Fox C-6 Watchdogs: Stark Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7 School Districts!

Fox C-6 Watchdogs: Stark Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7 School Districts!

Stark Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7 School Districts!

I received an email today from a parent in Lee's Summit, Missouri. They found my blog and wanted to discuss with me the similarities between their school district and Fox C-6. Their email said that they already sent information from my blog to the Assistant Attorney General to provide comparison information.

Here is the list of similarities sent to me by a parent in the Lee's Summit R-7 school district.

Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7:

• OCR Resolution Agreement for Not Following Civil Rights Laws
• Cease and Desist Orders Against People Who Question District Actions
• Board Meetings Not Videotaped and Available For Broadcast
• Violations of Board Policies, Federal, State and Local Laws
• Questionable Use of Taxpayers' Funds
• Educator Certification Issues
• Failure By Board To Respond To Patrons' Concerns
• Retaliation Against Anyone Who Questions The Board and Their Actions
• Superintendent Does Not Want Community To Know About Resolution Agreement With OCR.
• Taxpayer Dollars Used To Pay Attorneys to Fight Against Lawsuits When If They Followed The Laws, The Money Could Be Spent On The Education Of District Students
• DESE Passes The Buck Back To Parents To Complain To Board and Nothing Gets Corrected On Behalf of Students
• Community Only Reads All Of The District Generated Positive Public Relations Articles
• District Boasts of Awards They Have Received (Questionable Data To Back Up These Awards.  Would An Award Even Be Justified If The Recipient Stated Up Front That They Are Being Monitored By the Department  of Education Office For Civil Rights For Non-Compliance Of Civil Rights Laws?)

After I read their list of similarities, I had to laugh because of how similar the problems are in Lee's Summit R-7 compared to Fox C-6. You can see that there are quite a few.
They stated in their email that there are many more.

First, you have to understand that many of the school districts in our state are represented by only a few law firms. Many of the attorneys in these firms have worked with or for the same firms before splitting or starting their own firms. Therefore, the same strategies and tactics are employed by nearly all of the districts in the state on legal issues. Plus, there are quite a few books out there as well on dealing with the media as a school district superintendent with useful tips on what and what not to do. It's all about controlling the image and perception of your school district. It's the superintendent's job to make their district look good.

For several years now I have known about issues in other school districts in our state as I researched the issues going on in the Fox district. But, seeing a list from another parent on the other side of the state proves that we have some serious problems with MO DESE and with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (ED OCR) in Kansas City, Missouri. 

U.S. Department of Justice Gets Involved

In speaking recently with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), I learned that the DOJ now has the ability to initiate their own independent investigations when ED OCR refuses to do so. Of course it helped that the USDA OCR Office asked the DOJ for assistance in getting Fox C-6 to comply with the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision. The August 2011 USDA Final Agency Decision found both the Fox C-6 School District and MO DESE non-compliant with Section 504 and the ADA. So, in their efforts to bring the district into compliance if MO DESE doesn't do their job, the DOJ has been asking for documentation for their their case against the school district. We are quite happy to supply them with the information we have. I also asked the DOJ about handling retaliation since that is directly written into the laws and they do cover that as well.

For example, there has been a lot of online libelous and defamatory attacks made against citizens who voice their concerns about our school district in online forums. And, what I find interesting about some of the comments made by these anonymous posters is that they seem to have access to information that only our top administrators would know about like when cease and desist letters were sent out and how someone made a reference about something happening before they were even sent. Could it be a coincidence that these "anonymous" people have access to this information or are they just school supporters guessing? But it's quite obvious that a few people in our school district don't like some of the questions posed at school board meetings by a few citizens in our community.

It's kind of humorous that the Character Education Trait of the month for June at Fox is Perseverance. That's the word that will hopefully be remembered by our school administrators and school board members as to how change is invoked in our community. I have been thanked by many teachers and staff for my efforts on calling out our school district's administration and school board. There are a few others in our community that are not afraid to speak out. They should be thanked as well. Hopefully in the end all of this effort will bring about a positive change within our school district.

It appears that Lee's Summit R-7 has a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR similar to Fox. However, Fox is also still undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review that Lee's Summit has not had yet. Fox's District Wide Compliance Review was initiated in March 2010 by ED OCR and it is still open as well according to a recent Freedom of Information Act request stating that ED OCR couldn't provide any information because the investigation was still ongoing.

I am hoping that providing this information and more to the U.S Department of Justice regarding problems with school districts in our state will lead to changes at MO DESE and ED OCR. ED OCR has allowed Fox C-6 to get by with doing practically nothing towards fulfilling the Resolution Agreement signed by the district in May 2009. You must be wondering why our school board hasn't done something to make sure Fox complies with Federal laws.

USDA Works Towards Enforcement

USDA OCR has been aware of problems in our state since 2008. In fact, in 2008 the USDA specifically came to Missouri to retrain districts after the USDA watched a video presented by attorneys at their annual school law seminar. Fox C-6 did not attend the training. The training was presented to the Food Nutrition Directors in our state. Maybe that's why our former Food Nutrition Director retired. Our district has a new Food Nutrition Services Director who is the daughter in law of one of our school board members. Our new Food Nutrition Director has been given two years to get her degree and certification to do her job since she only had a high school diploma when she was hired into the position with a salary of $65,000. I'm still wondering why Fox refused to meet with the USDA in March 2013 when the USDA came to do a Compliance Review of our district. But, then that was after the August 2012 meetings with the USDA when the district refused to comply with the USDA's Final Agency Decision.

