thumbnail of Sunday Forum; Discussion Of The Bartley - Daly Special Education Act (Chapter 766)
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
And welcome to the 11th Annual Legislative Conference of the Massachusetts Association for Mental Health. I'm Robert McCormick chairman of the Public Policy Committee of the association. We always receive good cooperation from other organizations in the preparation of these legislative conferences. This year six organizations have cooperated in a very special way and we have called them co-sponsors which they are in and they have participated in the planning and preparation and work of this conference since the beginning and they are the Association for mentally ill children. The Coalition for special education the Massachusetts Association for Retarded Citizens the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and the Special Education Project of the Massachusetts Teachers Association. We are very grateful for their help and assistance with this program in this part of the program.
We are fortunate in having some outstanding resource persons. To take us through this legislation the moderator for this session. Is a co-author of house 7 Chapter 7 66. A man who has put in a tremendous amount of work in this area. We have very grateful that he can be with us for this afternoon. He is Michael J Daley chairman of the House Committee on Education of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. And at this time I'd like to turn the meeting over to him. Thank you very much Bob and I like to welcome all the participants here this afternoon.
Let me say that during the period of time that the legislation was on its legislative passage through the legislature and then being signed into law many. Newspaper articles and magazine articles refer to it. The bill according to the names of its sponsors I was proud and honored to be one of the sponsors and the other sponsor was the speaker of the house David Botley. And many times we have seen that the bill referred to as the Botley daily bill. But in the last couple of months in terms of some of the discussions whenever I have an opportunity to talk about the legislation I refer to it as the Botley Botley bill. I'm really very happy and honored to serve as the moderator today because I will have an opportunity as a politician to be able to sit down and have very little to say and listen to the professionals the
parents the consumers the teachers. Tell you about. What 766 means to them. And one important part it is going to play in their lives or career is over the next few months and indeed the next few years I put to him particularly please with the panelists and the respondents in terms of. Of getting a balanced view of 766. In terms of the people who have to administer the law in terms of people who have to work under the law and most importantly in terms of the people that the law is all about and that's the children with special needs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And as a keynote speaker we are very proud and pleased and at the same time I would like to at this time extend to him publicly my deep and sincere appreciation for his untiring efforts. On behalf of the passage of Chapter 7 66 and a great source of help he was
to to me personally and to other members of the legislature who were very strongly in adamantly in support of Chapter 7 66. We considered his advice and his support to be invaluable. And with that I would like to introduce to you as the keynote speaker for this afternoon's panel Dr. going to dig up who is the chairman of the Massachusetts special Education Advisory Committee. In addition to this as most of you probably know Dr. Dean is a very very distinguished member of the faculty at Brandeis University and we could spend a great deal of time introducing him I hope he is not disturbed by the short introduction but I'm sure you will. Realize that the quality of his remarks is much more important than a long introduction duct a deep one. Ladies and gentlemen I am in an all court position here this
afternoon surrounded by persons who in their own right and in their own area. Superb really qualified to speak on the topic of the afternoon's meeting and of course that goes particularly for the modest moderate on when the me in such generous terms represent a daily after all fashion this law and together to speak up bodily made a vision become a legislative reality. We are forever in debt to these two legislators because they did not just consent to sponsor this bill it bears the imprint of the rule book and most importantly the boards have made it quite clear that they will not rest until 766 fully and effectively implemented. Mr. Daley we are most
grateful to you. One of the finest visual presentations of a new public school special education policies under 766 is a pamphlet prepared by the message choose its teachers its association its States. Now we have a new law in Massachusetts. Most people call it Chapter 7 6 6 6. It unites us with a nationwide movement on behalf of children with special needs. Let me repeat it unites us with a nationwide movement on behalf of children with special needs. Other speakers this afternoon will address themselves to various specific aspects of this new educational program which will take effect in our
commonwealth. On September 1 and is embodied in chapter 7 6 8 6. I would like to use my time to document that there is indeed such a nationwide movement which lends considerable strength to the purpose and provisions of Chapter 7 6 6 and gives the lie to those who have criticized this law as an unrealistic and far piece of legislation. One of the indicators of the role models of the trends in national thinking about our nation's children in this century has been the succession of the central White House conferences on Children and Youth initiated in 1909 by Theodore Roosevelt at the third of these conferences convened the nineteen hundred and thirty and the President who were to have all their emanated the final document. The
children's Chapal which set forth the rights of the nation's children and among them listed the right of handicapped children to education and their right to medical treatment. 44 years ago this was pronounced and of the aegis of a president known as a great conservative but depression post-Depression we wars and post-war periods diverted the nation's attention to other matters. It was in the postwar period when not just this country but the world at large began to see the need to think more concretely about individual man. His thing that he. And integrity and his right to opportunity the US came from the newly established United Nations the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. Thus there developed a strong
rehabilitation movement predicated on the novel insight that this man can break physically or mentally. Men can be men that lust there came the world widely billion of parents of children with cerebral palsy and the parents of retarded children who set out to gain for their children what unbeknownst to them whoever to were had already pronounced as their children's right to decades earlier. And then there came Brown vs. Board of Education the desegregation case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set forth in nineteen hundred and fifty four that today Education is perhaps the most important function of the state and local governments. Where the state has undertaken to provide that it is a right
which must be available to all on equal terms. Leo Lipman and his recent book on the Pennsylvania court decision report's an interesting anecdote. When the Supreme Court decision was published somebody wrote to the editor of the newspaper of the nationalisation for we told the children that this language very clearly would apply not just to racial minorities but to handicapped minorities. The leather was printed but nobody took it up. It was just too early. Time has to be right for such things. Special education programs move forward during all those years across the country but every move forward every widening of service almost invariably implied.
That the admission of some reinforced the exclusion of others but outside of the field of education legal issues began to play an increasingly larger road at the 19th 960 Vidal's conference I called attention to the fact that insufficient attention had been given to the legal status of the mentally retarded child an adult and three years later the task force in law of President Kennedy's panel of mental retardation submitted a strong statement claiming that the rights normally held by anyone. Also were held by the retarded and handicapped. Permit me to turn for just a moment to the international scene for sequence of events which is too compelling in our context to be overlooked. In 1967 the international league of societies for the mentally
handicapped brought together in Stockholm Sweden a group of legal experts consumers and service providers from 14 countries to discuss legal and legislative issues in the field of mental retardation. The ensuing report had one section that was quite novel in its approach anywhere in the field of handicapping condition. It said the symposium conserver that no examination of the legislative aspect of the problem of mental retardation would be complete without general consideration being given to the basic rights of the mentally retarded not only from the standpoint of their collective rights and those of the families but also from that of the individual right of the retarded person as a human being. There follows a brief listing of principles which include the right to education.
