WAKEFIELD — As voters get ready to choose two School Committee members in tomorrow’s Town Election, we asked candidates Pete Davis, Alexandra Makarewicz and incumbent Kevin Piskadlo a question about special education.
Chapter 71 is the state law that covers special education in Massachusetts. It has not been reviewed in 51 years. What is good about the law, and what has to be changed?
PETE DAVIS
Chapter 71 guarantees that every child has a right to an education regardless of a disability. This is something we take for granted in the United States and is not a privilege afforded to children around the world. The law requires schools to provide evaluations and the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process which outlines determination of eligibility and specific services a child needs and must be provided based on their identified disabilities. The law also mandates a district Special Education Parents Advisory Council (SEPAC) who in addition to other duties, serves as an advisor to the School Committee on district Special Education matters, works with school administration on reviewing Special Education programming and helps ensure parents are educated on their rights under MA & Federal law. Thanks to the law, there is a process in place to appeal Special Education decisions. As a parent of a former Special Education student, I experienced firsthand the positives from this law where every possible effort was put forward to identify areas my child was struggling with and ensure that they were receiving the necessary services to help them overcome those struggles.
The biggest challenge with Chapter 71 is the financial burden it places on our School Budget (and as a result, our local tax levy) to cover the cost of these mandatory services. While the state provides significant funds to school districts to help offset the cost, large portions are not reimbursed. This negative financial burden is outweighed by the fact that students with disabilities receive critical services needed to help them learn. But in a perfect world, the law wouldn’t require this additional financial burden to fall back to our town. Thankfully, the Student Opportunity Act passed by the Legislature in 2019 under the leadership of our own State Senator Jason Lewis will significantly increase state funding to our schools. Governor Healey’s proposed budget includes school funding for Wakefield of $8.543 million, an increase of $699,777 (8.92%) over last year. This will help our district provide better services for all our learners.
Another struggle for parents is that if there is a disagreement with the evaluation for services, there is a significant burden on the parent to advocate for a change in diagnosis or improvement in services. We also have many students in the district who struggle with learning but may not be eligible under the law to receive Special Education services (an IEP) and instead end up receiving accommodations under a 504 Plan. Some families are concerned that a 504 plan may not provide enough for their child to make effective progress. Other families get lost trying to figure out how to navigate these services or how to advocate for their child. The Wakefield SEPAC has been an incredible resource for families in these areas.
In summary, it is my belief that Chapter 71, while not perfect, is a vital law to help all our learners get the services they need to succeed. At the end of the day, the law is making its best attempt to ensure that districts properly educate students with disabilities and that parents have a process to challenge evaluation and service delivery decisions. If there is one thing I could change, it would be for increased funding from the state to cover the cost of providing these important services for all struggling learners, and not just those who qualify for IEPs. Though School Committee members can’t change the law (that falls to our State Representatives and Senators), if elected I will be a tireless advocate for our special education students, their parents, Wakefield taxpayers, and all learners district wide.
ALEXANDRA MAKAREWICZ
Special education is an area that I am passionate about. The law which pertains a special education has not been changed in over 50 years. Upon reviewing the law I saw some positives and negatives.
Section 2. Regulations; special education programs; pre-school level admission to programs; assignment of child; institutions of higher education
• Agreement
• Opposition
Section 2A. Bureau of special education appeals; duties; director; supervision; standards for dispute resolution; confidentiality; hearing officers; memorandum of understanding; bureau of special education appeals advisory council
• Questions/Opposition
• Who can file for the appeal? It is unclear
• How long before this takes place? Is there a time frame? There are time frames set for other sections of Ch. 70b which requires and holds districts accountable to handle things in a timely manner
Section 3 Identification of school age children with a disability; diagnosis of disability; proposal of program; evaluations and assessments of child and program
The opposition I have to in Section 3 are the following:
• “Including removing a child from school, in any circumstances when the School Committee shows that the child’s behavior poses a substantial likelihood of injury to himself or others” This is the School Committee’s role when issues arise of whether or not a student should remain in district while an investigation is taking place. That should not be the role of the School Committee because they are not directly involved with the situation nor are they the ones inside the classroom with the child seeing 1st hand what is taking place. They are not informed and involved enough to make that decision
• ‘To insure that parents can participate fully and effectively with school personnel in the consideration and development of appropriate educational programs for their child, a school committee shall, upon request by a parent, provide timely access to parents and parent-designated independent evaluators and educational consultants for observations of a child’s current program and of any program proposed for the child, including both academic and non-academic components of any such program.” It should not be the decision of the School Committee to handle such requests. Requests should be made to the district’s Special Education Department to arrange Upon completion of said evaluation, the child’s parents may obtain an independent evaluation at school committee expense, from child evaluation clinics or facilities approved by the department jointly with the departments of mental health, mental retardation and public health, provided that the school committee may initiate within five school working days of the request, a hearing with the bureau of special education appeals to show that its evaluation is appropriate, oversee. Not the School Committee.
