For the benefit of the majority of Americans who are capable of understanding what I'm about to say, I appreciate the opportunity to share some insights with you that might help you better frame how you think about current events and other people's behaviors. For those of you who struggle to understand what I'm about to say, just know that the point is to find a way for you to still be included in the public discourse with as much understanding as can be achieved. We want everyone making thoughtful, informed decisions and not just reacting emotionally to things they don't understand, which requires patience and understanding on everyone's part.   Recent events have inspired this post/podcast, and they arose around other online content I'd already published and then promoted through Facebook Ads, which was probably just asking for it. Facebook has become a toxic environment in which conspiracy theories abound as they are passed around among our least informed and/or least emotionally stable members of society and boosted by Facebook's algorithms.   Even though our content was supposed to be targeted to pro-democracy users, enough people on Facebook are apparently hate-searching the same hashtags as those used by pro-democracy activists and then posting hateful messages full of misinformation, which likely feeds the algorithm information about their user habits that increases their ability to engage with pro-democracy content without regard for how they are actually interacting. The algorithm is looking at the frequency and duration of a user's involvement with content, not the qualitative nature of what that involvement looks like.   Hateful comments are just comments to the algorithm. Clicks are just clicks, regardless of the beliefs or intentions of the users doing the clicking. These algorithms are configured to increase the exposure of frequently clicked- and commented-on content based on its popularity with users, regardless of why it's becoming popular.   This is how social media has been weaponized by bad actors to feed lies and misinformation to unsophisticated users who have no idea that their behaviors are being reinforced for all the wrong reasons, which effectively manipulates them into behaving in hateful ways with increasing intensity over time. My working theory about what reinforces trolling behaviors is that it's automatically reinforcing because there is an internal adrenaline rush that users get when their posts and comments gain popularity and get shared, which gives them emotional validation. It's a protest behavior that gets reinforced and maintained by attention from others.   It is only people who are starved for emotionally validating attention from others who seek it out online and fall into the deep well of online trolling behaviors to get it. If that's the only source of validation and feeling "successful" in their lives, they're going to do it. The solution is to give them a more appropriate functionally equivalent replacement behavior that still allows them to express their wants and needs such that they are validated with attention, but more importantly, that are met with more powerful reinforcers than the ones they receive by trolling. We've got to give them something more rewarding than what they get from spewing hatred while still giving a voice to their wants and needs, as well as access to appropriate solutions.   These are not our brightest problem-solvers. These are the people with arrested emotional development and limited coping skills who resort to name-calling and hostile behavior because that's the best they've got. They feel trapped in a life they can't handle where their wants and needs go unmet and they don't know how to appropriately advocate for themselves. Emotionally speaking, they are simply very old children.   Thankfully, only a handful of trolls found our online content. All of them were adult males, mostly middle-aged or older and white, based on their Facebook profiles. All of them were triggered by a single word in the title of the program being promoted, which is our Social Justice group on Meetup, in which I conduct live events and share content with group members who are interested in learning how to participate in the advocacy processes of publicly funded programs to enforce their rights as program beneficiaries or the rights of other eligible beneficiaries who need help advocating for themselves.   In our Meetup group, I take my experiences working in special education, regional center, rehabilitation, and other publicly-funded programs for people with disabilities and generalize them to the same processes and procedures that exist within other publicly-funded programs that exist to benefit citizens with other other types of need than disability. Many of these other programs address social welfare issues, like housing, food, and healthcare.   Americans pay into these programs so that they are there for them if and when they need them. If we're going to pay taxes to pool our resources as the Public to achieve economies of scale and efficiencies that we otherwise wouldn't have on our own as individuals, then those resources and economies of scale better provide for us when we need them.   There is nothing un-American about expecting the American government to work and being worried and angry when it doesn't. What is un-American is failing to abide by the rules already in place and making excuses instead of improvements as a public servant or a voter. If the existing rules create more problems than they solve, then responsible leaders in local publicly funded agencies raise these issues with their legislators and don't stop making noise until the problems get fixed. They don't go, "Oh, well. That's just the way it is in the 'real world,'" and fail to solve the problems.   I've made this point before and I'll make it again, here, that Project 2025, which articulates the literal plan for a white "Christian" nationalist take-over of all the bureaucratic mechanisms of government, is nothing new. It's what I've been up against since I first started working as a lay advocate in 1991. It's what I was up against when I participated in the most litigation of my career in the mid-2000s through 2012 as a paralegal, supporting attorneys in special education mediations and due process hearings, as well as court trials in venues ranging from state superior courts to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. It's why I went back and got my master's degree in educational psychology in 2013; I knew I needed to come at these issues from a more informed, expert position to be more effective.   The anti-everything-not-like-themselves by some of the least competent members of society who, through privilege and cronyism, have managed to acquire power, is nothing new to me. There is nothing more reckless than giving someone with low intelligence and emotional instability access to a whole lot of money. I'd have to go through the whole origin story of the public education system and how other public programs were modeled after its administrative design to explain how we got here, and that's enough information to create an entire college course titled, "The History of American Public Education."   Let me just cut to the chase and say it's been a political shit-show from the beginning and that all of the laws that prohibit discrimination in the public sector are there because these knuckle heads have been in there undermining and sabotaging the system from within all along. They have been doing this so that they and their like-minded collaborators can point to the failures of the system they caused as "proof" that this system of government is a failure and should be replaced with something different, like giving them total control with no accountability.   These are the people who want to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and make it so that only wealthy elites can afford to educate their children, while depriving the general public of access to information and learning that will allow them to participate with understanding in our representative democratic government. There is a reason that the pre-Civil War slave owners didn't want their slaves to learn how to read; a literate, intelligent, and informed group of slaves was capable of planning and executing an escape or even an overthrow of their masters.   By depriving the American public of a sound, responsible public education system these hostile elites would hoard all the knowledge and only use that of it which would give them an even greater unfair advantage over everyone else, while ignoring anything that potentially highlighted any errors in their thinking. This would prevent the public from knowing how to take back its own power, live freely, and thrive for its own benefit rather than only for the benefit of the elites, while elites choosing to only acknowledge the facts that suit their purposes run everything into the ground by failing to abide by reality.   It is the least educated and/or least emotionally stable among us who become the most useful idiot minions of the anti-American elements in this country, which are fueled by money from self-serving domestic billionaires and foreign enemies, and facilitated by domestic and foreign influencers using online propaganda to exploit social media algorithms, radicalize these people, and turn them loose on the rest of us like ticking timebombs. Our current-day lone shooters are our domestic version of the suicide bombers of the 9/11 era.   Statistically speaking, a certain percentage of the human population has disordered thought to such a marked degree that their participation with social media brings on the worst manifestations of their symptoms possible. In the special education arena, I've got one student on my caseload who is so screen-addicted that she engages in property destruction with full-on screaming rages at home if she's expected to put down her device and go do something with her mother in the real world. I've got another student who impulsively, without fail, will immediately gravitate to any social media app that has a chat feature and start trolling strangers because she thinks she's being funny and she's cracking herself up, but then they come back at her with equal venom and she has a mental health crisis that can escalate to actual self-harm or attempted suicide.   These are real issues that I'm dealing with right now in the real world, and these two students are hardly the only ones. These are just the only two cases on my caseload right now with these issues, but this has become an ever-increasing issue for a lot of students who I've represented over the last 15 years as internet use has become more ubiquitous throughout public education. For the student with the chat app issues, the school district hired a cyber security expert to figure out how to block any of the kinds of content that she might misuse on her district-issued devices, while still giving her access to the online content necessary for her classes and without a human being having to actively monitor her device usage throughout each school day.   All of that is great for understanding the nature of the behaviors and the challenges faced by those who engage in them, but what does one do about it? For me, that's still a work in progress, but I can tell you how I've handled it so far and whether I think it's working or not. It's early days with me and the fascist trolls, and there have only been a handful, but I'm already seeing trends in the data emerging, not the least of which is the older white male observation I mentioned previously.   I'm totally using Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) to inform my responses to the trolls, as well as legal strategies I've learned from lawyers and judges over the years that can be generalized to other situations and contexts that align with the principles of ABA. One of those strategies is what I like to call "Jedi Mind-Trick Jujitsu," in which I take control of the narrative by using their own language to defeat their own points, then redirect everyone's attention to what my originally posted content is actually about and encourage people to join our group and participate in our live events.   In Jujitsu, there is a move whereby the enemy throws a punch, but you lean to one side, grab their arm at the wrist just below their fist, and pull them forward and down to the ground, using the inertia of their own punch and their own momentum against them while side-stepping the punch altogether. In "Jedi Mind-Trick Jujitsu," with these trolls, I'm taking the energy of the insult or slur, mocking the ridiculousness of it as politely as possible by pointing out the truth in a friendly manner, providing immediate forgiveness to the offending party, following it with an analysis of why this person is engaging in this behavior and why everyone else should feel bad for the offending party rather than revengeful, and promising to pray for the offending party's poor tortured soul or otherwise blessing their heart.   None of the trolls have replied back and no new hate posts have come in since I replied to the last one, though that could change. I've posted my replies to each troll's posts almost immediately after they were made. None of my replies took their bait. They were looking to pick a fight with people who are just as emotionally dysfunctional as they are, and they're not going to find that here. Engage in maladaptive behavior like that in front of us, much less in writing with a hot link to your profile, and we're going to offer personalized forgiveness and explain why, then redirect readers back to the original point of our posted content.   We work with mental and emotional health issues and challenging behaviors every day. Trolls aren't scary to us; they're pitiful. They are victims of our country's mental health crisis. They warrant our pity because they are so terribly troubled and broken and they deserve our effort because we need to keep them from becoming unsafe to themselves or others.   Trolls are mean to strangers online because that's the best they've got. That's a tragic way to live, and it's not hard to see how people from this segment of society are easily radicalized into acts of violence over things that make no sense, particularly when the information they receive is manipulated to limit their understanding and provoke their anger through their strongest connection to the world: the internet.   kps4parents.org/shop  The other data point that emerged from how the trolls responded to our posted content about our Social Justice group on Meetup, was, as I stated above, a single word. That word was "Social." The tiniest minds think that this automatically means "socialism," which they then equate with "communism," the definitions of neither being known to them, which explains why one of them referred to me as "comrade" in his disparagement of our post.   Here's the thing: The point of the post was to promote our pro-democracy group and teach people how to participate in the mechanisms of democracy at the local level, all in the pursuit of a just society in conformity with the Constitution of the United States. None of them actually read about what we were doing. They saw the word "Social" in the title and were immediately triggered. The irony was totally lost on them that they were using "social" media to spew their moronic hatred towards our use of the word "social" in the title of our online events.   For people who think anything that uses the word "social" automatically means "socialism," and you oppose socialism, then you need to get off of "social" media! And, God forbid you attend the Sunday Ice Cream "Social" at church after service, or the commies will start kicking in the front door of your house before you even get home. It's a freakin' word with multiple uses, depending on context. The title of our group is also a play on words with a "social" justice education initiative being carried out using "social" media and online meetings to interact in a "social" way to talk about how to uphold democracy at the local level. Tinier, fragile minds didn't get the pun or the point.   Those of us who are not so badly compromised as that have a responsibility to take care of those of us who are, not ignore or exploit them. We are our brothers' keepers and it takes a village. Humans are social animals by nature, so we need to figure out better ways to socialize with each other than what we've got going on right now. We have plenty of existing psychological, sociological, anthropological, and historical information to make wise, informed decisions as a populous, but that information is not equally available to everyone and educational equity is necessary for the survival of our species.   We can't figure out how to work together if we're too busy being pitted against each other by those in leadership for their own selfish purposes. Looking out for each other and collaborating for the mutual benefit of everyone is consistent with the teachings of every great religious leader the world has ever remembered, and none of them preached hatred or violence. These same values are also consistent with the rules of our democracy.   One piece of advice that I can give to sane, rational people dealing with trolls is to not look at what they post as an overture to start an actual conversation and engage in any kind of legitimate debate. Don't take their bait; they're just looking for someone to disagree with them and call them names back. That's their idea of two-way conversation and social engagement, but it's all one-sided and they're too impaired to see it for what it really is. They approximate and mimic conversational behavior, but they can't actually hold a real conversation, at least not while they are triggered and escalated. The adrenaline rush of a heated exchange is often as close to getting emotionally engaged with other people as they can get.   Troll posting is a ritualized behavior that includes scripted speech, which is not the same thing as a two-way conversation. Two-way conversations require both parties to listen with comprehension and think about how what each person says relates to what the other person says, and negotiate in some kind of way to reach a mutually agreed-to conclusion about whatever is being discussed. Troll posts are nothing like that. Troll posts are one-sided cries for help from mentally and emotionally anguishing people.   What has made all the difference for me when I encounter these kinds of behaviors in any social context is to recognize that this isn't a conversation, it's a ritualized behavior that includes words, at which point I can't take whatever is being said seriously because it's only function is to get an emotional rise out of me and engage me in a dispute. I'm only interested in a real conversation. I have no reason to reinforce that behavior by giving the person what they were looking for and engaging in a heated dispute with them.   That would give them my sustained attention in the form of an attempt to convince them they are wrong, which they would never do, which would make them feel powerful and leave me drained and exhausted with time I'll never get back wasted on the whole endeavor. If I took the bait and wasted time I can't spare to argue with a troll, then I'd be kicking myself afterwards for letting myself go there, and the troll is still living rent-free in my head. Hell, no!   By understanding that the function of the behavior is automatic reinforcement by way of making the troll feel powerful when they bully someone into submission, you can redirect them to a more functionally appropriate way to feel powerful without acting like an asshole. If I took the bait, it would be an open invitation for them to visit their wrath upon me, so I'm not taking the bait. However, I will take the opportunity to reclaim the narrative and redirect other people's attention back to what actually matters. I can turn a troll post into a marketing opportunity for my event by using their drama to get other reader's eyes on the back and forth, and further pique their curiosity about our live online Meetup events.   One of the motivating ideas behind trolling behavior is to come on strong so as to presumably present as a strong person. But, truly strong people don't actually act like that. Truly strong people don't give a shit whether people are impressed by them or not; it takes too much energy to care and there are far too many other more important things to worry about in life than that. Truly strong people just take care of their business and don't have a need to come on strong when they disagree with other people.   These trolls are weak people acting how they think strong people act, as seen through their eyes as people who are regularly ignored or exploited by others who are stronger than them. They can't actually conceptualize what stronger people must be thinking or feeling; they can only observe the outward presentations made by stronger people and attempt to emulate what they think they are seeing.   People who are lacking in competencies have historically found themselves on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing more than once in their lives for making mistakes that a more competent person would never make. From their perspective, it may seem that yelling at people and accusing them of being deficient is what being in charge is all about. Therefore, according to their logic, if they go around yelling at people and accusing them of doing bad things, they should be put in charge.   This strategy sometimes actually works for them in the short-term, but their actual lack of skills dooms them to ultimate failure. They can't actually handle the responsibilities that come with the power they manage to acquire and their efforts to fake it until they make it blow up in their faces because they are literally faking it and have no idea what they are doing. Dressing for success is pointless if you don't have actual job skills.   A good public-facing example of this is Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is being investigated for financial improprieties with public funds and who, with each new investigation or investigative finding being reported in the media, passes new statewide executive orders that violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by banning the use of certain "woke" terms like "Latinx" or "pregnant people" in State documents. She's apparently getting all the "mam-maws" and "pap-paws" riled up over nothing so they don't notice her robbing them blind.   It has been alleged that some of the taxpayers' money in Arkansas was used to send Governor Huckabee Sanders to Paris, France with her girlfriends to party and charged off to the State as a credit card purchase in an amount just shy of the $20K reporting limit on State employee credit card purchases as an allegedly fraudulent purchase of a customized speaker's lectern that has yet to make a public appearance or ever be used to anyone's knowledge. This alleged "Lectern-gate" matter is still being investigated, given that over $19K was spent by the Governor on a lectern with no actual lectern to show for it, the Governor allegedly bought it from a company owned by one of her girlfriends who went with her on the Paris trip, and said friend's business does not sell lecterns as part of its normal course of business.   The abuses of authority alongside Arkansas' long-standing low performance statistics as a state, such as with poverty, healthcare, crime, and education, reveal an entirely dysfunctional state government that is dependent upon other, better managed states that produce more tax revenues than they need to supplement Arkansas' own tax revenues in order for Arkansas to function in any capacity at all. By contrast, for example, California has the 5th largest economy in the world and could function as a self-funded nation-state, if it had to. If Arkansas were cut off from the tax revenue it gets from states like California, there wouldn't be enough money in the till for the Governor to steal.   Broken people may briefly attain power, but they usually don't have the skills to hold onto it for very long. It takes a fleet of broken people working together from positions of power to do serious harm over extended periods. We generally regard these kinds of folks as being part of a conspiracy when they collaborate with each other to achieve dysfunctional ends on a large scale. But, as with "Lectern-gate," these folks really aren't all that good at covering their tracks and tend to leave a wake of destruction that serves as a mile-wide evidence trail. We're seeing it happen right now with all kinds of folks from what's left of the Republican Party, a great many of them being attorneys.   They're banking on the rest of us being too exhausted to deal with their bullshit and just letting them go do whatever so we can stop and rest for a minute. Those are the moments they seize to do real harm. They wear us down to create exactly those kinds of exploitable moments. It's like an emotionally abusive partner who always picks a fight right before bedtime that goes on for hours into the night, night after night, leaving the other person too exhausted from sleep deprivation to make rational decisions. A sleep-deprived person is inclined to cave in on everything just to keep the peace and impaired beyond thinking clearly about getting out of the relationship. This is also how unethical employers trap people in high-stress, physically demanding, low-paying jobs for decades on end.   Abusive people tend to do poorly in unstructured situations. The more the environment is configured to discourage abusive behavior by imposing structure, the easier it is to keep people busy doing things that are productive and healthy. One doesn't have the time or motivation to go rob a bank if one is happily employed and well paid, for example. Not everyone handles unstructured time well and, when given too much freedom and left to their own devices, some people use their employer's credit cards to go party in foreign cities with their friends.   patreon.com/KPS4ParentsThe bottom-line take-away from this post/podcast is that everyone deserves to live in a just society that treats them fairly, no matter who they are, and not everybody is healthy enough to appreciate what that means. We can't take it personally when someone else doesn't have the ability to get it, and we serve ourselves by looking out for that person and helping them meet their needs instead of shunning them and cutting them off. We need to take a serious look at the wants and needs of the people who pose the biggest threats to our democracy and then figure out the most appropriate ways to see their needs met so that they aren't feeling "othered," ostracized, and vindictive towards the rest of us.   Trolls' behaviors seek attention for a reason and we've got to give them more appropriate ways of calling attention to their wants and needs without causing harm. I suggest we start by responding to the hateful comments left by trolls in the most loving ways possible, without being afraid to poke fun at how silly they are making themselves look with their hateful comments. React the same way you would to a 4-year-old who didn't get what they wanted for lunch, and now they're packing a bag in their bedroom while crying and threatening to run away.   Acknowledge their suffering because they're upset, but be willing to chuckle at how silly it is to be running away from home over cucumber slices. You're laughing at the behavior, not the underlying reason why it happened. It's okay to hate the behavior, but try not to hate the person. You need to mentally separate the person from the behavior because they are two different things. They're totally related to each other, but they aren't one in the same. If trolls were better equipped to deal with life, their behavior wouldn't be so bad. Nobody is awful on purpose just to inconvenience you. No matter how much Hell they visit upon you, it's infinitely worse for them living in their skin. You can get away from them, but they are stuck with themselves forever.   Trolls only come on strongly because they are lacking the amount of strength they are attempting to project; it's a lie and they are actually cowards. Standing up to them with logic and facts generally shuts them down. Your alternatives are either ignoring their comments and leaving them to poison your posts, or getting baited into a heated, emotional exchange intended to exhaust you and wear you down. Shutting them down quickly with logic and facts appears to achieve a respectable degree of damage control and refocuses other people on the actual messages that you're trying to convey.   That isn't to say that an entirely deranged hothead won't resort to stalking someone who dares to shut them down online, but these kind of people aren't the majority of the people spewing hatred online and even the stalkers usually leave an evidence trail a mile wide. Most of the online haters are cowards who will never show themselves offline to the same degree they expose themselves online. Name-calling and profanities are the best they've got.   I'll save my name-calling and profanities for my private conversations with clients and colleagues, as well as occasional comedic bits in my online content, about the characters in public office we encounter who are obstructing the legitimate functions of our democratic government every day. We all need to vent and there is a time and a place for everything, including venting.   What you will never see us do is go out on the internet and post hateful comments on other people's content. We may disagree and provide our reasons for disagreeing if we come across something that jumps out at us, and we may point out the potential adverse consequences of acting according to another party's online advice if we think that advice is bad, but that's not the same thing as name-calling and hate speech. There's polite, informed dissent and there's raving like a lunatic.   I hope this has helped you organize your own thoughts around how to work with people who don't quite get it with a little more compassion, which has greater chances of helping you achieve healthy outcomes for everyone involved than ignoring them or attempting to argue with them about the flaws in their logic. Proactively, going forward, I encourage you to frame things with "I-statements" when presenting an opposing point of view, such as, "I hear what you're saying, but I've always understood it to be the case that XYZ, and what you're telling me doesn't really explain that. Why do you think that is? What am I not understanding?"   When you put a single unaccounted-for variable in front of them and ask them to account for it, whatever faulty logic they were trying to assert falls apart and they realize they've left something out of the equation. When you see that they've realized they don't know how to resolve what you've pointed out, that's your chance to continue with your logical explanation for XYZ with language like, "Aw man! So, what I've been thinking this whole time is that, because ABC and 123, XYZ happens. Does that make sense? Am I missing something? I thought I had it figured out, but maybe I'm wrong. Am I wrong?"   At that point, you take ownership of the doubt they are unwilling to let themselves feel about their own perceptions of things, and the troubled troll starts to put things together logically in their own mind based on the simple explanation you've given in an effort to remain the voice of authority by giving you an answer. This allows them to arrive at the correct conclusion on their own by thinking it through without being told they are wrong and getting emotionally triggered.   If you impose structure on the thought process by identifying only the variables that matter and leaving out the extraneous fluff in an emotionally neutral way that shifts the element of doubt onto you, then ask for their opinion of what you've just said, you're just asking for feedback on what you understand to be the case and correction where you're wrong. There's no reason for them to feel threatened by that and a lot of times it actually buys trust because then they're able to say, "Well, when you put it that way, you've got a point," or "I hadn't thought about that, but now that you mention it ..." and a rational conversation is more likely to happen.   One of the trolls who posted on my content asserted that it isn't justice if it's prefaced by an adjective like "social," there's only justice. That made absolutely no sense, but I was willing to entertain the idea, so I replied with, "Fascinating perspective! What evidence supports that argument?" and never heard back. That's not a hostile response, but I'm also pretty sure there's no actual evidence to support that argument. I'm willing to be wrong on that, but I guess only time will tell if he's going to come back and educate me with some real evidence that proves me wrong.   In the meantime, I hope you are able to cope with trolls better after reading this, whether they show up in your life online or in person. All of this can be generalized to dealing with nasty people everywhere, but for our families who rely on us for advice about special education and disability resources, generalize it to every nasty person who stood in your way when you tried to get appropriate services and supports for your loved-one with special needs.   Ronald Reagan is given credit for saying, "Trust, but verify," when it came to dealing with other heads of state and government officials. I think using that approach whenever anyone attempts to convince you of something. particularly if they are emotionally passionate about it, is always a best-practices way of dealing with them.   Ask for evidence in support of arguments that seem unlikely. Ask for their advice as to how to weigh contradictory information against what they've just told you. Don't accuse them of anything or call them names. Treat your exchanges like dignified conversations, set the behavioral example, ask pointed questions about their assertions, and sincere express interest in understanding their point of view. They do have a communicative intent to express an unmet want or need, but it can be difficult getting to the actual underlying message through all the behavioral chaos and word salad.   One of the parents I used to represent called the scripted speech from her daughter's emotional outbursts "throw-up words" because they were just verbal barf that came with all the other out-of-control behaviors, not a real conversation. In the moment, she didn't know what the Hell she was saying, and she usually felt terrible about it afterwards. The moment you can discern "throw-up words" from real conversation and stop caring about what is being said and then focus on why it's being said, that is the moment you regain control of the conversation. The words are the symptoms and you need to treat the underlying disease, metaphorically speaking.   Express caring for their welfare and forgiveness for their crude behaviors. Forgiveness means they aren't living rent-free in your head once you're done responding to them; it's for your benefit, not theirs. Let them stew in their own juices if that's what they really want to do, but that shouldn't affect the quality of your life.   Sometimes, all you can do is say, "Bless your heart, you poor tragic creature," and move on to your own bliss without carrying the dead weight of their opinions or the living with the consequences of their behaviors. There's no reason to feel bad about that. Love is doing what's in the best interests of everyone involved, including yourself. And, so, on that note, thank you for hearing me out and, until next time, peace be with you.

I watch the news and read up on a lot of court cases and pending legislation these days because all of it is related in some way with the work I do in special education as an advocate, paralegal, consultant, and direct services provider. Congressional spending, public policy changes, new litigation, and all kinds of other world events have direct bearing on special education and the individuals I assist and protect. Similarly, how the powers that be respond to the legally protected needs of the individuals I serve speaks volumes to the state of our democracy at the local level and the degree to which State and federal oversight is effective or not.   The concept of locus of control is not widely known or understood, but it should be. It's a fairly simple developmental concept to understand for adult-level problem-solvers. It's one of those things that, if the majority of intact adults understood it, it would contribute to what could effectively be psychological herd immunity against the fringe ass-hattery that is taking up way too much political and cultural space right now in our modern day societies, and help us restore and repair things to a more equitable equilibrium.   Locus of control describes a person's understanding of the degree to which they have agency over their own lives. A person with mostly an external locus of control believes that life is something that happens to them and some other external force beyond their control is responsible. Having an external locus of control is normal for babies, but dangerous for adults. Conversely, a person with mostly an internal locus of control will assume responsibility for everything that happens around them, engaging in controlling behaviors as well as delusional thought, often to a narcissistic degree.   Living at either extreme of the locus of control spectrum is unhealthy. At one extreme is the willing victim and the other is the predator. As with most of these kinds of things in psychology, what is considered "normal" when it comes to locus of control can be expressed through statistics using normal distributions. Here, "normal" means the majority of people who fall along the locus of control spectrum between the two far extremes, with some mix of both internal and external loci of control depending on the unique circumstances relative to the individual developmental maturity of each person.   I don't want to focus on the statistical outliers on that spectrum here. I want to focus on the majority of us who fall along the locus of control spectrum between those two extremes and how the relative ratio of internal versus external plays out in each of us such that it affects our behavior and how we raise our children to become intelligent, empathetic, responsible independent thinkers or not.   In order for us to apply the science successfully to the classroom and beyond, we have to first apply it to ourselves. We need to understand our own perceptions of locus of control before we can start thinking about other people's individual perceptions of it and how that affects their behaviors and relationships.   A healthy concept of locus of control is somewhere in the middle between fully external and fully internal. The reality is that some parts of life are beyond our immediate control and other parts of life are entirely within our control. Rather than applying the concept of the locus of control spectrum to the person as a uniform monolith, one's standing is better understood by applying this spectrum to a specific situation and asking, "How much of this immediate situation is actually within my control?", and "How many things are actually within my control that can change this situation for the better?"   There is a commonly used prayer among Christians called the Serenity Prayer, which goes: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." This is the essence of the locus of control self-assessment in day-to-day life. I can think of no better tradition that captures how reality works with such scientific simplicity than this. Science doesn't compete with religion, it measures the truth of Creation. When used responsibly, it reveals miracles that can teach us a great deal.   Sometimes the miracles are more magnificent than previously realized and only known once more data comes in, such as when Galileo asserted that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than vice versa, which contradicted the teachings of the Church at the time. Unfortunately for him, he was found guilty of heresy and had to choose between 1) pleading innocent totally knowing that he would be found guilty and would have to spend the rest of his life in prison, or 2) taking a plea deal and spending the rest of his life on house arrest, even though he was totally right. The miracle is actually greater than what the Church was teaching, but it was afraid of losing the trust of its followers if it admitted that it had been wrong about the Earth being the center of Creation with everything in the Heavens revolving around it, so Galileo died a convicted criminal for asserting the truth of God's actual Creation.   We're seeing the same kind of thinking right now when it comes to climate change. The miracle is bigger and more magnificent than previously realized. Sadly, our abuse of the knowledge we've gathered as a species thus far has been to the detriment of the environment all around us. The harm we've done is now proving to us how things are supposed to work and what we've misunderstood in the past. The Creator speaks to us through our errors and lets us know when we're failing to abide by the terms of Creation. We have invited harm upon ourselves through our own behaviors and now we have to change our behaviors to save ourselves. This goes directly to every person's unique concept of their own respective individual locus of control.   There are now corporations whose very existence depend on us believing we need them. They don't want to lose our dollars, so they can't afford for us to lose faith in their businesses and they're attempting to conceal the fact that what they are doing contradicts the larger miracles that have been revealed by science. I'm thinking of processed foods, farming-related dust bowls, and fossil fuels, here, and the amount of money spent on marketing and lobbying by these industries to influence how they are perceived by the public versus what they are actually doing.   These industries abuse the science to manipulate the masses with specific messages targeted to specific audiences, using algorithms to spread their messages online, and relying on normal human word-of-mouth discourse to take it from there. These are the same tactics used by political propogandists, and there can be a blurry line between corporate marketers and political propogandists. An informed public recognizes the attempts at manipulation for what they are and rejects them outright; an uniformed public becomes more easily radicalized and brand-loyal.   All of that goes to how locus of control operates on the larger scale. Understanding that, the next question here is, "How can that knowledge be applied in the classroom?" My response is that it depends on the ages and developmental levels of the students involved.   If you're talking about young children or older students with developmental delays, these concepts need to be explicitly taught and the students need to be given clear, succinct, easy-to-understand descriptions of what they have the power to do for themselves and what requires the authority of others. Visuals, including classroom artwork and graphics, should be placed where students can see them during the school day to reinforce the messaging from the explicit instruction.   Honestly, if School House Rock were to make a new video teaching kids about locus of control, that would be amazing. Until then, it's up to parents and teachers to learn about it and incorporate it into their parenting and classroom management practices, respectively.   With our older kids, my go-to is always Project-Based Learning (PBL). If the project is to assemble an Ikea cabinet using the instructions as a small group of three or four students, then it's a great way to teach locus of control concepts. The students can't change the physical features of the cabinet being built, the parts that come with it, or the instructions provided. That's beyond their control. What they can control is their own behavior in response to these uncontrollable facts. How they go about putting together the cabinet is a choice. What they are putting together is not. This is a balance of external and internal locus of control to fit the situation.   It doesn't have to be Ikea furniture. It could be anything. In our sister program, the Learn & Grow Educational Series, I've embedded this locus of control instruction into PBL lesson plans that require students to create self-watering gardening containers from 5-gallon buckets and use them to grow food. Anything that is project-based will come with fixed parameters that go to an external locus of control, and students will have to make choices and act upon them, which goes to internal locus of control, to achieve the intended outcome. For most people, having at least a little bit of external imposed structure helps them organize their thoughts and get things done.   Products that provide at least part of the solution by their very nature will impose some structure on the situation that limits the number of choices a person has to make to get the job finished. For example, simply having shopping carts available by the front door of the supermarket immediately solves a problem for shoppers that makes gathering what they need to buy without a huge hassle more accessible to them than if they had to figure out how to carry around their stuff while shopping on their own.   This can be equally applied in the classroom. A teacher can use a desktop office tray for papers and folders, perhaps several stacked upon each other. Each tray could serve a specific purposes, such as one for turning in completed work, one turning in notes from home and permission slips, and one for suggestions for making the classroom better, for example. The system could be designed to support the teacher's classroom management strategy and impose some external structure on students' classroom behaviors.   Simple organizational strategies that set the stage are often enough externally imposed features for our typically developing learners to develop effective and efficient learning practices, particularly if these practices are modeled by the teacher in the beginning and by other students once they adopt these practices as the school year progresses and these strategies are being regularly used. These strategies eventually become part of the routine because they work, freeing up mental energy that can then be invested in troubleshooting more complex concerns.   Routines are convenient because they relieve us from having to think too hard about what we need to do in the moment, which allows us to then think ahead about what else we can take on now. When we have a lot of actual thinking to do about other things, reducing the things we always have to do in the moment to simple, thoughtless routines is an efficient use of time. Routines that can be memorized using music can become some of the most relied upon routines in a person's life, because music seems to amplify the strength of the routine -for most people when they are paired together. This has implications for day-to-day life, as well as classroom practices. It's just a good strategy for life for most people, though everyone processes information differently and not all strategies will work for all people.   It appears that, generally speaking, it is normal for humans to strive for some kind of equilibrium that strikes a balance between external and internal locus of control. In general, we want enough external controls to limit the number of choices we have to make in a given situation, but not so many limits that the only options for us to choose from are bad ones. Too many choices and we can't decide what to do. With somewhat limited choices, even if its the lesser of all evils, at least you can make the best of what you're given to work with. With extremely limited choices, it really doesn't matter what you decide because you're screwed no matter what.   Creating a safe and nurturing classroom that fosters functional independence among its students requires the same kind of thought and planning as does creating a safe and nurturing society that encourages individual freedoms. An understanding of locus of control can go a long way towards improving both, and I'm encouraging you to invest the time to learn more about it, contemplate your own perceptions regarding your own locus of control, and consider how other people's choices are influenced by their own perceptions of locus of control. It gives you a new dimension by which to consider other people's behaviors, but it only makes sense once you've learned to understand it about yourself.   From there, you can begin to think about what someone else's concept of locus of control might be. You must have a relatively healthy self-concept of your own locus of control in order to be able to conceptualize and empathize with someone else's. You basically have to walk a thousand miles in your own moccasins before you're able to walk a mile in someone else's with understanding.   All of this goes, then, into a larger analysis of the function of a person's behavior, which requires a behavior analytic approach. When you're trying to figure out where another person is coming from, whether as a parent trying to understand your child or as an IEP team member trying to understand another member of the team, having a fairly accurate understanding of that person's sense of locus of control about whatever is being discussed goes a long way towards understanding whether that person is going to seek solutions or make excuses for a problem you need solved.   In applied behavioral analysis, the function of the behavior is ascertained by determining what antecedents triggered the behavior and what consequences rewarded its use. Ecological factors are examined to further determine if anything specific in the environment, such as a specific noise or person, and/or any other specific circumstantial factors, such as time of day or disruption in routine, increased the likelihood of the behavior occurring in the presence of the antecedent. These exacerbating factors are referred to as "setting events" or "motivating operations." Many professionals use the term "M.O.s" to refer to these exacerbating factors.   Some antecedents arise from internal body and/or mental states experienced by the individual that no one else can observe, which are referred to as "private events." In other instances, the antecedent may be an externally observable factor, but there are private event M.O.s involved. Locus of control is an internal, private event, that often influences how a person responds to antecedents in their immediate environments, and it can often be deduced by observing the person's behaviors. How someone reacts to external stimuli can reveal a great deal about how much control that person believes they have in a given situation.   Whether you're talking about working with learners or participating in important meetings, understanding where another person is coming from in that regard can be an eye-opening experience that better informs how you need to respond to their efforts to work with or against you. It also tells you just how much of the situation is within your control and how much of it isn't, so you can choose your actions wisely. It helps you discern that which you can control from that which you can't so that you can exercise the courage necessary to achieve what is actually realistically within your reach, making as much positive progress as you are able and creating opportunities to create even greater improvements later on in time.   As much as I hope you are able to use this information to create and implement good IEPs, I equally hope you can incorporate it into your understanding of yourself and others and you progress along your own journey of self-discovery and growth as a person. The more we understand each other, the easier it becomes to relate with each other and work more collaboratively than competitively. I believe it is the responsibility of those of us who study these sciences to explain what we know about healthy human development so as to help humanity develop in healthy ways as time goes on. We need to be getting better as these kinds of things over time, and that can't be achieved by withholding the professional knowledge from the general public.   I'm happy to democratize that knowledge to the degree that I am able, and I encourage you to do your own additional research into the science around locus of control and related psychological concepts. I hope this helps you develop a healthier understanding of yourself and others, and contributes towards your successful efforts to make the world a better place. I think this is critical knowledge for any and all parents participating in the IEP or 504 process for their children in the public schools. It's relevant to understanding your child's individual needs, as well as where everyone else on the team with you is coming from and how to respond to them in ways that are most likely to protect your child.   From an advocacy standpoint, it is important as a parent in one of these meetings to know if you're being shut down by a bureaucrat agency loyalist enforcing an internal policy that violates the law because they believe they lack the authority to buck the unlawful policy, and are thus acting according to an external locus of control. Someone like this is incapable of legitimate problem-solving and it's a waste of time arguing with them. This is when you, as a parent, may find it necessary to file a compliance complaint with your state's education department, a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a due process complaint with your state's special education hearing office, or some other legal action.   In a situation like this, once they've said, "No," and blamed agency policy in spite of the language of the law, go straight to accountability. You're wasting time trying to convince them they are breaking the law once you've made the record about it the first time. You may still end up resolving things through a confidential settlement agreement, but the offending agency may not be willing to make things right by you until you file something that gives it the opportunity to settle with you in secret. Sometimes, a governing board of a public agency will not authorize the costs of resolution unless it gets rid of a legal action; as a policy, they will not do the right thing unless/until they are forced to by a legal action of some kind taken by the parents.   When you're talking about locus of control, such "leadership" starts out by laying heavy on the internal locus of control by choosing not to comply with the law, but shifts to external locus of control once a parent actually takes some kind of formal, legal action to resolve the matter. The only way the agency can regain and restore internal locus of control to the point of functional equilibrium at that point is usually to settle the matter by way of some kind of confidential agreement by which it gives up all kinds of considerations to the family but admits no fault on the part of the offending agency.   When you can understand the power dynamics that revolve around locus of control, it makes you a more savvy and practical negotiator. It makes you better at assessing other people's credibility, as well. Most importantly, as a parent, it makes you a more compassionate teacher and cheerleader for your children as you help them navigate all of the situations and relationships they will experience throughout childhood in your care. You are better to yourself and everyone else being as whole as you can be. I wish you nothing but the best as you become increasingly healthy and whole throughout your journey through this life, and thank you for the support you provide to my efforts to bring this kind of information to you. Peace be with you, my friends.

