Archive for November, 2009

Article from Guideposts to Special Education Blog

Blog post from – Guideposts to Special Education written by Angela Keef

So, we know that developing the IEP (Individual Education Program) is one of the most important steps in the special ed process, but how do we develop an appropriate one? Many school districts and special ed teachers struggle with this step. Many parents get frustrated at this point in the process because of “the cookie cutter” IEP approach…the one size fits all IEP. Special education is supposed to be individualized instruction in order to meet the unique needs of the child, yet many parents find themselves signing off on the same IEP year after year.

The fine folks at Wrightslaw have written a great book, called “From Emotions to Advocacy”. It is an excellent resource, and I recommend that everyone involved with special education…either a parent or teacher or advocate, read this book and learn from it. One of the things they talk about, in chapter 12, is writing SMART IEPs. S=Specific, M=Measurable, A=Action words, R=realistic and relevant, and T=Time limited.

IEP goals and objectives need to be specific in nature and measurable. How are we going to measure progress if we don’t know specifically what we are going to work on and how we are going to assess it? Many IEP goals are very vague and open…..as a parent you need to avoid that. An IEP needs to include Action Words….that means it should reflect what the school and the child will actually be able to do…nice strong verbs that describe the desired outcome. Goals and objectives also need to be realistic…can the child realistically work toward that goal and reach it during the current school year. In order to be relevant, the goals need to connect to the real world and to the current curriculum in the classroom, and move the child from their current level of performance to the desired level of performance. IEPs also need to be time limited…objectives need to be completed within a time frame…the first quarter, semester, half a year, the full year.

With these types of goals, the school team can be held accountable for their actions and their implementation. A parent can ask for measurement or assessment of each goal…how far has the child come? If the child has met an objective, then that item can be taken off of the IEP and a new objective can be put in to replace it. Using this method, if a child is making progress, then IEPs should be different each year. If the child is not making progress toward the goals, then the IEP and programming needs to be reviewed. A child with the most significant disabilities should be able to show progress in some area, even if it is a small amount of progress. If assessment reveals no progress is being made at all, go back to the drawing board and rework the IEP. The programming is most likely inappropriate if there isn’t any progress being made.

Questions?? Let me know!

YouTube Adds Machine Generated Automatic Captions


YouTube clips have previously allowed for captioning, but it was a system that was a little buggy and only worked from YouTube’s site. That’s all changed with the advent of machine-generated captions and auto-timing.

Google’s automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology has been paired up with YouTube’s caption system to create automatic captions for the majority of the videos that are uploaded (at the rate of 20 hours of footage every minute). It should cover the needs of your caption viewing needs, although they’ll continue to streamline and improve this technology as things progress.

If you don’t want to leave the captioning of your video to the hands of the YouTube caption system, they’ve also added an auto-timing function, which allows you to upload a simple text file to be read. The text will sync up with your video without any timing breaks or coding added to the file. The previous system of captioning was mainly user generated and required a little professional know how when it comes to coding and video editing—thus, most videos were caption-less, making them inaccessible to those with hearing impairments.

For those who aren’t in need of captions, there’s still an added bonus for you. With the advent of all the new text in association with what’s on screen, it will make videos easier to search for and find, even if you don’t know the title.

Automatic Captions in YouTube [The Official Google Blog]

Send an email to Sarah Rae Trover, the author of this post, at tips@lifehacker.com.

Processed Oysters Have a Niche in National Market

By Chris Kirkham, The Times-Picayune

November 22, 2009, 5:03AM

ameripure_pasteurized_oysters.JPGDavid Grunfeld/The Times-PicayuneAmeriPure Oysters in Franklin uses a pasteurization process to essentially eliminate the vibrio bacteria from oysters. The bands around the oysters prevent the shells from popping open during the bacterial treatment process.

After a whirlwind month for the Gulf Coast oyster industry, with stringent food safety requirements on raw oysters coming and then going nine days ago, restaurant owners, oyster dealers and lovers of the salty raw delicacy are resting easier.

But while the Food and Drug Administration has backed down – for now – from the proposed 2011 bacterial treatment requirements for raw oysters in warmer months, the debate has shed light on a growing segment of Gulf oyster production that has sold treated oysters throughout the country for more than a decade.

Restaurant reviewer Brett Anderson weighs in on the flavor of processed oysters.

Most raw oyster aficionados have likely never come across the processed oysters at any local eateries. The two largest Gulf Coast companies that sell treated oysters on the halfshell during warm months – one in Houma and one in Franklin – have had success mostly with national wholesalers and out-of-state restaurant and hotel groups. Although the technology has been established for years, the process has had its share of controversy, leading to internal industry feuds and disagreements over the dangers of raw oysters.

motivatit_oyster_cylinder.JPGDavid Grunfeld/The Times-PicayuneAt Motivatit Seafoods in Houma, oysters are placed in a cylinder that goes into a high-pressure water chamber that essentially deactivates the vibrio bacteria at the molecular level.

