Agudath praises private school decision
Agudath Israel of America is praising a Supreme Court decision Monday permitting tuition reimbursement from a school district to parents of special-education students who unilaterally place their children in private school.
"What the Supreme Court has now affirmed is that parents have the right to put their children and their special needs first, and to move ahead responsibly and expeditiously to provide what they believe will be most likely to bring the children success," said Rabbi Abba Cohen, director and counsel of Agudath's Washington office.
Agudath's full statement is after the jump:
After today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling permitting tuition reimbursement from a school district to parents of special-education students who unilaterally place their children in private school, Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel of America Washington Office director and counsel, made the following statement:
This is a welcome victory for disabled children and their parents. Too often we have found that school districts are not able to live up to their mandate of providing a “free appropriate education” for children with special needs. This could be for lack of funds or the ability to satisfy the educational, cultural or other requisites that would allow these children to excel.
In such circumstances parents must be afforded the utmost flexibility in finding a successful program their children. Parents know what will work for their children and the full range of their needs. Forcing them to utilize public programs known to be failing or to provide inadequate services and resources -- indeed, essentially wasting years of valuable time – is educationally unsound and, in effect, nothing less than a punishment for these vulnerable children.
No one is being taken advantage of here. The legitimacy of the placement and reimbursement will be determined. What the Supreme Court has now affirmed is that parents have the right to put their children and their special needs first, and to move ahead responsibly and expeditiously to provide what they believe will be most likely to bring the children success.Background: Students with disabilities are entitled by federal law to government-funded educational services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was originally enacted in 1975 to eliminate discrimination against, or failure to adequately educate, such children.
Special-education needs are to be provided within existing public schools. However, if an independent hearing officer or court finds that a school district’s program does not suit a particular student, the child may be placed in a private school to receive the necessary educational services, at the government’s expense.
Since the evaluation and placement process can be lengthy, notes Mrs. Leah Steinberg, director of Project LEARN, Agudath Israel’s special education program, some parents opt to place their child in a private school, paying tuition out of pocket for the interim. Mrs. Steinberg was instrumental in challenging the notion that a child must have attended a public school to qualify for special education services. If parents eventually prevail in demonstrating the inappropriateness of the district’s proposed public school placement, she has maintained – and Agudath Israel has argued in amicus curiae briefs regarding such cases – they are entitled to reimbursement of the tuition costs incurred.
It is that contention that has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court. “We conclude,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority in today’s ruling, “that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for the cost of special education services when a school district fails to provide a FAPE [“free and appropriated public education” – the language used in the IDEA] and the private-school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public
0 Comments
Share This
Jewish groups laud Court decision on voting rights
A number of Jewish groups are praising Monday's Supreme Court decision keeping a key provision of the Voting Rights Act intact. The court preserved Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states and districts with a history of discrimination at the polls to get approval --also referred to as "pre-clearance" -- from the federal government before making any changes in their election practices or procedures and is still applied to voting in a number of southern states.
The Religous Action Center of Reform Judaism, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the National Council of Jewish Women all welcomed the decision. Here are excerpts from their press releases:
Anti-Defamation League: Noting that the Congressional action was based upon a “sizeable record” of evidence of the continuing need for Section 5 of that Act – the “pre-clearance” provision in question in the case – the Court appropriately found a narrow basis for resolving the dispute before it, while leaving Section 5 in place. It is particularly noteworthy that eight Justices specifically acknowledged the historic importance of the Act and the positive changes it has accomplished. We share the hope that someday the protections of the Voting Rights Act will no longer be necessary, but that day is not yet upon us.
Religious Action Center: While our nation has made many strides toward equality, discrimination at the polls remains a real and insidious problem across the country, threatening to the integrity and vibrancy of our deliberative government. It is that problem that Section 5 seeks, and will continue to seek, to eradicate.
National Council of Jewish Women: Just last month, the Department of Justice refused to approve a voter registration procedure proposed by the state of Georgia on the grounds that it would discriminate against minority voters. It would have been a dark day for our democracy if the Court today had chosen to undermine Congress’ determination to ensure voting rights for all.