Photo credit Kelly Short (colorized photo from circa 1936)  Attention is finally being given to the effects of childhood trauma on childhood development and learning, but it's still not fully incorporated into the mainstream as common knowledge. Only when trauma-informed education becomes the norm can childhood trauma be prevented and responded-to with greater efficacy.   Because trauma often begets mental health issues, not the least of which being Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and can also result in permanent physical disabilities, depending on the nature of the trauma, individuals with such impairments can become eligible for protections under disability-related laws. This includes Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (504), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).   For this reason, one would think that the special education community is conducting trauma-informed assessments and considering the trauma-related needs of its students with IEPs. One would be thinking incorrectly, however. I've lost count of the number of special education assessments I've seen that are entirely silent regarding the unique traumatizing events of a student's past, like they just didn't happen or are entirely irrelevant to the assessment process, including in mental health evaluations.   I'm dealing with one of those, right now, as a matter of fact. The very signs of trauma and the historical events that likely contributed to them were described in detail to the mental health assessor, and none of those details appeared anywhere in her report. So, basically, what I took from the situation was that some ding-dong baby doll who fell out of the lap of luxury and into a master's degree in social work was dispatched to assess a student with some pretty significant symptoms who had previously lived for 11 months with her mother in their car and who had also witnessed her mother getting mowed down in the street by a car while they were crossing the street together at a protected cross-walk, leaving this student as a young child to scream for help in the middle of the street. None of these past traumatic events were discussed in the assessment report, nor were any of the symptoms that had been brought to the assessor's attention. She interviewed the student once via Zoom and noted that the student wasn't very forthcoming, and relied on classroom observations conducted by a school psychologist, who is not a mental health clinician.   Thankfully, once it was brought to his attention, the involved school district's special education director was just as taken aback as I was and immediately agreed to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in mental health at public expense, which is basically a second opinion conducted by an outside, uninvolved provider, that is funded by the District. We're in the process of finding an outside assessor to conduct it, but we expect the situation for this student to be resolved once it's done. However, this was just the latest of several cases we've worked in this same District over the last 15 years in which trauma and mental health issues are not being properly considered, and it's a problem that is not unique to this particular district. It seems to be a fairly systemic problem in cases we encounter from around the country.   So, I want to focus on what trauma-informed special education assessments and programming look like in actual practice, and how the applicable science and law come together around trauma-related special needs that require 504/ADA accommodations and/or IEPs. I first want to direct you to the peer-reviewed research, starting with the article, "Considerations for Incorporating Trauma-Informed Care Content within Special Education Teacher Preparation and Professional Development Programs," which appeared in Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021) of the Journal of Special Education Preparation, the full text of which is available for free online.   I think this article does a good job of explaining what it means to incorporate Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) into special education, so I'm not going to do a lot of rehashing, here. One of the things I like about this article is that it doesn't just speak to special education as a stand-alone entity; it discusses the application of trauma-informed care within an evidence-based Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), such as that found with Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), which are meant to catch students before they fall too far behind and provide them with whatever types of supports they need to be successful, whether through special or general education. This naturally lends it to speak to the related "child find" issues.   This article cites other researchers by saying: "... adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; Felitti et al., 1998) ... are all common experiences for students with emotional/behavioral disorders (Cavanaugh, 2016)." Certainly, one way to identify children who may need special education as per "child find" is to look at those already known to have experienced ACEs to determine if they are showing any signs of emotional and/or behavioral disorders. The moment it is known that a general education student has survived a traumatic event, a special education assessment referral should be made and it should include sufficiently comprehensive mental health evaluations to accurately capture any impact the traumatic event has had on the child's ability to access and participate in education. Even if the child ultimately does not qualify for special education, Section 504 relies on the special education process to gather its own assessment data to inform appropriate 504/ADA accommodations for children with disabilities who do not require special education.   If the child is unavailable for learning due to extreme trauma, then the interventions have to restore the child to the point of being available for learning again, unless the child is medically incapacitated. If medical interventions are first necessary, those obviously come before any special education or 504/ADA accommodations. A child has to be physically medically stabilized before they are available to participate in education and anyone can know what to do for them at school. New assessments will have to be done to determine the student's new baselines once physical medical stability is achieved.   If the child is psychiatrically incapacitated, it may be necessary for that child to be placed in a residential psychiatric treatment facility with an onsite school in order for the child to become available for learning. I'm not a huge fan of residential placement, but there's a time and a place for everything. I've had a number of students benefit tremendously from a special education residential placement for these kinds of severe mental health needs, though I've also had students on my caseload molested and assaulted in some of the residential programs, so this model of intervention is hardly a monolith or panacea.   The above-cited article makes the following recommendations: "Considerations for special education professional development includes teachers undergoing an extensive training that addresses the following components:   Understanding Trauma and ACEs (Dong et al., 2003)Challenging current thought processes vs. TIC attributions (Hoskins et al., 2018)Identifying ways educators may be trauma informed (Plumb et al., 2016)Direct overview of MTSS (August et al., 2018)"   Understanding Trauma and ACEs: School site staff who do not have a professional understanding of what trauma is, what ACEs are, and how they affect student performance are at a gross disadvantage when it comes to actually serving the public good. The pervasiveness of trauma in everyday life, anymore, is something we all have to consider when dealing with each other. We should certainly be able to expect our professionals who encounter it in the field daily to have an intelligent plan of action for how to respond to it appropriately in their professional capacities. We shouldn't be ending up with privileged ding-dongs with fancy degrees who can't recognize what they're looking at when they encounter childhood trauma in the field. Challenging current thought processes vs. TIC attributions: Long-entrenched policies and practices that fail to meet the needs of certain populations are effectively institutionalized biases against them. In professional settings in which no policies and procedures exist to appropriately respond to the needs of students who have experienced ACEs and trauma, there is no institutionalized response to proactively address the situation, which becomes an institutionalized proactive effort to ignore it. When people feel powerless to help someone being hurt by something, it's a natural psychological defense mechanism for them to blame the victim for deserving mistreatment rather than live with feelings of helplessness, powerlessness, cowardice, or whatever else feels bad that goes along with not helping. Victim-blaming is meant to offset feelings of guilt for not helping. Too often, adults in the public school setting become angry at children for manifesting the symptoms of trauma and ACEs, punishing them instead of helping them and making a bad situation worse. There is no excuse for this kind of conduct in a professional educational setting, and certainly not in this day and age when there is plenty of peer-reviewed research capturing strategies and approaches that actually work. As I've said in other posts, however, there are no real mechanisms in place in public education at this time for the consistent promulgation of the peer-reviewed research among the educators to equip them with the resources to translate the research into actual, practical classroom applications. Where parents really need to get vocal at their school board meetings is in advocating for the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of public education. It's not like we don't have evidence of what works. Education research continues to compile and accrue over time into an ever-enriching body of knowledge that can be used to solve so many of the world's ills that it should be a crime that it's not already being actively applied by competent professionals throughout the public education system on the regular. Identifying ways educators may be trauma-informed: It seems that using logic models has been the most effective way to communicate concepts around identifying ways that educators can become trauma-informed. The School District of Philadelphia has created a logic model that serves as a useful example, which is illustrated below.         You can look at this logic model more closely by clicking on the images or the link in this post. What you can see once you look at it is that the District's MTSS incorporates TIC into its design. I can't speak to the fidelity with which The School District of Philadelphia actually abides by this design or the degree to which it works. I can only show it to you as an example of how to create this kind of a design, which requires staff to be trained on how to implement it in order for it to actually work. By creating this kind of operational framework and training everyone within the school site on how to carry it out, staff become informed on what to look for and what to do when they see it, when it comes to trauma and its potential for undermining student learning.   Direct overview of MTSS: The above example shows how TICs are woven into an existing MTSS. Very often, special education personnel don't understand where they fit into the overall tiers of intervention, and usually because the rest of their co-workers and superiors have no idea, either. None of these MTSS designs will work if staff don't recognize themselves in all of the pieces of the design for which they are each actually responsible. It's not enough to create a pretty logic model on paper. The logic model has to actually be executed according to its design or it's worthless. To that end, it is imperative that both general and special education staff understand where the lines are drawn between their two universes and a child needs to be referred for special education assessment.   I actually have a case from my past that I can refer to as an example. In this case, the district had some kind of MTSS but it had failed to work in special education and the "child find" process in any kind of meaningful way. As such, staff didn't know their roles when it came to "child find" and made mistakes all over the place. This was a case of multiple ding-dongs who had no idea what they were doing, trying to fake their ways through the MTSS design process and botching it royally. What's worse is that the involved student in this example was being raised by his grandmother, who had been a teacher for this same school district for over 30 years at the time of this hearing, and her daughter, the student's mother, had gone on to become a teacher of the same district, as well. The employees of this district were doing this to each other's families, and purely out of ignorance and a grotesque leadership failure.   When done correctly, a school- or district-wide MTSS that incorporates TIC will naturally lend itself to helping those children who need special education mental health supports for any reason. Investing in developing a high-quality MTSS that incorporates TIC will appropriately funnel the children who need special education mental health services into the appropriate levels of intervention relative to their unique, individual needs.   That said, it's not enough to simply refer children suffering from mental health issues related to trauma for assessment. The quality of the assessments conducted matter and leaving out critical information about the trauma a child has already experienced and how it is affecting that child's learning is a fatal flaw that compromises the validity of the assessment and gives the parents a legitimate reason to disagree and request IEEs at public expense.   Administrators looking to cut corners will often try to minimize costs by having school psychologists do some basic social/emotional assessments instead of having proper mental health evaluations done by licensed mental health providers. This is no place to be cutting corners. First, it saves no money in the long run. Pretending the problem isn't as bad as it actually is will blow up in your face, eventually. The longer the problem goes untreated, the harder and more costly it will become to address later on. Secondly, it's heinously unethical. What kind of a person do you have to be to deny necessary mental health services because you don't want to spend the money? Any school district administrators who think their budgets are more important than the lives of their students shouldn't be employed in public education. The budget exists for the benefit of the students, not the administration. For that matter, school district administrators exist for the benefit of students; students do not exist for the purpose of lining administrators' pockets with unearned tax dollars.   I know the technical issues of how to integrate TIC into a schoolwide system of successful interventions is a topic worthy of a full-day workshop and I'm not doing justice to the entire issue, here. But, I'm hoping that I've given you enough to think about TIC in special education and some pointers towards some resources that can help you as a parent, educator, and/or concerned taxpayer to address these kinds of challenges. We need to appreciate the degree to which special education can be a tool to protect our local communities and national security from unstable individuals responding to their personal traumas in ways that can hurt many other people in addition to themselves. In this day and age of mass shootings by people suffering from significant mental health issues, we can't neglect to preempt these behaviors where we can by intervening in the lives of children who experience trauma and/or have mental and emotional health needs that affect their access to learning and behaviors. It takes a village to raise a child, and this is how it's done when the child has experienced trauma.

Photo Credit: Nik  As much as the work we do at KPS4Parents focuses on social justice issues that include parents' legal rights in the special education process and related areas of public agency regulation, I've been hesitant until now to say anything about what has been charading as a parents' advocacy movement, lately. This is mainly because of the most recent developments involving the leadership of one such faux parent advocacy organization, Moms for Liberty, which pretty much speak for themselves and eliminate the need for me to work that hard at supporting my arguments with evidence.   I'm busy. I don't have time for deep dives into the world of politics when I'm already doing deep dives into the peer-reviewed research and case law during the regular school year. I see every bit of stupidity and ineptitude in local government as we see in Congress on the daily. Idiot politicians are the reason why lay advocates and civil rights attorneys are needed in a democracy. Mark Twain is quoted as saying, "In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made school boards." It's not like any of this is new.   I've got over 20 students on my lay advocacy caseload, at least two of those cases are going to due process, several of those cases have outstanding remedies due to them from a federal investigation of their local school district that have not yet been negotiated, and others are requiring me to work with families at the local agency level to hopefully resolve their concerns, all the while also making the record just in case formal complaints or litigation become unavoidable. I'm not going to stop all of that to write a blog post/podcast episode unless the moment is right, and it's now right.   I'm won't rehash the Moms for Liberty scandal, here. You can read up on that on your own time, if you don't already know about it. What I'm focusing on here are the social and psychological sciences as they interact with the rule of law in our democratic republic, and what that means for this country to have a government that is "of the people, for the people, and by the people" with respect to legitimate parent advocacy.   We're meant to have a representative government and it isn't representative of most of "the people" when a tiny minority of whack-job conspiracy theorists and con artists with prefrontal cortices made of cottage cheese or something close to it, are put into positions of authority, or otherwise have influence over those with authority, and have access to taxpayer resources with no effective systems of oversight or accountability. Once in power, people like these then attempt to bend reality to fit their whacko notions of how things should be, regardless of what the majority of their constituents want or need or the actual facts of the situation, usually for their own financial gain and without regard for any harm done to others. Berkeley Breathed referred to such an individual as a "tax-fattened hyena," in one of his old Bloom County cartoons. I find the term eternally apt.   I find that these are "the people" employed within the public sector who are the most opposed to any kind of data collection that could be used as an audit trail and enforcement tool, which is why the backend business automation of most publicly funded agencies at the local level is such garbage. It's really hard to misappropriate public funds when you're leaving digital footprints right back to yourself in the process. Effective office automation on par with what has been happening in the private sector for decades has been limited in the public sector for supposed budgetary reasons, but the reality is that the ROI on a good system would make the upgrade pay for itself in no time. It's not costs that are being avoided, it's audit trails.   Because "the people" are expected to hold their government accountable according to the rule of law, it is necessary for "the people" to know how to do so and be given access to public agency information through various client's rights, freedom of information, and public records laws. Because of our laws regarding public access to public agency information and the mechanisms of accountability that are built into the regulations that describe how our public agencies are supposed to operate, our democracy equips us with powerful tools that allow us to advocate for appropriate outcomes as regular members of society, including as parents for our children in programs for which we pay taxes to serve their needs as a matter of law.   Keeping parents in the dark about their rights and the proper paths for recourse and distracting them with pointless displays of anger and hostility are all parts of a strategy to undermine legitimate parent advocacy, not support it. It drains parents' energy, time, and resources to pursue legitimate remedies by wasting it all on displays of emotion that rarely change policies and create more problems than they solve. The actual processes and procedures afforded to parents as per their lawful parent rights in the public education setting are the only mechanisms of democracy that are designed to address meritorious parental concerns.   No matter how many fits at a school board meeting a parent may throw, until they file a formal complaint of some kind, there's not much anyone can do. When parents bring their legitimate concerns to a school board meeting, the proper response is for someone from the school board to help the parent exercise their rights, including helping them file a formal complaint. When parents attempt to argue for things outside the scope of what their public schools can legally do, the schools are obligated to explain how the rules actually apply and what can legitimately be done to address such parental concerns.   In the case of special education, this is specifically regulated at 34 CFR Sec. 300.503, which mandates the provision of Prior Written Notice (PWN) to parents whenever a change to a child's special education program is proposed or denied by the public education agency. If the public education agency's explanation doesn't make sense for why it is proposing changes or refusing changes requested by parents, parents have a right to use whatever cockamamie excuse they've been given in their PWNs as evidence against their public education agencies in regulatory complaints or legal proceedings. Our democracy protects parents with rules like these, but knowing how to use them and enforce them isn't something most parents know how to do.   One of the methods of depriving people of their rights is to deprive them of any knowledge of past successful efforts to secure the rights of citizens, such as with the litigation and legislative history of special education law, and the processes and procedures by which everyday people can now assert their rights under the law because of how past cases were successfully argued and won and how legislators have responded to the relevant scientific and legal developments over time. This is why these organizations are so strongly opposed to any curriculum that accurately describe the effects of slavery on American society and governance, and don't want to acknowledge the growing body of science that better explains gender and sexual orientation than what the science of the past was able to tell us because it challenges behaviors that have been learned and practiced over generations according to religious and political beliefs that don't always abide by observable reality.   For example, during the 1600s, the astronomer Galileo died under house arrest for heresy after daring to assert that the Earth rotates around the sun based on his observations using telescopes and calculating the movements of the stars and planets, because this contradicted the Church's position at that time that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything in the skies rotated around the Earth. Galileo was right, of course. He witnessed the actuality of God's miracle, but rather than revel in its realization, the Church rejected it because it contradicted a long-standing myth that was being knowingly perpetuated by the Church so that it was not contradicted in the eyes of the people, lest it lose their trust and obedience. The Church did not acknowledge that Galileo was right and absolve him of heresy until more than 300 years later during the 20th century.   A fact-based discovery that contradicted the Church in such a significant way would have cost the Church a great deal of credibility among its believers if acknowledged as true, or at least that's what the Church apparently feared, so it tried Galileo for heresy and gave him the choice of being found guilty and thrown in prison for the rest of his life or accepting a plea deal and spending the rest of his life under house arrest. He took the plea deal.   Whether you're religious or not, the Universe functions according to set rules that can be measured, analyzed, and understood with enough time and resources. There may be a difference of opinion as to why that is and who or what caused it to happen, but what has actually happened with respect to Creation is an observable fact that simply has to be studied in order for the design's function and purpose to be understood.   For example, humankind just spent seven years flying a space craft to an asteroid that is due to smack into the Earth in about 150 years so that we can start figuring out now a way to prevent it from hitting us by the time it gets here. We just flew this thing over millions of miles of space, right up to this asteroid, punched the asteroid using a mechanical arm, captured chunks of debris and dust that flew up off the surface of the asteroid from getting punched, then flew the debris and dust all the way back to Earth so we can analyze it and figure out what the asteroid is made of, which will help us figure out how to prevent it from hitting us. You cannot tell me that our species is capable of doing that and yet we can't apply science to improve the quality of life for every human on our planet without destroying the world around us.   I help everyday families of learners with disabilities acquire the necessary knowledge about the processes and procedures that apply to their disability-related needs and rights so they can successfully advocate for their loved ones according to the applicable science and the rule of law. I understand the regulated processes and procedures that give my clients access to what the law promises them. I use the applicable sciences to identify each learner's unique needs so as to inform the requests I make of publicly funded agencies and programs on their behalf. I understand what it means to facilitate "the people's" participation in democracy at the local level, including participation in state and federal investigations, as well as due process hearings and disability-related litigation in local, state, and federal courts.   I understand that the only way to uphold democracy is to participate in it according to its rules and regulations. Anything that undermines the democratic process by violating a student's constitutional rights, down to a shoddy triennial evaluation or a garbage IEP, is fair game for citizens knowledgeable enough to understand what they are looking at and the remedies available to them to fix anything wrong. Keeping people ignorant of what has worked in the past is a deliberate attempt to undermine people's advocacy for themselves, their loved ones, and their communities in the present. People who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it, thus learning their lessons the hard way from trial-and-error rather than from the example set by those who came before them, which wastes time and slows down the rate at which society becomes smarter.   The first step of preventing people from advocating for themselves is preventing them from knowing about past efforts of advocacy that were successful, hence the book bans, altering curriculum standards to promote misinformation and omit important accurate information, protesting community-based pro-literacy and historical accuracy efforts spearheaded by minority groups, and attempting to control any other literary outlet that could expose children to facts that make these individuals uncomfortable. Keeping people ignorant is a powerful tool of oppression. That's why American slaves generally weren't taught to read. A literate oppressed class can communicate and collaborate more effectively to rise up against their oppressors.   People forget that America went through upheavals similar to what we are experiencing right now, back in the 1980s and 90s with some people freaking out over mandatory seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws and "no smoking" laws in restaurants and bars the same way some people freaked out about vaccines and masks during the worst of COVID. Back then, the Cold War had all the doomsayers expecting everyone to die in an unavoidable nuclear holocaust. Tipper Gore was coming for everybody's rock music lyrics and Larry Flint, who once ran for president on the Republican ticket, was defending his first amendment right to show exploitative photos of consenting models to consenting purchasers of his published works, thereby effectively defending the first amendment rights of all pornography publishers.   Ironically, many of the men who I remember from back then supporting Larry Flint's first amendment rights have since taken considerable issue with Colin Kaepernick's first amendment rights when he peacefully protested murderous police violence against people of color and other minorities, as well as racial inequalities in America in general, by silently kneeling during the national anthem before the start of professional football games. Games! Grown men running around in matching outfits chasing balls and each other, like that's somehow more important that the fact that we have a national epidemic of people on our local police forces terrorizing and murdering certain groups of people at will and getting away with it. It rather makes clear that they were willing to defend democracy when it meant they could look at pictures of sexually exploited models, but when it comes to protesting homicidal abuses of police authority against people of color and other minorities, as well as racial inequality in general, that is "a horse of another color," which is disgusting.   My point is that the whacko minority has always been around, hypocritically asserting itself when it sees the opportunity to cite the law in support of its own agenda while denying the same protections to others with whom they disagree, before retreating into the corners and staying silent for a while until circumstances provoke them into coming out of the woodwork again. With each periodic re-entry into the mainstream, the whackos, at least temporarily, recruit others to their cause until their actual motives and sheer stupidity become evident to their recruits, who then abandon them as they begin to recede back into the woodwork. It's a predictable cycle and now people are living long enough to see it repeat in their lifetimes.   When you realize it's a predictable cycle, each new "Groundhog Day" moment leaves you better prepared for when the cycle repeats itself again. The benefit of learning from history is not having to waste time repeating past mistakes through trial and error to eventually arrive at the same conclusions. It's Vygotskian scaffolding realness. It allows you to step into the problem-solving at a much later stage in the process, building upon the knowledge that was gathered by those who came before you, instead of starting from the beginning with nothing.   Here's what I can tell you about having to interact with the crackpots that have infiltrated the public sector or otherwise raise pointless hell that interferes with the legitimate functions of government at the local level, as well as my childhood growing up in the middle of the still butt-hurt losers of the Civil War who have just been waiting for as long as I can remember for Dixie to rise again so they can get a re-do of the Civil War: I'm not kidding when I say their prefrontal cortices are made of cottage cheese, or the neurological equivalent thereto.   I'm entirely willing to believe that this is due to environmental deprivation of developmental learning opportunities throughout childhood and being raised by uneducated, usually deeply religious, authoritarian parents who supported slavery or descended from people who did, remained bitter and deeply chagrined about losing the Civil War, and relied on corporal punishment as their primary parenting method. I don't think most of them were necessarily born without intact cognitive hardware to begin with. I think an awful lot of perfectly normal humans born into that culture have been deprived of developmentally appropriate environments during childhood that prevented the full development of their brains due to cultural beliefs that strictly controlled their lifestyles and environments.   There is a famous case study of a poor woman named Genie who was grotesquely neglected and abused by her family, and then subsequently exploited by the scientific community to study the effects on her development of spending the first 13 years of her life either strapped to her bed on her back or strapped into a toilet chair, always alone in her room with almost no human interactions. She spent most of the first 13 years of her life alone in that bare room with no toys, no language, and no intellectual stimulation. As a result, her brain failed to develop and she will always be intellectually, communicatively, and physically disabled and require constant care.   There were a lot of ethical concerns around how the research community handled Genie once she was rescued from her family. That said, her situation provided tremendous insight into what can happen to the brain of a developing child when necessary environmental stimuli are not present to trigger the brain to grow and develop. Play is learning, and formal education only adds to the learning that a child is naturally inclined to pursue independently in a developmentally appropriate environment. When children are deprived of developmentally appropriate environmental stimuli, the parts of their brains that are most ripe for learning are given nothing to learn and will atrophy from lack of use.   Genie's uniquely terrible situation made clear that, once developmental milestones were lost due to environmental deprivations during childhood, they could not be recovered. This has since informed a great deal of science designed to understand how environments that contain some developmentally appropriate stimuli but not others affect human development across the lifespan, starting in childhood. In attempting to understand why the whackos are acting so whacky, it helps to understand that a fair number of them can't help it.   This is how we've come to understand how It is entirely possible for a person to get just enough input from their childhood and adult environments to learn how to do accounting, cook dinner, and fly a plane, but still have failed to developed in other areas necessary to functioning as a fully capable member of society. Intellectually capable people with under-developed social/emotional functioning can pose a danger to themselves or others, particularly with respect to domestic violence and disgruntled employees.   What we are now starting to understand about the effects of children being raised in environmentally deprived environments explains a lot in hindsight, but creates a whole new set of challenges about how to ethically address this as a threat to domestic tranquility going forward. Our current societal problems with mass shootings are strikingly similar to the suicide bombers of the 9/11 era. Radicalization is a lot easier to achieve with people who have "holes" in their development from inborn disabilities and/or being raised in developmentally deprived environments. Parents who were raised as children in developmentally deprived environments are more likely to perpetuate the deprivation with their own children because they don't know that something is missing, much less what it is, so they don't know to add it to their children's environments.   Education that includes developing critical thinking skills, such as those promoted by the Common Core, is necessary to create a public that is educated enough to participate in our government "of the people, for the people, and by the people," with any success. So, when these groups start coming for our public education system to remove content and control what facts our students are allowed to be taught and which facts will be withheld from them, that's censorship, not first amendment freedom of speech or evidence-based instruction. It's entirely unconstitutional, and it violates best practices.   That is not legitimate parent advocacy. That is an organized effort to undermine our democracy by groups of radicals looking to cloak themselves in the language and superficial appearance of a cause people can support - here, parents' rights in the public schools - so they can infiltrate, undermine, and profit from running our public systems in a broken way. As someone who does the job for real, I resent getting lumped in with these kooks by public education agency officials and their representatives when I attempt to help a family avail itself of the actual rules and regulations as a legitimate function of democracy. I deal with enough "Karens" employed within the public schools; I don't need to also be associated with the "Karens" high-jacking the legitimate cause of parents' rights and using it as a dishonest cover to pursue undemocratic ends.   In the special education context, which serves as a good example of the kinds of regulated mechanisms of democracy that exist at the local level, parents have federally protected rights to, 1) informed consent, meaning they fully understand any special education-related documents to which they are asked to sign their consent, and 2) meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, including a voice in educational placement decisions. This means that a parent's input has to be seriously considered by all the other members of the IEP team, and it's understood that the parent is automatically a member of the IEP team as a matter of federal law. The public schools are not permitted to unilaterally decide what goes into a student's IEP without parental input and parents have recourse if they ever disagree with the public schools about what their students with disabilities require.   There are all kinds of rules and regulations that describe how parents of children with disabilities can avail themselves of the rule of law and enforce their children's educational and civil rights. The problem is that the rules and regulations are complicated, the science that applies to their children's unique educational needs is complicated, the processes and procedures take way too long for comfort, and there are usually at least some unrecoverable economic costs to the families that take time to pursue appropriate remedies from the public sector for their loved ones with disabilities. It's not fair to the person with the disabilities when the people responsible for advocating for them, usually family members, know less than the people from whom they must make these requests.   The power imbalance is significant and is only further complicated by the reality that the public sector employees have millions of taxpayer dollars to tap into to pay lawyers to keep them out of trouble. Think: "pre-conviction Michael Cohen." These are often high-priced fixers paid by tax-fattened would-be oligarchs who view their publicly funded agencies as their own little personal fiefdoms, and their consumers as just a means to their own personal financial ends, as though public program beneficiaries solely exist to justify the publicly funded paychecks of public agency administrators.   Every state has adopted standards by which all of its public schools must abide for the purposes of providing America's K-12 students with what each state considers appropriate for students to have learned by each grade level across all core subject areas. These whacko book-banning conspiracy theorists and their dog-and-pony road shows at school board meetings, public libraries, and community-based literary events are taking their arguments to the wrong venues if they don't like what is being taught in their states.   Most of these folks tend to favor the idea of reduced federal government and increased state rights, so I don't understand what their argument is, here. They have an existing state right to establish their curriculum standards at the state level, and if they don't like those standards, they can put forth proposed state legislation or a bring a lawsuit against their state that proposes to change their state's standards, but their local school districts are still responsible for satisfying their state's then-current standards until such time as they are changed, as a matter of law because this is a democracy, and that's how you change the rules if you don't like them in a democracy. If attempts to change the curriculum at the state level fail, one's recourse could include filing a lawsuit or running for public office to effect policies directly, not book bans and death threats.   This brings me to the actual strategy that is at play here, which is something I call the "Anger & Fear Engine." This goes to something that most people understand, which is the fight/flight/freeze mechanism. For many years, people only thought of the fight and flight aspects of it, and I suspect that's because they rhyme and it's easy to remember, but in all actuality, when an organism is threatened, it will actually either run away, fight to defend itself, or freeze and get either ignored or attacked. Plenty of people know what it's like to automatically freeze in a moment of surprise, especially if it's scary. The fight/flight/freeze mechanism is a very primitive neurological response that is normal in human development, and something humans share in common with almost all other living creatures.   Anger is generally a secondary response that puts one on the offensive after something has initially put one on the defensive. One gets mad when made to feel afraid, vulnerable, betrayed, insulted, offended, disrespected, rejected, inferior, etc. All of those things instantly make people feel bad about themselves, at least until they're done processing what is going on, at which point the fight/flight/freeze mechanism kicks in. Anger occurs along with the adrenaline rush that hits when that "switch" is "flipped" from feeling compromised to going on the offensive.   If you opt for fight, you've taken that defensiveness and flipped it to going on the offensive. If you opt to flee or freeze, the problem is likely to remain unresolved, at least temporarily. Sometimes you need to retreat and regroup before you know how to most effectively go on the offensive and fight back. Flight can serve a constructive purpose if it buys you the time to figure out what you need to do and what tools you will need to fight back and win. This is the primary reason why most of my clients do not sign agreement to any important documents when they are presented; we take our time to review them outside of any meetings when we have time to sit and focus on what they actually say before responding to them in writing with any signatures. Freezing may buy time if it doesn't result in getting attacked; if anything, it can buy time until an opportunity to either fight or retreat presents itself.   Dr. Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Those words entirely capture the amount of time it takes to do a good job of gathering the necessary data and documents to inform an appropriate program of instruction for a student with disabilities, much less engage in any enforcement mechanisms that might also be necessary to make that happen.   British film producer Peter Brook is quoted as saying, "Violence is the ultimate laziness." His point was that negotiations and adult-level problem-solving require a lot of serious thought that is based on a comprehensive-enough understanding of the underlying facts, which can take a long time, but bashing people over the head can take just a few seconds and you don't have to think that hard to do it. Violence is lazy because it doesn't include all the hard thought and collaboration that is required for peace. Have you noticed that the people who do the most complaining rarely have a workable plan to fix whatever they're complaining about? They exist to grieve, not resolve.   Fear can become anger very quickly, and becoming angry can instill fear in others, which can prompt them to become angry as well, hence the "Anger & Fear Engine." It's a common psychological response to threats, but uncontained anger and violence towards societies or specific members of society are the methods of barbarians. They are the methods of the lazy or incapable. Successful strategists can manipulate environmental factors according to best practices and the rule of law such that other people's behaviors are shaped and changed into something more conducive to a healthy, thriving community without any fighting at all, such as when policies and practices actually meet the needs of the people. Sun Tzu asserted in The Art of War that the most successful war is the war you prevent and never have to fight.   The problem, however, is that the dangerously large minority of people whose prefrontal cortices are something akin to cottage cheese literally lack the neurological hardware to understand how to participate in the adult-level problem-solving necessary to seriously address society's challenges. Legitimate parent advocacy requires a lot of research and writing according to science and law, not screaming in school board meetings, blocking the entrances of public libraries, or disrupting community-based literacy programs. Any organization that purports to engage in standing up for parents' rights should be actually participating in activities that involve the actual mechanisms of democracy, or they are just fundraising off the backs of people in need without offering real solutions and telling them the only solutions are harassment and/or violence. They are selling the lazy alternative to people who don't know how to engage in the real solution.   Moms for Liberty and organizations like it are not legitimate parent advocacy organizations. They do not assist parents in participating in the legitimate democratic processes and procedures that already exist to help parents uphold and enforce their rights. If anything, there is an effort by these groups to obstruct and/or subvert democracy at the local level by passing bigoted, unconstitutional local school board policies and aggressively attempting to uphold and enforce them, even if they are unlawful and unethical. The legitimate complaint and due process mechanisms available to parents are not utilized by groups like these, very often because they would not be successful on their merits for the types of undemocratic culture-war claims they want to assert.   It is so very important for parents to make sure that any outside providers they turn to for support are acting according to best practices and the rule of law, and are legitimately taking the needs of client families into account. Parents should be asking a lot of "how" and "why" questions as they learn how to exercise their rights under the law. The first question any parent should ask when embarking upon an effort to exercise their rights is, "May I please have a copy of my parent rights?" Start there and keep digging for more information if something doesn't make sense. Call your state's department of education and ask for explanations of things you don't understand about the rules and how you can legitimately participate.   If you think your local education agency needs better board leadership, run for school board yourself or support candidates who agree with you about compliance issues that affect your children and local community. The only way to preserve democracy is to participate in it, which means voting, running for office, and availing yourself of complaint and due process procedures as appropriate to each circumstance to create the changes in the world you want to see. Throwing a fit and demanding that everybody else force reality to bend to your will isn't democracy at all.