Why would the USDA be more intent on compliance enforcement than ED OCR? I believe it could have something to do with the fact that the USDA's Regional Office is located in Colorado. In contrast, ED OCR's Regional Office is located in Kansas City, Missouri. The Director of the Kansas City ED OCR Office is Angela Bennet. Mrs. Bennet was an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Missouri. William (Bill) Dittmeier is the Chief Attorney for the KC ED OCR Office. Mr. Dittmeier was an attorney that represented the Kansas City School District for years before working at the Kansas City ED OCR Office.

Failings of the Kansas City ED OCR Office

Our experience with the Kansas City ED OCR Office has been quite similar to many others in Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. The KC ED OCR office has many investigations that have been open since 2009. Making Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the KC ED OCR Office are supposed to be handled within 20 days. Some requests have required multiple requests and have taken more than 6 months to get a response from this office. A quick search for Bill Dittmeier and Angela Bennet returned a link to the following document from the KC ED OCR office sent to a parent in Oklahoma. It's just another example of what has been happening in this ED OCR Office.

Oklahoma FOIA Request Response from Kansas City ED OCR Office

We contacted and voiced our concerns with Randolph Wills the U.S. Department of Education Enforcement Director regarding the Kansas City ED OCR Office a couple of years ago. Mr. Wills is the regional Director that oversees the Kansas City ED OCR Office. Mr. Wills responded a couple of years ago when I first contacted him. He informed me that he would look into our concerns and get back with us. Mr. Wills never got back with me and has not returned phone calls or emails left or sent to him since then. Not responding to concerns seems to be the same tactic taken by many school districts in our state take as well. U.S. Senator Roy Blunt's office even attempted to contact the Kansas City ED OCR Office and experienced similar problems. So this is not an isolated incident.

Since the USDA OCR office is not located in Missouri, there seems to be more enforcement efforts as opposed to ED OCR. ED OCR has allowed cases to remain open for years. Once they have a case go into monitoring ED OCR occasionally sends out monitoring letters to let the district know they still have or haven't complied with their Resolution Agreement. Sometimes it may be more than a year between monitoring letter updates.

The question we have sent KC ED OCR several times is, how many years does ED OCR allow a district to fail in fulfilling a Resolution Agreement before they move to enforcement or opening an investigation?

KC ED OCR responds with a standard letter stating that they will let you know when they plan to send out their next monitoring letter. For example, ED OCR informed us last year that they would be sending out a monitoring letter to Fox C-6 in August 2012. When that letter wasn't sent, they informed us it would be sent in November 2012. Then we were informed it would be sent in January 2013. Then we were told it would be March or April of 2013. ED OCR finally sent the monitoring letter on April 25, 2013. This was after the original April date that we were given. Do you see a pattern or problem here with this office?

Not Just A Statewide Problem

It's very disappointing to know that there are other school districts in our state that are doing the same thing as Fox C-6. It is also very disappointing to know that there are problems in other states that are covered by the Kansas City ED OCR Office as well. When asking ED OCR several times to engage the U.S. Department of Justice since it is documented in their Case Processing Manual that they will do so when a school district does not comply, ED OCR informed us that they weren't going to do so. ED OCR said the district had not indicated that they weren't going to comply. One would think that after 4 years of not complying with the Resolution Agreement and being given numerous updated deadlines, that ED OCR would recognize the fact that the Fox C-6 has no intentions of complying.

Now that the DOJ has informed us that regulations have been updated to allow them to initiate their own investigation independent of ED OCR, perhaps we will see improvements in our state and in the Kansas City ED OCR Office.

You Paid For It – Former School Superintendent’s Sweet Deal | FOX2now.com

You Paid For It – Former School Superintendent’s Sweet Deal | FOX2now.com

LADUE, MO (KTVI)  – Several months ago former Ladue Superintendent Marsha Chappelow decided to leave the district in the first year of her three year contract.   She made her leave of absence effective December 1st. But, the Board of Education agreed to pay her through the end of the school year which is June 30th.

 

So she gets her $190,000 salary even though she doesn’t have to come to work.

 

An Assistant Superintendent is taking her place while the School Board searches for a replacement.

 

You Paid For It Investigator Elliott Davis questioned the head of the Board Jayne Langsam who said the School Board did “What was in the best interest of the District”

You Paid For It – Rockwood School’s Expensive Contract Extension | FOX2now.com

You Paid For It – Rockwood School’s Expensive Contract Extension | FOX2now.com

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) -  Why did the Rockwood School Board extend Superintendent Bruce Borchers contract when they knew a scathing State Audit was about to the released?  We caught up with School Board Vice President Matt Doell to ask him about it.  He says their contract with Borchers calls for them to vote on an extension in February of each year. He did admit that the Board could have changed the policy to allow it more time to consider the contract extension.
The vote on extending the agreement with Borchers was 4-3. Borchers gets $256,000 that includes his $234,000 salary plus benefits.
There’s an election in April that could change the make-up of the board.  If there’s a change in majority then they’ll have to deal with that.
Matt Doell admitts board members knew what was contained in the audit before voting for the contract extension but did it anyway.

You Paid For It: First Graders View Pornography In Ritenour iPod | FOX2now.com

You Paid For It: First Graders View Pornography In Ritenour iPod | FOX2now.com

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO. (KTVI) – A shocking case at the Ritenour School District in Mid-County.
Two first grade girls were able to view pornography in the classroom on the iPod handed out by the teacher during class.
The two 6 year old girls were suspended, but the parents called me to look into this deal.
They say it’s the School Districts fault for not having an effective filtering system to keep kids, especially first graders from even being able to access pornography on school equipment. They say if the School is going to give out the devices, safeguards should be in place.
I talked to Ritenour’s Superintendent who says they’re taking steps to try to keep this from happening in the future. He admits the filters were ineffective.
I called some other school Districts.
One I called, the Francis Howell School District blocks all the access to sites like YouTube. They even block Facebook.
I talked to the Superintendent who said they just didn’t want to take any chances on kids getting to inappropriate material on the web. They say they even block the sites from teachers.
Ritenour says it’s doing a thorough review of its system

