By Tania E. Lopez
Posted: March 17, 2009
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090317/LOCAL0102/903170311/1015/LOCAL01
The parents of a former Hamilton Southeastern special education student -- who they claim was denied access to additional kindergarten sessions as doctors recommended --have taken their fight to federal court.
On Feb. 11, the Indiana Board of Special Education Appeals upheld the decision of an independent hearing officer who ruled Hamilton Southeastern Schools and the Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services Cooperative did not have to provide 6-year-old Michael Berns with two half-day sessions of kindergarten a day, as three doctors recommended.
His parents, Amy and Damian Berns, filed the complaint March 12 in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. According to court documents, the family requested the special services after a heavy cabinet fell on Michael's head when he was at his grandparents' house in October 2007. He was identified as a student in need of special education the following April.
Armed with the doctors' recommendations, the Bernses asked for Michael to attend a morning kindergarten session and a duplicate afternoon session to reaffirm the lessons and help offset memory loss caused by the traumatic brain injury.
The district did not agree with the doctors, court documents show.
Instead, Fishers-based HSE developed an individualized education plan for Michael and would not enroll him in both sessions of kindergarten.
The Bernses requested mediation; the district declined.
The family then went through an unsuccessful case conference followed by the state's due process hearing, where the hearing officer sided with the school, despite the officer finding procedural errors committed by the school and the Carmel-based cooperative.
In federal filing, the Bernses charge Michael as a child with a disability was denied his right to a "free and appropriate public education" as guaranteed by the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and they are seeking reimbursement for the private education they got Michael after the district denied their requests.
HSE will have about 20 days to respond to the filing, said family attorney Mitchell Pote.
But the school district's position has not changed, said spokeswoman Marianna Richards in an e-mail. Richards said a quick review of the complaint seemed to indicate that the issues are similar to those raised in the previous hearing.
She said the Indiana Board of Special Education Appeals' decision to uphold the ruling confirms that the program offered by Hamilton Southeastern provided an appropriate, customized instructional plan for Michael.
Since the case began, Michael and his family have moved from Noblesville to Marion County's Franklin Township, where he now attends South Creek Elementary School.
Showing posts with label Due Process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Due Process. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
NY: Parents in New York are trying to get their autistic child the educational
NOTE: We can all relate to how an appropriate placement keeps our kids safe and how the wrong placement is a recipe for total disaster. Unfortunately, NY has yet to get rid of Paul Kelly, who has found in district's favor in 80% of the cases that's been brought before him...
Parents in New York are trying to get their autistic child the educational services they say they're legally entitled to. The power of one state official is increasingly being called into question.
One out of 150 children is autistic. So what happens when professionals say that your child needs a certain level of care and the school district doesn't want to provide it? One case raises wider issues about the role of a state official who has singular power over appeals.
Five-year-old Sophia Kealey can now repeat words and phrases, and her instructors at the Manhattan Children's Center say she's improved dramatically
in the six months she's attended the private school for autistic children who
receive one-to-one instruction, one staff to every student.
"She needs one-to-one, or she'd be lost," principal Abigail Szoszun-Weiss said.
"Plain and simple. Plain and simple."
Sophia's parents had to fight to get her into the school because in spite of the report by an independent, world-renowned doctor that Sophia tested at a 2-year-old learning level and needed one-on-one services, the New York City Board of Education wanted to place her in a Queens public school trailer, where the ratio is six students to one instructor.
"I went to see the school, saw that it would just be impossible for her to function in a meaningful way and learn in a meaningful way, mother Patty Kealey said. "I was petrified for her future."
Only one public school in New York City provides one-on-one instruction for
autistic children. And it's in such demand that Sophia had no hope of getting
in. The private Manhattan Children's Center did have an opening, but there's no
way her parents could afford the $97,000 a year tuition. Her father, Tim, is a
wine distributor, and Patty is unemployed.
"Some people might think this school is a luxury," Patty said. "This isn't a luxury. That's not what this is about. It isn't a fancy-schmancy private school. This is a school that is giving her what she needs."
"It's very frustrating when parents see that other kids are getting what they need, that their child needs and they can't get," the family's attorney, Gary Mayerson, said. "It's like being frozen out of the medicine cabinet when you know that there is medicine in there that your kid needs."
The Kealey's attorney sued. There was a three-day trial at the city's Board of
Education headquarters in Brooklyn before an impartial hearing officer.
