Rapacious Learning

Rapacious Learning Consulting: Helping Districts Transform Special Education

In November of 2022, I retired from my position as Special Education Director for the Cedar Rapids Community School District. I did not retire because I was ready to quit working, I retired because my very recalcitrant liver no longer wanted to work. Flash forward to November of 2023 and the above-mentioned disobedient liver was “retired” and replaced with a new-to-me liver piece donated by my son, Zachary. Since then I have been steadily improving and feel more than ready to get back into the special education game. 

Although I want to support special education, I am not interested in going back to full-time administrative work in a district. What I am very interested in is taking the wealth of experiences I have lived through and using that knowledge to support those working on the administrative front lines in districts. I have dabbled a bit with this in the last 6 months and feel ready to add to my list of districts who could benefit from my services. 

There are several reasons why I think I can help districts with improving special education outcomes. 

• As a building and district leader at West Central Valley, Newton, and Cedar Rapids I lived through the staffing challenges, the compliance issues, due process, staffing shortages, and the constant nagging voice in my head that asked, “Are students better off when we staff them into special education?”
• As an AEA Special Education Director for Prairie Lakes AEA I oversaw services for 46 public and private schools and got a first hand look at what rural districts face when attempting to fulfill every IEP obligation with extremely limited resources. Oftentimes in smaller districts an administrator gets special education as an “add on” and the person does not have the knowledge or experience to manage the more difficult parts of the position. I also question whether the services we provided from the AEA were the services districts and students needed to get results 
• I have spent several years developing a special education program review process where we do an intensive audit of a district or building’s special education services to determine what services are getting results and need to be prioritized and what services look and feel good but don’t get us to the results we need for our students. In this process we determine what questions you have and use multiple avenues to find answers including walk-throughs, focus groups, and a deep dig into the data. 
• With the current status in Iowa with the AEA system there is a critical need to determine what supports your district needs to continue with the AEA, what supports you need from the AEA that are not currently offered, and what services you need to provide on your own. With over 25 years experience as an administrator in Iowa (4 of those years as an AEA Special Education Director) I believe I have the knowledge, experience, and willingness to question the status quo to help guide you through these decisions. 
• Although it is unsettling to be in the times we are currently in with education in Iowa, I also see this as an opportunity to shed some of the special education shackles we have been locked into for a very long time. 

To be totally transparent, I am not looking to help any district; I want to help districts who are willing to ask the hard questions, analyze the data and dig deep to find the root cause, have a true desire to get better outcomes for students with IEPs, and are willing to take risks in order to achieve those results. There are no magic bullets, it is going to take hard work and will require us to kick over some long standing sacred cows. 

The supports I am offering include…

• Special Education Program Review process at the district or building level
  • Use of paraprofessionals
  • Co-teaching
  • Achievement/Growth
    • Before and after entitlement
    • Title 1 vs SDI
    • Achievement/Growth gap
    • Achievement/Growth during transitions to new buildings
  • Behavior
    • Behavior data before and after entitlement
    • Percentage of referrals for students with IEPs
    • Suspensions
    • Restraint/Seclusion
  • Special Education Budget
  • Staffing Resources
  • IEPs
    • FBAs and BIPs
    • Goals and Progress Monitoring
    • Alternate Assessment
    • ESY
  • Sample report
    • Sample Special Education Program Review Report
• On-call consultant services
  • Phone/Virtual calls to answer questions
  • Attend difficult IEP meetings
  • Attend problem solving meetings
  • Assist with due process situations
  • Provide professional learning
  • Crisis intervention
• Coaching for administrators around special education
  • Face-to-Face
  • Virtual

If you are interested in connecting with me to learn more about the services I am offering and how we could work together you can email me at wendyparker9533@gmail.com or fill out the “contact me” section at https://rapaciouslearning.org/contact-me/. My resume can be found at Wendy Parker Resume.

Before you contact me, you may want to watch my video and read some of my blogs at https://rapaciouslearning.org/. I am not seen as  a conventional thinker and the work I choose to do can be seen as outside the lines of the usual special education world. I like to think of myself as results-oriented, risk-taker, student-centered, and transformative. If that’s what you are about and you need some help with special education, reach out to me and let’s see what we can accomplish together:)

I emailed this individually to each member of the Senate Education Committe. This fight is far from over, so we need to keep advocating.

Hi,

Please take the time to read this email, I believe I have a unique perspective and it is worth your time. I have spent 30 plus years in Iowa as a teacher and administrator. During that time I have been a special education teacher (Burlington and Des Moines), behavior interventionist (Des Moines), building administrator (West Central Valley and Newton), district special education director (Newton and Cedar Rapids), and an AEA special education director (Prairie Lakes AEA). I retired from Cedar Rapids in 2022. In total, I have served 47 districts as well as numerous private schools.

When I was approached to go to the AEA in 2012 I initially was very reluctant to even discuss the option. My experience with the AEA with special education had not been positive for me in my district work. Not with the staff that directly served in our buildings, but with the administration, who I felt were much more focused on compliance than getting actual results with students. I also felt this was an issue with the DE, who I believe spearheaded this philosophy.

At Newton, we did several things that were innovative and had proven results, but we were told we could not continue to do these things because they violated the DE rules. These were such things as general education teachers providing SDI and special education teachers providing SDI while teaching a core class. When I got to Prairie Lakes AEA I had a district who had shown tremendous growth in reading at their middle school, so I went to visit the building one day as I was driving through town. The principal was very nervous and clearly didn’t want to talk about what they were doing to get the results they were getting. I finally convinced him I had no interest in being the compliance police and he shared the plan they were implementing. It was innovative and effective and I assured him I would not be shutting it down.

As a result of those experiences I created a video that was a call to action around special education in our state, which can be found at this link.

For the past decade, there has been movement at the federal, state, and AEA level to support practices that are focused on results rather than compliance. But, we still have a lot of work to do. We still engage in practices in this state that keep us from getting the results we should be getting. As I read this bill, I am certain it will send us back to the days of compliance and putting special education services, funding, and students into a silo of ineffectiveness.

