Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog

I’m all for local educational control.  Authentic local control.  We do not have authentic school board control in Missouri and I wager than many school districts in other states don’t have local control either.  School districts must adhere to federal and state mandates and autonomy is eradicated and discouraged for local school boards.  An entity to watch and research in Missouri and your state is your state school board association, a private association which uses tax dollars for its existence.  You might find (as we are discovering in Missouri) that these associations do not protect taxpayers, but rather, they assume control that is not granted to them but is wielded over school board members.

Missouri school board members must undergo training to understand what their duties are and most boards look to the Missouri State Board Association (MSBA) for this information.  Increasingly it seems as if MSBA is writing policy for school boards instead of being an advisory organization.  Research your state school board association and determine its function for your school districts.  It has become more of a regulatory association instead of training school board members to be effective voices for the citizenry which elected them.  Tax dollars are spent for this training with this private organization.  From a previous post:

You can see how much your district pays to belong to MSBA here.  The amount is based on the budget of your school district.  My district (Kirkwood) pays approximately $10,000 for MSBA’s direction and policy decisions.  Why do we need a school board anymore?  Maybe the education reformers are right.  Just turn it over to private organizations directing how tax money is to be used.  School board members increasingly are figureheads for private organizations funded by local taxpayers who think they are actually voting for members who set/direct policy for their districts.

The education reformers are increasingly calling for the demise of the local school boards.  Local school boards don’t really do much other than hire/fire teachers and maintain physical property.  If school board policy is being written by MSBA and the board members are following along adopting all the policies MSBA writes, then why do school boards exist?

The following article from American Spring shows the power MSBA has over school board candidates and school board policy in Camdenton, MO.  From Camdenton, Missouri School Board Elections About Local Control:

Recently, the Lake Sun asked candidates for Camdenton school board their qualifications and asked a couple of questions. The responses to the first of those questions are noteworthy, as it deals with a fundamental change to the way the public is ‘allowed’ to interact with board members.

From the Lake Sun:
Do you think the current school board policy regarding public participation allows for sufficient opportunity for the public’s voice to be heard? Do you support the current policy or if elected would you seek to make changes to the policy?
This policy represents a fundamental shift of the tax paying public’s ‘role’ in school affairs. It plainly seeks to use a questionable interpretation of law to stifle public input to the board, requiring an approval process that filters communications meant for the board through both school administration and school attorneys. This, to many parents, represents another step in a silent coup, preformed under the assumption of authority neither the administration, nor the school attorneys, have. A concerted effort has been made to reinforce the false logic that our representatives should somehow be ‘protected’ from hearing from the public and parents they serve.

Part of the new public comment policy, as recommended during an August visit from an MSBA lawyer, appears below. Camdenton adopted a policy that restricts the public from having open discussions with the board about their concerns, if those requests aren’t ‘approved’ by administration and attorneys.

7. Only items from the posted agenda may be discussed. If an individual seeks to address an issue that is scheduled to be discussed by the Board in closed session, the Board may require the person to hold his or her comments until closed session.

8. The Board may vote to suspend or amend these rules in extraordinary circumstances. The Board may impose additional rules as it deems necessary and reserves the right to alter the above rules depending on the circumstances. The Board reserves the right to cancel, reschedule or delay the public comment period at any time or delay comment on a particular topic. The Board may refuse to hear comments on a particular topic if advised to do so by legal counsel.

Paul Ellison writes how four of the five candidates support the MSBA’s policies of shutting down dialogue from the community:

On January 14, 2014, in an article in the Lake Sun announcing the email policy, Assistant Superintendent Roma France announced the implementation of Camdenton’s email accounts for board members.

France made the following statement:

“Protocol would be for the Board president and/or superintendent to respond to the patron on behalf of the district.” She went on to say, “If several questions come in on the same topic, then the item may be placed on the next board agenda.”

The Lake Sun described the email procedures, as laid out for them by France:

” Then, she told the board that emails would go to a mail distribution group, board@camdentonschools.org, which would be sent to each board member along with the superintendent or a designee. “

And that: ” In most cases, the superintendent or administration will be the one to respond. “

The guidelines adopted for the district’s email policy contain restrictions that mirror, in practical application, those inserted into the inappropriately named ‘public comment policy’. The guidelines offered the Lake Sun by Camdenton’s administration, read as follows:

1. If you are providing Board members an e-mail address, all Board members by policy must sign the Authorized User Permit that staff and students must sign and Board member must agree to the same terms as staff and students.