Now in the following year at its Fourth International Congress of them Jerusalem the league presented to its constituency. These are recommendations for formal adoption and thus was issued in 1968 the declaration of German special rights of the mentally retarded. They said no question but that the leadership of the Pennsylvania Association for retarded children was very much influenced by this declaration. When after a long and hard discussion they presented to the 1969 and their convention a proposed resolution authorizing the board of directors to engage an attorney to take legal action against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for redress of a long line of shocking abuses. The ESA sation which is a station hadn't been brought to the state's attention year in year out. The resolution passed and attorney Thomas Gill who was engaged to explore the
possibilities for legal action and he convinced the board that they'd been Nial to thousands upon thousands of Pennsylvania's children of a public school education because of handicapping conditions. It was a most propitious course to take to court. And thus in January 1971 the case of Pennsylvania as a station really taught the children birth as a commonwealth of Pennsylvania was filed before the federal district court in Philadelphia. Now meanwhile the war on poverty resulted in a development in the legal field that forced the hair of profound side effects in the field of special education. Many of the individuals are discriminated against by denial of education to the children.
We are poor and in addition many of them non-English speaking unable thus to make a couple of representations to the authorities. The legal advocacy agencies organized by the poverty programs and the increasing groups of young attorneys concerned in rights cases in public interest cases became interested in situations where access to public schooling had been the night and thus Diana vs. state Board of Education. In federal court in northern California a plaque that nationwide attention with its documentation of the abuses resulting from the application of in the global testing procedures buy in adequately trained testis of members of ethnic groups in particular Spanish speaking and Chinese in that part of California.
Thousands of children literally thousands of children were found to have been placed in classes for them without justification while other children on the similar basis had been excluded excluded from any educational benefit. And there followed quickly similar court cases in Southern California and the resulting changes in educational procedures all done by the court received wide publicity. Throughout this country here message issues it's the Harvard Center for Law on education assume the major role in assisting in cases dealing with the educational rights of handicapped children. And then Dr. Burton that was commissioned to undertake a study of educational opportunities for handicapped and disadvantaged children. And of the auspices of Maiz the message choose its counsel on education.
And then came a self-starting community group the taskforce on children out of school which are not took a major inquiry on the exclusion of children from the Boston Public Schools and parallel to this was the effort spearheaded by Alex Rodriguez to remedy the continuing educational like collect on the part of the public schools to its children of foreign language background. And in 1971 again. In considerable measure due to the efforts of Representative Daley whose halo becomes more and more noticeable at the Massachusetts legislation passed the transitional Bilingual Education Act. Meanwhile in the national scene the president's committee on mentally the nation which already in 1969 had a reprint that in its report the declaration of the Journal of special rights of the mentally
retarded focused increasing attention on the extent and the consequences of discriminatory educational practices against handicapped children. United States Commissioner of Education Sidney Mullen announced the 1971 that was the beginning of the new fiscal year the education of handicapped children would be one of the major objectives of this office. And Edwin Martin associate commissioner of the Bureau of Education for handicapped children. Add that the obligation of helping normal children to accept and adjust to the differences that make other children handicapped is very much the business of the regular schools. Even the council of state governments recognize the overriding importance of this issue. And Governor Robert Scott of North Carolina speaking as chairman
of the Education Commission of the state said in the fall of 1971 the time is overdue to reexamine the state role regarding education of the handicapped. And then on May 5 1972 the three judge federal court in Philadelphia issued the order an injunction which approved the sweeping consent decree worked out in exemplary fashion by the plaintiffs and defendants together in the Pennsylvania school case which culminated in the proviso that having undertaken to provide if we public education to all of its children including its exceptional children the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not deny any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training. And of course it suffices to say here that while it happened to be a particular organization that the nation needed that court action the
court to create a very clearly of course applied to any kind of handicapped child with any kind of handicap. This then was a climate in which the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted Chapter 7 6 6 of the laws of nineteen hundred and seventy two widely regarded throughout this country. As one of the most thoughtful and forward looking pieces of educational legislation this afternoon it's nit picking to the contrary notwithstanding. I have already paid that tribute to the work contributed by represented the staling speaker Buckley to the laborious drafting of this bill. They supplied far more than just inspired leadership. Consumers who have been given such a vital role in the day to day implementation of this legislation at themselves a major share in drafting it. And then there was Larry Cotton who subsequently has
played such a key role in the drafting of 766 I thought somebody ought to say thank you today and keeping a prime actor for the last robot crap the research director of the joint Senate and House Committee on Education. I must apologize for this inadequate condition of the plaudits which must be given to all those who helped bring this act in the being. Because during that period much of my time was spent in Pennsylvania helping to prepare and pursue the federal court case and after the favorable consent decree to assist in planning and initiating the implementation. And it's very interesting to observe the way we have to go about Michigan with implementing a piece of legislation. Well they had to go about implementing a court order. In
those days also was activist man of the mammals at the University of Minnesota who was the reckoning of Special Education Leadership Training Institute initiated by the Bureau of Education personal development off of the education which gave me an opportunity to bring to the attention of national spectra cation leadership group at an early date the report of the task force on children. The reason why I bring this particular into action between invents a message shoots at the national scene to you is that may not lentils was one of the chief architects of the final development. I wish to mention in support of Mt a reference to a national movement on behalf of children vish special needs which culminated in 766 and that is the sweeping and indeed for the field of special education revolutionary policy statement passed by the 1970 of our national delegate assembly of the
Council for Exceptional Children under that title. Basic commitments and responsibilities to exceptional children. Let me read to you just a very brief excerpt from the seven page statement which represents the conduct of the opinion of the National Organization of teachers supervisors and administrators especially education because they're very purple. It starts out education is a right of all children. The principal of Education for All is based on the philosophical premise of democracy that every person is valuable in his own right and should be afforded equal opportunities to develop his full potential. Thus no democratic society should deny educational opportunities to any child the gobblers of its potentialities for making a contribution to society. Since the passage of the first public school law in the mid 19th century the principal has received
general endorsement and qualified execution while lip service has been paid to the intent of the principle. Various interpretations of the term education and all children have the price. Many children of the right. The similarity between this preamble statement and their plea am to chapter seven sixty six. It's quite astonishing even though they come from two completely separate sources who at that time. I'm sure we're not into communication. There's only one other statement I would like to read from this declaration. Of course it is something that has concerned many people. It's really got to 766 and its relationship to the general field of education. The third section of this policy statements and titled spatial education within the schools soon relation are special and regular school
programs. And this is what a statement has to say. And this recalls the earlier common. I repeated to you from Edwin Martin special education is an integral part of the total educational enterprise not the separate all in any school system special education of the means of enlarging the capacity of the system to serve the educational needs of all children. The particular function of special education was in the schools and the education departments of other institutions is to identify children visit unusual needs and to aid in the effective fulfillment of these needs. This fulfillment at the present time is accomplished in many regular school programs as well as by many special programs that cannot be included in the regular classes by teachers without assistance. A primary goal of education should be to help build accommodative learning opportunities for exceptional children in mainstream
education programmes and the implementation of this goal special education can serve as a support system. Special educators can assist regular school personnel in managing the education of exceptional children. I hope that you will agree with me that I was able to present to you so far shows very clearly that chapter 7 6 8 6 is not as I said some cricket critics have claimed. If a piece of legislation a pipe dream a vision Chapter 7 6 6 is a logical culmination of the vele of men's in this country which relate not just as a field of education but fit in visible total perspective of the place of the child and family and society. Obviously trying to implement a new program throughout the system has hundreds of
local units will not be easy but the law provides us with powerful tools. And this I say in response to the question people have raised whether it is not so that a law that has to depend on its implementation on so many separate local units. Whether such a law really could expect state but compliance and to my mind the key to that lies Bizzy responsibility of the local school system a public agency which many of us only too apt to take for granted while focusing our attention to the state level where the big boys are. The length of the education system in our state lies in the
fact that where ever in this commonwealth people all living there we have a local educational Action Group a service agency to which the public schools and. The commissioner of the Mental Health Bill forgive me if I say compare this for a moment with the infinite frustration and inaction we face in the field of Mental Health where we have nothing even resembling a local action base and where in spite of a lot of stuff the Vili main visited in effect the involvement with the local level. We have responsiveness to needs and accountability must start. And this we do have in this law because first we have this specifically Clairmont for planning for each
individual child. And the execution of those plans along with strong accountability and the maximum involvement of both the family and consumer and the councils. But then secondly on the state level the law provides for the division of special education and usual direct responsibility to regulate consult with an assist local school authorities including the right to receive and investigate complaints and to conduct public and executive hearings with Paul subpoena. It presents. It permits the division to investigate into and hold hearings upon climate facially denials of equal opportunity education opportunities and violent Jemal of the law as is customary refers to the authority of the department and of the commission.
