school district than to litigate," he said. "When our insurance carrier agreed to share the cost, it became an easier decision for us."
ReplyDeleteIsn't it nice to hear such words of educational wisdom from our so called leader.
How much have we spent on lawyers as the District tried to weasel out of it's promise to "engage every learner"?
ReplyDeleteAnd whose boneheaded decision was it to break that promise, anyway?
How much more evidence is needed that Colter is not the leader for our district? When will people begin to ask for his resignation? How dare he direct his employees to do anything but look out for the best interest of every child.
ReplyDeleteBest wishes to Miles and his family. Please know our real community, not the one Colter thinks is real, is behind you and would never have stood for this.
Please further note the board goal of cultivating trust, not sure how this will fly in the face of this news. The only way to cultivate trust is to show you are listening, and get rid of Colter.
My son had an IEP and I have spent years fighting the district for this, as well as for what should occur within the IEP. I know a lot of people are angry about how much is spent on special ed services. I have always argued how much it would cost to not provide services. My son is now a productive member of society, no thanks to ORSD. We long ago realized his real help would not occur at the school. This was not due to his caring teachers, who fought each step of the way for him. It was due to the arrival of Colter who has made it almost impossible for them to do their job. The teachers help these kids despite the lack of support from administrators, and the tools they need to support our kids. When will the board realize this and help us? Yes, I will not sign my name for fear of retribution. Yes that is sad, and should not occur, but I have seen what happens to those that do sign their name and I need to protect my son. Thank you.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the school board should authorize a survey money in regards to how many parents have 1)fought for services 2) been denied services despite documentation making the student eligible
ReplyDelete3) child has had an IEP but services were not provided 4) transition services not provided as required by law 5) been told students had to leave as they have the required # of credits (like the Brady family) 6) how many have gone to mediation and/or due process 7) been lied to by the experts in the name of wanting the best for your student 8) were aware that special education law was being broken but lacked the resources to fight the case in Concord ( something that I think 'they' bank on and are cocky enough to think they won't get caught).
I second the kudos to the Brady family for thinking outside the box and finding someone to help them expose the unprofessional behavior of the new special education director. Due to the monies she is being paid, one can only assume that she knows special education law, she just doesn't care to follow it. Perhaps she and Howard can resign together.
What no one has addressed yet is what type of monies did the district pay to their attorney to fight this case! If $50,000 was paid to the Brady lawyer, it needs to be pointed out that there was also a bill submitted by the district's lawyer. Anyone know how much that one was for?
ReplyDeleteAlso, we are only hearing about the Brady case. How many more cases went to Concord. How much were those bills for? There should be accountability for monies spent frivolously that were not being used to educate the students of the district.
Anyone up for a walk down Coe drive. I'll make the signs.
Imagine having lawyers at your disposal to do all the dirty work that you don't have the brains of cahoonas to do on your own?
ReplyDeleteI think we should dock the Superintendent and Sped. Directors pay on this one!!
ReplyDeleteThis blog continually complains about the amount we taxpayers are dishing out but now they are complaining about NOT paying a huge bill because someone's (19 no less) parent wants a glorified babysitter at our expense? Make up your minds.
ReplyDeleteTo the Anonymous poster above....you misunderstand the goal of creating a blog like this. I believe that a majority of folks DON'T mind the taxes IF they are spending the money to create top notch education. However, over the past several years we have witnessed wasteful spending, lack of budget understanding, and an administration that does not want public input.
ReplyDeleteSo, I have no problem fulfilling the mission statement of "engaging every learner" using my tax dollars. I just want those dollars spend wisely and the money trail documented effectively.
What people have called the board to answer is how do other districts do it at a lower cost? No one has documented the legal expenses of suits like this. Why would the administration fight this? They basically gave up and just paid out a lump sum to make the problem go away. I would also like to see our renewal on the insurance policy after this payout AND what we spent on our attorneys for this!!!
Colter needs to go. Period. Plain and simple. We just need a board with a backbone to hold his feet to the fire. As of right now, Colter is still calling all the shots.