This first policy restriction would allow, presumably, for the unfettered monitoring of emails between themselves and their constituents. It creates an environment worthy of the NSA in the Camdenton school district. It would allow complete access to all board member’s accounts, without cause, without warrant. Camdenton’s version of Big Brother, it can reasonably be assumed, is manned by school administration and the districts lawyers, the firm of Mickes, Goldman and O’Toole.

Also from the Camdenton administration’s ‘guidelines’:

4. When information is sent via the generic Board@camdentonschools.org, the protocol is for the superintendent or Board president to respond on behalf of the district and to cc the Board the response so that the Board knows the patron has been corresponded with and what was said. If a Board member disagrees with the response or has questions, he or she is encouraged to immediately notify the superintendent and the Board president of that fact.

The last sentence in this ‘guideline’ is one that gives us pause, particularly when we consider the access and latitude granted the administration and its lawyers in regard to the distribution of emails in the first place. This assumption of authority, of determining which emails reach the board, is reemphasized throughout these ‘rules’ created by administration and their attorneys.

Number five of these ‘guidelines’ ensures that, even a board member can be denied the ability to add a topic or concern to the agenda.

5. Any Board member may ask that a subject is added to the Board’s agenda at the next meeting for discussion. The Board as a whole will ultimately vote when approving the agenda to determine if the issue will be discussed.

The last sentence of ‘rule’ #5 is particularly offending:

However, Board members are free to direct questions or concerns to the superintendent or Board president.

Number six in the list of guidelines:

6. A Board member who is not the Board president may correspond individually with a patron, but is required to indicate that the opinions expressed are his or her own and not the Board’s. A Board member is prohibited from using a district-provided e-mail address contrary to district policy or law or to violate district policy or law.

The key words and phrases in ‘rule’ number six are distressing. “Board member”, “prohibited”, “contrary to district policy” and “violate district policy”. These are words that place control of our school, not in the hands of our elected representatives, but into those of administration and attorneys. Many of these policies were crafted, approved and suggested by the attorneys for our school district and district administration. They are not rules of law, nor are should they be.

Rules nine and ten completes the usurping of power from the citizens in the Camdenton school district. They clearly illustrate the ongoing efforts to eliminate ‘local control’ over our school districts.

9. The superintendent or Board president in their discretion may not respond to messages from the same sender that are repetitive, or messages that are threatening or that use profane language.

10. The superintendent or Board president will not directly respond to messages involving litigation, potential or pending litigation, or a situation on appeal pursuant to district policies or the law.

In addition, the superintendent or Board president may not respond to messages if advised by the district’s attorney not to do so. However, the superintendent or Board president will acknowledge receipt of the message and notify the sender of the rules.
These policies, designed to remove, control and suffocate the input of parents and tax payers, are the opposite of Barbour’s claims.

“Yes, I believe the recently-updated school board policy facilitates engaged communications with our students, parents and patrons. We truly want to hear from our public. It’s their school. We recently enhanced this school board policy with an email address so our patrons can access all board members at exactly the same time from our school district’s web site.

Yes, I support this policy. We will be monitoring its progress. We also will continue to be cognizant of new technology as it emerges to communicate with the public exemplifying transparency and participation.”

She also invited the public to “peruse” the school web site. Perhaps Ms. Barbour should have perused a dictionary for both the correct definition of transparency. To her credit however, Ms. Barbour didn’t dive under her desk like partner-in-crime, Jackie Schulte. Ms. Schulte used the question regarding the public comment policy shift to beat the drums of fear mongering. This fear mongering is based on the flawed legal interpretation that, somehow, the school board could be held liable for what a citizen says to them. This laughable notion is parroted by Schulte.

“Board members are responsible for protecting our staff and students; allowing anyone to speak on impulse could open the district to possible legal repercussions.”

