PartnersTx News

EyeNote App

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) has developed a free downloadable application (app) to assist the blind and visually impaired denominate US currency. The app is called EyeNote™. EyeNote™ is a mobile device app designed for Apple iPhone (3G, 3Gs, 4), and the 4th Generation iPod Touch and iPad2 platforms, and is available through the Apple iTunes App Store. More information http://www.eyenote.gov/ >

Amazon Unveils Kindle Lending Library

The Kindle Lending Library will launch later this year, and will allow Kindle customers to borrow books from more than 11,000 libraries in the U.S. The offer will apply to all generations of Kindle e-books and Kindle reading apps. More information http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383854,00.asp >

Power and Privilege in Schools

Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do. Privilege shows up everywhere and touches every life in various ways.  It exists within families, communities, churches, governments, businesses, civic organizations, and workplaces.   Because it is part of the social fabric that we live in, it is also deeply entrenched in schools where students have their first experiences with people who are unlike themselves. Difference is negotiated socially since difference exists in the eye of the beholder.  Who gets to decide what is different and what it is different from is part of the process of norming or determining what will be called normal.  The encounters that students have with difference involve privilege and power since some groups have the privilege of determining what is normal and what is different.  That also means that some groups have more power than others and this power accrues across generations. Full article >

Weapons of Mass Instruction

They include iPads and iPods, smartphones and laptops. They already cost far less than more specialized technology and their price is dropping still further. But their potential to help change the course of U.S. K-12 education is limitless and their educational impact could soon include nearly every American child, including those with disabilities, according to noted education researcher and author Milton Chen, who calls these increasingly ubiquitous devices, “weapons of mass instruction.” http://www.fctd.info/newsletters/287

Obama Administration Offers Flexibility from No Child Left Behind

U.S. Department of Education sent this bulletin at 09/23/2011

The Obama Administration outlined how states can get relief from provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act – or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – in exchange for serious state-led efforts to close achievement gaps, promote rigorous accountability, and ensure that all students are on track to graduate college- and career-ready.

“To help states, districts and schools that are ready to move forward with education reform, our administration will provide flexibility from the law in exchange for a real commitment to undertake change. The purpose is not to give states and districts a reprieve from accountability, but rather to unleash energy to improve our schools at the local level,” President Obama said.

What this means for you: 

For more information on how this flexibility package may affect you, read our blog post: What NCLB Flexibility Means for You.

Education Department Announces Regulations to Improve Outcomes for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families

The U.S. Department of Education today released the final regulations for the early intervention program under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These final regulations will help improve services and outcomes for America's infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families

Part C is a $436 million program administered by states that serves infants and toddlers through age 2 with developmental delays or who have diagnosed physical or mental conditions with high probabilities of resulting in developmental delays.

The final Part C regulations incorporate provisions in the 2004 amendments to Part C of the IDEA. Additionally, the final regulations provide states with flexibility in some areas, while ensuring state accountability to improve results and providing needed services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The regulations focus on measuring and improving outcomes for the approximately 350,000 children served by the Part C program with the goal of ensuring that such children are ready for preschool and kindergarten.

"As everyone who works in education understands, one of the most important things we can offer children is a high-quality early learning experience that prepares them for kindergarten," said U. S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. "This is true for all children—but it's especially important for infants and toddlers with disabilities to have access to high-quality early intervention services that prepare them to successfully transition to preschool and kindergarten. The Part C regulations will support the Education Department's commitment to the goal of preparing more children with high needs with a strong foundation for success in school and beyond." The Part C regulations are posted on the department's website at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/news.html. The regulations should be published in the Federal Register in the next couple of weeks.

Today, the department is also releasing a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the IDEA Part B regulations. Changes are being proposed to the regulations regarding when a state or local educational agency seeks to use a child's or parent's public benefits or insurance (e.g., Medicaid) to pay for Part B services. These proposed amendments to the Part B regulations would ensure the protection of the rights of parents and children and ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) while addressing concerns raised by State educational agencies and local educational agencies regarding the burdens imposed by the current regulation. The Part B notice of proposed rulemaking is posted at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/news.html. The notice of proposed rulemaking is expected to be published in the Federal Register on the same date as the Part C regulations.

Part C is a $436 million program administered by states that serves infants and toddlers through age 2 with developmental delays or who have diagnosed physical or mental conditions with high probabilities of resulting in developmental delays.