Louisiana bars and restaurants have mostly stuck to traditional raw oysters, with some chefs saying customers in the past have noticed a difference in taste when eating the processed oysters. The outcry from consumers and restaurants over the past few weeks suggested a strong allegiance to traditional raw Gulf oysters, which are more affordable than treated oysters and more bountiful than in any other region of the country.

“The vast overwhelming response we got from Gulf Coast restaurants was that people want the traditional raw oyster to be available in the future, period,” said Kevin Begos, executive director of the Franklin County Oyster & Seafood Task Force in Apalachicola, Fla. “In the Southeast, it’s really the last place in the U.S. where a working man or woman or student can have a dozen oysters for five or six or seven bucks.”

But in the nationwide scheme of oyster consumers, the New Orleans market is only a sliver of the total pie. Large food distributors such as Sysco have sold processed oysters for years, and banquet and buffet spreads at Las Vegas casinos are likely to feature the treated products.

“Post-harvest processing has found a niche, and the niche is not always for health and safety reasons. Some of it is for convenience: It has a longer shelf life. The meat is already shucked from the shell,” said Mike Voisin, president of Motivatit Seafoods in Houma, which has one of two available bacteria-killing processes that can be used for oysters in warm months. “There’s some heritage and culture you miss there, but if you’re in Iowa somewhere, there’s probably not a lot of oyster heritage and culture there. You just want a product you can present.”

On the Gulf Coast, there are currently three methods in use that are recognized to significantly reduce the risk of vibrio vulnificus, a rare but potentially deadly bacteria present in Gulf oysters that is responsible for about 15 deaths each year. The disease mostly affects those who have immune disorders, particularly liver disease.

Only two of the three bacteria-killing processes – low-heat pasteurization and hydrostatic pressure – are applicable to oysters harvested during the warm months from April through October. The other process, individual quick freezing, deep freezes oysters, usually with the top shells removed.

At this point, those processes apply to only about 15 percent to 20 percent of the Gulf’s current production. The Gulf is responsible for about two-thirds of all oyster production in the country.

fahey_tesvich.JPGDavid Grunfeld/The Times-Picayune‘FDA has proposed this for 15 years, and that was the impetus for doing AmeriPure oysters,’ said AmeriPure managing partner Patrick Fahey, left, who teamed up with Plaquemines Parish oyster farmer John Tesvich, right, to test the market in the ’90s.

The freezing process is the most prevalent post-harvest processing technology available in the United States, but most in the industry say it is not applicable to the smaller, thinner oysters harvested during the summer months.

For treated oysters, the end product is markedly different from the sack of live oysters you might see being shucked at one of the area’s raw bars.

For one, the processed oysters are sold with bands around them – a necessary step to prevent the shells from popping open during the bacterial treatment process. That makes them generally easier to pry open, requiring less of the labor-intensive shucking that New Orleanians are accustomed to seeing. Usually the oysters have been washed, meaning shells are free of the typical gritty mud coating.

But perhaps the biggest difference is that vibrio treatment processes kill the oyster, whereas raw oysters straight from the boat remain alive until they are shucked and eaten.

The pasteurization and high pressure processing techniques were invented in the 1990s, as the FDA and a consumer group called the Center for Science in the Public Interest were turning up the heat on the Gulf oyster industry. The risks from vibrio vulnificus had received more and more attention from the FDA, with the agency requiring warning signs in restaurants where raw oysters were consumed.

Oyster prices soon took a tumble due to consumer worries.

AmeriPure Oysters got its start in 1995, after a confrontation similar to the one last month between FDA and the oyster industry over vibrio vulnificus. The FDA at that time agreed to let the industry set vibrio regulations, but AmeriPure’s founders believed that the agency would eventually shut down the raw oyster market in the Gulf during the summer because of the health concerns.

“When somebody says that this was coming out of left field, that is coming from somebody who doesn’t know anything about the oyster industry. FDA has proposed this for 15 years, and that was the impetus for doing AmeriPure oysters,” said managing partner Patrick Fahey, who teamed up with Plaquemines Parish oyster farmer John Tesvich to test the new market in the ’90s. “If you don’t change the business paradigm when you have big guns pointed at you, you’ll be out of business soon enough. And the FDA represented big guns back in ’94.”


Oyster processing methods: Click to open graphic in new window.

Working with LSU’s Department of Food Science, Tesvich and Fahey, who used to run the Delta Queen Steamboat Company, patented the pasteurization process to essentially eliminate the vibrio bacteria from oysters.

