Sunday, March 30, 2014

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

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

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

Social skill is not a “service” but a functional skill necessary for daily living activities. Learn what the IDEA, the federal regulations, and the Commentary say about Present Levels of Functional Performance and IEP goals for functional skills.
Read Pat Howey’s article What You Need to Know About IDEA: Present Levels of Functional Performance and Functional Goals in IEPs.
Your child’s IEP must include a description of her Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance. This means what her strengths and weaknesses are – both in academics and in functional areas like social skills.
If your child has “functional needs” the school must meet these and address these needs with goals in the IEP.
Questions to Ask
Remember, you are part of the IEP team. You have input about your child’s needs and what services may be needed to meet these needs.
Does your daughter have challenges in the social skills area?
Is her weakness in social skills accurately described in the Present Levels?
Does her IEP include goals about how the school will meet these challenges?
Do the goals meet her needs?
Is she making measurable progress toward these goals?
You need to request a meeting of the IEP team to discuss your concerns and to review and revise the IEP.

Reorganized School District No.7
301 NE Tudor Road
Lee's Summit, Missouri 64086-5702
Phone: (816) 986-1024 Fax: (816) 986-1160
Jerry L. Keimig
Executive Director of Special Services

December 22, 2008

Ms. Heidi Atkins Lieberman
Assistant Commissioner
Division of Special Education
Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education
PO Box 480
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0480

Dear Ms. Lieberman:

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

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

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

C: Dr. David McGehee

Social Skills Groups: What Does the Research Tell Us?
Autism Spectrum News
The Promise of Research
Fall 2008, Vol.1, No. 1
Lynda Geller, Ph.D.
Asperger Institute
NYU Child Study Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They suggest:

• Parent training models to improve generalization and to make intervention available for younger children,
• Programs that address interfering behaviors or comorbid disorders (such as severe anxiety,)
• Interventions for children under six years of age whose brains have greater plasticity and who should be developing skills they can practice throughout elementary school,
• Need-specific programs that can differentiate between those who need very basic versus more advanced skill development,
• Consistent use of measurements in existing school and community social skills programs to assess if participants are meeting their specified goals.

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

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

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

• Is there a manualized, evidence-based curriculum or a well-designed, explicit program with specific goals?
• Do the proposed group members have similar needs that are being addressed specifically?
• Do the target behaviors being addressed make sense for each member?
• Is generalization to real-life settings being designed as an integral part of the program?

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

Does the group leader

• Assess each member’s needs before inclusion in the group?
• Have plans for assessing effectiveness?
• Consider the family’s specific desires for skill acquisition?
• Assess satisfaction with the service at the conclusion?
In-school services also need to be examined. Families should request that
• Services be very specifically described on the student’s individualized educational plan
• Those delivering the services have knowledge about both social skill development and the specifics of delivering such services to children on the autism spectrum
• Services be of sufficient intensity to be effective
• School personnel are utilizing evidence-base practice
• Interventions are being delivered in authentic locations such as playgrounds, classrooms, and lunchrooms, rather than only professional offices.
Sometimes parents do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable or empowered to request the services their child truly needs to promote the best outcome. It is important for parents to be wise consumers by
• Requesting specific plans and generalization strategies
• Learning how to reinforce social skills through play dates and get togethers
• Helping their child maximize strengths and interests in social settings
• Negotiating with school treatment teams to implement a true social skills program that is individually designed and data-driven.

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

Bellini, S., Peters, J.K., Benner, L., & Hopf, A. (2007) A meta-analysis of school based social skills interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders.
Remedial and Special Education, 28(3), 153-162.
Matson, J.L., Matson, M.L., & Rivet, T.T. (2007) Social-skills treatments for children with autism spectrum disorders. Behavior Modification, 31(5), 682-707.
Rao, P.A., Beidel, D.C., & Murray, M.J. (2008) Social skills interventions for children with Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism: A review and recommendations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(2), 353-361.
White, S.W., Keonig, K., & Scahill, L. (2007) Social skills development in children with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the intervention literature.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 1858-1868.