For example, one of the proven models that has gotten results for many students with IEPs is to double the core. I was very interested in implementing this model, but it could not be done in this state due to licensure and funding restriction issues. I could not pay a core teacher out of special education funds even if they had a special education teaching license. In other states, you can use special education funds to hire a core teacher in math or ELA or with a reading endorsement. Then you can use the core teacher to provide specially designed instruction to students with IEPs in a core class setting. The other benefit of this model is that you can serve non IEP students in that setting as well, as long as the students with IEPs are getting the services they need. Unfortunately, although we have special education teachers who are highly qualified in content areas like reading and math, it is alarming how many special education teachers at the elementary level do not have a reading endorsement or how many special education teachers at the secondary level who provide instruction in math have no endorsement in math or even have a background in math.

One of the biggest barriers to success in special education in our state is the lack of certified special education teachers. The state has done nothing to address this issue and we are currently hiring folks who are not qualified candidates, are not quality candidates, or we are going without special education teachers entirely. There is nothing in this AEA bill that addresses this issue. The idea that districts are going to use the money they currently send to the AEA to hire more special education teachers is ludicrous. They will need to use the money to continue the consultative services they currently receive from the AEA and there aren’t teachers to hire even if you had unlimited amounts of money!

Let me be clear that I am not saying we don’t have a critical problem with special education in this state (and in this country). What I am saying is that this bill does not address the root cause problems we are enduring. We absolutely need to do a comprehensive study to look at available research to see what works, analyze our current system at the AEA, district, and state level, and then take the time to create a plan with input from all stakeholders that leads to an implementation plan with a timeline that makes sense.

I am happy to talk more with you about my experiences and perspective. My email is wendyparker9533@gmail.com and my cell is 641-417-8586.

Thank You,

Wendy Parker

I need to respond to the argument that House Study Bill 542 does not remove any services for students in special education. Although, on the surface, it looks like all special education funding and services will be maintained for districts, this is not entirely true. Certainly not the quality of services and definitely not the equity of services.

The assertion that special education will be more successful in Iowa if we focus all of the AEA services on special education and move the leadership and accountability to the DE is also filled with many fallacies. 

Let me provide you with some history. When I first started as an administrator in Newton in 2000 the DE and AEAs were very compliance driven and staff who were funded out of special education dollars were to work with special education staff and students only. With this model, special education funds and services were provided to those district programs which were paid out of special education dollars. Our achievement data for students with IEPs at Newton was very concerning and we dove in to build a more effective delivery system for our students. 

One of the things we did was to add a special education teacher to the Math team and we offered half of our grade level Math classes at the same time (5 sections of 7th grade Math one period, 5 sections another period, and the same for 8th grade). We ran an MTSS model where we had collaboration time for Math teachers every other day and students were grouped every three weeks based on data and instructional need. The special education teacher took the lowest performing students for each unit, which was a lot of students with Math goals but not all of the students were on IEPs. Depending on the data, some students with Math goals did not show the need for intensive instruction and were not served by the special education teacher for that unit.

Our achievement scores for students on IEPs were much improved in one year and overall Math scores improved by 10% on ITBS from one year to the next looking at cohort data. We were so excited and created a similar kind of plan for Reading using the KU Fusion program.

The response from the AEA? We could not use a special education teacher as a Core Math teacher (even though he was endorsed in Math) and call it specially designed instruction. They were very strict (as was the DE at the time) about using special education funds only for special education and IEP specially designed instruction had to take place in a special education room with a special education teacher and only students in special education. So, we had to dismantle a proven effective model because special education lived in a silo, a very ineffective silo.

Another example was when I went to the AEA and realized we had a middle school in our area who was showing enormous growth in reading. I went to visit the school and the Principal was super cagey, clearly not telling me what they were doing. It finally came out that they were using their special education teacher to deliver core instruction, much like we had at Newton. I thought, goodness, what is wrong with us that leaders have to hide the effective things they are doing because they are “breaking a rule that isn’t even a rule??”.

After that, the DE and AEAs collaborated and created the SDI Framework that clearly gives permission to provide specially designed instruction in a collaborative model, a regular education teacher can provide SDI, and a special education teacher can provide instruction to students who are not on IEPs. This was a huge game changer! To assert that the AEAs have moved away from special education is simply not true. What they have done is to embrace the proven fact that we improve achievement for students with disabilities by focusing on Core instruction being accessible and effective for all students in collaboration with special education teachers.

I am so, so afraid that this bill will take us back to the special education silo where we spend all our time and energy on compliance and special education teachers providing instruction to special education students in their special education classroom. We didn’t have good achievement then, and we won’t fix the achievement issues we have now by reverting back to what we already know doesn’t work.

Some additional key points:

• The funding that flows through to the AEAs by larger districts props up the services provided to smaller districts. This is a reality. There is not enough funding for a small, rural district to provide services for a student who resides in their district who has significant health issues, or very challenging behavior, is deaf or hard of hearing, etc. It is not a negative thing to gather together funding from a group of large and small districts so that all students, families, and teachers have access to the services that are needed. 
• If larger districts take their money and provide their own services, the small districts will not have the services which are required by law for them to serve every eligible student in their district. A small or even medium sized district will not be able to replicate what the AEA provides for special education by keeping their flow through funds. If big districts pull out of the AEA, there will absolutely be services that are currently available to all districts that will no longer be available.
• The idea that a district could provide everything the AEA provides in special education and then have money left over to hire additional special education teachers is ludicrous.
• It is an extreme challenge for AEAs to find the required staff that they need. I spent four years as the Special Education Director for Prairie Lakes AEA and spent all those years looking for a Deaf Education Teacher and never found one. SLPs are very difficult to find in rural areas, let alone BCBAs, OTs, PTs, School Psychs, Social Workers, and Special Education Consultants. 

Again, let’s take the time to figure out what is the root cause of our issues with achievement for students on IEPs and then address that root cause. The only way we can effectively determine root cause is by taking the time to thoroughly evaluate special education in Iowa at the AEA, DE, and district level and build a plan for reform based on what we learn.

Dear Legislator,

I am writing you to share my concerns about the dismantling of our AEA system in Iowa. I know you are getting many emails, calls, and letters about this and for efficiency I would invite you to read the two blogs I have written on this issue. I retired in 2022 from my position as Special Services Director for Cedar Rapids Schools but spent over 30 years in Iowa as a special education teacher in Des Moines and Burlington, an administrator at both the district and building level at West Central Valley, Newton, and Cedar Rapids, and as the Special Education Director for Prairie Lakes AEA. I feel I have a unique perspective due to my experience in both the AEA and public school settings.