Based on the professional peer-reviewed research, intersectionality can be understood as the phenomenon in which an individual person's social position relative to more than one socially defining characteristic, such as race, language, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, etc., come together to simultaneously impact a person's status in and access to society at large. Where a person fits into the world is a matter of multidimensional considerations.   When looking at the question of whether the current mechanisms of our system of government, and the behavioral rewards inherently built into them, truly serve the good of the people according to the will of the people and the rule of law, the importance of intersectionality to the accuracy of our analyses cannot be overstated. There is no “silver bullet” that will eliminate all of our social challenges with a single shot. Solving our complex, interconnected problems takes complex planning and execution.   Society is a complex system of inextricably intertwined considerations that all have to be accounted for in order for everyone's needs and rights to be equally met. There are no cutting corners, and we now have the computing power to stitch together effective systems of equity for all into the ways our government functions, if the technology is just used the right way. The fail-safes that can be built in and the audit trails that would be automatically created would prevent and capture any attempts at abuse just as a matter of normal functioning.   We aren't there yet, but the application of enterprise-class computing technologies to the delivery of publicly funded services is inevitable, and it will streamline a lot of inter- and intra-agency operations, trimming the administrative fat within a lot of State and local publicly funded programs. Eliminating human error and dishonesty from a public agency's administrative processes prevents episodes of noncompliance that puts the agency in legal jeopardy.   I've told the story in past posts of the case in which one of my students went for months without a needed piece of equipment ordered by his Occupational Therapist (OT) as an accommodation for his sensory needs in the classroom, which meant he was up and out of his seat disrupting the instruction, because of an interpersonal feud between two mean old ladies who hated each other in administration. One of the mean old ladies worked at the student's local school site in the office, processing purchase requisitions and submitting them to the school district's main office to be processed into purchase orders.   Now, this was back in the day and all of this was done using paper and the district's own internal courier service, commonly referred to as “brown mail,” because most things came in those big brown manila envelopes. There was no email. If things needed to move faster than brown mail, it was done via fax. So, context.   The other mean old lady in this situation worked in the accounting office at the district offices. I'm not exactly clear on the details of why they hated each other so much, but I do recall that it had something to do with either a green bean casserole or a three-bean salad – I can't remember which – at some kind of district holiday party. Like, maybe both of them brought the same thing and it turned into a feud over whose was better, or something? I don't entirely recall the details, I just remember it was something to do with beans and a holiday party and that it was totally dumb.   The mean old lady at the district offices would sit on the purchase requisitions submitted by the mean old lady at the school site just out of spite, without any regard for the people who had submitted the requisitions to the mean old lady at the school site or any students who may have been impacted by her behaviors. The mean old lady at the school site wasn't willing to call over to the mean old lady at the district offices to find out what had happened to her requisitions, so she'd become hostile with the school site staff who would ask her where their stuff was. They became afraid to ask her where their stuff was, and just took it as a given that the average purchase would take at least 60 to 90 days before it came in.   Computers don't do any of that! As many concerns as we have about computers processing things correctly, that comes down to how they are coded. They aren't going to fight with each other over three-bean salads at a Christmas party and then undermine each other professionally to the detriment of the constituents they are being paid by the taxpayers to serve.   So, knowing that the implementation of the technology is inevitable, our job as informed voters and taxpayers is to understand what that technology needs to be able to do in order to truly perform according to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. That technology must account for how intersectionality impacts every person, whether staff, vendor, or constituent, who must participate in the execution of the government's responsibilities to the people.   This brings me to a very specific issue within special education in the State of California that has affected way too many families in a detrimental way, which is the intersectionality of the African-American experience with special education in the public schools. This is an under-researched and poorly regulated aspect of our current modern society, here in California, and as the State seeks to shore up democracy in spite of the many forces presently working to undermine it, I believe this specific instance of intersectionality particularly deserves the State's attention.   I'm speaking specifically of the long-outdated and now inappropriate Larry P. requirement. To quote the State:   "The Larry P. Case" In 1972 in the Larry P. case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that African American students in the San Francisco Unified School District were being placed into classes for “Educably Mentally Retarded (EMR)” students in disproportionate numbers, based on criteria that relied primarily on the results of intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that were racially and/or culturally discriminatory and not validated for the purposes for which they were being used1. In 1979, the court permanently enjoined LEAs throughout California from using standardized intelligence tests2 for (1) the identification of African American students as EMR or its substantial equivalent or (2) placement of African American students into EMR classes or classes serving substantially the same functions3. The court held that court approval would be required for the use of any standardized intelligence tests for African American students for the above purposes. The court laid out a state process for this.  The EMR category no longer exists. The court has never held hearings to determine the “substantial equivalent” of the EMR identification or placement, or whether IQ tests are appropriate for assessing African American students for identifications or placements other than the substantial equivalent of EMR. The state process to seek approval has not been invoked. Although the law on assessment has evolved, as described above, the Larry P. injunction remains in place, and the court retains jurisdiction over its enforcement. The Larry P. injunction does not apply to tests that are not considered standardized intelligence tests. Footnotes 1 Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306, 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1972). 2 The court defined a standardized intelligence test as one that result in a score purporting to measure intelligence, often described as “general intellectual functioning.”  Larry P., 495 F. Supp. 926, 931 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1979), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Larry P., 495 F. Supp. at 989.   Here's what everybody needs to get, and which way too many school psychologists and other special education assessors in California's school districts do not: Larry P. only applies to norm-referenced intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that result in a full-scale IQ (FSIQ) score. It doesn't apply to the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD) Cognition subtest. It doesn't apply to any standardized speech/language assessment measures. It has nothing to do with OT. It has nothing to do with measuring academic achievement using standardized assessment tools.   Unless the assessment measure is designed to produce an IQ score, Larry P. does not apply. But, I've now handled a half-dozen cases in the last couple of years in which the whole reason why the students' IEPs were poorly developed was because they'd been poorly assessed by people who didn't score any standardized measures for fear of violating Larry P. because they didn't actually understand the Larry P. rules. The professional development on this issue throughout the State is atrocious.   More to the point, the State needs to invoke its process to seek approval to now use the current, modern, unbiased IQ tests in the special education process, because the assessment failures caused by poorly trained cowards who don't have the sense to go onto Google and look up the rules themselves and/or push back against administrative supervisors steering them in a non-compliant direction are causing a cataclysm of disastrous consequences at the intersection of the African-American experience and childhood disability in the State's public schools. This just feeds these kids into the gaping maw of the School-to-Prison Pipeline.   I want to take it one more step further than that, though. I want to encourage more representation of the African-American community in special education assessment. I want to see more college students of color going into school psychology, speech/language pathology, OT, assistive technology, etc., so that they can be there to advocate from an informed, expert perspective within the system for the children from their own community who are at risk of being otherwise misunderstood by people who lack the perspective necessary to appreciate the long-lasting impacts of their assessment errors.   People who don't actually understand the rules can over-interpret them in an over-abundance of caution. They will not do more than what's actually been prohibited for fear of doing something they aren't supposed to, to the point that they're not doing what they are supposed to be doing. They go from one extreme to the other. In an effort to avoid committing a State-level Larry P. violation, they commit a violation of federal law by failing to appropriately assess in all areas of suspected disability according to the applicable professional standards and the instructions of the producers of the standardized measures used.   It's currently a “from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire” situation for the State that is wrecking lives and creating special education violations left and right. The State is setting up its public schools to fail at this particularly significant intersection of social factors, at the same time that the State is seriously considering reparations to the African-American community here in the State.   I promise you that none of the assessors I've encountered in the last few years who have been committing these Larry P. violations are actually trying to be hurtful. None of them know what they're supposed to be doing and they're making dumb errors in judgment, often under pressure from authoritarian administrators who don't know an IQ test from a roll of toilet paper.   I'm advocating, here, for both the development and implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies that will automate as much of the public sector's administrative functions as possible according to the applicable regulations, including mandated timelines, as well as for the State to request the court to reverse Larry P. so that schools are no longer enjoined against using current, valid, appropriately normed IQ tests in the assessment of African-American children in California for special education purposes. These two things matter to each other.   Larry P. is no longer a solution, it's a problem. It's not that assessors couldn't work around it; it's that they don't know how to work around it and they commit more errors trying to than anything that could possibly go wrong actually using an IQ test on an African-American student in this modern day and age. Further, the specific ecological factors that contribute to the success of students who are impacted by the intersectionality of their disabilities with other traits that can affect their social standing, such as ethnicity, need to be understood as specific data points worthy of intense administrative and policy-making examination.   As a matter of civil rights and monitoring its own internal compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, one would hope that a public education agency would want to know if particular classes of students are somehow being under-served and need more attention from the adult decision-makers involved in their educational experiences. Who is monitoring each school district's compliance with Larry P., right now? Is that the job of each district's 504 Coordinator? How is Larry P. compliance in the field such an issue, still, after all of these years and, more to the point, why is it even still a requirement after all of these years?   Analyzing data from an enterprise-class computing solution regarding intersectionality among special education students would help public education agencies recognize trends of noncompliance and programming failures. This would include rampant Larry P. violations producing shoddy assessments that result in poorly crafted Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) that fail to deliver appropriately ambitious educational benefits according to the current Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) standard pursuant to the 2017 Endrew F. Supreme Court decision.   Issues of intersectionality can be captured by competent data analysis, which can be greatly facilitated by properly coded enterprise-class computing technologies, and used to ensure that all students, pursuant to Endrew F., receive an IEP appropriately ambitious in light of their unique, individual circumstances. A properly configured system would be spitting out reports detailing the instances of noncompliance to the inboxes of the key decision-makers so they could respond as quickly as possible.   Had such a system already been implemented, the Larry P. violations I've encountered all over the State over the last couple of years would have been caught among all the others I haven't encountered and either rectified or prevented altogether by the State realizing what a colossal disaster Larry P. has become in the field and executing the process outlined by the Court to put an end to it. Were the State monitoring the right data points, it would have realized that Larry P. needed to be ended a long time ago and that it causes infinitely more problems than it solves because it forces assessors to assess African-American students differently than everyone else, which is not equal access.   Frankly, this lack of equal access is more discriminatory than using an IQ test could ever possibly be and becomes even more so when the quality of the assessments are compromised because the assessors don't know how to comply with Larry P. and they jack up their entire evaluations in the process. Jacked up evaluations lead to jacked up IEPs, which lead to the denial of educational benefits and all the consequences that these children will experience over their lifetimes as a result of being deprived of a FAPE.   The people who make these kinds of errors will be among the first to engage in victim-blaming once these students end up in the justice system, acting like it was unavoidable and inevitable, because they can't recognize or accept the degree to which they had a hand in making it happen. The people who do it on purpose hide among the people who don't know what else to do, fueling the victim-blaming, which becomes part of our current, exhausting, ridiculous, ongoing culture wars.   I would rather see Larry P. ended so that it's no longer creating confusion among assessors in the field and technology implemented that will identify when things like this are going on so they can be stopped early on. I would much rather monitor digital data as a compliance watchdog as I get older than have to go in, one kid at a time, to hold the public education system accountable to its mandates under our democracy's rule of law. So long as there is transparency in how the system operates and all the real-time data, other than anything personally identifying, is accessible to the public to be analyzed for compliance failures, technology stands to enhance the functions of democracy. But, it all comes down to how its coded.   I expect that watchdogs and advocates in the future will spend more time analyzing system-generated data than necessarily representing individual students, and that a healthier partnership between the public sector and the citizenry can evolve in which the user feedback shared with system developers and operators can be used to enhance its functions and allow each agency to serve its mandated purposes in a compliant manner that is both cost-effective and substantively effective.   The more that social and behavioral science is integrated into the policies, procedures, and applied technologies in the public sector, the more effective and efficient they will be. The more integrated the technologies among all of the public agency stakeholders, the more cohesive the communications and execution of time-sensitive tasks. I see a future in which systemic violations, such as rampant Larry P. failures, will trigger an examination of the intersectionality of disability and other social factors, such as ethnicity, on compliance and help identify when something like getting rid of Larry P. needs to happen sooner rather than later.   I see this Larry P. mess as yet another compelling argument for the implementation of enterprise-class computing technologies within public education administration. I hope the State is listening.

Click here for full text I'm long overdue to post new content to the KPS4Parents blog, podcast, and social media, but it's been a busy school year. The continuing fallout from COVID-related school closures that disrupted the educations of most children, and had even more profound effects on our learners with disabilities, has kept me busy. It's one of these COVID-related cases that brings me back to the blog and podcast today, because after over two years of waiting for a complaint investigation to get done that was only supposed to take 180 days, the United States Department of Education (USDOE), through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), finally concluded an investigation of Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD) and how it handled its students with disabilities during COVID-related school closures. To say I and the student's family now feel vindicated is an understatement. You can read OCR's findings and the resolution agreement that OUHSD entered into with OCR to resolve its violations by clicking here. I'm not going to belabor every little thing in those documents because they speak for themselves and you can read them at your own convenience, but I will summarize them, here. In short, not only did OCR find that the District violated my client's civil rights, it likely violated the rights of its other students with special needs by refusing, as policy, to provide any in-person disability-related supports and services during campus closures, even if they were necessary in order for the student to access learning. At the beginning of the pandemic, when the schools were first closed down here in California, the Governor's office understood immediately that our special needs students were going to be disproportionately affected by the school closures. With the new budget during the summer of 2020, the Governor committed $1B to cover compensatory education costs for students with disabilities who lost educational benefits during the school closures because they couldn't access the disability-related supports they needed in order to learn. Back in the Spring of 2020, right after the pandemic hit and the schools shut down, both the Governor and USDOE reminded the public education system that its legal obligations to its students with special needs had not changed in spite of the pandemic and that local education agencies should do everything possible to continue implementing services and supports to students with disabilities during campus closures. But, there was also that extra money set aside by the Governor to compensate students for learning they lost due to unavoidable losses of educational benefits and, presumably, if their local education agencies otherwise botched their pandemic response to the detriment of their kids with special needs. I've been negotiating Informal Dispute Resolutions (IDRs) to claims like these ever since in-person learning resumed, and I'm still dealing with the residual effects of the school closures across my caseload. Which brings me back to this most recent OCR investigation outcome. What OCR and OUHSD are now doing is working together to repair the harm done to all of the OUHSD students with disabilities at the time of the COVID-related school closures who did not get the services and supports they needed such that they are now owed compensatory education. This is a very big deal! According to the Resolution Agreement entered into by the District with OCR, OUHSD must send letters to every potentially impacted student and offer a meeting to determine if any compensatory education is owed to them and, if so, document how it will be provided. OUHSD is not being left to its own devices to determine whether it has met each affected student's needs; OCR will be overseeing OUHSD's implementation of these remedies to make sure they're done correctly. OCR will provide the technical assistance to OUHSD to help it clean up this mess and set things straight. In theory, my work here is done, other than to work with the family of the student for whom I'd filed the complaint to make sure she gets the compensatory education that she is now due. But, for all of the other OUHSD students and former students impacted by this outcome, I still have concerns. None of the other affected students and their families knew about this complaint. They're going to get a letter in the mail that they weren't expecting with an offer to meet with the District to determine if their kids are owed any back-due educational services and not necessarily understand what it is, why they are getting it, or how important it is. Today's post is about making sure that the other students who are impacted by this outcome get what they need and are due. I know that OCR will be working with the District to make sure that the families who avail themselves of the offer to meet regarding their possible compensatory education claims have a fair shot at getting the right stuff. I'm not as worried about those families. The families I'm most worried about are the ones who don't understand English and/or their rights. We have a fair number of households in the District in which the parents may not be educated sufficiently to understand what any of this is about. Unless they actually take the meeting with the District to learn more, OCR is not in a position to help make sure their kids actually get what they need. So, my goal with today's post is to make sure that all the affected OUHSD families are fully aware of what that letter inviting them to meet with the District to discuss compensatory education really means and that they take those meetings and get the remedies that are due to their children. We have to remember that we already paid taxes so these kids could get these services, and then that money was never spent on serving them appropriately during campus closures. This is about belatedly delivering the services that had been previously purchased by the taxpayers but never actually delivered to their intended recipients. The only part of this that brings new costs into the picture is all of the extra work that will now have to be done to help these kids recoup lost learning and catch back up after having been deprived of what had already been paid for in the first place. After all of the OUHSD students who were impacted by this outcome, my next concern after that is all of the other students throughout the County whose school districts also refused to provide in-person services during the COVID-related campus closures who were not similarly held accountable by their regulators. The California Department of Education (CDE) has done a shoddy job, in my experience, of addressing these exact same concerns in other area school districts. None of the school districts in Ventura County, to my knowledge, provided in-person services to any students with disabilities during the campus closures. In fact, I fought tooth-and-nail throughout the period of campus closures with a number of school districts throughout the State to address these same concerns. This instant OCR complaint was just one of many efforts I made to protect my kiddos during campus closures. One family was able to use their health insurance to get in-home ABA services so their child had 1:1 behavioral supports during distance learning, which was the only reason he was successful, but that was an isolated incident. Another family was able to negotiate a settlement agreement with their district to reimburse the parents for paying for a private aide to come to their house to support their child during distance learning, but that was, again, an isolated incident. Most of my students sat at home with their moms as their 1:1 aides, which either worked or didn't, depending on the student. If you look back through the content I created for KPS4Parents during the COVID-related campus closures, you'll see a lot of what I published back then had to do with the mandates that special education and other disability-related services were required to continue without reductions in services and supports. It's nice to know that the United States of America has our students' backs on that point, but they can't investigate the case of every student with disabilities in America. It took over two years to investigate just this one, although systemic violations were uncovered in the course of it doing so. I sincerely hope that the outcome of this investigation benefits not only the students of OUHSD who failed to receive appropriately ambitious educational benefits because of the COVID-related campus closures, but also similarly impacted students in all the other school districts that used the pandemic as an excuse to cut corners and not pay for services that were so seriously needed by so many students with disabilities. This outcome needs to impact more students with special needs than just those within the OUHSD attendance area. It needs to set an example. I find myself frequently telling people that the measure of whether a society is civilized or not goes to how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, and that special education law is the canary in the coalmine of American democracy. If we can't respect the civil rights of our children with disabilities, what does that say for the civil rights of the rest of us? School districts are not for-profit private businesses; they are government agencies funded to execute the functions of our society for the benefit of the public. We should be able to trust our local government agencies, including our local school districts, to abide by the rule of law. KPS4Parents is currently reaching out to various stakeholders in Ventura County to make sure that the other families affected by this outcome understand exactly what this is, how they are affected, and how to make sure their kids get what they actually need. If you are part of an affected family and need assistance with this process, KPS4Parents will do everything we can to support you, including putting you in touch with other advocates and attorneys if necessary to handle the sheer volume of families who may need this level of assistance. If you are part of another organization or agency that also serves students with special needs in Ventura County and/or their families, and would like to help area families navigate this process, please contact us and we'll get back to you as soon as we possibly can. It's exciting to be part of the solution, but the work is just getting started and our agency can't do it all alone. We're part of the larger community of loving, democracy-minded people who advocate for social justice issues. We need the help of our social justice partners to make sure all of these affected families are properly supported and served, and to help us generalize these remedies to benefit other similarly affected students in other communities. It takes a village, so I'm asking for the rest of the village to step up and help me help all of these other affected families, and for the families who are already experienced with this kind of stuff to help other families who might not be so savvy. This is an exciting time for systemic change, and I want families of children with special needs to feel empowered by this and set the example on how to participate in our democracy at the local level in a meaningful and impactful way. Bottom line, screaming at school board meetings about their personal beliefs and feelings gets parents nowhere, but regulatory complaints filed to enforce the rule of law can be everything.

To see the text transcription of this podcast, including links to content discussed, go to:  https://kps4parents.org/interview-of-rose-griffin-slp-bcba.

LAUSD Main Offices - Downtown Los Angeles   The school year hasn't even started yet and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second-largest school district in the country, has already hit the ground running with illegalities left and right, not the least of which is the systemic policy issue that I'm focusing on in today's post. It's hardly the only violation, but its a systemic one that stands to continue hurting a lot of children with disabilities, particularly our kiddos on the autism spectrum.   What I'm about to tell you would sound far-fetched if it was not for the fact that the United States is currently engaged in a soft civil war in which right-wing extremists are attempting to change us from a democratic republic to a ethno-religious dictatorship. The evidence indicates these decades-long plans were started at the local level in city councils, school districts, and various county agencies, then percolated upward into our federal agencies before culminating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection against our democratic republic.   The reality is that I've been dealing with these kinds of behaviors from local education agencies for the last 31 years, and there is no end in sight for many families in local education agencies as large as LAUSD. It's the Titanic, it's been on a direct course for an iceberg for decades, and it will collapse and sink under its own weight before too much longer at the rate it's currently going.   This is particularly the case as the pro-democracy backlash to recent fascist efforts to overthrow our system of government is gaining momentum as more and more high-ranking fascist individuals at the federal level face the consequences of their actions with the J6 Hearings and related Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations. When the example is finally set at the national level and all of those responsible for J6 are either behind bars or being pursued by the feds and Interpol after fleeing the country, the trickle-down of legal consequences to State and local government agencies that have been engaging in fascist practices all this time will be severe.   But, we're not there, yet. The only way to really get there is to make public what the heck is really going on so that taxpaying registered voters in Los Angeles can make informed decisions about the people they entrust with the responsibility of educating their children, particularly their children with disabilities. So, let me get into the actual issue to which I want to call immediate attention, that being LAUSD's unlawful and unethical method of conducting Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs), which it has implemented as a policy, district-wide, according to District personnel.     Title 34, Code of the Federal Regulations (34 CFR) Section 300.304 describes the parameters for how special education assessments are supposed to be conducted. 34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4) mandates the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education, which includes the assessment process. Taken together, these laws require that competent assessors acting within the scope of their qualifications conduct assessments according to the professional standards that apply to each of the various types of assessments being conducted, in conformity with the peer-reviewed research.   There is no standardized measure, like an IQ test, when conducting an FBA, though there are assessment tools and instruments that can help inform the process. Instead, the applicable science describes the types of critical thinking and lines of inquiry a properly trained behaviorist must apply when determining the function of a maladaptive behavior and the most appropriate ways of responding to it. The science used is referred to as Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA).   ABA is not a special education service, per se. ABA is the science behind effective behavioral interventions. ABA services requires scientists to think independently in applying the known science to the unique facts of each individual person assessed. It's not a paint-by-numbers, one-size-fits-all measure. It's not psychometrics in the sense that norm-referenced standardized tests will be administered to the student. It requires more thought and higher-level critical thinking skills than that, and the people who are certified to do it must prove their abilities to function that way.   There are no formal criteria for FBAs, specifically, but they are based off the Functional Analysis (FA) procedures developed by Dr. Brian Iwata and his colleagues in their published research. While being certified as a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) is supposed to confirm that a behavioral scientist is adequately qualified to analyze behavior, BCBA certification is not required in California for conducting FBAs in the special education context. Anyone who has gone to graduate school for a school psychologist credential should have theoretically been trained on ABA just as a part of their grad school education.   My master's degree is in educational psychology and I had to study ABA more than once during my higher education. It is not typically part of a special education teaching credential program, other than to mention that other professionals are available in the special education context to conduct FBAs and provide ABA-based behavioral interventions.   That is, except, in LAUSD, which is using special education teachers to conduct its FBAs. It will hire Non-Public Agencies (NPAs) that specialize in providing ABA services through and under the supervision of BCBAs, but it will not allow the BCBAs to actually conduct their own FBAs to inform their own Behavior Intervention Design (BID) services, which then compromises the quality of the Behavior Intervention Implementation (BII) services. This is a district policy, according to various LAUSD employees with whom I've been speaking about this since April, and they don't seem to understand why I have such an issue with it.   First, the 8th grade LAUSD student I'm currently representing in which this issue has come up has been "assessed" under this model since the 1st grade and he still has the same behavioral challenges today that he had in 1st grade. He's made no improvements and now he's over 6 feet tall. His toddler-like tantrums result in significant property destruction, which has only gotten worse as he's gotten smarter and bigger over time, and he puts himself and others at risk of injury when he throws them. Not only does LAUSD's method of conducting FBAs fail to comply with the applicable science and law, it does not work!   LAUSD's solution is to offer yet another illegal FBA conducted by an inexpert special education teacher who must then hand off their "data" to a BCBA who is then supposed to somehow magically engage in scientifically valid BID and supervise a Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) who is supposed to provide the BII in conformity with the plan designed by the BCBA. When I point out the epic failure of logic behind this practice to LAUSD personnel, I'm met with the Orwellian Doublespeak of corrupt District administrators and the blank stares of ineptitude and rote recitations of District policy from school-site personnel.   One school site administrator actually tried to get me to lie to the parent and trick him into doing something he otherwise was not inclined to do. I analyzed her behavior according to ABA standards based on what information I could gather and ultimately concluded that she's as stupid as she is corrupt; her behaviors were automatically reinforcing and externally reinforced by her employer, which appears to employ the dumbest people it can find in positions of authority well beyond their critical thinking abilities and professional skills so that they can be the clueless, easily manipulated henchmen of the mafiosos at the main office on Beaudry.   Basically, what we are dealing with here is science denialism and unconstitutional conduct on the part of public officials to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. LAUSD is the government, regulated by the rule of law and answerable to its local constituency, but the people generally have no voice against this behemoth of a self-serving institution, which is why I'm talking about it, here.   LAUSD is long overdue for a reckoning regarding its systemic illegal conduct across all aspects of special education, and it's probably safe to say that if the District is willing to compromise its most vulnerable constituents, that being children with disabilities, it's likely equally comfortable violating everybody else's rights, as well. I can't speak to the other social justice issues in which the District might be in the wrong, but it has historically failed on the special education front ever since special education and related civil rights laws were first passed in the 1970s.   Disability-related civil rights law is truly the canary in the coal mine for American democracy. The measure of how civilized a society is can be determined by how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, and children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable humans on Earth. If LAUSD is willing to treat children with disabilities this way, it's top administrators should probably swap out their dress suits for animal pelts so that their lack of civility is adequately conveyed. Otherwise, they're just wolves in sheep's clothing, preying our our most vulnerable children.   The Chanda Smith Consent Decree came after decades of unlawful special education conduct and was in place for decades thereafter in an effort to end the District's unlawful conduct, which it failed to do. The courts attempted to pull LAUSD out of the gutter with the consent decree, but LAUSD just pulled the courts into the gutter with it. An Independent Monitor was hired to oversee the consent decree until such time that LAUSD came into compliance with special education law, but that day never came.   Apparently, presuming that compliance would never happen, the Independent Monitor began engaging in equally corrupt behavior, assuming lifelong job security for so long as LAUSD continued to violate special education law and grifting the system by overpaying consultants who failed to make any kind of perceptible difference with respect to LAUSD's compliance. The Office of the Independent Monitor was shut down and the consent degree was closed out following an audit that revealed excessive unnecessary spending by the Independent Monitor that could not be related to the District's conformity with the consent decree.   Further, while it may be true that the District legitimately improved some of its special education programming, by no means had to come close to a reasonable degree of compliance, as evidenced by the number of families who have still had to file lawsuits to get services, and even that doesn't guarantee they'll get all of the right services for their children. Many get only some of the services their children need, making their IEPs as effective as watered-down penicillin in the face of a raging bacterial infection. For all the services they may actually get that they need, the absence of the other services they also need undermines any successes they may have in the areas in which they've actually received help.   Which circles back around to the question that serves as the title to today's post/podcast, which is, "Is LAUSD Run by a Fascist Mafia?" From the outside looking in, this seems to be a legitimate question.   Let's start with the fact that LAUSD hired computer coders to work with its in-house counsel decades ago to bastardize a piece of insurance software known as Welligent into its IEP software. As a result, LAUSD has basically bureaucratically obligated its school site personnel to break the law because of the software limitations of Welligent, or at least how it has been coded by the District, that fail to even offer compliant options to its users in many areas of special education.   For example, let's look at the assessment plan, redacted for privacy, that was offered to my current LAUSD student, which was generated from Welligent, and compare it to another redacted assessment plan for another student on my caseload in a different school district who also needed an FBA.   Example 1, below, is the assessment plan offered to my LAUSD student, and shows the FBA as an "alternative assessment" to be conducted by a special education teacher. "Alternative assessments" usually refer to non-traditional assessment measures or methods from those typically used in the place of standardized testing.   For example, using curriculum-based assessments in the classroom to gather informal data on actual classroom performance can be a more reliable method of assessing academic achievement than a standardized measure like the WJ-IV or the WIAT-4. None of this assessment plan makes sense with respect to the FBA.   Example 1 - page 1   Looking at the table of "standardized" testing from page 2 of this assessment plan, which is referenced by page 1, FBAs are not listed. Item 7 targets "Adaptive Behavior," but that goes more to independent living skills and self-care, like dressing, toileting, and navigating the school setting. FBAs do not fit that category and the LAUSD assessment plan has no category that FBAs would logically fit. This was a deliberate coding decision made in Welligent by the District that has absolutely nothing to do with adequately assessing children with special needs and offering them appropriate behavioral supports at school.   Example 1 - page 2   Example 2, below, shows a different student's assessment plan from a different school district. This assessment plan offers the student involved an FBA to be performed by the school psychologist in collaboration with a district behaviorist. This actually makes sense.   In this student's case, it turns out the special education teacher was the problem and she got reassigned to a different classroom. This student had gone without behavioral challenges until she was placed in this teacher's class, and the FBA made clear that the teacher was the one provoking the behaviors. Objectivity is one of the most critical aspects of science that must apply to special education assessments. Can you imagine if she had been trusted to conduct the FBA?     I can assure you the quality of the outcomes using appropriately qualified people who actually care makes all the difference in the world. Whereas our LAUSD student has historically been assessed according to plans virtually similar to Example 1, above, and has now gone for over six years with next to no improvements in his behaviors, our student from whose case Example 2 was taken is now thriving in school with no serious behavioral challenges of any kind.   To be clear, it's not like the student in Example 2 has never had issues with this school district. There were problems years ago when she was little that I had to deal with, but it had been smooth sailing until she ended up in that whacko teacher's classroom, last school year.   Because the student's behaviors were interfering with her learning, even though we suspected the teacher was likely the problem, we didn't go in accusing the teacher of anything. We simply asked for an FBA to get to the bottom of the behaviors and the next thing we knew the teacher was gone. The FBA report we got back was very well-written and explained the facts without demeaning the teacher or doing anything else unprofessional.   We hit a huge bump in the road that had the potential to go really badly, but the District in that student's case handled it professionally, compassionately, and responsibly. I've yet to see any of those qualities from anyone I've dealt with from LAUSD regarding my LAUSD student. The difference in handling is night and day, and I've caught both districts messing up before. The difference is that my other student was met with professionalism, while my LAUSD student is being met with science denialism and an utter abandonment of the rule of law.   It is this refusal to abide by science and law on the part of the second largest school district in the nation that raises the specter of fascism. It's all very "Marjorie Taylor Green-ish."   Consider that California has adopted the Common Core as its State Standards. The purpose of these standards is for our public schools in California to teach students how to use academic knowledge and skills to solve real-world problems, yet LAUSD doesn't use academic knowledge and skills to solve problems. It denies science and breaks the law.   How can people who deny science teach our kids to use science to solve problems? How can people who have abandoned the rule of law credibly teach social studies, particularly civics, and educate our kids to become knowledgeable participants in American democracy? How is this anything other than fascism and when are the feds going to do something about it?   I tried filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), but it twisted my words into a narrower complaint than what I alleged and then declined to investigate its twisted version of my allegations, which is a first for OCR with me, I have to admit, and it makes me fear for our democracy even more, now.   If OCR is too intimidated by LAUSD to investigate such that it makes up lame excuses as to why it shouldn't have to, how does that not also suggest the presence of organized crime within LAUSD so large and expansive that even the feds won't touch it? DOJ is a little busy with the J6 investigations, but I suspect all of this stuff in inter-related as multiple spokes of a wheel-and-spoke conspiracy to overturn democracy in America.   Remember that Betsy DeVos tried to shut down OCR after she was appointed Secretary of Education by the 45th President until she had the snot sued out of her and subsequently reinstated it. She also admitted that her goal was to abolish USDOE as the Secretary of Education; she took the job with the specific intent of shutting down the entire agency from within.   How many people from the last administration continue to poison the well at USDOE? It's the same question Americans have to ask about every single federal agency, but as pointed out in the above linked-to article from The Root describing DeVos' desire to abolish USDOE altogether also describes the conference at which she recently shared her continued desire to shut down USDOE as teaching far-right parents how to build conservative-dominated school boards in their local communities, ban books, and a host of other undemocratic activities intended to deny the civil rights of children with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, students of color, and students from other protected classes.   It's an anti-science, anti-democracy approach that includes anti-vax, anti-masking nut-jobs who are too dumb to know how dumb they are and/or are profoundly mentally ill, being manipulated by grifters like DeVos to vote against their own interests in favor of the interests of the grifters. It's the "have-nots" falling for the tricks of the "haves" who know the only way they can have way more than what they actually need is to make sure others don't have enough.   Today's post isn't about documenting how I've figured out a way to overcome whatever fascist mafia might control LAUSD. It's about exposing what I've witnessed and adding my voice and the voices of the LAUSD students who aren't getting what they need to the conversation in the hopes that it will spark others to also help hold LAUSD to account for its egregious violations of special education law.   I'm hoping that voters in LA will learn more about these issues, understand that special education social justice issues cuts across all other demographic groups, and no segment of society is safe for so long as our government is allowed to conduct itself in this way. If you are involved in any type of social justice issue in which LAUSD has engaged in discrimination and withheld services it is legally required to provide, consider getting involved with our Meetup Group, Social Justice Series - Everyday Local Democracy for All.   Our Meetup Group is not limited to people living within the LAUSD attendance area, but we certainly have Angeleños already in the Group. You can comment/DM us directly on Meetup or on our social media, or use our Contact Us form on our site with any questions/feedback. We don't have all the answers, but awareness is the first step to solving a problem, so we're starting there.