The final Part C regulations incorporate provisions in the 2004 amendments to Part C of the IDEA. Additionally, the final regulations provide states with flexibility in some areas, while ensuring state accountability to improve results and providing needed services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The regulations focus on measuring and improving outcomes for the approximately 350,000 children served by the Part C program with the goal of ensuring that such children are ready for preschool and kindergarten.

"As everyone who works in education understands, one of the most important things we can offer children is a high-quality early learning experience that prepares them for kindergarten," said U. S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. "This is true for all children—but it's especially important for infants and toddlers with disabilities to have access to high-quality early intervention services that prepare them to successfully transition to preschool and kindergarten. The Part C regulations will support the Education Department's commitment to the goal of preparing more children with high needs with a strong foundation for success in school and beyond." The Part C regulations are posted on the department's website at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/news.html. The regulations should be published in the Federal Register in the next couple of weeks.

Today, the department is also releasing a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the IDEA Part B regulations. Changes are being proposed to the regulations regarding when a state or local educational agency seeks to use a child's or parent's public benefits or insurance (e.g., Medicaid) to pay for Part B services. These proposed amendments to the Part B regulations would ensure the protection of the rights of parents and children and ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) while addressing concerns raised by State educational agencies and local educational agencies regarding the burdens imposed by the current regulation. The Part B notice of proposed rulemaking is posted at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/news.html. The notice of proposed rulemaking is expected to be published in the Federal Register on the same date as the Part C regulations.

Final Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C Regulations http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-28/html/2011-22783.htm

Stipend for Families at the Division for Early Childhood Conference

The Division for Early Childhood is pleased to announce a stipend which is available for families at our upcoming conference in November at the Gaylord National in Maryland.  The deadline for the application process is September 15th. For more information, download the registration form >

Power and Privilege in Schools

from Equity Alliance, August 2011 Newsletter

Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do (McIntosh, 2003). Privilege shows up everywhere and touches every life in various ways.  It exists within families, communities, churches, governments, businesses, civic organizations, and workplaces.   Because it is part of the social fabric that we live in, it is also deeply entrenched in schools where students have their first experiences with people who are unlike themselves. Difference is negotiated socially since difference exists in the eye of the beholder.  Who gets to decide what is different and what it is different from is part of the process of norming or determining what will be called normal.  The encounters that students have with difference involve privilege and power since some groups have the privilege of determining what is normal and what is different.  That also means that some groups have more power than others and this power accrues across generations.

Imbalances in power and the notion of meritocracy keep the cycle of privilege going.  Problems associated with privilege are the legacy that we all inherited; while we’re here and working in schools, it belongs to us. Privilege may not be our fault, but nonetheless, it is up to us to decide how we are going to deal with it in order to lessen the impact for the students we teach.

Addressing the ways in which certain students and families in schools are privileged over others is a complicated task.  Talking openly about power and privilege isn’t easy, and often elicits fear; fear that dominant groups may feel uncomfortable or perhaps fear that the discussion might cause undue friction between groups.  Challenging these assumptions in schools or school systems also evokes powerful emotions in families and communities.  Thus, addressing these issues can concern and involve community members, some of whom may also be powerful bellwethers for the entire community. 

The political ramifications of these conversations create fear that can hold school systems back and keep educators from looking deeply into what’s going on.  For example, students who struggle in school are often blamed for choosing not to apply themselves, electing not to care, and ultimately deciding whether or not they are going to be successful.  However, students understand that their differences from the school’s dominant norm are a reality and not something they’ve chosen.  Yet, students must learn from teachers who may not understand or attend to the social fabric of power and privilege and their roles in perpetuating it.   Without a school community commitment to revealing the pernicious effects of power, privilege, and meritocratic beliefs, teachers may continue to misunderstand their students, their histories and experiences and how that influences how and what they learn.  We rarely talk about how the different narratives of students and their teachers create early tensions that can cause disillusionment and eventually disconnect students from school all together.  Part of the work of culturally responsive systems is to become culture conscious, not maintain culture blindness.

In order to create culturally responsive school systems where all students have access to high quality teaching and learning, and where all students are provided equitable opportunities for academic and social success, it is necessary to engage in discourse about privilege.  Who are the groups of students with the most power in schools?  How does privilege manifest itself in different settings and situations?  What are the short and long term impacts of power and privilege for students?  How does the myth of meritocracy mask power and privilege?  How can we as educators stop the cycle? 