Anonymous above. Thank you for explaining that. I agree with your thoughts of paying to educate our children and am 100% for it. But, I also think that sometimes the Special Education laws are taken too far by some parents. I have kids who have an IEP too. I fight for them but I know where to draw the line between needed for education and excessive "perks". Some parents don't. I have listened to them at support groups and I don't like paying for some of their outrageous notions. I just think that some of the people that have commented above about this situation think about it for a minute.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that. I agree with you in regards to the leadership in the District and believe you are right in regards to Colter and wish you luck.
It's this type of post and comments that REQUIRES anonymous commenting. I appreciate the ability to write here and not suffer retribution by my peers and administration.
ReplyDeleteI too share the same feeling that Colter needs to go. He has done NOTHING but create rifts in the district. I know some people like him...a lot. However, most don't! Perhaps it is a 75-25% split. In any case, that is just an assumption.
The point is we need a superintendent that doesn't create this rift and can collaborate, communicate, and listen to everyone! He is not a leader and I question the sole remaining board member for approving him for that position. It's a good thing Ms. Portalupi's term is up in 2011. She has lost my vote and I voted for her in the past. Anyone that continually defends and supports this administration blindly and unconditionally is not a good board member.
I am all for supporting the administration but not when it comes at a high cost as documented here in the past few years.
Mr. Colter...do the right thing and move on. You don't seem to care about us anyway so just retire early.
The comment above from the person complaining about the parent wanting a baby sitter, you appear to support the administrators decision to file an expensive lawsuit over a half a year of schooling. It doesn't sound like the parent wanted a baby sitter. It appears, like most parents in our district, she wanted her son to go to college. The student is going to live at UNH in a dormitory and to comment that the parent is looking for a baby sitter is just plain ignorant!!!
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, the person complaining about the Brady's request for a babysitter, doesn't get the fact that the school had already stated in an IEP ( a legal document that all parties agree to) that Miles would stay a 5th year. To back pedal on a legal contract is demonstrating the lack of professionalism by the special ed. director. Furthermore, it clearly shows the hypocrisy of our superintendent of not supporting 'engaging every learner'.
ReplyDeleteI concur w/the blogger who wants the monies for both lawyers deducted from the pay of them both. I am outraged and saddened that these two individuals hold positions of power and yet are not acting prudently and legally within the realms of their profession.
I actually believe the school board should look into breech of contract by the superintendent and the special ed. director. They knowingly broke special ed law. They gambled that this family wouldn't find a way to pay the attorney costs ( in the event they lost). Since this tactic has worked in the past for them ,as the majority of families don't have $50,000 to prove a point and hold the SAU accountable for breaking the law. It is about time that the law breakers have been exposed. When will the board get rid of them. They are a liability to our children and the taxpayers of this district.
ReplyDeleteThis tax payer thanks the Brady family for their efforts. It is too bad that education law doesn't provide for emotional pain and suffering in the civil courts. I can only imagine this journey was not an easy path to choose.
Excuse me, but since the word ignorace was stated before it seems relevant at this point to point out that ignorance would be commenting on something without all the details, as with many people who have commented above. Where does it state that the district filed the lawsuit? I suspect you are mistaken. Also, since the district does follow the FERPA laws and can not comment on this situation as well as others, it may be wise for the public to withhold judgement without knowing the complete story. In addition, to withholding comment when it is clear that many who have commented have little knowledge of Special Education law, especially in relation to this situation. However, as one of the anonymous posters above demonstatrated, (as is often the case on this blog) why let the facts get in the way when it comes to ranting and raving. For example, above someone posted "over the past several years we have witnessed wasteful spending, lack of budget understanding, and an administration that does not want public input" - well the facts appear to show that infact the budget, since Mr. Colter arrived, has seen a much more gradual increase than the numerous years before, The administration appears to understand budgets as it has continually come in under what the default budget would have been as well as had numerous budget cuts reinstated by the board or public, and as to the claim that the administration does not want public input; they have held numerous budget presentations, i.e. each year at each school, however, the public turnout was next to nil at most of them. Perhaps if those of you here, on this complaint blog, and in the public were so curious about the contents of the budget, one would make and effort to actually attend and have a discussion with the administration and board you may find the information you seek.
ReplyDeleteNot to change the subject but to demonstrate another instance where it appears facts do not appear to match the rhetoric and are often missed is the continuous assertion about the "public outrage about the budget". The fact that the budget continually is passed by a huge margin. When only approximately 10% of population votes and less than 20% percent voted against the budget it would appear that a majority has been supporting the budget, therefore the claims about what the public is calling for seems to be contradicted by reality and the facts.