In this crucial aspect it specifies the division's role thereby lessening the possibility of administrative bottlenecks and cites stepping up and abilities. Clearly this leaves the division with a strong moral responsibility. We the implementation of the act. There are of course those who say that chapter 7 6 or 6 is unrealistic and cannot be fulfilled because with money already being short for general education it is paid nearly impossible to find new money to provide education for those previously excluded. Obviously the whole question of financing public school education needs revision not just the message to that but throughout the country. But the courts have spoken loud and clear. Handicapped Children are fully entitled to their to their share of the old money. The
presently available funds. And if this means a shift thing and they make to throw out the school system this is a process which is only too familiar to all of us know as we must try and make do with $3 worth of gasoline and a $12 campaign tank. We kick it cannot be my task today to move into all the specialist problems which will be worked out as implementation proceeds. Other speakers will do so. We have persons on the panel who will address themselves to many of these technical questions relating to the specific educational processes. One of my particular concerns but pertains to my view are that via there's ample safeguards for the participation of parents there's less clarity Visigoths is the kind of participation which all of which older children are quite capable. The law was drafted before legislation swept the country granting 18 year
olds the right of majority. Does this perhaps place the 16 year olds today where the 18 year old used to be. This is the kind of question to which answers are not yet readily available. The comforting thought is that as I read that 766 has been left that there is a dynamic law while espousing the right of each child to develop and grow with appropriate support from the public schools. The law itself has room for development can keep step with new procedures new insights and facilitate them with a change in regulations. I hope I have conveyed to you that I look upon this new legislation its implementation was a great deal of confidence. There will be problems to be sure. What has been what has been most heartening to me has been what I have perceived as the attitude of public school administrators the teachers and the organizations that this is legislation whose time has come.
Legislation which will allow Massachusetts to assume a leadership position in the field legislation which will assure a brighter future to those among all children who are handicapped. Thank you thank you very much Dr. Devi. We now have three panelists who will need to address themselves to the remarks made by Dr D. Make whatever remarks they deem appropriate. The first panelist I'd like to introduce to you has what I consider to be the most difficult job in Massachusetts today. He's the man who is charged with the responsibility on a day to day basis to be developing the guidelines to make sure the chapter 766 is implemented. September 1 of this year. He's an associate commissioner of the Department of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is the director of the division of special
education. Dr. Joseph Reiss Dr. Rice. Thank you thank you very much Mike. Chapter 7 66 will become effective September 1 1974 and I believe that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is ready. However chapter seven sixty six is like the age old saga of sorrow and joy tears and laughter. It would be intellectually dishonest for any of us to deny the fact that there are very serious problems involved in its implementation. Hence I would like to make a few remarks concerning problems and promise and let me end on a promise. As I see it from my point of view from my vantage point there are five critical key problems that you as the general public and professionals ought to be aware of.
As you've read the papers I'm certain many of you are aware of the problems anyway. One of them of course is attitude. It's the fear of the unknown leading to some forces for repeal for postponement and for various kinds of dissection of the bill. Our judgment our collective judgment certainly ought to be that these forces ought to be denied this opportunity. Secondly finances certainly is a problem we cannot bury our heads in the sand to the extent that special education will eat into chapter 70 and it will in terms of reimbursement to that extent that fixed pot of money will have to be shared evermore meagerly among regular education. It would be ironic. To say that regular education should somehow be watered down at the very time when we're
maximizing the mainstreaming of handicapped children back into settings that we hope will be quality settings. There are three broad ways this can be dealt with. One a front end funding or grant like line item budget could be created. Secondly chapter 70 could be strengthened and monies added to it. And thirdly special education could be treated as a separate distribution. These are the alternatives. A third kind of problem is the problem of readiness and readiness for the first time in the history of special education doesn't just involve special educators. It involves tens of thousands of regular teachers retraining recycling. It involves new roles for special education teachers in terms of serving other teachers in terms of being consultants
rather than necessarily directing their services to children. This will take time. It can be done but the university sector must be involved. A fourth kind of problem is the problem of standards. One cannot develop standards by definition. Four new program prototypes for which there is no experience. We have been in touch with S.E.C.. We have been in touch with dozens of other states and their patent answer is we're waiting to see what Massachusetts does. It is a time when I would plead for a genuine empiricism. It's a time when I would plead for new program innovations without the rigor mortis of all categories. Again it would be ironic if in prematurely setting arbitrary standards we locked in still another kind of categorical program for children which as you know the bill
tries to D label. A fifth kind of problem. It gives me great pain to report to you. It is a classical problem between the dilemma of meeting people's civil rights to due process and yet preserving confidentiality of case records of preserving the confidentiality of a child whose plight is such that it isn't clinically wise to share the information with the parents. It isn't a dilemma that we have solved nor will we solve overnight. But those of you that are psychologists in the group and are parents I ask you to think together with us about this very serious issue. Now what about the promise and I'd like to focus on the promise. I repeat again because apparently some superintendents in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts didn't understand an earlier memorandum that I sent to them. Chapter 7
66 will become fully effective an operative on September 1 1974. It is our estimate that there are 40 to 50000 new children to be identified. However 40 to 50000 new children will not be discovered will not be adequately diagnosed will not be adequately placed overnight nor should it be done overnight. Therefore there is a legitimate need for us to think of the first year of implementation as a child finding child prescribing priority leading to newer programs. The regulations which we have recently distributed and which will have public hearing on March 5th in Springfield and March 7th in Boston have some of the following promise. First it is the policy of the state to have a tri partite.