OSEP's Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA
June 2011

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services released State determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C for fiscal year 2009.  The 2004 Amendments to the IDEA require each State to develop a State Performance Plan (SPP) that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation.  The Part B SPP includes baseline data, measurable and rigorous targets, and improvement activities for 20 indicators such as graduation rate, dropout rate, participation and performance on assessments, meeting evaluation timelines, and ensuring that complaints are resolved and hearings are adjudicated within required timelines.  The Part C SPP includes baseline data, measurable and rigorous targets, and improvement activities for 14 indicators such as ensuring positive outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities, timely provision of services, meeting evaluation timelines, and provision of services in natural environments.

The IDEA also requires each State to report annually to the Secretary on its performance under the SPP.  Specifically, the State must report in its Annual Performance Report (APR), the progress it has made in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP.  The Secretary is required to issue annual determination letters to each State on their progress in meeting the requirements of the statute.  The determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7 million children with disabilities.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determination.  A State’s determination may be:

IDEA identifies specific technical assistance or enforcement actions for States that are not determined to “meet requirements,” that the Department must take under specific circumstances.  If a State “needs assistance” for two consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including among others, requiring the State to receive technical assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance.  If a State “needs intervention” for three consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including among others, requiring a corrective action plan or compliance agreement, or withholding further payments to the State.  Any time a State “needs substantial intervention” the Department must take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to the Department’s inspector general or to the Department of Justice.

Following is each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B, which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

Following is a list of each State’s performance under IDEA Part C, which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2 :

The Department notes that Kansas and South Carolina did not, for one or more fiscal years, meet the requirements in IDEA section 612(a)(18)(A) to maintain State financial support for special education and related services.  In making determinations in 2011, the Department did not consider whether a State was in compliance with the requirement in section 612(a)(18)(A) to maintain State financial support for special education and related services.  This is a key component of a State’s eligibility for a grant under Part B of the IDEA.  However, because the statute provides a specific remedy when a State is not in compliance with this provision (and the Department is taking action consistent with the statute) and recognizing that this is the first time that a number of States have failed to meet this requirement, the Department decided not to include compliance with this provision in the determinations process this year.  The Department is actively considering including a State’s compliance with this requirement in the 2012 determinations.

North Dakota’s FFY 2009 Part C APR/SPP, due February 1, 2011, was not submitted to the Department until June 15, 2011.  It is currently under review.

Download OSEP's 2011 IDEA Determinations Fact Sheet >

Visit the U.S Department of Education's website to view/download the Part B State Performance Plans (SPP) Letters and Annual Performance Report (APR) Letters for any state, as well as for past years, at http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbspap/allyears.html

First Amendment Limits Discipline Of Off-Campus Student Speech

Jennifer Childress - Editor of The Legal Digest :: 17 June 2011

In  two landmark decisions concerning student free speech rights, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week held that the First Amendment prohibited school district decisions to discipline students for their off-campus speech.  The two decisions, Layshock v. Hermitage School Districtand J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, issued simultaneously, examined whether a school district can restrict student expression on the internet when it occurs off-campus.  In 2010, the appeals court issued two inconsistent rulings in these two cases, deciding in favor of the student in Layshock but against the student in J.S. The court vacated those 2010 opinions and ordered both to be heard by the entire 14-judge panel, en banc.

In Layshock, a 17-year-old student, at his grandmother’s home and on his own time, created a MySpace profile of the high school principal claiming that he took steroids, used drugs, was gay, and shoplifted, among other things.  In response, the student received a ten-day suspension, was placed in an alternative setting for the rest of the school year, and was banned from participating in any school-sponsored events, including graduation.  The student sued, claiming the discipline violated his First Amendment free speech rights.  The school district argued that the student’s lewd, vulgar, and indecent speech, that reached into the schools, was not protected by the First Amendment under the standard set out in Bethel School District v. Fraser.

The Third Circuit held that the First Amendment prohibited the district from “reaching beyond the schoolyard to impose what might otherwise be appropriate discipline” against the student.  According to the appeals court, the student’s expressive conduct originated outside the schoolhouse, did not disturb the school environment, and was not related in any way to a school-sponsored event.  The student’s use of a photo image of the principal taken from the district’s website was not enough to link the student’s actions to the school.  Further, the school district failed to demonstrate that the speech caused a substantial disruption to the school under the standard set out in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.