"He said that you failed to offer a free and appropriate public education,"
Mayerson said. "The parent's program is appropriate, and I find that the city of
New York should pay for that program."
"The fact is, we won our case," Patty said. "We're not looking for a bailout, we're just looking for what's fair and what's just and what's right for our child."
The city appealed to something called the Office of State Review in Albany. One
man, Paul Kelly, has the sole authority to rule in favor of districts or
parents, and increasingly parents are complaining he is denying their children
the educational services they are legally entitled to.
Kelly: "I'm going to have to refer you to the press office."
Eyewitness News Reporter Sarah Wallace: " Well, do you have anything to say?"
Kelly: "I'm going to have to refer you to the press office, Sarah."
Wallace: "That's all you can say?"
Kelly: "Yes."
We approached Kelly after his employer, the State Board of Education, refused to
make him available for an interview, after he recently ruled against the Kealey
family.
"When I found out that he had done it, it was almost like getting the diagnosis
all over again," Tim said. "To be in the mindset that we've won, that we can
move on with our lives, and then have somebody just throw it all away, it's
absolutely devastating."
Wallace: "Do you stand by your decisions?"
Kelly: "Yes, I do. I stand by my decision."
Kelly ruled in favor of local school districts in 80 percent of the cases in 2006-2007, according to an analysis by an independent hearing officer. The Kealeys are now preparing to appeal to federal court. The school is agreeing to defer Sophia's tuition for now.
"The idea that she might just get lost in the system as a throwaway because she has special needs and because those cost money, it's unconscionable," Tim Kealey said.
"Don't stop fighting, don't stop fighting for your child," Patty said. "Because if this doesn't get taken care of and caught early on, you're looking at a real problem when they get older."
A spokesman for the state Board of Education said that appeal rulings are always
decided by applying the law to the facts presented and that any suggestion
otherwise is wholly without merit. --- WEB PRODUCED BY: Daniela Royes
Parents in New York are trying to get their autistic child the educational services they say they're legally entitled to. The power of one state official is increasingly being called into question.
One out of 150 children is autistic. So what happens when professionals say that your child needs a certain level of care and the school district doesn't want to provide it? One case raises wider issues about the role of a state official who has singular power over appeals.
Five-year-old Sophia Kealey can now repeat words and phrases, and her instructors at the Manhattan Children's Center say she's improved dramatically
in the six months she's attended the private school for autistic children who
receive one-to-one instruction, one staff to every student.
"She needs one-to-one, or she'd be lost," principal Abigail Szoszun-Weiss said.
"Plain and simple. Plain and simple."
Sophia's parents had to fight to get her into the school because in spite of the report by an independent, world-renowned doctor that Sophia tested at a 2-year-old learning level and needed one-on-one services, the New York City Board of Education wanted to place her in a Queens public school trailer, where the ratio is six students to one instructor.
"I went to see the school, saw that it would just be impossible for her to function in a meaningful way and learn in a meaningful way, mother Patty Kealey said. "I was petrified for her future."
Only one public school in New York City provides one-on-one instruction for
autistic children. And it's in such demand that Sophia had no hope of getting
in. The private Manhattan Children's Center did have an opening, but there's no
way her parents could afford the $97,000 a year tuition. Her father, Tim, is a
wine distributor, and Patty is unemployed.
"Some people might think this school is a luxury," Patty said. "This isn't a luxury. That's not what this is about. It isn't a fancy-schmancy private school. This is a school that is giving her what she needs."
"It's very frustrating when parents see that other kids are getting what they need, that their child needs and they can't get," the family's attorney, Gary Mayerson, said. "It's like being frozen out of the medicine cabinet when you know that there is medicine in there that your kid needs."
The Kealey's attorney sued. There was a three-day trial at the city's Board of
Education headquarters in Brooklyn before an impartial hearing officer.
"He said that you failed to offer a free and appropriate public education,"
Mayerson said. "The parent's program is appropriate, and I find that the city of
New York should pay for that program."
"The fact is, we won our case," Patty said. "We're not looking for a bailout, we're just looking for what's fair and what's just and what's right for our child."
The city appealed to something called the Office of State Review in Albany. One
man, Paul Kelly, has the sole authority to rule in favor of districts or
parents, and increasingly parents are complaining he is denying their children
the educational services they are legally entitled to.
Kelly: "I'm going to have to refer you to the press office."
Eyewitness News Reporter Sarah Wallace: " Well, do you have anything to say?"