Read about how the Board members are apparently working for the superintendent, not the other way around.  The Board is supposed to represent the taxpayers who voted them in, not acquiesce to the superintendent….who the Board hires!  Since when does a board take orders from an employee of the District?

Read about conflict of interests between board members and companies performing services for the district.  Read about the law firm that represents and advises Camdenton School Board and decide if you think board policies are supporting the taxpayers or special interests.  Read how this board is adopting policy written by the law firm that may very well be illegal.  Read more here.

Call your school district and find out which law firm is representing your district.  Determine if your board policies are copyrighted and directed by MSBA.  If most of your policies have been written by MSBA and suggested by your legal representative to be adopted, ask your board members if they are aware of the implications of denying citizens freedom of speech.

Policies written by private organizations supported from tax dollars are developing/directing educational policy for local school boards.  Sounds like the NGA/CCSSO writing Common Core standards, doesn’t it?  We might as well abolish our school boards and state educational agencies and just shovel the taxpayer dollars to private organizations and forget this charade of local control because it doesn’t exist.

Spanking may soon be banned in Missouri schools | KMOV.com St. Louis

Spanking may soon be banned in Missouri schools | KMOV.com St. Louis

by KMOV.com staff

KMOV.com

Posted on April 17, 2014 at 6:11 AM

Updated today at 7:57 AM

(KMOV) – Missouri is one of 19 states allowing corporal punishment in schools, though that practice may soon be banned, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The Missouri Senate Committee on Progress and Development unanimously passed a bill Wednesday to ban corporal punishment in all public and private schools.

As it stands, Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) requires each district’s written discipline policy to include rules on corporal punishment.

The Post-Dispatch reports should it be used, the local school board must determine how it will be used and whether a parent will be notified or allowed to choose a different form of discipline.

DESE doesn’t keep track of which Missouri districts use corporal punishment, but in 2009 the Missouri School Boards’ Association estimated at least 70 of the more than 500 state districts had policies allowing the practice.

The Fox School District was one of the last in the St. Louis area to get rid of corporal punishment in the early 2000s.

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Inappropriate "Services"

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Inappropriate "Services"



I have contacted many people, in the Lee's Summit school district, and none of their children are receiving appropriate social skills training for autism.

Social skill is not a “service” but a functional skill necessary for daily living activities. Learn what the IDEA, the federal regulations, and the Commentary say about Present Levels of Functional Performance and IEP goals for functional skills.

Read Pat Howey’s article What You Need to Know About IDEA: Present Levels of Functional Performance and Functional Goals in IEPs.http://www.wrightslaw.com/howey/iep.functional.perf.htm

Your child’s IEP must include a description of her Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance. This means what her strengths and weaknesses are – both in academics and in functional areas like social skills.

If your child has “functional needs” the school must meet these and address these needs with goals in the IEP.

Questions to Ask

Remember, you are part of the IEP team. You have input about your child’s needs and what services may be needed to meet these needs.

Does your daughter have challenges in the social skills area?
Is her weakness in social skills accurately described in the Present Levels?
Does her IEP include goals about how the school will meet these challenges?
Do the goals meet her needs?
Is she making measurable progress toward these goals?
You need to request a meeting of the IEP team to discuss your concerns and to review and revise the IEP.

Reorganized School District No.7

301 NE Tudor Road

Lee's Summit, Missouri 64086-5702

Phone: (816) 986-1024 Fax: (816) 986-1160

Jerry L. Keimig

Executive Director of Special Services

December 22, 2008

Ms. Heidi Atkins Lieberman

Assistant Commissioner

Division of Special Education

Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education

PO Box 480

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0480

Dear Ms. Lieberman:

This letter is in response to concerns expressed by OSEP regarding Ms. Tucker. Ms. Tucker has responded to staff in our District with a continual barrage of emails and web postings on a variety of topics expressing concerns, sending general information regarding special education issues, and conducting personal attacks on staff.  (It was my intention to offer information on the appropriate services for a child with autism.  Many of my emails were ignored unless I sent several requesting responses.)