I understand that it is much easier to just complain and ignore the facts and reality when using any instance to attack, however it makes it very difficult to take any comments or positions seriously when they are not based on any facts or any semblance of reality.
Perhaps taking the time to gather all the facts, and then offering constructive input would be a more positive approach and yield greater results.
I did forget one other point, I do agree as to one point above about legal fees. I am extremely eager to know how much is spent on "frivilous" right-to-know requests.
ReplyDeleteWhen a school district loses a due process hearing, they are responsible for paying the parent's attorney fees. If administration was concerned about NOT paying a huge bill, they just should have followed the student's IEP.
ReplyDeleteHello,..... earth to no brain!!!
Well, when you have nothing constructive to offer it is usually good productive practice to resort to name calling. Now I am sure you are going to detail what was in the IEP and how exactly the district did not follow it; That in addition to the frameworks of the due process complaint or complaints and the findings associated with those filings. While I do not know any of this pertinent information as it certainly is not in the article, I suggest it is best practice to withhold judgement if one does not have all the facts and the context. An incomplete story hardly serves as the basis for formulating judgement; but why let the lack of the whole story get in the way of rushing to judgement.
ReplyDelete"officials wanted him to take classes online and to graduate in January despite promising him he would get a full year of Spanish.
ReplyDeleteThe dispute landed before the state Department of Education, which ruled in Brady's favor in January."
Without having all the facts, readers can infer from the article that "promising" the student amounted to including the information in the student's IEP. This would explain why the hearing officer ruled in the families favor. I agree that name calling is not productive however; the blogger is correct in stating that a school district is liable for attorney fees incurred by parents who prevail at a due process hearing. The article also mentions that other goals on the student's IEP were not met as well, which, I assume is why the parent felt the student was not quite ready to graduate in January. Of course, we do not have all the facts but it does appear to be a lot of money spent for six months of school.
The post above would be correct if one choses to blondly accept the article as completely accurate without prejudice or journalistic liberties. Inferring only from the article is precicley the type of judgement I wsa referencing. If you would like to infer without having all the facts and rely on one individuals perception of what was contained in the IEP and whether or not there were grounds to go to due process. Considering the publilc (meaning those on here as well) do not have any history or knowledge of the situation and what was discussed and how it was implemented, when it was implemented and to what extent. In addition, we do not know how many, if any complaints may have been brought to due process and if the district had been successful in any of those. Was this a continuous occurrence or one time event? So it may not be only the six months the district was agreeing to settle. The point is that without history and context and only one side of the story it appears premature to make such judgements. I would even go so far as irresponsible on the part of some to go so far with such negative attacks. I understand that it is pretty much the MO of many that comment here to use any information, no matter how accurate or complete, to twist to fit their agenda.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I suggest that instead of always attacking the staff of the schools and district we set an example for the very students we supposedly are trying to serve and be respectful even when disagreeing and also engage as problem solvers, not just hide behind anonymous postings and negative rhetoric.
The facts as we know them from the Union Leader state the following:
ReplyDelete"officials wanted him to take classes online and to graduate in January despite promising him he would get a full year of Spanish."
"They chose to spend thousands of dollars to do what was not in the best interest of the student rather than do what was already in the IEP (individual education plan),"
I don't need to have all the facts, just the ones made public in the newspaper that involve our school district blowing our tax dollars. You can choose to not have an opinion, but, please forgive those of us that are concerned about our district's spending, which, appears to be out of control and lacking oversight.
Some of our top administrators in town haven't had raises in the past couple of years. Shouldn't we all be a little concerned about wasteful spending??
Sometimes negative rhetoric can be the impetus for change and sometimes negative rhetoric can be seen in a passive aggressive form, case in point above. Everyone has a perspective and you are invited to share it on this blog. I enjoy hearing the opinions of all who post, even if I do not always agree.
Americans see negative rhetoric in politics and we all seem to tune into this on a daily basis. When you perform a service for the public, you are subjected to a certain amount of scrutiny. Don't ask people on this forum to stop scrutinizing.
C. King: Your alternative theory is amusing, but it is a work of fiction.
ReplyDeleteDo you really expect us to believe that the Union Leader, with its staff of editors and fact-checkers, somehow got it all wrong, while your view, which you admit is not based upon any particular knowledge of the situation, is correct?
