What they fail to mention here is that the remaining therapeutic centers currently funded by our county tax dollars are charging the district schools for the services - services that were already paid for with our tax dollars. So what "children services" were they advertising when they put the tax levy campaign together in 2004? Why didn't they inform the parents changes were being made?
And where are the statistics that prove that the schools are "doing a better job" thereby making the therapeutic centers obsolete for our children with disabilities? This is purely subjective.
What the MR/dd superintendent really means is that the district schools can no longer afford to pay for the services now that the MR/dd is charging district schools for therapeutic services offered at county operated schools. In fact, many of the larger district schools have hired their own therapists/special ed teacher to visit all the schools within the district once or twice a week and have created a "resource" room and call it "least restrictive environment." This room generally contains a varying small population of children with disabilities, children with learning disorders, and children with behavior issues. This is mainstreaming?
This is our quality Department of Education in Ohio that set up these "high" standards and expectations for our children with disabilities -- and our thoughtful Ohio legislators who signed off on the guidelines. And since the public schools claim they can "duplicate"therapeutic services once offered by MR/dd schools, they do not have to notify parents that their child is being transistioned from therapeutic school to their district school.
This is why MR/dd used "no changes in children's services" because in their minds, they really weren't changing anything. When in reality services DID not look the same for these kids because their new classrooms are designed for cognitive driven experiences.
Yet voters and parents find MR/dd Mental Retardation tax levies on ballots asking for millions and referencing "children services" somewhere because everyone wants to help the kids. It's a brilliant strategy, really. Create your own reality of how things work -- and feed it to the press because you can.
How MR/dd finally succeeded in closing Breyer is very complicated and requires a very sharp and strategic mind, much like how crooks launder money to scam people. Or how politicians launder their campaign contributions from lobbyists whose businesses are next in line for contractual bids. Only this time, they scammed our children. And it all started with a little band wagon called "No Child Left Behind" down in Texas lead by Maggie Moo-Cow and her lobbying-venture capitalist buddies.
How to launder money out of the tax payers pockets ... so it can be used to pay for other things in the federal government's agenda.
1. Get rid of the laws that protect the kids and families by adding clauses, statutes, legislating new ones for one size fits all and give schools funding for implementation purposes for two years.
2. Enforce guidelines, 1.000 pages worth, onto schools to serve kids with special needs - one size fits all and then take away all funding from the same schools once used to service kids with special disabilities because this will be the sole financial responsibility of the school.
3. Take away parent-school advocacy funding, head start, and all the other social programs from the school districts due to new research cooked up by people hired by the federal government that finds these programs to be "ineffective." The same government whose own census reveals in some cities that 90%% of the population of kids come from single parent homes and where the average medium income is below poverty, and the drop rate and "diploma-graduated" is at an all time low.
4. Close the special schools run by the county so this money can go into somebody else pocket higher up.
5. Blame the schools when they they fail to meet the guidelines and expectations imposed by the federal and state government who are no longer taking financial responsibility for what they enforce or expect from schools.