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