Jewish Council of Public Affairs: No citizen should have to navigate hurdles to cast a ballot. Despite significant changes that have occurred since the adoption of the Voting Rights Act, we continue to see efforts to hinder minority voting. Since these efforts continue, so must meaningful federal oversight of voting rules. The Voting Rights Act has been an effective and potent tool in preventing discriminatory practices from being adopted."
0 Comments
Share This
Miller, Abrams both say settlement pressure misguided
Why has the United States made settlements such a big issue with Israel in the last few weeks? Two veterans of Middle East peace negotiations -- from opposite sides of the political spectrum -- say they are puzzled by the president's approach.
Both Aaron David Miller, who advised Secretary of State Jim Baker on Arab-Israeli issues during the George H.W. Bush and was at the Camp David negotiations during the Clinton administration, and Elliott Abrams, who was deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, agreed last week that the Obama administration's pressure on Israel over settlements isn't the correct move right now. And both said they saw virtually no chance of a conflict-ending agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians anytime soon.
They spoke at a Bethesda, Md. synagogue at a forum -- sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington and the American Jewish Committee's Washington chapter. The crowd seem jarred from Miller and Abrams’ pessimism, after hearing all the hope for a peace deal that has come out of the White House and some quarters of the Jewish community since Obama's inauguration.
Miller's criticism of the White House was particularly notable, because he is not opposed to getting tough with Israel – he pointed out that every time the United States has succeeded in achieving a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict, there has been “some measure of unhappiness” and tension. He also believes that settlements are a big problem (although he said even his old boss Baker knew he couldn't get Israel to freeze “natural growth” of settlements).
But “as legitimate a problem as settlements are with respect to undermining the environment toward a negotiation,” said Miller, they are a “distraction” given all the problems that need to be addressed.
“Given the stakes and reality, we are going to need a relationship with Israel of great intimacy in order to do this. We need to think very carefully about how we're going about it, where is the strategy, what is the objective,” he said.
And while fighting with the Israelis in pursuit of a true “breakthrough” is worth it, he sees virtually no prospect of an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians on the four core issues of Jerusalem, borders, security and refugees.
“There's a tension between two realities” that “cannot be reconciled” at that time, said Miller. “The commitment on the part of a young and transformative president who does not want to be the president on whose watch the two state solution dies, competing with the almost unimaginable possibility that Israel and Palestine can enter into a negotiation and reach a conflict-ending agreement.”
Abrams also said that the settlement issue was not being handled “in a way that is likely to produce the most from Israel,” particularly the fact that it was happening “on page one” instead of behind close doors.
“You catch more honey with flies than vinegar,” he said.
But Abrams added that he didn’t understand “how we got to where we are today,” considering that media reports have revealed that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had offered Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas 96 percent of the West Bank along with land swaps that added up to virtually 100 percent and “the answer he got back is nothing.”
“I would have thought this puts the onus on the Palestinians to do something, I would have thought that offer by Olmert shows the settlement expansion issue is phony” because Olmert’s offer was better than the one made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack at Camp David 10 years ago, said Abrams.
“I don't understand,” he added, the apparent decision “to take the position that Israel is the problem.”
What is the most significant issue right now? For Miller, it is the Palestinians being able to control security in their territory.
“A state must maintain a monopoly over the legitimate forces of violence within its society,” he said. “If you do not control all the guns, then you constituents will never respect you, and your neighbors will respect you less.”
As the night went on, both Miller and Abrams continued to agree -- there was no reason to be hopeful about a breakthrough.
Abrams noted that while everyone has thought they have known the basic terms of a Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement for decades, such a deal still hasn't happened. Maybe that's because “they don't want them” and “neither side, looking at what the deal would be, is prepared to say OK.”
Miller essentially concurred, saying, “Neither side is prepared to realistically protect its own interests while meeting the interests of the other side.”
Why did these two advisers associated with opposite ideological camps find themselves agreeing so much? Miller said it was a “fundamental testament to just how deep-seated and nasty this conflict really is.”