I don't suppose you have any prejudices yourself, like perhaps being a member of the school board or the administration, publishing your thoughts under an assumed name?
I am not either a member of the school board nor a member of this school administration, and unfortunately I believe in a responsible, informed public. I do not believe I ever stated that the Union Leader got anything wrong. I was just pointing out that there are numerous unaswered questions and a history of which none of those on here appear to have any knowledge of, therefore the prudent thing to may be to withhold judgment until one gathers the full story. For example, the 19 year old's opinions, or maybe the district thought he was ready earlier. I do not know the answers to these questions either but again more questions which are pertinent to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, As to the poster two spots above, I did not ask to stop scrutinizing, I was only asking for having all the facts before judging. You used quotes from the article, which if I am not mistaken were from the mother, which may be her position, however, there obviously is an opposing side to the story, (not too mention the various missing items, I referred to earlier) which needs to be established before any fair evaluation of the events may be reached. You even commented about the district "blowing" money, but without all the context and history that is just an opinion statement not based on any fact or at most incomplete facts. We may diagree about what was a good move, but I think you would have to agree that without more information it is rather difficult to determine whether the settlement was a wise prudent position to take nor do we know how much in the long run the district may have actually saved in this or other cases.
I am curious about how the part about town administrators is prudent to the discussion, if only in respect to being on watch for wasteful spending, then wouldn't it be prudent to include in that statement the fact the central office administration also did not take raises this past year. I understand your issues with spending, however, I think if you look at the facts and the numbers you see that the spending is on the decline or I should say rate of growth has slowed considerably (as a matter of fact, the school districts rate of growth is less than that of the towns) and considering that many people are opposed to any staff cuts any substantial decrease in spending is most likely a few years away, until some of the older staff members retire. There is a price to pay for having one of, if not the top, highest paid district.
I will add that, one other area we will disagree on is the idea that negative rhetoric is ever beneficial. Criticism may be productive and positive suggestions may move change but negativity does not breed anything but a poisonous climate. To sum up I agree we that everyone is entitled to disagree, reasonable people will disagree, I only wish that we could be respectful and keep in mind that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts!
By the way, just a point of reference, the board and much of the administration is at the school board meeting tonight. I am not one of them, but does make one wonder, why so many other who have such an interest are not at the meeting also?
This blog allows for thought provoking discussions that might make some feel awkward in the face of public exposure. I prefer to use the term “dialogue,” rather than “negative rhetoric.” We cannot foster change without some form of critical dialogue. Some people may use the term “passive aggressive,” while others prefer “down-player.” While I do understand that some people need absolute proof, I am not naïve. As Thomas Szasz once said; “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive, but do not forget. I am happy the issue with the school district and the family has resolved. I forgive our administration but I will not forget.
ReplyDeleteI am a retired banker and concerned about my property taxes and school spending.
To C. King: Point taken. I would like to have all the facts before us before making a judgement.
ReplyDeleteHow do we get that to happen? Your suggestions?
And, there was a school board meeting tonight? Great! It wasn't televised on DCAT. Was it recorded? Will it be shown and repeated?
Many of us would love to be able to spend the time to physically be at the meeting, but find it hard to take time away from our families in the evening.
We rely on DCAT for the live broadcast and repeats to keep informed.
Where was the broadcast of tonight's meeting?
I believe the meeting was taped and will be broadcast tomorrow evening.
ReplyDeleteMr. King, yes the adminsitrators did not take raises this year. However, it should be noted that they did receive an increase in their health benefit coverage. The equivilant in most worlds, of a raise. The complete facts indeed are always important to state prior to stating any opinion.
ReplyDeleteDismissing for a moment the rather sexist presumption, I agree with the idea that complete facts are important, however, I was not stating an opinion about anything related to raises, just establishing a baseline of facts from which the dialogue may continue. Now as to the facts, you may want to double check your assertion as it pertains to the prior comments. Also, I must ask the reference to "most worlds", are you implying that education is somehow a different world? Would it be those worlds where one presumes that anyone taking part in thoughtful dialogue must be a woman? Not only are complete facts important to state but as has just been demonstrated it is very important to have complete facts and not infer or assume without them.