Workers at their plant in Franklin sort oysters by size, putting rubber bands around each one to prevent the shells from opening during the pasteurization process.After they are banded, the oysters are set on a tray and sent slowly on a conveyor through a vat of 126-degree water for 24 minutes. Afterward, the heated oysters are placed into a separate tub of near-freezing water to prevent the oyster from cooking.

For the first five years the company struggled financially. And AmeriPure’s marketing tactics, often highlighting the dangers of eating raw oysters, won few friends in the oyster industry.

In 1999, some partners in thecompany were party to a lawsuit that asked a state judge to requirethat all Louisiana oysters go througha bacterial treatment process. Many in the industry, including Voisin, who now has another bacteria-killing process, cried foul.

Tesvich and Fahey now say they regret being involved in the suit.

As AmeriPure was getting its start, Voisin’s company, Motivatit Seafoods, came along with a different bacterial treatment process in 1999. The high hydrostatic pressure technology essentially deactivates the vibrio bacteria at the molecular level by subjecting the oysters to intense water pressure.

Oysters are placed into a cylinder that goes into the high pressure water chamber. Water is then pumped into the chamber surrounding the cylinder for three minutes, exerting pressures of 35,000 to 40,000 pounds per square inch – twice the pressure of the Mariana Trench, the deepest ocean location on Earth.

mike_voisin.JPGDavid Grunfeld/The Times-Picayune‘We don’t believe in a nanny state. We should have the opportunity to make choices, and we should be educated about those choices,’ said Mike Voisin, president of Motivatit Seafoods in Houma. Motivatit sells banded, raw oysters just as AmeriPure does, but the company also uses the high-pressure technology as a way to more efficiently shuck oyster meat.

A sizable part of Motivatit’s business comes from sales of shucked oyster meat in gallon or pint containers. The pressure opens the oysters, allowing workers to more quickly get at the oyster meat.

Joey Oysters, a processor in Amite, also has the high-pressure technology. Officials with the company did not return calls seeking comment.

Although AmeriPure and Motivatit have the post-harvest processing technology in place, the owners have different views on the risks posed by raw oysters.

Although about 50 percent of his business is in selling treated oysters, Voisin was one of the loudest critics of the FDA proposed requirements. Fahey and Tesvich of AmeriPure, which sells about 90 percent of its oysters pasteurized, took no official position, but said they anticipated the stricter regulations years ago and have adjusted their business model to adapt.

Although the FDA has put off enacting its regulations, AmeriPure has plans to expand its operations to another plant in Plaquemines Parish partly using a competitive grant program from the state.

“This has been the No. 1 topic affecting oysters for the past 19 years. When you’re faced with a problem, it’s how you react to the problem. It’s about fighting back and making the best of it,” Tesvich said. “If you’re not dealing with it, if you’re in denial, that’s not a good way to handle this.”

Tesvich and Fahey also argue that the risks posed by vibrio vulnificus have turned off consumers in higher-end markets on the west and east coasts, where some select Pacific oysters can go for $4 or $5 each. California, for example, banned Gulf oysters in 2003 that had not undergone the bacterial treatment process.

“The Gulf has helped those guys do a wonderful job and command big money for the oysters, because we’ve been kept out. There’s a stigma attached,” Fahey said. “If the stigma comes off the Gulf oyster, the Gulf oyster’s going to find fans in other parts of the country where they’re currently not doing too well.”

Voisin has taken a different approach, arguing that consumers deserve a choice in the type of oysters they eat, and should be aware of the risks when eating raw oysters.

“We don’t believe in a nanny state. We should have the opportunity to make choices, and we should be educated about those choices,” Voisin said. “We’re not trying to do it saying the traditional market is a problem. The traditional product is safe unless you’re part of that at-risk group.”

Chris Kirkham can be reached at ckirkham@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3321.

Transition Goals Cannot be Vague or Generic

Posted from Bright’s Blog

In Marple Newton School District v. Rafael N. ex rel R.N., 48 IDELR 184 (E.D. Pa 2007), a court concluded that an IEP was deficient because there were no “measurable postsecondary goals related to training, education, employment, and independent living skills for a Spanish-speaking mild to moderately retarded 17-year-old special education student with untreatable epilepsy. With regard to the IEP, the court stated the “goals are vague and do not capitalize on the student’s strengths or specific interests.” Furthermore, the student’s IEP “states generic goals that have remained static from year to year. There were no vocational or independent learning outcomes in the community component of the IEP, there was no component to prepare the student for medical self-monitoring, and the IEP did not “take into account the student’s strengths or preferences.”

IEP teams need to be mindful when creating transition plans and ensure that each one is individualized and meaningful.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

L.A. times Editorial Article

The FDA’s attempt to regulate raw Gulf Coast oysters didn’t sit well in the South, but something needs to be done because people are dying.