Pre-Order on Amazon   Anne Zachry 00:00 Welcome to Making Special Education Actually Work, an online publication presented in blog and podcast form by KPS4Parents. As an added benefit to our subscribers and visitors to our site, we're making podcast versions of our text only blog articles so that you can get the information you need on the go by downloading and listening at your convenience. We also occasionally conduct discussions with guest speakers via our podcast and transcribe the audio into text for our followers who prefer to read the content on our blog. Where the use of visual aids, legal citations, and references to other websites are used to better illustrate our points and help you understand the information, these tools appear in the text only portion of the blog post of which this podcast is a part. You will hear a distinctive sound [bell sound] during this podcast whenever references made to content that includes a link to another article, website, or download. Please refer back to the original blog article to access these resources. Today is April 28 2022. This post/podcast is titled, "Interview of Dawn Barclay, author of Traveling Different: Vacation Strategies for Parents of the Anxious, the Inflexible and the Neurodiverse." In this podcast, which was originally recorded on April 1 2022, Dawn and I discuss her book and the challenges that children with various special needs can experience when it comes to going places in the community, including travel and vacations.   Anne Zachry 01:28 Thank you so much for doing this with me. So, you know, just to get started, if you could just introduce yourself, and then tell us about the book you've written and more or less the core issue that you were trying to tackle with it.   Dawn Barclay 01:40 Okay, terrific. So my name is Dawn Barkley and I have written a book called Traveling Different: Vacation Strategies for Parents of the Anxious, the Inflexible and the Neurodiverse. I have been a travel writer for the past 30-some years. I specialized in travel trade writing. And when I needed a book like this back in around 2008-2009, there wasn't a book like this. So I wanted to write a book that would help the parents of children on the autism spectrum, as well as with mood and attention disorders. What I what I found was that the tips would help in a neurotypical family, as well. Anne Zachry 02:31 That stands to reason. I mean, that's one of the things that research bears out, that when we start creating accommodations for people with special needs, that it turns out that it benefits everybody. I mean, look how people are now using text-to-speech to text when they send their text messages, right, you know, and that was started out as an accommodation. And now just people do it because it's a convenience. And so it just becomes adopted as, "Well, of course. Why wouldn't you use a calculator?" And so that totally makes sense that you would find overlap there that, you know. When you're having to think very deliberately for someone who needs that level of deliberate thought in order to simply access the situation that, you know, it's also going to benefit other people. So that's an interesting finding that you've made.   Dawn Barclay 03:16 Well, I think it stands to reason also that when a child is taken out of their comfort zone, they can be anxious or inflexible, you know, everybody is a little out of it when they are out of their comfort zone. And children haven't experienced those transitions as much as adults ...   Anne Zachry 03:32 True.   Dawn Barclay 03:33 ... they really need ... It's great when people take the time to really explain to a child what's going to happen on a trip, or get them involved in the planning of a trip. So they have a vested interest in being successful. So little things that you can do like showing videos to a kid before they travel, so they know where they're going. It's not all super exciting ...   Anne Zachry 03:54 No, it's all it's all common sense stuff. But it's you know, when we're talking about our special needs kids, these are things we would write it into, like, into an IEP, an accommodation for priming or front-loading, you know ...   Dawn Barclay 04:06 Right.   Anne Zachry 04:06 ... to warn them of transitions ahead of time, to give them a visual schedule so that the ...   Dawn Barclay 04:11 Right.   Anne Zachry 04:11 ... daily routine is predictable. And you know, and it really goes to ... you're right, it's a fundamental human thing, that anxiety is about lack of predictability.   Dawn Barclay 04:20 Yes.   Anne Zachry 04:20 And when you don't know what is coming next, it makes you anxious. And so you know, we all have our ways of dealing with that. And when you're talking about kids, they haven't necessarily develop the repertoire of skills ...   Dawn Barclay 04:34 Right.   Anne Zachry 04:34 ... and certainly as you were talking about a kid with special needs, the speed with which they're acquiring coping skills may not be as quickly as, you know, typically developing kids who may pick them up through observation, whereas some of our kids may need to be explicitly taught.   Dawn Barclay 04:48 Yeah, you're totally on target. And that's what I found. And that's what a lot of the advice revolved around is how to prep the child for each different type of trip. Whether depending on mode of transportation, or whether it evolved through restaurant or camping, or going to a hotel versus a vacation rental, any type of situation they might be put into, "How can we prepare?" and, "How can we smooth the way?"   Anne Zachry 05:16 Yeah, so that you know what to expect, and you're not worried or freaked out and anxious. That totally makes sense. And yeah, and it goes to ecological control, too. And you said something interesting in your email to me when we were setting all of this up about how some kids may need to start small. And maybe it's not even like an overnight trip anywhere, it's like going to a garage sale, or, you know, just going through a novel environment of any kind. And just, it's a skill that needs to be generalized. And so what ...   Dawn Barclay 05:45 Yes.   Anne Zachry 05:46 ... what was, what were your findings with regard to scaling and in scaffolding the complexity of the outings?   Dawn Barclay 05:54 Well, I have devoted a whole chapter to starting small, because I think it's vital to preview what the trip is going to be like, before you actually do it. And you've got a lot of time and money and energy invested in it. And so a lot of it involved social stories, which I would imagine that ...   Anne Zachry 06:13 Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 06:13 ... you're familiar with.   Anne Zachry 06:15 Yep.   Dawn Barclay 06:16 And also videos. But even before all of that, to do something small, like you said, like maybe if you're planning a trip to Italy, you would have some Italian food and talk about currency, or maybe introduce some Italian words, and just try to teach children that there is life that out there that's different than the way they experience it, and just make it fun for them. But also, like you said, like a garage sale, or a trip to the post office, any trip, you can take a child on can be a learning experience, if you couch it that way.   Anne Zachry 06:55 Right.   Dawn Barclay 06:55 I mean, I take them to a bakery that specializes perhaps in you know, like an Italian bakery or German bakery. And there are things that they're not familiar with and little by little get them excited about maybe trying something new. Local festivals in your town might be a good short trip, or a zoo, or an aquarium. Any of those can start the child getting used to something that will involve maybe a tour later on, on a vacation. And you can always refer back and say, "Oh, remember when we went on that tour to the aquarium? You've sort of experienced that."   Anne Zachry 07:32 You can even create a social story about outings in general based on past experiences on a smaller scale like that, and take photos and then, "Okay, well, when we go on the big trip, we're gonna go to other places where we take a tour. You remember the rules for tours, right?" And ...   Dawn Barclay 07:48 Right.   Anne Zachry 07:49 ... and whip out that social story with pictures of them having successfully done it before, and it just reinforces "Oh, I can handle this." So I think that's really smart. Well, that's really clever stuff. Well, so can people ... where can people get the book? Is it on Amazon or other places? Where are you selling it?   Dawn Barclay 08:06 Right now it's on pre-order. It's coming out August 15. But it is on pre-order on Amazon, on the Rowman and Littlefield website, on almost any online retailer. And we're hoping that we'll be in libraries as well. Right now you can preorder in hardcover, or in audiobook.   Anne Zachry 08:27 Okay.   Dawn Barclay 08:27 The ... that ... you can't preorder the digital the ebook yet.   Anne Zachry 08:31 Got it. Okay. That's good to know. Well, we do have our own online store of books, that is really just Amazon, that we use for fundraising for our nonprofit organization and to put useful tools in the hands of the families we serve. And so if you're listed on Amazon, that's easy enough for me to just, you know, include you in there so folks can pre-order, so I'll be sure to do that. And then, yeah, and then we'll have a link for that to the post as well, so that people can just click right on over. In your situation, what you're doing is so elegantly simple. And so, you know, most brilliant things are. Because you're just ... you're whittling it down and distilling it down to, you know, you don't need to overcomplicate this. That's what freaking everybody out is it's overcomplicated in their mind, and it's too chaotic, and you're just, like, bringing it down to a succinct, "No, here's what's going on. Here's the predictable thing that you can expect." And you're taking something that's unpredictable and turning it something ... into something predictable and more easily managed emotionally for ...   Dawn Barclay 09:31 Yes.   Anne Zachry 09:32 ... for people who struggle with lack of predictability for, you know, for whatever reasons, which we all do to one extent or another. But I think that there's very definitely ... I know for my families that have to struggle every summer with, "Do we accept the offer of extended school year services from the school district, or do we send our kid to some kind of camp where they could potentially get more, or do we do a family vacation?" and, you know, "What if we want to do all three? And how do we schedule all of that?" And I think that your, you know, your bottom line point that as long as you're -predicting and you're front-loading and you're priming. And you're thinking deliberately about how you're going to pace everything that it can be done. And very often, you'll have kids who do extended school year to work on things like social skills, or their ...   Dawn Barclay 10:21 Yes.   Anne Zachry 10:21 ... you know, their communication and their behavior. Well, they can also work on those same things if they're in a national park, you know, listening to the park ranger explain how, you know, what to do if you see a bear.   Dawn Barclay 10:35 True, and there are special passes for those with invisible disabilities for national parks.   Anne Zachry 10:41 Yes, there are.   Dawn Barclay 10:42 I talk about how you get that, and I talk about camping as well. If you want to take a small trip that might start with an overnight in your backyard, just so you can test what camping is like ...   Anne Zachry 10:52 Exactly.   Dawn Barclay 10:53 ... and then how to gauge ... how to evaluate a campground ahead of time to make sure it's going to work for you. There's a checklist for that. There are checklists for if you're going to rent a vacation rental, things you should look for.   Anne Zachry 11:06 Oh, that's so huge.   Dawn Barclay 11:08 Yeah. And when you talk about hotels, another tip for starting small is maybe just spending a night at a friend's house with a guestroom ...   Anne Zachry 11:17 Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 11:18 ... the child can get used to just staying in a different location and sleeping, to see how they adapt to that.   Anne Zachry 11:25 That makes a lot of sense, that makes a ... totally makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I mean, it's the baby steps sometimes before you take the large leap.   Dawn Barclay 11:33 Yes.   Anne Zachry 11:33 And, yeah, and it's scaffolding, I mean, when you're when you're talking about instruction, when you've got a child whose functioning below grade level, you just don't hit them full force with the grade level content. You back up a little bit, and you teach the prerequisite skills that they need to master that might be at a lower level. But if you don't know that, the bigger thing is not going to make any sense, you know?   Dawn Barclay 11:55 Sure. Of course.   Anne Zachry 11:56 And so it's you have to take those baby steps and work someone incrementally towards their comfort level, and where they're at a place where they can master something new. And that's really what, you know, it's the same concept just applied to, you know, the real life situation of just going out in the world and participating. And, you know, it's not really about the academics per se, but the concept still applies to learning how to access the world around you. So I think that's, you know, obviously, it's a very transferable concept. And you've ... it sounds like you're applying it in a really smart way. I'm excited to see your book now that you've told me all these awesome things and planning the things that are in it, because I'm telling you, I have families who are like, "We don't know what we're going to do this summer." And a lot of families who are just like, "We're just not going to do anything, because it's too hard to figure it all out." But if there's something ...   Dawn Barclay 11:56 That's so true.   Anne Zachry 11:57 ... yeah, there's something they can use that will help ... because I think for a lot of moms in particular, it tends to be the case that moms are the ones saddled with the planning ...   Dawn Barclay 12:53 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 12:53 ... and the logistics, and getting everything together and organizing everything. And just the thought, I mean, I can feel my own heart palpitating. You know, I remember doing Girl Scout events and having to get all those things together. And I know what kind of anxiety is around being the planner.   Dawn Barclay 13:09 There's been a study where they interviewed 1000 families and, of the ones with special needs, 93% didn't travel but said that they would if they knew where to go and how to handle it.   Anne Zachry 13:21 Exactly. No, that totally makes sense. Well, I think, you know, this is a huge service for the community of families that we serve, this is definitely information that families need. So I'm excited to share it all out and see what the response is to it once it comes out. I mean that right now it's preorder so no one's it's not available for review at the moment. But it'll be exciting to see what people say once they've gotten a chance to look at it. How have the preorders been going? What kind of feedback have you been getting from people now that you're going around promoting it?   Dawn Barclay 13:51 Well, I don't get to see the preorder numbers. However, we did send it to some people ... early endorsements for the back cover. And I was very, very happy with what people had to say, especially people who had written books about autism, and they were very positive about it. So that made me feel good, because the only people who had really read it before that was my agent and my publisher ...   Anne Zachry 14:14 Right, on.   Dawn Barclay 14:15 ... you know, I really hadn't heard from the community. And when I heard from them, and they felt that this was a very helpful book that made me feel great, because if I get a letter from someone in the future, who's read this book and said, you know, "Because of what you wrote, we traveled and thank you because you opened up the world to us," that will have made it all worthwhile for me.   Anne Zachry 14:36 I totally understand that. I mean, that's as advocates, that's what we're doing is, we're in the business of opening doors for people who otherwise they wouldn't open for, and it is. It's incredibly gratifying to realize that, you know, even if it's something simple, but certainly when you put forth this kind of effort to know that other people are benefiting from it. Yeah, it's very ... it's just, you know, you're reason to get up in the morning. I get it, I totally get it.   Dawn Barclay 15:04 It's true, and there's so many people out there who don't know what the resources are, like there are certified autism travel professionals out there who have dedicated themselves to being able to plan trips for families ...   Anne Zachry 15:17 Holy Moly!   Dawn Barclay 15:17 ... on the spectrum, and there are different certification companies like IBCCES, and that stands for the International Board of Credentialing and Continuing Education Standards.   Anne Zachry 15:31 Right.   Dawn Barclay 15:31 ... IBCCES, they created the Certified Autism Centers, and they go around certifying and training different venues to know how to work with the autistic population. And that's so important, because then you have certain resorts who have dedicated themselves to training their staff to helping.   Anne Zachry 15:50 That is so cool. Well, it's interesting now that you're saying all of that, because separate from the work that we do through our advocacy organization, I also have a separate program that I created that we operate, called the Learn & Grow Educational Series, which is part of the ecotourism circuit, and we address food security and sustainable living instruction through project-based learning and modeling. So online and in-person teaching, and we've actually got a teaching garden in a space that we use to do that kind of instruction. And that's something that actually I'd be interested in doing is getting us certified that way, because I've already got the master's degree in educational psychology, I already serve people on the spectrum every day, I understand how to apply the science but having a certification that says, "Yes, Anne knows what she's doing," I can see the value in that as well. So that's really interesting.   Dawn Barclay 16:42 Yeah, I can certainly tell you who to speak to, because not only does IBCCES do it, sorry, I'm tripping over myself ...   Anne Zachry 16:50 No worries.   Dawn Barclay 16:51 ... there are other organizations that are also starting to certify, like the Champion Autism Network, there's Culture City, there's Sensory City, just a number of people who are taking up the cause. But of all of them, I believe IBCCES has been around the longest, and they have done the most work for the certifying ...   Anne Zachry 17:10 Right.   Dawn Barclay 17:10 ... if you go to autismtravel.com, you can download their most recent list their catalogue of different locations. And what I have done is combined a lot of what they've done with other autism friendly resorts and attractions. And you have to be very careful whether it's certified or autism-friendly, because these things always change ...   Anne Zachry 17:34 Right.   Dawn Barclay 17:34 Certifications change. In fact, the new catalog just came out in there are some that are not in my book. And that drives me crazy. So I'll be running the Traveling Different blog that will update my book. That's the only way I can live with myself.   Anne Zachry 17:50 I totally get it. Yeah, because once it's printed, you're like, "Oh!" and then things change.   Dawn Barclay 17:56 "Ahh! I don't have that one." But what's also important is, and I mentioned that several times in the book is if you see something that says "autism-friendly," you have to do your due diligence. You have to call them or write to them and find out exactly what that means. What is their training entail? What have they actually done? Because it means different things to different suppliers, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be right for you. And also then you might be autism-friendly on the weekend, or on certain days in the month. That doesn't mean that they're always gonna have like autism-friendly days or low-sensory days at a museum every day.   Anne Zachry 18:33 Right.   Dawn Barclay 18:34 It might be one Saturday, a month. You have to be careful.   Anne Zachry 18:36 Right. No. And I know that in the greater Los Angeles area, and that the museums and the different aquariums and things that they'll have those types of events, but you're right, it's scheduled. And it's only like once a quarter or once ... Yeah, so you have to, it's not like they're just going to accommodate you like that on the fly necessarily. So ...   Dawn Barclay 18:37 Right, you have to make sure that it's going to happen while you're there. What I've also done in the book that I think it was very important I thought for me is I think most people with children on the spectrum know that they can obsess about a specific topic for up to 16 hours a day. It's their life.   Anne Zachry 19:13 Yep.   Dawn Barclay 19:13 So what I've included is a whole list of museums for special interests that are not necessarily autism-friendly, but they're going to be autism-friendly for your child because your child is going to be so thrilled to be there, that it might help overcome other obstacles ...   Anne Zachry 19:29 Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 19:29 ... like flourescent lighting or other sensory issues because I think there'll be so excited that here ... like I talked about one child that was ... I don't know if they were in Montana or somewhere in that area ... and there was a mustard Museum, and the kid was crazy about mustard and only talks about his how his parents took him to this museum. So museums all over the country. So say you happen to be going to Cleveland and your child is interested in something you know some oddball ...   Anne Zachry 19:58 Yeah, area of interest. Yeah.   Dawn Barclay 20:01 ... and that would turn the whole business trip into a really memorable trip for your child because you engaged in their interests. And the trip has to be child-centric. And once you get, you know, that idea that we're going to build it around the child, I think everything starts to fall into place. So I do include a very large chapter about that, as well as ways to find other museums.   Anne Zachry 20:23 That is so cool, this is really interesting, I'm really looking forward to seeing the book when it comes out. Thank you so so much for tackling this, because you're right, this is ... this has been an area sore need for a long time. And you do have to have that blended knowledge of the travel industry and be a travel insider to be able to speak to what all these different places can do and what your options are, and how you go about asking for those kinds of things. But you have to understand what the needs are in the first place to know that you need to ask, and so, you know, you're in this nexus between the travel industry and the disability community, you know, making those connections between where the needs of one overlap with the abilities of the other to serve. And ...   Dawn Barclay 21:11 Well, and it does take a village right?   Anne Zachry 21:11 So, but you know, it also takes somebody to be that person who ties it all together and, you know, puts it down in writing for everybody to use in the, you know, your role is very significant in that because even though all of these people may have possessed all of this disparate knowledge, it needed to be distilled down into something that the lay public could access and make use of, and that's where you basically act as a scribe and made that happen. So I think that that's a gift to be able to take what you already know, and connect with the ... with people who are going through these unique circumstances, and be able to create a tool like this. So this was really exciting stuff. Thank you so much for doing the work.   Dawn Barclay 21:11 And I thank goodness for the people who contributed to this book, because this isn't my story, this is the culmination of over 100 interviews with parents, with certified autism travel professionals, with health professionals like Tony Atwood and Dr. Ellen Lippmann, and different organizations, and different advocates and allies, and all of them taught me so much. And that's what ... I couldn't have written the book without them.   Anne Zachry 21:39 Thank you.   Dawn Barclay 21:39 I learned so much. I mean, I would have never known that there were therapeutic aspects to diving vacations, or to golf vacations, or to skiing, and there's so much out there for this population now, because everybody is trying to be so much more inclusive than they were before.   Anne Zachry 22:35 Right.   Dawn Barclay 22:35 So it's just fascinating that you can go to a dude ranch, and there are ones that will cater to your child, or you can go to rent a house boat, we should really know the safety measures that are involved in that or if you want to rent a yacht, because, you know, if you rent a private boat, you certainly have enough room to bring along friends or family that can help take care of the child. So it's not only on the parents.   Anne Zachry 23:01 Right, no that's a really good point, too.   Dawn Barclay 23:04 ... all kind of gels together.   Anne Zachry 23:06 That's really interesting. Now, I will say that a lot of our families are not going to be renting yachts anytime soon. I mean, a lot of folks, you know, what isn't appreciated very often is the added expense that comes along with parenting a child with special needs, and that, you know, even a middle class family can find themselves struggling just because of those added expenses. So I think that the ... you also, you know, talking about these other options, and that where you start small at a more local level, still builds the skills and still gives them that exposure, even if you know, we're not going to go to Europe this summer, but we're you know, maybe we're gonna go, you know, we're going to drive for six hours and go stay with aunts and uncles in another part of the state, you know, and, and so whatever the scale of it is, really, it comes down to the experience for the child and the predictability of it. And having your ducks in a row in terms of, like you said, planning it and making a child-centric plan about how you're going to handle your trips, which I think is really smart. I mean, it's not about saying that any one person is more important than everybody else; it's just saying that this person's needs are going to be the most demanding ones we need to accommodate, and at minimum, we need to make sure we take care of x, y and z. And then we can take care of everything else around that and you know, you get those those the hardest things you're going to have to accommodate out of the way and then everything else is easy going forward. So ...   Dawn Barclay 24:32 Right, and I agree with you, not everybody can afford a yacht. I certainly can't. I do spend a lot of time talking about car travel, bus travel. I talked about how the Autism on the Seas Company has a scholarship or a grant for people who can't afford to sail on their own ...   Anne Zachry 24:51 Right on!   Dawn Barclay 24:51 ... if they want to take advantage of an autism cruise. I do talk about how to handle restaurants and how to do camping, so I do include all that information and I'd like to think that this book can help people from, you know ...   Anne Zachry 25:05 From across ...yeah, across the socio-economic spectrum.   Dawn Barclay 25:08 Yes.   Anne Zachry 25:08 Yeah, because you were talking about camping and things like that. And I'm thinking to like, even if you do make it to Europe, maybe you're not going to rent a car, you're going to be using public transportation.   Dawn Barclay 25:17 Right.   Anne Zachry 25:18 And you know, and you're gonna be using a Europass, or whatever. And so, yeah, so there's a lot of things that have to be factored in. And everybody's situation is unique. And yet there's these things in common that, you know, these unifying factors that if you just attend to these details, then all of the things that are unique, will still be manageable. So ...   Dawn Barclay 25:39 And also, like, how to keep safe, how to make sure you don't lose your child, and safety measures to take. All information like that. That's so important to have.   Anne Zachry 25:47 That's so huge. Absolutely. My goodness! Well, this was just a very enlightening conversation. I really appreciate you sharing all of this with me. I'm looking forward to sharing your information with everybody and hearing what they have to say about it.   Dawn Barclay 26:01 Absolutely. My pleasure. Thank you so much.   Anne Zachry 26:03 You're so welcome.   Anne Zachry 26:04 Thank you for listening to the podcast version of interview of Dawn Barclay, author of Traveling Different: Vacation Strategies for Parents of the Anxious, the Inflexible and the Neurodiverse. KPS4Parents reminds its listeners that knowledge powers solutions for parents and all eligible children, regardless of disability, are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. If you're a parent, education professional, or concerned taxpayer, and have questions or comments about special education related matters, please email us at info@kps4parents.org or post a comment to our blog that's info at "K" as in "knowledge," "p" as in "powers," "S" as in "solutions," the number "4," "parents," P-A-R-E-N-T-S dot O-R-G. We hope you found our information useful and look forward to bringing more useful information to you. Subscribe to our feed to make sure that you receive the latest information from Making Special Education Actually Work, an online publication of KPS4Parents. Find us online at KPS4Parents.org. KPS4Parents is a nonprofit lay advocacy organization. The information provided by KPS4Parents in Making Special Education Actually Work is based on the professional experiences and opinions of KPS4Parents' lay advocates and should not be construed as formal legal advice. If you require formal legal advice, please seek the counsel of a qualified attorney. All the content here is copyrighted by KPS4Parents which reserves all rights.

Anne Zachry 0:00 Welcome to "Making Special Education Actually Work," an online publication presented in blog in podcast form by KPS4Parents. As an added benefit to our subscribers and visitors to our site, we're making podcast versions of our text-only blog articles so that you can get the information you need on the go by downloading and listening at your convenience. We also occasionally conduct discussions with guest speakers via our podcast and transcribe the audio into text for our followers who prefer to read the content on our blog. Where the use of visual aids legal citations and references to other websites are used to better illustrate our points and help you understand the information, these tools appear in the text-only portion of the blog post of which this podcast is a part. You will hear a distinctive sound [bell sound] during this podcast whenever reference is made to content that includes a link to another article, website, or download. Please refer back to the original blog article to access these resources.   Anne Zachry 0:58 Today is March 31 2022. This post in podcast is titled, "Interview of George Bailey, president of ZPods." In this podcast, which was originally recorded on March 23 2022, George and I discuss the impact of sleep disorders and related conditions that interfere with children's access to education and the research being done into his company's sleep solutions for children with autism, sensory integration disorders, insomnia, anxiety, and other disorders that can negatively impact their sleep quality.   George Bailey 1:29 Hi, I'm George Bailey, and I'm president of ZPods. We're a startup in St. Louis, and we are developing sensory-friendly beds for autistic children and others who have severe sleep problems that are caused by sensory issues. So, our goal is to help out as many of these kids as possible. We enjoy it … and, uh, yeah.   Anne Zachry 1:54 That's very cool. And I know that when I was emailing with you guys back and forth, when we were coordinating all of this, you know, my first question was what kind of peer reviewed research do you have behind what you're doing? Are you doing any kind of studies? And, I understand that, not only are you … because you were just telling me that you've got a regional center here in California that's already funded your product for one of its consumers, and they're not going to just jump on something unless there's evidence to back it up. But I know that you guys are also participating in some evidence … some studies and whatnot to collect the hard data that speaks to not just whether or not it's effective, but what makes it effective. How is it effective? And what is the science that underpins what it is that you're doing? And so I was hoping to get more information about that from you guys, in terms of what's … what's the research currently being done on the efficacy of your solution?   George Bailey 2:44 It's such a good question. And, you know, I was just telling somebody earlier that one of the reasons why it took us a while to get around to really focusing on autism … we were thinking about, like, you know, "Where we should go?" … is because when people would tell us, you know, look at autism, early on, as we were trying to find an application for sleep pods that were great. We were bringing it from China, I balked at it. I'm a father of five. And I have two kids on the spectrum. And I thought like, "Ah, come on guys," … like, parents of autistic children get all sorts of stuff.   Anne Zachry 3:19 Oh, yeah, for sure.   George Bailey 3:20 … business. Yeah. I don't want business on playing on people's hopes and stuff like that. And so I, initially when I approached him, and said, "Okay, I want to take this serious, because we're getting that feedback that says we should do this." But I started talking to experts, and with parents of autistic children, and interacting with autistic children of my own. And the feedback was a resounding, "Please try it." And I think that … so, I'm going to answer your question two parts: I think that there's an intuitive evidence and I think that there's going to be actual evidence and the intuitive of evidence is kind of based on all of our collective experience.   Anne Zachry 3:59 Right, the anecdotal data. Yeah.   George Bailey 4:00 Yeah, yeah. There's some heavy anecdotal evidence that's seems to say, like, these children really value … they have the same needs as if … in that there's, kind of, like, one type.   Anne Zachry 4:11 Right. There's no monoliths, but, yeah, kids with similar needs. Yeah.   George Bailey 4:15 Yeah. These kids tend to love sleeping in the closet, under the bed, up against the wall, and … there's something that's like it. And there was enough there for us to see, so there was something there. But, all of the things that, kind of, come together out of this bed, it was not built for kid's processing, initially. It was just, like, an enclosure with some LED lights and some fans and a mirror, and all of those elements, when combined together, seemed to form this really fantastic environment. And if you were to take any one of those things, separately … study this out and find some interesting things. Like for example, when you enclose somebody, then you give them darkness … well, darkness is heavily prescribed for good sleep hygiene.   Anne Zachry 5:06 Right.   George Bailey 5:06 … darker or something like that. It's separate, but the enclosure itself provides almost like a sensory …   Anne Zachry 5:12 Right.   George Bailey 5:13 And, then, LED lights, you know, again, heavily used in the sensory, or special needs community …   Anne Zachry 5:22 Right.   George Bailey 5:22 Heavily used. And so all of these things … Now, where we're at with clinical trials is that we've been in touch with the folks at the Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders.   Anne Zachry 5:27 Um-hmm.   George Bailey 5:37 The lead clinician for this project is going to be Dr. Christina McCrae, who is published widely on autism and sleep, and that was a must. We needed somebody to do … to ask the right questions …   Anne Zachry 5:48 Right.   George Bailey 5:49 … not do what we say. I am trying my best to remove myself from the academic questions as much as possible to just, kind of, stand back and let them do their work.   Anne Zachry 6:01 Right.   George Bailey 6:01 Because, it needs an honest assessment. That was my stance from the beginning, is that, if were going to go into this, here's how we're going to look at it: We're going to find out what's true. And what's true may not be as flattering as what we'd like, or maybe it'll be moreso. Maybe it will be better than, you know … maybe we're not being optimistic enough? I don't know.   Anne Zachry 6:20 Right.   George Bailey 6:21 … but if we learned that "X" works … and we will continue to do facts …   Anne Zachry 6:25 Exactly!   George Bailey 6:26 … if we can say, if we learned that, "Y" doesn't, then we will also chalk that up to success and say we're going to stop doing "Y." And if we learned that we should probably … there's an implication here that we should be trying "Z," then we're going to start pursuing that. We're not …   Anne Zachry 6:43 Right.   George Bailey 6:43 … because I think that it requires that kind of mentality to really test this out. So …   Anne Zachry 6:49 Well, yeah. I mean, any kind of solution requires that kind of mentality. That's just common sense. Which, you know, we also call scientific method.   George Bailey 6:59 It's hard to do this in our community. When you're an entrepreneur, you're hustling and you're getting out there. You're constantly … you just gotta, you know, sell, sell, sell, and you got to pitch your brand, bla bla bla. But you got to break out of that sometimes and just listen to what is being told to you.   Anne Zachry 7:19 Right.   George Bailey 7:19 And sometimes even … sometimes that's hard, but you put your heart and your mind to it and your … and your money, as well. It's very difficult, but at the same time, if you listen, then the rewards in terms of, kind of, like, personal satisfaction that you are doing right by the people that you're trying to serve … Pretty tremendous!   Anne Zachry 7:40 Yeah, and I have to agree with that. Well, and what you're making me think of is that the psychology of sales and marketing is the exact same science as the psychology of good instruction. It's … it's all the same thing.   George Bailey 7:52 Yes!   Anne Zachry 7:53 It's all the same thing. And so, what you're doing is … when you're doing … there's the, you know, the snake oil salesman, kind of, "I'm going to sell ice cubes to Eskimos and get people to part with their money for things they don't need." But then you also have consultative sales, which is responsible sales, where you're actually … you're not out there selling, you know, product features, you're out there selling solutions to people's problems. And you're … you're approaching it from the standpoint of, "What is your situation and do I have something that will help you?" And if you do, then what you're really doing is you're not selling the product, you're selling the solution, and the product just happens to be the means to that end. And that's a more authentic thing. And you build relationships with people. And it requires you to listen to what their needs actually are. And this is what they've been, you know, all these sales classes, they have people take, this as the message, and this is what you're doing. But it's also exactly the same thing as when you're trying to identify an IEP solution for a kid. You've got to pay attention to what's going on with the kid as a unique individual and match the solution to the actual need. And so there really is no difference between consultative selling and IEP development when you're talking about matching solution to need. And …   George Bailey 9:11 I love that perspective. And, you know, it's interesting, because I found myself in a few situations where I've actually explicitly told the parent, "I don't think we're a good fit for you." And I feel like … it may feel like a, kind of, short-term security to be able to say, like, "Yay!" You know, "We sold another bed."   Anne Zachry 9:30 Right.   George Bailey 9:31 But, it's a long term hurt on the brand. If you really are trying to establish yourself, it's like, we don't make scientific claims. No matter what, here's the crazy thing. It's like no matter how many times I say that we are not making medical claims …   Anne Zachry 9:48 Right.   George Bailey 9:48 … there will be parents who read onto what we're our saying medical claims …   George Bailey 9:53 Right.   George Bailey 9:53 … because hope springs eternal and they're looking for a solution and this sleeplessness … sleeplessness of their child is causing them genuine distress.   Anne Zachry 10:05 Right.   George Bailey 10:06 When a child's not sleeping with the entire family has suffered.   Anne Zachry 10:09 Exactly!   George Bailey 10:11 And so you have to be really careful to kind of repeat that again and again. But at the same time, there's the kind of the other interest … is that you also want to make sure that you get it out there, because you rely on those early adopters who are like, really like, they'll take a risk.   Anne Zachry 10:28 Right.   George Bailey 10:28 I love those people. I am not an early adopter, okay, I wasn't on Facebook until 2011. I'm the last kid on the block buy the new thing. But the early adopters, one of the things whether they succeed or fail with your solution, they give you information, that it's very valuable, you have to respect that …   Anne Zachry 10:52 Absolutely!   George Bailey 10:53 … going back to your sales mentality, I think you're right, I don't think that it's always true. I've seen salespeople, huge tricks of the trade that I personally find to be manipulative …   Anne Zachry 11:07 Right.   George Bailey 11:07 … but I used to be a foreign language instructor …   Anne Zachry 11:12 Hmmm.   George Bailey 11:12 … for nine years. And it was really fun. I loved that time in my life, where I got to teach, and there was always, kind of, the part of explanation.   Anne Zachry 11:24 Yep.   George Bailey 11:25 You know, where you had to learn to, kind of … and a lot of the explanation that I did was kind of fun, it's a little bit off topic, but you know, I taught Mandarin Chinese, first year. And that was very fun. And, the way that we would explain things … we were told by the teacher that we worked with, I was a teacher's assistant that also taught courses, you're not going to use English to teach Chinese, you're going to use Chinese to teach Chinese.   Anne Zachry 11:49 Right.   George Bailey 11:50 So, there was a lot of need to be able to be empathetic with my audience. When I was looking at 20 of my students saying, "Wǒ" (我) which is the Chinese word for "I" or "me," that I'd have to see, are they really getting it? And I think that with the art of sales, you have to really listen to people.   Anne Zachry 12:10 Yeah.   George Bailey 12:11 And the better you are at listening to people and their needs, I think the better you're going to convey, like, that … that you really care and that you're ready to solve a problem and not just, like, you know, get … sell snake oil.   Anne Zachry 12:24 Right. Well, again, I relate it back to … everything back to IEPs, because if you think about the IEP process, it's the same thing. You can't write an IEP, an individualized program of instruction for somebody, unless you listen to what their needs actually are. There's not a one size fits all. That's called Gen Ed.   George Bailey 12:45 Yes, yes.   Anne Zachry 12:46 You know, and, and so, you know, general education is the assembly line. And special ed is the custom shop.   George Bailey 12:55 You know, I really agree. We've worked with some IEP experts with my oldest son, Joseph. And I was always really touched. When I felt like they were taking the time to listen to me. And when they were really looking at my son and his specific needs, and so that's, you know, it's a labor of love. And it's really critical to look at each child as an individual.   Anne Zachry 13:20 And, it's required by law for that reason.   George Bailey 13:23 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 13:26 So yeah, so I mean, I realize there's overlap, you know, all these processes and procedures that everybody's using … it's interesting that no matter what outcome you're trying to achieve, very often there's a similar formula to how you make it happen. And there's always a needs assessment. And then there's a matching of solutions and need.   George Bailey 13:44 A situational analysis.   Anne Zachry 13:45 Yeah. And so, I mean, it's, again, you know, it's common sense, otherwise known as scientific method. But, well, this is very interesting. So what, what kinds of … what kinds of responses have you gotten from the families who are using the ZPods?   George Bailey 14:02 So, we've got both the responses that have been highly favorable, and some that have been like, "Meh," you know, but even with that, what we've never gotten .. what we've never heard from a single parent is, "My child does not like your bed." We may have gotten responses like, "Your assembly instructions need some real clarity and they're very inconvenient," like, you know, we've gotten that …   Anne Zachry 14:25 Right. Technical stuff.   George Bailey 14:27 … from the parents, but the one universal is, "Our kids love, love your bed." And then we've had another set of children where it's like, minimalist a fact that they love it; they use it as a chill space. Right?   Anne Zachry 14:40 Right.   George Bailey 14:41 And then we've had a very large number of parents and again, I hesitate to get the numbers. I'll give you what numbers I can, to be as, kind of, precise as possible. And we've worked between … with between 60 and 70 families, okay. And that number is always increasing and that there's been a very high degree of customer satisfaction and a consistent feedback from families like, "Wow, my kid's doing things that I've never seen the kid do before," We've had, for example, one of my favorites was Dawson, a six-year-old boy, who, after a week of sleeping in our bed, the … first of all, the immediate result was that his sleep jumped from roughly two or three hours a night to about eight hours at the very least.   Anne Zachry 15:28 Praise God! That by itself is worth it.   George Bailey 15:30 Yes, that by itself is already worth it. But then, the, kind of, double validation came a week later, when the school teacher for Dawson pinned down the mother and said, "What are you guys doing different?" Because that was unsolicited.   Anne Zachry 15:49 Right.   George Bailey 15:50 One of the things we have to be really careful about as we study this is that parents who take the time and the trouble to purchase one of our beds have a bias towards believing that they made a good decision.   Anne Zachry 16:03 Right.   George Bailey 16:05 And, I don't want to manipulate that. We want them to be happy, naturally. We want them to feel like they made a good decision. But I also acknowledge that bias that they have. So, when it comes to the third parties that come in and say, "Wow, I've seen some really, really great improvement," … but we've seen that a fairly large number of cases where we'll have like an OT say to parents, "This bed has been a game-changer," things like that.   Anne Zachry 16:32 Right.   George Bailey 16:33 And, in Dawson's case for the teacher to come up without knowing that there was a change in his sleep, but just saying, "This kid is more alert, more focused." And, incidentally, in his particular case, there was talked amongst the parents about the possibility of institutionalizing him.   Anne Zachry 16:50 Right.   George Bailey 16:50 Because it was that bad.   Anne Zachry 16:52 Yeah.   George Bailey 16:53 And, Dawson's not a bad kid. We know that. But, anybody who is under-slept so severely is going to have severe behavioral problems.   Anne Zachry 17:05 Right.   George Bailey 17:06 Sleep has incredible value for for the brain, for the body, you know, for cognition. it's just …   Anne Zachry 17:14 … it's neurologically necessary.   George Bailey 17:17 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 17:17 And it's a … it's part of human survival. You have to go through that or you will … it will make you literally ill. And …   George Bailey 17:25 And it sounds kind of funny, like trying to sell sleep. We're not selling sleep, per se; it's that we're selling something that we hope will cause more sleep. But it's almost a little bit kind of funny to hear myself, like, "Aww, now I've become one of those sleep preachers!" I keep reading these books about sleep, and I'm, like, these guys are all … dealing with sleep and saying the same thing. It's almost like talking about water.   Anne Zachry 17:48 Right.   George Bailey 17:49 "Did you ever see the rejuvenative powers of water? It's incredible!"   Anne Zachry 17:56 I know you … you really have hit on a very fundamental, visceral, survival-level kind of need that sadly enough in our society is neglected. And, you know, and you're … you're looking at, "Okay, how do we address this fundamental survival need, and these individuals who are struggling with this who … and are compromised?" And so I think that … I mean, I'm always excited to see new stuff. And anecdotal evidence is always a sign that, okay, we need to look into this a little bit more deeply to see, you know, what makes us you know, for real, so I'm always happy to hear that, you know, with stuff like this, the early adopters are like, "Oh, no, this seems to be doing a thing." And all of it makes sense. I mean, logically, and intuitively, you're right, it all logically makes sense. But it's still going to be interesting to see what kind of research data comes from it and you know, … maybe some grad school student will latch on to it and want to write a paper or something. You just never know, and so …   George Bailey 18:54 And, that's what we're encouraging constantly. It's that we want it to be subjected to scrutiny, empirical data, empirical study and and we also want to urge all companies out there that are trying to provide a solution for the autism community to find ways to get at third parties that are impartial to come in, because you only stand to gain …   Anne Zachry 19:19 Right.   George Bailey 19:20 … you may not hear what you think you hear; you may not hear what you want to hear, but you are going to hear what is going to be beneficial.   Anne Zachry 19:28 Right. Once you know what you're working with, you can say, "Okay, well this is what I know I can do and I'm gonna stay in my lane and do only that," you know? "I'm not gonna try and be everything to everybody," and there's … there's a lot of value in that …   George Bailey 19:49 And, we don't want that, either. You know, there's this temptation to kind of overplay it, like, "Hey, you know this is going to do "X" and "Y" for the kid's autism," but you don't know, it's gonna be different for every kid, and it's going to … whatever your child needs is going to be a very large combination of things. We are one part of a very, very complex puzzle of sleep …   Anne Zachry 20:03 Right.   George Bailey 20:04 There are physiological components to it, you know, some people can't sleep because like internal parts of how they function.   Anne Zachry 20:13 Right.   George Bailey 20:13 Others that they're … it's just a matter of really good sleep hygiene. Some have a more selective sleep hygiene, which is kind of where we play …   Anne Zachry 20:20 Um-hmm.   George Bailey 20:22 … where they really need the aspect of enclosure, I don't need to be enclosed in something to feel safe.   Anne Zachry 20:30 Right.   George Bailey 20:31 You know? Then again, I like being enclosed in my home, in my bedroom. You know? And then in my wife's there. Those are some of the things that add to my own personal satisfaction …   Anne Zachry 20:42 Right.   George Bailey 20:43 … where I can calm down and initiate sleep. But some kids, they just thrive on …   George Bailey 20:50 And, you're making me … the word "proximity" pops into my head, where … proximity to the wall, you know? How close are the walls to me? As … you know, if you're … if you feel safe within your house, you're still within a structure. But if that feels too spacious, and you need to have the walls closer to your physical presence to really feel that … that enclosed feeling, then I … then, yeah, that would, to me, say that some individuals need the walls in closer proximity to their physical beings than others. And, it again goes to everybody falls on a spectrum of some kind in every aspect of development one way or another. And that's … this is just the one that you happen to be dealing with. And …   George Bailey 21:37 Yeah, some kids, actually … so our bed, it fits a twin size mattress; it's about three feet tall on the inside. It's pretty big I can I can sit up, I can kneel down and I'm barely touching my head.   Anne Zachry 21:51 Right.   George Bailey 21:52 So some kids feel comfortable in that, and they feel it. And I'm wondering, this is now I'm, kind of, theorizing that I wonder if this would fall under the proprioceptive sense. You know, where you can kind of sense that closeness to something without it being a touch sensation.   Anne Zachry 22:10 Yeah, because proprioception is like your the sensation of your body moving through space. And, yeah, and pressure and those kinds of things. Well, and I'm wondering if you're enclosed inside of the pod, how much of it is air pressure? And if there's an inner ear vestibular piece to it as well?   George Bailey 22:29 Yes, yes.   Anne Zachry 22:30 That's curious.   George Bailey 22:31 … really comfortable, that other people feel like all they need around them are the warehouse walls of a Costco.   Anne Zachry 22:37 Right.   George Bailey 22:38 You know, something very large, they're fine with that, you know? So …   Anne Zachry 22:43 Well, and it makes you think of our kids on the spectrum that struggle with personal space, and getting all up in people's faces, and they don't understand that other people have a personal bubble, and you need to step back a few.   George Bailey 22:54 Oh, that's a great comparison!   Anne Zachry 22:55 And I'm wondering how much of that is inter played with what you're dealing with? That'd be an interesting line of inquiry to explore.   George Bailey 23:01 Yeah.   Anne Zachry 23:03 Yeah. Well, you know what I'm thinking of to is here in California, which I know is unique, because not most states don't have anything if any other states do. I've not heard of any other states that have it. But here in California, the Department of Education operates what they call Diagnostic Centers. And there's three of them. There's one up in Northern California in Fremont. There's one in the central part of the state in Fresno. And then there's another one down in LA for … that covers Southern California. And what they do is they're … they're funded out of the State's federal special ed dollars and state special ed dollars, skimmed off the top, and then all the rest goes to the public schools. And so what Diagnostic Center does is they conduct evaluations of students who their local education agencies are having a heck of a time, even going through all the normal assessment procedures, trying to figure out what to do for these kids. And what they do, it's an on-site thing where they … the family will go and the State will put them up in a hotel and give them coupons to, like, Soup Plantation, you'll never want to eat there again by the time you're done … and, and you stay there for like three or four days while your child is being evaluated by all of these "ologists" in this facility, while you as a parent are sitting on the other side of the one way glass watching the whole thing. And you're getting interviewed and they're just like turning, you know, your whole world inside out to get a handle on what's going on with this kid. And I'm wondering if Diagnostic Centers wouldn't benefit from having something like this to test with those kids who have those kinds of issues.   George Bailey 24:34 That is such a great question. Well, first of all, let me say that California has a fond place in my heart. I was born and raised in Hayward …   Anne Zachry 24:42 Oh, right on.   George Bailey 24:51 … so not too far from your Fremont Diagnostic Center. And, you know, In-and-Out Burger, I don't know if you've ever been there …   Anne Zachry 24:51 Oh yeah.   George Bailey 24:52 Best hamburgers in the West. Great place. But to your point, that's actually … I don't know if we've toyed with that specific idea. I love that a lot. One of the things we have toyed with that we're working on right now, it's hard to get started to get … we're very … we were three years old as a company,   Anne Zachry 25:11 Oh, you're babies. Yeah.   George Bailey 25:12 Yeah, we're babies. We're two years old working within the autism community.   Anne Zachry 25:16 Got it.   George Bailey 25:18 But one of the things we'd love to see happen is we would like to get more Airbnbs to use these …   Anne Zachry 25:25 Ohhh!   George Bailey 25:25 … just depending on what kind of family it is. Well, then the point is that it's kind of like if you go to the mattress store, and the guy says, "Well, try the mattress out, see how you like it." Well, you're gonna sit on the end, and kind of push it down with your hands. You don't know what you're doing. It's kind of like, "How do I know if this is good?" And then he'll tell you, "You gotta lie down."   Anne Zachry 25:46 Yeah.   George Bailey 25:47 So we're trying to take it to the next level with our idea of putting these in Airbnbs because then it's like getting inside the bed. We're pretty good at assessing, we've had a number of kids come by St. Louis, just to try it out, get inside, and they love it. It's pretty automatic. And they'll close themselves in without being asked to do so. It was actually my son, when he did that. And then lie down. And I didn't know what he was doing in there. I gave him five minutes alone, just kind of waiting. And then I was just like losing my patience. And I opened the door. And there he is on his back with his hands behind his head. Very chill, very relaxed. And that led me to like, "Okay." That was one of my earlier signals were onto something. The point is that I could observe that for five or 10 minutes. Or I could do it overnight…   Anne Zachry 26:36 Right.   George Bailey 26:37 … with a lot more confidence.   Anne Zachry 26:40 It's like an opportunity to try it out. You know, that's interesting that you would say that, because separate from what we do in special education, I have a whole other program that we run that's devoted to sustainable living and food security.   George Bailey 26:53 Yeah? Oh, that's great!   Anne Zachry 26:53 And yeah, and so it's all evidence based instruction. It's the Learn & Grow Educational Series. But what we're looking to do is build these Learning Centers where people can come and stay in a sustainably built structure, with grey-water recapturing and composting toilets, and all these things that sounds scary, but really aren't and try it out for a few days …   George Bailey 27:00 … would love this, what you're doing by the way!   Anne Zachry 27:15 Yeah, and …   George Bailey 27:15 … very much into this!   Anne Zachry 27:17 … our ultimate goal is to at some point in time … what's the point of convincing people to live this way, if there's no place where they can go live this way?   George Bailey 27:25 Yes!   Anne Zachry 27:25 … is we also want to be able to do affordable housing that's sustainably built with all of these same technologies. And so that if they go and they … they do a trial through Airbnb, at one of our Learning Centers that we are looking to build in the future, that they go, "Oh, I can deal with this. This isn't gross. This is still really bougie. I can handle this," you know, then they … they can … there's a place for them to go buy into a home that has all of those things. Because right now, it's all the DIYers who are doing that, and not everybody wants to build their own sustainable house. Lots of people just want to go buy a house and move in and be done with it. And but there's no sustainably built homes in neighborhoods like that. And so it's the same concept of, if you go and try it out first, and then realize, "Hey, this is cool," and you see benefits from it, then you're, like, ready to approach it for real and incorporate it into your actual lifestyle. And so I think that that's something you are doing that's in common with what I'm doing in this other program I have. And that there, there's a lot of value of having that Airbnb Experience out there for people to try things that are new. It's something that I don't think Airbnb realized when they first started that they were going to create.   George Bailey 28:34 Yes.   Anne Zachry 28:35 But it's you know, there's now all of these places, and now they have Experiences. In fact, our Learn & Grow Educational Series, we actually do classes (and tours) through Airbnb Experiences. For one thing, it's a lot more affordable to do it that way for us because Airbnb will insure all of the events that we conduct for up to a million dollars per event.   George Bailey 28:55 Oh wow, yeah!   Anne Zachry 28:56 And so that means I'm not having to go down and get a certificate of insurance every time I'm conducting a class. And the owner of the property where I'm doing my classes is like, "Oh, thank God, I'm not going to have to file a homeowner's claim if somebody trips and," you know, "sprains an ankle while they're walking through the driveway or something." There's all of these advantages to using Airbnb to create these novel experiences that people can test out for just a few days without having to change their whole living experience. And then if they decide, "Oh, this was worth it," okay. It is like a living test. And I think that's … that's huge. I think there's a lot of value in that. So that's exciting. I think that that's a smart way to go.   George Bailey 29:36 And it's something … it's something that we hope to get started as soon as possible. I know that maybe some of your listeners are thinking, "Oh, where can I do this?" It's still in process. I mean, we're still looking for people to kind of try it out. We may have something in Indiana, but not … certainly not in California right now. But what's interesting to me about it is that on a broader topical discussion rather than just autism, it goes to show that we have shifted our purchasing behavior dramatically since the advent of the Internet, and Amazon has really changed.   Anne Zachry 30:07 Huge. Yeah.   George Bailey 30:08 It's big because, like, we think, for example … we used to think, "Well, what would the brick and mortar store look like for our operation?" And pretty soon after that, we concluded that there is no brick and mortar store for us.   Anne Zachry 30:22 Right.   George Bailey 30:22 That's not to say that brick and mortar is dead. I'm actually a big fan of brick and mortar. I love getting out there. I love being around people. I love walking around. I don't want to buy everything I have on online and then cloister myself.   Anne Zachry 30:35 Right.   George Bailey 30:37 But, that being said, this specifically, it's just, it's a big product. And it has … you're going to consider it more like a buy like a car…   Anne Zachry 30:48 Right.   George Bailey 30:48 … which can be which can't be bought at the store.   Anne Zachry 30:51 Right. Yeah, it's not an impulse buy. Yeah.   George Bailey 30:54 Yeah, it's not an impulse … Thank you. That's basically it. Nice, Anne. Yes!   Anne Zachry 30:59 … that, and, yeah. So, because it takes that consultation planning and forethought and thinking, yeah, it's not really a retail-oriented kind of thing where you would just have like, the ZPod Store. I can see like, if you had a ZPod section of a mattress store or something. But I can also see, you know, literature in developmental centers and regional center offices, you know, and things like that, where it would be something that, like you said, you're not doing a medical model. So it's not necessarily something that would be prescribed. But, you know, like an assistive technology evaluation, when you have kids who are in a special ed, who you're trying to find out what technologies will give them access to education. Well, what if the issue is sleep? Could that be part of an assistive technology evaluation? And if that's the case …   George Bailey 31:51 Now that being said, I'm really excited you brought that one up because I was I was just about to bring it up. Assistive technology programs … if you have an assistive technology program nearby, like, ask them about us. And the reason why is because we're actually currently I mean, literally currently reaching out to all of them. Because we didn't really even know they existed. I was not sophisticated enough with special needs community that really understand what these things were …   Anne Zachry 32:20 Right.   George Bailey 32:20 … but it's a program that's been around since the 80s …   Anne Zachry 32:24 Um-hmmm.   George Bailey 32:24 … and every state has one. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, last year, the director for the Assistive Technology program for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, reached out to us. And these guys, they set the standard.   Anne Zachry 32:40 Yeah.   George Bailey 32:41 They're actually the best in the United States. And this guy, the director, really wonderful gentleman, Tom Mercier reached out to me, I think he's retired now, but Tom said, it's, like, you know, "Some parents are really trying to get me to look at this, and I just want to take a look." And we were like, "Sure!" you know. We set them up with one of our beds, they tried it out with the family. It was really amazing success for this family, to the

