NC: Abuse Claims at School for Deaf

July 17, 2010

THE NEWS & OBSERVER, RALEIGH, N.C. | LYNN BONNER | Sat, Jul 17, 8:41 AM

http://dailyme.com/story/2010071700001905/abuse-claims-nc-school-deaf.html

July 17--The director of the N.C. School for the Deaf in Morganton has been suspended after reports that staff members slapped a student, shoved another and held one girl face-down on the floor with a force that left bruises.

Raleigh-based Disability Rights N.C., an independent advocacy group that persuaded state officials to investigate, also said that girls at the residential school reported that a dorm director made a habit of dropping in when they were scheduled for showers and watched them on a security camera while they were in their pajamas.

On Friday, the state Department of Health and Human Services suspended the director of the school, Janet McDaniel, as it responded to allegations that she failed to act on the reports of physical abuse and let months go by before she did anything about the dorm director.

For the full article, please click the following link: http://dailyme.com/story/2010071700001905/abuse-claims-nc-school-deaf.html

NC: Wake Co Police Investigating Sexual Abuse Allegations involving Coach

Excerpt from WTVD:

February 15, 2010

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7277788

FUQUAY-VARINA (WTVD) -- Officials with Wake County Public Schools confirm that Fuquay-Varina High School women's coach Mardy Cutchin has been suspended with pay while they investigate sexual misconduct allegations.

Cutchin is accused of having sexual relations with a player.

The Fuquay-Varina Police Department is also investigating. No charges have been filed.

Police Captain Bob Adams told ABC11 that WCPSS contacted police and reported that someone came forward with the allegations. Adams says the person who reported the information was not the alleged victim and so far police have not spoken with her.

"We plan to do that today," Adams said. "This was reported to us late Thursday. We started investigating Friday. In dealing with students and faculty and everyone out for the weekend, we are back on the case today."

Cutchin also teaches at Fuquay-Varina Middle School. He has been told he's not allowed on Wake County Public Schools property pending the outcome of the investigation.

Right now he's suspended with pay from both teaching and coaching while the investigation continues.

For more details on the story, please click the following link: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7277788

NC: Corporal punishment ban on school board agenda

By Kathy Chaffin

kchaffin@salisburypost.com

October 25, 2009

http://www.salisburypost.com/Area/102509-Monday-s-school-board-agenda

Among the items on the agenda for Monday's Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education meeting is a proposed revision to the student discipline and punishment policy which would ban corporal punishment.

The revision reads:

"No principal, teacher, substitute teacher, voluntary teacher, teacher assistant, student teacher or staff member may use corporal punishment to discipline a student. Corporal punishment is any kind of punishment inflicted on the body, including but not limited to, spanking, paddling or slapping.

"Not withstanding the policy prohibiting the use of corporal punishment as a means of discipline, school personnel may use reasonable force to control behavior or to remove a person from the scene in these situations when necessary:

- "To quell a disturbance threatening injury to others;

- "To obtain possession of weapons or other dangerous objects on the person or within the control of a student;

- "For self defense;

- "For the protection of persons or property or;

- "To restrain or correct pupils or otherwise maintain order."

Board members voted Sept. 28 to ask Dr. Walter Hart, assistant superintendent for administration, to revise the policy. Karen South Carpenter brought up the issue, saying she received an e-mail from a parent questioning why the school system still allowed corporal punishment and that it reminded her of her own concerns as well.

As written, the current policy states: "The use of corporal punishment is discouraged as a means of developing self-direction by students in matters of personal conduct. However, when other efforts have not produced desired results, reasonable corporal punishment may be administered under conditions outlined by law."

This would be replaced by the proposed revision if approved by the board.

According to Hart, only five of the system's schools — all elementary — still use corporal punishment: Bostian, Hanford Dole, Hurley, Isenberg and Koontz. "Ironically, when it happens," he said, "it's typically because the parents ask for it."

Rita Foil, public information officer for the school system, said Hart will likely explain the revision to board members Monday, after which they may discuss it and possibly recommend changes. The board typically waits until a second reading to approve a revision but may opt to waive a second reading and go ahead and vote on it.

iPod update: Also on the agenda for Monday's meeting is a presentation by Darrell McDowell, principal of North Rowan High School, on the iPod Touch Project and how it is changing teaching and learning practices at the school.