Ms. Tucker continually voices her concerns regarding educational programming for her son. We would agree that he has specific areas that need to be addressed, but despite multiple District attempts to provide direct interventions for her son, she has refused many of these services. We have even developed additional course offerings in response to her concerns, but once in place, she has refused to allow her son to access programming. It appears that Ms. Tucker is more interested in a personal attack on the individuals responsible for providing educational services rather than accessing existing services designed to provide educational benefit for her child.  (This is totally inaccurate.  I sent a “continual barrage of emails” with research on why these programs were not appropriate.  I have been personally attacked by the district and this letter is a perfect example.  They did not develop an additional course for my son.  They wanted to put him in a class with children that had were emotionally disturbed and then grade him on his social progress.  How can they begin to believe that could be appropriate?)

It is the Lee's Summit R-7s School District stance that we have been extremely responsive to the concerns of Ms. Tucker having devoted hundreds of hours to discussion of said concerns and viable solutions. We would welcome an opportunity to present the district view to an independent panel either through a DESE child complaint or a due process hearing.  (They want me to go to due process because they think that they can weaken my resolve.)

C: Dr. David McGehee

Social Skills Groups: What Does the Research Tell Us?

Autism Spectrum News

The Promise of Research

Fall 2008, Vol.1, No. 1

Lynda Geller, Ph.D.

Asperger Institute

NYU Child Study Center

Social skills deficits are considered to be one of the critical diagnostic impairments that define autism and Asperger Syndrome, so it perhaps not surprising that both school personnel and clinicians in the community frequently recommend that a child or adolescent on the autism spectrum should be enrolled in social skills groups. The intention of such groups is to improve the development of these skills that often are so compromised. Yet just how much research evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of social kills groups as they are currently being delivered? The goals of this review are to summarize what the research tells us regarding efficacy of group social skills development models and to suggest to families what they should require from those delivering this kind of service.

Social skills are critical to successful adult outcome, from having rewarding personal relationships to academic and vocational accomplishment to overall mental health and quality of life. When considering these issues for the individual with an autism spectrum disorder we must be cognizant of the developmental nature of these conditions. Individuals on the autism spectrum have underlying brain differences that affect how they experience the world. In turn, experiences in life have direct consequences on ongoing brain development. So the outcome of any child’s development is the sum total of underlying assets and deficits and the life experiences that continuously shape all of us and directly impact brain development. That is why early intervention is such a powerful tool. It actually shapes brain development during critical periods and individual outcome can be profoundly affected by having or not having these kinds of experiences.

Those of us who work intensively with children with autism continually witness how autism unfolds and how the lack of certain experiences contributes to the ultimate outcome of each one of them. For example, it is not uncommon for parents to tell us that their child has never had a friend. While this is painful in and of itself, the developmental ramifications are significant. Peer interactions are necessary to develop the skills for maintaining conversation, taking perspective, playing appropriately, controlling emotional expression, negotiating conflict, and experiencing intimacy. Without these experiences in childhood, establishing a positive adulthood is very difficult. So, the child with the developmental differences of autism suffers the additional burden of limited experience in critical areas, resulting in what we so often see in young adults as inability to establish relationships or maintain a job and personal independence.

Therefore it is no wonder that so many clinicians and educational professionals try to provide development in the area of social skills. We all know it is critical for successful adulthood. But is what is being typically provided in schools and clinics effective in improving essential social skills?

Very recently, four significant reviews of social skills interventions have been published (White et al., 2007; Rao et al., 2008; Matson et al., 2007; Bellini et al., 2007.) They provide guidelines for assessing social skills groups as they have been implemented and give us important standards for assessing whether critical qualities exist in what is being currently offered.

White, Keonig & Scahill describe their concern with social skills development as being based on findings that social skills deficits do not remit but become more devastating with age as the social milieu becomes more complex; that children in inclusive settings are often more rejected and isolated, yet are not given the skills to succeed; and that social skills deficits contribute to academic and occupational underachievement and later mood and anxiety problems. Given these outcomes, high quality social skills interventions are crucial. Fourteen studies were identified that addressed group intervention for children and adolescents identified as having an autism spectrum disorder (ASD.) All studies had very small sample sizes (ten or less.) Only two studies utilized a manualized approach specifically developed for individuals with an ASD while others used techniques developed for other populations. Others simply described their approaches in greater or lesser detail. Only five studies included a comparison group and none used randomized assignment to treatment group.