Policy which goes as follows. We're giving local districts the options of performing programmes themselves of setting up collaborative and cooperating or for purchasing or finding delivery for these services in the private sector. It is the intention of the state to be neutral in this programme mix. Secondly there is a strong platform within the regulations for experimental and innovative programme prototypes. Many of the things we think we know about small group and large group instruction for instance bear much more scrutiny and it is in this flavor of innovation of creativity of experimentation in the best sense of the word. That in my judgment chapter 766 will really work. Secondly there is a promise. Finally in Massachusetts for an exhaustive definitive
census of children going down to the age of three from this definitive census and the regulations as you read them you will find we think absolutely conceal confidentiality and disguise individual names of children. The state is only concerned with incidents the state is only concerned with service. The core evaluation team the school psychologist the physician the school nurse the social worker are at the heart of our process for delivering individually prescribed programs for children. We would hope that the further the distance paraphrasing Maynard Reynolds from the regular program the more justification. That's all. Chapter seven sixty six is not inherently a so-called integration or mainstreaming bill. We recognize fully that there will be the need for example for separate settings for certain kinds of deaf children. In order
for them to get early instruction it is our purpose to make a continuum of delivery that can be customized to the individual needs of children. That is the basic theory of the bill. Preschool programs will be mandated in Massachusetts for the first time again in the first year. This will have immense case finding implications with a good faith effort. It will work but in the first year Problems will arise in terms of settings for the children in terms of the readiness of staff to deliver a service and so forth. Two more things. We have a very strong section in the regulations and I'm sure that many of you will will find this heartening for institutional school programs for the first time in the history of Massachusetts there is now a budget before the legislature which quadruples the educational program opportunities in monetary terms for children and
institutions. This I think is a great victory. It is a program again that will be highly customized where no children no child excuse me is thought of as a maintenance case so-called where every child will be delivered an individualized program to maximize his growth. Leslie paraphrasing Dr. Dubois statements there will be a strong role for the regional advisory councils and the statewide regional advisory committee to serve. For one of the first times in this Commonwealth such councils and committees will have not only policy making and recommending authority but authority to hear flesh and blood kinds of cases authority to become involved in investigatory and adjudicatory procedures. These committees will be composed at least half of
parents of handicapped children. This again I think is a significant step. May I end where I began. It is a time of great promise. I have every faith the Chapter 7 66 will successfully be implemented in 1074. Thank you. Thank you thank you. Thank you thank you very much Doctor for those candid and I think very realistic remarks. The next panelist we will hear from the same afternoon is relatively new to Massachusetts in terms of his employment as a student he did attend college here in Massachusetts comes to us from California has been here a very short period of time. And in that time a great many people in the Commonwealth. Have come to realize that this is a man who will. Show an exercise great leadership. In a post in which I think and have thought for some time we sorely needed. I would like to introduce to
you at this time Dr. William Goldman the commissioner of Mental Health Dr. Goldman. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think as you are all aware most of the pertinent issues have already been touched upon. I would like to perhaps emphasize some of them or perhaps address them with just a slightly different emphasis. And with an eye to the fact that this is a working conference one of many that I believe will be associated with the growth in the development of the Chapter 7 6 6 legislation and implementation of the legislation. This is an evolutionary process. We are in a demonstration an exploratory phase and I think it's critical that all
of the concerned parties as represented by this assemblage are engaged in that. From the beginning and continue with that commitment through the long months and I think years ahead to reach the objectives that we've all committed ourselves to. One of the things that's impressed me greatly has been the progress already made in the work with in government to resolve the kinds of mechanical as well as philosophical issues that have confronted us all in bringing the Chapter 7 6 6 into fruition this coming fall. I think that the issue that Dr. Rice mentioned first of attitudes is certainly one that I find myself much preoccupied with.
And when we speak of attitudes I think we're really talking about attitudinal change after all the very systems the social systems the social values the shell's social priorities that have led to the isolation and the extrusion and the discrimination against children with special needs are not going to disappear because a law was passed. I'm talking now not only about the attitudes that are found in systems such as the educational system health system but also the attitudes that are pervasive in all segments of our society among not only all adults but also among children. I think some of you will have an opportunity to talk with Dr. Odette who is working in special a special education who was with the Department of Mental
Health in the mental retardation programs and who is making a major effort toward attacking this whole question of attitude both of involving parents children teachers and the whole grouping that are going to be deeply involved and concerned with this. We know that tolerance for differences is something that is very difficult for all people. It has to do with a variety of psycho social factors has to do with the concepts of one's individual integrity. And it's something that is deeply rooted and is not easily changed. The question of priorities. To put it in a rather down to earth way but not character to it at all.
Whether funds are allocated at the local level for athletic equipment office special teaching techniques for those in special in those children with special needs is a very real day to day question in every community. And the preponderance of the citizens historically have been in favor of athletic equipment. Writing a new state law will also not change that. I think that we're going to be struggling with certain economic realities. The movement that has gained such momentum in recent years as so wonderfully outlined by dot the divide is one that essentially saw its fruition in a period of economic growth and now we are confronted with implementing it at a time of
economic recession. This will only highlight these confrontations on priorities. One of the things that the law has tried to do is to eliminate the enhancement of the scrim the Tory attitudes through labeling. And yet we find traditional funding mechanisms that rely upon labeling to bring increased services. Why in fact calling some things treatment rather than education may facilitate the flow of funds that will not be an easy thing to undo either. From a preventive mental health point of view the entire thrust of ah programs both in education mental health public health is toward normalization.