Other items: Other discussion items include an update by Dr. Rebecca Smith, assistant superintendent for curriculum, on the Closing the Achievement Gap Committee, which meets every other month and is comprised of representatives from the school system, community agencies, businesses and the faith community; and an overview of staff development activities planned for the afternoon of the Oct. 29 Early Release Day. Schools will dismiss 2.5 hours earlier than their regular dismissal time.

Redistricting not on agenda: The proposed high school redistricting is not on the agenda to be discussed, though board members always have the option to amend the agenda to discuss it.

The first public hearing on the proposed redistricting plan, which would change all the high school districts except Salisbury High School's, is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 2 at 6 p.m. in the Knox Middle School auditorium. A second public hearing will be held the following Monday, the 9th, in the Southeast Middle School gym at 6 p.m.

This Monday's board meeting will be held at 5 p.m. in the auditorium of the school system's administrative offices at 110 N. Long St., East Spencer. The public is invited to attend.

Contact Kathy Chaffin at 704-797-4249.

NC: List of Disciplinary Actions to Date

Below is a link to the North Carolina State Board of Education's list of Disciplinary Actions to date, complete with full names, action (revocation, suspension, reinstatement), reason for the action, and date of action. This listing appears to have last been added to as of March 2009. This listing is by teacher name, in alphabetical order:

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/stateboard/legal/revoked

NC: Giving parents a say in corporal punishment

BY TOM VITAGLIONE
Published: Sat, Jun. 20, 2009 02:00AMModified Fri, Jun. 19, 2009 05:28PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1576161.html

RALEIGH -- North Carolina remains one of the few places where a student can be beaten with a paddle by school personnel without parental permission. Those personnel have statutory immunity if they inadvertently injure a student during such beatings.

Last month the state House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to affirm the rights of parents to participate in the school discipline process. Under House Bill 442, parents would be given an opportunity to say that their children cannot be beaten at school and that other forms of discipline should be used.

On Wednesday, the Senate will vote on HB 442. Unbelievably, the vote is expected to be very close, and there is a good chance that our senators will deny parents the right to protect their children from being beaten by school personnel.

Some senators express what they term "fond memories" of being physically punished at school, while others feel that school discipline should be the sole province of school administrators with no room for parental involvement.
It should be made clear that this bill is not about corporal punishment; it is about parental involvement. In fact, 60 of the state's 115 local school boards have banned corporal punishment. And at least another dozen already use parental permission procedures that are included in the bill. The bill simply seeks to extend these parental permission procedures statewide.

Students cannot participate in sports or band without parental consent. They cannot go on school field trips without parental consent. They cannot receive so much as a Tylenol without parental consent. Yet they can be beaten without parental consent. This is irony, if not tyranny.

It should also be made clear that no groups object to the bill. In fact, the N.C. Association of Educators (representing teachers) and the N.C. Parent-Teachers Association strongly support the bill. The NAACP, the N.C. Pediatric Society and a host of other professional and advocacy organizations are in strong support as well.
In a democratic society, we expect our legislators to represent the wishes of their constituencies. So if teachers support the bill, if parents support the bill, if virtually all child-serving agencies support the bill, and if state and local school boards have reviewed the bill and do not object, who do our senators think they are representing by even considering a vote against the bill?

If HB 442 does not pass, somewhere in North Carolina next September a 45-pound first-grade girl could be beaten with a paddle by a 200-pound male school administrator without parental consent. It is time to take North Carolina's name off the list of places where this can happen. Please contact your state senator as soon as possible and ask that she/he support HB 442.

NC: Teen charged with committing sex offenses on bus with girl, 7

NOTE: Our office was previously notified that there was a single bus in this District that would pick up muli-aged children with a variety of disabilities and drop the children off at their respective schools. It was also reported that some of these children were on this bus for close to two hours one way, to and from school, every day. We do not know if this is the same bus that was reported to us, but are trying to confirm. Regardless, our hearts go out to the little girl and her family, to the 18 year old boy and his family, and to all the families with children who were transported on this bus...

Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. 
Last Modified: Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 4:53 p.m.

http://www.the-dispatch.com/article/20090409/ARTICLES/904099990#

A Thomasville teenager has been charged with committing sex offenses with a 7-year-old girl on a school bus.