None of the studies could be considered an effectiveness study, that is, one that examines the generalizability of gains to other settings. White et al. concluded that the state of research about social skills groups is still in its infancy.  However, they identified some promising strategies, based on what was demonstrated in the studies that should be considered in future program development. These include stimulating social motivation, rewarding social initiation, reinforcing appropriate social responding, treating interfering behaviors, and providing opportunities for skill generalization. Their strongest recommendation was that we need to develop and validate manualized social skills curricula to be utilized in schools and community-based groups.

Rao, Beidel & Murray reviewed papers evaluating social skills training programs for youth with Asperger Syndrome or high functioning autism to assess their efficacy and make recommendations for future research directions. They examined ten studies of high functioning children on the autism spectrum as such students are more likely to be in inclusion settings where the social demands are more intense. They found that current research is lacking in the following areas: establishing a common definition of what comprises social skills; conducting research that includes having control groups to compare outcomes and having blind observers to evaluate results; generalizing techniques to other settings; and conducting long term follow-up to determine if an intervention had any effects on eventual outcome. They recommended that future studies utilize manualized treatments specific to particular social deficits (e.g. simple interaction versus relationship development,) that more rigorous research designs be employed to assess effectiveness, and that generalization beyond the office be specifically implemented and measured. As in the previous review, these authors noted that the feasibility of improving social development through group instruction has been demonstrated, but the specific methods need further research.

Matson, Matson & Rivet examined a wide range of social skills interventions for children with ASDs of all functioning levels. In their review of seventy-nine treatment studies, they generated specific recommendations of what is required for the field to move forward toward more validated and specific social skills treatments.

They suggest:

• Parent training models to improve generalization and to make intervention available for younger children,

• Programs that address interfering behaviors or comorbid disorders (such as severe anxiety,)

• Interventions for children under six years of age whose brains have greater plasticity and who should be developing skills they can practice throughout elementary school,

• Need-specific programs that can differentiate between those who need very basic versus more advanced skill development,

• Consistent use of measurements in existing school and community social skills programs to assess if participants are meeting their specified goals.

Bellini, Peters, Benner & Hope reviewed social skills interventions being delivered in school settings. As social skills development is almost universally stated as a goal for special education students with ASDs, this is a particularly critical area to examine. A meta-analysis of fifty-five single-subject design studies was conducted to formulate some generalizations about treatment effectiveness of programs as they are currently being delivered in schools and to specify what approaches seem to offer the best potential. Bellini et al. reiterate that there is only minimal evidence that social skills training programs are effective for children in general, let alone for those for whom social deficit is the defining attribute.

The most important conclusions of this review were that social skills interventions in schools, as they are being reported in the literature, have low to questionable treatment and generalization effects and moderate maintenance effects. That implies that most treatments were not particularly effective in changing social behavior or affecting any changes that generalize across settings, but that any changes that occurred were somewhat maintained. The studies were then assessed by approach with the general findings that interventions need to be more intensively implemented, that they should occur in context rather than in an office, that the strategy should match the specific skill deficit, and that validated treatments should be implemented by clinicians trained in the specific intervention to insure effectiveness. The findings of this analysis were discouraging and implied that much of what is now being done for students with ASDs in schools may be rather ineffective.

Given the limited research evidence for the effectiveness of group social skills interventions, what are responsible recommendations? For community-based interventions, parents should ask the following questions:

• Is there a manualized, evidence-based curriculum or a well-designed, explicit program with specific goals?

• Do the proposed group members have similar needs that are being addressed specifically?

• Do the target behaviors being addressed make sense for each member?

• Is generalization to real-life settings being designed as an integral part of the program?

As children with ASDs typically lack good generalization skills, it is necessary to provide more specific opportunities for practice in realistic settings. This can be implemented through parent involvement with each session’s lesson, rehearsal and reinforcement homework for members, and prescribed member interaction between sessions. Interventions can also take place in actual life locations. Of importance, as well, is the therapist’s orientation to achieving measurable goals.

Does the group leader

• Assess each member’s needs before inclusion in the group?

• Have plans for assessing effectiveness?

• Consider the family’s specific desires for skill acquisition?

• Assess satisfaction with the service at the conclusion?