“I'm not here to say it can never be solved,” said Miller, but “America cannot afford to have a policy based in illusion.”
0 Comments
Share This
Meet The Bibi
During an appearance on "Meet The Press," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the crackdown in Iran "unamasks" nature of the current regime and insisted that he would not "second guess" President Obama's handling of the crisis.
Read the full transcript.
Here's an exchange near the end about wherther Netanyahu's government is prepared to take military action against Iran if the world is unable to stop its march toward nuclear weapons:
... MR. GREGORY: Prime Minister, there's always been debate about whether, when it comes to the threat of a nuclear Iran, whether there's a Washington clock and a Jerusalem clock. And let me show you a book by David Sanger of The New York Times that he wrote called "The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power." And in the course of his reporting for that book, he wrote this about Israel's plans: "Early in 2008, the Israeli government signaled that it might be preparing to take matters into its own hands." This is about Iran. "In a series of meetings, Israeli officials asked Washington for a new generation of powerful bunker-busters, far more capable of blowing up a deep underground plant than anything in Israel's arsenal of conventional weapons. They asked for refueling equipment that would allow their aircraft to reach Iran and return to Israel. And they asked for the right to fly over Iraq." My question, if there is not tangible progress toward defanging Iran as a potential nuclear power by the end of the year, do you, as a leader of Israel, go back to that planning that Israel had under way in 2008 against Iran?
MR. NETANYAHU: I can't confirm those assertions. I can say that Israel shares with the United States and with many, many countries--let me tell you, David, I think we shared with just about all the governments in the Middle East, I've talked to many of the leading European heads of governments and many others; we all don't want to see this regime acquire nuclear weapons, this regime that supports terrorists and calls for the annihilation of Israel and for the domination of the Middle East and beyond. I think this would be something that would endanger the peace of the world, not just the--my own country's security and the stability of the Middle East. It would spawn, for one thing, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Everybody understands that. So the Middle East could become a nuclear tinderbox.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
MR. NETANYAHU: And that is something that is very--a very, very grave development.
MR. GREGORY: And there...
MR. NETANYAHU: I think stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability is not merely an interest of Israel. As I think the current, recent events--the current events now demonstrate, this is something of deep interest for all people who want peace and seek peace throughout the world.
MR. GREGORY: If the international community proves unable to stop Iran, is it your view that Israel will have to?
MR. NETANYAHU: It's my view that there's an American commitment to make sure that that doesn't happen, and I think I'd leave it at that.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But there is a precedent here. Israel, in 1981, took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. Israel, in 2007, took out a nuclear reactor in Syria. There is precedent and a proclivity for Israel to take unilateral action if it deems it necessary for its security. That could be the case with regard to Iran, no?
MR. NETANYAHU: Well, I don't think I have to add to anything that I've said. We're--the Jewish people have been one of the oldest nations in the world. We've been around for 3500 years. We are threatened as no other people has been threatened. We've suffered pogroms, exiles, massacres and the greatest massacre of them all, the Holocaust. So obviously, Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.
MR. GREGORY: You have said--you said it to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine, talking about Iran, that it was a messianic and apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. The Obama administration argues that for the past eight years under President Bush there has been a hard line, calling it part of the axis of evil, and where has that hard line gotten America? Only emboldening Iran over that period of time. Is your hard line--is the U.S. hard line over the past eight years the wrong strategy to get Iran to change its behavior?
MR. NETANYAHU: I think that the, the president spoke to me quite explicitly about the great threat that Iran's development of nuclear weapons capability poses to the United States. I saw, in fact, a continuity, in that sense, of an assessment of the threat. But of course, as you say, the clock is ticking. The Iranian nuclear program is advancing. And so the, the problem that now faces the entire world is to, is to ask themselves a simple question: Can we allow this brutal regime that sees no inhibitions in how it treats its own citizens and its purported enemies abroad, can we allow such a regime to acquire nuclear weapons? And the answer that we hear from far and wide is no. ...
0 Comments
Share This
Blog Roll
