ASR's Violations of Massachusetts Education Law

[RobertBruce]

Well with that matter settled and it firmly established that ASR is not regulated by the DoE and has no licensed teachers the best course of action I would think to be contacting the EEC. Clearly ASR will no longer be able to apply for exemption under the 30% rule and once regulation is forced upon them licensed teachers will become a requirement.

[TheWho]

You should take it up with ASR and demand that they hire qualified licensed teachers!  They're the only ones who can change this troubling reality...

I think we found some common ground Ha,Ha,Ha,...  a little hard to see though, but it there.
All kidding aside folks, like the guest said we need to defer to the ones who know and take it up with them...

Call the school or the state DOE.

Call the DOE. They have no reason to lie.  ASR needs to protect its revenue stream and will lie to do it.  Check with DOE.

I checked with DOE and they verified that no teachers at ASR hold a license to teach.

Let me hit the horse one more time!!
I think we are all in consensus... Call the DOE

[RobertBruce]

Done.

No licensed teachers at ASR.

Not licensed by the DOE.

Call them yourself and verify.

[Anonymous]

Has anybody tried to get the three departments involved in licensure where ASR is apparently violating requirements to get their heads together? That is, to each assign someone specifically to the case, then get them in touch with each other. I guess the best way to do this would be to get each department to give you a name of who you can call back on this matter. Say, "Can I get your first name? Can I ask for you if I call back about this?"

Then I guess the thing to do is when you call back each of the three places is to give the first name of the other guys and their numbers.

The trick is at any single one of the numbers to first get a guy willing to work with the other two agencies--because he will be the one to give the other two numbers and first names to. Your first name folks are going to be the ones just answering the phones. You get buy in from even one agency to start with, and he/she can get past the front line phone stage at the other two agencies.

The agencies have been going at ASR one at a time. If they have three enforcement people from all possible departments going after ASR all at the same time, then it makes it very likely that they can all make immediate headway with a judge and get a feather in their professional caps.

I figure if all three go to the judge at the same time, odds are pretty high that he'll order ASR to comply with licensure requirements for at least two of them--if not all three.

ASR's position is that it doesn't need a license from any. Legally, the countervailing argument--that it needs a license from all--may make just as much sense within the wording of the law. Don't know for sure, I'm not a lawyer, I haven't read the laws or the existing case law on them.

Get three bureaucrats from each agency in front of the same judge, pointing out that ASR isn't licensed by anybody, and there's a good chance they can get the judge mad enough to throw the book at ASR.

Which would, of course, be a crying shame. Not.

Julie[/i]

[TheWho]

Has anybody tried to get the three departments involved in licensure where ASR is apparently violating requirements to get their heads together? That is, to each assign someone specifically to the case, then get them in touch with each other. I guess the best way to do this would be to get each department to give you a name of who you can call back on this matter. Say, "Can I get your first name? Can I ask for you if I call back about this?"

Then I guess the thing to do is when you call back each of the three places is to give the first name of the other guys and their numbers.

The trick is at any single one of the numbers to first get a guy willing to work with the other two agencies--because he will be the one to give the other two numbers and first names to. Your first name folks are going to be the ones just answering the phones. You get buy in from even one agency to start with, and he/she can get past the front line phone stage at the other two agencies.

The agencies have been going at ASR one at a time. If they have three enforcement people from all possible departments going after ASR all at the same time, then it makes it very likely that they can all make immediate headway with a judge and get a feather in their professional caps.

I figure if all three go to the judge at the same time, odds are pretty high that he'll order ASR to comply with licensure requirements for at least two of them--if not all three.

ASR's position is that it doesn't need a license from any. Legally, the countervailing argument--that it needs a license from all--may make just as much sense within the wording of the law. Don't know for sure, I'm not a lawyer, I haven't read the laws or the existing case law on them.

Get three bureaucrats from each agency in front of the same judge, pointing out that ASR isn't licensed by anybody, and there's a good chance they can get the judge mad enough to throw the book at ASR.

Which would, of course, be a crying shame. Not.

Julie[/i]

Thinking out loud along the same lines, one approach is to look at the multiple agencies and see what they have in common and then enforce those regulations first (the ones that apply to all agencies).  Basic stuff like heat, fire escapes, nutrition etc.