Friday, March 28, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

help bring consistency in the therapies and methodologies used by local 

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

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

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

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

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


Eligibility: All public education programs for special education students 
contain eligibility criteria. IDEA Part B allows school districts to determine 
eligibility of students for services. Although students may already have 
received a formal medical diagnosis of ASD, some districts insist on 
performing their own assessment to determine eligibility for services, which is 
often labeled an “educational diagnosis.” Some parents and providers 
testified that they view the educational diagnosis as a bureaucratic method for 
the school district to deny services to some children. 
Program Conflicts: For students with ASD with more severe behavioral 
issues, parents testified that some school districts have failed to address and 
consider a student’s neurological and mental health status, and have 
employed methods intended for students whose behaviors are not the result of 
a disorder like ASD. Such methods include isolation or suspension from 
school under the criteria established by the Safe Schools Act. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that the Department of Elementary and 
Secondary Education solicit proposals to design a data collection system to 
support analysis of ASD intervention across the lifespan (evidence-based therapies 
or teaching practices) and costs of serving children with ASD organized by 
appropriate classifications. 
It is recommended that the data collection system be created for all students with 
ASD using the state-wide identification number and be submitted to the Department 
of Elementary and Secondary Education. Access to the data should be granted to 
appropriate public school personnel, qualified researchers in the field, and 
individuals specifically authorized by statute or rule. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that local school districts inform parents of 
the importance of having a service coordinator from the Department of Mental Health present at the IEP meeting that takes place around the fourteenth birthday 
of a child with ASD. The Department of Mental Health can begin to develop 
transition goals for the child, and determine which state agencies should be 
contacted while fostering stronger relationships with the child and his or her 
family. The child’s family or legal guardian would have the right to exclude this 
individual from the IEP meeting. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that the state of Missouri develop and 
implement best practice guidelines for educational assessments and interventions. 
Evidence-based best practice guidelines for effective educational assessment and 
interventions for ASD should be developed and disseminated broadly to act as a 
resource for Missouri school districts. 
B. Missouri’s Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement 

The Blue Ribbon Panel recommends that Missouri allow equivalent funding to 
follow the student to the provider of the parent’s choosing. Having options for 
treatments or services empowers parents and encourages the General Assembly to 
explore models of choice in educational services. The General Assembly should 
investigate the merits of ASD scholarships, open enrollment for students with 
ASD, public and private partnerships, and any other educational opportunities for 
students with ASD, students with developmental disabilities, or students with 
developmental delays. 
F. Educational Diagnosis 
While it is clear that the evaluation of children conducted by educators is not done to 
“diagnose” the child, but rather to see if and how the diagnosis of ASD adversely 
impacts the child’s education, there is considerable misunderstanding created by the 
requirement to “make an educational diagnosis.” 

In Missouri, there are two ways for a child to be eligible for services under the federal 
IDEA. First, a child can have characteristics of a particular disorder, such as ASD, 
that grants automatic eligibility. Second, children can be eligible for early 
intervention services between the ages of birth and 36 months by having a 
developmental delay, defined as functioning at half the developmental level that 
would be expected for a child developing within normal limits and of equal age. The 
Blue Ribbon Panel heard numerous concerns about this requirement, including the 
perception of how it limits high-functioning individuals with ASD, who need the 
social and communicative services that are not otherwise available to them. 

Public education programs for special education students require students to meet 
eligibility criteria to qualify for services. Some children come to the school district 
seeking services with a medical diagnosis of ASD. Under IDEA, the school district 
is to consider the medical diagnosis and determine whether that diagnosis requires 
any educational intervention or supports. Testimony indicated a perception problem 
and semantics issue involving this process. Although the school district is not to 
dispute that a medical diagnosis has been made, many special educators and school 
districts use the term “educational diagnosis” to describe the process by which they 
determine whether educational intervention is required. In this way, it appears to 
parents that the school district is conducting its own diagnosis of the child and is 
making a different decision than the multi-disciplinary diagnosis team previously 

AUTISM CONSULTANT: Missouri does not have such an educational designation.  However, there is a three-tiered system of Project ACCESS autism educational consultants described below.
IN-DISTRICT AUTISM CONSULTANT (IDAC):  A certified teacher with a minimum of two years classroom experience is selected by his or her school district’s administration to attend the Introduction to Autism training either in a face-to-face format or the online format through Project ACCESS’ Community of Practice site. In addition to the Introduction to Autism training, attending the Working with Autistic Students in the Schools (WASS) OR Early Intervention for Young Children With Autism (EIYCA)training is also required. These trainings enable the teacher to attend the Autism Consultant Training (ACT). An administrator must send an endorsement letter indicating the school district’s intention to use that person as their In-District Autism Consultant (IDAC). School districts may have as many IDACs as is deemed appropriate for the district’s needs for a staff member to consult with colleagues serving students with ASD in their own districts. Project ACCESS will provide each IDAC with a nametag and maintain a participant database.  If the IDAC moves to another Missouri school district, the new district can make a written request to Project ACCESS and the IDAC status can be transferred to the requesting district.
Each person attending the In-district Autism Consultant training must complete a separate registration form.  Candidates may register online using My Learning Plan. 
  • Training Dates: June 16, 17 and 18, 2014.
  • Training Times: Registration is from 8:00 to 8:30 on the first day and training begins at 8:45 and lasts until 4:00.  On day two and three, training begins at 9:00 and ends at 4:00.