In-school services also need to be examined. Families should request that

• Services be very specifically described on the student’s individualized educational plan

• Those delivering the services have knowledge about both social skill development and the specifics of delivering such services to children on the autism spectrum

• Services be of sufficient intensity to be effective

• School personnel are utilizing evidence-base practice

• Interventions are being delivered in authentic locations such as playgrounds, classrooms, and lunchrooms, rather than only professional offices.

Sometimes parents do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable or empowered to request the services their child truly needs to promote the best outcome. It is important for parents to be wise consumers by

• Requesting specific plans and generalization strategies

• Learning how to reinforce social skills through play dates and get togethers

• Helping their child maximize strengths and interests in social settings

• Negotiating with school treatment teams to implement a true social skills program that is individually designed and data-driven.

Meanwhile, professionals who specialize in autism and Asperger Syndrome can help families gain awareness of the current state of knowledge; understand what they as parents can specifically accomplish with their children; and know what critical questions to ask of anyone currently providing social skills intervention in schools or community. Together, parents and professionals should continue to advocate for more treatment-based research on social skills development now.

References

Bellini, S., Peters, J.K., Benner, L., & Hopf, A. (2007) A meta-analysis of school based social skills interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders.

Remedial and Special Education, 28(3), 153-162.

Matson, J.L., Matson, M.L., & Rivet, T.T. (2007) Social-skills treatments for children with autism spectrum disorders. Behavior Modification, 31(5), 682-707.

Rao, P.A., Beidel, D.C., & Murray, M.J. (2008) Social skills interventions for children with Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism: A review and recommendations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(2), 353-361.

White, S.W., Keonig, K., & Scahill, L. (2007) Social skills development in children with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the intervention literature.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 1858-1868.

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Autistic Students

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Autistic Students

Today, the CDC has now announced new numbers in autism prevalence: 1 in every 68 children under the age of 21 has autism, 
including 1 in every 42 boys. This is a 29% increase since the last update (1 in 88 in 2012).

The last time that I was able to get the information, Lee's Summit had 17,559 students. 150 of those students had an educational diagnosis of autism.  Another 250 had a medical diagnosis. If the CDC is correct it would mean the Lee's Summit would potentially have 258 students with autism.  

This means that there are potentially 158 autistic students that are not being served.  Following is the law in Missouri and the facts on how well educated the persons making decisions are.  In Missouri a person designated as an autism specialist decides your child's educational diagnosis regardless of how many doctors disagree or have diagnosed otherwise.

Best Practice Guidelines: There are currently no best practice guidelines to 

help bring consistency in the therapies and methodologies used by local 

school districts. However, the lack of such guidelines is a symptom of a larger 

problem – the absence of a database and statewide data collection system to 

help classify the specific issues faced by each individual child. The database 

could also be used to identify helpful treatments and to scientifically support 

the appropriate use of various methods of intervention, treatment, and 



teaching. 

Eligibility: All public education programs for special education students 

contain eligibility criteria. IDEA Part B allows school districts to determine 

eligibility of students for services. Although students may already have 

received a formal medical diagnosis of ASD, some districts insist on 

performing their own assessment to determine eligibility for services, which is 

often labeled an “educational diagnosis.” Some parents and providers 

testified that they view the educational diagnosis as a bureaucratic method for 

the school district to deny services to some children. 

Program Conflicts: For students with ASD with more severe behavioral 

issues, parents testified that some school districts have failed to address and 

consider a student’s neurological and mental health status, and have 

employed methods intended for students whose behaviors are not the result of 

a disorder like ASD. Such methods include isolation or suspension from 

school under the criteria established by the Safe Schools Act. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that the Department of Elementary and 

Secondary Education solicit proposals to design a data collection system to 

support analysis of ASD intervention across the lifespan (evidence-based therapies 

or teaching practices) and costs of serving children with ASD organized by 

appropriate classifications. 