November 21, 2009

Every year, about 15 people die after eating raw oysters tainted with a bacterium that has no effect on healthy diners but can be deadly to those with HIV, cancer, liver disease or otherwise compromised immune systems. The deaths are easily preventable. Only a small percentage of oysters have high levels of the bacterium Vibrio vulnificus — those harvested from the Gulf Coast during the summer months. And processing them with pressure, refrigeration or heat significantly lowers the amount of bacteria, making them safer for consumption. To that end, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week announced that it would require summer harvests of Gulf Coast oysters to be processed before sale beginning in 2011.

The agency might as well have outlawed gumbo. Throughout the South, and particularly in Louisiana, where two-thirds of the nation’s oysters are harvested, irate legislators, oyster farmers and connoisseurs told the government to back off: If people want to risk their lives for a plate of cold oysters, fresh lemon juice and just a dash of hot sauce, then that’s their business. Processing, they said, ruins the taste. More to the point, the FDA’s mandate, they said, would jeopardize 3,500 jobs and destroy the livelihood of generations-old family businesses by requiring them to invest in cost-prohibitive technology. Within days, the FDA canceled the ban on untreated oysters. For now.

It was the right move, allowing for a more cooperative and conciliatory approach to determining whether the aims of both sides can be met. There are processing methods, for instance, that hold promise for doing so, such as “offshore relaying,” in which harvested oysters are moved to salty waters, where the high salinity kills the bacterium. Now the FDA and other agencies will study its potential.

The FDA also plans to study the economics of processing to help the industry adapt. Although treated oysters may alienate some purists, other diners may be reassured and give raw oysters a shot. Also, markets currently closed to warm-weather Gulf Coast oysters because of the dangers may open.

As for public health, the best case study may be California. In 2003, after 40 deaths over a 10-year period, the state required warm weather Gulf Coast oysters to be processed. Since then, there have been no Vibrio deaths, and some oyster businesses have adapted to the new rules. But one thing is clear: For all the talk of cooperation, the FDA’s ultimate goal is to help the industry “transition.” Because the one argument the Gulf Coast oyster industry has not successfully made is that the deaths of those 15 people a year don’t matter.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Automatic Captions in YouTube

YouTube, LLC
Image via Wikipedia

11/19/2009

Since we first announced captions in Google Video and YouTube, we’ve introduced multiple caption tracks, improved search functionality and even automatic translation. Each of these features has had great personal significance to me, not only because I helped to design them, but also because I’m deaf. Today, I’m in Washington, D.C. to announce what I consider the most important and exciting milestone yet: machine-generated automatic captions.

Since the original launch of captions in our products, we’ve been happy to see growth in the number of captioned videos on our services, which now number in the hundreds of thousands. This suggests that more and more people are becoming aware of how useful captions can be. As we’ve explained in the past, captions not only help the deaf and hearing impaired, but with machine translation, they also enable people around the world to access video content in any of 51 languages. Captions can also improve search and even enable users to jump to the exact parts of the videos they’re looking for.

However, like everything YouTube does, captions face a tremendous challenge of scale. Every minute, 20 hours of video are uploaded. How can we expect every video owner to spend the time and effort necessary to add captions to their videos? Even with all of the captioning support already available on YouTube, the majority of user-generated video content online is still inaccessible to people like me.

To help address this challenge, we’ve combined Google’s automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology with the YouTube caption system to offer automatic captions, or auto-caps for short. Auto-caps use the same voice recognition algorithms in Google Voice to automatically generate captions for video. The captions will not always be perfect (check out the video below for an amusing example), but even when they’re off, they can still be helpful—and the technology will continue to improve with time.

In addition to automatic captions, we’re also launching automatic caption timing, or auto-timing, to make it significantly easier to create captions manually. With auto-timing, you no longer need to have special expertise to create your own captions in YouTube. All you need to do is create a simple text file with all the words in the video and we’ll use Google’s ASR technology to figure out when the words are spoken and create captions for your video. This should significantly lower the barriers for video owners who want to add captions, but who don’t have the time or resources to create professional caption tracks.

To learn more about how to use auto-caps and auto-timing, check out this short video and our help center article:

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=100077

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTvHIDKLFqc

You should see both features available in English by the end of the week. For our initial launch, auto-caps are only visible on a handful of partner channels (list below*). Because auto-caps are not perfect, we want to make sure we get feedback from both viewers and video owners before we roll them out more broadly. Auto-timing, on the other hand, is rolling out globally for all English-language videos on YouTube. We hope to expand these features for other channels and languages in the future. Please send us your feedback to help make that happen.

Today I’m more hopeful than ever that we’ll achieve our long-term goal of making videos universally accessible. Even with its flaws, I see the addition of automatic captioning as a huge step forward.