I don’t think the agencies are in a position or would want to try to get a judge mad about anything.  From a professional point of view the judge would want to do what is right and makes sense considering all of the circumstances.  Problems like this come up all the time.

But a good step (1st step) in the right direction is to get everyone involved……

[Troll Control]

Has anybody tried to get the three departments involved in licensure where ASR is apparently violating requirements to get their heads together? That is, to each assign someone specifically to the case, then get them in touch with each other. I guess the best way to do this would be to get each department to give you a name of who you can call back on this matter. Say, "Can I get your first name? Can I ask for you if I call back about this?"

Then I guess the thing to do is when you call back each of the three places is to give the first name of the other guys and their numbers.

The trick is at any single one of the numbers to first get a guy willing to work with the other two agencies--because he will be the one to give the other two numbers and first names to. Your first name folks are going to be the ones just answering the phones. You get buy in from even one agency to start with, and he/she can get past the front line phone stage at the other two agencies.

The agencies have been going at ASR one at a time. If they have three enforcement people from all possible departments going after ASR all at the same time, then it makes it very likely that they can all make immediate headway with a judge and get a feather in their professional caps.

I figure if all three go to the judge at the same time, odds are pretty high that he'll order ASR to comply with licensure requirements for at least two of them--if not all three.

ASR's position is that it doesn't need a license from any. Legally, the countervailing argument--that it needs a license from all--may make just as much sense within the wording of the law. Don't know for sure, I'm not a lawyer, I haven't read the laws or the existing case law on them.

Get three bureaucrats from each agency in front of the same judge, pointing out that ASR isn't licensed by anybody, and there's a good chance they can get the judge mad enough to throw the book at ASR.

Which would, of course, be a crying shame. Not.

Julie[/i]

Julie, first let me say I'm not knocking you, but tone gets confused on message boards...

What you say sounds like a great idea on paper, but, the fact of the matter is that ASR has been allowed to avoid the rules for so long because the civil servants who have the power to exercise control just don't care enough to do the work and enforce the rules.

In the case of HLA, nothing was done for over four years with diligent, detailed complaints submitted in a steady stream.  ORS didn't move until they had their third director in that time period - then the action was swift.

In the case of Ivy Ridge, there were dozens of complaints over many years to NYS DoE and nothing was done.  When the attorney general stepped in, action was very swift and decisive.

So, it's not that people aren't bringing the information to the right people in the right agencies, it's that they are just not acting.  they don't say they won't or will, they just do nothing.  If you call and talk to an investigator they say "We're aware and we're looking into it" - then nothing.

Anyway, there's a thread for useful contacts for ASR oversight.  Feel free to look into the contacts there and to be the next person demanding answers.  Hopefully we'll reach critical mass soon, if not through state officials then through public pressure and/or lawsuits.

Bottom line is that ASR fails to meet even the minimum requirements for a private school, Special Education School (their state classification) or RTC/RCF.  They couldn't get licensed or approved by the state to do any of these functions, but they are allowed to operate because they misrepresent themselves to each agency and all of the people who can force oversight just point the finger at eachother saying "They're responsible, not us!"

Help us chip away at their ignorance by calling and writing.  eventually someone will have to take action...

[Deborah]

http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr ... section=01[/url]

[Note of clarification- This is Congress's definition. A child DOES NOT have to have a diagnosis in order to qualify as "emotionally disturbed" and receive "special ed/services".][/color]

Under the I.D.E.A. an emotionally disturbed child, like a child with any other disability, is entitled to a “free appropriate public education” which includes not only individualized special education, but also related services “as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.”8
Explicitly included in the statute as examples of supportive related services are psychological services, social work services and counseling services.9
Psychological services are defined by the applicable federal regulations to include:
(i) Administering psychological and educational test, and other assessment procedures;
(ii) Interpreting assessment results;
(iii) Obtaining, integrating, and interpreting information about child behavior and conditions relating to learning;
(iv) Consulting with other staff members in planning school programs to meet the special needs of children as indicated by psychological tests, interviews, and behavioral evaluations;
(v) Planning and managing a program of psychological services, including psychological counseling for children and parents; and
(vi) Assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention strategies.10

Listed in the federal regulations as examples of social work services are: (i) Preparing a social or developmental history on a child with a disability; (ii) Group and individual counseling with the child and family;
(iii) Working in partnership with parents and others on those problems in a child’sliving situation (home, school, and community) that affect the child’sadjustment in school;
(iv) Mobilizing school and community resources to enable the child to learn aseffectively as possible in his or her educational program; and
(v) Assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention strategies.11

According to federal standards counseling services can be provided by “qualified social workers, psychologists, guidance counselors, or other qualified personnel.”12
The statutory language of the I.D.E.A. and of the associated federal regulations unambiguously includes psychological services as a related service to be provided if required for a child with a disability, including emotional disturbance, to benefit from special education.

III. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Though there is no direct U.S. Supreme Court authority on the issue, federal courts consistently have supported the provision of psychological services to children with disabilities as required related services in accordance with the statutory language of the I.D.E.A. State regulations attempting to classify psychological services outside the definition of related serviceshave been invalidated by courts as superceded by inconsistent language in the federal I.D.E.A.13
In assuring psychological treatment and education for emotionally disturbed children, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “The concept of education under the [I.D.E.A.] clearly embodies both academic instruction and a broad range of associated services traditionally grouped under the general rubric of ‘treatment.’ Any attempt to distinguish academics from treatment when defining ‘educational placement’ runs counter to the clear language of the [I.D.E.A.].”14“
Educational benefit is not limited to academic needs, but includes the social and emotional needs that affect academic progress, school behavior, and socialization.”15
The First Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated, “A school district’s special education program must include psychological services if [the child’s] emotional disturbances interfere with his ability to learn.”16
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals expressed its high regard for psychological services when it stated, “Psychological services are . . . often essential if a plan is to have any realistic chance of facilitating education.”

A child attending school in the Ninth Circuit qualified for extensive psychological services because his “social, emotional, medical and educational needs [were] not severable and [were] intertwined.”24 His depression “adversely affected his educational performance, including his social withdrawal and non-participation in classroom discussion.”25
A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case affirmed the psychiatric educational placement of an emotionally disturbed child because his “main learning problem” was his “inability to cooperate with authority.”
http://tinyurl.com/26e44e

[TheWho]

Looking back at the café that is lending books to her customers.  For the café owner to fight the law that says she needs to hire a full time librarian doesn’t mean she is evil or avoiding responsibility.  The café owner doesn’t see the value to her customers, she would have to raise prices to pay her salary and adhere to regulations that don’t do justice to her clientele.  I am sure there would be a few fringe groups outside protesting and saying she needs a balanced selection of books, that she avoiding regulation because she wants to brain wash the community into reading what she decides.  But bottom line there is no category for the store she has so you really cant fault either side.  You make a compromise and focus on more important issues.

In the case of ASR, it seems the state has the control and has dropped the ball.  They have a duty to determine what regulations apply and redefine them if necessary.  If they sat down and defined regulations specific to TBS’s then both side would be happy.  ASR should not be expected to conform to regulations that don’t apply just because someone doesn’t want to define appropriate regulations.

[RobertBruce]

Looking back at the café that is lending books to her customers.  For the café owner to fight the law that says she needs to hire a full time librarian doesn’t mean she is evil or avoiding responsibility.  The café owner doesn’t see the value to her customers, she would have to raise prices to pay her salary and adhere to regulations that don’t do justice to her clientele.  I am sure there would be a few fringe groups outside protesting and saying she needs a balanced selection of books, that she avoiding regulation because she wants to brain wash the community into reading what she decides.  But bottom line there is no category for the store she has so you really cant fault either side.  You make a compromise and focus on more important issues.

In the case of ASR, it seems the state has the control and has dropped the ball.  They have a duty to determine what regulations apply and redefine them if necessary.  If they sat down and defined regulations specific to TBS’s then both side would be happy.  ASR should not be expected to conform to regulations that don’t apply just because someone doesn’t want to define appropriate regulations.

Again this is a stupid analogy, but once again lets look at it terms more appropriate to ASR.

So we've already had the health inspector come by only to be escorted off the property under the repeated claims by your benevolent propetier that it was simply a library she was running. No resturant, no health inspector.

Next week a represenative from the county comes by. He lets her know all public libraries come under the jurisidiction of the county, and she would need to either cease lending books out or turn over her operation to the county. She explains that she only has 300 books in stock and thus is qualified to apply for an exemption. The county rep agrees and leaves her in peace. A few years later her business has grown considerably and she now has 30,000 books which she lends out. The same rep comes back and says,

"You no longer qualify for the exemption, you'll have to either cease lending books to the general public, or turn over your operation to us."