You Paid For It: Should High School Grads Get 2 Diplomas? | FOX2now.com

You Paid For It: Should High School Grads Get 2 Diplomas? | FOX2now.com

WENTZVILLE, MO. (KTVI) – State Representative Bryan Spencer from Wentzville says high schoolers should get two diplomas to graduate from high school instead of one. One diploma would be sort of a certificate saying the child attended high school. The second “academic” diploma would signify that the child actually learned something.
The academic diploma would be based entirely on the student passing four tests:  Math, Science, English, and Social Science. Failing the tests would mean the student wouldn’t qualify for an academic diploma.
St. Charles School Superintendent Jeff Marion is one of those with doubts about this.  He says it throws out all that a student accomplished over four years.  Then pins the student’s future on passing four tests.  This is something he believes would cause extreme anxiety on stressed students.
Representative Spencer insists it would just get kids ready for the real world. He insists you already have to take tests for many things in life to show you know what you’re doing, why not for high school graduation.
Rep. Spencer is running into a lot of opposition to his idea.  The bill did not get passed in this legislative session.   He says he’s entertaining the idea of modifying it to give it a better chance of passage next session.
If idea does become law then high school would get a lot harder for a lot of teachers and students. Many students may drop out because they would end up with a meaningless certificate after four years of work.
Remember if you spot questionable government spending make sure you call our hotline
800-846-KTVI or go to our website fox2now.com.
Or send me a message on Facebook or Twitter and I’ll investigate.
After all, You Paid For It.

You Paid For It: Normandy School District’s San Diego Trips | FOX2now.com

You Paid For It: Normandy School District’s San Diego Trips | FOX2now.com

NORTH ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO. (KTVI) – You Paid For It investigating a costly deal in the troubled Normandy School District where district officials spend more than $700,000 to get tips from San Diego State University to turn around the Normandy School District.
The district has been contracting with San Diego State since 2009 and has renewed the contract each year for Leadership Training.
They sent senior administrators and principals to the California college.
Taxpayers spent a total of $735,500 since 2009.  During the time it was getting the California tips the Normandy School District lost accreditation
Officials were scrambling when Investigator Elliott Davis showed up to question the School Board about this deal.

Duncan to Allow Waiver States Flexibility in Teacher Evaluation

Duncan to Allow Waiver States Flexibility in Teacher Evaluation

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will call today for a new process allowing states that have gotten waivers from parts of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act some flexibility in using student achievement to evaluate teachers, sources say.
Teacher evaluation based in part on student outcomes (i.e. test scores) has been the most difficult piece of the waiver framework. And it's become even more complicated as states begin to embrace the Common Core State Standards, which mean new, higher expectations for students.
The tests that are being developed by two state consortia to go along with those standards won't be ready until the 2014-15 school year. In the meantime, many states are using their own common-core-aligned tests.
Specifically, Duncan is planning to allow waiver states to make the case that they need an additional year to factor student achievement into personnel decisions. That will give states time to put the common core in place.
The announcement comes after the American Federation of Teachers called earlier this year for a moratorium on high stakes testing until states have had time to implement the standards and new tests. And the Council of Chief State School Officers has also called for additional flexibility as states roll out the common core.
More details are expected this afternoon. Watch this space.

Tom Watkins: Restraint needed on restraints | Battle Creek Enquirer | battlecreekenquirer.com

Tom Watkins: Restraint needed on restraints | Battle Creek Enquirer | battlecreekenquirer.com

It hurts to be tied up and left alone.

Today, in a Michigan school and in schools across America, children are being placed in physical restraints and inhumane seclusion.

These so called “treatment options” are degrading, barbaric, inappropriate, unnecessary, counter-therapeutic, harmful, and in the extreme, result in serious injury and even death. They should stop.

What makes this insidious behavior difficult to detect is that it is often out of sight of public view and, perversely, often sanctioned by parents, guardians, and credentialed professionals as a proper therapeutic technique meant to control or modify behavior. It is nearly always abusive, traumatic, and unnecessary.

While some school districts do not use it at all, it is abused in others, and there is no central state reporting mechanism to know for sure.

In Michigan, in the second decade of the 21st century, there are no policies or laws to stop it.

There is a need to make the general public and policymakers aware that these practices are still being carried out in far too many neighborhood public schools. But more important than simple awareness is the need to demonstrate it does not need to take place. People working with persons who have intellectual and developmental disabilities need training in the proper techniques for preventing the issues from escalating to a perceived need for such interventions.

There are examples of students being secluded and restrained in schools staffed with highly degreed professionals, yet this type of “intervention” is deemed unnecessary in that same person’s group home which is staffed with trained, high school educated para-professionals.

The first step in problem-solving is problem identification, particularly in the case of seclusion and restraint. Before even identifying the problem, parents, policy and lawmakers need to be convinced that this is a problem!

These same sanctioned behaviors taking place in some schools today, when done by parents in their own homes, would also constitute abuse.

Page

Fox C-6 Watchdogs: Fox C-6 and MO DESE Undergo USDA Compliance Review

Fox C-6 Watchdogs: Fox C-6 and MO DESE Undergo USDA Compliance Review

Fox and MO DESE Found To Be Non-Compliant

How did Fox being found to be Non-Compliant by the USDA cause the state of Missouri to be Non-Compliant? According to the USDA's Final Agency Decision, the Fox C-6 School District signs an assurance agreement each year with MO DESE. Each year MO DESE signs an assurance agreement with the USDA stating that it will ensure that our state's school districts will abide by the Guidelines, Regulations and laws that the USDA is charged with enforcing when participating in the USDA's National School Lunch program. Since MO DESE is responsible for ensuring that school districts in the state follow the USDA's Guidelines and Regulations, and the laws it covers, and Fox was found to be Non-Compliant, the entire state of Missouri was found to be Non-Compliant.