* Partners for the initial launch of auto-caps: UC Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Yale, UCLA, Duke, UCTV, Columbia, PBS, National Geographic, Demand Media, UNSW and most Google & YouTube channels.

Posted by Ken Harrenstien, Software Engineer

Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/automatic-captions-in-youtube.html

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

DeLauro Requests GAO Audit on Reducing Illnesses and Death Due to Contaminated Raw Oysters

DeLauro Requests GAO Audit on Reducing Illnesses and Death Due to Contaminated Raw Oysters

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Contact: Contact: Kaelan Richards
202-225-3661

DeLauro Requests GAO Audit on Reducing Illnesses and Death Due to Contaminated Raw Oysters

Audit Would Determine Effectiveness of ISSC Risk Management Plan in Reducing Deaths Due
to Raw Oysters Contaminated with Vibrio Vulnificus

Washington, DC— Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) today sent a letter to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an audit of the Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation Conference’s (ISSC) risk management plan for Vibrio vulnificus (Vv). The
audit would determine whether the risk management plan being used by the oyster
industry, and promoted by the ISSC, is effective in reducing illnesses and death due to
oysters contaminated with the Vv bacteria.

On October 17, the Food and Drug Administration announced a new requirement for
post-harvest processing for oysters after determining that the existing Vv risk
management plan was not true to the spirit of food-borne illness prevention regulations.
The FDA also questioned the reliability of the methods used by the ISSC to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Vv risk management plan. After receiving significant negative
feedback from the industry, the FDA announced on November 13 that the agency would
not proceed with its policy regarding post-harvest processing until it conducted an
independent study to assess how post-harvest processing or other equivalent controls
can be feasibly implemented in the Gulf Coast in the fastest, safest and most economical
way. “The FDA made the appropriate decision not to proceed with the new guidance and
to work with industry to examine the process for oyster harvesters to access adequate
controls to achieve this important public health goal,” DeLauro stated. “However, the
FDA’s initial questioning of whether ISSC’s Vv risk management plan is achieving its
intended public health benefit is valid, and that is why I am requesting this audit. This
GAO audit will provide independent, verifiable information about the effectiveness of the
risk management plan and provide the FDA and the ISSC with some guidance on how to
proceed toward the goal of reducing illnesses and death from raw oysters contaminated
with Vv.”

The full text of the letter is as follows:

November 17, 2009

Gene L. Dodaro
Acting Comptroller
General Government Accountability Office
441 G St.,
NW Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Dodaro:
http://www.delauro.house.gov/text_release.cfm?id=2686 (1 of 3)11/18/2009 1:39:42 PM

DeLauro Requests GAO Audit on Reducing Illnesses and Death Due to Contaminated Raw Oysters

I am writing to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct an
audit of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference’s (ISSC) Vibrio vulnificus (Vv) risk
management plan. One of the primary purposes of this audit would be to determine
whether this risk management plan being used by the oyster industry, and promoted by
the ISSC, is effective in reducing illnesses and death due to oysters contaminated with
the Vv bacteria.

The ISSC is a State/Federal conference responsible for coordinating State regulation of
the shellfish industry under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The ISSC
developed a Vv risk management plan as its principal tool for reducing illnesses and
deaths caused by the consumption of Vv contaminated oysters. The plan set a target of
reducing the incidence of illnesses associated with Vv by 60 percent over seven years,
defined control interventions to achieve the target, and provided a methodology for
measuring the effectiveness of control efforts. At this time, the target reduction has not
been met.

On October 17, the Food and Drug Administration announced that the existing Vv risk
management plan was not true to the spirit of HACCP regulations. The FDA claimed that
affordable technology capable of eliminating Vv illnesses exists and because the goal of
the seven-year plan (60 percent reduction in Vv illness) had not yet been met, the
agency believed that it could no longer support the existing plan. In making this
announcement, FDA also questioned the reliability of the methodology used by the ISSC
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Vv risk management plan.

Subsequent to this announcement, the FDA issued a statement on November 13 that
indicated the agency would not proceed with its policy regarding post-harvest processing
until it conducts “an independent study to assess how post-harvest processing or other
equivalent controls can be feasibly implemented in the Gulf Coast in the fastest, safest
and most economical way.” The FDA rightfully concluded that there was a need to
further examine the process and timing for large and small oyster harvesters to gain
access to processing facilities or equivalent controls in order to address this important
public health goal.

However, the FDA’s initial questioning of the plan raises serious doubts as to whether
the ISSC’s Vv risk management plan is achieving its intended public health benefits by
reducing the number of people infected by Vv. The FDA indicated that there has been
little documented success of the interventions encouraged by the plan – “modest
increases in consumer awareness” and “essentially no change” in Vv illnesses from raw
oysters in states allowing the sale of untreated Gulf Coast oysters during warm months.
This announcement is troubling given that people continue to be infected with Vv when
consuming raw oysters.