ReplyDeleteI just went onto the district website & could not find a "Director of Special Education." There are two "Directors of Instruction" and a "Special Education Administrative Assistant" listed. Who is in charge of Special Education? And why are there two "Directors of Instruction"?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that district residents (employees?) such as King think that others should quietly go away and never question anything. Questioning should not be considered negativity. And I love King's statement that "unfortunately I believe in a responsible, informed public." Unfortunately? Really??
You are right, there are "numerous unanswered questions." These questions need to be answered.
It is pathetic that a culture has evolved in this district where "questioning" is considered "negative rhetoric" and troublesome. The words "transparency" and "accountability" are not swear words. The question of why our cost per pupil rate is so incredibly out of whack with other comparable districts is NOT a bad question. I realize that this has evolved over a period of years (probably the years that coincide with Portalupi's rein), but it needs to be addressed. The fact that no one seems interested in answering this question is what is worrisome. This question will not go away.
And the fact that the budget vote always passes isn't that impressive when we sometimes have a default budget that is higher than the budget that we are voting to approve.
And Mr./Ms. Hamilton... I would love to have attended the budge presentation, but I received the postcard notice of the meeting the day AFTER the presentation. It really made me wonder whether this was an honest mistake or a strategic decision to discourage people from attending. I won't judge, because I don't have the facts, but I will always wonder.
Back to the original blog topic... Lisa Brady should be applauded for being the advocate for her child. Apparently ORCSD does not advocate for "every learner." Congratulations Lisa for standing up for your child. I "wonder" how many other families have been beaten down with process or not had the financial resources, and given up in similar situations. [Again, I am not "judging," I am "wondering," and this is allowed]
I would like to know what the total payment ORCSD made for attorney fees last year. Is there a budget for these fees? Or is it a bottomless pot? Are we charged every time that ridiculous e-mails are sent to the lawyers trying to discredit School Board members? How much did the Townsend fiasco (set in motion by Howard Colter) cost the district. Maybe it is time to realize that Colter's attempts to cut costs are costing us money. Stop trying to help us Howard! You are making a mess of things. You planted a seed with Townsend, thinking that it would effectively get rid of Henry Brackett. Classic Colter... plant a seed & then step back & let someone else do the dirty work & take the blame. It was beautiful how that one backfired in Colter's face. But how many other manipulative decisions have cost us in attorney fees.
$50,000 spent on lawyer fees? ...that is the salary of a teacher. I would rather have the district follow the education laws so that our money can be spent on teachers and instruction.
Bottom line... Howard Colter needs to go. How does a person request a vote of no confidence?
Can anyone explain why DCAT isn't showing the SB meetings live anymore??? Someone mentioned the fact that few people show up for the meetings. Well, we don't need to if we can watch it on DCAT. Why crowd that little studio if you don't plan to speak at the meeting?
ReplyDeleteTo C. King again: How do we get all the facts before us? What are your suggestions to make that happen?
ReplyDeleteDo we hope local newspapers will investigate?
Do we make "right to know" requests?
Do we go to the board meeting and ask questions directly without much hope of an answer?
How, C. King, do we get the facts before us?
I ask again: What are your suggestions?
King inadvertently supports the idea that the superintendent's office should be more forthcoming with information. Or is King saying that we don't deserve information? Hmmm. After all, we only pay Colter's salary.
ReplyDeleteTo quote our mighty "King," I challenge you to "engage as a problem solver" and help to find the facts. We will wait patiently.
Logic 101...
ReplyDeleteWe aren't allowed to state opinions until we have all of the facts.
We have a central office that will not provide us with the facts. And we have no other source for facts.
Therefore, we cannot state opinions?
Imagination 101...
What people come up with in their own minds is usually worse than the truth.
C King- In case you hadn't noticed, the Brady family won the due process hearing up at the State Department of Education. The facts also support that the district committed to letting the student finish a full year of Spanish. We do have enough information to draw an educated opinion based on facts. 50,000.00 dollars is a mighty expensive Spanish class. I might add that the 50,000.00 was a settlement deal and obviously significantly less than the actual bill.
ReplyDeleteCivil matters do not require an absolute burden of proof. The burden of evidence that C King seems to be insisting on would make more sense if this were a criminal matter. Civil matters do not require absolute proof. In fact, if a jury thinks there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. C King should lighten up, this is not a criminal case!!