U.S. Department of Justice Gets Involved

In order for all of this to occur, the USDA had to work with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to pursue enforcement action against our school and our state. The USDA has a Case Processing Manual that is a step by step guide that they must follow before they can come into the state and then to the district to enforce the law. But, once the USDA found the state to be non-compliant, it has the ability to withhold federal reimbursement for the entire state of Missouri's National School Lunch program. This covers Free and Reduced lunches as well as the standard reimbursement for a regular pay school lunch. Based upon the number of lunches reported by Missouri DESE and the USDA's reimbursement formula, this would amount to over $1,000,000 dollars per day that the USDA could withhold from the state of Missouri due to the Fox C-6 School District not complying with the USDA's Guidelines and Regulations and not following Section 504 Law, the ADA and ADAAA.  The USDA prefers voluntary compliance as opposed to withholding federal funds.

Rest assured, our school district didn't like the decision that the USDA handed down. The school district attorneys spent a good amount of time in filing an appeal as well as conducting conference calls with the USDA. Our school district attorneys even made Freedom of Information Act requesting any and all correspondence between us and the USDA. Everything I sent to the USDA was statement of fact and documentation from meetings and or documents that I found online at MO DESE, school attorney presentations and emails from the district and attorneys. This is when our school district learned that I had supplied the USDA with an audio recording of our December 7, 2009 Section 504 meeting and a transcript of that meeting. Why did I record the meeting? Because I had learned in an August 2008 Section 504 meeting that statements made and documented in our meetings with the school and documented by school weren't accurate or misrepresented the facts. Since it was our word against theirs, I needed proof as to what was said and occurred during those meetings.

District Attorneys Lying To Federal Attorneys?

For example, following a May 2009 504 meeting, the school district attorney at the time made false statements to the Kansas City US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (ED OCR) attorney about statements I informed ED OCR he had made during the meeting.  During that meeting, the district attorney stated that "episodic and in remission only applied to people with cancer" in reference to the new ADAAA. I told the district attorney during the meeting that this is not what the new law said. He told me that yes it was because he had "just read it in the congressional findings the day before". He then told me that we weren't here to debate the new law. I told ED OCR that he was trying to teach the team that the new law didn't apply to our case, which was not true.

In discussing my concerns with the ED OCR attorney about what the district attorney said during the meeting, she told me that she was sure that he wouldn't have said that. She said she would call him and ask him if he said that. She called him and emailed me back. In her email, she informed me that the district attorney told her that he never said that. I said thanks for checking and then I emailed her a copy of my audio recording of the meeting as proof that he did in fact make those statements during the meeting!

The Federal Law On Lying

Why would a school district attorney be willing to lie to a federal attorney when there are laws that carry big penalties for doing so? Could it be that he thought he wouldn't get caught because what happens behind closed doors in 504 meetings stays behind closed doors? You know there is a problem with how your district is handling things when district attorneys lie to ED OCR federal attorneys and the ED OCR attorneys brush it off. The law that I am referring to is United States Code (USC) 18 Section 1001. It is known as the Federal Law on Lying. It's the same law that was used to put Martha Stewart in jail. It should be noted that a person does not have to be under oath when making false statements in order for it to be a crime. The person doesn't even have to make the false statement directly to the federal employee or agent. For instance, let's say that a school district official makes false statements or falsifies documentation to MO DESE during an investigation. Now, let's say that the results of that MO DESE investigation are then turned over to a federal agency such as ED OCR. Those false statements or falsified documentation would violate this law. Under this statute, it is a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false statement concerning any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Department of Education and the US Department of Agriculture fall under this jurisdiction. The penalties for violating this law are up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine per count and the statute of limitations under this law is 5 years.

Here is a great article covering USC 18 Section 1001:

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/businesspersons-beware-lying-is-a-crime/

So, it appears that this is how things have been done for years by our school district. If it weren't for my audio recordings it would have been my word against the school's word. Since there is no school board policy at Fox C-6 that prohibited the audio recording of 504 meetings at that time and there still isn't. I started recording our 504 meetings. There is a policy that prevents someone from recording IEP meetings unless you request permission prior to the meeting to do so. NOTE: The new school board policies that our school board has been reviewing since March of 2012 and are still working to adopt includes a new policy that will prohibit audio recording 504 meetings just like IEP meetings. I wonder what prompted our school district to add this to their policies?  

After all of the false statements I had heard during our 504 meetings, I began recording the meetings as a way of documenting what was going on so I could review them later and make notes as to what they were trying to pull. I was not as knowledgeable in Section 504 law back then. For parents that don't do this on a daily or regular basis, the district can easily walk all over you. They will tell you things that aren't true hoping that you don't catch them in their lies so they don't have to do things that they are required to do but may not want to do. It still begs the question as to why attorneys were brought into this entire process in the first place. But, I am guess that it was because we got up to speed on the laws very quickly and were able to go toe to toe with their attorneys so well that they had to resort to misrepresenting the facts.

School Districts Get To Choose Due Process Hearing Officers

I am guessing that our school district attorneys kept assuring our superintendent that they would win this case. They were able to pull off a win in a Due Process Hearing when the school district hired a former law associate of the school district attorney to act as a Due Process Hearing Officer. We handled our side of the case pro se. Every attorney we spoke with told us we would be wasting our money if we hired an attorney because the school district had already rendered their decision. The Due Process Hearing was simply a formality. According to our school district's Procedural Safeguards, the school district gets to choose the Due Process Hearing Officer. It just happened that the district chose an attorney that used to work closely for years with the district attorney representing school districts in other law firms. In fact the two of them even spoke at a 2007 Missouri Speech and Hearing Conference on "How To Testify In Due Process Hearings". So, you can probably see that chances are pretty slim that any due process hearing with the school district will be "fair and impartial". In fact, within a few seconds of getting the name from the school district as to who the Due Process Hearing Officer would be, I was able to find his name on several court cases with the district attorney representing school districts against parents when they worked together in other law firms.