Perhaps the best illustration of that in day to day terms is the maximizing of alternatives and options of broadening individual's freedom of choice. This is another way of making the point that Dr. Rice did that not every child may necessarily be in an ordinary classroom setting. What is critical is that that child and his family and the community has the maximum freedom of alternatives and options so that that child is where he will have the best chance for the education that he's entitled to. The involvement of the Department of Mental Health in the supportive then specialized and backup kinds of services is going to be at least initially an
uneven one. Very simply because we do not have in place as yet a comprehensive community based system of mental health services for the whole population children adults seniors. This is what we are aiming toward. This is clearly one parameter that will affect the implementation of Chapter 7 6 6. There will be some communities who are richly endowed with these resources who in fact are working toward our September implementation who have the kinds of resources and the kinds of collaborative efforts that already are stabilized and will promise to deliver very much of what we hope to see. There are others in which the resources may be skimpy and still others which are
barren. I would like to close my remarks on emphasizing the critical nature of the citizen involvement and particularly the idea of utilizing this opportunity not only in the citizen groups at the local school committee level at the new councils that will be looking over this new law but also in our. Network of citizen area boards and childrens councils to involve youth. I believe that the hope for the future is going to be the development of the leadership and commitment of our young people toward the substitution of compassion for competition at their day to day life level and that we should take some initiative
in engaging them in this process as early as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you doctor the next panelist we have with us today to share his thoughts and. Some of the programs in his State of Connecticut. He is the coordinator of the special education program for the Department of Education in Connecticut we have pleased to welcome to Massachusetts into this panel this afternoon. Gabriel cinches thank. It's good to get in and out of a crowd like this in 10 minutes. So you know it's nice no one has to see me later. This next next next. I don't know if any of you know there's a there's a group of songs that was called Jock Bell is alive and well. There's a song in it which is called Next. You know and how some guy saying I'll do
anything not to be next on line. And I don't know there's about six of us waiting. When they were let me share with you in 10 minutes. Some of the problems we've had in Connecticut. In trying to cope with or deal with. A law. That is quite similar to what you have here in Connecticut. First of all I look upon the Lord not as a. As an operational procedure. And not even as an open door. I look upon it. As a building permit if you would. And that. We're going to have to make a lot of decisions or attempting to make a lot of decisions in Connecticut. You know about the rooms about the colors of the walls and about the kinds of materials we want to use. I don't know where you will be in a few years from now but. I think we're still struggling to go beyond that point of legislative reality to operational reality. And I would
just like to talk about certain things or difficulties we have. In reaching an operational reality. From our point. Let me say. From my point of view. I don't say our That and I always feel like I'm the queen of England. And her colonies have been cut off all the time. From my point of view you're not you're not a ok from my point of view one of the. Most difficult tasks that face us is that sometimes when you develop a piece of legislation. As 766. The response to it in. In one way seems to suggest that we already have answers to certain problems. All we need is more money and more people. We have found that we do not have answers to a lot of the problems. That seemed to be implied within the legislation. I mean we now I mean
special education. I would hate to put the regular education. Whatever that is. Into the position. You know of waiting for the benevolent services. Of special educators who will walk into their classrooms and say you do this and everything's going to be all right. If that's not there yet. So please you know avoid that kind of stance. You know with the so-called regular educator. Special education has not come up. With a lot of the answers. That they seemed to suggest that they have. We hope. That. Through evaluation. We will get some idea here of what is it that works and what is it that doesn't work. Because we feel that it's in the evaluation
process. That we will be able to bring. That blueprint. Into reality. Now this evaluation relates there are a lot of things that are related to it. We get caught up sometimes. Let me say when I worked in the public schools. Let me give you a little background. I don't have to be organized so it's ok. The nicest thing about them this piece of legislation I think you and I really would congratulate the state for is that it lays. Into the hands of the State Department certain. Responsibilities. And authority. It makes the State Department now more visible. So that they can be held also accountable for their behavior. Prior to the time of laws like this I worked. I sometimes say when I was working in public education. That is when I was in the public schools.
I used to think that the State Departments of Education. And mental health and welfare and the state training institutions. I mean the teacher colleges. Would all stay open even if all the schools closed. That somehow or other. Students impeded progress in education. And that there was no consciousness that we were alive because there wasn't any way to hold the establishment. Or those who had. Authority. Also responsible. And so you have when you have an imbalance in terms of authority and responsibility. Let me tell you you're in trouble. And that's primarily the classroom teacher. They have a lot of responsibility but they don't have any authority. I work in the State Department of Education. And some of us have responsibilities. But our fiscal officer has all the respect you know the authority.
I mean imbalance with him. So he can dictate. The nature of my responsibility because he has more authority. And I think you have a bill that tends to balance that a little more. And I think you're to be congratulated for that. My way. We have a problem why we want to get into evaluation is that. I sometimes think that. The needs of personnel. Justify a service to children. Rather than the needs of the children. Justifying what personnel they need. So I'm not too sure for instance that. I got the quizzical look and sometimes I don't understand myself either. I'm not too sure for instance what I mean to say is that sometimes we say we need more language specialists we need more learning disabilities people we need more social workers we need more guidance counselors.
We need more psychiatrists we need doctors on our teams we need nurses on our teams. We're not going to deal with that issue. Say. Of determining how we act. In response to a kid's needs. So I think it will help us in that. I think evaluation will help give us tremendous insight into this whole problem of diagnosing you know and programming. One of the problems of programming seems to be a tendency. On a lot of the people perhaps not here. And I think. The statements made by Dr. Rice are very critical. Not to jump into some kind of program construct. You know as being the way and I mean mainstreaming. It. If mainstreaming is interpreted. As to mean that the regular classroom shall be the womb of all children in that case through 12 building. I would be very much opposed to that. I mean
I don't want to deny my kids the chance to go to Choate either. See I was get the feeling that somebody is talking about taking money from regular education is sending his kid to a private school. But we'll leave that go for now. If you're mainstreaming means program alternatives. You know that's fine. On the good side I'm I'm still not too sure what people mean by peers. You know they say the kid should be in the mainstream because he should be with his peers. Who says so. Who says that being in a regular class is better or worse than being a special class or being in a special school. Oh I know there are studies here and there but nobody has really gotten into them. What they represent many times are very personal biases. And we haven't done that. One of the reasons I'm glad I'm older. I say older because I don't know when you begin to get that way. It becomes apparent. But now I could play with 20 year olds or 80 year olds.
See when I was 6 I had a play with 6 year olds. And now with my whole life has become expanded as I've gotten older. So I would. I would hope that through evaluation we could deal with that problems of Program Development Program organization. I mean I think we need to substantiate. Future developments in law. With data. And fact. I get somewhat frightened sometimes. When a country has to develop a piece of legislation. For something that was supposed to have existed already. I'm glad that has happened. You know I have no quarrel with that. But unless I understand the reasons behind that. It may make it more difficult for me to act on it. I could think of many elements within other aspects of our society. That this has happened. The Civil Rights Act. Which. We can go through a million ways.
Public education was supposed to be for all children. But we found out it was not. And why not. Isn't wasn't necessarily a problem of money. As someone suggested we did talk about attitudes but I think that also. Comes part of the evaluation sequence. When I talk about program models. I'm concerned with the inability of us to deliver a service to. Two Cities. I am still amazed at going around and speaking to parent groups in Connecticut. That they are essentially white. Groups. With very little contact or communication. With anything that touches on poverty or non whiteness. Now how special education. Can deal with the issues. That this brings up. To me can only again be done. Through evaluation. I see that as. A basic process that we should be involved involved with.
Other than evaluation I think that your law makes for some very interesting or should make for some very interesting. Kind of reading by regular educators. It would be nice. If special education. Felt that regular education could help it. See. Not just that special education. Could help regular education. It makes regular regular educators seem a little dumb. You know like. There they are. Unwilling or unable or poorly trained. Without any desire. And here we special educators and I'm a special educator. We're going to come in with the word. And you're going to glow. And the kids are going to get magically better. I maybe perhaps take it to an extreme.
