Autism once affected 1 in 10,000 children. We have seen an explosion in autism rates and there are now 1 in 94 children (1 in 60 boys) suffering with the disorder in the state of NJ. (National estimates are 1 in 150.) Some have estimated that the incidence of autism in certain areas of the state, such as Cherry Hill, may be slightly higher. This may be because families with autistic children have moved into certain areas where services were more easily accessible.
The NJ Public Schools Autism Prevalence Report showed a 911% cumulative growth rate of autism from 1992 to 2003. At the time it was estimated that 1 in 179 children had a diagnosis of autism in our state. That rate swelled to 1 in 94 children with autistic disorders, as reported by the Center for Disease Control this past year.
Locally, Cherry Hill Public School System saw their special education population grow from 9.4 percent in 2000 to 14.5 percent last year. The rise in autistic disorders played a major role in the escalation of special education students.
To further compound the problems with Special Education, Cherry Hill Schools were faced with administrative changes. We have a Superintendent and Director Of Special Education that are still fairly new to our school district. While change is difficult for everyone, many have viewed this change as a major step backward for our school district. At a time when special education needs are on the rise and therefore more dollars need to be allocated to this area; our administrators have tried to reduce the cost of providing special education services. This has put our district in a position of having to provide many more children with programs and services while using fewer dollars. It is an impossible situation!
We are also seeing a trend where many independent contractors (mainly therapists) are not willing to work in our school district. Although I am uncertain if it is because they are being offered a reduced rate of pay (or a rate that is far less than other districts) or if it is a result of non-payment for services provided. There is evidence that both may be attributable to the reduction in available therapists.
Without qualified therapists to provide services, such as Occupational Therapy, we have students being denied critical services. This scenario is impacting other contracted services as well. Cherry Hill once employed a Behavior Consultant full time. That position is now filled by independent contractors. It appears to be a transient position. Some children in the district benefited greatly by the services of one particular behavior consultant and then suddenly the provider was changed. The parents of these students were asked to pay out of pocket for services until the new provider's contract was negotiated. This not only created a hardship on parents, but was against the law! However, more troubling than that, is the regression that many of these children could experience as a result.
The overall change in the culture of special education has been the biggest problem for parents. The dollars involved in providing for these children seem to be more important than the "sense" of providing appropriate services.
1 comment:
The problem seems to be that OTs are, by contract, paid the same salary at teachers generally. Apparently this is less than "market rate" for OTs. The claim has been made that other districts have a similar problem getting OTs. If someone can identify some district that has found a solution to this problem (perhaps a contract rider allowing OTs to be paid at a premium rate?), we could push to have our district adopt/negotiate for a similar solution.
Post a Comment