Really Iowa, No AEAs?

Real Implications of Abolishing AEAs

I would like to take the time in this email to address a few key items that I am not sure you are aware of as I heard Representative Pat Grassley speak on Iowa Press last night and he appeared unaware of some of the details in the proposed bill on these items.

First, the area of the proposed bill that covers property currently owned by the AEA. This property will automatically go to the Department of Management and they can choose to sell the property. If they do choose to sell, the proceeds go to the general fund. These properties were purchased with tax funds that were designated to benefit education, and the majority of those funds were targeted to benefit students with disabilities. If these properties are sold, the money generated should go back to the AEAs to serve students, or at least returned to the districts who are served by that AEA to use those funds to benefit students. 

“The department of administrative services 

is responsible for providing real property and facilities to 

the area education agencies, as determined in consultation 

with the director of the department of education, pursuant to 

a management fee agreement. The area education agencies are 

responsible for the general maintenance and the grounds of the 

real property and facilities provided by the department of 

administrative services.”

“2.  a.  On or before July 1, 2024, all ownership interests 

that area education agencies have in real property and 

facilities attached to real property shall be transferred to 

the department of administrative services. Prior to July 

1, 2024, the area education agencies and the area education 

agency boards of directors shall collaborate with the director 

of the department of administrative services to arrange for 

the orderly conveyance of all ownership interests in real 

property from the area education agencies to the department 

of administrative services. The department of administrative 

services shall be responsible for all costs associated with 

the conveyance of real property pursuant to this paragraph and 

shall assume all encumbrances attached to such real property.”

“b.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the

contrary, the department of administrative services shall have 

the authority to dispose of all interests in real property 

conveyed to the department pursuant to paragraph “a”. Moneys 

generated by the sale of such interests in real property shall 

be deposited in the general fund of the state.”

“3.  Prior to July 1, 2024, all interests that area education 

agencies have in real property lease agreements shall be 

transferred to the department of administrative services.”

The AEAs currently possess a wealth of materials that teachers use, and many teachers use these materials consistently throughout the school year. The proposed bill says these items could stay at the AEA, but can only be used for special education. Of the remainder of the materials, they will go to the Department of Administrative Services and could go to a low performing district or they can sell the materials and put the funds generated in the general fund. These materials were bought with tax dollars generated by all of the districts in the AEA for the purpose of serving all of the students in the AEA. It is absolutely wrong to take those materials, sell them, and put the money in a place that will not be used for education. It is also wrong to not give access to those materials to the districts who paid for them. 

“The department of administrative services may dispose 

of media center and professional development equipment and 

property transferred to the department pursuant to paragraph 

“c”, with preference being given to lower-performing public 

schools in this state. Moneys generated from the sale of media 

center or professional development equipment or property shall 

be deposited in the general fund of the state.”

There is also a belief that the money currently funding educational services and media at the AEAs will be returned to districts. I am not a funding expert by any means, but when I look at the verbiage in the proposed bill, it appears to me that the state can determine that the funds returned to the district must first be used for property tax relief. 

“The school district management levy under Code section 298.4 

is authorized to be used for specified purposes, including 

unemployment benefit costs, insurance costs, costs of certain 

judgments, early retirement benefit costs, and mediation 

and arbitration costs. The bill provides that a school 

district’s management levy may be reduced by the department of 

management if the department determines that the reduction in 

the school district’s combined district cost as a result of 

the elimination of the area education agency media services 

categorical funding supplement and the area education agency 

educational services categorical funding supplement does not 

result in a corresponding reduction in the total amount of 

property taxes levied by the school district for the budget 

year. The bill allows the department of management to evaluate 

the amounts of property taxes levied by the school district and 

purposes for which such revenues are budgeted to determine the 

adequacy of the reduction in the school district’s total amount 

of property taxes.”

“a.  For the budget year beginning July 1, 1991, the 

department of management shall calculate for each district the 

difference between the sum of the revenues generated by the 

foundation property tax and the additional property tax in the 

district calculated under this chapter and the revenues that 

would have been generated by the foundation property tax and 

the additional property tax in that district for that budget 

year calculated under chapter 442, Code 1989, if chapter 442, 

Code 1989, were in effect, except that the revenues that 

would have been generated by the additional property tax levy 

under chapter 442, Code 1989, shall not include revenues 

generated for the school improvement program. However in 

making the calculation of the difference in revenues under 

this subsection, the department shall not include the revenues 

generated under section 257.37, Code 1989, and under chapter 

442, Code 1989, for funding media and educational services 

through the area education agencies. If the property tax 

revenues for a district calculated under this chapter exceed 

the property tax revenues for that district calculated under 

chapter 442, Code 1989, the department of management shall 

reduce the revenues raised by the additional property tax levy 

in that district under this chapter by that difference and 

the department of education shall pay property tax adjustment 

aid to the district equal to that difference from moneys 

appropriated for property tax adjustment aid.”

Another major area of concern for me is the plan to terminate all administrators at the AEA on July 1st (or sooner, if the DE chooses) to be replaced with a state appointed Executive Director (who has to have a special education background) and the rest of the administrative duties being done by the new staff hired by the DE. It is hard to tell if the new Executive Director can hire administrators. Keep in mind that administrators include HR Directors and Business Directors. How are people going to be hired and bills paid and a budget created when there are no administrators to do the work? Who will be meeting with districts to create a plan for next year around special education? Who will be hiring and evaluating staff? 

“5.  On July 1, 2024, the employment of all area education 

agency administrators employed pursuant to section 273.3, 

subsection 11, as amended in this division of this Act, is 

terminated, unless terminated earlier by the director of 

the department of education who, notwithstanding any other 

provision of law to the contrary, is authorized to terminate 

the employment of such area education agency administrators. 

The changes to chapter 273 constitute just cause for discharge 

of the area education administrators under section 279.25, 

and the provisions of section 279.24 shall not apply to the 

discharge of the area education administrators. The director 

of the department of education shall appoint an executive 

director for each area education agency pursuant to section 

273.4, as amended in this division of this Act. The director, 

or the director’s designee, may exercise the authority of an 

executive director until such appointment is made.”