"No no no", she replies. "This isn't a library, it's a resturant with just a few books lying around. This is strickly a bagel shop."

Clearly she's trying to have it both ways, no different then what ASR is doing.

[Deborah]

No special regs necessary. Read the above.

Here's the bottomline.
EEC says any residential program offering special education services OR social/psych/self-help skills must be licensed.

EEC defers to State Law to define "special needs/services", "emotional disturbance" and "disabled".

State Law defers to IDEA for a definition.

Based on IDEA (Congress's) definitions (which don't require a diagnosis), and the list of disorders ASR markets that it treats, every child at ASR is "disabled"- has special needs and is receiving special services.

The overwhelming majority are there due “inability to cooperate with authority". OR because their depression or __________ (fill in the blank), “adversely affected his educational performance, including his social withdrawal and non-participation in classroom discussion.”

I suspect this has something to do with the 30% issues and ASR some how snowing the state about this issue. And if it's a matter of the state rep being unable to interpret the law, someone in a higher position needs to be brought in to clarify. ASR needs to be required to hand over the records of the clients so the state can accurately assess what services are provided.

[TheWho]

I think pretty much anyone could fit under the Congress’s definition.  I still contend that the majority of the kids at ASR do not have IEP’s with the state that they come from and are not receiving services there or in Massachusetts as define “Special needs” student.  ASR may need to be licensed but as what?
Mental heath facility?
Private boarding school?
Special education school?
RTC?

We all have our opinions and can site regulations for each category as defined by the state but until the state of Massachusetts defines where ASR belongs or creates a new category ASR will continue to be a hybrid school reporting to no one (to no fault of their own).  This is the states responsibility, they have had almost 10 years to come to a decision and define ASR, but they have not.
Out of frustration we can blame the school but the responsibility lands squarely on the shoulders of the state to come up with a set of regulations which define TBS’s and enforce the rules through monitoring and follow-up, none of which has been done.

We can cut and paste regulations until the cows come home but until the state defines what ASR is, then they don’t apply.  In one area they say they are a “special school”, but they are not approved by the state as defined so the regulations don’t apply,

The state needs to do some work………….

[RobertBruce]

We all have our opinions and can site regulations for each category as defined by the state but until the state of Massachusetts defines where ASR belongs or creates a new category ASR will continue to be a hybrid school reporting to no one (to no fault of their own). This is the states responsibility, they have had almost 10 years to come to a decision and define ASR, but they have not.
Out of frustration we can blame the school but the responsibility lands squarely on the shoulders of the state to come up with a set of regulations which define TBS’s and enforce the rules through monitoring and follow-up, none of which has been done.

Yet you still continue to ignore the fact that ASR acknowledged they were a special needs school but they were exempt due to the 30% rule. Since the population of kids that fit the definition of special needs at ASR is now higher than 30% they should be subject to licensure and regulation.

No hybrids, no exemptions. They are in clear violation of the law and will soon be held accountable.

[Troll Control]

ASR is classified by the state as a "Special Education School" by the state.  That much is clear.

What is also clear is that they don't meet the requirements to be an "Approved Special Education School" and therefore aren't on the approved list and don't have "has approved program" in their profile.  This should serve as a red flag for parents.

They are classified as a "Special Education School" by the state because they claimed to the state to serve disabled kids (also the way they job the IRS by advising parents write off trips to see their 'disabled child' BTW), but since their program doesn't meet any of the state requirements they remain an unapproved school.  

It's just another red flag and a clear sign to avoid this substandard facility.  I don't see what's so confusing.

[Troll Control]

More or less, it's the state's way of saying "This is what this place represented itself to us to be, but we can't approve it because they don't meet muster."

That should be enough for any parent to keep away...

[TheWho]

More or less, it's the state's way of saying "This is what this place represented itself to us to be, but we can't approve it because they don't meet muster."

That should be enough for any parent to keep away...

Exactly, they are a hybrid school inbetween a private boarding school and a school that provides therapy.  The state doesnt have a category for them, they are not approved as a special education school so the regulations do not apply.
The state nneds to get thier butt in gear and define the regulations for TBS's