Kelly: "I'm going to have to refer you to the press office, Sarah."
Wallace: "That's all you can say?"
Kelly: "Yes."
We approached Kelly after his employer, the State Board of Education, refused to
make him available for an interview, after he recently ruled against the Kealey
family.
"When I found out that he had done it, it was almost like getting the diagnosis
all over again," Tim said. "To be in the mindset that we've won, that we can
move on with our lives, and then have somebody just throw it all away, it's
absolutely devastating."
Wallace: "Do you stand by your decisions?"
Kelly: "Yes, I do. I stand by my decision."
Kelly ruled in favor of local school districts in 80 percent of the cases in 2006-2007, according to an analysis by an independent hearing officer. The Kealeys are now preparing to appeal to federal court. The school is agreeing to defer Sophia's tuition for now.
"The idea that she might just get lost in the system as a throwaway because she has special needs and because those cost money, it's unconscionable," Tim Kealey said.
"Don't stop fighting, don't stop fighting for your child," Patty said. "Because if this doesn't get taken care of and caught early on, you're looking at a real problem when they get older."
A spokesman for the state Board of Education said that appeal rulings are always
decided by applying the law to the facts presented and that any suggestion
otherwise is wholly without merit. --- WEB PRODUCED BY: Daniela Royes
Thursday, January 29, 2009
PA: Luzerne judge broke his vow to reform
NOTE: "Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll, who assisted with the investigation into the judges, said last year that the case lacked merit because it identified only a handful of juveniles who were affected."
This is how the justice system works in PA....ignore "and justice for all" in favor of "and justice only if you're lucky to have been one of a significant number abused by a corrupt system..."
Every system I've worked with in PA is like this....hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil...until the "evil" is so rampant it can no longer be hidden away; so it becomes more of a positive PR stunt that anything else....when they have no choice but to fix one series of problems to divert attention from the numerous others...
Posted on Wed, Jan. 28, 2009
By John Sullivan Inquirer Staff Writer
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/38520577.html
Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. said he'd never do it again.
In 2000, the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia accused the Luzerne County Juvenile Court judge of detaining a 13-year-old boy without informing him of his constitutional right to an attorney.
A state court agreed.
"Even if they come in and tell me that they don't want a lawyer, they're going to have one," Ciavarella told the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader in 2001.
Yet for years afterward, Ciavarella repeatedly violated the rights of hundreds of children by shipping them to a juvenile center without telling them they had the right to an attorney, according to a petition to the state Supreme Court filed by the Juvenile Law Center.
On Monday, Ciavarella and another judge said they would plead guilty to charges that they hid $2.6 million in secret payments from one of the centers' owners and a construction contractor.
The charges include allegations that the judges locked up juveniles at the detention centers even when probation officers recommended against it.
Through an attorney yesterday, Ciavarella declined to comment on allegations by the law center that he violated the rights of juvenile offenders by failing to tell them of their legal rights.
In a statement, Ciavarella's attorney, Al Flora Jr., said the judge denied sending any child to a detention center because of money.
The revelations renewed the controversy over Ciavarella's court practices and have prompted the juvenile center in Philadelphia, which filed both petitions, to consider further moves, including an appeal to a federal court.
"There are hundreds of kids whose constitutional rights have been violated in the most flagrant way," said Marsha L. Levick, the center's legal director.
"It was stunning to us that the same judge was still doing the same thing" he was doing in 2000, she said.
The case revolves around two child care centers: PA Child Care L.L.C. and Western PA Child Care L.L.C., both of which opened in the last few years.
Federal authorities allege that Ciavarella and another Luzerne County Court judge, Michael T. Conahan, accepted payment from two people, identified as Participant 1 and Participant 2 in the federal charges.
Participant 1 is described as a Luzerne County lawyer who conducted business as PA Child Care L.L.C.
PA Child Care was owned at the time by Butler County lawyer Robert A. Powell and Pittsburgh-area investment banker Gregory R. Zappala, according to the state Department of Public Welfare.
Powell sold his interest in the facility to Zappala in June 2008, after the alleged illegal activity occurred.
An attorney for Powell, who has not been charged, said his client had no comment. Officials with PA Child Care did not return a call seeking comment from Zappala. Zappala is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Participant 2 is identified as a contractor who was a friend of Ciavarella's who built the center.
The charges also allege that the judges removed funding from a competing county facility that they said was unsafe and helped secure deals that reaped the new detention facilities millions of dollars.