Therefore, I am requesting that GAO review the methodology used by the ISSC to
determine if it produces meaningful data for assessing improvements in safety from
industry efforts under the Vv risk management plan. The purpose of this is two-fold: (1)
to evaluate the reduction in illnesses and deaths achieved by the specific control
methods encouraged by the Vv risk management plan and make recommendations, if
appropriate, for improving the methodology; and (2) to determine, going forward,
whether the effectiveness of time and temperature controls is properly evaluated.

The GAO also should evaluate the success of the plan to this date. When evaluating the
Vv risk management plan, it is critical to identify and isolate confounding factors. For
example, California has more stringent controls than those required by the Vv risk
management plan, so it is appropriate to verify that the ISSC data set does not include
California statistics when evaluating the efficacy of the plan. This has the potential to
overestimate the success of the plan and should be avoided in your analysis of the
success attributable specifically to the Vv risk management plan.

In reviewing the method used to evaluate the Vv risk management plan, the GAO also
should evaluate whether the States have the resources to enforce time and temperature
controls. This is important because FDA modeling predicts that any effectiveness of the
controls depends on a high level of compliance by the States. The review should
examine:

Whether reductions in State budgets may have an impact on the ability of the States to
gather appropriate epidemiology data or to adequately oversee compliance with future
control efforts (i.e. time and temperature controls).

Whether the States have appropriate systems in place to evaluate compliance by oyster
harvesters.

Whether the ISSC will have sufficient data for evaluating the effectiveness of time and
temperature controls at the end of the summer harvest season in 2010.

The ISSC voted in October to implement time and temperature controls by spring 2010
and evaluate their effectiveness at the end of summer 2010. Therefore, it is essential
that GAO begin its work and complete its review at the earliest possible date.

Thank you very much for your assistance on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you about
how GAO intends to proceed with this audit.

Sincerely,
ROSA L. DeLAURO
Chairwoman House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

26 Charged in Nationwide Scheme to Defraud the FCC’s Video Relay Service Program

Department of Justice Press Release

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2009
United States Attorney’s Office
District of Columbia
Contact: (202) 514-7566


Twenty-Six Charged in Nationwide Scheme to Defraud the FCC’s Video Relay Service Program
Arrests Made in Nine States

WASHINGTON—Indictments were unsealed today against 26 people charged with engaging in a scheme to steal millions of dollars from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Video Relay Service (VRS) program, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Washington Field Office Joseph Persichini Jr., Deputy Chief Postal Inspector Zane Hill, and FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus.

Arrests were made today by FBI agents and Postal Inspectors in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Maryland and were the result of a joint FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and FCC Office of Inspector General (FCC-OIG) investigation into a nationwide scheme to defraud the FCC’s VRS program.

“The individuals charged in connection with today’s operation are alleged to have stolen tens of millions of dollars from an important government program that is intended to help deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans communicate with hearing persons,” said Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer. “These defendants are alleged to have generated fraudulent call minutes by making it appear that deaf Americans were engaging in legitimate calls with hearing persons, when in reality, the defendants were simply attempting to steal money from an FCC program that is funded by every single American who pays their telephone bills. The Department of Justice will not stand by and let corporate executives and others line their pockets with money that should be used to help deaf Americans.”

“Unfortunately, this remarkable service, designed to help those in need, also provided a growth opportunity for criminal activity that we believe has cost American consumers tens of millions of dollars,” said Joseph Persichini, Jr., Assistant Director of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

“When the U.S. Mail is used for the purposes of committing fraud, and in this case, a particularly insidious type of fraud, it’s the job of the Postal Inspection Service to aggressively investigate and ensure America’s confidence in the integrity of its postal system,” said Deputy Chief Postal Inspector Zane M. Hill.

“Today’s events represent both a tragedy and an opportunity,” said FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus. “The tragedy is the unfortunate truth that a significant number of unscrupulous individuals, at great cost to the nation, have preyed on a very important program for delivering essential telecommunications services to persons with hearing disabilities. The ‘opportunity’ is the chance to reiterate our commitment to the VRS program and to follow through on efforts, already begun at the FCC, to safeguard the program against further waste, fraud, and abuse and to improve its delivery of VRS services to consumers.”

The indictments allege that 26 individuals engaged in a scheme to defraud the FCC by submitting false and fraudulent claims for VRS calls, causing the FCC to reimburse the defendants at a rate of approximately $390 per hour. According to the indictments, VRS is an online video translation service that allows people with hearing disabilities to communicate with hearing individuals through the use of interpreters and web cameras. A person with a hearing disability who wants to communicate with a hearing person can do so by contacting a VRS provider through an audio and video Internet connection. The VRS provider, in turn, employs a video interpreter to view and interpret the hearing disabled person’s signed conversation and relay the signed conversation orally to a hearing person. VRS is funded by fees assessed by telecommunications providers to telephone customers and is provided at no cost to the VRS user.