When we talked about backing out of Due Process (we had no chance of getting a fair hearing), the school district informed us that they would exercise their right to file a Due Process Hearing against us because they wanted to get this decision finalized once and for all. Once the district attorney got the decision she wanted, she put it into her presentations that she made across the state. The USDA reviewed the school district's Due Process Hearing decision and gave it very little credibility. So, even though the district attorney was able to get the decision she wanted, the USDA found that the hearing officer did not properly apply the law and that is why they are stepping in. ED OCR didn't step in at all. I will go into my theories as to why in another article. It has something to do with the fact that the lead attorney for ED OCR in the Kansas City OCR office is a former Missouri School District attorney. We have a long list of excuses as to why ED OCR can't seem to enforce the law after nearly 5 years of handling our case.

Our Superintendent Did Inform the School Board

The district filed an appeal to the USDA Final Agency Decision which Mr. Dan Baker was so proud to tell me about after the December 2011 school board meeting when I asked him if the administration had ever informed the school board about the ruling. I told Mr. Baker and Dianne (Brown at the time) that the board members I had spoken to didn't know anything about the USDA ruling. Dianne informed me that she had sent an email to the board. She sent me a copy of the email that she sent the board dated August 24, 2011 the next day as proof that she informed them. She sent it to me on December 14, 2011. This is how she described the USDA Final Agency Decision to the school board in her email:

Good morning, 

I received this 12 page document from our attorney regarding the Simspon case. I am sending it to you and will provide a copy in your backup materials in case you can't open the document. In summation, it is a long letter from USDA and their OCR. Terry (attorney) has noticed many inaccuracies in the document. 

However, I am just reminding everyone that since this is pending litigation. We cannot talk to the Simspons about the case. Per our attorney, please ask them if you are notified to contact myself or the district's attorney. 

Thank you!
Dianne

Did the School Board Read the "long letter" From the USDA?

I know that Ruth Ann Newman wasn't aware of the "long letter". Dan Smith didn't recall seeing the "long letter" when I asked him if he had after the December 2011 school board meeting. He also wasn't aware of it when another friend of mine had asked him about it prior to the board meeting. However, he did recall seeing it when Dianne Critchlow walked up and told him that he had. It was quite humorous to see Dan's recall improve when he was told that he had seen it because Dianne had emailed it to everyone on the board. The question is, did anyone read it? I'm guessing that they didn't.

Since Dianne reminded him that he had seen it and that I was wrong to assume that the board members were unaware of the letter since I had asked them and they didn't know anything about, she pointed out in her email to me in her normal arrogant attitude that, "Your statement last evening that the Board of Education was not informed is false and inaccurate." Thank you Dianne for correcting me! My mistake. She had informed the school board in an email about the USDA ruling. Our superintendent didn't seem too concerned with the fact that our school district and the entire state of Missouri had been found Non-Compliant by the USDA at the time. She also had trouble spelling my last name in her email. At least she was consistent. I guess that's OK because the USDA had trouble spelling the school name in their document which was one of the inaccuracies that the district attorney noticed. It is very important note that the school district was eventually informed that there was no appeal because it was a Final Agency Decision. That's why they are now conducting a Compliance Review of our district and MO DESE.

Fox's new Food Nutrition Services Director (school board president Linda Nash's daughter-in-law) is going to get thrown into the frying pan or get grilled this week when she gets to meet with the USDA and the Office of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR). Wow! All of this effort because our school district didn't want to fill out some paperwork like other school district do. Also, I guess our superintendent didn't like getting caught doing something wrong. That's why the district pays the attorneys to make things "look" proper. Well, that's at least what they want you to think. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this Compliance Review brings given the fact that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is now involved and given the fact that attorneys from the DOJ recently contacted us.

Camdenton School Could Take Financial Hit Over MAP Cheating Allegations

Camdenton School Could Take Financial Hit Over MAP Cheating Allegations

By: Lindsay Clein

Updated: June 19, 2013

 

CAMDENTON, Mo. -- Staff members are on leave at a school after allegations that they may have signaled answers to students on a test.
The Missouri Assessment Program, also known as "MAP," is a standardized test that evaluates students in communication arts, mathematics and science.
The testing violations were reported at Camdenton Middle School. The District Testing Coordinator launched the investigation after reports were received about a month ago.
Right now, these reports are strictly allegations, but district leaders felt they had enough merit to notify the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
"We received reports of possible violations of testing protocol," says Camdenton Schools Superintendent Tim Hadfield. "Which could've included isolated events of signaling to students regarding answers and scheduling violations that testing schedules weren't followed."
While no truth to the cheating has been proven at this time, it's something the district won't stand for.
"It causes you to pause as a district and we want to do it right," Hadfield says. "We need to do our due diligence and are dealing with allegations, not facts, and want to do what we have to do to get to the bottom of things."
The MAP test is made up of multiple choice, machine-scored items and constructed response items. Camdenton Middle School has a history of high scores.
"As a district, we've attained the state's highest level of accreditation every year possible under the Missouri School Improvement Program," Hadfield says.
If these allegations prove to be true, the school could lose some funding.
"We don't know how DESE will respond to the investigation," Hadfield says. "Accreditation of course is tied to our performance and part of that is how we would score on the MAP exam.  So if tests are invalidated and the allegations are proven, that could have an impact on that."
Around 650 students attend Camdenton Middle School and we spoke to some of their parents.
"I don't believe that," says Anita Rucker. "I have children there and they do help, but they don't give the answers. The kids are too stressed and you can tell that by the time they come home from MAP testing all week. I just think someone is trying to keep the school from getting the financing they need."
The parents we spoke to say if the allegations prove to be true, they'll be shocked.
"We need to continue the investigation," Hadfield says. "And look into the validity of the allegations."
The parents we spoke to say teachers are in the room proctoring these tests and that they're allowed to help kids understand the problems.
The superintendent tells us there have been concerns on the MAP test investigated in the past, but no merit was found to those.