ReplyDeleteAdd to the $50,000 Spanish class the cost of the district's lawyer fees in this fiasco. It seems that Colter gets the district into trouble on a monthly basis now.
ReplyDeleteCorrection--$50,000 was the cost the District has to pay to the family. One can only assume that our costs were as much if not higher!
ReplyDeleteHere is a fact--whether we think it was justified or not does not matter a single bit. The decision makers in this process heard the evidence from both sides and sided AGAINST the District. Clearly the they know a lot more about SPED laws then anyone on this blog and I trust that they considered all the evidence and made an appropriate decision.
The question is, when does this bleed stop? Not until Howard Colter and his rank and file are given their walking papers.
Quote from a King to admire:
ReplyDeleteA nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.
ML King, Jr.
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther King, Jr.
Since Mr. Colter arrived:
ReplyDelete1. Don Maynard almost lost his job.
2. The drama program was almost lost
3. Assistant supt lost his job, and new structure that does not work or make sense created.
4. Long time principal leaves, yes because of him.
5.teachers live in fear, and a culture of mis-trust is strong. Despite best efforts of building principals.
6. Tech and stuff are prioritized above staffing.
7. Staff cuts are made without true analysis of how the children will be affected.
8. A culture of mis-trust is created within our community, for the infraction of asking questions.
9. An SAU office that used to be an open door, is now a place where a citizen is met with suspicion for asking questions.
10. Lawsuits
11. Questionable contracts.
12. Questionatable spending practices.
13. Inability to communicate with the public
14. Creating a culture of mis-trust on the board.
15. Resignation of 3 board members.
16. Resignation of long time staff member, Blaine Cox.
These are the infractions that have occured over the past 4 years. When will this board have a real conversation about the direction of our district? When will the board realize that until a new leader is put in place, divisions will continue and our district will be stuck.
Howard has lost the majority of respect in our community, throughout our buildings, and if he will not step down on his own it is time for him to be asked to leave.
Oh that it were as easy as asking. With the fat contract Portalupi signed for him, he will never go without a fight. Although, if he is costing us in lawyer fees because of his ineptness, it might be cheaper to buy out his contract.
ReplyDeleteDoes Oyster River have a director of Special Education or does Colter handle special education?
ReplyDeleteUsed to be, Colter got rid of it and created a new structure. Someone does oversee it, but I can't remember who it is. Not a director like is seen in most districts.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, that was the deal that he shuffled through quickly, right after he negotiated his own plum contract. We went from an assistant super to two assistants in his "new structure." Thank you again JoAnn Portalupi. Does Howard really need two people under him? Even with all of that help, he is still messing things up.
ReplyDeleteThanks i teach for sharing on this blog. Hopefully more teachers will open up here.
ReplyDeleteThe blogger who wrote about parents wanting a babysitter (19 no less) is obviously ignorant as he/she does not know about special ed law to make such a statement. Children with disabilities can be educated up to the age of 21 under federal law. It's not about "babysitters." Parents in general want their kids to be independent and productive members of society. Unfortunately when you have a kid with disabilities, especially certain disabilities, it's not so EASY to accomplish that goal like their typical peers do. There are rights under IDEA (Individuals with Sesabilities Education Act). Also does one really think parents want to get lawyers and do all this fighting unless it was really needed for the child? I think not. It sounds like there was a commitment the school made and with this new administration, they tried to get out of it. Shame on them. The Dept of Ed found in the favor of the parents which I read does not happen too often. I applaud Lisa Brady for fighting the fight for her child. That's what parents are supposed to do for their kids if need be.
ReplyDeleteI watched the June school board meeting and Lisa Brady said it was a mistake to not have a full time special education director.
ReplyDeleteIt is a huge mistake. You didn't hear about these type of matters when Carmen Young was a full time Special Ed Director. Also I believe Carmen Young knew how to "work" and "collaborate" with parents versus the individual we have now who is sometimes involved with special ed but paying more attention to curriculum instruction and does not know special education law.
ReplyDeleteSpecial Ed is a good part of the budget. Doesn't it make sense to have someone who knows and understands special ed law and carries it out "full time" as it was in the past years?
ReplyDeleteSomething has changed here and not for the better.
This new structure does not seem to be working now does it?