But when I go to visit some school people and when I speak to some superintendents. Yes they welcome a law that is supportive. But they do not welcome a law that says. You know I'm guilty and you're innocent. So I would suggest that there is an awful lot of talent. Within the regular classes in terms of its operation in terms of maximizing individualized efforts with kids. I miss it because I must assume that any teacher has got to be of average intelligence averagely trained who would like to be successful. I'm really not convinced. Yet. As I was never convinced about it with mothers and fathers that they were all out to purposely destroy their children. I can't accept that since I became a father. Very hard I tell you what one of the better ways I found of dealing with that issue is when I speak to certain parents I tell them what you want to do is each time a child is born and your family not in the whole world that's for you know a little tinkle angels up in heaven. But the reality of it when you start a fund and you put a
dollar a week away for each kid and when you're 10 when the child reaches I'd have to say 18 now. But that doesn't give you too much time to save money so I'll wait till 21. You give that person that money. And say here. Do with it what you want. Go to therapy you know go to the institute I live in. I call it my therapy fund. So I mean I can spend those first 21 years feeling guilty for everything I've done. You know and so I save the money and say Go get it. Oh OK. I would suspect that you would not want to approach. Regular education in terms of that kind of guilt. OK so there is that to deal with. I also think that the reality that the lore is going to place a tremendous burden upon us to ríos to reassess. The whole method of training teaches you know and getting qualified
professionals to work. And in determining which cut qualified professionals should be working. The idea that every local school district will have available to it that that team that consortium of psychiatry medicine social work education is just at the PTS. That's insanity. Now somewhere we're going to have to play with different models of training to bring skills to communities to community people that may relate to some aspect of medicine. But you really don't need the doctor for. That may relate to some aspect. Of teachers or teaching that you don't need a full fully trained teacher for. And that maybe these people do not become the hands on people. But they become a resource people to a community who's been given skills around specific areas. But the
mandate has clearly shown us that we want those people are just not available. They may be available in some areas but they're usually available where a lot of money is. I. You know as much as we'd like to get teaches we always say about teachers want you want to go and teach in Butte Montana. I have nothing wrong with Butte Montana. But I can't get any psychologist to practice and you thank them and. Say they don't think it's all right for them to be in West Hartford and West Point but they don't want to live in Podunk County. Teachers live in Bodum county but not the support of staff. So in terms of the willingness for that that level personnel to move out into those communities and make themselves available. The ability to even train enough for those people to make themselves available. Right. Should to maybe determine by evaluating just how they fit. And what do you really need them for. So we're having difficulty with that. We're also having difficulty in getting the state to
support. A million dollar plan with more than a thousand dollars. So. You've got a building permit here. That talks. That's to me a. A billion dollar plan. OK. The bureau for the education of handicapped children has that same kind of problem sometimes you see they write to the state to write a state plan. And they say are you going to get a million dollars to write a million dollar state plan. And you pore over it you can you write a million dollar state plan. And you send it to the bureau. And they give you $50. But everybody down here is evaluating it on the basis of it being a million dollar plan. Man you're in trouble. I don't know how you weigh it but if you've got a a million dollar plan here and you give the agency that is responsible. You know for its implementation a thousand dollars. And the public is thinking about the million dollar plan. I think that Joe Rice will
maybe. Well I hope he won't use his brains out but. Something terrible will happen to him. Internally I mean. And so I think it's very critical. That you. Speak. To that issue. At least we've had that problem. Let me give you for instance we have a review procedure in our state for parents who feel aggrieved by the decision of the local school district in either diagnosing or placing a child within a special education program. We'd be very happy to share with you some of the legal problems raised there and because we have about four or five cases in that now or a month per month that are going through this. But when the first law was first passed it had a $50000 budget. When it got back out of appropriations it had a $5000 budget. OK. Then the governor aligned item vetoed it and there was no money.
Well it becomes it's an insane situation and nobody is happy in it. We're trying to get a bill now passed concerning evaluation. Our fear is that they pass it without the money. I'm not saying that it takes money to resolve every situation where it where it does take it and where you do need it. You better get it. Or else you're in an awful lot of trouble. And I think. What it has show another one last aspect and then that's shot is over and I can get the Greyhound bus back to Connecticut and you're not even and you're not even a member. You know I can't even see anybody out there. You know it would be funny if there were just eight people sitting here in front of me. And a whole damn place was empty but ok. You know. What a scene that would be. So I what what I see in the legislation in our legislation. And as I see it relating to other movement of groups.
Is that I think we must recognize that some people. Are saying to authorities at various levels we don't really want to suffer the pain anymore you suffer with us. And it could go in a lot of ways from parent to school from school to central administration from teachers to teacher training institutions. From local school districts to the State Departments of it. We're seeing each other in a different balance. You know. And I think. In a lot of different ways and let me just tell you're kind of representing that balance and you could place yourself in whatever category you want in the relationship I'll tell you a little bit of a street joke. You know. I farmer and his wife went to a party. It's a masquerade party and let me put it in that. In the sense of local school districts and the State Department of Education
and. Or maybe even the state legislature. That's even better because it's the state legislature that passes the law. And I'll say it for him. And so the school district and the state legislature they went to a party together and they were dressed in a costume and the state legislature was dressed as a bull. And. The school district was dressed as a cow and they went to the party and had a miscarriage it was really great had a good time and coming back. And they still dressed in their costumes and it's very early in the morning they get stuck they have to get out of the car to go to telephone and you know call a mechanic and they're crossing a field. And a bull. This in the end of the feeling the bull comes charging at them and as the bull is charging the way bulls charge. I don't do that well. The the local school district turns to the state legislature and says Help help what we can do what are we going to do in the state legislature says I'm going to chew some grass you better brace yourself. Thank you very much Mr. Simms just might I say that I apologize should not have introduced
you to The Simpsons as the next panelist I should in fact have introduced me as the last panelist. We now have a. Group of respondents who I'm sure we'd all be very interested listening to their reactions to the remarks this far this afternoon. In the interest of time I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask him to be as brief as possible. First one I'd like to introduce to you is an old friend of mine and really a great deal of the credit for a Chapter 7 66 has got to rest with this woman. She's just a great gal she's very persistent very energetic and I think it's fair to say since the bill has been signed into law in the coalition for special education which she is she is a prime mover has been formed that Joe Rice and school systems will tell you that the name of Martha Ziegler is becoming a very very familiar name so at this point I introduce from the Association of mentally ill children and a parent of a child with special needs Mrs. Martha Ziegler.