As you can see from my blog posts, I am not against studying the AEA system to determine its effectiveness and definitely think we need to take a good, hard look at how we deliver special education services in our state. Unfortunately, this proposed bill allows for no evaluation of our current system and does not use the reliably available research that shows what works to reduce the gap. This is a step back to the dark ages where we focused only on special education funded staff and completely missed the boat that the key to improving student achievement for students on IEPs is to make sure that the Tier 1 Core Curriculum is accessible and beneficial to them and that Tier 2 and 3 are in place and successful BEFORE we put all our time, energy, and resources into special education only. Most students with IEPs spend a small portion of their day with a special education teacher in a special education room and the majority of their learning takes place in general education. 

Again, I strongly reccommend that you take the next year to do a comprehensive evaluation of the current AEA system, create a plan using available research, gain input form stakeholders on the proposed plan, and then create a reasonable implementation plan that can be delivered successfully. 

I am more than willing to chat further with you about this very important topic. 

Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the work that you do for our state. 

Wendy Parker

(641)417-8586

wendyparker9533@gmail.com

Here are some of the things that exemplify the impact of the proposed plan by Governor Reynolds to dismantle the current AEA system.

Districts work collaboratively with AEAs to design the services the district needs from the AEA. At this time of the school year, there is a lot of conversation about what the summer will look like as well as the beginning of school and for the upcoming school year. This not only includes AEA staff assignments but what AEA supported professional learning and other services and supports will look like in the district.

Many schools are on the targeted list for special education and are required to engage in AEA supported professional learning. This includes some training for all staff and even more training for special education teachers, coaches, and administrators. They are designing this professional learning NOW and will deliver it this spring, summer, and next school year. Perhaps, based on a thorough data review, they also determine they need professional learning for paras and professional learning around behavior. This is also being designed and a calendar is being created for this NOW. 

So, let’s say this proposed plan goes through by March 1st. All of the AEA administrators, educational services staff, and media staff are told they will not have jobs as of July 1st. A new Executive Director will be appointed by the state of Iowa and they will start sometime prior to July 1st?? The AEAs will need to meet with each district this spring to determine what services the district wants and it could be all of the special education services they are getting now, no AEA special education services, or part of the services they are currently getting. Until those decisions are made, the AEA will have no idea what budget they will have for next year. The state will also seize all property owned by the current AEAs, sell those properties, and give the funds to the General Fund, not for any educational expenses. The current funding that goes to AEAs for educational services and media will now go for property tax relief and will not go to school districts. To replace those services, schools will have to pay for those services out of existing funds.

In the meantime, the Iowa Department of Education will be hiring 139 positions to start July 1st and those folks who are being terminated from the AEA will be given preference. The DE (which has a skeleton staff right now) will then determine who is doing what, train all the new staff, and then send the staff out to work with school districts to collaboratively design the services needed prior to school starting???? I am a big dreamer, but even I can’t dream that big. This is an entity that struggles to post and hire a position even when one person leaves and everyone agrees the position needs to be replaced.

Many districts, in collaboration with their AEA, are moving, and have been moving, in a positive direction with the support of their AEA. There appears to be a false notion out there that the AEA determines what services the school will get when, in fact, the AEA designs their services to meet the needs of individual districts. For example, when I was at Cedar Rapids we used the AEA for mentoring of new teachers, literacy and other content area professional learning, PBIS training and coaching, mandatory trainings, library and digital resources, and much more. We constantly met with our Regional Administrators to design and adjust services based on our needs. It truly was a partnership. This was also the way it was when I was Special Education Director for Prairie Lakes AEA. Our Regional Administrators were part of the district team, not just there for special education only. Now it will be on schools to design all of these services outside of special education on their own with no additional funds.

This will paralyze our public educational system and kids will lose. If the impetus behind this decision is to improve student achievement for students with disabilities I can guarantee you that the gap will increase when general education loses so many supports. Students on IEPs do not spend all day in special education classes being served by special education teachers. One of the best ways to improve special education is to keep students from needing IEP services by successfully serving students before they need to be entitled and to ensure that students with IEPs have meaningful access to the general education curriculum.

Again, I am begging the legislature to go back to what was initially communicated. Spend the next 12 months studying the AEA system by looking at relevant data such as focus groups with AEA staff, school staff, parents, students, and community partners, including a root cause analysis of why there is such a gap in special education. The study should also include observations of AEA services, a thorough data review, and an analysis of best practices that have led to improvement in results for students with disabilities. Once this analysis is complete a plan for reform should be created, public input should be gathered around the plan, and then a thorough plan of implementation needs to be created. I would love to see a plan for how everything in this new legislation will be implemented so that required services, as well as services that benefit students, are sustained for the remainder of this school year and next.

The only way studying this for a year is a negative is if this plan is about punishing public school education even more and the need for that punishment being so great that it can’t wait a year to be inflicted upon them.

It looks like there is talk about yet again threatening to eliminate the AEA system in Iowa. The difference is that it appears to be something the Republican controlled House, Senate, and Governor could make happen this year.

I feel like I have a unique perspective on this issue as I have been a special education teacher, district administrator, and AEA Special Education Director in Iowa in the last 30 years. In all of my experiences I worked closely with my local AEA and had some excellent experiences as well as those that were frustrating. What I want to be very clear about, is that the last thing we should do is dump the AEA system and think that private entities and/or districts are going to be able to offer the services that are currently provided by the AEA system. 

AEAs are primarily a source of support for special education with about 80% of their services falling into this category. That support includes birth to 3 services, speech language pathologists, challenging behavior, autism consultants, compliance support, entitlement evaluations to determine student eligibility for IEPs, assistive technology, deaf and hard of hearing services, and OT and PT support. Most everything they provide is required by federal law, so these are not things we can just choose not to do anymore.

Many of the people I have worked with through the AEA system are talented, hard working advocates for all students. It was a privilege to lead the special education team and I learned an enormous amount about how the AEAs can be even more effective in the 4 years I served as Director. I think the AEA system would welcome a chance to reinvent itself, as my experience was that they were always looking to do things better. 

I have no issue with the questions around the achievement for students with disabilities in our state. The gap is very large and there is ample evidence to question whether the services we provide might actually cause achievement to be less than if the student didn’t have an IEP. The question of whether or not we are providing effective special education services in Iowa schools is an excellent question to ask. To answer that question we need to do a deep look at our current systems and determine what is working and what is needed and the best possible way to effectively implement those pieces that are missing.