In J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, an honor-roll student and some of her friends created a fake MySpace profile of the principal, at J.S.’s home on her parents’ computer.  According to the appeals court, the profile contained “crude and vulgar language, ranging from nonsense and juvenile humor to profanity and shameful personal attacks aimed at the principal and his family.”  The district suspended the student for ten days, prompting the lawsuit.

According to the Third Circuit, there was no dispute that the student’s speech did not cause a substantial disruption in the school.  The district argued, however, that its discipline decision was justified because “the facts might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast a substantial disruption” of school activities.  The district also asserted that, under Fraser, the student’s lewd, vulgar, and offensive language was not protected by the First Amendment.  The appeals court observed that, under Tinker, while school authorities need not prove with absolute certainty that a substantial disruption will occur, their forecast of a substantial and material disruption must be reasonable.  An “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.”

Here, according to the majority opinion, the student created the profile as a joke and it was so outrageous that no one took it seriously.  The profile was made private so that only the student and her MySpace friends could see it.  Although the profile contained a picture from the district’s website, the profile did not identify him by name, school, or location.  The district’s computers blocked access to MySpace.  According to the court, no disruption occurred and the district did not reasonably forecast a substantial and material disruption.  Further, Fraser did not apply in this case because the student’s speech occurred off-campus.

The court was unanimous in the Layshock case, but split 8-6 in the Blue Mountain case. The six dissenters would have held that there was a “reasonable forecast” of a disruption of school, and asserted that the majority opinion “leaves schools defenseless to protect teachers and school officials against such attacks and powerless to discipline students for the consequences of their actions.”

Layshock and J.S., while binding precedent only in the Third Circuit, constitute highly significant decisions that will be examined closely by all courts faced with issues of off-campus student expression.  School administrators would be wise to study these decisions and know that there are limits to action that can be taken to curb student expression when it occurs beyond the schoolyard.

New Rules Will Help People with Disabilities Live in Their Communities

On April 15, 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a new initiative that will give all states more flexibility to provide home and community-based services for more people with disabilities. These proposed rules give states new flexibility for their programs to help people with disabilities choose to live in their communities rather than in institutions. This initiative supports the Obama administration’s work to make Medicaid more flexible and efficient and to address long-term cost growth for states, individuals, and families.  

The proposed rules reduce administrative barriers for states seeking to help multiple populations, which may include seniors and/or people with different types of disabilities.  They will also allow individuals to participate in the design of their own array of services and supports, including such things as personal care and respite services for caregivers.

“These long awaited rules will help people living with disabilities realize the promise of the ADA to live in the least restrictive environments possible for them—like their own homes,” said Henry Claypool, director of the Office on Disability at HHS.  “With these new tools as well as incentives included in the Affordable Care Act, states, working closely with advocacy groups, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, can more easily develop effective plans to improve options for people with disabilities.  We hope states will take advantage of this new flexibility.”

The proposed rule, CMS-2296-P, can be found at www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx.

New Educators’ Code of Ethics Rules You Need to Know

by Devin Walsh

In late 2010, the Texas State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) revamped the Educators’ Code of Ethics. Of particular relevance to today’s teachers and administrators, the updated ECE addresses issues brought about by the proliferation of social networking Web sites and text messaging. The April edition of Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest features an in-depth article on the new Code of Ethics co-authored by Dr. David Thompson, an authority in the field.

“I’ve been in education for 23 years,” said Thompson, “as a high school mathematics teacher and golf coach in the Lamar Consolidated Independent School District, as an assistant principal at Westfield High School in the Spring ISD, and as a higher education faculty member and department chair at both Texas A&M University-Commerce and UTSA.” A confessed three-degree Aggie (“I’ll tell those who will listen that I had to go back twice for remediation”), Dr. Thompson is currently the chair of the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies at UTSA, as well as the co-author, along with JoAnn Klinker and David Blacker, of the second edition of Professional Responsibility for Educators’ and the Texas Code of Ethics.