You can do the math.  Three days of training 

and your are in charge of making decisions 

that will affect a person's entire life.  Forget 

the eight years of school that the doctor 


Thursday, March 27, 2014

Commentary: First in Booze, First In Shoes, Last In Education | St. Louis Public Radio

Commentary: First in Booze, First In Shoes, Last In Education | St. Louis Public Radio

Statistic after statistic, ranking after ranking shows American students lagging behind their counterparts across the globe. Missouri’s schools are no exception. Missouri is a perfect example of our country’s diseased public education system. Three districts are currently unaccredited by the state — Kansas City, Riverview Gardens and Normandy — and the St. Louis Public School  system is on the brink, sitting in “provisional accreditation” purgatory.
All are academic failures. However, the issue is not limited to a handful of urban school districts. Overall, Missouri’s schools were ranked 41st in the country by Education Week in its yearly evaluation of the nation’s education system. Additionally, compared to the rest of the country, Missouri had the third lowest rate of high school students taking Advanced Placement exams.
As with most political debates, a barrage of proposed solutions has been thrown at the education problem. Many cry that Missouri’s schools are underfunded and that increasing the funding for the worst schools would set our state’s students up to succeed in short order. A glance at the facts proves this wrong.
According to data from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, a school district’s average expenditure per student has no correlation with educational success. For example, many of the top districts in the state spend roughly the same amount as Normandy, Riverview Gardens, or Kansas City.
From 2009-2013, Kirkwood, Ladue and Parkway all spent roughly $12,000 per average daily attendance (ADA), nearly the same as Normandy. And over the same period, Rockwood, whose Eureka and Marquette high schools rank among the best in the state, spent about the same as Riverview Gardens — roughly $9,000 per ADA.
So if funding alone does not a make a good school district, what does? The short answer is small, community-centered schools, rigorous evaluations of both teachers and students, and strict discipline.
Parental investment in education uniformly leads to better schools. The same principle can be applied to schools as a whole. Students attending a high school with thousands of students can drift from class to class, without any sense of belonging. Small schools are more responsive to individual students. Additionally, when the students come from the immediate area, schools are tied more closely to the community as a whole. The more that people invest in a school the better, and small community-based schools generate more investment from students, parents, teachers, and the larger community.
To ensure success, both students and teachers must be evaluated regularly. Standardized testing is not perfect, but it is the best available tool to ensure sufficient educational opportunities in all districts. The Missouri Assessment Program work for students, but the state lacks comprehensive evaluations of teachers. Ideally, each teacher would be evaluated during class. Evaluations would occur roughly once a month, with peer evaluations accounting for roughly three-quarters of the whole. State officials or another third party would conduct the remainder of the evaluations. Tenure would be based upon a teacher’s complete five-year compendium of evaluations.
The third, and most important key to improving Missouri schools is strengthening discipline standards. Many of our state’s worst schools struggle with violence and crime.
While only a handful of students in these schools are involved in violence, all are affected. Most instigators remain in the building, receiving either detention or suspension. Even those who receive out-of-school suspension return in due time. The solution is to remove instigators to a much stricter alternative school. KIPP charter schools, for example, thrive by insisting on almost draconian discipline. Those who warrant out-of-school suspension should be sent to a smaller school that follows the KIPP model for an extended period. Repeat offenders would be permanently reassigned. Consequently, the majority of students would remain in their neighborhood school, free from trouble and free to learn.