Bradley Thomas Everhart, 18, of 615 Russell St., was charged with five counts of felony first-degree sex offense with a child and three counts of felony taking indecent liberties with a child. He is being held in the Davidson County Detention Center under a $250,000 secured bond and is scheduled to appear in Lexington District Court on May 18.

Detectives with the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office received a report Thursday morning regarding a sexual assault of a 7-year-old girl by an 18-year-old male. The incidents occurred while the male and female were riding on a Davidson County school bus together, according to a press release.

Detectives investigated and found the acts happened between March 1 and Thursday. Everhart was arrested without incident Thursday afternoon.

NC: DPI's Response to Our Open Letter re IEP Meetings without Parental Particpation

We finally received a response from North Carolina's Department of Public Instruction regarding the Open Letter we sent to them to clarify if a district could hold an IEP meeting without parental participation, despite a written request from the parents to reschedule  the IEP meeting as the date/time were not convenient. 

Our letter to DPI can be found here: NC: Open Letter to N.C.'s Department of Public Instruction  or http://tcfpbis.blogspot.com/2009/03/nc-open-letter-to-ncs-department-of.html.

The response from DPI is as follows. See if you can make any more sense out of this than we've been able to thus far. We've highlighted some of the more "interesting interpretations" and placed our notes in brackets. We're also working on a response and will let you know if we hear anything more.

Dear Ms. Searcy,

 

In response to the questions you submitted on behalf of the parents of a North Carolina student with disabilities, the Exceptional Children Division is unable to respond to specific questions about a particular child or case other than to state that the parents misinterpreted the LEA's intentions.  [Note: Did you catch that? They can't comment other than to say that the parents misinterpreted the LEA's intentions. What? Is that their standard response to all inquiries? The parents misunderstood? Without even knowing who in this particular district refused to reschedule the meeting, without even knowing the name of the Local Education Agency this district falls into, DPI KNOWS the parents misinterpreted the LEA's intentions. Hmm...ok, then. Guess the district employee didn't really mean it when he wrote the meeting would occur as scheduled and then emailed it to the parents then. Good to know.]

The parents should contact the Exceptional Children Program Director regarding any concerns about a written communication.  They may contact a Consultant for Dispute Resolution in our office or may exercise their due process rights as specified in the Procedural Safeguards regarding concerns about a procedural violation.  [Note: Why would the parents need to do this, though? We asked DPI to clarify if the district was violating the law, aka "committing a procedural violation." DPI said "no," sort of...we think? Maybe? We don't know, we can't tell, but it certainly seems that way. So if DPI is saying that the district aka LEA is not violating these parents' rights, and since DPI runs the Office of Dispute Resolution in N.C. then what would be the point of exercising due process, when DPI obviously already has their mind made up that the district intended no harm - without seeing any evidence!]

 

The North Carolina Policies Governing Services for Children with Disabilities does not differ from the IDEA regulations regarding parental participation in meetings. [Note: But then there's this statement. North Carolina's policies do not differ from the federal law. So...if the district held that meeting without the parents, despite the parents requests to reschedule the meeting so they could attend, then the district would be in violation of IDEA? See, this is what we wanted DPI to clarify, since they're the governing education body in North Carolina. The laws appear to support the parents in this case, but DPI doesn't appear to be interpreting those same statutes the same way.] 

 

 

Lynn M. Smith, Consultant for Dispute Resolution
NC Department of Public Instruction
Exceptional Children Division

6356 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-6356
(919)  807-3978 phone
(919)  807-3755 fax

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ec

NC: Open Letter to NC's Department of Public Instruction

NOTE:  A parent contacted us to let us know that a district intended to hold an IEP meeting without her or her husband. The parents had already sent in a written request to reschedule the meeting, but the request was tersely denied. By federal and state laws, an IEP meeting cannot be held without the parents, unless the district cannot convince the parents to attend. In this case, the parents are definitely willing to attend, and signaled that fact by asking for the meeting to be rescheduled so that they could attend.

We wanted to bring this situation to the attention of North Carolina's Deparment of Public Instruction, the states' education agency to ask if legally the district could hold the meeting without the parents under the given circumstances and to see if they'd be willing to share what recourse the parents might have should the meeting be held without the parents. 