We need to take a year to really do a comprehensive program review of our AEAs, not some outside entity who will not take the time to really speak to schools, families, students, and AEA staff. This should include a pervasive look at all relevant data, focus groups with shareholders from staff to parents, observations of people doing the work, conversations with current and past students, and analysis of other relevant pieces such as staffing and licensure issues. If we don’t do this and just dump the current system, I guarantee that our state will not be able to provide the legally required services in all districts in Iowa, which will likely lead us to advocacy group engagements and due process events that will put us on someone else’s plan to get better.

I lived through this in Cedar Rapids with the DOJ agreement around restraint and seclusion. We had a strong plan in place where restraints/seclusions had been reduced by over 75% and we had reduced our student population in off-sites from over 300 to around 70. The DOJ wrote the plan, including some inane things like not being able to block a student from leaving a classroom through the door when they are escalated, and the district now has to place all these critical resources into documentation of a plan that I still believe strongly will result in more students in more restrictive settings with overall disruption to the general school environment increasing instead of decreasing.

We assume we know what works with special education, but the reality is that most of these things are assumptions and do not take into account the situation in which we are currently functioning. We need to determine the things that will have the most leverage for positive change in the state and then support those things adequately. For example, there was a study done in Arizona 10 years ago which identified the six things correlated with districts that were able to achieve a reduction in their achievement gap for students with disabilities. Arizona Article.pdf

The six things were….

1. A culture of high expectations for ALL students and a student-first mentality

2. Highly effective teaching strategies in the general education classroom

3. Frequent data collection for use in decision making

4. The use of data analysis to provide interventions and enrichment

5. Core instruction in the general education classroom as much as possible

6. Effective leadership

None of these things that have the biggest impact are what special education teachers do in special education classrooms. Number one is the way people think about students with disabilities in the building. If I was planning an overhaul of our system and this is the evaluation data I received I would make sure the AEA system supported these 6 things in the future or that districts had this support in some other way if AEAs were no longer present. 

And, what are those things in this current world that are not being addressed by AEAs that would be helpful instead of some things they are currently offering? When I was the Director of Prairie Lakes AEA we started a school for students with challenging behaviors in partnership with Spencer CSD because this was a critical area of need for our districts and we had the expertise, knowledge, and staff to support a program like this. How can AEAs help with the critical staffing shortages we are facing? How do we make sure there are true partnerships between the AEA and the districts they serve; that it isn’t the AEA “expert” coming in and telling them what to do with no understanding of the very valid barriers the school faces?

I have seen the movement of the AEAs when it comes to special education over the last 20 years. There were days in the past where compliance was the focus and results took a back seat. I remember when the Chief at PLAEA asked me if I was interested in coming to the AEA as Director and I said “I can’t work for the AEA, I am always in trouble with them!” I can tell you from my experience this has changed and the results we get with students are the primary focus of the work for the AEA system.

Let’s begin now to really evaluate the current AEA system, determine the results we believe are most critical, and then plan the best way to design those services in Iowa that will be most beneficial to schools, families, and students. Perhaps the review would determine that one of the missing pieces is adequate support for districts with students who have very challenging behaviors and that piece of the system needs to be completely reimagined. Or maybe providing PL to teachers with coaching support would be a service to make a priority. Mentoring around special education for leaders could also be a critical piece of the work. Again, just because it isn’t perfect now does not mean it should go away. 

But please, please do not make a rash decision about AEA services and leave districts in even more of a struggle to do what is legally required (and what is necessary and appropriate) then they are currently living. Our schools, families, and students expect and deserve better.

I recently became a “retired educator” after 30 plus total years with 27 years as a public school administrator. Most of those years were spent with a focus on special education with my teaching career spent as a teacher of students with behavior disabilities. Many articulate, passionate, and caring public school advocates have spoken on the voucher legislation being proposed in Iowa and I admire and support the positions they have taken on this issue.

I’m going to focus on the underlying issue that is a bedrock of the voucher movement, although it is seldom clarified as such by those who favor the use of public funds to send Iowa students to private schools. To be clear, I abhor this legislation and find it wrong on every level. But, let’s not forget for one moment that this is about “my child not going to school with those kids”. “Those kids” include students with disabilities and private schools have no obligation to enroll students who do not meet their criteria, whatever that criteria entails. 

What is particularly frustrating about this is that, deep within this perspective, is a shred of truth that is becoming harder and harder to ignore. That truth is that we have students in public schools that need more support than can be offered in the public school setting. This is where the story we are hearing over and over again comes into play; the story about the explosive child in the regular education classroom who assaults the teacher, destroys the classroom, etc. leaving other children traumatized.

I say this with great trepidation because I firmly believe that this is a small, small minority of students and I believe with appropriately trained staff who implement individual student plans and believe all students can be successful, the vast majority of students in Iowa can be, and will be, successful in the public school setting.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that public schools have become THE answer to any student behavior situation, regardless of how complex. And, don’t kid yourself, the very people who are pushing the voucher legislation are the same people who are leaving public schools high and dry with inadequate resources and a lack of alternatives to serve these students with very challenging needs. And, then, they have the audacity to tell us we aren’t getting the job done and families need an option so their child can go to a school that is safe knowing this option allows for the decimation of funds that will negatively impact the very resources we are barely hanging onto now in order to serve students who struggle with behavior in a proactive manner.

And, don’t even get me started on the mixed messages and competing expectations and rules that are required of public schools in Iowa. I have been a Director of Special Education at an AEA and one of the largest school districts in Iowa in the last 10 years. During that time I was told we could not put our hands on students unless they were a danger to themselves or others (makes sense), suspend students for more than 10 days for behaviors related to their disability (critical in order to not deny an education to a student with disabilities), restrain/seclude students with disabilities at a higher rate than students without disabilities (makes little sense since students who require this kind of intervention have significant behavior disabilities most of the time), follow extremely prescriptive behavior plans for individual students (very difficult to accomplish when plans go above and beyond what can reasonably be offered in a public school setting), employ highly qualified and experienced staff to work with a myriad of students with complex behavior issues (I have never experienced the dearth of qualified staff that we are facing right now), and use of alternative educational settings can be used only as a last resort (this would require us to have access to settings such as this in the first place when many districts have no access to alternative settings). And just to make it even more confusing, we had Senate File 2360 that allows us to put our hands on students even without the threshold of being a danger to themselves or others (you can see my thoughts on this silly law at https://rapaciouslearning.org/the-racist-union-of-iowas-room-clear-bill/).