According to C.S. Lewis, “Failures are finger posts on the road to achievement.” Let’s move on toward academic achievement through implementing much-needed academic reforms.
Yossi Katz is a senior at Clayton High School and an editor on the school paper.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

(100) Mommy, I Wish I Could Tell You What They Did To Me In School Today

(100) Mommy, I Wish I Could Tell You What They Did To Me In School Today

The 9 States Where The Most Kids Get Spanked In School

The 9 States Where The Most Kids Get Spanked In School

The nine states where the highest percentage of kids get hit in school:

1. Mississippi -- 7.5 percent of students were struck by educators during the 2005-2006 school year.
2. Arkansas -- 4.7 percent of students.
3. Alabama -- 4.5 percent of students.
4. Oklahoma -- 2.3 percent of students.
5. Louisiana -- 1.7 percent of students.
6. Tennessee -- 1.5 percent of students.
7. and 8. (tie) Georgia and Texas -- 1.1 percent of students in each state.
9. Missouri -- 0.6 percent of students.

Florida School District Decides To Stop Hitting Students... But Not For The Reason You Might Think

Florida School District Decides To Stop Hitting Students... But Not For The Reason You Might Think

Missouri is one of the states that still allow students to be hit.

A Florida school district that has long subjected misbehaving students to corporal punishment recently announced it would be suspending the practice and will likely ban it entirely.
According to local reports, officials at Santa Rosa County School District in northwest Florida decided to phase out the practice in order to protect teachers from potential liability issues.
Even though parents in the district are required to give permission before their kids are subjected to paddling, in recent years, some parents have filed complaints with the state Department of Children and Families after corporal punishment incidents, local outlet WEAR-TV reports.
“I can no longer protect my employees. Even if they’re following protocol and involving the parents,” district superintendent Tim Wyrosdick told the Northwest Florida Daily News. “Our employees are awesome individuals who work so hard. They don’t deserve to be treated like that.”
The 2013-2014 Santa Rosa Public School District Code Of Conduct defines corporal punishment as “the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a Principal or Assistant Principal … to maintain discipline or to enforce rules.” According to the handbook, instances of corporal punishment are limited to once a day and vary by grade. Young children can get up to two strokes of a wooden paddle, while older students can get up to four strokes.
WEAR-TV reports that more than 400 incidents of paddling have been documented in the district since the 2011-2012 school year. Parents have had mixed reactions to the district's decision to suspend the use of corporal punishment.
“I think it depends on the situation, the school system, the comfort that the parents have, the culture that they have at home,” parent Shannan Posey told the outlet of paddling.
Meanwhile, parent Marie Caton said that even though she initially consented to paddling for her son, she was actually devastated when she heard the punishment taking place in an adjacent room, according to the Pensacola News Journal.
If you were going to paddle a child, would you know how hard to hit him with a long, thick board to get his attention but not hurt him?” she told the outlet. “I don’t think anyone does.”
Nineteen states still allow the practice of corporal punishment in schools. According to the most recent federal data on corporal punishment, 7,303 students were subjected to paddling in Florida during the 2005–2006 school year.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Missouri Statute On Bullying

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Missouri Statute On Bullying


Last Updated: 3/30/2012[ ]
Bullying/Harassment:Revised statute 160.775 (2009) requires every
district to adopt an antibullying policy. Policies must treat students equally,
not contain specific lists of protected classes who are to receive special
treatment, and must contain a statement of the consequences of bullying. Each district's
policy must require district employees to report any instances of bullying
which the employee has first hand knowledge and must address training of

Revised Statute 160.261 (2008) includes
harassment as an "act of violence" that requires mandatory reporting
by school administrators to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Harassment
includes the following: (1) Knowingly communicating a threat to commit a felony
to another person, thereby frightening, intimidating or causing emotional
distress to such other person, (2) When communicating with another person,
knowingly using coarse language offensively, thereby putting such person in
reasonable apprehension of offensive physical contact or harm, (3) To knowingly
frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to another person by
anonymously making a telephone call or any electronic communication
("cyberbullying"), (4) Knowingly communicating with another person
who is, or purports to be, seventeen years of age or younger, and in doing so
recklessly frightening, intimidating or causes emotional distress, (5)
Knowingly making repeated unwanted communication to another person, and (6)
Engaging in any other act with the purpose to frighten, intimidate or
emotionally distress another person.
Cyberbullying: Revised Statute 160.775 (2009) includes states
that bullying may consist of physical actions, or oral, including
cyberbullying, electronic, or written communication, and any threat of
retaliation for reporting of such acts. The statute requires every district to
adopt an anti-bullying policy. Revised Statute 160.261 (2008) includes
harassment as an "act of violence" that requires mandatory reporting
by school administrators to the appropriate law enforcement agency. This
includes knowingly frightening, intimidating or causing emotional distress
to another person by anonymously making a telephone call or any electronic
communication ("cyberbullying").

Hazing: No state policy addressing
elementary or secondary schools.