Below is a copy of the letter we sent to them. We'll keep you informed if they respond. 

March 28, 2009

Dear Ms. Neale, Smith, and Pruitt:

 

We are writing to you today to seek your advice and clarification about whether a school district may hold an IEP meeting without a parent under the following circumstances:

 

Staff from a N.C. school district emailed and mailed an invitation to attend an IEP meeting to an eligible child’s parents. The parents have participated in the child’s prior IEP meetings. The parents have also previously notified the district that they want to participate in future IEP meetings, but they are unable to attend the above-referenced IEP meeting on the scheduled meeting date. The parents notified the district in advance in writing via email and fax that they would not be able to attend the meeting on the scheduled date and requested (in writing) that the meeting be rescheduled for another date/time. In response, the Director of Special Education for the district sent the parents an email to inform them that the IEP meeting would proceed as scheduled.

 

We are very concerned about the information that has been disseminated to the parents by district staff, and of the district’s notification of intent to hold an IEP meeting without the parents as:

Under 34 CFR 300.345 Parent Participation of the federal IDEA regulations:

(a) Public agency responsibility--general. Each public agency shall take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including--

(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

 

(c) Other methods to ensure parent participation. If neither parent can attend, the public agency shall use other methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls.

(d) Conducting an IEP meeting without a parent in attendance. A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to convince the parents that they should attend. In this case the public agency must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as--
(1) Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls;
(2) Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and
(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent's home or place of employment and the results of those visits.

34 CFR 300.501 Opportunity to examine records; parent participation in meetings.

(a) General. The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded, in accordance with the procedures of §§ 300.562-300.569, an opportunity to—

 

(2) Participate in meetings with respect to--

(i) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and
(ii)The provision of FAPE to the child.

(b) Parent participation in meetings. (1) Each public agency shall provide notice consistent with § 300.345(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that parents of children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in meetings described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

 

 Under North Carolina Statutes:

NC 1503-4.2 IEP team (http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf, pg 90 of pdf)

(a) General. The LEA must ensure that the IEP Team for each child with a disability includes--

(1) The parent(s) of the child; 

NC 1503-4.3 Parent participation (http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf, pg 91 of pdf)

(a) Public agency responsibility--general. Each LEA must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP Team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including--

(1) Notifying the parent(s) of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an

opportunity to attend; and

(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

(c) Other methods to ensure parent participation. If neither parent can attend an IEP Team meeting, the public agency must use other methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls, consistent with NC 1503-5.4 (related to alternative means of meeting participation).

(d) Conducting an IEP meeting without a parent in attendance. A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to convince the parent(s) that they should attend. In this case, the LEA must keep a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as-

(1) Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls;

(2) Copies of correspondence sent to the parent(s) and any responses received; and

(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent’s home or place of employment, if appropriate,

and the results of those visits.

 

According to the Department of Education’s website at http://www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#team (See 7. IEP Team Members), “[b]y law, certain individuals must be involved in writing a child's Individualized Education Program” and that “Parents are key members of the IEP team. They know their child very well and can talk about their child's strengths and needs as well as their ideas for enhancing their child's education. They can offer insight into how their child learns, what his or her interests are, and other aspects of the child that only a parent can know. They can listen to what the other team members think their child needs to work on at school and share their suggestions. They can also report on whether the skills the child is learning at school are being used at home.”

 

To summarize the salient points:

 

1.      The district sent a written request to the parents requesting parental participation at an IEP meeting.

2.      The parents notified the district in advance in writing that the date/time of said IEP meeting was not convenient, and therefore, not mutually agreed upon.

3.      The parents asked the district in advance and in writing to reschedule the meeting for a date/time that is mutually agreed upon so that the parents can participate in the IEP process.

4.      The district denied the parents’ written request to reschedule the IEP meeting, did not offer or explain what alternative means of participation may be available to the parents, and have indicated in writing that the IEP meeting will occur as scheduled, with our without the child’s parents.

5. The above-referenced federal and state laws seem to indicate that the district may not hold an IEP meeting without the parents, unless the district has not been able to convince the parents they need to participate in the IEP process, and that those attempts by the district to encourage parental participation must documented.