LIST OF SCHOOLS WITH OVERUSE OF RESTRAINTS

LIST OF SCHOOLS WITH OVERUSE OF RESTRAINTS

Missouri

1. Underwood Elementary School, Lee’s Summit R-7 School District, Lee’s Summit, MO (Seclusion: Child kept in closet for most of a month) 

Setting Special Education Plan Without Parent Input Violates IDEA, Court Rules

Education Week

Call it the case of the hard-to-schedule meeting with a parent that may cost a school system some $28,000 in private school tuition. 

A federal appeals court has ruled that a school district's failure to include the parent of a special education student in an individualized education plan meeting that changed the student's school placement was a denial of a free, appropriate public education under federal law. 

The father of an 18-year-old Hawaii student with autism wanted to be included in the IEP meeting for his son. But after one rescheduling and some inflexibility on the part of the Hawaii Department of Education (the state's singular public school district), members of the student's IEP team went ahead with the meeting without the father. They also changed the student's placement from a private special education school to a workplace-readiness program at a public high school. 

The school system said in court papers that it had tried to work with the parent to come up with an agreeable date and its participants had busy schedules and it faced a deadline before the student's existing IEP lapsed. 

The father, identified in court papers as Doug C., was sick on the day in November 2010 of a much-rescheduled IEP meeting. He declined district officials' suggestions that he participate by phone or the Internet, saying he wanted to be there in person. 

After the IEP team went ahead without him, and changed the son's school placement, the father rejected the new IEP and sought a due-process review. He also kept his son in the private school, the Horizons Academy of Maui, and sought tuition reimbursement. 

Both a hearing officer and a federal district court ruled for the school system, saying that not including the father in the IEP meeting did not deny his son a free, appropriate education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

In its June 13 decision in George C. v. Hawaii Department of Education, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, unanimously reversed those lower rulings. 

"Echoing the Supreme Court, we have held that parental participation safeguards are among the most important procedural safeguards in the IDEA and that procedural violations that interfere with parental participation in the IEP formulation process undermine the very essence of the IDEA," the 9th Circuit court said. 

"The fact that it may have been frustrating to schedule meetings with or difficult to work with Doug C. (as the department repeatedly suggests) does not excuse the department's failure to include him in [the son's] IEP meeting when he expressed a willingness to participate," the court added. "We have consistently held that an agency cannot eschew its affirmative duties under the IDEA by blaming the parents." 

The appeals court stopped short of granting tuition reimbursement to George C.'s over his decision to keep his son at Horizons Academy. (It's not clear whether only one year of tuition is at issue, or the exact amount, but according to the academy's website, base annual tuition is $28,000.) The appeals court left it up to the district court to decide whether Hawaii would have to reimburse the tuition under applicable precedents. 

School ignores advice from learning disability experts - Class Struggle - The Washington Post

School ignores advice from learning disability experts - Class Struggle - The Washington Post

School ignores advice from learning disability experts

By Jay Mathews E-mail the writers

Stacie Brockman is the Prince George’s County mother of lively twin 9-year-old boys. Her sons were born two months premature. She has done everything possible to deal with the disabilities that often impede the progress of such children.

She took them to the developmental pediatricians at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore, one of the top U.S. providers of care for children with learning disabilities. They gave the boys many tests. They diagnosed mixed expressive/receptive language disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dysgraphia (a writing disability) and dyslexia (a reading disability).

The doctors told Brockman that her sons need to be in small classes with research-based reading instruction and intensive math and language remediation. As the law requires, administrators at Potomac Landing Elementary School set up an individualized education program (IEP) team, which meets with Brockman.

As sometimes happens, these meetings have not gone well, Brockman said. Learning disability issues appear to be one of the greatest sources of friction between parents and schools. Brockman’s account reveals how clumsy educators can be in communicating to parents what they are doing with their children, and why.

Both boys have IEPs, Brockman said in an e-mail, but the team chairperson dismissed some Kennedy Krieger assessments, “saying that all of KKI’s reports say the kids are dysgraphic and dyslexic, thus suggesting that the reports have little or no validity.”

“Although the state assessments given to the boys throughout the year show that they remain below grade level in reading and math, the IEP team feels they are making progress based on their observation of my sons in the classroom,” Brockman said. “They say this even as they inform me one son has dropped even lower since the beginning of the year and is now ‘at-risk.’ ”

“Yet when I received their third quarter report cards, the boys are doing fine — they received all passing grades! I was amazed, and disappointed because I know my sons aren’t prepared. The school is moving them forward to the fourth grade, although my children are unable to add or subtract three digit numbers, let alone know how to multiply and divide. I work with them daily but they are unable to comprehend more than two paragraphs of reading.”

She asked: “How are they to be successful in fourth grade when the teachers refuse to even admit that a learning problem exists?”

It is a good question. A. Duane Arbogast, Prince George’s deputy superintendent of academics, said he could not comment on specifics because of privacy rules, but he emphasized that county educators are supposed to take public and private assessments into consideration, including information from Kennedy Krieger. Learning disabilities are complex, Arbogast said, and teams must weigh all available sources of information.