Could YouTube reaction videos be used to teach pragmatic language skills?   I'm not a Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP), so I'm not pretending to be an expert in the field of language processing. However, I rely on data from SLPs to inform my understanding of the communicative aspects of individual learners' respective abilities to process information and put it to constructive use.   I'm familiar enough with the concepts of language processing to have some informed questions about things I see in the world, every now and again. One of those things that just dawned on me most recently is the question of the relationship between pragmatic language processing and the popularity of reaction videos on YouTube.   For those of you who may be unfamiliar with reaction videos, they are videos made by YouTubers in which they react to videos that have become popular on YouTube, as evidenced by their respective number of views. So, to be clear, it's videos of people watching videos, usually for the first time, so that other people can watch their reactions.   The pay-off of watching reaction videos is to connect with the reactor's emotions through the reactor's body language, facial expression, word choice, and tone of voice. Of those four elements of language watched for by the audience in a reactor during a reaction video, three of them are pragmatic language.   Here is my hypothesis, but I need the SLPs in our audience to weigh in on this, too: You know how when you see something cool, your first impulse is to share it with somebody else and see how they react to it? It's like we only get one first time of experiencing something, but we want to relive it and the only way we can is to watch someone else experiencing it for the first time.   We ride the emotional roller coaster with each new first-timer we expose to the cool thing, relating to that other person's emotional response based on our own memories of enjoying our first time with whatever the cool thing is. It sounds like a weaker version of the behavior we otherwise refer to as addiction. The first time is always the best time and the experience can never be fully recaptured, but it can be approximated. It goes to show that all behaviors occur on a spectrum, including those we typically regard as extreme.   Art is the manipulation of media in order to convey emotion. It is often non-linguistic. Light, color, sound, shape, space, and a host of other things can be manipulated according to the laws of physics to evoke feelings and tell stories without words. Other forms are art use words as one more medium to enrich their creations, whether written, spoken, and/or sung.   One of the most popular forms of reaction videos on YouTube is devoted to music, specifically individual music videos. This involves the manipulation of visual and auditory information, only, as the other three senses cannot be actively engaged. The exception could be bone conduction of vibrations from the music in reactors wearing headphones or near loud speakers, creating proprioceptive input that goes to the sense of touch.   There are dozens of reaction videos apiece to a great many songs on YouTube. The number of people reacting times the number of songs to which reactions can be given creates exponential exposure for the artist of each original performance video. Reactors increase their own exposure on YouTube by riding on the coattails of artists who have millions of views of their content because of the quality of their art.   When people search YouTube for an original artist's work, all of the videos of people reacting to that artist's work will also come up in the search results. It's only natural that once one has viewed the original video to want to see it again through the eyes of someone else who has not seen it before and determine if they reached similar conclusions. People are not just looking to relive the experience, but also to be emotionally validated for feeling the ways they felt experiencing the original video for the first time.   Which then begs the questions, “Why do people get so sucked into these videos that are so heavily based on pragmatic language?” and “What are the implications of those facts for individuals who struggle with pragmatic language disorder or autism spectrum disorders that compromise their abilities to accurately read the facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice of others, and express themselves appropriately that way, themselves?”   This boils down to the research question of, “Can reaction videos be used to teach pragmatic language skills through video modeling to individuals who struggle with pragmatic language?” Only scientific research can tell. I'm all about encouraging such research, because now my inquiring mind wants to know.   One of the most powerful examples I can think of is the song, “My Mind,” performed live by Yebba at Sofar New York a few years ago. I have never heard anybody take people on such a hypnotic journey through sound in my life. Watching the reactors getting sucked into the song and becoming mesmerized is something to witness unto itself.   The impact of the reactions to her videos led to a compilation video of several reaction videos, that was basically the YouTube version of a meta-analysis, in which all of the reactors' reactions were displayed simultaneously, allowing viewers to see which parts of the song triggered the strongest reactions from the most reactors at once, like a living performance graph. Me analyzing that now is like the reflection, within the reflection, within the reflection … like, a metaphorical nautilus of analysis.   Another mesmerizing performance is “SOS” by Dimash Qudaibergan at the Slavic Bazaar, also from just a few years ago. Watching people who have never heard of him before reacting to Dimash singing "SOS" is something to behold. The first time you watch it yourself, you're immediate reaction is, “No! That can't be real. He's not human!” Then you watch it again in the reaction videos and see other people having their responses and you think, “Okay, it's not just me.”   Another one that requires additional inquiry is Chris Stapleton's “Tennessee Whiskey,” which doesn't even have a video. It's just the song with a still image of the album cover throughout, and yet it has over 500 million views on YouTube as of the time of this post. Watching people who have grown up on rap and hip-hop reacting to this song with surprise is a joy. They are the ones that give animated visual life to what is otherwise a largely auditory experience.   Anyone watching the Kodi Lee AGT audition reactions can see a handful of egocentric attention- and click-seekers suddenly reduced to puddles of humility over and over again. In an instant, Kodi's performance puts things into perspective and they get it. The clicks to watch the reaction become earned because it isn't a trick; these people are legitimately shook by what they see and that's what engages viewers of reaction videos.   In all of the above-referenced original videos, surprise is always a key element. In every reaction video that gets any kind of traction on YouTube, the reactors are shocked by what they are watching for the first time, and become emotionally engaged with the song and performer to which they are reacting. In all the instances cited above, there is an emotional story being told with which listeners can identify.   The reason the views of the original videos are so high in the first place is because the content is so emotionally engaging. People reacting to them for the clicks suddenly forget about the clicks, find themselves transported, and start talking about things that actually matter in the world. What often started out as an exercise in narcissism for pay can become a transformative experience that snaps a selfishly motivated YouTuber right out of it and puts things into proper perspective.   The sounds of the originally performed songs conform with their respective story lines in a way that takes the listener along for the emotional ride of each. With the exception of the Chris Stapleton example, above, reactors also have the benefit of watching the performance, which adds the benefit of facial expression and body language to the communication. Each song conveys a different emotional experience, but one must have intact pragmatic language skills to appreciate what makes each song so uniquely impactful that it inspires so many views and, thus, so many reaction videos.   And, I want to be clear that, even if the reactors are initially reacting to these specific videos only for their own marketing purposes, the ones that get the most traffic are the ones in which the reactors are caught off guard and have authentic responses, like crying or, in the case of Yebba, getting moved by the Holy Spirit in the middle of a song that is not about religion in any kind of way. The value in watching these reaction videos is seeing real people moved for real in the moment without the opportunity to fake it.   There's no way to conceal authentic surprise and awe, and those are the feelings viewers seem to be trying to experience by watching these reaction videos. What is it about the human psyche, then, that causes us to seek experiences that make us feel surprise and awe? Why do we want to witness miracles so badly? Why are the outliers who receive the most favorable public attention usually artists rather than scientists? Why do we tend to think data is boring and seek emotionally extreme experiences when data is practically useful and emotions often are not?   I don't have the answers. I just think this is a line of inquiry worth exploring. I'm curious to see if the evidence in support of video modeling as an instructional strategy could be applied to using reaction videos to teach pragmatic language skills to those who struggle with this area of language processing. Are there any communication researchers out there who might want to conduct some studies so inquiring minds can know?

This is not a pleasant topic at all, so I want to start out this post/podcast with the understanding that I know this isn't a pleasant topic. That doesn't make it something to avoid, however. Problems aren't solved by pretending they don't exist. For those of us who work with people with significant mental disabilities, fecal smearing, otherwise knows as “scatolia,” is a behavior we usually encounter among individuals with significant developmental disabilities and dementia. These behaviors often happen among these populations very frequently alongside other bowel-related health issues, such as constipation and encopresis. Simply put, constipation is poop not coming out and encopresis is poop not staying in. The function of most fecal smearing behaviors appears to be communicative, especially among individuals who are nonverbal or have limited verbal abilities. In verbal individuals who engage in these behaviors, other significant mental impairments are still present, whether its the loss of mental functioning due to dementia; the failure of mental maturity due to developmental disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities and/or autism; or some forms of mental illness. Fecal throwing and smearing can also be seen among other primates. It's a primitive, infantile behavior. When I was 20 years old, I worked in a nursing home providing hands-on care to medically fragile and/or mentally compromised elderly people. All of us knew who the poop-throwers were. The one on my wing was also an Evangelical Christian who would sing church hymns while throwing her poop at anyone passing by and accusing them of being the Devil. The exception was the visiting Evangelical pastor who would stop by to visit the patients every week, but he would come down the hallway singing a hymn at the top of his lungs so she would know it was him before he walked into her room, or he would get it, too. I encountered fecal smearing behaviors once again when I finished my undergraduate degree and started working as a job coach in the community with adults challenged by developmental disabilities. One of the young men on my caseload was a fairly capable individual with autism who, in spite of his many attributes that made him employable to bus tables, serve drinks, and perform general maintenance in a restaurant, would engage in fecal smearing whenever someone made him upset. What had started as a behavior when he was younger with less language abilities had become a deeply entrenched learned behavior that followed him into adulthood long after he had developed completely intact verbal communication skills. The differences between these two examples from my own life were important to note. In the nursing home, the woman on my wing with fecal throwing behaviors was kept on laxatives so that her feces wasn't solid enough to hold in her hand for throwing. Cleaning up bedpans was infinitely less work and trauma than jumping into the hazmat shower fully clothed and going home in scrubs from the supply closet because our own clothes had been ruined. By comparison, the young man who struggled to hold onto a job and a group home placement because of this behavior was successfully broken of the habit through Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and psychotropic medication management to address anxiety and depression. Because he was verbal, he was able to talk with his therapist about the feelings he was having when he engaged in these behaviors and we were able to come up with a plan that helped him deal with those feelings appropriately, eventually extinguishing the scatolia altogether. He's been employed every time I've encountered him since, mostly in the community eating at the restaurants where he has worked. What we discovered based on what he was telling us is that, historically, he had found himself in situations where he couldn't tell people what he was thinking for lack of language and, later, as the language started coming on, because he was afraid to complain about certain things for fear of retaliation or punishment. The degree to which he was correct in his perceptions about those past experiences is not as important as the fact that he was afraid to say anything with words, but he could express himself non-verbally through fecal smearing. Fecal smearing behaviors tend to orient around protest, disagreement, and retaliation, based on what little research has been conducted on the topic so far. Most of the available research comes from mental institutions and long-term care facilities. I could find no research about fecal smearing happening in the general community, though such research may exist and I just couldn't find it. So much of the research is hidden behind paywalls that it's not accessible to everyday people, which is a topic of discussion all to itself for another time. I brought this subject up in my book club last night (we're currently reading The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are, by Brené Brown, PhD, LMSW). One of the other club members shared that her home had been broken into years ago and robbed. The robbers also pooped on her wooden floors, ruining the finish, and she had to wait for a year-and-a-half to have the time and money to refinish her floors, with the damaged spot where the poop had been, serving as a daily reminder of the sense of violation she had experienced. Now that I think about it, the same thing happened to my grandparents in the 1990s while they were on an RV trip, only the poop was on their walls. My book club friend stated the police officers who had responded to the call advised her that this was a common behavior witnessed among break-in robberies like hers. Law enforcement may be a better source of information about the prevalence of fecal smearing in the general community, which goes to the degree to which we have delegated the responsibilities of our mental health agencies to law enforcement. Behavioral researchers should look there for data about the frequency with which these incidents occur and how they are addressed. Needless to say, there was no scholarly research I could find that was specific to the fecal smearing behaviors that happened during the Insurrection of January 6, 2021, at the Capitol of the United States of America. Only official records from the government and reports in the media capture the incident. I'm quoting the Trial Memorandum of the U.S. House of Representatives from the second impeachment proceedings against the 45th president of the United States, here: Once inside, insurrectionists desecrated and vandalized the Capitol. They ransacked Congressional Leadership offices—breaking windows and furniture, and stealing electronics and other sensitive material. They left bullet marks in the walls, looted art, smeared feces in hallways,and destroyed monuments … [Emphasis added.] This has been bothering me ever since it was first reported shortly after the Insurrection that fecal smearing had occurred during this incident as well. Based on what I already know about fecal smearing behaviors, what that tells me is that at least one person with profound disabilities was among the Insurrectionists. Based on the other overt behaviors of the Insurrectionists, it's safe to say that America's mental health crisis reached an apex of sorts, though it isn't done showing itself, yet, based on the continuing domestic terrorism threats we all still face. It's an Extinction Burst of a sort, and one we cannot afford to reinforce. These individuals are seeking reinforcement for behaviors that were once rewarded and escalating their behaviors when the rewards are not forthcoming. I think they're all cries for help, but the behaviors are so off-putting to most other people that they are disinclined to help and eager to ostracize anyone engaging in them. I think ostracizing these people helps the rest of us avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with these behaviors, but it's not a democratic response, much less an ethical one, We need a plan as a people on how to solve these problems, not punish people for having them. I'm not saying that people who commit crimes shouldn't pay for them. I'm saying that the causes of criminal behaviors have to be addressed so they don't happen in the first place. There is way too much money being made on incarcerating Americans instead of helping them. The bigger concern for me, these days, though, is how many other people in positions of power actually understand the severity of our nation's mental health crisis and choose to exploit these individuals rather than meet their needs, such as the 45th president of the United States, for example. Protest, disagreement, and retaliation are the usual communicative functions of fecal smearing, and the Insurrection-related fecal smearing doesn't appear to be different in that regard. Everyone involved in the Insurrection was there to protest, disagree, and retaliate. What this specific form of communication tells us is that the people who engaged in it felt desperate enough to express their feelings through these actions rather than words, as if words had failed them and/or they didn't feel safe to use them. When people are mentally impaired and don't fully understand everything going on around them, they can easily become confused, misled, and manipulated by others. They are often aware when others are mistreating them even if they don't fully understand the hows and whys. They know when they find themselves in a disadvantaged situation and will harbor valid resentments about it, but they often don't know who did what to make it happen, much less what to do to make things better. When you have a right to be angry but you don't know how to get out of the situation, and no one is stepping up to help you, it's easy to become angry at everyone. You feel like the whole world is against you and there's nothing you can do. At that point, you default to the highest stage of social emotional development you've completely mastered, which may be well below your chronological age depending on the degree to which your social emotional development was healthy or not. Once someone becomes so overwhelmed emotionally in the absence of a solution that they start freaking out, very childlike – even infantile – behaviors are likely to ensue. In the name of “liberty” and “freedom,” we've absolved ourselves of any responsibilities for the welfare of our neighbors. Personal liberty becomes confused with narcissism. People pay lip service to the ideals of the Constitution while exploiting their neighbors for financial gain. Money is an imaginary construct that many people value more than human life. Many of these same people claim to be true believers in Christ, effectively singing church hymns as they sling their poo at everyone else. I don't recall any part of the New Testament encouraging that kind of behavior, but religious scholars who have studied the texts more closely than I have are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Most of us understand that the people who got sucked into the 45th president's own mental health crisis are also not well, but they also account for approximately one-third of our population. That makes them a dangerous minority that has now grown into a domestic terrorism problem. It puts the assertions by the majority of Muslims around the world that Islam is not a religion of violence into context, now that we've got our own violent religious radicals here at home calling themselves Christians. The inextricable intertwining of religion and mental health problems in societies is yet another topic for a separate conversation, but I have to point out that there are many responsible faith leaders struggling to lead as many of their congregationalists abandon the teachings of Christ to follow every wolf in sheep's clothing that steps into their path. American commercialism and its own brand of capitalism have created a competitive mindset about everything in our culture. It's “My high school football team is going to crush your high school football team.” It's, “My church is made up of the chosen and all the other churches are full of people going to Hell.” It's, “My neighborhood is the best and everyone else lives in a dump.” Where is this narcissistic drive to be “better” than everyone else coming from in a society that's supposed to be democratic? Why do we feel driven to create a caste of “losers” to make ourselves feel like “winners”? How does hurting other people make someone a “winner”? People have developed brand loyalties around things that aren't actually brands. American consumerism and its obscene obsession with the pursuit of material wealth has grossly undermined the uniform message of every great faith. Wanting more than what one needs while others go without contradicts every pious teaching of every great religious leader the world has ever remembered. We're all supposed to be collaborating with each other, not competing with each other, to survive as a species. Raising children from birth under conditions that deprive them of developmentally necessary opportunities to reach adulthood physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually intact, is an uphill battle. The science is clear that the type of family support system an individual has is irrelevant; what matters is whether they have any type of support system at all. Children growing up in homeless shelters with after school tutoring, social services, higher education and job placement services for parents, etc., remain as academically intrinsically motivated as children living in traditional family homes with access to resources. The gender identity and sexual orientations of parents have zero bearing on the quality of their parenting. Parenting becomes poor when it fails to nurture childhood development, regardless of the gender or orientation of the parent. What we can safely deduce from witnessing current events as it relates to the known science is that being raised in economic extremes, whether extreme poverty or extreme wealth, deprives children of developmental opportunities that undermine their mental, emotional, and communicative growth. Extremely wealthy children are at risk of never learning how to do anything for themselves and will implode the minute they have to deal with serious life challenges. Extremely poor children are at risk of malnutrition, homelessness, and other hardships that make mere survival the priority without the opportunities to work on any other part of their development. As the middle class in America continues to disappear, we're at risk of more and more people ending up at one economic extreme or the other and their children growing up thinking that humanity is truly divided as a matter of nature into two classes: the “haves” and the “have nots.” If that's all they see growing up, the divide becomes a hard and fast expected part of society. What do you think happens to a society that is made up entirely of people who failed to reach developmental maturity? It goes Lord of the Flies pretty quickly, after that. In my ever-worried imagination, under such circumstances, humans will return to the trees if we survive as a species at all. I keep thinking, “Maybe the bonobos will have a better go at sentience than we did.” It makes me want to teach them sign language just so I can tell them all the mistakes we've made and what to avoid. The first thing I'll teach them is, “Use your words, not your poop.” Returning the present issue of poop-smeared threats to our democracy wrapped in Confederate flags, I have a theory about one particular aspect of the problem that I haven't seen discussed in the news about the Select Committee's investigation into the Insurrection of January 6, 2021. In my line of work, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act come up quite frequently. When I see things that do not appear to conform with their requirements, they jump out at me. Given that were clearly dealing with people struggling with mental disabilities of one type or another, and given that social media has been instrumental in feeding them misinformation while giving them the tools to organize, it appears to me that the social media algorithms are not coded in a manner that reasonably accommodates users with the types of mental disabilities that make them vulnerable to misinformation and recruiting tactics of foreign adversaries and domestic terrorists. If anything, social media's absence of reasonable accommodations in its coding for users with these types of mental issues is creating more domestic terrorists than we already had in the first place, suddenly taking them from the fringes of our society to a sizable, dangerous minority of violent people bent on overthrowing the government. In the absence of effective mental health interventions, the manipulators swooped in and weaponized our own neglected mentally impaired citizens against us. What we don't take care of will take care of us. That's the whole reason that “being careful” is so important. “Being careful” isn't about avoiding problems, it's about being full of care. Being caring means being responsible for your community as well as yourself and your immediate loved ones. It takes a village, as they say, but if you neglect your village, you cease to be part of it. We're all different for a reason. Whether you're a person of faith and see it as a component of our Creator's Great Plan or you're a secularist who sees it as a function of nature and evolution, or you're like me and think that nature and evolution are parts of the Creator's Great Plan, it's an obvious fact that we're all meant to be different by design. The failure to appreciate the role that diversity serves for the balance of everything has led to efforts by a few unstable individuals who manage to acquire power and try to remake humanity over into a monolith, casting out those who, by design, cannot conform to their invented social hierarchies. This is the essence of discrimination. It's what causes people with disabilities to be regarded as less than human. Anyone who is discriminated against for any other reason should be empathetic to the discrimination experienced by people with mental disabilities that affect their behaviors, but our knee-jerk reaction is to be repulsed by the most extreme behaviors in which we see these people behave. These behaviors, while often intolerable and highly inappropriate, are still cries for help, we need to see them that way, and we need to collectively demand our elected officials to enforce the ADA and Section 504 when it comes to social media algorithms. My theory is that, if we use the existing language of the ADA and, where applicable, Section 504, to compel social media platforms to stop preying on the weakest minds among us, it will not only create jobs for coders knowledgeable of the law, but also enforcement officials knowledgeable of the code. Rather than looking at the daunting task of coding the Code into social media platforms as an insurmountable challenge, it should be seen as a significant step towards true democracy that creates desperately needed jobs. The solution would solve more than one significant problem in this country and serve as an example of adult-level problem-solving for the rest of the world. Marketing research tells us that customer loyalty is greater after a vendor has had to work with a customer to solve a problem than if there was never any problem at all. It's not a source of shame for America to trip over its own feet and experience growing pains as it sheds the hypocrisy and anti-democratic practices of the past; what makes it shameful or not is how we respond. If we can bounce back from the threats our democracy if facing right now with science across the board in every domain of need, including our nation's ongoing mental health crisis, and enforce the ADA and, where appropriate, Section 504, on social media platforms, no additional regulations are necessarily needed. If any other regulations of social media become necessary above and beyond that, so long as the First Amendment is still protected while also preventing troubled people from getting sucked down the rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, we'll redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world. At least, that's my theory.

On January 13, 2022, after staying up late to finish my last post/podcast, I woke up to find a message in my inbox from the CAPCAA listserv that included a very comprehensive-looking report published by a group referring to itself as "The Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force," with the email address of oahspecialedreport@gmail.com. The members of this task force are not identified in the report. The report identifies its authors as follows: Authors/Contributors: This accountability report is provided by the Office for Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force, a coalition of concerned attorneys, advocates and parents. Many of these contributors conducted research, collected and organized the information, and assisted in the writing of this report. Bias, Noncompliance and Misconduct In Special Education Due Process: An Accountability Report on the California Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Division, January 2022 Given the degree of retaliation that anybody calling out the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could easily face in the current anti-democratic climate of American politics, these days, I can't say I'm entirely surprised that the individuals responsible for this report have not named themselves in it. That could be really a good way to find some "good ol' boys" burning crosses in their yards and planting pipe bombs in their hedges on behalf of some tax-fattened, suit-wearing carpetbaggers. So, I can't discount the report for lack of identified authors. That leaves nothing but the content of the report with which to judge its legitimacy, but that's almost better. It's like a blind audition on The Voice; it doesn't matter what you look like if you have a good voice. What you have to say and how you say it matters more than what your name is or what you look like. So, that's how I'm looking at this report. In these troubling times, I'm willing to accept verifiable facts from anonymous authors truly fearing for their own safety if they dare to speak the truth. I will not accept unverifiable assertions being openly spewed by people saying whatever will get them attention. So, let's examine the assertions being made by this report. This Task Force's report follows a professional format for organization and presentation of its information, but it's not a legal brief or scientific paper. Not every assertion is supported by black-and-white evidence, but the assertions not supported by evidence are nonetheless consistent with those assertions that are supported by evidence. Additionally, because I work extensively in the very areas of concern targeted by this report, all of it rings true with the experiences that I've lived as a professional over the period of time discussed in this report. That which is not outright supported by evidence in this report is nonetheless credible to me given the evidence that is presented and what I already know to be true from real-life experience. While anecdotal accounts were added to the report to bolster the authors' positions, the identity of those offering these accounts are unknown, so verifying them is impossible. Again, concerns about retaliation and privacy are legitimate, so I don't want to discount the privacy concerns of the authors, but one of the first rules of proving the veracity of a document is authenticating its content with its authors. That's just a basic rule of evidence. At some point, for this document to be taken seriously by regulators and/or legislators, its authors will have to reveal themselves. Putting aside the authorship issues for the moment and delving into the actual content of this report, what this report is basically asserting is that OAH, which is a division of the California Department of General Services (DGS), is organizationally compromised relative to its obligations to try special education cases pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The report supports these arguments with references to a collection of publicly available documents. These arguments appear sound and supported by credible evidence, in my opinion. Of particular note to me were its references to the November 15, 2021 study conducted by CDE titled, California Special Education Governance and Accountability Study, as well as news that the courts finally resolved the issue of continued distance learning for medically vulnerable children on IEPs. This latter issue affects one of our families and I've been waiting to hear about this situation. The Task Force's assertions in its report are also consistent with my experiences dealing with OAH since it took over the hearings in 2005. In fact, I first became a paralegal in 2005 and witnessed the very shenanigans reported by the Task Force with the change-over from the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO) to OAH that same year. It was a dumpster fire inside of a clown car that had crashed into a train wreck, to put it mildly. OAH underbid SEHO in terms of the costs of conducting special education mediations and hearings by failing to include the costs of administrative support and sending mediators and judges around the State to handle each case in its local community, which allowed OAH to come under SEHO's bid by several million dollars, as memory serves. The moment it opened its doors for business, it was already millions of dollars over-budget from what it had bid to get the business from SEHO. The quality of the judges from OAH was atrocious out of the gate. One then-new judge went down in California special education parent/student legal history for the angrily and stupidly stated words, "Ms. [Attorney], what does autism have to do with behavior!?!" When you have people who have no idea what anybody is talking about deciding the futures of children who have no voice of their own in the process, those of us who are trying to protect these children become almost as powerless as the children we're trying to protect. We were, and continue to be, faced with people entrusted with responsibilities that are clearly light years beyond their actual skills and knowledge, and the authorities and powers that go with those responsibilities. What is the point of having the rule of law if the people responsible for enforcing it are personally incentivized to break it or are otherwise too dumb to know how to enforce it? We're paying these people to implement the regulations, not to invent excuses as to why they don't have to and bully the rest of us if we dare to question them. I've been saying for the last 30+ years that special education issues are civil rights issues, and if our babies aren't truly protected, then none of us really are. The national political landscape appears to support my conclusions, not that I'm happy to be right about that. Marginalized groups with specifically identified protected rights are always the first ones targeted by fascists, so special education is really a "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to American democracy. Clearly, we're not doing that well and this Task Force is seeing a lot of the same things I'm seeing. Regardless of the authorship issue, which I suspect will be resolved in due time, the evidence cited in this report and the consistency of what it describes with what I live and breathe everyday inclines me to treat it as credible, though if anyone can find an inaccurate assertion in it, please post a comment and let me know. At minimum, another federal investigation is warranted based on this report, but I don't know that going to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the right way to go, now. As the report discloses, there was already an OCR investigation in 2014 of the California Department of Education (CDE) as it pertains to making its hearings accessible to individuals with disabilities. I won't repeat the anecdotal account of what that was all about, here; you can read it yourself in the report. But, I warn you, it's upsetting. I wish I could say it was too outlandish to be true, but it sounds just about right for OAH and CDE, based on my own experiences. Last year, just to give you an example from my own caseload, I filed a compliance complaint with CDE against a local school district for failing to implement all of a student's IEP during the pandemic-related shutdown. The most critical element of the complaint was the district's failure to provide in-person 1:1 aide services, as required by the child's IEP. Instead, the district put the aide for this non-verbal, inattentive, prompt-dependent child with autism on Zoom, requiring the child's mother to be the in-person aide helping her child access Zoom, constantly cueing him attend to the online instruction, and prompting him through all of his work tasks to completion. The aide could only sit there, staring at them through the screen, completely useless ... at taxpayer expense. The aide was willing to provide in-person support and the non-public agency (NPA) that employed the aide was ready to send her to the student's house in a mask for in-person services during distance learning, but the district wouldn't permit any in-person services during shutdown. This single parent ended up selling her condo and moving, with her children, in with family friends, in no small part because she couldn't work a paid job while sitting at home serving as the free aide for her child with special needs throughout each school day while the paid aide sat in her own home on Zoom, unable to do her actual job. This was a blatant violation of State and federal law that the district kept blaming on the county's health department. I challenge anybody to find a legal authority that gives a county health department the authority to tell a school district that it doesn't have to abide by the IDEA. After attempting to get the district to do the right thing by way of written correspondence and the IEP process to no avail, I filed a regulatory complaint with CDE. CDE opened an investigation based on what I alleged through its complaint intake unit, but then the investigator subsequently assigned to the complaint materially altered the nature of the investigation and cited the district for a different violation of the law than what I had originally alleged, and failed to issue a finding regarding the original allegation I'd made about the aide. The investigator's findings then went to yet another unit within CDE that developed the order for corrective actions, which included compensatory special education instruction for lost service minutes, but it was silent regarding aide support during those compensatory services. Think about this for a minute. I alleged in my complaint that the district failed to provide aide support during distance learning. The intake unit opened an investigation in response to my complaint based on the allegation of the district's failure to implement the IEP as written, specifically with regard to 1:1 aide support. The investigator found that the district failed to implement all of the instructional minutes in the IEP, but issued no finding regarding the 1:1 aide support. The corrective actions unit ordered compensatory instruction to make up for lost service minutes, but there was no mention of aide support. Once corrective actions have been ordered by CDE and its findings are sent out to the parties, the offending education agency has to provide proof of corrective actions to yet another unit of CDE. When I called that unit to get clarification as to whether the compensatory service minutes were supposed to include the 1:1 aide support called for by the IEP, that unit's response was, "Yes." The offending district's attorneys (definitely of the Rudy Guilliani/Syndey Powell variety), however, said, "No." They then tried to fight with CDE over whether or not the compensatory service minutes had to include the same 1:1 aide support the student required throughout the school day in every other instructional setting, as per his IEP, likely billing the district by the hour the whole time. What ensued turned into an internal feud within CDE. The unit at CDE responsible for collecting proof of corrective action from the district insisted that, because the IEP called for 1:1 aide support during any and all instruction, it was understood that 1:1 aide support also had to be provided during the compensatory services ordered. But, not everybody involved with the investigation at CDE agreed. What I came to suspect was that the investigator and legal department at CDE had deliberately steered my complaint away from its original allegations for presumably fiscal and/or political reasons. It certainly had nothing to do with CDE abiding by its obligations or making the district comply with the law. It had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the educational and civil rights of a little boy with autism who can barely talk and needs an aide to access his education. Reading through this Task Force's report, I'm now seeing that experience again through new eyes. The argument the CDE is fiscally motivated to find it does nothing wrong and neither do its districts, regardless of the facts, as asserted by the Task Force, resonates with me as true. Another compelling argument asserted by this report that also rings true for me is that DGS exists for the purpose of cutting costs, not ensuring the State's compliance with federal mandates or protecting the rights of citizens. The report further argues that, as an integral part of DGS, OAH also exists for no reason other than to control costs and not to protect the rights of California's citizens. As such, the Special Education division of OAH is not organized in a manner consistent with the requirements of the IDEA that special education hearings and mediations be conducted by impartial parties whose only function is to protect the educational and civil rights of students with disabilities. A State employee who is being told their primary function is to save money should not be in charge of making sure the State abides by the IDEA. It's an outright conflict of interest, which this Task Force asserts in its report. This isn't just a philosophical assertion; it's a regulatory requirement. The IDEA requires education agencies to design and implement individualized programs of instruction that confer appropriately ambitious educational benefits upon each student according to his/her/their unique circumstances, regardless of cost. A State agency that exists to cut costs should not be making programming decisions in situations in which it is unlawful for cost considerations to be used to determine who will get what. That, to me, explains a lot of the hyper-Republicanism (in the present-day fascist sense of the term, not the former "Party of Lincoln" sense of it) going on in California's special education system. And, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that, back in 2005, right-wing grifters were responsible for giving the special education due process business back to OAH. One of the sleaziest special ed law firms there ever was, which happened to be the largest special ed law firm representing school districts in California at the time, was Lozano Smith. It was instrumentally involved in getting the due process hearings switched to OAH in 2005. All of this came on the heels of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2004, which resulted in changes to the IDEA. Those changes created an opportunity for anti-student and anti-parent forces to lobby for changes to how California handled its special education matters, from changes to State law, to changing who enforced the laws from SEHO to OAH. However, in 2005, something else big happened involving Lozano Smith, right after OAH took the special education hearings back over. Lozano Smith will live on in infamy, at least in my mind, for decades to come following two public displays of anti-democratic behavior. The first was its epic 2005 faceplant in the matter of Moser v. Bret Harte Union High Sch. Dist. (366 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Cal. 2005)), which made the news. The second public example that stands out in my mind was its 2014 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing protections for special education students under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the matter of K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (C.D. Cal. 2015). This second example didn't steal headlines, but the actual outcome of the case was huge for students with special needs regarding their disability-related communication needs. If special education advocacy has been the "canary in the coal mine" of American democracy, Lozano Smith has been one of the Mitch McConnell-esque specters of obstructive fascism that has been trying to snuff the voices of "canaries" like me for decades. I'm convinced that every single unrepentant person who had a hand in the Bret Harte mess and anything else like it will have a special place waiting for them in Trump Tower Hell, when they die; perhaps it will be named the Lozano Smith Suite. In the present, all of the concerns raised by this Task Force's report are grounded in the realities I deal with every day. The fact that the authors fear to reveal their identities is also grounded in the harsh reality that the fascists aren't even trying to hide the fact that they are coming for us, anymore. Anybody who stands up for civil rights, these days, is a target, and I realize that includes me just by saying so. Here's the thing, though. Those of us accustomed to dealing with special education issues who understand Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) also know an Extinction Burst when we see one. So long as those of us who see this Extinction Burst for what it is continue to abide by our professional ethics, stand our ground, and stick to the applicable science and rule of law, none of the self-serving histrionics of those with anti-democratic tendencies within our government will overcome our fact-based arguments. We have to keep acting like we live in a democracy or it stops being one. We may lose battles on occasion, particularly in those States currently permeated by maskless, unvaccinated seditionists spreading COVID as readily as their lies, but the only way we lose the overall initiative is if democracy fully collapses in the United States. All of us "canaries" need to start beating our wings and squawking loudly as the voices of experience when it comes to fighting fascism within America's government, or it's curtains for all of us. It's not shocking news to any of us that the fascists are targeting local government, including school boards, as a means of seizing control of the country. That's nothing new! That's what all of us working in special education advocacy have been up against since the original laws that protect our children were passed in the 1970s. To the rest of the Country, it's unfortunate that it's now happening to you, too, but we welcome you to the front lines and look forward to working with you to win this soft civil war currently being fought over basic rights and the rule of law in America. To our colleagues fighting similar battles on behalf of other marginalized groups, we look to unify with you. When it comes right down to it, those of us who exist in marginalized groups collectively outnumber the few individuals at the center who put us in their margins. In a democracy, majority rules. The minority of individuals who want to rob the rest of us of our rights cannot oppress a unified majority. Special education rights are human rights, just like ethnic rights, gender rights, sexual orientation rights, relationship rights, etc. If all of us whose rights are being infringed upon join forces instead of competing for the crumbs that fall from the would-be oligarchs' tables, we can be sitting at the table eating meals full of freedom with everybody else, instead.