In an audit, the DPW found that PA Child Care earned an excessive profit and that the county could have built three detention centers for the cost of what it paid to PA Child Care.
Now, the Juvenile Law Center is considering reprising its petition to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear it this month. It may also consider a civil action.
"You have, arguably, a rogue judge acting outside the requirements and obligations of his office, making decisions influenced by financial remuneration on the backs of children," Levick said. "That's something the Supreme Court ought to want to fix."
The Juvenile Law Center was joined in its 2008 case by the DPW. In a brief, the welfare department said the rate at which juveniles were unrepresented by attorneys in Luzerne County was 10 times the state average and "so dramatic as to require inference of a systematic deprivation of the constitutional rights of accused juveniles by the Luzerne County Court."
The state also noted that out-of-home placements in the county were 21/2 times higher than the state average, a number that would surely have been lower if more juveniles had attorneys, Corbett said.
State Attorney General Tom Corbett also filed a brief saying that 60 percent of the youths who did not have attorneys landed in detention centers. He said the allegations raised serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll, who assisted with the investigation into the judges, said last year that the case lacked merit because it identified only a handful of juveniles who were affected.
One case the juvenile law center cited in its petition was that of high school student Jessica Van Reeth, a good student who had never been in trouble before she was caught with a lighter and a marijuana pipe.
She and her father did not recall signing a waiver of counsel. Van Reeth, who was 16, had been suspended from school for 10 days. A Juvenile Court officer recommended probation because she seemed like a good young person.
But in a 90-second hearing in 2007, Van Reeth admitted having the lighter and pipe. Ciavarella asked whether she had heard him speak at her school about drugs.
She had.
Ciavarella then sentenced her to three months in a wilderness camp.
Contact staff writer John Sullivan at 215-854-2473
This is how the justice system works in PA....ignore "and justice for all" in favor of "and justice only if you're lucky to have been one of a significant number abused by a corrupt system..."
Every system I've worked with in PA is like this....hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil...until the "evil" is so rampant it can no longer be hidden away; so it becomes more of a positive PR stunt that anything else....when they have no choice but to fix one series of problems to divert attention from the numerous others...
Posted on Wed, Jan. 28, 2009
By John Sullivan Inquirer Staff Writer
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/38520577.html
Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. said he'd never do it again.
In 2000, the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia accused the Luzerne County Juvenile Court judge of detaining a 13-year-old boy without informing him of his constitutional right to an attorney.
A state court agreed.
"Even if they come in and tell me that they don't want a lawyer, they're going to have one," Ciavarella told the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader in 2001.
Yet for years afterward, Ciavarella repeatedly violated the rights of hundreds of children by shipping them to a juvenile center without telling them they had the right to an attorney, according to a petition to the state Supreme Court filed by the Juvenile Law Center.
On Monday, Ciavarella and another judge said they would plead guilty to charges that they hid $2.6 million in secret payments from one of the centers' owners and a construction contractor.
The charges include allegations that the judges locked up juveniles at the detention centers even when probation officers recommended against it.
Through an attorney yesterday, Ciavarella declined to comment on allegations by the law center that he violated the rights of juvenile offenders by failing to tell them of their legal rights.
In a statement, Ciavarella's attorney, Al Flora Jr., said the judge denied sending any child to a detention center because of money.
The revelations renewed the controversy over Ciavarella's court practices and have prompted the juvenile center in Philadelphia, which filed both petitions, to consider further moves, including an appeal to a federal court.
"There are hundreds of kids whose constitutional rights have been violated in the most flagrant way," said Marsha L. Levick, the center's legal director.
"It was stunning to us that the same judge was still doing the same thing" he was doing in 2000, she said.
The case revolves around two child care centers: PA Child Care L.L.C. and Western PA Child Care L.L.C., both of which opened in the last few years.
Federal authorities allege that Ciavarella and another Luzerne County Court judge, Michael T. Conahan, accepted payment from two people, identified as Participant 1 and Participant 2 in the federal charges.
Participant 1 is described as a Luzerne County lawyer who conducted business as PA Child Care L.L.C.
PA Child Care was owned at the time by Butler County lawyer Robert A. Powell and Pittsburgh-area investment banker Gregory R. Zappala, according to the state Department of Public Welfare.
Powell sold his interest in the facility to Zappala in June 2008, after the alleged illegal activity occurred.