It is recommended that the data collection system be created for all students with 

ASD using the state-wide identification number and be submitted to the Department 

of Elementary and Secondary Education. Access to the data should be granted to 

appropriate public school personnel, qualified researchers in the field, and 

individuals specifically authorized by statute or rule. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that local school districts inform parents of 

the importance of having a service coordinator from the Department of Mental Health present at the IEP meeting that takes place around the fourteenth birthday 

of a child with ASD. The Department of Mental Health can begin to develop 

transition goals for the child, and determine which state agencies should be 

contacted while fostering stronger relationships with the child and his or her 

family. The child’s family or legal guardian would have the right to exclude this 

individual from the IEP meeting. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that the state of Missouri develop and 

implement best practice guidelines for educational assessments and interventions. 

Evidence-based best practice guidelines for effective educational assessment and 

interventions for ASD should be developed and disseminated broadly to act as a 

resource for Missouri school districts. 

B. Missouri’s Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement 

Act 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that Missouri allow equivalent funding to 

follow the student to the provider of the parent’s choosing. Having options for 

treatments or services empowers parents and encourages the General Assembly to 

explore models of choice in educational services. The General Assembly should 

investigate the merits of ASD scholarships, open enrollment for students with 

ASD, public and private partnerships, and any other educational opportunities for 

students with ASD, students with developmental disabilities, or students with 

developmental delays. 

F. Educational Diagnosis 

While it is clear that the evaluation of children conducted by educators is not done to 

“diagnose” the child, but rather to see if and how the diagnosis of ASD adversely 

impacts the child’s education, there is considerable misunderstanding created by the 

requirement to “make an educational diagnosis.” 

In Missouri, there are two ways for a child to be eligible for services under the federal 

IDEA. First, a child can have characteristics of a particular disorder, such as ASD, 

that grants automatic eligibility. Second, children can be eligible for early 

intervention services between the ages of birth and 36 months by having a 

developmental delay, defined as functioning at half the developmental level that 

would be expected for a child developing within normal limits and of equal age. The 

Blue Ribbon Panel heard numerous concerns about this requirement, including the 

perception of how it limits high-functioning individuals with ASD, who need the 

social and communicative services that are not otherwise available to them. 

Public education programs for special education students require students to meet 

eligibility criteria to qualify for services. Some children come to the school district 

seeking services with a medical diagnosis of ASD. Under IDEA, the school district 

is to consider the medical diagnosis and determine whether that diagnosis requires 

any educational intervention or supports. Testimony indicated a perception problem 

and semantics issue involving this process. Although the school district is not to 

dispute that a medical diagnosis has been made, many special educators and school 

districts use the term “educational diagnosis” to describe the process by which they 

determine whether educational intervention is required. In this way, it appears to 

parents that the school district is conducting its own diagnosis of the child and is 

making a different decision than the multi-disciplinary diagnosis team previously 

reached. 

AUTISM CONSULTANT: Missouri does not have such an educational designation.  However, there is a three-tiered system of Project ACCESS autism educational consultants described below.

IN-DISTRICT AUTISM CONSULTANT (IDAC):  A certified teacher with a minimum of two years classroom experience is selected by his or her school district’s administration to attend the Introduction to Autism training either in a face-to-face format or the online format through Project ACCESS’ Community of Practice site. In addition to the Introduction to Autism training, attending the Working with Autistic Students in the Schools (WASS) OR Early Intervention for Young Children With Autism (EIYCA)training is also required. These trainings enable the teacher to attend the Autism Consultant Training (ACT). An administrator must send an endorsement letter indicating the school district’s intention to use that person as their In-District Autism Consultant (IDAC). School districts may have as many IDACs as is deemed appropriate for the district’s needs for a staff member to consult with colleagues serving students with ASD in their own districts. Project ACCESS will provide each IDAC with a nametag and maintain a participant database.  If the IDAC moves to another Missouri school district, the new district can make a written request to Project ACCESS and the IDAC status can be transferred to the requesting district.

Each person attending the In-district Autism Consultant training must complete a separate registration form.  Candidates may register online using My Learning Plan. 

• Training Dates: June 16, 17 and 18, 2014.
• Training Times: Registration is from 8:00 to 8:30 on the first day and training begins at 8:45 and lasts until 4:00.  On day two and three, training begins at 9:00 and ends at 4:00.

You can do the math.  Three days of training 

and you are in charge of making decisions 

that will affect a person's entire life.  Forget 

the eight years of school that the doctor 

attended.