The coup de grace was a complaint filed with the Department of Justice resulting in an agreement between the district I worked for and the DOJ where we were not allowed to block egress to maintain a student who was disruptive to remain in a classroom, seclude a student in a space when the student was causing a disruption, remove a student from the learning environment if the behavior is related to the student’s disability, and an incredible amount of paperwork and meetings that are required each time a student needs a restraint to keep the student or others safe. Seclusion is not allowed at all under any circumstances (Seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a student alone in any room or area. An adult blocking a student’s way to leave a room or area, blocking the student’s escape route, or holding the door shut is considered seclusion). This agreement was required after the district reduced the use of restraint and seclusion by over 70% and the use of alternative placements went from over 300 students to less than 100 in five years. The amount of hours I have spent with individual due process cases, state complaints, OCR complaints, and the DOJ complaint around these issues is mind boggling and counterintuitive to where our efforts need to be focused so we can actually do the work to help our students, families, and staff.

In the meantime, the state has given us very little assistance beyond token measures such as a grant that will pay for behavior classrooms (funding is 1.5 times what we normally receive for a student and adequate funding for classrooms like this would be closer to 10 to 15 times the normal daily reimbursement for a student). Mental health services are basically non-existent with incredibly long waits to receive adequate services and inpatient beds essentially unavailable. Placements for students who engage in criminal behavior happen so infrequently we have no idea what it takes for the juvenile justice system to determine a student is a safety threat. It is unbelievably common for middle school aged students who commit a crime with a GUN (think armed robbery) to be back at school with little to no consequence or support. Lack of qualified staff is at a critical stage while the state just keeps upping the expectation for what we are required to do for students. 

I have spent countless hours in the last 10 years making every attempt to listen to staff and determine how we can continue down a road that is so filled with barriers that I truly don’t know if any more alternative routes exist. Teachers and administrators who would have never imagined themselves saying “I’m afraid for other students’ safety”, I’m afraid for my co-worker’s safety” and “I’m afraid for my own safety” are saying those words and it appears that no one is listening and no one cares. And, most important of all, the students who are exhibiting these behaviors are not in a learning environment. We are deluding ourselves when we think the public schools are the appropriate setting for a student to engage in learning who is aggressively acting out for hours on end, day after day.

For public schools this is another prime example of being forced to play a game you cannot possibly win; it would be like playing a basketball game where one team never gets to touch the ball. Listening to legislators blame us for providing an unsafe environment for students when they refuse to adequately fund COMMUNITY resources (this is not a public school responsibility by itself) in even the most rudimentary form while upping the requirements for us to serve these students who face so many behavior challenges is, at best, malpractice and, at worst, an avenue to segregate and inadequately serve students who need the most supports while simultaneously pulling the rug out from underneath the incredible public school staff who make valiant efforts every day to serve this challenging population of students.

Just a quick reminder of my experiences. I was a Behavior Disorder teacher in Burlington, Columbus, OH, and Des Moines, a Behavior Interventionist in a MS in Des Moines, building principal at the MS and HS level, Secondary Education Services Director, AEA Special Education Director, and am now the Special Education Director for a large urban district in Iowa. I want to talk to you today about a proposed bill in the Iowa legislature (Senate File 2360 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=88&ba=S-5019) and why I am passionately against this legislation and believe my extensive experience in this arena allows me a unique perspective. 

I want to share a little research that I’ve been looking up on this bill and kind of what it looks like in the final version. To be honest with you, this is something that I spoke out quite a bit about when it was first proposed and when the COVID crisis happened I was kind of hoping that maybe it would be shelved for a year. Instead, it has actually made it through the new funnel date and looks to have enough support to be likely to pass.

Basically, the essence of this bill has three components. One of those has to do with creating therapeutic classrooms for students with significant behaviors in the classroom. These students would go to a place called a therapeutic classroom that would be away from their peers. One interesting thing is that the therapeutic classrooms will have a 1.5 additional weighting for each student who goes to that classroom. For someone who has spent a lot of time trying to improve the effectiveness of these kind of classrooms and trying to reduce the need for the use of separate classrooms for kids with behaviors, the cost of a program like this that’s well-run can be anywhere from $150 a day per student to $500 a day per student. The idea that that you can run a therapeutic class that would be of any effectiveness for $52 a day (which, by the way, the statue has capped at one point five million dollars for the entire state) is silly thinking at best.

Another big piece of this legislation is putting parameters around something called room clears. For those of you who are not in the education business you may not understand what this is, but a room clear is when a student becomes so destructive or so dangerous that we remove the other students from the classroom until that student can be safely removed. There’s a reason why this has gotten kind of a bad rap and pieces of those concerns are very legitimate. We should not be doing multiple rooms clears a day for the same student. Not only is this student struggling with learning but now everybody else in the class is struggling because instruction is being interrupted multiple times per day. There is trauma involved not only for the student who is exhibiting the behaviors but for the staff person and the other kids. It is not something that was ever designed to be used multiple times a day and I think there is some confusion around how best to reduce the misuses of this and it is not this law.

I remember when I first became a special ed director at a district and one of the first things that I heard was that there was a situation at one of our elementary schools. I went over there and the first grade teacher was crying. It was 11 in the morning and they had done a room clear six different times for the same student that day. The student was really struggling and he was pretty much destroying the classroom, knocking everything over and ripping things up in the classroom. There were people around gathering data on clipboards because the student was in the evaluation process for special education. The other students were in the library and the teacher said this had been going on all week. As the Special Ed Director for that district I said this is not okay. We are not going to do this, it is not okay for anyone involved so we’re going to meet and we’re going to come up with a new plan. Sometimes I think there’s some confusion as to when an administrator can step into the room clear situation like that and say no, we need a new plan. This isn’t making any sense for anyone involved. It is kind of a “who is in charge/” situation. To me, that’s a leadership professional learning situation. I teach a class called What Every Administrator Needs to Know about Special Education and we talk a lot about these kind of situations. They are the person in the building to ensure the safety of all students so they are going to have to have a big voice and be more directive at times.