• ‘Upon completion of said evaluation, the child’s parents may obtain an independent evaluation at school committee expense, from child evaluation clinics or facilities approved by the department jointly with the departments of mental health, mental retardation and public health, provided that the school committee may initiate within five school working days of the request, a hearing with the bureau of special education appeals to show that its evaluation is appropriate.” The cost of an evaluation outside of the district is the main reason that a parent does not have one for their child. Parents are NOT made aware that an independent evaluation will be done at the School Committees EXPENSE! If they did then more students would potentially be receiving the services that they need. This either needs to be removed completely or actually enforced and made known to all parents seeking services for their child that they have the legal right to have.
Section 3A Administrator of special education; duties; joint appointment
Agreement: There is not much in this section that I agree with.
Opposition to this section is simply there are no details on what the appointed administrator will actually do. It also does not make clear if the administrator is the Special Education Director for the district or if it is a separate role altogether.
Section 4 Agreements between school committees or with public or private schools
I agree with all of Section 4 and believe it is something that would be beneficial to all schools and districts involved. I have no opposition to this section
Section 5 Costs or obligations; payment; budget
• Agreement- I agree with this section in regards of districts covering the cost of “special education personnel, materials and equipment, tuition, room and board, transportation, rent and consultant services as are necessary for the provision of special education”, That is 100% the responsibility of the school district and the school committee is responsible for providing those to the student. I also agree with parents picking up the cost for any and all items and or unforeseen cost with exception to the ones listed above.
• Opposition- The school district along with the school committee should not contact the parents to provide their health insurance information in order to bill your insurance for things listed above that are the responsibility of the district. How do I know that is taking place? I was contacted earlier this year to provide that information to which I replied no. My son receives services covered under the responsibility of the district. More funding should have been allocated to the Special Education Department instead of elsewhere
Section 5A Special education reimbursement program 5B Pooled risk program for extraordinary and unanticipated special education costs 5CZero interest loan program for extraordinary and unanticipated special education costs
• I agree with the above 2 sections. I believe that they are relevant to the current financial issues that our districts face and reflect the possible needs of the schools. Also having a clear process for the reimbursement process. In theory allowing districts to apply for an interest fee loan sounds great but I’d be concerned about the ability of the school committee to allocate and manage funds for the district. I’d remove this option and section all together as it has the potential to do more harm than good.
Sections 6 Assignment of children to classes; annual report; equal educational opportunities; prima facie denial; hearings; injunctive or other relief and 7 Tests for selection of children for referral, diagnosis, or evaluation
• Agreement- In both sections districts are held accountable for how they provide students the services and accommodations needed. It makes it clear that any bias in providing these will not be tolerated and steps will be made for accountability.
Section 8 Transportation to and from school; reimbursement to parents
• Nothing wrong with this section I am in full agreement
Section 9 Department to define circumstances requiring special education programs and to provide standards and 9A Workshop curriculum; parent advisory committee
• Agreement- Both section 9 and 9A are needed to ensure that there are clear expectations, regulations and processes that must be followed. Having the Parent Advisory Council is a positive as parents should be involved and have a seat at the table.
•Opposition- There are not enough parents that are aware of the Parent Advisory Council. They do not know or understand what they do and in most districts it is the same group of people year after year. I believe in order to receive input from different perspectives the Parent Advisory Council needs to change how it is structured from year to year.