Halo a little more there. I'm happy to be able to say that the legislators in Massachusetts don't just stand around eating grass. As parents we certainly are indebted to Representative Daley and also to speaker Bartley and many other people in government in addition who first of all developed chapter 766 an excellent law to begin with and have continued their commitment to its implementation. As you've heard this afternoon and as I expect we will hear later this evening. I think most of you by now know a little of the background of the Coalition for special education were a bunch of statewide organizations all committed to progress in special ed we include most of the parent organizations and a lot of other committed citizen groups such as our sponsoring organization today the mass
Association for Mental Health also the League of Women Voters and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and many other groups. Don't get discouraged there are lots of people out there who want to see Chapter 766 succeed. As Representative Daley indicated the coalition was working very hard and came together regionally to promote passage of the law. Since then we've discovered that we've got lots more work to do. Currently one of our big jobs is facilitating communication. As various people have mentioned already today there are because the law is so complex I think more than anything else there tends to be misunderstandings between groups of people who are involved in implementation. Sometimes professionals and especially teachers assume that parents of handicapped children are expecting their
children to be integrated into regular classrooms come Tuesday morning September 2nd 1974. This of course is not true. As a matter of fact parents tend to share many of the fears of professionals especially parents of severely handicapped children. Many of us fear that our children will be on to graded too quickly without preparation and that the special programs that we fought for so long will suddenly disappear. I think it's important we realize that the fears cut across backgrounds and that professionals may be sharing exactly the same fears that we as parents share and we can get our heads together and move along. As commissioner Sam says those of us who are parents of severely handicapped children certainly wonder who our children's peers are. Their peers change too from year to year even more perhaps than ours change as we grow older as commissioner
Sanchez said. Especially one like my daughter they're able to make some pretty rapid progress with sound special education. Furthermore I think it is often assumed that we as parents expect full implementation of 766 that first week in September. Not getting closer all the time. Most of us realize that not all that's in that law can happen immediately in the first place no school system can evaluate 50 children in one week. We're very much aware of that. We know it will take time. Many of us are talking about in terms of reasonable progress. I think it's important to remember though that reasonable progress is going to mean different things to different people. The mother of a 15 year old child with a healthy brain whose body is dystrophy ing very rapidly who has perhaps one more year to live at
all will see reasonable progress a little differently. From perhaps a school superintendent who's faced with tomorrow's budget problems. Furthermore the mother of a child with a severe learning disability who is perhaps 11 years old who up to now has had a couple of half hours a week of. Not very adequate tutoring whose child is facing at any moment the beginning of traumas of puberty. Also will see reasonable progress and time a little differently than some other people. I think it's time for all of us to begin thinking Ahad and realizing that we may have to be making some value judgments early on which of the children should we be dealing with first. And I have I think it's important we start thinking about that now. We've been accustomed to talking a lot about the rights of parents and children
that are embodied in 766. We need to do a lot more thinking about that and I think as parents were really highly motivated to learn about that at the same time we're also faced with some new responsibilities some new kinds of responsibilities. Up to now many of us had as our primary task desperately hunting around and digging around for some program that would accept our child. Now hopefully we won't be faced with that kind of job. Instead we will be participating in the evaluation of the child selection of placement and then as time goes on annually evaluating the program and we need to learn some things as a parent I'm not able yet to evaluate the program my child is going into. We need to be thinking in terms of planning and preparing ourselves for some of the new jobs we're facing. As commissioner Goldman mention we will be faced hopefully with options and freedom for the first time instead of
desperation. And it's a good thing to be learning. I think we can look forward to that with a lot of excitement. Our coalition is working very hard right now to address all five of the problems that Commissioner Rice mentioned some of them were better qualified to address than others the ones we can deal with. We have we will be working on very very hard. It's a pleasure to see the big turnout of people here the sad afternoon it indicates I think a widespread genuine deep commitment to our children who because of disabilities are faced with very special needs the interest and commitment that's indicated in this meeting and you know others across the state it seems to me will tend to promote the mental health and moral integrity of the rest of us.
Thank you. Thanks mass of the. Next respondent to Chico from the Massachusetts Teachers Association Elaine ditch Elaine teaches in the Concord Carlisle region high school and she's a French teacher. Elaine. Thank you very much. We're very pleased to be here today to bring to you some of the feelings and concerns of the teachers of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Teacher's Association represents some 60000 teachers across the state. And as we developed our own committee on special education we did see many concerns not only among our own colleagues but among many of the members of the state of Massachusetts. We have tried to do something about the concerns that we have had. One of those things being materials to explain Chapter 7 66. I do note that some of you do have some of these
materials in front of you. I would mention that if you did not receive a copy and are interested in seeing them that we do have a revised edition which is a blue copy. We'll be very glad to supply you with it and any copies that you would like workshops and any further information that we do have. This was the only information that we could find in this kind of a context. That did explain in simple terms just what 766 was all about. As you look through the materials you will know that it does focus on the relationship of 766 to the classroom teacher. The Massachusetts Teachers Association has spoken now through the workshops using the materials that we did develop to no less than 18000 teachers across the state. We feel that we have a pretty representative sampling of our membership with regard to the chapter 766. I can agree with many of the remarks that were made here today. We do see Chapter 766 as landmark
legislation. It is an important piece of legislation for children of the Commonwealth and does we believe have even more implication than many of us believe at this point not only for children with special needs but for the entire gamut of education in the state. As we spoke to the teachers across the state we listened to their concerns and I think that they have valid concerns and concerns that the citizenry of the state should be aware of as we approach now the implementation of 766. Dr. Rice underlined several of what he called problem areas with the bill. These are also concerns of the teachers association. We have been very fortunate I might add to work with the State Department to work with Dr. Rice's division discussing the regulations for this particular law. There are some concerns that we still have as teachers
we feel that it is the classroom teacher along with the specialist who will really bear the brunt of this legislation. We have the people who are going to be on the firing line so to speak. We are the people who will really in fact implement that law. We are responsible not only to help identify children with special needs but to help evaluate them to help develop programs for them to help implement those programs and to help evaluate those programs to see if they're working. This is a great deal of responsibility to place on the teacher and the teacher is ready to accept that responsibility. We want to work with these children. We want to make 766 work. There are things that we must consider however when we look to 766 in the new responsibilities of the classroom teacher there is a great need for training. Dr. Rice has underlined this already. We must help our teachers understand what it is to identify children
to assess children with special needs to be able to work with the specialists and with the parents to develop programs and implement those programs for these children. It isn't going to happen overnight. We know this. However we are ready to begin in September to do what we can to make the law. Implemented and fully working. We have very concerned also about the relationship that the schools and the parents will have that they should have been having already. We look to a full working cooperation between the parents and the teachers as we work to implement the bill. All of us must understand each other's role in this particular legislation so that it will work. We know that there are going to be problems of funding. We know that there are going to be problems of attitude. We've worked now for over a year on behalf of the teachers of Massachusetts to try to alleviate some of the misunderstandings that have cropped
up with relation to the law. We hope that we have dispelled some of the fears among not only the teachers but the parents the administrators and the general public for we have. Developed and run workshops for all of these people today. We are concerned that although the law stipulates that there will be support services or that there should be support services available in the schools that there really will be support services available in the schools. We want to know that what the teachers will need in order to perform their functions as teachers in a regular classroom working with children with special needs will in fact work. We feel that the state of Massachusetts is taking a giant step forward. The teachers of the Massachusetts Teachers Association are ready to take that step with the state with the legislature with the State Department of Education with the parents and with the children. Thank you.