The indictments charge owners and employees of the following seven companies with engaging in a scheme to defraud the FCC’s VRS program:

  • Viable Communications Inc., of Rockville, Maryland;
  • Master Communications LLC, of Las Vegas;
  • KL Communications LLC, of Phoenix;
  • Mascom LLC of Austin, Texas;
  • Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Interpreting Services Inc. (DHIS), of New York and New Jersey;
  • Innovative Communication Services for the Deaf Corp. (ICSD), of Miami Lakes, Florida.; and
  • Deaf Studio 29 of Huntington Beach, California.

Each of the indictments alleges that the defendants made, caused others to make, or processed fraudulent VRS calls that were then submitted to the FCC for reimbursement. These calls, often referred to as “r calls,” “rest calls” or “run calls,” served no purpose other than to generate call minutes that would be billed to the FCC’s VRS Fund.

In the first indictment, Viable Communications Inc. and four Viable executives have been charged with fraudulently generating VRS call minutes and obtaining reimbursements from the FCC for those calls. Viable owner and CEO John Yeh, 62, of Potomac, Maryland; Viable Chief Operating Officer Joseph Yeh, 64, of Potomac; Viable Assistant Vice President Anthony Mowl, 25, of Rockville, Maryland; and Viable Human Relations Director Donald Tropp, 25, of Rockville, have been charged in a six-count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and to submit false claims; submitting false claims; conspiracy to commit mail fraud; and mail fraud.

In the second indictment, Master Communications, KL Communications, and Mascom owners and employees have been charged with generating fraudulent VRS minutes. According to the indictment, these companies operated VRS call centers for Viable that generated and processed a large volume of fraudulent VRS calls, which were then submitted to the FCC’s TRS Fund Administrator for reimbursement. Master Communications, KL Communications and Mascom owner and employee Kim E. Hawkins, 46, of Las Vegas; Master Communications employee and KL Communications owner and employee Larry Berke, 62, of Phoenix; KL Communications employee Dary Berke of Phoenix; KL Communications and Master Communications employee Lisa Goetz, 43, of Phoenix; and Mascom Marketing and Advertising Director David Simmons, 43, of Austin; have been charged in a six-count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and to submit false claims; submitting false claims; conspiracy to commit mail fraud; and mail fraud.

In the third indictment, DHIS owners and employees have been charged with generating and processing a large volume of fraudulent VRS calls. According to the indictment, DHIS operated VRS call centers for Viable that generated and processed fraudulent VRS calls. DHIS co-owners Irma Azrelyant, 47, of Basking Ridge, N.J., and Joshua Finkle, 41, of New York; DHIS video interpreter Natan Zfati, 31, of Brooklyn, New York; DHIS bookkeeper Oksana Strusa, 35, of Jersey City, New Jersey; DHIS video interpreter Alfia Iskandarova, 29, of Brooklyn; and DHIS video interpreter Hennadii Holovkin, 36, of Philadelphia; have been charged in a six-count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and to submit false claims; submitting false claims; conspiracy to commit mail fraud; and mail fraud.

In the fourth indictment, ICSD owners and employees have been charged with generating and processing a large volume of fraudulent VRS calls. According to the indictment, ICSD operated VRS call centers for Viable that generated and processed a large number of fraudulent VRS calls. The indictment also alleges that ICSD owners and employees engaged in sham “marketing calls” for the stated purpose of marketing VRS services, but for the alleged true purpose of fraudulently generating additional VRS minutes. ICSD co-owners Yosbel Buscaron, 25, and Lazaro Fernandez, 35, both of Hialeah, Florida; ICSD call center manager Wanda Hutchinson, 35, of Pembroke Pines, Florida; ICSD call center manager Jessica Bacallo, 23, of Miami; and ICSD marketing manager Kathleen Valle, 23, of Miami; have been charged in a six-count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and to submit false claims; submitting false claims; conspiracy to commit mail fraud; and mail fraud.

In the fifth indictment, defendants Benjamin Pena, Robert Z. Rubeck and Tamara Frankel have been charged with generating fraudulent VRS calls. According to that indictment, Pena was allegedly paid by Viable owner and CEO John Yeh to generate fraudulent VRS minutes. Also according to the indictment, Pena allegedly paid Rubeck and Frankel to make VRS calls for the purpose of generating those fraudulent minutes. Pena, 34, of Scottsdale, Arizona; Rubeck, 34, of Surprise, Arizona; and Frankel, 28, also of Surprise; have been charged in the six-count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and to submit false claims; submitting false claims; conspiracy to commit mail fraud; and mail fraud.