Section 10 Referral of children to institutions within or without the commonwealth on annual renewal basis upon request; requisites; expenses and cost.
School districts should not have to look at alternative placements only within district 1st in order to save money. All alternative placement options whether in or out of the district should be looked at and considered at the same time. It is not about the money it is about providing the child with what they need to be successful. Many students are denied outside placement because the school committee and administration do not want to spend the money. They brag about how low the numbers are for out of district because we are ‘providing’ what they need is a complete lie. The numbers are low because they deny parents’ requests for the same money and keep the funds in their budget.
Section 12 School departments; establishment; administration; staff; operation; expenditures; costs of education. This section needs to be updated to meet the current times. The number of students have increased significantly over the past 51 years and the Laws need to reflect the current times
Section 12B Bureau of transitional planning; transitional advisory committee; establishment
And Section 12C Continuing habilitative services; eligibility; transitional plan; rules and regulations. Both sections need to be updated to reflect current times
Section 16 Students with disabilities; participation in high school graduation ceremonies and activities without award of high school diploma. Nothing I agree with. A student with disability should be able to participate in the graduation ceremony WITHOUT requirements, stipulations or approval by the superintendent. This entire section either needs to be removed or completely rewritten to reflect that.
Section 17 Department of higher education discretionary grant program for inclusive concurrent enrollment options; beneficiaries; purpose; establishment of inclusive concurrent enrollment advisory board; annual report. As someone who worked in both admissions and academic advising I am in full agreement with this section. It is critical for students with a disability to have a positive and helpful transition from highschool into college. Both their academic and social emotional health success depends on that. Districts teaming up with local higher education institutions is a wonderful idea.
If elected I will look at all district policies and producers in the same manner. I look forward to seeing you at the polls.
KEVIN PISKADLO
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has always been a leader in our country for public education, a history that dates back to the 1800s when Horace Mann established a system of public schools that later served as the model of public education throughout the United States. He believed strongly that all children needed to be provided the opportunity to be educated as a means of greater economic stability and the ultimate creation of a more informed and engaged citizenry.
In many ways, this philosophy has served as the philosophical underpinnings of public education since, and in the Commonwealth, Massachusetts General Law c. 71B, §§ 1 – 16 guarantees a “free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment” to all children in our state regardless of disability. This is not only congruent with Mann’s groundbreaking work, but acknowledges that all students, regardless of where their strengths and weaknesses lie, deserve to be educated regardless of what challenges may be present.
As a School Committee member, I never miss an opportunity to share how grateful I am for the education I received in Wakefield, something that not only prepared me for my own education, but also for my vocation as an educator as well. This calling was discovered and nurtured because of the love, support, and individualized attention I received from so many teachers in this town, and this includes my time in elementary school when I too received special education services. I know, firsthand, how tailoring education to meet the unique learning needs of each student, can have a positive impact on academic and social-emotional learning and development.
As I discovered in my own research on teaching and learning for my Ph.D, we know more about how individuals learn than ever before. Our faculty and staff in Wakefield use this every day in their work with students of all abilities despite the increasing complexity, diversity, and acuity of student needs. It is, however, incredibly challenging work and two things come to mind that I believe could be better addressed at the state level.
First, early intervention and related assessments and services are incredibly valuable and we see this with the successful outcomes that are achieved and increasing demand for pre-k services at the Doyle Early Childhood Center and the additional class that is now housed at Woodville. These services, however, are costly and special education and related mandates are often underfunded by the state. Re-assessing the funding of these mandates, and special education as a whole, is needed so that Wakefield is properly supported by state monies to meet the learning needs of our students.
Secondly, current special education challenges, especially in light of the pandemic, call for a reexamination of teacher preparation programs and an assessment of what skills need to be further honed by our incoming educators to be most successful and better prepared for the modern classroom.
Providing additional support for these new teachers, as well as our currently practicing faculty, will better serve both our students and educators.
In the 8 years I have served on the Committee, we have always enjoyed a strong working relationship with our legislative delegation in Wakefield as they work in the House and Senate on our behalf. If re-elected, I look forward to continuing to work with each of them on these matters and other education related topics.