An attorney for Powell, who has not been charged, said his client had no comment. Officials with PA Child Care did not return a call seeking comment from Zappala. Zappala is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Participant 2 is identified as a contractor who was a friend of Ciavarella's who built the center.
The charges also allege that the judges removed funding from a competing county facility that they said was unsafe and helped secure deals that reaped the new detention facilities millions of dollars.
In an audit, the DPW found that PA Child Care earned an excessive profit and that the county could have built three detention centers for the cost of what it paid to PA Child Care.
Now, the Juvenile Law Center is considering reprising its petition to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear it this month. It may also consider a civil action.
"You have, arguably, a rogue judge acting outside the requirements and obligations of his office, making decisions influenced by financial remuneration on the backs of children," Levick said. "That's something the Supreme Court ought to want to fix."
The Juvenile Law Center was joined in its 2008 case by the DPW. In a brief, the welfare department said the rate at which juveniles were unrepresented by attorneys in Luzerne County was 10 times the state average and "so dramatic as to require inference of a systematic deprivation of the constitutional rights of accused juveniles by the Luzerne County Court."
The state also noted that out-of-home placements in the county were 21/2 times higher than the state average, a number that would surely have been lower if more juveniles had attorneys, Corbett said.
State Attorney General Tom Corbett also filed a brief saying that 60 percent of the youths who did not have attorneys landed in detention centers. He said the allegations raised serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll, who assisted with the investigation into the judges, said last year that the case lacked merit because it identified only a handful of juveniles who were affected.
One case the juvenile law center cited in its petition was that of high school student Jessica Van Reeth, a good student who had never been in trouble before she was caught with a lighter and a marijuana pipe.
She and her father did not recall signing a waiver of counsel. Van Reeth, who was 16, had been suspended from school for 10 days. A Juvenile Court officer recommended probation because she seemed like a good young person.
But in a 90-second hearing in 2007, Van Reeth admitted having the lighter and pipe. Ciavarella asked whether she had heard him speak at her school about drugs.
She had.
Ciavarella then sentenced her to three months in a wilderness camp.
Contact staff writer John Sullivan at 215-854-2473
PA: Editorial: Judges Sentenced
Kids for cash
Posted on Wed, Jan. 28, 2009
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090128_Editorial__Judges_Sentenced.html
The setting is Pennsylvania coal country, but it's a story right out of Dickens' grim 19th-century landscape: Two of Luzerne County's most senior judges on Monday were accused of sending children to jail in return for kickbacks.
The judges, Luzerne County President Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., 58, and his predecessor, Senior Judge Michael T. Conahan, 56, will serve seven years in jail under a plea agreement.
They're alleged to have pocketed $2.6 million in payments from juvenile detention center operators.
When a federal judge reviews their plea, though, the question ought to be whether the punishment is adequate - along with the judges being bounced from the bench, disbarred, and losing their pensions.
If the allegations are true, Ciavarella and Conahan were involved in a disgraceful cabal far worse than one that merely lined their pockets.
First, the judges helped the detention centers land a county contract worth $58 million. Then their alleged scheme was to guarantee the operators a steady income by detaining juveniles, often on petty stuff.
Many of the kids were railroaded, according to allegations lodged with the state Supreme Court last year by the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, an advocacy group.
In asking the court to intervene in April, the law center cited hundreds of examples where teens accused of minor mischief were pressured to waive their right to lawyers, and then shipped to a detention center.
One teen was given a 90-day sentence for having parodied a school administrator online. Such unwarranted detentions left "both children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized," center lawyers said.
"Very few people would stand up" to the Luzerne judges, according to the law center's executive director, Robert G. Schwartz.
Fortunately, Juvenile Law Center was willing to do so, along with backing from state Attorney General Tom Corbett's office and the state Department of Public Welfare.
The blind justices on the state's high court, though, took a pass. Only last month, they offered no explanation in declining to take up the law center's request that the court step up.
Now, the state Supreme Court should revisit the issue, since the scope of corruption alleged at the Luzerne County Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre could further undermine confidence in the courts statewide.
Authorities need to redress running roughshod over juveniles' rights - a process also likely to bring damage suits. While the local district attorney pledges to "do our best to right the situation," this calls for an independent, outside review.
The two judges' downfall may have rooted out the worst perpetrators of this evil scheme, but the abuse of power alleged in Luzerne County is so startling that it should send shock waves for reform around the state court system.