Thanks. We will now hear from Beverly Graham Beverly is the education chairman of the Massachusetts Association for Retarded Citizens. Beverly thank you. Thank you Representative Daley. It's difficult to be the last speaker because when it's your turn everything has been said. But I'd like to just make a few remarks on my views on how a special education can be successful in 1974. We know this bill will be costly and we know it's very complex and there are three major factors to be considered. The cost factor the cooperation of all the agencies involved in the implementation of the bill and the attitudes of the teachers and parents. Now if we look at the cost factor look at the initial investment and then look at the long range effect and what the return on your investment will be and what the
outcome will be. If I handicap citizens are not given the opportunity to a quality education larger enrollments in our institutions for the retarded lodger and Roman's enrollments in penal institutions higher crime rates because of the inability of some citizens handicapped citizens to cope with our lifestyle dropouts from school disruptive children becoming more disruptive candidates for unemployment larger numbers on our welfare rolls. If we don't appropriate the money at one end of the scale we're going to have to appropriate it at the other end where it's going to be family costly not only in money but in the deterioration of human potential. Now Mark has been criticized for being impatient. But you must forgive that impatience because it's born out of years of neglect. It's already too late for some of us citizens who are languishing in institutions languishing at home and the children of parents who have big school committees and mayors and city
councils to provide programs in the public schools but were denied because there was no law requiring this. Now I've heard it said that this bill was a mistake that was only passed because of pressures by emotional parents. Well there's truth in the statement because if it hadn't been for the emotions of parents this bill would never have come into being. It would never have been passed into law and it will never be implemented. They say you shouldn't trust the emotions but this is one of the strangest paradoxes because the emotions speak some of the greatest truths. And two of our legislators speaker Botley and Representative Daley saw the truth in these emotions and wrote a bill to correct the inadequacies and the inequities and to provide opportunities for our citizens now. After two years of hard work and frustrations and not counting the years in trying to pass this bill you can't bring us to the eve of the
implementation of the bill and then tell us there are no funds available. We can find funds for frills and extras and education we can find funds for just about anything we want to. So let's review our priorities and find the funds for the essentials. Now this bill is very complex because it crosses over the lines of many state agencies. It requires the cooperation of parents of many handicapped groups. And it calls for the interaction of all these groups. But what we have to keep uppermost in our mind is that this bill is not for the benefit of any state agencies. It's not for the benefit of any school systems our teachers but and not for the bare benefit of any parent groups. But it's first and foremost for the benefit of our children. I see the teachers as having the main responsibility for special education being successful in 1074 as Elaine said they are going to bring to bear the brunt of the of the
bill they're going to be working the closeness with our children and we can have the most expensive equipment and the best most beautiful classrooms. But if they don't have the attitudes that our handicapped citizens are persons with capabilities and potential to be becoming productive citizens then this indeed will be a costly bill. I have had the opportunity with working with Elaine's group and I'm greatly impressed by their attitudes and the work they're doing to try to make seven 6:6 a success. I'm no am in no way implying that teachers are against handicapped citizens. What I'm saying is they have not been exposed to them. They are not informed and I see Lane's group as bringing this information to them. Their attitudes to them and I think that this group should be encouraged and backed in every way possible. And parents of retarded children supposedly go through three stages the first stage one of self-pity.
Why did this happen to me. What did I do to deserve to have a retarded child. Is it my fault or something in my family background. Is it my husband's fault a something in his background. And from this stage we pass into a second stage after growth and adjustment and more knowledge and we now become more concerned with the individual child and what we can do to make his life more meaningful and productive. And from this stage we go into the third stage where we're not only concerned with our own child but the welfare of all retarded children and one of the direct benefits of 766 is that we from this we pass into a four stage and we realise that mental retardation is not the only problem. There are other problems maybe even more serious than ours and that we are now concerned not only with mentally retarded children but with all children. And if one child is excluded then all children will be excluded. Thank you very much Steve. The final speaker we will hear from during the session this afternoon
is the Honorable Charles Francis Mahoney president of the mass Jews Association for Mental Health judge Maloney. Thank you. I'd like if I may without attempting to cover much of the material which has been touched on earlier. To tell you that because of the Massachusetts Association of Mental Health that we see this meeting today as a bringing together people who share an enormous common concern for preventive measures in the field of mental health and a concern for assisting the state in implementing a major piece of social legislation that will affect the Commonwealth. And our cities and towns for many years to come. The UMass Association is essentially a citizen's advocate
organization and in fulfillment of that role. Let me if I may very briefly without touching on the humanistic and medical and other issues that have been dealt with so eloquently by others lay on the line to you. Our concern that there needs to be very strong action at the state level in every city and every town before every school committee before every PTA. Before every city council in this Commonwealth to ensure that monies are in fact appropriated that will make the implementation of this bill possible. And that's going to require that those of us who may have primary interest as teachers or primary interests as psychologists social workers turn our attention to the problem of taxation and appropriation and these may seem to be subjects far removed
from that which we're addressing this afternoon that indeed they're not they're very much at the heart of whether or not this legislation will work and we will be reaching out to all of you to seek your assistance and your help to see that the goals that are set forth in this legislation are in fact realized in every city and town of this commonwealth. We thank you very much for coming today. Thank you.
Series
Sunday Forum
Episode
Discussion Of The Bartley - Daly Special Education Act (Chapter 766)
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/15-2683btrf
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-2683btrf).
Description
Series Description
Sunday Forum is a weekly show presenting recordings of public addresses on topics of public interest.
Description
Discussion Of The Bartley - Daly Special Education Act (Chapter 766) mandating an adequate, publicly supported education to every child in the Commonwealth, regardless of disability or handicap. Speakers: Professor Gunnar Dybwad, Brandeis University; William Goldman, Massachusetts Mental Health Commissioner; Dr. Joseph Rich, Associate Commissioner of the Department Of Edcuation. Recorded at Copley Plaza Hotel.
Created Date
1974-02-05
Genres
Event Coverage
Topics
Public Affairs
Media type
Sound
Duration
01:42:10
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
Production Unit: Radio
AAPB Contributor Holdings
WGBH
Identifier: 74-0107-04-28-001 (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Generation: Master
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Sunday Forum; Discussion Of The Bartley - Daly Special Education Act (Chapter 766),” 1974-02-05, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-2683btrf.
MLA: “Sunday Forum; Discussion Of The Bartley - Daly Special Education Act (Chapter 766).” 1974-02-05. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-2683btrf>.
APA: Sunday Forum; Discussion Of The Bartley - Daly Special Education Act (Chapter 766). Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-2683btrf