Zafer Elcik - Otsimo   The following is the written transcript of the audio recording of my interview of Zafer Elcik of Otsimo, which you can listen to in the podcast version of this post. This transcription was aided by Otter.     SPEAKERS Anne Zachry, Zafer Elcik   Anne Zachry Thank you so much for being in this podcast with me today. I really, truly appreciate you making the time, especially since we're having to accommodate international time zones, and I'm here in the United States and you're in Turkey. If you don't mind, could you just go ahead and give us just a brief introduction of yourself and your product?   Zafer Elcik Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. My name is Zafer. I am co-founder of Otsimo. At Otsimo, we are developing apps for kids with special needs, mostly for autism, Down Syndrome, and mental challenge. What we are trying to do is to provide early intensive education to the mobile devices and the speech therapy, as well. I have a brother with autism. He has been vulnerable for a long time. And I realized that he has special interest in smart devices one day, but I couldn't find any suites or apps for my brother. The typical apps have a lot of advertisements, as well as, like, they have a lot of sounds, animations, and so on, and my brother actually liked to play with them, but he ended up with a bad situation. I decided to create app companies just helping kids on the spectrum. Well, right now we have kids all across the US, UK, as well as Turkey. We have already met the Minister of Education of Turkey. We reach education and speech therapy all across the world through the mobile device.   Anne Zachry That is so cool. That's such a powerful outcome to make happen. That's such an accomplishment. That's so cool.   Zafer Elcik Thank you.   Anne Zachry Oh, thank you. So well, one of the things that because we're here in the United States, and we're constantly advocating for kids with special needs to get the services they're supposed to be getting and the supports that they need. And, very definitely, the whole issue of alternative communication methods and kids who have language impairments who can't get their words out, but that doesn't mean they don't have words ... I mean, I've worked for over 30 years with kids with every kind of disability you can imagine, and lots and lots of kids on the autism spectrum with language challenges, but also across all age groups. And, so one of the things I wanted to ask you about - because I did download and install your app and mess around with it, so I could become familiar with it - the graphics and the imagery, and the age ranges that look like on the app max out at like seven and older. And, for my kids on the spectrum who are middle school and high school age or young adult age, they don't see themselves necessarily in the apps, and the tools that are are out there for children who are younger. And, the accommodations they need evolve over time as they get older, and they may still have the language skills of a very young child, but they are still a teenager on the inside. And, so, my question to you was, "Is there ... are there plans to expand the app to have a version that is more grown up and more adult looking and more age appropriate for teens and young adults that will follow them into college?" Because I'm seeing kids who everybody thought they would never go to college. But once they get the help was like "Oh, hey! That's a possibility for you, now ..."   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... but these tools can't follow them necessarily. And so my question to you is, "Are you looking to expand it to for to make the tool something that will support older users, especially as your kids get older ... your child users?"   Zafer Elcik Yeah, actually, it's a great question, because my brother is getting older and older. And, we try to test with my brother as well to what the level will be of the new content in the app. Like, at Otsimo, we approach early and intensive education, because, like, you heard a lot of the time that you know it, like, if the kids can get early and intensive education, it affects our ...   Anne Zachry Right, right. Those are my kids who are now growing up and going to college, who, when we first started when they were four and five years old, that wasn't even a thought. But, now that they're 18, it's like, "Oh my gosh! Look what you can do!", because we got all those services when they were little.   Zafer Elcik That's because, like, I realized that, in the US, as well as in Turkey - I mean - a lot of countries in the world, because, like, we have a lot of users all across the world, and we realized that, like, getting a diagnosis and, then after that, getting the first education is a really big hassle. Like, in the US, as well, like, you need to go to IEP meetings ...   Anne Zachry Yep.   Zafer Elcik ... to get what you need, and it's a big hassle and you lose a lot of precious months, sometimes a year, to just getting the education. That's because we, at first, we focused on the, like, really early and intensive skills, like, small hand gestures, or social skills, and so on. But, after that, we really found out that we need to create content for a really diverse community. That's because, like, right now we have more than 100 games, some of them is really easy, some of them is kind of middle school-ish. But we haven't, like, created, like ... I can set it up, like, we ... our apps are at pre-K to K-2, but after K-2, right now, we don't have real content. That's because, right now, we are developing new content every month, just to keep updated. I don't think so we will create content for university or high school and so on, but I believe it's so go we can go to like pre-K to K-8, and so on, in the near future. We will have a lot of content for that.   Anne Zachry Right. Well, definitely the early intervention is a huge part of it. I mean, that's certainly important. And, you know, my background is also in educational psychology. That's what my master's degree is in. And I can tell you from an instructional design standpoint ... but, also I've worked in IT. I've worked it ... I can do some coding, it's not my greatest skill, but it's not like I don't have any coding skills at all. I understand what it takes to build something from scratch in code. And you want to start with the simpler skills and move into the ... progress into the more complex skills, anyway. You know, that those simpler younger skills are foundational, not only for human beings, but also for technology. So, you build on that not only with the kid, but with the tech over time, I would imagine. So, that totally makes sense.   Zafer Elcik Yeah. Right now, we are developing these apps for more than five years, and still, I believe that we are in the, like, really beginning.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik We have more than 20 people. Like, we have psychologist on team. We have educators, developers, designers, testers. A lot of people lately, designers working with us, and so on. And it takes a lot of ...   Anne Zachry I can only imagine. I mean, I'm just trying to envision what all the logistics are of making something happen, you know, like what you're doing. And, it's just ... you know, what you're doing is moving the earth. That's huge. And you said something a moment ago that ...   Zafer Elcik Thank you.   Anne Zachry Thank you ... that really caught my ear, and that was, you know, the diversity within the autism community. And, we have a saying over here that, "When you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism."   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry Because, no two people with autism are alike, you know. Just like everybody else, that no two brains are alike, even if they have a common disorder. And so, how it manifests ... and I've got, you know ... and this goes to my next question is, you know ... I've got situations out here where we have students with IEPs that will say in the IEP that they're supposed to have an AAC device, with hardware and software loaded on it, but they won't specify what they're using. They won't name the device and they won't name the software in the IEP, as though all AAC tech is interchangeable. And, it's not! Each technology is different and nuanced, and every student has to learn that piece of technology as a way to learn language. Like, if you start a kid out on ProLoQuo2Go, and then you move that kid to another school, and they see that, "Oh, well. You've got an an AAC device with some kind of software in your IEP. We have to implement your IEP that you came in with, but we don't know what you were using." And they'll go off and get, you know, a Samsung smart pad with some kind of who-knows-what software installed on it. And it's not the iPad with the ProLoQuo2Go the kid knew how to use from the last school. And so, what happens is their language gets taken away. And so, I guess my question to you then becomes, "If there's other technologies that are going to be used as these children get older, like ProLoQuo2Go, going into the adult world, do you think that it's wise to start them off on something different and then switch them, or does it make more sense to get them accustomed to one piece of technology and have it carry them through, or does it make sense to teach them more than one type of AAC tech so that if one goes out of business, the other one's still around?" I mean, that's my concern. It's about the people in the public schools who tend to think that AAC technology, if they're not specifically trained in it, they think it's plug-and-play, and you can pull one out and push another one in. And, I wonder what your feedback on that what would be.   Zafer Elcik Yeah, my feedback on that, like, is, we have also AAC solution in our special education app.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik We are targeting mostly young children instead of, like, ProLoQuo2Go or other AAC devices as well. And I believe in ... so, like, we need to introduce the AAC to the people and individuals on the spectrum as soon as possible, because, like, we have a lot of research also going on there. AAC actually doesn't have any disadvantages to learning a language. It also have advantages to learning language or concepts of vocabulary, and so on. I believe ... so, we need to, we need to show the AAC in really early stages, because it's helpful for them. And the second thing I need to say: We need to find a way to, like, a different kind of solution. Like, sometimes you need Tobii Dynavox with a eye-tracker device on it ...   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik ... and so on, and sometimes you need also some AT with a light reading cue and open source system with you. I think that, like, the schools doesn't ... like, schools must not mandate an AAC over others. They need to accommodate the diversity, the diversity of different assistive technology. That's because, like, I also came across some schools, like, they're using just one tech and they don't want to change, but it doesn't help anyone. Like, it just helped the teachers, maybe the managers there. It doesn't help the kids and the family. Because I think that, like, teachers also have a lot of goals, as well, because of the ... I don't want to say that, but, like, teachers need to accommodate the diverse kids ...   Anne Zachry Yeah. Right.   Zafer Elcik ... diverse problems or ... the diverse solutions of the kid, and find a way to use the ... what the kids like, what the individuals like. Because, like, communication is essential, and when you are changing a device, you're actually changing the whole communication system. And, you force them maybe to voiceless.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik And that's a huge drawback for diverse communities. That's because, I believe it. So they don't need to see a lot of different AAC, but they need to stick with what they feel comfortable.   Anne Zachry Right. It's doesn't do any good to teach a kid how to speak using the tool and then take the tool away from them. And...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... and that's our concern. And that, again, goes back to how special education is legally regulated here, because you can't just go and change things up once it's written into the IEP. That's a legally binding contract that the parents can hold the school to that says, "Hey, these are the things you're supposed to do for my kid." But if the contract itself is flawed, if the what it describes in writing is not appropriate, then that's what's enforceable. And, what we run into is ... Yes, I agree with you that you have way too many school districts that will standardize on a particular technology, because they get bulk discounts. If they buy in bulk from the vendor, they get it less per unit.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry And so, it's cheaper to get multiple licenses of a particular AAC and a particular device because they can buy those in bulk, because all of these vendors have realized that they can sell more in quantity to the schools if they can convince them that their technology will solve all these problems. And, for a lot of kids it will, but you have to specify what it is in the IEP. Because, if a kid has started out, say, on your technology and it's part of what's being done in the classroom, if it's not written into the IEP, and that child moves to another area, and that IEP has to follow them to the new school, but it doesn't say in there ... that they were using your technology, the new schools not going to know to put that in. And so, what we run into is sort of a mixture of too vague of a description of the accommodation, as well as what you were talking about, what is sometimes is over-specified to the point where there's no flexibility to try anything new.   Zafer Elcik Yeah ... Yeah.   Anne Zachry So, you don't ... you have to strike a balance where there's enough flexibility with the way the document is constructed that trying out new technologies is not prohibited, but what the child is familiar with is also not taken away. And so, it comes down to the wording of the document. And I think that that's something that a lot of solution developers find frustrating when they enter into the American special education system because they're thinking, "Oh, America loves special ed! They actually have laws and they make it free and they do all this stuff!" But, when you actually try to participate in it, it looks a lot different to live through it than it looks like on paper. Yes, there's an embracing of it. But there's also all of these rules that get in the way of actually doing something about it, sometimes. And so, sometimes the rules are there to help, and sometimes they get in the way. And I think that, especially as an international developer, for you coming in to try and insert your product into that kind of situation and have been successful, that's enormous. Because that's not an easy thing for anybody to do. And for you to come from outside of the country, and insert yourself into such a heavily regulated situation, with a solution that people are actually adapting and accepting and using, I think that's huge. So that's ... congratulations on that. That's enormous.   Zafer Elcik Actually, like, the system in the U.S. is changing by state-by-state. And that's because like, maybe it's district-by-district.   Anne Zachry Yeah.   Zafer Elcik You are right. They're involved in that kind of stuff. We here are actually trying to be a company like family-friendly, or special individual-friendly. What we try to provide is an additional value. Like, they can pick what they want. Mostly ... most of the other companies, like there are big corporations in the U.S., like, they are selling bulk, but they don't update the software for a long time or doing anything like that, specifically.   Anne Zachry That's true. Right.   Zafer Elcik That's because, like ... and also, some states and district doesn't ... they need to cover by IEP by law, but they have a lot of that system. That's because kids couldn't reach out for, like, the AAC they need.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik That's because we try to find a way to be an affordable and accessible solution for all families, instead of, like, binding the districts or states to just forcing them into one single product. But, you are also right. On the other side, if the kids started some sort of specific AAC, I think, I believe it, so they need to follow the same system in the other schools or other districts because, like, they learn how to communicate through that. Like, it's something like you learn in English in one nursery; while you carry on your school, you need to ... you're forced to talk in French and ...   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik ... it's impossible for you to actually ... it's something like that.   Anne Zachry I agree.   Zafer Elcik ... take a special tech from their hand just because of the bulk discount or so, but it doesn't help anyone.   Anne Zachry Right.   Zafer Elcik It's helping the ... maybe the district managers and so on.   Anne Zachry Exactly. And that's a lot of what we run into is ... we run into administrators who spend zero time in the classroom, who are business office people making decisions that affect the classroom based on finances, which is illegal, but it happens all the time, because they don't know any better. They don't realize their decisions are going to have that big of an impact on a kid. They're not even thinking about that because their business office people. And so, that's I think it's ... we're running into an issue over here with respect to how the bureaucracy is organized. It was created during the Industrial Revolution and emulates a factory. And, even though modern business technology has evolved well beyond that, public education technology has not. Public agency technology has not. The public sector, our government agencies, are decades behind technologically speaking, which I'm sure you've encountered with all of their different business systems ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah, yeah.   Anne Zachry ... and things and accounting systems and was like, none of them are running the same operating system. None of them are running the same software. So, it's a highly disparate situation. And it kind of reminds me when I was working in IT years ago, around the, like, the late 1990s, early 2000s. I went through that whole Y2K thing ... and ... when I was working in IT. And, at the time, the customers that I had for the company I worked with were mostly in the freight forwarding business. And, it was when U.S. Customs was switching to paperless. And, my goodness! The pandemonium and chaos that broke out amongst all of the people who handle paperwork for shipping goods back and forth overseas. I mean, this was all a paper driven processing, and now Customs wanted to go paperless, and it was something. And, nobody had the same operating system. Nobody had the same software. But, everybody's stuff was somehow supposed to magically talk to U.S. Customs electronically. And, making that all come together over the span of like five to seven years was outrageous. But at the same time, I see that now happening in public education where we're finally starting to reach that place where we're just going to have to deal with it in do the upgrades. And, I think that once the upgrades get done, and we get to a more cohesive modern system, that it'll be a lot easier because ... we have better technology being implemented in the classrooms than we having implemented in the business offices. And, I think that that's a lot of the problem is that we have this antiquated bureaucracy responsible for teaching modern children. And so, we have all these innovators like you bringing technology in, but what's it supposed to integrate with? It's like a green cursor on a black screen or an amber cursor on a black screen. I mean, some of the tech is so old. And so, I know that you're having to go in and blaze a trail in a place where, you know, in a space in an industry where technology is not as easily as embraced as it is in other places. So that's another thing that you have to be proud of yourself for, because it's another accomplishment, to be able not only to come into the American market, with all of the regulations involved, but also just all of the backwards technology that you're going to have to overcome. And so you've really taken on something that's enormous. You know, I have one last question. I have a young man on my caseload that I've been with for a very, very, very long time, and he's severely, severely, severely autistic. But he's even more severely intellectually disabled. I think the intellectual disability gets in his way more than the autism does. But, when he was much younger, he was very self-injurious. And he would hit his head against very hard surfaces, like floors, and roads, and walls and ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... and so he was a head-banger. And, he would hit himself and he would hurt other people. And, it was because he couldn't get his words out. And, when he would speak, people wouldn't take him seriously, because he did a lot of scripting. So they didn't listen to anything he said, even when he was trying to speak for real. And so, it got to the point where the behavior became his method of communication. And it took a long, long time; he had to be institutionalized to break him of that habit, and teach him to use his words again, and to get him to, you know, where he could be more functionally communicative without engaging in these violent behaviors. Unfortunately, in the course of all of this before I, you know ... by the time I got involved with him, a whole lot of harm had already been done. And he had managed to, as best as we can tell, detach his own retinas from head-banging. So, now, he's permanently blind.   Zafer Elcik Oh, wow!   Anne Zachry He hit his head so hard that he blinded himself, or at least that's what the doctors are saying, because he just ... all of a sudden, his retinas peeled off the backsides of his eyeballs and he couldn't see anymore, and, so, you know, and it was after years and years of head-banging against really hard surfaces. And, his school would ... they didn't know what to do with him, so they would just put them in a seclusion room and leave them in there to whack his head on the wall for 45 minutes at a time. And, needless to say, there was a lawsuit. And, you know, we got compensatory services for him. But what we can't do with him, now, is teach him to use a traditional AAC or any kind of device-based technologies where, you know, all these wonderful things like what you created, because he doesn't have eyesight anymore. He can't see the screen.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry And so, you know, we've had him evaluated by experts to help figure out what we can do for this guy, you know. And, he's now my friend. I love him to death. He's my sweet little lamb. He ... I mean, I don't have any behavior problems with him. But, here he is now, you know, as a young adult finally starting to say, "Okay, well, I think I want to have a life and do something with myself," and the tools and the resources are so now limited for him because of the eyesight loss, because everything for autism was all about visual schedules and visual cues.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry And, you know ... and I can't do that with him. And so, what we've had to do is, I create tactile schedules for him where I take dollhouse miniatures, and I glue them on a great big piece of foam board. And, I make like a visual schedule, but instead of looking at it, he's got to touch each item, and it moves through a progression so that he can, you know, follow the flow of what it is we're going to do. And once he learns the routine - once he gets that ritual down - he knows the order of events, I don't have to use the schedule with him anymore, because he already knows what's coming. Now he knows the routine. But, to teach him new schedules, I would have to glue together $200 worth of dollhouse miniatures off of Amazon onto a piece of board to give him an idea of what was about to happen. And, what I'm not seeing ... and so, I'm kind of putting it out there, hopefully you'll ... this is something you can think about ... are tools for individuals with autism who are also blind or are deaf and have these sensory impairments on top of the autism that makes the typical solutions inaccessible to them. And just your your thoughts maybe of what you think might be a good way to go in terms of adapting a device for use with someone. Like, I can see if someone has hearing loss ... hearing loss, you could do vibration. You could make the device vibrate ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... in the absence of sound. But when for someone with vision loss, I don't know how you replicate a visual schedule, other than to just audio record yourself, like in the voice recorder, you know, just speaking your way through it. I've done that, too. But it doesn't seem to be as powerful as a tactile schedule. And I'm curious as to, you know, when I talk to developers, what do you think about that? What do you think could be done for someone who's got multiple disabilitiees and the autism is just one of many?   Zafer Elcik Yeah, it's a nice question. Like, we also came across like, people with hearing disorders with autism, and so on. We try to make our product as much as accessible for that. I don't know, literally, like, because we are not doing visual schedules. I don't know, in specific people region schedule basis. But for the Apple devices, there is, like, assistive disability techniques. And I know that, for example, ProLoQuo2Go has a system. You can actually use the switches or you can ... they will actually scan the screen with them. But, you need to teach them this assistive tech on the Apple devices to the kid. And, I believe it, we are also ... there will be our apps right now. I can't say we are 100% accessible for vision problems, or hearing problems and so on, but you can use that assistive settings in the settings in Apple devices. And, combined with that assistive settings with the apps like us or ProLoQuo2Go, or if you're using a visual schedule app, you should reaching out to developers and saying them, like, "Could you implement assistive settings to our device on your app, because we are using it for for this, this this?" And, that's the only chance I can see from my point of view ...   Anne Zachry That stands to reason.   Zafer Elcik Apple has a great assistive settings for people with vision problems, as well as hearing problems. That's because, if he or she can use them assistive techniques while using the device, apps also can be a part of it and you can use that settings in the specific apps, and you can just scan the screen instead of picking seeing regionally, and so on. You will see here what you, like, the device actually loudly saying that what they're clicking, and they can actually talk thanks to that, while just memorizing what they were seeing. That's doable and a lot of companies are doing but, yeah, it's a one more additional step of teaching.   Anne Zachry Is it like an API where you if you're a developer, you could reach out to Apple and say, "Hey, we want to link in with your accessibility tools. What's the code?"   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry Okay.   Zafer Elcik Yeah, it's kind of an accessibility feature. You use that kind of specific codes in your app. At times, too, the Apple accessibility feature actually can be used in the app as well. The name is ... or ... you can use voice over, or you can use in the voice over settings. You have, like, Braille alphabet, as well as, like, the others. And also hearing devices can be connected to the Apple devices and you can use for specifically hearing disorders and so on. That's because like, the settings if the app using that specific API or SDK, for just specific assistive technology settings, you can use it in the app as well. And Facebook, Google, using these APIs a lot. You can test it out there. You can see how they ... how it's working. And if you're using one, we just schedule it out. You just reach out to developers and say what you want. That I believe in, so they will implement it in near future.   Anne Zachry That's a really good point. I know that one of the colleagues that I work with who I've actually have involved with this student in the past to teach independent living skills, she herself is blind. And she ... her whole house is an Apple smart house at this point, because she's become so dependent upon the Apple technologies to ... as her accommodations ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... but it's interesting you would say that because the first time I introduced the two of them to each other, we met at a restaurant in the community that is entirely staffed by individuals with mental disabilities. And, we were there to meet each other - for him to meet her - and I went inside to go get the menu. And, there was a line! And, I had to wade through a sea of people before I could even get the menu to bring it back out to him and read it to him and ask him what he wanted. And my colleague had already looked up the menu on their website, and had her phone read it out loud to the both of them so that, by the time ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... I got back outside with the menu, he already knew what he wanted.   Zafer Elcik Yeah. Like, Apple devices are expensive, but Apple as a company, really pro assistive technology. That's because, like, they devices are best in case for using that kind of technology.   Anne Zachry Right, they've got the most experience working with this kind of stuff; they've been doing it longer. And well, it just for the for the benefit of our listeners who are hearing this conversation, I mean, here in the United States, if you if you're on the autism spectrum, especially if you have other disabling conditions, other developmental disabilities, you're also going to be eligible for services from Department of Developmental Services. And every state has a Department of Developmental Services. Now, again, federal regulations that come down from the top, just like special education law, but then how each state ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... implements the federal regs varies from state to state. And so with Developmental Services, some states, the DDS is its own thing, and you just go to the DDS office and that's who you deal with. It's the state agency, and they have offices in different communities around the state. But in California, and in other states, it's a little bit different, where you have what's called regional centers. And, regional centers are non- ... here in California, are non-profit organizations that contract with California's Department of Developmental Services. And, their function is to provide anything that someone with a developmental disability needs above and beyond what any of the other generic agencies have to do. So, for example, for a child who's in, you know, K-12 age, the school district is going to have the primary responsibility for meeting their needs in terms of publicly funded programming for people with disabilities. But if there's anything that doesn't have to do with school, like afterschool childcare, or social skills in a non-school setting, like a Boy Scout troop, or something like that, there's services above and beyond what the school is obligated to do, those things fall to regional center. So, if a child gets an iPad with your technology - with Otsimo - loaded on it, for example, at school, that's only for school. If they need to be able to use it to communicate with people outside of the school day, they need a second separate iPad that they keep at home and take out into the community, and that's regional center. Because the school's ...   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry ... only responsible for what happens at school, or anything to do with homework, you know, anything that's school related. But, if it's beyond that, if it's just life in general, now, you're talking about regional center. And, for our individuals who have graduated from high school with a diploma or aged out of special ed, and now they're young adults and they're going out into the world, regional centers and the Department of Developmental Services are obligated to serve these people their entire lives, not just when they're children. So, if someone is using an iPad with your technology, or ProLoQuo2Go or anything else, and then they're no longer a public school student - they've grown up, they've gone on - but they still need that iPad with that technology on it to communicate with people, then they have to go back to DDS, or regional center, depending on how its configured in their state and say, "Okay, well, this is a life functional skill thing for me. This is an activity of daily living. If I don't have this device, I don't have a means of communicating with people." And so, the laws very definitely protect their communication rights. And so, it falls on a different agency to purchase that equipment. It doesn't automatically fall on the shoulders of the families to come up with all this money to buy all of this tech. There's public dollars out there for it. Just, people need to know which agency to go to for which circumstance. If you're talking about someone who is an adult who's looking to get a job and needs to have this technology to communicate in order to be employed, well, now you're talking about the Department of Rehabilitation, which is also federally funded and also regulated under the same bodies of law as special education law on a federal level. But again, every state does it different. Some states will roll their Department of Developmental Services and their Department of Rehab together as one solid agency that takes care of both of those responsibilities. Where others, like in California, DDS it's its own thing and it's got its regional centers, and the Department of Rehabilitation is a completely separate entity that you have to go to separate from everybody else and go ask for their help. And so, getting all of these different agencies that each may have an individual responsibility to one person can be a lot, but any one of these agencies could end up having to finance the technology, the communication device and software, that these individuals would need. And so, I'm just putting it out there not only for you, but for our listeners, that there's more than one way to get the job done, and if one avenue is not appropriate for an individual, there may be another avenue that is, and that could still make your technology accessible to people outside of just the schools, even if they can't afford to buy it personally. And so, I just, you know ... Yes, I want my families who can afford it, they can just go straight there and get it. It could even be something they could get reimbursed on by the schools, if they buy it themselves because the schools haven't given them anything appropriate, and that ends up working for them. And so, there's a lot of different ways here in the United States where families can access these tools, including your technology, even if it's not through the public schools.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry There might be another way to do it. So I just wanted to put that out there. Have you worked with any other agencies other than the school districts out here?   Zafer Elcik Not yet. But we will like to working with agencies and so on. Right now, we are on track to complement ...   Anne Zachry I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to share your information with, here in California, we have First5, which is an early childhood intervention program, separate from the schools, but it works with them, sort of, but it's separate. And, it is all early intervention. And, very often they're the ones making the referrals.   Zafer Elcik Yeah, that would be awesome.   Anne Zachry Yeah, they're the ones often finding out, especially when you're talking about children from low-income, non-English-speaking families, immigrant families ... they don't know what to look for necessarily, or, even if they see something's up, they don't know what to do.   Zafer Elcik Yeah.   Anne Zachry Very often, First5 will be the one that catches it and makes the referrals and gets these kids into the appropriate supports and services. And so, this is the kind of stuff that they're going to want to know about. So I'm very definitely going to share it with them. And, then I'll also have it on our website and everything and I'll put it out there on our social media.   Zafer Elcik So, I forgot to mention we have also a Spanish version, as well.   Anne Zachry Ooooh!   Zafer Elcik Many families are using our apps in U.S., is reaching out to special education.   Anne Zachry Oh, that's huge. That's enormous to know. I'm excited to see what your project is going to be doing as it expands use through here in the United States, and as it evolves over time. I'm going to be putting links to it on our ... on this ... the post for this

Now that the Fall 2021 half of the regular school year has come to an end and all the students on my caseload are on Winter Break, I'm taking advantage of the break from back-to-back Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings to reflect on the most serious issues I've had to deal with so far during this first half of the current school year.   While I've had to deal with a lot of different challenges, it is the impact that the lack of appropriate services during shutdown, from March of 2020 to August or September of 2021, that has hit hardest. It's been the absolute most hardest on my students with intensive behavioral services in their IEPs who have suffered the most regression and lost educational benefits. School districts all over Southern California, and likely elsewhere throughout the State and beyond, refused to provide in-person services to children on IEPs who required them in order to continue learning during shutdown.   This was in spite of explicit changes to State law that mandated in-person services for those special education students who needed it and compensatory education for any special education students who lost educational benefits during shutdown. Not only were in-person services denied, compensatory services are still being denied as school districts act like their students' regression has nothing to do with the fact that the districts failed to provide in-person services to these children during shutdown.   What was done instead? Aides employed originally to provide direct, in-person support to these students in the classroom setting were put on Zoom, Google Meets, Microsoft Teams, or whatever else platform their employers were using for distance learning as remote participants. How in the Hell an aide on Zoom was supposed to provide the supports necessary to facilitate the student's participation in online learning via Zoom was anyone's guess. It consistently failed to work.   Further, even though the new laws clearly made it an option, only one of my students' districts hired a non-public agency (NPA) to provide in-person behavioral support services in the student's home during distance learning so the student's behaviors could not be permitted to allow him to escape/avoid the instruction. Instead, they rewarded his participation and prompted him to return to task when his attention wandered, so he was able to make excellent academic progress during distance learning.   What he wasn't able to work on was his social skills with peers and adults in normal everyday settings. When he returned to on-campus learning, his classroom behaviors became increasingly challenging and the behaviors of the other students in the class became escalated in response. It eventually got so bad that the other students in his non-public school (NPS) classroom assaulted his NPA behavior aide because they blamed her for keeping him in their class. He triggered them that badly.   We ultimately changed his placement right before Winter Break started and a due process case for the involved district's utter failure to offer or deliver a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the last two years is now pending. Settlement is entirely possible, which I can't discuss in detail, and the IEP team has come up with a strategy to hopefully salvage his education for the moment, but this is a student who is able to meet academic standards in spite of his grossly impaired social skills.   Our concern is that he will graduate with a diploma and get arrested the next day for acting out in public. His behavioral needs have been exacerbated by shutdown because he didn't get any instruction or practice in behaving in socially appropriate ways when in-person with peers or adults at school. In part, this was because the NPS he had attended had a “philosophy” that failed to conform with the evidence-based scientifically valid practices of the NPA that was providing his behavioral interventions.   As such, NPS staff regularly failed to abide by the Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) in the student's IEP, much to the frustration of the NPA experts who had designed it and much to the danger of the Behavioral Intervention Implementation (BII) staff who was assaulted by my student's classmates because he made them so upset. Rather than work collaboratively with the experts hired to address his behaviors using methods proven to work by science, the NPS staff would engage in ad hoc interventions based on whatever ideas popped into their science-denying minds in the given moment, none of which worked.   Most of the students in the NPS had mental and emotional health needs, many of which arising from past trauma, but our student had autism and just didn't know how to read the room. It was dubious as an appropriate placement from the outset, but the ecological factors of the on-campus setting weren't a problem during distance learning.   It wasn't until our student, who not only has autism, but also ADHD, started attending on-campus, which required him to be in transport between home and school for a total of five hours per day, and then attempt to behave in a socially appropriate manner among other students with serious mental and emotional health needs, that things really fell apart. He might as well have been put into a rocking chair in a room full of long-tailed cats.   The harm was inevitable. And, as always, he's being blamed and vilified while no one from his school district offers something appropriate to his needs. We're hoping the interim placement he has for now will benefit him more than where he's been, but it's still less than ideal. It may take a judge to figure it all out.   I've had two other students on my caseload face expulsion just within the last few weeks. One student's case just recently settled after the involved school district attempted to assert that behaviors that were clearly associated with the student's disabilities somehow magically were not, during a Manifestation Determination (MD) IEP meeting.   The only way for a parent to appeal an MD IEP meeting outcome is to file for due process. Because the student is facing expulsion, the hearing is automatically expedited. This gives parents very little time to prepare for hearing, much less find adequate representation.   I was able to refer this family to an attorney right away who was able to handle the MD appeal via due process. We were lucky to find a really good attorney who could take the case right away and handle it. Most of my attorney colleagues are overwhelmed with the volume of cases they are getting, right now. The violations are everywhere, evidently, and this failure to provide in-person services during shutdown when they truly were needed seems to be a recurring theme.   This case settled because we were able to move quickly through the process and find a good attorney who could handle going to an expedited hearing if necessary or otherwise negotiate an appropriate settlement. Not everybody is having that same experience, these days. This family was lucky. The violations in this student's case were pretty egregious and the attorney was able to convince the involved school district that it wasn't worth going to hearing.   My other student facing expulsion still awaits a decision from school site administration as to whether the principal should just let the IEP team effect a change in placement for special education reasons rather than subject this student to expulsion proceedings. Again, the involved school district tried to claim that the student's disability had nothing to do with the behaviors, which was simply ridiculous.   The student already had behavioral interventions built into his IEP to address the very kinds of behaviors for which he was in trouble. He had a history of escalating to the most outlandish behaviors he could think of to come right up to the line and just barely cross it enough to get himself kicked out of school to avoid the instruction. He hated it that much.   He had transitioned to his current placement in a Special Day Class (SDC) for special education students with behavioral challenges from a special school where all the students had behavioral challenges at the start of the 2019-20 school year and had been largely successful for most of that school year, until the shutdown started in March 2020. During that time, his targeted behaviors of work refusals and avoiding the classroom setting altogether were entirely reinforced by being stuck at home on the computer while the aides from his SDC were also in their own homes using their district's online meeting platform.   There was no one in his home trained in the interventions that were necessary to compel his compliance with teacher directions. There was no one who could make him even login. He had a baby sister at home and his mother was not about to have him triggered into angry outbursts in the home by trying to convince him to participate in the instruction with a baby in the house. Further, his mother was medically fragile and required multiple surgeries throughout the shutdown and afterwards. She was in no position to handle the angry outburst of a frustrated teenager with no impulse control due to ADHD struggling with the work because of a co-morbid learning disability.   We have a complaint pending before one of his school district's regulatory agencies in response to its mishandling of his behavioral needs to date. He is now pending expulsion for a behavior we're fairly convinced he engaged in so as to be kicked out of school. We don't believe he ever had any intent to hurt anyone, but he did enough wrong for someone who doesn't understand the function of his behaviors to think he might pose a credible threat. Law enforcement determined he posed no threat. It appears that district personnel may have exaggerated the severity of the behavior on purpose to justify expulsion.   All that said, the expulsion case may be dismissed if the district agrees to simply let the IEP team refer this student back to his previous placement at the special school. It was successful in preparing him for his transition to a comprehensive high school placement before shutdown; it should be able to return him to that state and help him transition back, again, with success. We also have a ton of new assessments pending to figure out what the most appropriate IEP for him should be, going forward.   This situation may deescalate before it has time to turn into a full kerfuffle. If we can all just agree to work together to address this student's serious behavioral regression through the IEP process and avoid the expulsion process altogether, particularly given that this district is being looked at very closely by one of its regulators right now for failing to adequately support this student thus far, already, we can implement a solution that will eliminate the parent's need to pursue accountability.   The goal isn't to nail the school district's hide to the wall; the goal is to get the student appropriately served as quickly as possible. Nailing hides to walls should only take place if it's absolutely necessary to get a student appropriately served as quickly as possible. It's a last resort option.   I have yet another student whose case is pending settlement, hopefully. It would be foolish on the part of his school district to allow it to go to hearing. I can't discuss much about it while it's pending settlement, but suffice it to say his school district totally blew it by failing to provide in-person behavioral services and supports during shutdown.   He has a host of learning challenges including partial vision loss, severe autism, intellectual disability, a seizure disorder, extremely limited communication skills, and self-injurious behaviors that frequently result in property damage in his home. His windows now have Plexiglas® panes and the dry wall in his home has been replaced so often, his family has lost count. He has made frequent trips to the emergency room and urgent care for medical treatment after hurting himself during an outburst. He has hurt his petite mother by accident.   He's now a young adult who is still eligible for special education and he's had these behavioral challenges his entire life. He's been a student of the same school district his entire public education career. It's not like they don't know what he needs. Before shutdown, he received intensive 1:1 and 2:1 behavioral supports throughout the school day to keep him safe and engaged in the instruction. He got none of that at home during shutdown.   His mother was left to be his 1:1 aide support during distance learning over a computer while his actual aide support staff stared back at him from the screen from their own homes. He was immediately triggered into violent outbursts because he didn't understand why he wasn't at school with these people instead of looking at them on a computer screen. His participation in distance learning had to stop immediately for his own safety and that of his mother. It's been a struggle ever since to get an offer of appropriate services in his IEP as a prospective matter of FAPE, much less with respect to all of the compensatory remedies he's due.   This student's case has been referred to a different attorney than the one mentioned above, but also an amazingly talented and smart one. Because settlement terms are still being discussed, I can't speak much further to the matter, but I think the point is made that this is happening way too much. We've got too many kids who didn't get what they needed during shutdown who are now owed compensatory remedies and they have until March 2022 to file for due process on their claims.   Special education attorneys who represent families are working at capacity with respect to their caseloads. That said, there have now been enough cases litigated and settled since the increase in claims began that openings are starting to come on many caseloads. Others are bogged down by appeals, which are largely occurring in the federal District Courts.   Some attorneys are having an easier time these days than others, just depending on whether they get good judges at the due process level, or have to work the appeals system before they get to someone willing to take the time to really listen to the arguments and examine the evidence relative to the rule of law and applicable science. That's always the chance that attorneys take with these cases, and it's not fun to work the appeals, I promise you.   I've provided paralegal support on cases all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and there is nothing more tedious than a Table of Uncontroverted Facts, because there are always facts that become controverted between the parties. The back-and-forth between the parties about what facts were agreed to, which ones were disputed, and all the references to the evidence and testimony on the existing record from the original due process case and previous appeal to the District Court that supposedly supported each party's asserted facts, became one of the most exhausting exercises I've ever engaged in as professional. I have ADHD – Inattentive Type, myself, so trust me when I say it was grueling.   Litigation should always be the very last resort to solving a special education problem, but these days it's been necessary. For those of you finding yourselves in similar circumstances, I'd like to share a decision from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).   I downloaded the PDF of this decision just in case it ever gets taken down in the future, and have uploaded it to our site. Click here to download the PDF of this due process decision from California in which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of a student who was deprived of educationally necessary in-person behavior services during shutdown, if the link to the OAH site doesn't work. In this case, the ALJ ordered compensatory services as remedies to the student.   If this decision can help you argue for resolution to your own child's lost educational benefits during shutdown, whether via due process or just a sensible discussion with your school district's representatives, it will have served its purpose as a persuasive authority on the subject. If you find it necessary to hire an attorney to file for due process over shutdown-related deprivation of educational benefits, be sure to share this authority with your attorney. They may have very well already seen it, but if you can relate the facts of your own child's case to the facts of this due process case linked to here, you will help bring your attorney up to speed regarding your child's claims, so you can timely file your case before March 2022.   You may also choose to use this decision to support your arguments as you advocate for your own child in the IEP process as a parent. If you share this decision with your school district's IEP team members and relate the facts of your child's situation to the similar facts in this due process case, presuming your child's case follows a similar pattern of a denial of behavioral services from his/her IEP during shutdown, your school district may be compelled to work with you rather than have you lawyer up and then have to deal with the costs of a legal action.   Parents' attorneys' fees and costs can be recovered from the offending school districts as a condition of settlement or upon prevailing in due process or appeal. School districts are smart to work things out through Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) Agreements or Confidential Settlement Agreements, if they can. The costs of due process and any subsequent litigation are far too great for taxpayers to fund when those dollars could be spent on educating children, instead. Spending education dollars on fights over the deprivation of educational benefits just adds insult to injury, honestly.   The evidence is increasingly making clear that far-right politics have way too much influence on public education at various levels of government, from local to state to federal education agencies. This is how public service was infiltrated at its weakest point. Extremists would get elected by an uniformed or misinformed electorate, then hire their cronies to work for them within their agencies, undermining the efficacy of local government while mishandling the finances in order to “prove” that government doesn't work while arguing for increased local control and reduced regulatory oversight.   Then they pay themselves more than they'd ever earn in the private sector where job performance matters as they slash resources to those expected to actually deliver on the agency's mandates who work beneath them. This is the climate in which special education violations occur. This is why public agencies defy the regulations to the detriment to some of our most vulnerable children, many of whom coming from low-income households whose parents are often at a loss as to how to fight back. Most parents won't do anything because they don't know what to do and don't realize how badly their children are being hurt in the long run.   If you are a parent whose child did not get appropriate services during shutdown, and who has regressed and may require compensatory services to be brought back to where he/she should be in school, right now, you're not alone. Whether you negotiate resolution on your own with you local education agency or hire someone to help you, know that many other parents have already started to fight this same fight before you, and some really helpful decisions are coming out of the various venues that can help bolster the arguments you and/or your representatives make on behalf of your child.   I hope this helps you put your own child's situation into perspective and gives you some ideas on how to go forward in the most constructive and least adversarial way possible. I can only imagine the other families' stories that out there similar to the ones I've described and the case captured by the decision linked to above. All of you are in my heart and I'm praying for you all.