There’s no excuse for telling a mother that some of the nation’s leading diagnosticians of learning disabilities don’t know what they are talking about. If teachers think the Brockman twins have made enough progress to be promoted to fourth grade, that’s useful information. But it seems the school could have done a better job of explaining how that, and the cheery report card, fit with one twin dropping to at-risk status. Arbogast agreed that IEP meetings require “very careful communications and relationship building.”

The mixed messages have left Brockman thinking that school officials are unable or unwilling to have a candid conversation about her sons. That’s not good. They should create a new IEP team led by someone who knows how to talk clearly and kindly to parents so they can be part of the team, too.

Feds Allege Transition Program Amounted To Sweatshop - Disability Scoop

Feds Allege Transition Program Amounted To Sweatshop - Disability Scoop

The U.S. Department of Justice is cracking down after an investigation found that students with disabilities were unnecessarily segregated and forced to work for little or no pay for years in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In a 17-page letter sent to local officials in Providence, R.I. this month, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said that students with developmental disabilities were paid 50 cents to $2 per hour, and in some cases nothing at all, to do tasks like bagging, labeling, collating and assembling jewelry. They did the tasks as part of a sheltered workshop while participating in a vocational program at Mount Pleasant High School.

Records for the workshop were poor and wages did not correlate to the jobs students performed or how productive they were, federal investigators found. In addition to school days, the workshop sometimes operated on weekends and at least one student said she was required to spend all day there at times in order to meet production deadlines.

Meanwhile, students were not offered opportunities to try competitive employment placements even when they requested to do so. And, once the students left high school, they were then funneled to segregated, sheltered workshops, the Justice Department found.

Nearly all high school-age students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the Providence Public School District are part of the vocational program, federal officials indicated.

The report said that the city “planned, structured, administered and funded its transition service in a manner that imposes a serious risk of unnecessary segregation” in violation of the ADA. Moreover, the investigation found that the city developed and maintained a “direct pipeline” to a third-party provider of sheltered workshops and facility-based day services where students were directed once they finished school.

Providence Mayor Angel Taveras told the local television station WPRI that he was not familiar with the sheltered workshop until learning about the federal investigation earlier this year. He called the Justice Department findings “outrageous,” adding that the students “deserve better.”

The sheltered workshop has been shut down as a result of the investigation and under a settlement reached with the city and state, federal officials said Thursday that individuals who were directed to segregated placements after attending the vocational program will now be provided with supported employment services to “find, get, keep and succeed in real jobs with real wages.” Current students will be provided transition services with internships, trial work experiences and other offerings so that they can ultimately move into community-based jobs when they leave school.

Under the agreement, individuals with disabilities will work in supported employment for at least 20 hours per week, on average. When they are not working, they will be provided access to integrated, community-based recreational, social, educational, cultural and athletic activities, federal officials said.

The plan calls for those with disabilities to be supported with a 40-hour work week, according to Eve Hill, senior counselor to the assistant attorney general for civil rights. The agreement is the first between the Justice Department and any public entity to ensure what Hill called a “full-time integration” standard.

“For far too long, people with disabilities who can and want to work and engage in all aspects of community life have been underestimated by public service systems that have had limited or no expectations for them. Under this agreement, things are now changing,” Hill said.

Share Your Story | Stop Hurting Kids

Share Your Story | Stop Hurting Kids

Share Your Story

Personal stories have a tremendous impact on raising awareness and gaining allies in the movement to end restraint and seclusion. If you or a loved one have experienced restraint and seclusion in school, and would like to share your experience, please use the form below. Your personal story will help shed light on this issue and ultimately end restraint and seclusion abuse in schools

IDEA and Kids with Special Dietary Needs

IDEA and Kids with Special Dietary Needs

IDEA and Kids with Special Dietary Needs

04/19/10
by Wrightslaw

Our doctor has recommended that my daughter, on an IEP, be gluten and dairy free.  The school is giving me a hard time, though I know they are providing a special lunch for at least one other student.

You’ll need to do some research (and so did we).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) nondiscrimination regulation (7 CFR 15b), as well as the regulations governing the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, make it clear that substitutions to the regular school meal must be made for children who are unable to eat school meals because of their disabilities.

These regulations require substitutions or modifications in school meals for children whose disabilities restrict their diets.

USDA has a Guidance Manual “Accommodating Children with Special Dietary Needs in the School Nutrition Programs”.  It explains the school food service role in providing meals to students with special dietary needs. The Guidance Manual can be found at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Guidance/acccommodating_children.doc

Nutrition Services under an IEP

The guidance addresses IDEA 2004 and the ADA and makes it clear that if a student has a documented disability that restricts their diet, the school food service department must make the substitutions as listed by a licensed physician on a medical statement form.

The physician’s statement must identify:

• the child’s disability
• an explanation of why the disability restricts the child’s diet
• the major life activity affected by the disability
• the food or foods to be omitted from the child’s diet, and the food or choice of foods that must be substituted

If your child’s IEP includes a nutrition component, the school is required to offer special meals, at no additional cost, if your child’s disability restricts her diet. When nutrition services are required under a child’s IEP, school officials need to make sure that school food service staff is involved early on in decisions regarding special meals.  It would be wise to include food service staff on the IEP Team.

Nutrition Services under a Health Care Plan

Some states supplement the IEP with a written statement specifically designed to address a student’s nutritional needs. Other states employ a “Health Care Plan” to address the nutritional needs of their students.

Nutrition Services in Cases of Food Allergies

If you request food substitutions for your child who does not have a documented disability (as defined under either Section 504 or IDEA), the school food service department may make the substitutions listed on the medical statement, but is not required to, make food substitutions for her.