6. The parents have provided written documentation to the district to indicate their willingness to attend IEP meetings, but cannot attend a specific IEP meeting at the scheduled date/time (but could participate in an IEP meeting if the district would be willing to reschedule the next meeting.) Therefore, parents have provided sufficient written notice to the district that the district has convinced the parents of their need to participate in their child's IEP. 

7. The district should not be able to hold the IEP meeting without the parents and should reschedule the meeting for an agreed-upon date/time.

 

Despite the importance the Department of Education places on parental participation and the fact that parents have indicated they do want to participate in the IEP process for their child, district staff is refusing parents’ request to reschedule an IEP meeting.

 

In light of this information, can the district legally hold the child’s IEP meeting on a date/time that is not mutually agreed-upon, without the parents? If the district cannot legally hold the IEP meeting, but chooses to do so anyway, what recourse do the parents have?

 

We’d appreciate any recommendations, opinions, and/or advice you could share and look forward to your response. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us at tcfpbis@gmail.com.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Jennifer Searcy

Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs

The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

NC: Can a District Hold an IEP Meeting Without the Child's Parents?

By Jennifer Searcy
Founder/Director of Public Policy and Affairs
The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports
Published on: March 27, 2009

Some NC parents recently contacted us to notify us that their school district notified them in writing that the district intended to hold an IEP meeting "as previously scheduled," with or without the parents - even after the parents notified the district in advance in writing that the date/time wasn't convenient and asked if the district could please reschedule the meeting.

The parents wanted to know, can the district legally do this?

The easy answer should be a resounding "NO! They can't" in this case, but...well, we've seen stranger things happen (and even stranger decisions from state Departments of Education/Public Instruction).

So, let’s take a look at the facts:

The parents claim that:

1. The district sent a written request to the parents requesting parental participation at an IEP meeting.
2. The parents notified the district in advance and in writing that the date/time of said IEP meeting was not convenient, and therefore, not mutually agreed upon.
3. The parents asked the district in advance and in writing to reschedule the meeting for a date/time that is mutually agreed upon so that the parents can participate in the IEP process.
4. The district denied the parents’ request to reschedule the IEP meeting, did not offer or explain what alternative means of participation may be available to the parents, and have indicated in writing that the IEP meeting will occur as scheduled, with our without the child’s parents.

Now, according to the Department of Education’s website at (http://www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#team), “[b]y law, certain individuals must be involved in writing a child's Individualized Education Program” and that

“…Parents are key members of the IEP team. They know their child very well and can talk about their child's strengths and needs as well as their ideas for enhancing their child's education. They can offer insight into how their child learns, what his or her interests are, and other aspects of the child that only a parent can know. They can listen to what the other team members think their child needs to work on at school and share their suggestions. They can also report on whether the skills the child is learning at school are being used at home.”

But what laws support the parents’ (and our) contention that the district’s intent to deliberately and willfully exclude the parents may be, well, less than “legal”?

34 CFR 300.345 of IDEA outlines Parent Participation in depth, and the full text can be found here: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/300-parent-participation-19761947

The portions relevant to the above-referenced scenario are as follows:

(a) Public agency responsibility--general. Each public agency shall take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including--

(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. (Fact: the parents notified the district in advance & in writing that this meeting is NOT mutually agreed upon and have asked for the meeting to be rescheduled. We have a copy of the email.)

(c) Other methods to ensure parent participation. If neither parent can attend, the public agency shall use other methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls. (Fact: The letter from district staff did NOT include a statement about what alternative means of participation may be available to the parents so that they may be able to participate in the meeting as scheduled. We have a copy of this email.)

(d) Conducting an IEP meeting without a parent in attendance. A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to convince the parents that they should attend. (FACT: Parents have notified the district in advance & in writing that they cannot attend the meeting on the date/time as scheduled and requested that the meeting be rescheduled. Therefore, the parents have not expressed to the district a unwillingness to attend an IEP meeting, and in fact, have participated in other IEP meetings with said district. We have emails and other documents attesting to these facts, and have even personally attended an IEP meeting with one of the parents. Parents want to be included in these meetings; it's the district who doesn't want them there because the parents disagree with many things included in the district's draft IEP and it would be so much easier to simply "go around" the parents and their wishes than deal with them directly)

In this case the public agency must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as--
(1) Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls;
(2) Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received (FACT: The district has acknowledged receipt of the parents' request to reschedule this IEP meeting. Parents have indicated in writing of their desire to participate in said meeting. We have copies...); and
(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent's home or place of employment and the results of those visits.