Urie Bronfenbrenner, Human Development Researcher I have a million other things I need to be doing right now, but this is one of those moments where if I don't stop and purge these thoughts from my mind into print, they will torment and distract me until I do, so the sooner I finish this post, the sooner I can get back to work without continued torment and distraction. I wasn't intending to post, right now, because my caseload is blowing up and my other endeavor, The Learn & Grow Educational Series, is starting to require more of my attention lately as it continues to experience its own growth and expansion. My plate is full, but it's the reasons why it's full that prompt me to stop what I'm doing and post this today. In the course of analyzing the incoming bombardment of data that is my life, I'm seeing the connections between the specific issues I've chosen to take on with my professional skills and the turmoil being experienced by the world at large, right now. I'm seeing common allies and culprits across issues, and recurring themes and trends that can be generalized from the work I specifically do to the work that needs to be done overall to cure the defects of reparable systems, and overhaul and replace systems that no longer serve us. Today's post is an appeal to my colleagues to think beyond the bubbles and silos in which you may exist as professionals and recognize the need for your respective skills to contribute to much larger solutions on a much simpler scale. Capable, ethical, and responsible people each making what contributions they can along they way, just in the course of doing what they were already going to do, can reshape society into a healthier version of itself. We need to see our everyday activities as substantial contributions to the world that exists around us and appreciate that every little decision we make really does matter. If enough of us are thinking right and making the smart, ethical, and responsible decisions, we can help influence those around us who are less capable, thereby loving our neighbors as ourselves and being our brothers' keepers when necessary. We each help make the world we live in be what it is through our individual actions with each other. Those actions and their outcomes become woven together into complex relationships that evolve into established systems supported by nothing but learned behaviors. We don't do them because that's the way things work; the reason why that's the way things work is because that's the way we do them. That being the case, we have every reason in the world to believe that enough smart, ethical, altruistic people can facilitate healing throughout society to a more powerful degree than a minority of fear-based thinking, hate-mongering cowards can try to destroy it. It comes down to mindfulness and living a life of purpose that serves the common good while also serving oneself and one's immediate loved ones in healthy and constructive ways. One of my favorite theorists from human development research is Urie Bronfenbrenner. The lame graphic below is one I created in graduate school so as to avoid a copyright infringement by grabbing someone's more professional graphic off the internet, but it illustrates the model. Follow the above link for more information about Bronfenbrenner's model, if you're not already familiar with it or need to brush up on it. It's quite sobering in light of current world events. Bronfenbrenner's Socio-Ecological Model of Development Bronfenbrenner realized that, while nature had a certain degree of influence on the raw materials with which each person started out in life, it was the environment in which that person was raised relative to those raw materials that dictated the unique development of that individual person. No two people who have ever existed, exist now, or will exist in the future will ever be entirely identical to each other because, regardless of genetics, actual life experiences that shape people through learning are never identical from one person to the next. Genetics provide for a whole lot of variability, but they're still technically finite in spite of their vastness. Environments are ever-changing; they must be adapted-to in the moment via individuals' behaviors and over time via genetic mutation of the species. For those of you among my colleagues in special education and related fields who are expected to individualize programming according to the unique needs of each constituent served, this shouldn't be a leap of logic for you. For people unfamiliar with what it takes to truly individualize something for another person, particularly another person with diminished capacity to communicate their needs, it might as well be alchemy or voodoo. The bottom line is that everybody thinks differently and has relative strengths and weaknesses. You can't assume that just because it's obvious to you, it's obvious to everyone else. But, you also can't assume that just because it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense to anyone else, either. The sword of understanding cuts both ways for each of us. We're each good at some things and not so good at others; that's normal. Some people, however, are not so good at recognizing when they're not so good at something. This goes to another body of psychological science, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but that's a whole discussion unto itself that I'll link to but not delve into, right now. One lay person's less-than-kind distillation of it, once it was explained to them, was, “So, basically, dumb people are too dumb to know that they're dumb.” The point is that those of us who get it have to carry the weight of those who don't and/or can't. It's the opposite of authoritarianism, which demands the compliance of coerced individuals; what is called for, here, is the responsible stewardship of public service agencies to actually serve the public according to their mandates in conformity with the professional ethical standards of their involved professional disciplines. For those of us supporting the needs of individuals with disabilities, we understand that the situation sometimes requires helping people exercise their informed choices as independently as possible. Other times, our responsibilities require us to protect the rights of those who are incapable of making fully informed choices without our help and are otherwise helpless and vulnerable to exploitation. We understand this better than most people and we need to recognize that we are collectively unique as a result. It's not that big of a stretch between the issues of conservatorship abuse and voter suppression and nullification laws. A whole lot of science in the areas of psychology, sociology, communication, behavior, instruction, organizational planning, leadership, and related disciplines has been conducted over the last 100 years. Many of us have access to that research but don't make the time to follow it. I encourage every one of my professional colleagues to create a saved search for a specific body of peer-reviewed research and, whenever you are able to grab a free moment, take the time to run the search and read something new from the science that tells you something you didn't already know, then think about ways to incorporate it into what you are doing in your work and follow through on applying them. What small change in a routine task can you make that applies the knowledge you've gained for the better? Over time, how much better will things incrementally get with each little new thing you tweak after reading from your saved search? Is it a relevant authority to something you are currently writing? Does it help you better understand how to individualize a particular constituent's goals and services? Is there another colleague who you think might benefit from the information with whom you can share it? Can you share your thoughts about it on LinkedIn and/or other professional online platforms in a constructive way? Nothing exists in a vacuum. The more we recognize and honor the logical connections among our respective professions and how the science applies to out constituents and their service needs, the more we realize that Bronfenbrenner was right. J. V. Wertsch, who worked with Bronfenbrenner, states in his 2005 review of Bronfenbrenner's book, Making Human Beings Human,"Starting with the assumption that ‘to a greater extent than for any other species, human beings create the environments that shape the course of human development’ (p. xxvii), Urie has argued that it is incumbent on all of us to create decent, nurturing environments for human development." [Emphasis added.] In my opinion, that's something we have yet as a species to do; ants do a far better job of this than we do. Unfortunately, because we still are not proactively applying Bronfenbrenner's science as an ongoing element of how our society functions, we still do not love our neighbors just as we love ourselves and we are not our brothers' keepers when our brothers go astray. We blame and punish people for having weak minds rather than remediate the effects of their shortcomings. As a species, humans generally treat their abilities as unfair advantages and use them to exploit others. They should be humbled by the responsibilities that come with their gifts and use them prudently with good intent, but in the absence of informed, deliberate planning, what has naturally been allowed to come to fruition is a society that rewards abuses of the rules more richly than compliance with them. Those of us trying to facilitate functional independence among our most vulnerable children and adults know all too well that there aren't enough of us with the necessary expertise to change the maladaptive behaviors in every bad situation that is collectively poisoning society, right now. The most we can do is the most we can do in our respective situations. We have to hope people will start copying our strategies that work when they see our successes. We need to start generalizing our successes into other areas where the same degree of expertise is not available, just as a matter of making sure our democracy thrives and functions as it should according to what can be proven true and responsibly effective for everybody. Further, we as a society have historically regarded those individuals on the cusp between “can't” and “could with learning” as an acceptable shade of gray on the spectrum of social involvement, but now they have become an outspoken and increasingly violent minority of individuals who cannot successfully function with independence in the quickly evolving world. They don't know how to adapt but they can still wreak havoc on their way down the tubes. The only difference between “can't” and “could with learning” is the provision of instruction. The outcomes of both are the same if no instruction is made available; there has to be the “with learning” part in order for the choices of the person who can learn to differ from the choices of the person who can't. The problems we are seeing in the world today from misinformation being spread on the internet goes to the degree to which many internet users have no idea how search engines and social media algorithms indulge subjective biases and feed them whatever will increase their engagement without regard for how those choices impact the individual user or society on the whole. When all of our individual choices put together collectively shape the fabric of society, an artificial intelligence that only reinforces user engagement with neutral disregard for the quality or nature of that engagement will, by design, radicalize the most violent of the weakest minds into acts of terrorism. It weaponizes a previously harmless sub-population by turning them against us in irrational, violent ways and selling them the products to do it. At the end of the day, humans are again proven to be part of nature and not something separate from it. The natural consequences of poor choices eventually catch up to people, one way or another. Sometimes other, innocent people become collateral damage along the way, and its in the interest of minimizing those numbers now and ultimately eliminating them as soon as possible that those of us who already work in professions helping people with disabilities need to generalize our skills into other aspects of human need where possible. What those of us working with individuals challenged by mental health issues already know can be imperative to addressing domestic terrorism. As an example of generalizing one's skills beyond one's professional area of focus, while I still represent students with disabilities and consult with their parents as a lay advocate, provide paralegal support to attorneys representing students with disabilities in various legal proceedings, and design and implement compensatory programs for individuals with disabilities who were wrongfully denied services by publicly funded agencies, I also created something else using my knowledge and skills. I created the Learn & Grow Educational Series to address food insecurity and sustainable living issues. The science of instruction is also the science of marketing, and social media can be used just as effectively to push learning as it can be used to push sales. In many cases, content creators push both, with the sales funding the instructional content and the instructional content driving the sales in a synergistic way; if it were organic, it would be considered symbiotic. The science I rely upon to determine appropriate educational goals and services for my learners with special needs is the same science I rely upon each time I create a new Learn & Grow learning experience for my online and in-person learners. Through Learn & Grow, I'm able to teach people everywhere how to grow their own fresh fruits and vegetables anywhere using free and/or inexpensive materials, even if they have no open ground for growing. I use evidence-based instructional practices to teach them how to make self-watering containers from buckets for patio, balcony, fire escape, and rooftop gardening. These containers are water conservative, using as little as one-tenth the amount of water of in-ground growing, and self-regulating, meaning the soil is never too wet or too dry so long as the reservoir beneath it doesn't run dry. These containers are portable, meaning renters can take their gardens with them when they move. I've moved my own garden five times since I first started it in June of 2013, and the goji berry thicket I started from seeds when I first started the garden is still going strong in its original container, giving me two crops of berries per year. The design of these containers is totally open-source, public domain knowledge. What is unique to Learn & Grow is the body of evidence-based instruction and project ideas using this gardening method that I provide in person and which lives online through Learn & Grow's website, Facebook page, Instagram account, and video channels on YouTube: Food for Thought and Learn & Grow with Emmalyn. This is where I was able to apply my skills normally used in special education and disability resources to address other types of challenges the world is currently facing, specifically food insecurity and climate change. In October 2020, I expanded the Learn & Grow curriculum to include sustainable living methods, starting with alternative energy sources and gray water recapturing. I've most recently started conducting online Meetups using Zoom and Prezi for urban gardeners in the greater Los Angeles area who can benefit from Learn & Grow's instruction regarding self-watering bucket gardens. Without any marketing, my online classes are getting bookings and my Meetup group continues to grow in membership. Once I start marketing it, I expect to reach a larger number of learners who want to be able to grow their own food in their apartments, condos, mobile home parks, and other limited growing environments. This is an adaptation to their environments I can help them make, a lá Bronfenbrenner, to create a greater quality of life using sustainable means in a very healthy way. If they get their buckets used from local restaurants or bakeries, they keep that plastic out of landfills and reuse it for something entirely purposeful. For me, achieving increased food security, recycling, water conservation, and portability with a single solution is too good of a thing not to share. It's not directly related to publicly funded services for individuals with disabilities, but it relies upon the same sciences to be successful. I can generalize what I already know from what I've been doing professionally for the last 30 years to tackle an entirely different area of need, and it's not that hard. It's not any harder than representing a child with special needs in a federal complaint or supporting a child's attorney in due process, and I can do those things. Plus, I'm taking advantage of online tools to automate as much of my Learn & Grow content as possible, so the planning phase is followed by the scheduling phase which is then followed by an automated implementation stage that frees me up for months to years at a time to focus on other things, like the individuals on my caseload. I can drip instruction just as easily as I can drip marketing messages using the same online tools. I also recently rejoined my local Kiwanis club, which is a community service organization. I'm helping the club use Learn & Grow to provide self-watering bucket gardens to community-based programs, like adult day cares and preschools, as well food insecure individuals through local food pantries, hunger relief programs, and shelters. I'm able to address food insecurity through a more direct means by partnering with my local Kiwanis club, which has ample volunteers and existing trusted business partners willing to invest in the right community service projects with their donations. This is a win-win-win for all involved, and it only happened because I went outside of my normal professional duties to tackle another social issue in ways that only someone with my unique skill set could. All of us have skills and expertise that can be generalized to another problem in the world other than the one about which you spend most of your time thinking. I promise you that finding some other way to express yourself and apply your skills to something hugely constructive towards making the world a better place will open your mind in ways that makes you a better thinker back on your regular job and give you a healthier outlook on life. Food shortages and economic collapse were the unknowns I most feared back when I started Learn & Grow in 2013. That was only made more real when Learn & Grow was discovered by panicked Venezuelans in 2016 when their country's economy collapsed and their government subsidized food supply collapsed along with it, leaving them with no food in their stores and no more coming any time soon. I'm not afraid of that, now. My garden has grown to sixty-one self-watering containers and I have four laying hens who give me eggs throughout the year. Come what may, I'll be okay for food. The shortages in the stores at the start of the pandemic and the supply chain shortages happening right now have only been slight inconveniences compared to what could happen if the whole supply chain were to collapse altogether. Most people have become dependent upon it, and that's dangerously unhealthy. If the commercialized food supply collapsed tomorrow, what situation would you be in? As much as I live and breath special education and disability resource science and law, I can't have figured out a way to dodge the bullet of a collapse of our commercialized food supply, have the ability to teach people according to their individual capacities to learn, and not use my skills to teach other people what I've figured out to survive a very dire time of food insecurity in this country. And, I know I can't be the only one. I know there are others of you out there who see issues with social justice, public health, climate change, domestic terrorism, and/or the ongoing threats to our democracy that would benefit from your unique perspectives and skills. Something horrible happening in the world today has factors in common with a problem you've already solved. Your solution translates into something that can be generalized to solve other serious world problems. Don't keep it to yourself. I'm not special; I'm just specialized in my knowledge and skills, and they can be applied to more than one context. That doesn't make me unique; it makes me a member of a unique sub-population of individuals with relevant skills. You, my professional colleagues, can do something about society's ills today without it being political. Helping people everywhere grow their own food doesn't take sides in anything. Everybody needs to eat. Food is a basic survival need no matter what somebody chooses to believe. Individual food security is a highly personal and universal topic with which every person can relate. So is access to clean drinking water, safety from violence, affordable housing, and a host of other issues begging for your expertise. Most cultural disputes are about access to resources, and the United States is experiencing a cultural civil war, right now. It is fueled by misinformation meant to tear our country apart being published online by bad actors exploiting the capable hands of people with weaknesses of the mind who fear losing what they have to imaginary threats they believe to be real. People who can't or won't face their real problems will imagine things to be their absolute worst without confirming whether they actually are. They catastrophize things. It's a symptom; it's not healthy. It's a feature of anxiety, which is always about lacking predictability. They cling to the familiar because they can't predict anything else and their fear of the unknown is greater than any discomfort they may feel, if any, in their predictable routines. People who can't actually understand what is really going on have no sense of predictability about what is about to come. They will pin their expectations to what they want to happen next as opposed to what the facts dictate will happen next. They can't follow an evidence-based thought process, so they substitute it with wishful thinking, but unrealistic expectations are just preconceived resentments. When things don't turn out according to their wishes, they get mad at reality and insist that it bend to fit their fantasies rather than adjust their expectations according to what actually is. They don't understand everything going on, so they can't adjust their thinking according to all the relevant facts. How can you, as a professional, interact with people who exist in this state without demeaning or condescending to them? Can you interact with them fully understanding that, like many of the individuals with disabilities we serve, these people are doing the best they can with what they have and they need our loving, responsible guidance to find their ways to the right side of things? If we just help them address their needs in more pro-social ways, they won't feel compelled to attempt to meet them in anti-social ways. It's basic ABA. I'm asking my professional colleagues to please strongly consider using your knowledge and skills to address any of the many nonpartisan issues that are currently challenging the human species, right now, that are outside of your normal area of practice. See if there is a Kiwanis club in your local area that could use your help. Identify an unmet need in your local community and find out what is needed to address it, then find other people who have the necessary skills that you lack and start your own thing. Just find a way to contribute, even in a small way, to a nonpartisan issue in your community that isn't currently getting enough attention. The technology available to us today is a tool, but, like a hammer, it can build or kill depending on how it is used. I'm with Urie Bronfenbrenner on this one; we should use our knowledge and resources to make the world a place that meets everyone's needs, rather than a place that meets the needs and wants of those who know how to exploit and take advantage of those who don't. The tools now available for people to collaborate and get things done remotely, thanks in no small part to the necessities that arose with the pandemic, are phenomenally powerful and easy to use. The tools to create online content decrease in cost and become increasingly rich in features over time, and most people only need a few good features to make stellar content. Learn more about the ways you can participate in your citizenship in nonpartisan ways by studying the research on servant leadership. If you find yourself in an environment in which acting in the short-term for immediate gain comes at the cost of considering the long-term consequences, and you can't be a positive influence for more responsible thinking and planning, get out. You're wasting your precious gifts on people who will never appreciate them and would use them to harmful ends if you let them. There are other places you can go where your gifts will be appreciated and put to proper use, where you can earn a decent living and live with yourself in peace. You just have to take the time to find it or create it. That's not always easy, but it's always worth it. There is no way to memorize a script for every possible thing that could happen in the future in order to be prepared for if/when it happens. Nobody can remember that many scripts, much less predict every possible future in advance and develop a script for it before everything changes and new scripts are needed. Living a life that follows the same specific script in order to keep it predictable is a symptom, not an adaptive strategy. That's not participation; it's approximation. It's parallel play. The only way a collective of people can work together towards a common goal is to act according to common guiding principles. For example, if everyone helping with Learn & Grow agrees with and abides by the guiding principle of, “Make sure everyone can grow enough healthy food to survive, come what may,” whatever decisions they face along the way will come down to whether or not their choices facilitate everyone growing enough food for themselves, come what may. If you have a fixed outcome in mind, it's the next best thing to having a script for every possible contingency. Having that fixed outcome limits the number of actions you can take, so it whittles down your choices to a more manageable list of alternatives. The more ethical conditions that have to be satisfied by the solution, the narrower the options, meaning the easier it is to decide. What makes leadership and decision-making so overwhelming for most people is the sheer number of possibilities and figuring out which one makes the most sense. By using a consistent, agreed-to guiding principle as a “North Star” for decision-making, team members can be consistent among each other with their choices and actions towards achieving the common good. We don't need a savior to swoop in and save us. We just need to be mindful of how our actions throughout the day shape the world around us and consciously choose actions that promote the things in the world we want to see based on what we've learned from all of our life experiences, including those most commonly associated with work, even if at only the tiniest level. It all adds up in the end, and every little positive contribution matters. This is mindfulness meeting purposeful action, and I hope you're inspired use your gifts to help in impactful, constructive ways that remind everyone you touch that we only get through these terrible times by working together. Because of your professional skills, you're in a unique position to help humanity survive this time of upheaval and transition and thrive once the worst of it has passed. I look forward to seeing what truths each of you end up speaking to power over the next few years and appreciate the efforts of all of you who choose to contribute in ways you can towards a better tomorrow for everyone.

Photo credit: Marco Verch On July 22, 2021, The Lancet published an article by Adam Hampshire, et. al., in which the findings reported that COVID-19 causes long-term cognitive impairments among many of those who have been ill with it, particularly those who have been hospitalized with severe forms of the illness and those diagnosed with COVID-19 but not hospitalized. I won't rehash the entire article here. Follow the link to read it for the details. In today's post/podcast, I'm summarizing the findings of this body of research and discussing their implications for the special education community. First, let's look at what the cognitive impairments caused by COVID-19 can look like, and then we'll talk about what this means for the special education community. This research by Hampshire and his team specifically found: “[The] results [of this study] accord with reports of 'Long Covid' cognitive symptoms that persist into the early-chronic phase. They should act as a clarion call for further research with longitudinal and neuroimaging cohorts to plot recovery trajectories and identify the biological basis of cognitive deficits in SARS-COV-2 survivors.” So, basically, there is evidence to support that if a person gets sick with COVID-19, they can experience cognitive impairments that last a long time, perhaps permanently, and further research is needed to understand the long-term consequences of millions of Americans having their cognitive functioning reduced by COVID-19. For our kids about to go back to in-person learning, the questions become about whether they will end up subjects in that research after getting COVID-19 and experiencing cognitive impairments, and what will be done to benefit them if they are affected in such a way. The symptoms, specifically, were reported by Hampshire and his team as: “... colloquial reports of 'brain fog,' … low energy, problems concentrating, disorientation, and difficulty finding the right words.” Further, there is evidence that “... COVID-19 patients can develop a range of neurological complications including those arising from stroke, encephalopathies, inflammatory syndrome, microbleeds, and autoimmune responses,” any of which can cause brain damage or impairment. As children face returning to school as the Delta Variant of COVID-19 rages through unvaccinated populations, including children under 12 who are not eligible for vaccination, all parents in their right mind are worried about their children getting sick. The risk of long-term cognitive impairment during the critical learning years of child development and/or permanent brain damage are now yet more reasons for parents to want to keep COVID-19 far, far away from their children. The sad reality is that a lot of children in areas of the country with low vaccination rates, many of which are communities compromised by poverty and reduced access to resources in the first place, are going to get COVID-19, and a fair number of those that survive are going to experience cognitive impairments as a result. This means a whole new cohort of children entering special education who otherwise would not have required it, thereby increasing the special education burden of every local, state, and federal education agency. For those children already on IEPs who get sick with COVID-19 only to be further cognitively impaired by it, we're going to see changes in their present levels of performance that make their current IEPs no longer appropriate to all of their needs. They are likely to experience regression and an increased need for supports and services in their IEPs, meaning yet another increase in the burden on local, state, and federal education agencies. This is, of course, preventable with appropriate safety measures. The problem is that we have some local and state leaders doing everything they can to spread the disease, banning mask mandates in our public schools, for Christ's sake! We have millions of unvaccinated children expected to co-mingle in crowded spaces that will become super-spreader sites that induce cognitive impairments among the students who are there for the purpose of enhancing their cognitive abilities. And, it's the same conservative leaders who are pushing to ban mask mandates in schools who will refuse to fund their students' special education services when they come back to school with cognitive impairments later on. Parents can fight together now to prevent their children from becoming cognitively impaired, or at least more impaired than they already are, by pushing for appropriate safety measures in our public schools, or a smaller but significant number of them can fight later on for special education services for their children who experience “Long COVID” and resulting neurological impairments. Aside from the obvious lingering health problems that children who experience and survive COVID-19 can have, which will require ongoing care that parents previously weren't having to provide, there are the added complications of learning problems that will require parents to exhaust themselves further to pursue. Special education was already falling grossly short of the mark, but we're now in the process of creating the next large population to blaze a litigation trail across the judiciary with special education cases: COVID-related impairments. As it stands, regardless of the symptoms, if a student who survives COVID-19 ends up with long-lasting health and/or cognitive problems that interfere with access to learning, the fact that it's the result of COVID-19 could cause that student to meet criteria for “Other Health Impairment (OHI),” under special education law [34 CFR Sec. 300.8(a)(1)]. It's not like a new eligibility category would need to be created. The special education world went through similar chaos during the 1990s when Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHDs) first became understood and widely recognized as an actual set of conditions. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) ran a great big study on ADHDs. I remember attending a panel discussion by individuals who had participated in the study back in the day. Back then, ChADD (Children with Attention Deficit Disorders, as it was known back then), was big on the advocacy scene while litigation went forward in the courts to determine if kids with ADHDs were eligible for special education. The ultimate outcome was that there didn't need to be a separate eligibility category for ADHDs because they were captured by either the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) or OHI categories, depending on how each affected child experienced it. Back in the early 1990s, I went to a speaking engagement at which the founder of ChADD, who was also one of the parents taking this landmark litigation forward, described the favorable outcomes the litigation had achieved, but also how awful it was to have to go through all of that and how vindicated his family felt in the end, particularly his child with ADHD. I see the same thing happening here with kids who will be disabled by COVID-19 to such a marked degree that they require special education and related services in order to access education, and kids who already needed special education who will now become even more greatly compromised than they already were after surviving COVID-19. Plus, I see this happening the most in the states and locales least likely to protect their children against COVID-19, which are also the states and locales least likely to comply with special education law. Far right politics have undermined the success of special education at the local and state levels since special education law was created. In fact, the laws that protect our children with special needs were created in response to these far right political efforts to deny them access to education. The situation has literally become life with permanent disability or death for far too many of our children, and still the public scrutiny on the right wing fuckery that goes on in public education has not become intense enough to change the broken system. How much more broken will the system become when it has killed a percentage of its students and permanently disabled yet another percentage who will now require special education when they didn't before or who will now need more intensive special education above and beyond what they were previously getting? At what point in the future will all of the associated costs created by neglecting our kids now finally matter enough for the tax-fattened hyenas that are undermining public education from within to realize it's in their best political interests to actually protect and educate their students? Political extremism in any form will derail the most sensibly created system, but public education was not sensibly created for the present times and the political extremism has always been part of it. Many have the misconception that public education stopped serving as an arm of the Patriarchy once it became a female-dominated profession. But, there is nothing professional about a bunch of “Karens” sitting around a table passing judgment over a single, low-income mom of color with a kid who has a mental health disorder and related behavior problems instead of helping her and her child. Thankfully, the field is changing and we have more scientifically-minded people entering special education, but there are still a lot of the old cronies hanging in there for as long as they can before grabbing their pensions and running off into the sunset, leaving all kinds of poorly educated, if not traumatized, children in their wake. This country is going to through a reckoning in which ethics and the rule of law are at the heart and soul of it all. Ethics and the rule of law have always been the heart and soul of special education disputes, and I can only see what is happening on the national level as an expansion of what I've been fighting for the last 30 years. The thing that also is getting lost in this debate is the impact of “Long COVID” on teachers, specialists, and administrators. How does inducing cognitive impairment among a public education agency's personnel serve the public good? How is that an appropriate employment practice for any employer? Why are we willing to impair the minds meant to sharpen the minds of our children? How is this self-preservation as a species? As a tough old broad who has already seen the kinds of bullshit these people can pull, and given how much bullshit the American public is starting to realize can happen within our supposedly democratic government based on what is now coming out about the 45th President's attempted soft coup d'etat following the 2020 election, I don't think I'm being hyperbolic or alarmist when I point out the travesty we're creating for ourselves in increased special education expenditures by failing to prevent childhood cognitive impairments as a result of “Long COVID.” I'm hoping this message isn't falling on deaf ears.

Photo credit: Joe Loong   One of the things I've been trying to get across to people for years is the understanding that Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is a science, not a special education service, much less a service specifically for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). The confusion arises from the fact that instructional strategies and behavioral interventions based on the principles of ABA, which work with all learners, just so happen to also work for students with ASDs and often it's the only approach that does. As such, the demand for ABA-based programs for students with ASDs, and the peer-reviewed research around its efficacy with this particular population, has resulted in confusion among the lay public as to what ABA actually is. Because so many people in public education and the families that rely on it only see ABA used with respect to ASDs, they think that's all it's for, and this is a gross failure on the part of the professionals who know otherwise to set things straight. This is why I've been trying to get this point across for so long. Knowledge powers solutions for parents, which is the whole reason our organization exists. The absence of relevant knowledge on behalf of any of the stakeholders in the IEP process can prevent students with disabilities from getting the kinds of help they actually need, so a failure to appreciate that ABA applies to anyone or anything that behaves can have dire consequences for students who would benefit from ABA-based interventions, even if they have conditions other than ASDs that create these needs. That's a whole conversation unto itself, but that's not the focus of this post. Because ABA applies to anyone and anything that behaves, it therefore applies to all the members of a student's IEP team. For parents, the science of ABA can be not only constructive with respect to developing an appropriate IEP for their children, but also in navigating the behaviors of the other IEP team members during IEP meetings and related exchanges with public education agency personnel, which is what I'm focusing on in this post. To be clear, ABA is not a method or strategy. It is a way of describing behaviors according to how they naturally occur. When it is used to make something happen, it's all about how to interact with others in a way that promotes the behaviors we want to see from them. Used ethically in a team context, it keeps conversations productive and collaborative. However, the proverbial snake oil salesman “selling ice cubes to Eskimos” abuses ABA as part of a con to manipulate people's behaviors for personal gain at other people's expense. The thing to understand is that ABA is a reality-based approach to understanding what is going on and planning what to do about it. It isn't an invention; it's simply a tool that measures what already is. That data can then be used to change how things are. So, it's not like I can give you a checklist of things to do, whether you understand them or not, and you're off and running. You need to understand the underlying science, which I'm going to grossly oversimplify here to make the concepts as digestible as possible. Before I launch into what ABA is, I first have to back up and explain the three key tenets of science. Science relies on: Determinism – an understanding that there is a logical, evidence-based explanation for everything in existence.Empiricism – an understanding that every evidence-based explanation can be described in quantifiable terms using fixed increments of measure.Parsimony – the understanding that the simplest explanation that fits the measured evidence is the correct explanation. That's not an ABA-specific thing. That's how all science works, and ABA is a science. Like a financial audit, science renders reality down into measurable bits that can be analyzed for black-and-white, yes/no answers, regardless of what is being discussed. There is a reason that “accounting” and “accountability” share a common root word. Financial audits examine accounting records for accuracy because those records are supposed to account for where money has gone or will go. For this reason, accounting is actually a science. All other forms of science account for things the same way, measuring what is according to fixed increments of measure and giving us an accounting of what is really going on. Such is the case with ABA. The increase of neo-fascism in America, in which science is frequently denied, is really a rejection of accountability and/or a significant detachment from reality consistent with mental illness. It's about skewing numbers (like the 45th President attempting to offload COVID-infected cruise ship passengers at the beginning of the pandemic onto Guantánamo Bay so as to prevent the numbers of infection cases in the United States from going up) or otherwise pretending the numbers are untrue (like “The Big Lie” told by the 45th President regarding the vote count in the 2020 Presidential election), so as to avoid being held accountable. Science is all about explaining reality using numbers, which requires the application of mathematics. There's only one right answer to a math calculation. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who grasp this concept when it comes to money, but not with anything else. These are generally the kinds of people who own profitable businesses and use their money to hire private jets to fly to Washington, DC, so they can attempt to violently overthrow our government because they fear accountability and equate any perceived loss of privilege or unfair advantage with oppression. Oppressed people can't afford private jets, in case you were wondering. These are also the kinds of people who end up in handcuffs over cooking their companies' books, once the accountability finally catches up with them. When you understand science as a form of accounting for anything that exists in numerical terms, just as with money, it isn't possible to take it as an affront to your belief system, unless you believe things – or are trying to convince other people to believe things – that are not true. There is no rule that says we have to like the truth. An intact person will acknowledge an undesired truth and deal with it. A person engaging in disordered thought will attempt to argue against it and assert beliefs unsupported by evidence as fact, thereby confusing opinion with fact and arguing against what they don't want to be true as though it really isn't. As a parent going into the IEP process, you need to stick to the facts. An IEP is all about measurable annual goals that describe what your child is supposed to be taught and how to measure the degree to which your child learns from that instruction. Services are determined on what is necessary to achieve the degree of success targeted by the goals and placement is determined according to what setting(s) are the least segregated from the general education setting in which the services can be delivered such that the goals are met. The entire process hinges on the appropriate application of the relevant sciences. As a parent, know going into the IEP process that it is scientifically driven and, therefore, relies on measurable facts to inform your child's educational planning, plus it must do so according to the rule of law. The whole system was designed with the education agency's accountability to the individual student and the student's family in mind, which is why it boggles my mind every time I encounter anything but that in the IEP process. Specifically with respect to using ABA to navigate the behaviors of the other team members as a parent attempting to exercise your federally protected right to meaningful participation in the IEP process, there are some ABA-specific concepts you first need to understand. The first concept is that of ABC data collection and the second concept is that of reinforcement. ABC data collection is a process used to determine the function(s) of a specific behavior. The “A” stands for “antecedent,” the “B” stands for “behavior,” and the “C” stands for “consequence.” Each of these has a specific operational definition in ABA, and any deviation from their respective definitions means whoever is taking the data is not actually practicing ABA. An antecedent in ABA is whatever happened right before the behavior that triggered it. When you're talking about students, the presentation of a task demand can be the antecedent to a challenging behavior being addressed by an IEP, for example. When you're talking about corrupt and/or incompetent public agency officials in an IEP meeting, the presentation of a parent request could be the antecedent to some kind of challenging behavior displayed by educational agency personnel, as another example. The behavior in the ABC data collection process is the actual observable behavior being addressed. In the example involving a student just given, let's say the challenging student behavior upon the presentation of a task demand involving a worksheet, is verbal aggression while tearing up the worksheet. In the example of a difficult IEP team member, let's say the challenging behavior upon the presentation of a parent request is a bunch of hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject. The consequence in ABA data collection is the immediate outcome produced by the behavior, specifically the pay-off the individual gets by engaging in it. This is an important distinction because it is often inaccurately reported in school-based behavior assessments, where the previous century of relying on a punishment model of behavioral intervention regards “consequence” as something meted out by staff. That is wholly inaccurate. Anything the staff does in response to the behavior, whether it works or not, is a “reactive strategy,” not a “consequence” within the meaning of ABA. The point of identifying the actual consequence achieved by engaging in the behavior is to determine the function served by the behavior for the individual engaging in it. Once the function of the behavior is understood, you can choose how you want to respond to it in a constructive way. When you don't know the actual function of someone else's behavior, you can respond to it in a way that hurts more than helps the situation. Identifying the function of an inappropriate behavior is entirely necessary before an evidence-based approach can be developed to address it. So, using the examples I just gave, let's say that the consequence of the student engaging in verbal aggression and tearing up the worksheet upon the task demand being presented is to escape/avoid the task demand. With respect to an IEP team member engaging in hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject when a parent makes a request, the function of the behavior is to escape/avoid addressing, much less honoring, the parent's request. In both of these examples, the function of each of the hypothetical behaviors described were both escape/avoidance, but this is not the only function a behavior can serve. Behaviors happen for only one of two reasons: to get something or get away from something. As such, behaviors can be reduced to a one or a zero, depending on whether its function was to get something (1) or escape something (0). Even the most complex behaviors can thus be reduced down to simple binary code as the most parsimonious way to describe what is happening. In ABA, the functions of a behavior are typically described as access/attainment, escape/avoidance, and automatic. Automatic reinforcement speaks to behaviors that address internal drive states, such as physical wellness and emotionality, but even those are based on access/attainment or escape/avoidance. Sensory-seeking and/or sensory-avoidant behaviors are based on automatic reinforcement for someone with sensory processing issues based on their unique neurology, for example. That leads us to the second key concept of ABA that you need to understand, which is that of reinforcement. A reinforcer is anything that increases the likelihood of an individual engaging in a specific behavior in response to a specific antecedent. If the consequence of the behavior is reinforcing, the individual will continue to engage in it whenever that specific antecedent is presented in order to achieve the reinforcer. For example, if you get hungry (antecedent) and go put money in a vending machine and push the right buttons (behavior), you will get food (consequence). The function of the behavior is access/attainment of food to satisfy your hunger. It's pretty simple. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, but these are not judgments of “good” or “bad.” Just as with magnets, the poles of the Earth, and batteries, the terms “positive” and “negative” have specific meanings within ABA that are also frequently misunderstood in special education behavioral interventions. In reality, when it comes to ABA, “positive” means “to present” and “negative” means “to withdraw.” Positive reinforcement, therefore, is the presentation of something that is likely to reinforce a specific behavior. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unwanted in order to reinforce a particular behavior. The aforementioned vending machine scenario gives an example of positive reinforcement because food is presented in response to the behavior of putting money into the vending machine and pushing its buttons. Both forms of reinforcement were best explained scientifically back in the early days of behaviorism by B.F. Skinner using what came to be referred to as a “Skinner Box.” In Skinner's positive reinforcement experiments, rats in a cage were taught to pull a lever in order to access food pellets. At first, pulling on the lever was accidental, but as soon as food came out, the rats quickly learned that engaging in the behavior of pulling the lever resulted in the presentation of a food pellet. The presentation of the food pellet reinforced the pulling of the lever. In Skinner's negative reinforcement experiments, rats in a cage with an electrified floor that delivered mild shocks to their feet learned to pull a lever in order to turn off the electrification of the floor. Again, at first, pulling the lever was accidental, but as soon as their feet were no longer getting zapped, the rats quickly learned that engaging in the behavior of pulling the lever resulted in the termination of discomfort caused by the electrified floor of the cage. The removal of the electrification reinforced the pulling of the lever. In both cases, the behavior of pulling the lever was reinforced. It's just that one form of reinforcement provided access to something preferred and the other removed something aversive. Again, this can all be reduced to getting something (1) or getting away from something (0). In the IEP process, you're either getting what you want for your child or you are not. The public education agency personnel are either satisfying their agency's agenda or they are not. The whole situation is riddled with ones and zeros depending on what you are talking about and who is involved. Again, this is all a gross over-simplification of these basic ABA concepts. There are other considerations that have to be taken into account, such as setting events, otherwise known as Motivating Operations (MOs). MOs increase the likelihood of a specific antecedent triggering a specific behavior. In our previous example regarding the student becoming verbally aggressive and tearing up a worksheet upon the task demand being presented, it could be the case that the student normally complied with task demands but, that particular day, the student had a stomach ache and didn't have the concentration and stamina to engage in the task when it was presented. As such, the antecedent was still the presentation of a task demand, but that antecedent occurred in the presence of the MO of a stomach ache, and the consequence was still to escape/avoid the task demand. Similarly, in our example previously regarding education agency personnel engaging in hyperbolic excuse-making and changing the subject in response to a parent request for something, it could be the case that said personnel would have normally agreed to honor the parent's request, but that morning there had been an agency budget meeting in which personnel were told they would be subject to disciplinary action from the agency if they committed the agency to services for students that cost more than a certain amount, which is illegal but nonetheless happens all the time. As such, the antecedent was still the parent request, but it occurred in the presence of the MO of a threat of disciplinary action against agency personnel for committing the agency to costs it didn't want to have to bear, and the consequence was still to escape/avoid honoring the parent's request. Sometimes you don't know what all the MOs are because the education agency personnel won't make them known to you. In many instances, the only way you know something is wrong is because the presentation of an antecedent results in a behavior that produces a consequence that doesn't fit what should be happening. In that case, you know something is wrong because the behavior doesn't fit the situation, at which point you have to ask yourself, “What is the function of this behavior?” It's pretty obvious that any “no” response you receive is an escape/avoidance behavior; it's just sometimes hard to know whether what is being avoided is cost, accountability, or both. For example, data collection practices in special education throughout the country are generally pretty unscientific and shoddy in spite of a federal mandate that special education be delivered according to the peer-reviewed research, which is all scientific, according to measurable annual goals. As black-and-white as the process is supposed to be, it often isn't because school personnel 1) have no idea how to do it correctly, and/or 2) are attempting to avoid accountability. In most cases, it's been my observation that the initial inappropriate behaviors are a consequence of incompetence, which creates a need to pursue accountability, at which point they engage in cover-ups to try to avoid getting into trouble for the errors of their ineptitude. You have to assume as a parent going in that not everybody on your IEP team knows everything they should and that they may respond unethically when they get called out on their errors. In other situations, public education agency personnel are just grifting the system for a government paycheck at taxpayer expense from the outset and see students as a means to their own financial ends, engaging in cover-ups when their self-serving behaviors become exposed. As a parent going into the IEP process, you have to be a shrewd negotiator. If you don't understand the functions of the behaviors of the other IEP team members, you are at risk of being robbed blind by unethical public servants and/or otherwise getting a poorly developed IEP from inept public servants. It's not on you to know all of the science and law that applies to your child's situation, but if you can develop your skills at reading the behaviors of the other IEP team members, you can often figure out whether they are acting according to your child's actual needs or not. At that point, how you respond becomes the next hurdle to clear. Every situation requires its own analysis and there is no way I can give you a one-size-fits-all solution, here. What I can tell you to do is pay attention, try to get a sense of the function of someone's inappropriate behavior as best as possible, and offer reinforcers in order to achieve the behaviors you want to see. For example, send a thank-you card to the school psychologist who actually threw down on an excellent report and you will positively reinforce legally compliant behavior. Or, withdraw a compliance complaint if the agency remedies the problem that compelled you to file it and you will negatively reinforce legally compliant behavior. They can earn a food pellet or stop their feet from getting zapped, metaphorically speaking, but, either way, they're going to have to pull the lever. If you can keep these concepts straight, you will be in a much better position to effectively participate in the IEP process.