Posted on Wed, Jan. 28, 2009
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090128_Editorial__Judges_Sentenced.html
The setting is Pennsylvania coal country, but it's a story right out of Dickens' grim 19th-century landscape: Two of Luzerne County's most senior judges on Monday were accused of sending children to jail in return for kickbacks.
The judges, Luzerne County President Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., 58, and his predecessor, Senior Judge Michael T. Conahan, 56, will serve seven years in jail under a plea agreement.
They're alleged to have pocketed $2.6 million in payments from juvenile detention center operators.
When a federal judge reviews their plea, though, the question ought to be whether the punishment is adequate - along with the judges being bounced from the bench, disbarred, and losing their pensions.
If the allegations are true, Ciavarella and Conahan were involved in a disgraceful cabal far worse than one that merely lined their pockets.
First, the judges helped the detention centers land a county contract worth $58 million. Then their alleged scheme was to guarantee the operators a steady income by detaining juveniles, often on petty stuff.
Many of the kids were railroaded, according to allegations lodged with the state Supreme Court last year by the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, an advocacy group.
In asking the court to intervene in April, the law center cited hundreds of examples where teens accused of minor mischief were pressured to waive their right to lawyers, and then shipped to a detention center.
One teen was given a 90-day sentence for having parodied a school administrator online. Such unwarranted detentions left "both children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized," center lawyers said.
"Very few people would stand up" to the Luzerne judges, according to the law center's executive director, Robert G. Schwartz.
Fortunately, Juvenile Law Center was willing to do so, along with backing from state Attorney General Tom Corbett's office and the state Department of Public Welfare.
The blind justices on the state's high court, though, took a pass. Only last month, they offered no explanation in declining to take up the law center's request that the court step up.
Now, the state Supreme Court should revisit the issue, since the scope of corruption alleged at the Luzerne County Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre could further undermine confidence in the courts statewide.
Authorities need to redress running roughshod over juveniles' rights - a process also likely to bring damage suits. While the local district attorney pledges to "do our best to right the situation," this calls for an independent, outside review.
The two judges' downfall may have rooted out the worst perpetrators of this evil scheme, but the abuse of power alleged in Luzerne County is so startling that it should send shock waves for reform around the state court system.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
VIDEO: Mock Due Process Hearing
At the 2008 Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Exceptional Children’s Conference, Hearing Officer Linda Valentini, Parent Counsel, Caryl Oberman, and School District Counsel, Andria Saia, presented a mock due process hearing. This 2-part session was intended to provide parents and school personnel with a general idea of due process hearing procedures.
The following mock documents are referenced in the video and are available for review in conjunction with the video – Part 1; Part 2: (QuickTime Pro v7) (Please be patient while the videos load; they may take a few minutes.)
http://odr.pattan.net/files/ODR/MockDPH.pdf (Click on document links for Video)
1) Mock Due Process Hearing participants;
2) a Due Process Complaint Notice form;
3) an accompanying complaint letter;
4) the district’s response to the due process complaint;
5) an IEP;
6) a Re-evaluation Report; and
7) a letter to the parent from the district.
This video is posted for informational purposes only and does not reflect an actual student, parent, district, or due process case. The Office for Dispute Resolution thanks the Pennsylvania Bar Institute for allowing this video presentation.
The following mock documents are referenced in the video and are available for review in conjunction with the video – Part 1; Part 2: (QuickTime Pro v7) (Please be patient while the videos load; they may take a few minutes.)
http://odr.pattan.net/files/ODR/MockDPH.pdf (Click on document links for Video)
1) Mock Due Process Hearing participants;
2) a Due Process Complaint Notice form;
3) an accompanying complaint letter;
4) the district’s response to the due process complaint;
5) an IEP;
6) a Re-evaluation Report; and
7) a letter to the parent from the district.
This video is posted for informational purposes only and does not reflect an actual student, parent, district, or due process case. The Office for Dispute Resolution thanks the Pennsylvania Bar Institute for allowing this video presentation.
Opinion: Parents not the ones wasting tax dollars
Our letter to the Editor was published on Tue, Dec 9, 2008 on BerksMontNews.com:
http://www.berksmontnews.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Weekly?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_wk_article&r21.pgpath=%2FBMN%2FOpinion&r21.content=%2FBMN%2FOpinion%2FTopStoryList_Story_2610724
Dear Ms. Tassmer:
I'm writing in response to the November 25, 2008 article, "School Shares Struggles with Special Education," about Exeter Schools' agreement to three due process "settlements."