However, when a doctor states that  food allergies may result in severe, life-threatening (anaphylactic) reactions, the child’s condition would meet the definition of “disability,” then the substitutions prescribed by the licensed physician must be made.

Under no circumstances are school food service staff to revise or change a diet prescription or medical order.

If your child has “life threatening” food allergies that are part of his disability you should read When a School Refuses to Protect a Child with Life Threatening Allergies at http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/?p=58

Other Special Dietary Needs

USDA Guidelines define a person with special dietary needs as someone who” may have a food allergy or intolerance (for example, lactose intolerance) but does not have life-threatening (anaphylactic) reactions when exposed to food(s) to which he/she is allergic.”

At the very least, the  Guidelines strongly encourage “food substitutions or modifications for children without disabilities with medically certified special dietary needs who are unable to eat  regular meals as prepared.”

State Regulations

Be sure to check your state regulations as well as your local district policy regarding  school nutrition programs.

USDA Guidance and Resources

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/guidance/default.htm

- See more at: http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/?p=2831#sthash.iple1asO.dpuf

When a School Refuses to Protect a Child with Life-threatening Allergies …

When a School Refuses to Protect a Child with Life-threatening Allergies …

The child’s doctor wrote,

“… the Student is extremely allergic to peanuts and tree nuts. These allergies can cause anaphylaxis, which is a life threatening condition. Symptoms from anaphylaxis include itching, hives, difficulty breathing, swelling, closure of the airway, vomiting, diarrhea, drop in blood pressure, and can even result in death, as evidenced by the 500 people per year in the United States who die from allergic reactions to food.”

“The Student’s reactions are so severe that she has developed hives from being kissed on the cheek by someone who ate peanut butter. She has reacted after handling peanut butter cookie dough, even though she didn’t ingest it. She has also reacted after eating cheese from a salad bowl that previously contained a dressing with walnuts in it. I’m sure you are aware of the recent incident involving a Canadian girl with a peanut allergy who died from anaphylaxis after kissing her boyfriend who had eaten peanut butter earlier in the day. Thus, it is important to take these potential reactions seriously.”

Can you imagine the anxiety this child and her family live with, day after day, year after year? Surely, the teachers and administrators at her school will do whatever they can to help.

History

The family requested that the school develop a Section 504 plan to address the child’s allergy related needs and ensure a safe educational environment for her. The laws require that information from all sources is documented and carefully considered when evaluating students to determine their eligibility.

At this child’s eligibility meeting, six school team members – the school principal, the Section 504 chairperson (also the assistant principal), the school counselor, the school nurse, the child’s teacher, and a paraprofessional who worked in the classroom – determined that the child did not have a disability and was not eligible for services and protections under Section 504.

A complaint was filed with the Office of Civil Rights alleging that Gloucester County VA Public Schools discriminated against the child on the basis of her disabilities, denied her a free and appropriate public education that addressed her needs, and failed to ensure a safe educational environment.

“Extraordinary Circumstances” Allow OCR to Investigate

Although the Office of Civil Rights does not usually review individual educational decisions, they may investigate under “extraordinary circumstances.” In the Gloucester County VA Public Schools case, they looked at:

“… the nature and severity of the harm that could result from the school division’s failure to provide a student with a disability with Section 504 services. When a school division’s decision that a student is ineligible for Section 504 services could result in the death or serious illness of the student, there is a basis for finding that the case involves ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that support a substantive OCR review of the decision.”

The Evidence

OCR reviewed the correspondence from the child’s doctor describing the severity of her condition, information that was provided to Gloucester County Public Schools but ignored by the school. OCR expressed concerns that:

“… the evidence from the Student’s doctor was not contradicted by any other evidence, and that neither the evaluation team members nor anyone with whom they consulted had qualifications approaching those of the Student’s doctor to diagnose the nature and severity of the Student’s PTA and the likelihood, nature and severity of the harm that could result from the Division’s failure to find the Student eligible for Section 504 services.”

OCR found that Gloucester County Public Schools had their own documentation of the child’s allergies, including:

• meeting minutes that describe the child has having “a life threatening food allergy” that were signed by signed by six school staff members

• the child’s “Individualized Health Care Plan” which described the child has having “a severe allergy to peanuts/treenuts which can be life-threatening” signed by two staff members

The Findings

Based on the evidence, “we find that the Division’s decision that the Student is ineligible for Section 504 services could result in death or serious illness of the student, and that this case therefore involves ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that support a substantive OCR review of the result of that decision.”

The Resolution

As a result of this investigation, Gloucester County Public Schools signed a Agreement to reevaluate the Student to determine if she is eligible for services under Section 504 and Title II, and will comply with 504 procedures this time. OCR provided Gloucester County Public Schools with several sample 504 Plans.

The resolution letter concludes with this statement:

“We remind the Division that it may not harass, intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by the laws OCR enforces. If any individual is harassed or intimidated because of filing a complaint or participating in any aspect of OCR case resolution, the individual may file a complaint alleging such treatment.”

Read the full text of the Resolution/Closure Letter from OCR to the attorney representing Gloucester County Public Schools:

http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/504/OCR.va.peanut.pdf

Gloucester County Public Schools is fortunate that OCR intervened. If this child, or another child, had a fatal allergic reaction after the school team refused to accommodate her well-documented allergic condition, they would be in very hot water. Consider the probability that a fatal allergic reaction would be witnessed by her classmates.

If you have a child with a peanut and tree allergy (PTA), you may need to educate your school district about the severity and unpredictable nature of these allergies. This OCR Resolution letter should help your district understand their legal responsibilities under Section 504. Learn more about Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/sec504.index.htm

How to File a Discrimination Complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (in English)

Cómo presentar una denuncia por discriminación ante la Oficina de Derechos Civiles

- See more at: http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/?p=58#sthash.M7IkKEMG.dpuf