“fixes” to ensure you don’t make these errors

I studied a case involving Child find, Referral & Evaluation. The details of the case are: 23 IDELR 411, 23 LRP 3306, W.B., Parent of the Minor, E.J., on her own behalf and on behalf of her son, E.J., Appellants v. Joan Matula; Mary Angela Engelhardt; Judy Beach; Catherine Brennan; Patricia Cericola; Dr. Gary Danielson; Ann Pearce; Kathleen Mahony; Carol Burns; Florence Noctor; Dr. Jeffrey Osowski; New Jersey State Board of Education; Warren County Department of Education; Mary Lou Varley; Mansfield Board of Education; State of New Jersey, Department of Education Division of Special Education; Employees of the Mansfield Township Board of Education, Appellees, 67 F.3d 484, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 95-5033, October 17, 1995 deals with a case related to Child Find, Referral and Evaluation related to IDEA, FAPE, Section 504, and NJ State rules implementing IDEA. This is an appeal of a lower court (Administrative Law Judge) judgment for a case filed when the parent is not satisfied with school boards processes and conclusions of her son’s Child Find, Referral and Evaluation. It is a complex case.

In my analysis of an earlier case, I expressed my fear that as a special education teacher and a member of the IEP team of our school, I could potentially be a defendant in a similar case. Strangely this is such a case. Several teachers including 1st grade teacher Mary Angela Engelhardt and 2nd grade teacher were defendants in this case. This should serve as a warning to all the teachers that they should adhere to the IDEA. The court in its scathing indictment specifically signaled teacher Mary Angela Engelhardt and wrote:

“This decision would not be complete without a comment on Mansfield's seemingly endless attacks on the parent, W.B. Evidently, Mansfield believes not only that W.B. is overly persistent, but also that she is trying to wear down the district to obtain services to which E.J. is not entitled. In my view, however, W.B. was essentially correct about the major points in dispute in these proceedings including evaluation, classification and placement. Nonetheless, the district has consistently denied W.B.'s reasonable, appropriate, and meritorious requests related to E.J.'s education. The basic dynamic of this entire dispute is that the district has denied W.B.'s meritorious requests and W.B. has been left with no alternative to an enormously burdensome struggle in order to obtain E.J.'s rights under IDEA. In my view, the burden placed on W.B. was unnecessary, unwarranted and largely the product of the district's unwillingness to recognize and appreciate E.J.'s neurological impairments despite ample reliable evidence thereof.”

Another point that caught my attention is the willful dragging of their feet by the school officials and lower courts routinely (2:1) siding with the school districts. The judgment states:

“As to classification, despite the findings of the independent evaluation, in November the CST concluded that E.J. was perceptually impaired but not neurologically impaired. The distinction is important, because the former classification would result in a lower level of IDEA services for E.J. than the latter. W.B. attempted to persuade the school to reclassify her son as neurologically impaired, and in December 1992, Mansfield cross-petitioned to have E.J. classified as perceptually impaired.”

• Paraphrase
• Claim
  • earth-friendly, justice-supporting consumers cannot translate their values into meaningful impact.
• Evidence
• “the shading and distancing of commerce” Princen (1997) is an effect of information assymetry.
  • producers up and down a supply chain can hide the negative social and environmental impacts of their operations, putting conscientious consumers at a disadvantage. //
• this is a result of the evolution of alienation accelerated by the industrial revolution that created the dualistic abstractions of producers and consumers.
• Before that, producers and consumers lived often one and the same in small village settings
• After the Industrial Revolution, producers became manufacturers with imposing factories that were cutoff from the general population

• This set the conditions for opaqueness that have plagued us ever since. //

• time constraints, competing values, and everyday routines together thwart the rational intentions of well-meaning consumers (Røpke 1999)

• assigning primary responsibility for system change to individual consumers is anathema to transformative change (Maniates 2001, 2019)

• This can be broken down into three broad categories of reasons:

  • Rebound effects
    • https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true&any=jevon%27s+paradox
    • increases in consumption consistently thwart effciency-driven resource savings across a wide variety of sectors (Stern 2020). -sustainability scholars increasingly critique “effciency” both as:
      • a concept (Shove 2018)
      • as a form of“weak sustainable consumption governance” (Fuchs and Lorek 2005).
    • Many argue that, to be successful, effciency measures must be accompanied by initiatives that limit overall levels of consumption, that is, “strong sustainable consumption governance.

  • Attitude-behavior gap

  • Behavior-impact gap

// - see also Kevin Anderson's presentation on "The Ostrich and the Phoenix" - https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true&any=ostrich+and+the+phoenix - humans opt for the just-in-time techno path because we can "kick the can down the road" and procastinate and allow the next generation deal with the problem - As Anderson shows, there isn't enough time for renewable energy to scale to make a difference in the short term and the difficult social problem of massive social behavior change is unfortunately the best way to solve the problem - the allure of technology is that it can fix any problem - the reality is that last generation's technology is unfortunately often the source of this generation's problems - technology not only produces progress, but the unintended consequences produce progress traps which become the inspiration for new technology in an endless cycle of self-created problems giving rise to avoidable solutions

"Text feature" is defined in this document, but "text details" isn't. Giving students both definitions would help ensure they understand the author's intent.

If you're reading this, do not forget the Content-Type. It is not on the initial example, but it is important. I don't understand why the author mentions it here but doesn't use it on the initial source.