Also 34 CFR 300.501 Opportunity to examine records; parent participation in meetings.
(a) General. The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded, in accordance with the procedures of §§ 300.562-300.569, an opportunity to—
(2) Participate in meetings with respect to--(i) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and
(ii)The provision of FAPE to the child.
(b) Parent participation in meetings.
(1) Each public agency shall provide notice consistent with § 300.345(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that parents of children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in meetings described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

North Carolina’s statutes echo the federal regulations. The full NC statute can be found here: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf

Further, NC 1503-4.2 identifies members of the IEP team here: (http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf, pg 90 of pdf)
(a) General. The LEA must ensure that the IEP Team for each child with a disability includes--
(1) The parent(s) of the child; (NOTE: Parents are listed as the NUMBER ONE participants. Think that means anything?)

NC 1503-4.3 identifies Parent participation here: (http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/ec/policy/policies/2007policies.pdf, pg 91 of pdf)
(a) Public agency responsibility--general. Each LEA must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP Team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including--
(1) Notifying the parent(s) of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and
(2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. (NOTE: And here's that pesky clause again about the meeting needs to occur at a mutually agreed upon time and place. Remember, parents can't make the next meeting on the "as scheduled date." Here's an idea: Reschedule the meeting!)
(c) Other methods to ensure parent participation. If neither parent can attend an IEP Team meeting, the public agency must use other methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls, consistent with NC 1503-5.4 (related to alternative means of meeting participation). (NOTE: There's this clause again too. Keep in mind the written notice - via email - the district provided to the parents did not include an explanation of what other means the district may be willing to offer - if the parents could be available on this date, which they can't, so this point is rather moot but... - so that the parents might participate in this meeting on the scheduled date.)
(d) Conducting an IEP meeting without a parent in attendance. A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the public agency is unable to convince the parent(s) that they should attend. (NOTE: In this case, it is the parents who have repeatedly indicated their willingness to attend IEP meetings, in writing no less, but for some reason the district appears to remain unconvinced, and as such, appears to believe that future IEP meetings don't need to include any parents).
In this case, the LEA must keep a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as-
(1) Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls;
(2) Copies of correspondence sent to the parent(s) and any responses received (Email/fax sent indicating parental willingness to participate in IEP meeting, but please reschedule, CHECK!); and
(3) Detailed records of visits made to the parent’s home or place of employment, if appropriate, and the results of those visits.

So, it would appear that if the district does proceed with the IEP meeting “as scheduled” without the parents in attendance, the district would be doing so in flagrant disregard of the law.

But...these are crazy times we live in.

However, it's our opinion that the district is "misinforming parents"of their parental rights, is informing parents in writing of the district's intention to flout federal and state laws, and we’re sticking to it, but will the N.C. Department of Public Instruction, with whom we’ve contacted for their opinion, side with us, or side with the district? Only time will tell….

As we've said, stranger things have happened.

We’ll keep you informed…

NC: Teacher Charged With Attacking Colleague

NOTE: This is a story about teachers attacking each other in school. At least they went after each other instead of children??

Staff Writer
February 25, 2009
http://www.myfox8.com/news/wghp-teacher-attacks-colleague-090225,0,3633378.story

GREENSBORO N.C. - Police have charged a middle school teacher with slapping and threatening to kill another teacher.

Catherine Hazleton teaches sixth grade math and social studies at Mendenhall Middle School.

According to police, she got into an argument with a colleague Tuesday morning before classes started. Other employees reportedly had to separate the two.

Officers said the two were friends and the fight reportedly started over one of their family members.Hazleton is charged with simple assault and communicating threats.

Special Report: 1:1 Aides in Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

This information comes directly from Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools' website and appears to be their public declaration - supposedly supported by the N.C. Department of Public Instruction - to discourage the addition of 1:1 aides in the classroom for exceptional needs children.

http://documents.cms.k12.nc.us/dsweb/View/Collection-2926 (Click on Additional Assistants link. This will open a PDF document.)