One of the issues that I haven't seen discussed anywhere else, but am seeing first hand every day, is the impact that the shutdown has had on my students with disabilities whose parents also have disabilities. Given that so many learning disabilities, physical impairments, Autism spectrum disorders, and mental health conditions run in families, it's not surprising to find children on IEPs whose parents also have disabilities. It would be shocking for a professional in this field to not see that phenomenon.   The shutdown negatively impacted students and their families from all walks of life. Students on IEPs were hit more hard only because they were already at a disadvantage and largely under-served before the pandemic hit. All shutdown did was magnify the pre-existing inequality.   To that end, parents with disabilities who were already getting jerked around by their local education agencies have been disadvantaged and exploited even further during school shutdowns. I've got two cases on my caseload, right now, that immediately come to mind. One is in California and the other is in Missouri, and in both cases I've had to serve as both a reasonable accommodation for the parent with disabilities as well as do my normal job of advocating for the student with disabilities.   In both cases, a bunch of goons from the respective school districts tried to railroad learning disabled parents who struggle to understand the relevant documents, saying one thing verbally, putting something else in writing, and hoping these learning disabled parents didn't notice. The parents' federally protected rights as per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process are additionally compromised by violations of the parents' rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).   Here's what I need everybody reading or listening to understand: The states involved here are Missouri, a red state practically overtaken by domestic terrorists bent on sedition, and California, a blue state with mostly progressive leadership. This is a non-partisan issue. There is no political party that seriously cares about people with disabilities, even though disability cuts across every swath of human existence that there is. It's beyond dysfunctional, but that's our profoundly sick society, for you.   So, what do we do about this? Well, on an individual basis, the steps of effective advocacy remain the same: get the truth on the record, request remedy, and file complaints if the local education agencies don't abide. The number one protection parents with disabilities have under the ADA relevant to this issue is their right to communicate via their preferred form of communication. Reasonable accommodation isn't limited to wheelchair ramps, and honoring a learning disabled person's communication preferences is just as important as honoring the communication preferences of someone deaf or blind.   For parents with disabilities, it is important going in from the outset that you make clear in writing that you require reasonable accommodations from your local school district, including what your communication preferences are. It doesn't hurt to add language like, “These accommodations under Section 504 and the ADA are necessary to insure my protected rights to informed consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process pursuant to the IDEA.”   If you have been keeping your need for accommodations to yourself for fear of being judged by the school district members of your child's IEP team, something is seriously wrong. If you fear that people employed specifically to educate humans with disabilities are going to give you grief because you are a human with disabilities, either you're insecure, working with a-holes, or both. You do yourself and your child no favors by not putting your local education agency on notice about your need for accommodations; if they treat you poorly, that's on them for violating your rights as well as those of your child.   It's stronger to go in asking for reasonable accommodations as your legal right given that you are there to protect your child's right to reasonable accommodations. If you acquiesce on one, you're acquiescing on the other. You have to believe that all people with disabilities are equal in power and voice to people without disabilities, including yourself. You are not setting a good example for your child to become a strong self-advocate in spite of disabilities when you fail to advocate for yourself.   Aside from what individual parents with disabilities do on a situation-by-situation basis on the ground, at this point, the only mechanisms available that have any chance of broadly changing anything are judicial and political. Parents need to sue over the civil rights violations that undermine their advocacy for their children so that public education agencies are held to account under every letter of the law that applies. All parents of children with disabilities need to unionize and collectively bargain for improved special education laws and access to special education resources.   In theory, parents with disabilities involved in the IEP process for their children may be able to concurrently file 504/ADA claims in federal court purely on the basis of the discrimination against themselves while filing for due process under the IDEA to assert their children's claims. However, there's a kicker that my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar should weigh in on, here.   With respect to informed parental consent and meaningful parent participation in the IEP process, the related civil rights claims may have to toll while due process is being pursued because a special education hearing officer has no jurisdiction with respect to 504/ADA but administrative remedies under the IDEA have to be first exhausted before related civil rights claims can be pursued. Basically, you have to do everything you can with due process before you can go on to federal court on related civil rights claims.   The reason civil rights claims often must toll pending due process is because the hearing officer in the due process case may order something to correct the special education violations that inadvertently cures the civil rights violations at the same time. This makes it unnecessary to get that same outcome from a federal court judge and, thus, a waste of judicial resources to try the same thing in two different venues. However, if the civil rights claims can stand alone on their own with no related due process claims associated with the same body of facts, it's possible to go forward on civil rights claims while other claims are being adjudicated via due process.   Again, this is a tricky question of law and I defer to my colleagues who are licensed members of the bar to speak to the particulars of 504/ADA claims versus IDEA claims, as well as the order in which issues are tried and by whom. The point is that there is recourse, one way or another.   Parents with disabilities should not feel compromised in the IEP process. No parent should fear that a body of public servants educated, trained, and employed to support the needs of individuals with disabilities in the school setting will use that knowledge to exploit the parent's disabilities to the detriment of the student. The very idea is reprehensible, but it happens every day.   Institutionalized biases have a lot to do with it. Even people employed to educate students with disabilities will regard a parent's disabilities as character flaws, more often than not. It's a learned, knee-jerk reaction that all of us have been raised with to one degree or another our entire lives. It's why people with disabilities are often also plagued with self-loathing and related mental health disorders. Most people with disabilities aren't born with self-loathing and mental health disorders; they are acquired from the experiences of being rejected by everyone else and seeing a world that is basically designed to exclude them from participation. Things that can be acquired can also be let go and replaced.   During distance learning, these issues became even more painfully apparent as schools shut down and children with special needs had to stay at home and participate in distance learning. Setting aside the degree of forgiveness due to actual teachers for not being given appropriate tools and support from their respective agencies to handle the situation, something cohesive should have been in place within the first few weeks, but I've still got school districts pulling ridiculous stunts and we've got partial campus re-openings going on around here, right now.   We're now more than a year into this thing and, not only have they not gotten their acts together, they're actively making excuses as to why the broke the law 40 million different ways before now. If they invested half the energy they've spent on making excuses and lying to the public into actually solving the problem, it would have been solved by now.   The politics of it all is at the heart of this issue, unfortunately. This is just as serious as domestic terrorism, because it's actually one of many expressions of that terrorism. When parents with disabilities are terrified of the people to whom they send their children with disabilities every day, often with the threat of criminal prosecution for truancy if they don't, they are being manipulated through fear to acquiesce on issues that, under the law, require their consent.   It is important for those of us who are working in the civil rights arena to recognize that we will find the students with disabilities we serve also among other marginalized populations that may have a stronger degree of activism already underway. For example, if a child with disabilities and African-American heritage is being jerked around, it may be more effective to bring a representative from the NAACP to an IEP meeting than a disability advocate. Likely, the best solution would to bring both.   This is an issue that child and family advocates need to address because it is vast, pervasive, and significant. When it comes to dumping the instructional responsibilities for a child with disabilities onto a parent with disabilities, the civil rights claims can easily multiply. I have had three cases this year involving parents with disabilities who were getting played by their local school districts until I said something. One case is resolved and the other two, which I mentioned at the beginning, remain active.   In every case, not only were the parents with disabilities being inappropriately burdened like all other parents during shutdown, they were not offered any reasonable accommodations to do so. In my mind, this is an enormous class-action issue that could result in entire state departments of education, which are ultimately responsible to the federal government for complying with the IDEA in exchange for federal special education dollars, getting nailed to the wall for failing to ensure local education agencies provided reasonable accommodations during shutdown to parents with disabilities who were attempting to instruct their children at home or who simply could not, resulting in a deprivation of educational benefits to their children.   I am very curious to get parent, advocate, and attorney input on this issue. If you have experienced anything like this, either as a parent or professional, and have ideas on how to lawfully resolve these issues with the least amount of trauma to the involved children and their families, we'd love to hear from you. For those employed within the system who want to do the right thing but are being prevented by others within the system, your feedback is appreciated as well.   The news is replete with evidence that far too many public servants can't be trusted to uphold the rules of democracy. Because the IDEA is so dependent upon the application of science to the lawful implementation of special education, it tends to be those who disregard science and law who pose the biggest threat to our children with special needs.   Given how many Far Right conservatives there are employed within public education, the fact that the domestic Far Right is the greatest terrorism threat that our country faces, and that neither science nor the rule of law mean much to the Far Right, it's not that hard to see why we need to get the Far Right out of our public school system. The Far Right is why civil rights laws are necessary in the first place. They're not going to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. They don't even understand what that means. They're going to do whatever serves their selfish motivations.   People who follow the extremes at either end of any social spectrum, including politics, tend not to have fully functional prefrontal cortices, based on my observations. They lack the deductive reasoning skills to understand the big picture. They lack the perspective-taking skills to see things from anyone else's point of view. They are egocentric in thought and grossly emotionally under-developed. They are prone to extreme actions and reactions based almost entirely on their own wants and needs.   In the special education setting, if you and your child's needs don't align with the agenda of people with this mindset, you don't even exist to them. You're like a person with a numbered ticket at the deli counter. They're going to interact with you briefly and smile to your face, then forget you exist five minutes later. You're a thing, not a person, to people like this. They don't think of anybody as another “person.” Everybody else are just things to conveniently access when they serve a useful purpose to people who think this way. That is why holding them accountable after the fact is more effective than logical or emotional appeals made in an effort to prevent something bad from happening.   All of this is, of course, disordered thought. So, basically, what this comes down to is a bunch of mentally ill, self-serving individuals getting paid six-figure annual incomes at taxpayer expense to manifest their untreated and unaccommodated symptoms at the expense of their constituents. What we're really looking at is the symptoms of untreated mental health disorders being manifested as public policy to the detriment of individuals who are not in denial about the fact that they have disabilities attempting to advocate for their children with disabilities.   The most apparent difference that I can see between the two sides of the issue is that the people within public education responsible for this situation don't think there is anything wrong with themselves; they think they are the chosen ones and everyone else exists just to give them an excuse to collect a paycheck. When the special education community finally addresses the degree to which schizoaffective, personality-disordered administrators and the like are behind the egregious abuses of disability-related laws it experiences, and we use our science to heal ourselves, we'll be able to actually use the science to heal our children and help them build productive futures for themselves.

Christine Priola, OT, on the right in the Vice President's Office of the Senate during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol in Washington, DC   On January 6, 2021, a group of people, radicalized by false propaganda generated by the 45th President of the United States and his co-conspirators, attacked the United States Capitol with the intent to kidnap and/or murder members of Congress and the Vice President. This is an event that will live in infamy for so long as America remains a nation, and be blamed for it if it does not.   I've been working in special education advocacy, helping parents protect their children with disabilities from physical, emotional, and educational abuse/neglect by the public sector, primarily the public school system, since 1991. By now, you would think there's nothing new for me to see when it comes to all the ways that adults can do wrong by those among us with disabilities. Clearly, I was wrong.   These recent events at the national level have left me with a whole new set of concerns that I believe are important to talk about, right now. Not the least of these concerns is the fact that a profoundly mentally ill president, along with his pathologically self-serving sycophants, exploited the suffering of some Americans with mental illness and the unfounded sense of entitlement experienced by other Americans with mental illness.   In the end, it's a bunch of people with mental health issues frenzying like piranha at the smell of blood in the water and taking down the rest of us with them. The inmates are literally running the asylum, right now, and the survival of us all rests on the shoulders of those of us intact enough to realize what is happening, and equipped to deal with it.   For the last 30 years, it's been my observation - and one I've repeatedly shared - that there are individuals employed within the public education system who believe children with disabilities are expendable and unimportant. In a sea of deprived students in general, special education students are uniquely further deprived because of their disabilities.   It's been my observation that these individuals see their constituents - in this case, our children - as a means to their own personal financial ends, and nothing more. When the costs of educating these constituents increases due to disability, they become a hated burden to those looking to profit off them.   It's not like the public education system is doing that great by any of our kids, right now. It's just that problems that impact education in general tend to have a magnified effect on our kids with special needs. Public school officials will say things like, "My heart is bleeding for your child. I wish there was something I could do," when there's totally something they could do. They just don't want to pay for it, which is unlawful.   Special education laws would have not become necessary back in the 1970s if it were not for the fact that people who do not believe in science or law were already employed in positions of authority within the public education system and engaging in unconstitutional conduct towards children with disabilities at that time. The public schools would refuse to enroll these students at all or, even if they did, let them languish in general education classes until they dropped out.   In spite of compulsory education laws, back in the day, it was totally okay to drop out of school if you couldn't keep up with the instruction and nobody would come after you for truancy. This was what happened to a lot of people with relatively mild challenges, like learning disabilities, who ended up reaching adulthood functionally illiterate and unable to find gainful employment except as factory workers, coal miners, and all the other dangerous jobs that don't require academic skills, in spite of their normal intelligence.   I provided adult literacy instruction to this population at a local vocational/technical college as a young adult in Arkansas. I've met these people. I've seen this play out, first hand.   This has led to a class of individuals who have increasingly lost the ability to support themselves, as robots take over dangerous jobs that don't require real thinking. While the laws that passed in the 1970s were the right place to start, it's foolish to think that enough has changed since then that the system isn't still biased against kids with special needs. If things had changed, I'd have worked myself out of a job a long time ago.   The public education system is biased against any kid who isn't white, male, and expected to inherit property upon reaching age of majority. It was created in its present form during the Industrial Revolution and hasn't changed much since.   For the longest time, public education agency administration was male dominated while the teaching staffs were female dominated, putting men in authoritarian control over women employees. Teachers unions grew out of the very real discrimination and abuse of women in the public education workplace by their male "superiors" around the same time that unions gained popularity among the laborers working ot inher dangerous jobs in factories and mines.   Students, however, have no collective bargaining power. Even though they are the reason the system exists, they are the last individuals served by it. They get whatever leftovers are left after public agency administrators bleed their agencies dry with undeserved six-figure annual salaries while teachers are buying classroom supplies with their own money. Students are just an excuse for politicians to pay themselves.   So, the idea that discrimination and abuse do not manifest in the public education sector is plainly inaccurate. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary, my caseload being only one such mountain. The judicial and legislative history of special education law is not the total point, here, but it's relevant in that it establishes that bad actors in public education have made it necessary to regulate public education to control for their inappropriate behaviors.   The evidence of bad faith in public education has been documented in the courts long enough that I don't have argue it, here. That's a done deal. So, when someone tells me they are worried about child welfare at the hands of government officials, I have to say, "Me too! That's why I'm a child and family advocate."   However, now when someone tells me they are worried about pedophiles in public education, I have to do a double-take and ask, "Why?" That's only because of the whacky Q-Anon and similar conspiracy theories, now going around about Satanic cannibals molesting and trafficking children.   It's not that human trafficking isn't real or horrible. It's that there is zero proof that it's being perpetrated by the people these conspiracy theorists are targeting.   There is proof, however, that the 45th President was pals with a known, convicted pedophile and wished this pedophile's co-conspirator well when she, too, got arrested. He's also been accusing of raping a 13-year-old who was made available to him by this same duo of pedophiles, but these conspiracy theorists are not going after him. They think he is the champion of their cause, which defies logic in every possible way.   Even if the allegations of child rape cannot be sustained against #45, he's sexually assaulted plenty of women and bragged about it on the record. How he's become the champion of a human rights cause given his history of sexual assault and his policies regarding the children of lawful asylum-seekers at our borders is beyond me.   We have all seen news stories of the occasional teacher, aide, specialist, or administrator who gets busted for sexual relations with their students. It's not that pedophiles are not employed within public education; we know some have slipped in and we do a poor job of screening them out, often only finding them after the harm has been done.   The more important point is that a ring of cannibalistic pedophiles do not run public education. The average school district administrator doesn't come anywhere near actual children. They don't appear to care for the company of children; they just want to exploit them for public dollars.   While I don't doubt that there are people employed in public education administration who would gladly traffic in humans if they thought they could turn a profit and get away with it, that's a whole lot of work to make happen within the public education system and not get exposed. It's easier to milk the broken system as it is without taking on that risk. They can get rich by lazier means than selling their students into slavery.   As soon as someone gets caught engaging in pedaphilia with students in the public education setting, most school districts are the ones that call the cops. If school district administrators come to an accused educator's defense, it's either because the educator was wrongfully accused or because the administrators don't want to be held accountable for the fact that they let a pedophile come work for their public education agency, so they're trying to convince everyone that they didn't.   It's not that public education isn't being run by a pack of corrupt jackals. By and large, like local police departments, local school districts get away with as much as they do because they only answer to their local constituents, most of whom don't know how to monitor and audit a school district on an ongoing basis for compliance issues. Jackals are in gross abundance.   Even the most ethical educators can be corrupted once they are promoted into administration, and I suspect most of that is economics. Once they start getting that six-figure annual salary, they start buying nice houses and cars, putting their kids through college, and going on expensive vacations. That quickly creates debt.   If you have a six-figure income, you can pay that debt, but if you lose that income and can't replace it fast enough, you're quickly screwed. This is how good educators get pulled into the Dark Side of the Force when they accept promotions into administration. It's the rare pure soul that sees what's really going on and refuses to be manipulated that way before it's too late.   The overarching problems I see in public school administration are about money, not pedophilia or cannibalism. I've yet to encounter cannibalism, actually, but it's only January 2021, so let's see if this year tops last year for the most disgusting conduct to be revealed among public servants for the whole world to see.   What prompts me to discuss this, now, is the recent resignation of Christine Priola, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from Cleveland Metropolitan School District, one day before she participated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection against the American government. Ms. Priola occupied the Capitol building with other insurrectionists and was photographed in the Vice President's office as part of the occupation.   In her resignation letter, Ms. Priola, who is currently out on bail pending trial, stated she was leaving her job as an OT for the District's special education department for three specific reasons:   She refused to take the Corona virus vaccine before returning to in-person learning;She disagreed with paying union dues because she believes that money is funding abortions; andShe's embarking upon a fight against child trafficking by government agencies.   So, I'm going to pick these apart one by one, first, and then get into the rest of it.   First, it's unclear if Ms. Priola is an anti-vaxer opposed to vaccines in general, is against the current Corona virus vaccine because it was rushed to market so quickly and she questions its safety and efficacy, or just resents being told she has to take a shot before she can go back to work. Maybe it's a combination of those things.   We don't know why she was opposed to the vaccine, so I can't automatically lump her onto the science-denying anti-vaxer wagon with this limited amount of information, though her overall behaviors incline me to suspect that she could be an anti-vaxer. Because she's an OT, which is a scientific discipline that functions within the medical and educational realms, I don't want to assume too much, here. However, science is a fact-based discipline and Ms. Priola has not be operating according to facts.   When we look at her second objection, the total absence of logic casts an unfavorable light on the first objection, even further. How union dues, which pay for the administrative overhead of each union's operations, somehow funds abortions makes no sense.   The district may withhold those dues from educators' paychecks, but there is an audit trail that shows where that money goes. If you're worried about where the money is going, you do a request for public records asking for the accounting details and turn them over to a grand jury if you find that the money is being misappropriated.   The rule of law already provides a remedy for the misuse of public funds. You don't raid the Capitol with the intent of hanging the Vice President to death to resolve issues such as these.   The idea that the rule of law had collapsed to the point that it was ineffective cannot be argued, here. Ms. Priola did nothing on record to resolve the issue with where her union dues were going before resorting to the violent overthrow of the government and an effort to assassinate the Vice President.   The government already had a legal remedy that she chose not to access and the "remedy" she opted for instead did not fit the situation. This strongly suggests disordered thought. It also, however, goes to the degree to which legitimate remedies to harm done are often inaccessible to everyday Americans because they can't afford to lawyer up every time the government shirks its responsibilities and hurts people. When the appropriate options are closed off to people, they are only left with the inappropriate ones.   This is where peaceful protests for changes to the rules become such an important part of democracy, none of which involves insurrection or execution. Insurrection as a more expedient option to litigation speaks to the degree to which the legal system is often unavailable to most people because of the associated costs, but it's not a valid excuse for what Ms. Priola has done. Ease of access to remedy may have made it less likely that she wouldn't have done something literally insane, but that's speculative at this point.   The third justification for resigning given by Ms. Priola was that she's embarking upon a fight to protect children from abuses by government employees. On it's face, I can't take issue with that because I've been fighting to protect children with disabilities - the same students Ms. Priola served as an OT - from abuses within the public education system for the last 30 years.   Very often, though, I'm protecting them against people like Ms. Priola who are so divorced from science and, therefore, reality that they engage in violations that require me to file complaints with regulators. Again, the rule of law provides a remedy. The difference between Ms. Priola's efforts to protect children and mine is that I use science and law to protect my babies. She's trying to kill the members of Congress most likely to help her protect children from the real predators.   I've never had to violently overthrow a government agency or hang anybody to protect a child from government employees. Has the rule of law let my babies down, before? Yes, in hugely significant ways. Has the rule of law protected my babies when I've pursued enforcement of it? Yes, more often than it has not. It's not a perfect system, but insurrection on behalf of the people responsible for undermining it is not going to fix anything.   And, it's not like I haven't seen evidence of child trafficking in government agencies. I have, just not in public education. Specifically, I've been working on a separate justice project with our organization's founder, Nyanza, to address the egregious over-incarceration of African-Americans in Oklahoma that dovetails with what may be State-sponsored child trafficking.   Based on the publicly available research data we've gathered to date, it appears there may be an orchestrated mechanism in place in which officials in the State of Oklahoma incarcerates people of color and remove their children from their homes through the Child Protective Services (CPS) system, only to place these children in privately owned foster care facilities and/or adoption agencies that operate for profit.   It appears that at least some of the foster care and adoption agencies in Oklahoma that participate in this dynamic are owned, at least in part, by State officials responsible for passing and enforcing the laws of Oklahoma, from which they profit. It should be noted that Oklahoma's CPS system was found to have been responsible for the death, rape, and maiming of many children processed through this system via a federal class action lawsuit that resulted in a consent decree that is not being properly enforced.   CPS employees have come out as whistleblowers to advise that the "proof" of compliance with the consent decree is falsified information and Oklahoma isn't taking this federal court consent decree as anything other than one more thing to lie about. It should also be noted that all of the individuals involved in these behaviors appear to be Republicans, or they were at the time the data we collected were gathered.   From what we've seen so far in our data, it appears that Oklahoma lawmakers and judges are incarcerating people so they can steal their children and sell them for profit. If true, that's a legitimate State-sponsored human trafficking ring that needs to be shut down immediately. But, it isn't a Satanic group of Hollywood actors and Democrats eating and raping children.   While this possible human trafficking ring has not been investigated as such to my knowledge, thus far, it's one of those things that can't last forever without someone getting caught. Nyanza and I are working to get enough evidence together to get the situation investigated, and she's been filing documents this whole time, but that's how you address these things. We are availing ourselves of the mechanisms of our imperfect, but better than anarchy, democracy to fix this heinous problem. Whatever is responsible for Oklahoma's ridiculous incarceration and CPS numbers is a problem that needs to be fixed, regardless of what it is.   This is painful because we know of families suffering horribly because of what is currently happening until this gets resolved, but justice can take time. I've learned that lesson from 30 years of working cases from IEP meetings all the way up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and you don't always win. But, you always make a difference, even when you lose on some technicality. I've had cases where we lost on an issue, but just barely. The involved districts knew the next time they pulled the same stunt, they wouldn't necessarily get lucky again, and have changed their practices as a result.   What I've learned from relying on the rule of law to address failures of the system is that you have to look at things in the aggregate. It becomes a measure of how many things I've prevailed on versus how many things I have not, and I've prevailed on more things than I haven't. Overall, my work is highly effective. On a day-by-day basis, it's a mixture of resolution and being obstructed by law-breaking public servants.   You have to get to the point where you can identify when it's time to negotiate and when it's time to collect evidence and file a complaint of some kind. We have processes and procedures already to address all of the concerns raised by Ms. Priola's resignation letter, none of which involve insurrection and execution of elected officials.   So, having said all that, now I have to turn to the issue of people who think like Ms. Priola who are still employed in public education. I first have to say that she may be in the minority, but we don't know how large or small that minority is because they have not been outspoken within the public education context, thus far.   Further, because I have been dealing with disordered thought on the part of school district personnel that results in harm to children for the last 30 years, I'm willing to believe that people whose thinking is as impaired as Ms. Priola's appears to be are still deeply rooted in special education, right now. Whether their disordered thought makes them vulnerable to Q-Anon and similar propaganda or not isn't anything I can answer. But, Ms. Priola's departure from science in spite of her scientific training is consistent with much of what I see in special education when things go wrong.   What this really comes down to is a concern that I've had for years and have spoken about with colleagues, but we haven't really figured out the most appropriate way to address it. What is happening now and the national dialogue around it may have finally opened a door to deal with this issue, and that issue is the societal impact of having so many members of our population who are apparently incapable of logical thought when it comes to abstract concepts like justice, democracy, and fascism. And, it circles back around to the quality, or lack thereof, of our public education system.   One of the tools I regularly use, or request that it be used, in special education is a standardized assessment called the Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development (SCOSD). The history of what led to the SCOSD's creation is a story unto itself, but suffice it to say that it is a scientific way of measuring all the different domains of development according to Piaget's stages of development.   The SCOSD breaks development down by subtest into cognition, communication, adaptive abilities, social-affective functioning, and motor skills. It is possible for an individual to function at a higher developmental level in one area than other areas. Each person's outcome on the measure paints a picture of their relative strengths and weaknesses across the developmental domains. When working with children and young adults with developmental disabilities, this becomes important to designing effective programs for each of them.   What I've come to realize from the data I've seen produced by the SCOSD over the years is that it is possible for someone to have age-typical cognitive and communication skills, but then have below age-typical social/emotional functioning. What this means is that their emotional development is delayed while their abilities to acquire academic and job skills are intact. They can emulate adult behavior, but their motivations are child-like because of their delayed social/emotional functioning.   When otherwise intelligent people get whipped up into an emotional frenzy over things not supported by any credible evidence, this disconnect between intelligence and social/emotional functioning is apparent. When otherwise intelligent people argue against evidence that they did something incorrectly, this same disconnect is again apparent.   This disconnect is what I've been fighting over the years more than anything else. Any reasonably intelligent and socially/emotionally intact person would not engage in the kinds of crap I encounter in the public education system. Most of what I encounter in the public education system is the consequence of ineptitude, not a cabal of cannibals.   If any kind of cabal exists in public education, it's the same one currently running the American Presidency into the ground. All of this makes me think of the right-wing folks in Orange County, California, who started a non-profit membership organization, self-described as a "brotherhood," of school district officials who would all pay membership dues and then use that money to finance legal battles against parents of children with disabilities.   It also makes me think of Lozano Smith, a law firm that infamously (within special education circles) got eviscerated by a federal court judge after trying to lie, cheat, and steal in a special education due process appeal. The firm, the responsible attorneys, and the district it was representing all got sanctioned for jerking everybody, especially the court, around with their lies.   All of the firm's attorneys were ordered to participate in additional ethics training, in addition to the reprimand and sanctions meted out by the court. At the time, Lozano Smith had over 200 attorneys on staff statewide throughout California. Shortly thereafter, most of them jumped ship and went to different firms or started their own firms. It's quite reminiscent of what we are seeing in Washington, DC, right now, as cabinet members and other high-ranking personnel turn their backs on the outgoing President in the wake of all the destruction and death he has caused.   Lozano Smith is still around, but I haven't encountered them in the field in several years. The last big thing I saw from them was in 2013 when my colleague, David Grey, prevailed on a case at the 9th Circuit against two school districts engaging in the same violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At least one of the involved districts filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it was shot down; the Supreme Court declined to try the case.   When the Supreme Court appeal was first filed, Lozano Smith, which had been uninvolved at that point, wrote an amicus brief that looked like something that could have been produced by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. It made nearly hysterical arguments about how the 9th Circuit's interpretation of the ADA would undo decades of precedent within the public education system, as though decades of an established practice of discrimination should be maintained.   The point is that the conservative "fringe" has never been the "fringe." To quote Stephen Colbert, "Lunatic fringe? There were tens of thousands of people in that murderous mob. The day after the riot, a poll found that 45% of Republican voters backed the attack on the capitol building. That’s not a fringe! That’s almost half the outfit! If you wore a suit that was 45% fringe, you’d be arrested for public indecency! But at least we’d be able to see through your pants to know you don’t have any balls!“   Based on how scholars look at the political spectrum, conservatives have gone further and further to the right towards radicalization as the left has remained predominantly centrist. The far right looks at centrist politics and mischaracterizes them as the "radical left." Democracy is not the radical left.   Conservatism is no longer part of democracy in this country; it's become a movement towards dictatorship in which 45% of the population believes it needs to be led by the nose by a demagogue. When left to think for themselves, these individuals run towards authoritarianism, thinking these leaders understand their needs and will fight for them, rather than exploit them to help take over and then kick them to the curb when they no longer serve a useful purpose.   It's my suspicion that, once the people who participated in the insurrection realize that the 45th President will let them rot in jail for taking up his cause while he claims to have nothing to do with any of them, his base will finally get the backstabbing that has been coming their way this entire time and will realize he's not in their corner like they thought. We can at least hope getting stabbed in the back will have this effect.   We're going to have to watch the prosecuted go through this epiphany over time as we try each of their cases one by one. The stories we're going to hear from these people are going to reveal legitimate unmet needs, impaired problem-solving skills, and exploitation of those factors by Republican terrorists looking to radicalize them.   Those of these defendants with the mental wherewithal to realize they've been played and the emotional stability to own it will turn on those who exploited them, as have many former allies of #45, such as Michael Cohen. Those who don't have the emotional stability to own the fact that they made a mistake in judgment will continue to assert they've done nothing wrong and describe themselves as political prisoners rather than criminal insurrectionists and traitors.   In the minds of the insurrectionists, as they've reported themselves, they were responding to the call of their President to defend democracy. If that's what you're really doing, defending democracy isn't bad. But democracy relies on the rule of law. You defend democracy by participating in it and putting its mechanisms into constructive use, not trying to overthrow it.   If our democracy is not working for all of the people - and people of color, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ people, women of all stripes, and people challenged by disability can attest that it has not for a very long time - we need to fix it. What boggles the mind is that now that groups made up mostly of white males in this country are finally beginning to experience the lack of undemocratic entitlement and advantage they've historically known, their response to advocate for themselves is to engage in insurrection. This means that what they want is nothing a true democracy would ever give them, and that tells you all you really need to know about them.   There is absolutely a silver lining in all of this, and I rely on Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) to inform that determination. In ABA, there is a term that I've discussed in previous posts called "Extinction Burst," and that's part of what we are looking at with the current state of things. In an Extinction Burst, a behavior that had previously been reinforced is no longer being reinforced, and the organism tries to force reinforcement to come by escalating its behavior.   Think of it this way: If, every day, you put money in a vending machine and a candy bar comes out, the candy bar reinforces the behavior of putting money into the machine. But if, one day, the candy bar gets stuck and won't come out of the machine, what do we do? Walk away sad? No! We beat on the machine in an effort to make the candy bar dislodge and come out.   That's an Extinction Burst. If the candy bar dislodges and comes out, it reinforces the behavior of beating up the machine. If beating the machine doesn't work, then you walk away sad. After than, you're less likely to use the machine again. If you stop using the machine altogether, the behavior of putting money into it becomes extinct.   What is happening in this country with the radicalized right is an Extinction Burst. Behaviors engaged in by the right wing that were previously reinforced are no longer being reinforced. The behaviors of the 45th President, his co-conspirators, and his followers over the last five years, leading up to January 6, 2021, and what may still yet happen as the 46th elected President takes office, have been an extended Extinction Burst.   The most important thing about an Extinction Burst when you're trying to extinguish an inappropriate behavior is that you cannot allow it to produce the reinforcement being sought. If you want someone to give up on the candy machine, there can be no way to beat the machine until candy comes out.   We want the radical right to give up on trying to destroy democracy, so we cannot allow their behaviors to result in the reinforcement they are seeking, which, here, is to remain in power regardless of the will of the people. This includes holding them accountable according to the letter of the law. That's what I've been doing in my niche of governmental accountability for the last 30 years and it's the only way to preserve democracy going forward.   The other silver lining, here, is that in spite of all their efforts to overthrow democracy, it's our democracy that will ultimately prevail. When we apply the rule of law to what they have done, democracy will have the opportunity to defend itself.   What saddens and scares me the most is the number of people whose developmental weaknesses and mental health conditions are being exploited by the right wing to radicalize them into becoming domestic terrorists while convincing them they are upholding American principles through their terrorism. When we talk about the mental health problems in this country, we tend to point to homelessness and addiction issues, like this is the only way they can hurt us.   As an advocate for people with disabilities, I am torn between being sad for and fearful of these individuals. On the one hand, we absolutely need to hold them accountable under the law. But, we prove the point that the system is skewed towards specific demographics when mentally ill right wing radicals suddenly get criminal consequences and nothing to address the real-world problems that they couldn't solve that propelled them into radicalism.   In the end, once again, it's people with disabilities being used as political pawns by self-serving, undeserving, overpaid public officials looking to line their own pockets with taxpayer dollars as part of a grift. This is something I know all too well in special education.   I'm willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that decades of special education failures have produced an entire class of emotionally disturbed adults who are still vulnerable to the manipulations of public officials and that Ms. Priola and many of her compatriots are among them. I'm also willing to believe, in light of the evidence thus far, that the people manipulating them are just as mentally ill; they just have money and power.   I will never pretend to have all the answers, here, but I do know a thing or two that can help. All of us do. We need to weave our efforts together to repair the fabric of our country and make it stronger than it was in the first place. It's not impossible. This country's founding was far more difficult than its current preservation and we can do this.