In this month’s lead article, Dr. Thompson cites examples in case law of Texas educators who have recently “collided” with ethics standards, including a teacher who sent excessive and inappropriate text messages to some of his students. Asked what his guidance would be for new teachers concerning electronically communicating with students, Thompson said, “I have to give my standard disclaimer here. This does not constitute legal advice, [which] should be sought from a licensed and competent attorney. That said…any communication, electronic or otherwise, should further a school-related purpose.” He suggests that educators use their school-assigned email accounts—and not their personal ones—to communicate with students, and that any teacher connecting through social networking pages use only those pages operated under the auspices of the school. As for text-messaging, “I’d almost go as far as obtaining the permission of parents to text message the group for which I was responsible.”

“Each teacher should become familiar with the criteria the SBEC puts forward in Standard 3.9 regarding whether communication is excessive or inappropriate,” said Thompson.

Sites like Facebook pose especially difficult problems for teachers. Given that the updated ECE for the first time includes the standard that educators be of “good moral character” (a term that Thompson said had provoked some scandal amid teachers associations, considering the ambiguity of the definition), the nature of having a public profile on a social networking site might be, in some cases, incompatible with a teacher’s professional duties. “Educators’ rights to make their own decisions and to live their own lives are not absolute,” said Thompson. “Ultimately, if an educator’s off-campus conduct adversely affects the ability of the teacher to discharge his or her duties, school districts can take action against a teacher’s contract and the state against an educator’s certificate.” For this reason, Dr. Thompson urges that educators be “extraordinarily careful” about how they conduct their social networking profiles.

Other significant additions to the ECE are the inclusion of “sexual orientation” as a protected class and the clarification of ethical guidelines relating to personal relationships between teachers and students. To read more about these and other impactful changes to the ECE, check out Dr. Thompson’s feature article in the April Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest. And for further reading, go to http://educatorethicsseries.com/Texas.aspx for information about his book.

“JoAnn and I are very deeply indebted to Omni Publishing, Jim Lansing and Frances Patterson for the opportunity to write this book,” said Thompson. “We hope it puts the Code of Ethics in the forefront of teacher preparation and professional development.”

President Obama's Remarks on Education

As the weather suggests that spring, and then summer, is coming to Washington, President Obama has asked the education community and Congress to think ahead to fall. “I want every child in this country to head back to school in the fall knowing that their education is America’s priority,” he said at Kenmore Middle School in Arlington, Va. “Let’s seize this education moment. Let’s fix No Child Left Behind.”

We have learned over the last decade what works for students and educators—and what doesn’t—about NCLB, and we have seen in the last two years what reform and innovation can come from programs like Race to the Top that leverage relatively small investments to bring about bottom-up improvements to our education system.

In his speech to a group of students, teachers and representatives from a diverse mix of education organizations, the President, joined by Secretary Duncan, laid out his priorities and key changes for education, both for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and for the federal education budget. In an exceedingly difficult fiscal climate, the President believes firmly that we must invest in education to win the future, and he made clear that he will oppose any efforts to scale back this critical investment.

In case you missed the President’s speech at Kenmore Middle School, here is a summary of his proposal to reauthorize ESEA:

You can read the full text of the President’s remarks at WhiteHouse.gov.

As the President said, "It’s not enough to leave no child behind. We need to help every child get ahead."

New iPod Touch Workbook for Individuals with Cognitive Challenges

Organizing Your Life with the iPod Touch: Making Cognitive Connections at Home, Work, and School is a workbook developed by the PDA 4 Memory Project for individuals living with brain injuries and other cognitive issues. Topics covered in the workbook include: Making Cognitive Connections, iPod Touch Basics, the Clock App, the Calendar App, the Contacts App and the Notes App http://id4theweb.com/iPod_book.cfm

Texas Education on iTunes U

Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Education Agency have joined together to launch Texas Education on iTunes U, which provides free multimedia content to educators, students and parents in Texas and around the world. More information >

USDE Issues Updated Guidance on Bullying

The U.S. Department of Education recently issued updated guidance to educators on dealing with bullying in schools.  The guidance, issued in the form of a letter to schools, colleges, and universities from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, clarifies when bulling may violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

The White House and USDE also announced that they will take additional steps to address bullying and harassment in schools.  Early next year, the White House will host a conference to raise awareness and equip young people, parents, educators, coaches, and other community leaders with tools to prevent bullying and harassment.  USDE also plans to hold technical assistance workshops around the country in early 2011 to help educators better understand their obligations and the resources available to address harassment and bullying on school and college campuses.   For more information, visit http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/guidance-targeting-harassment-outlines-local-and-federal-responsibility


Level A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0Valid XHTML 1.0 TransitionalVaild CSS!