The district illustrated taxpayer dollars were "wasted" and complained they're tied by "unfair laws," parents, and courts; that they're forced to "give into parents' excessive demands" - all the while failing to disclose how they themselves waste taxpayer dollars.
Here are some examples:
1. There are alternatives to due process which cost taxpayers nothing additional.
2. Districts aren't obligated to have legal representation at due process, yet the district hired attorneys to represent them - at taxpayers' expense.
3. With odds notoriously in districts' favor, it seems fiscally irresponsible those settlements were even offered.
Districts aren't obligated to offer expensive "settlements;" they can proceed with due process, because if they "win," the only additional taxpayer expenses incurred are the districts' fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. If they lose, tax dollars generally pay both parents' and districts' attorneys and expert witnesses, and for whatever services/placements districts are ordered to provide.
4. With settlements, districts (taxpayers) generally pay all attorney and expert witness fees - in addition to any "settlement amount," and/or whatever services/placements they'd agreed to provide.
5. Historically, districts request due process, and only typically "settle" cases they know they won't win.
6. Districts "prefer" settlements because they "hush up" parents -- who must sign confidentiality waivers guaranteeing they won't talk about their situation. This means districts may continue to deny services to others, because if parents "squeal" they risk losing everything.
7. Districts receive additional funding for each child receiving special education services.
Unfortunately, nothing requires districts to set that funding aside specifically for special education services; it can be transferred to general education accounts to be spent on anything districts want -- even if that means denying services for special education, and later claiming they don't have funds to provide requested/needed services.
8. Ironically enough, most, if not all, services children with disabilities receive are almost fully reimbursable by Medicaid and/or private insurance -- if the family allows schools to bill them.
Knowing this, how can the district claim parents are strapping the district with their "unreasonable demands" by "forcing them" into "agreements?"
For more information about how Exeter is wasting your tax dollars, please see my article: "District Shares Struggles with Special Education: Blame the Parents' Edition" at http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com.
Jen Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
http://www.berksmontnews.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Weekly?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_wk_article&r21.pgpath=%2FBMN%2FOpinion&r21.content=%2FBMN%2FOpinion%2FTopStoryList_Story_2610724
Dear Ms. Tassmer:
I'm writing in response to the November 25, 2008 article, "School Shares Struggles with Special Education," about Exeter Schools' agreement to three due process "settlements."
The district illustrated taxpayer dollars were "wasted" and complained they're tied by "unfair laws," parents, and courts; that they're forced to "give into parents' excessive demands" - all the while failing to disclose how they themselves waste taxpayer dollars.
Here are some examples:
1. There are alternatives to due process which cost taxpayers nothing additional.
2. Districts aren't obligated to have legal representation at due process, yet the district hired attorneys to represent them - at taxpayers' expense.
3. With odds notoriously in districts' favor, it seems fiscally irresponsible those settlements were even offered.
Districts aren't obligated to offer expensive "settlements;" they can proceed with due process, because if they "win," the only additional taxpayer expenses incurred are the districts' fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. If they lose, tax dollars generally pay both parents' and districts' attorneys and expert witnesses, and for whatever services/placements districts are ordered to provide.
4. With settlements, districts (taxpayers) generally pay all attorney and expert witness fees - in addition to any "settlement amount," and/or whatever services/placements they'd agreed to provide.
5. Historically, districts request due process, and only typically "settle" cases they know they won't win.
6. Districts "prefer" settlements because they "hush up" parents -- who must sign confidentiality waivers guaranteeing they won't talk about their situation. This means districts may continue to deny services to others, because if parents "squeal" they risk losing everything.
7. Districts receive additional funding for each child receiving special education services.
Unfortunately, nothing requires districts to set that funding aside specifically for special education services; it can be transferred to general education accounts to be spent on anything districts want -- even if that means denying services for special education, and later claiming they don't have funds to provide requested/needed services.
8. Ironically enough, most, if not all, services children with disabilities receive are almost fully reimbursable by Medicaid and/or private insurance -- if the family allows schools to bill them.
Knowing this, how can the district claim parents are strapping the district with their "unreasonable demands" by "forcing them" into "agreements?"
For more information about how Exeter is wasting your tax dollars, please see my article: "District Shares Struggles with Special Education: Blame the Parents' Edition" at http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com.
Jen Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