The other piece of this bill is teachers being allowed to put their hands on students more often. This is very confusing to me because the law already allows teachers to put their hands on students in Chapter 103 who are a danger to themselves or others and they won’t get in trouble if they do that as long as it’s reasonable. As I talked to people about this it sounds like there are some situations out there where maybe teachers are feeling like they have acted reasonably and within the law, and then they have been targeted and disciplined by the administration in their district. I can tell you from my own experience the times that I have had to address that kind of issue with a teacher I felt like the teacher did have a performance concern andwasn’t following what anybody would consider to be reasonable. In my opinion, if you’ve got an administrator that is going to target teachers and discipline them for something that is reasonable in scope and protected by law, this particular law is not going to change anything with that problem. That administrator will find somewhere else to target their employees in an unfair manner. This is not something we write a law around where we make physical restraint available to more staff members.

I don’t think teachers want to be able to put their hands on kids more readily. I’ve been doing this for over 30 years; a lot of people have been doing this for a lot of years; and I think most, if not all of us, would agree that when you have a student who is agitated, anxious, upset, or threatening violence, putting your hands on them puts not only the escalated child at risk but the staff person as well. I have yet to put my hands on a student who is agitated and have her/him calm down. You know when you make that decision it is for safety reasons and you know when you do it things are going to get worse before they get better. I don’t think that is what teachers want to be doing. I think teachers want to feel like they’re going to be supported when they do put their hands on kids and, again, this is already in the law.

I absolutely believe that teachers want students to behave in their classrooms, particularly not acting out in a way that makes the teacher and other students feel unsafe. They want student behavior to improve.  This happens when students receive the support they need, not when we physically restrain them. For some students a classroom that is segregated from typical peers and provides intensive supports is what they need. For many students this ends up being a life sentence where their only role models are other students who also engage in significant behaviors and where the supports are woefully inadequate. Teachers want to make sure that their students have access to mental health services, healthcare, behavior supports in the building from well-trained staff members, financial support and time to provide necessary academic interventions, home and  food security, support for their families, and hope. They want effective professional learning that will increase their skills in working with students with challenging behaviors. They are not asking for a law that allows them to restrain students,  I just don’t believe that to be true.  

Some of the things that I’m going to say next are potentially going to make some people mad, maybe a lot of people mad. Again, I’m 56 years old with over 30 years in this business and another thing that I have learned for sure is that if nobody’s mad, nothing is changing. We are at a point in our society and culture right now where we are saying difficult things, we are saying things that we haven’t ever said before to each other, and so this is the time to be disruptive. If I fear making people mad, nothing will change.

I believe this bill is a racist bill and it is a frightening example of why I don’t trust that real change will happen. I want you to do something for me. I’m going to be transparent and vulnerable and be honest with you about what I see in this situation. I want you to think about the student who is threatening a teacher, threatening another student, very out of control in a classroom, and people in the room feel fearful of the situation. When I close my eyes and I put myself in that situation the student that I’m picturing is black. I’m going to guess that if we were all honest with each other that there would be a lot of people out there who see the same thing. Implicit bias is there whether we want to admit it or not. This is not just about what we envisioned in our minds, this is about the reality for Black students and how that manifests itself into practice and outcomes.

According to the Office of Civil Rights (https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/school-climate-and-safety.pdf, https://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf)…

• Black children represent 18% of enrollment in pre-K and represent 48% of students who are suspended more than one time. 
• Black students in K-12 are suspended at a rate three times higher than white students.
• Black students represent 16% of K-12 enrollment but represent 20% of students referred to law enforcement and 31% of the students arrested for something school related. 
• Black children represent 19% of students with disabilities but represent 36% of students with disabilities who have been physically restrained. 
• In Iowa, 21% of Black male students have been suspended vs. 4% of White students
• In Iowa 12% of Black female students have been suspended vs. 2% of White Students

This is the whole deal right now. George Floyd was murdered in a restraint. He died in a restraint and our state is proposing a bill; that appears to be something that is going to pass with bipartisan support; that will expand the use of physical restraint in our school. Imagine after all the conversation and activity and action and advocacy that we’ve had around this issue being a black student coming back to school. The first time that the student is either restrained or sees another black student being restrained that student will think they are going to die or the other student is going to die. This is a very reasonable fear for them. They know Black people die in physical restraints; they watched a video of a man being murdered in a restraint. This is very, very real to them.

This is a whole new ball game that we are responding to and the fact that we are going to respond to it in this manner is absolutely sickening to me. I know some of the reasoning behind this bill’s support. Teachers were asking for this so we need to give them something. Republicans were going to do a bill and if we wanted any input we had to support it. I don’t understand any of this. Again, if there’s one thing for sure we need to know is that you don’t compromise your way to equity. We do not compromise our way to equity! We don’t give and take on equity, that is where we have been and this is where it has gotten us. People screaming in the streets because even when they die nothing changes.

So here’s what I’m asking and what I believe our black students and families are asking as well. We need to have some understanding about the system that we have created for Black students in our schools and how that has led to the situation that has happened with so many Black people; where being Black means that you can be murdered by the system, discarded by the system, and never allowed access into the system.

Why are Black students angry in school? Black children are way more likely to be non-proficient readers than White students. In 2018 80% of Black 4th graders were non-proficient readers compared to 54% of White students. 87% of Black students were non-proficient in 8th grade as compared to 54% of White students. https://patch.com/us/across-america/two-thirds-u-s-4th-graders-are-not-proficient-reading) Whether this is about inadequate instruction, low expectations, or implicit bias, the bottom line is that our Black students are not being taught as effectively as our White students. I believe that Black students are disciplined for behavior that White students are not disciplined for way too often. The racism that is so prevalent in many of our education systems leaves Black children and families feeling dehumanized, which often leads to anger. Many have experienced trauma, both outside and inside of school, that impacts behavior.

Then we need to take into account the trauma many have experienced this spring and what that’s going to bring to schools and classrooms when we return. How are we going to respond? 

I used to think; unfortunately not that long ago; that we need to bring Black people to our table so that they can have a voice. It’s not our table, right? It’s not our table and we need to be invited to their table, which is a privilege to be asked. What I see happening is we go to their table, we have the conversation, we do the self-reflection, we say the right things, we read the right books, we put the stuff on social media, and then afterwards, when we’re headed home, then it’s like what’s that table over there? That table has great drinks, nice desserts, big cigars, you know, stuff I like. I’m just going to stop by that table, you know. And, then I’m staying at that table (I’m going to call this the table of racism). By the way, there are only White people at this table. And that’s where things like this bill get written. We create crappy ideas like this when our perspective is so limited that we don’t even know the impact of the decisions we are making. The Table of Racism is no longer a place we can sit. I don’t care if that table gives you votes, or money, or prestige, or influence; don’t sit at that table ever again.