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense to restructure administration if, as a result, we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. Why did we eliminate the director position? We don't need two curriculum instruction directors.
ReplyDeleteIt was all part of the new administrations "restructuring"
ReplyDeletewhich is self serving to those in those positions. Big fat pay raises. You can blame it again under the hand of Colter. No, we don't need two curriculum instruction directors, I agree.
The way that whole restructuring came through was pretty sneaky. Colter slid it through when the Board was buried in the budget. It seemed to come from no where (or Colter's head -- same thing). And one of the people elevated to the curriculum position had only been with the district for six months (part of which was a maternity leave). Don't they advertise for applicants when a new position is created? It just seemed like it should have been better thought out & not rushed.
ReplyDeleteSo is there no director of Special Education?
ReplyDeleteAnyone interested in the Facts?
ReplyDeleteCheck out the actual due process hearing listed on the NH Department of Education website at the following link:
http://www.education.nh.gov/legislation/documents/1008007OysterRiver.pdf
Interesting highlights:
On cross-examination, Ms. Therrien acknowledged that SD1 (the 2008/2009 IEP), at page 23 provides for the transition plan which includes a year long Spanish class, yet the 2009/2010 IEP calls for the Student to complete education in January, which would not allow for the full year class. She did acknowledge that the IEP that was actually offered provides for additional Spanish instruction. It is also clear to the Hearing Officer that the District agreed that the Student would have a full year of Spanish and that the proposal to graduate the Student in January would not allow for it.
Meredith Sumner Nadeau, Director of Instruction for the School District testified as the last witness. She oversees the special education programs in District. She began this position in July, 2009 and previously was the Director of Special Education beginning July, 2008. She attended team meetings and was involved in meetings relative to amendments to the IEP. She felt that the mother participated meaningfully in the team meetings. The issue of transition to UNH first became an issue in June, 2009. She indicated that the Student initially did not want to return to the high school but would if required to. The Student does not need any additional credits to graduate. However, she acknowledged that the team agreed to extend the education to January because the Student may gain some additional benefit. There was no significant cross-examination.
Decision.
The Hearing Officer is persuaded that the Student should be allowed to matriculate until June, 2010 and graduate at that time. The District made a commitment to provide a full year for the Spanish course and graduation in January, 2010 would not allow that to occur. In addition, the physics lab/science class must be completed in order to meet the Student’s needs. The transition goals outlined by Gail Luerssen should be fully incorporated into the IEP. While there appears to be some discrepancy in the testimony relative to the Student’s abilities to socially engage with peers and in everyday out of school activities relative to the transition plan, it is clear to the Hearing Officer that the Student has virtually no interaction with peers either in or out of school. In addition, the transition plan goals and objectives have not been met including independent living goals, community participation goals, prevocational goals, vocational goals such as securing employment. Under the circumstances the Hearing Officer finds in favor of the Parents and Orders that the Student be allowed to complete the Spanish and Physics classes with the Student’s peers at the local high school and that the transition goals recommended by Gail Luerssen be implemented in the IEP.
This was posted above:
ReplyDeleteWhat no one has addressed yet is what type of monies did the district pay to their attorney to fight this case! If $50,000 was paid to the Brady lawyer, it needs to be pointed out that there was also a bill submitted by the district's lawyer. Anyone know how much that one was for?
Also, we are only hearing about the Brady case. How many more cases went to Concord. How much were those bills for? There should be accountability for monies spent frivolously that were not being used to educate the students of the district.
Anyone up for a walk down Coe drive. I'll make the signs.
Response: I agree, I would like to know what the district spent on THEIR attorney fees to fight the Brady due process. That amount has not been provided in the newspapers. There must be other due processes as well with other families that we are not aware of? Wouldn't this info fall under the right to know that everyone is talking about? Has anyone asked for this dollar amount?
Does anyone find this interesting? I never knew about "due process" hearings and what parents went through for special education. I have children who do not need these services.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can't get past what the district spent in total versus giving a child on an IEP (under federal guidelines) 6 more months of "public education" that it sounds as if he was entitled to. What is the per pupil per year amount? In the range of 13K? I think $50,000 and whatever other costs are not listed is outrageous and frivalous by the district.
ReplyDeleteYes, $6,500 versus $50,000 on the Brady case, not to mention what they had to pay their lawyers. What in god's name is going on?
ReplyDelete