Deaf Studio 29 owners and employees have been charged in a sixth indictment with generating fraudulent VRS calls.  According to the indictment, Marc Velasquez Verson, Ellen Thompson, and Doris Martinez allegedly organized and paid employees to use a particular VRS provider to make run calls. That provider would pay the defendants approximately 20 to 25 percent of the money the provider received from the FCC for the calls generated by the defendants. Velasquez, 56, of Oswego, Oregon; Ellen Thompson, 43, of Lake Oswego, Oregon; and Doris Martinez, 51, also of Oswego; were charged in the six-count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and to submit false claims; submitting false claims; conspiracy to commit wire fraud; and wire fraud.

All of the indictments seek criminal forfeiture from each of the charged defendants.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

These cases are being prosecuted by Assistant Chief Hank Bond Walther and Trial Attorney Brigham Cannon of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, with the investigative assistance of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, USPIS, and FCC-OIG.

YouTube Gets Automatic Subtitles

YouTube, LLC
Image via Wikipedia

YouTube’s parent company Google has announced on its blog that automatic captions are to begin to roll out across the site.

The machine-generated captions will initially be generated in English.
At first they will only be found on 13 channels.

These include National Geographic, Columbia, as well as most Google and YouTube channels.

The software engineer behind the technology, Ken Harrenstien, is deaf.

Currently YouTube offers a manual captioning service but video makers tend not to use it.

“The majority of user-generated video content online is still inaccessible to people like me,” Mr Harrenstien wrote in the Google blog.

His solution combines automatic speech recognition with the current caption system.

The translation is not always perfect (in a demonstration the phrase “sim card” becomes “salmon” in text), but Mr Harrenstien says that the technology “will continue to improve with time”.

Alternatively users can upload a transcript of their video and auto-timing algorithms will match the text to the words as they are spoken.

Vint Cerf, vice president at Google, is widely recognised as a founding father of the internet. He is also hard of hearing and has worn a hearing aid since the age of 13.

“One of the big challenges of the video medium is whether it can be made accessible to everyone,” he told news agency AFP.

Earlier in the week YouTube announced the launch of YouTube Direct, a feed of uploaded amateur videos of newsworthy events such as protests and extreme weather conditions.

It is aimed at the media industry, and editors who subscribe will be able to request the phone numbers of contributors. So far it has been trialled by a select group of radio stations, newspapers and websites in the US.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/8369941.stm

Published: 2009/11/20 10:40:45 GMT

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Supplemental Aids and Services in IDEA

What does federal IDEA law say about Supplementary Aids & Services?

Supplementary Aids & Services are about more than what service a child will be provided. These IEP services can include what adults will do and should be listed on the IEP document.

Here is a description of IDEA’s Supplementary Aids & Services.

Please note: Supplementary Aids and Services are NOT the same as Related Services.

Supplementary aids and services means aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular education classes, other education-related settings, and in extracurricular and nonacademic settings, to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate in accordance with §300.114 through §300.116.” (34 CFR 300.42)

The purpose of providing supplementary aids and services is to support students with disabilities as active partici¬pants with nondisabled peers as well as to enable their access to the general curriculum. To that end, supplementary aids and services include modification to the general curriculum and [a child with a disability is not removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modification in the general curriculum]. (34 CFR 300.116 (e))

There are an infinite number of possible supplementary aids and services to be considered and implemented by Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams.

Court decisions have required school districts to make a concerted and good faith effort to use supplementary aids and services to address behavioral issues in the regular classroom. The provision of positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports is designed to foster increased participation of children with disabilities in regular education environments or other less restrictive environments, not to serve as a basis for placing children with disabilities in more restrictive settings.

It is important that IEP teams contemplate educational placement in the regular education classroom not only as it currently exists, but also as it might be modified through the provision of supplementary aids and services.

Examples of Supplementary Aids and Services

IEP teams may find it helpful to think about supplementary aids and services in four categories:

Collaborative,
Instructional,
Physical,
and Social-Behavioral (Etscheidt & Bartlett, 1999).

Examples include:
Providing instruction on functional skills in the context of the typical routines in the regular classroom;
Changing method of presentation;
Using reader services;
Providing research-based supplementary materials;
Providing instructional adaptations (e.g., preteaching, repeating directions, extra examples and nonexamples);
Furniture arrangement in environments;
Specific seating arrangements;
Individualized desk, chair, etc.;
Adaptive equipment;
Adjustments to sensory input (e.g., light, sound);
Environmental Aids (e.g., classroom acoustics, heating, ventilation); Structural Aids (e.g., wheelchair accessibility, trays, grab bars); Social skills instruction;
Counseling supports;
Peer supports (e.g., facilitating friendships);
Individualized behavior support plans;
Modification of rules and expectations;
Cooperative learning strategies.

Next Page »