This is what I believe we need our legislators to do with this situation. We need legislators to take the same conviction, the same passion, the same courage, the same Black Lives Matter gear they take to the protest and take it all to the legislative floor. With that same conviction, with that same compassion, with that same commitment to change, legislators need to vote no on this bill.

If that does not happen, the result of this bill will be that trauma for Black children and families will be even more increased, Black students will be removed from school at an even higher rate than we currently do with suspensions and expulsions and we’re going to feel good about it because it will be called a “therapeutic classroom”. We are going to put even more Black students in a classroom in another place so they’re not even in the regular school. We will have more Black students arrested at school. That is the result. Our reality will not get better, and will actually get worse if we don’t show some courage and true willingness to change.

I believe that Black people in Iowa have given us a tremendously generous opportunity to work together. We cannot turn our backs and speak one way while continuing to support racist policies and practices. We have to do better and this is the time.

Throughout social media over the last couple of days there have been posts condemning all cops as racists and murderers as well as posts who say that all police officers should not be grouped with those who behave so abhorrently. 

My position is that there are many honorable police officers who should not be grouped with those that are murdering people just for being Black. I totally understand that there are people with a different perspective on this issue, I do not pretend for one second that their thinking is wrong, but I want to share my thoughts and perspective. I have known many excellent, compassionate, well-trained, unprejudiced, and peaceful  police officers and I appreciate how they put their lives on the line for us every day. I do not believe that all police officers are racist.

Having said that, I find it interesting that we see a racist police system as a stand alone entity within this issue, that somehow police officers murdering black people begins and ends with being a police officer. I absolutely believe that our country is a racist country and that there are a multitude of racist systems within this larger entity that feed into this disgusting phenomenon. It is the overall racist society that is responsible for creating an environment where law enforcement can terrorize Black people and it is tolerated. 

Our education system is racist. Our economy is racist. Our healthcare system is racist. Our politics are racist. Our response in a pandemic is racist. Access to food is racist. Our employment structure is racist. This country was built on the foundation of racism and it still exists today; honestly, may be worse today than ever because now we try to act like it’s not racist because of all the “protections” we have in place to make sure it doesn’t occur. Let me tell you, those safeguards have failed miserably for the Black people they are intended to protect. 

As an educator, I think it is best if I break down my thoughts on our education system as that is where I have the greatest perspective. When I tell educators we have an education system that is racist, many immediately come back with “Are you calling me a racist?”. Then I say, “No, I’m saying the system is racist”. That’s not even up for argument, look at the data for Black students in schools. Graduation rates, literacy rates, gaps in achievement, office referrals and suspensions and expulsions, family engagement, the list goes on and on. Am I a racist because I work in a system that is racist? I have certainly worked with educators I believe to be racist; sometimes overtly and sometimes in the shadows; but I have encountered many educators who also believe the education system is racist and work tirelessly to make it better. How do we separate the individual people who work in a system that is racist and determine that the individual isn’t responsible for the racism, the system is?

What I do know is that I do not hear people yelling “F*** the Educators!” in the streets even though the lack of meaningful access to a quality education system is to me the greatest crime that is inflicted on Black people. An excellent education system for ALL is the great equalizer and, by providing an inequitable system of learning, we decide students’ whole life for them based on their race. And, don’t even go there with the “it’s about being poor, not about being Black”. There is an extensive research study (http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_paper.pdf) that shows that poor White boys outperform affluent Black boys in this country. An overview can be found in this article https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter and it debunks what many of us have believed for a long time to be true. 

So, I’m not going to believe that every police officer is a racist murderer because they work in a racist law enforcement system any more than I would blame every doctor for our racist healthcare system or every financial planner because our country’s financial system is racist. But, I also think it is imperative that all of us change our relationship with the racist systems we work within, that we go far beyond facebook posts and participation in protests to a place where we say LOUDLY, “This practice we are implementing is going to negatively impact Black people and I am going to fight vehemently and will not stop until we have a different way of doing this work”. 

And, we do this if it makes the people around us uncomfortable, we do this if it puts us at risk of losing our employment, we do this in front of our children and on behalf of all children, we support others who are battling to change the entirety of our racist system, and we acknowledge the pain and suffering  Black people have, and are, experiencing and recognize and support the legitimacy of their anger and despair. 

Additional Note: I went down a rabbit hole trying to determine if I should use the words “people of color” vs. “Black”. After reading many, many articles I chose to use the word “Black”. Here is one of the articles I read that helped me to make this decision https://level.medium.com/we-should-stop-saying-people-of-color-when-we-mean-black-people-29c2b18e6267. 

I have seen this post several times and I so appreciate the thoughts behind this message.

To be totally transparent, the things mentioned in this post are what we signed up for; we know there will be angry folks out there regardless of the decisions we make. Have school on a snowy day or don’t. Cut a program or keep a program. Build a new building or keep the old buildings. Provide services to a student who struggles with behavior or expel that student. Include students with disabilities or provide services in segregated classrooms. Fire the coach or keep the coach.

We are used to, and expect to, make decisions based on what is best for students and we know that the decisions we make will not make everybody happy.

But, this is a whole new arena of decision making for school administrators and school boards. This isn’t about making someone happy or unhappy, this is about making decisions that are directly tied to the health and safety of our students and our families and our staff and our community members.

As a school administrator in a large district, it is agonizing every day to try and choose from what are often a list of pretty bad options. What we need to do to start up school and keep everyone safe is a task that appears to be, quite frankly, undoable at times. But, we also know that we HAVE to get to a place where children are learning and are both emotionally and physically safe. And, that is ALL children, from our most medically fragile students to our students who want and need to engage in activities and learning opportunities that are well beyond what can be offered via a computer screen to our students who may have significant learning disabilities that require many, many services from multiple providers.

I appreciate the kind thoughts and words and especially appreciate the compassion encompassed in this post. I have often felt unmoored within this crisis and it is the compassion and empathy we give and receive that anchors me again and again and I am so grateful.