INFORMATION ON ADDITIONAL ASSISTANTS

Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools does not provide individual assistants (typically referred to as 1:1 assistants). Rather each school (with at least 1 full time EC teacher) already has an additional assistant based on the number of students who have a separate level of service.

DPI has advised CMS to eliminate the practice of adding 1:1 assistants on an IEP. Instead, the following should be written on the DEC 5 when additional support is needed to meet the needs of a student: “CMS will provide adequate personnel to fulfill the goals and objectives on the IEP.”

Schools should consider the following in meeting the needs of students with disabilities:

Current school staff must be considered as a whole when meeting the needs of students. It may require reallocating staff to ensure that student needs are met.

Requests for additional assistants based on physical needs will be considered through the Related Services Specialist (Naia Ward 980-343-2731 or n.ward@cms.k12.nc.us). If appropriate, additional staff allotments will be provided up front based on the students’ physical needs. The goal is to utilize existing school staff in the most effective manner and to maximize each student’s access to the general education environment.

If a school based IEP team chooses to place a 1:1 assistant on a student’s IEP, the school will be responsible for either funding the position or re-allocating current staff.

Assistance in allocating staff and implementing creative scheduling is available through the EC Department. Principals can contact the grade level specialist for their school to request this assistance.

Elementary - Adrienne Dohn 980-343-2717
adrienne.dohn@cms.k12.nc.us

Middle - Stacie Levi 980-343-6164
stacie.levi@cms.k12.nc.us

High - Valerie Morgan 980-343-2679
valerie.morgan@cms.k12.nc.us


If you have additional questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact
Audrey Dillingham at 980-343-2686 or audrey.dillingham@cms.k12.nc.us

NC: Teacher fired after abuse investigation

Wednesday, February 4 ( updated 9:42 am)
Staff Reports
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/02/04/article/teacher_fired_after_abuse_investigation

KERNERSVILLE — The Diocese of Charlotte said it has fired a veteran teacher at Bishop McGuinness Catholic High School after investigating claims of abuse by a former student.

The diocese did not identify the teacher. In September, when the diocese announced that it had suspended the teacher, the diocese said the teacher had worked at the school for 17 years.

The incident allegedly happened in 2001 at the teacher's home. Neither the diocese nor the school provided any more details about what happened. The diocese said the teacher had passed a background check and had completed required sexual abuse awareness training.

North Carolina § 115C‑391.1. Permissible use of seclusion and restraint.

§ 115C‑391.1. Permissible use of seclusion and restraint.

(a) It is the policy of the State of North Carolina to:

(1) Promote safety and prevent harm to all students, staff, and visitors in the public schools.

(2) Treat all public school students with dignity and respect in the delivery of discipline, use of physical restraints or seclusion, and use of reasonable force as permitted by law.

(3) Provide school staff with clear guidelines about what constitutes use of reasonable force permissible in North Carolina public schools.

(4) Improve student achievement, attendance, promotion, and graduation rates by employing positive behavioral interventions to address student behavior in a positive and safe manner.

(5) Promote retention of valuable teachers and other school personnel by providing appropriate training in prescribed procedures, which address student behavior in a positive and safe manner.

(b) The following definitions apply in this section:

(1) "Assistive technology device" means any item, piece of equipment, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capacities of a child with a disability.

(2) "Aversive procedure" means a systematic physical or sensory intervention program for modifying the behavior of a student with a disability which causes or reasonably may be expected to cause one or more of the following:

a. Significant physical harm, such as tissue damage, physical illness, or death.

b. Serious, foreseeable long‑term psychological impairment.

c. Obvious repulsion on the part of observers who cannot reconcile extreme procedures with acceptable, standard practice, for example: electric shock applied to the body; extremely loud auditory stimuli; forcible introduction of foul substances to the mouth, eyes, ears, nose, or skin; placement in a tub of cold water or shower; slapping, pinching, hitting, or pulling hair; blindfolding or other forms of visual blocking; unreasonable withholding of meals; eating one's own vomit; or denial of reasonable access to toileting facilities.

(3) "Behavioral intervention" means the implementation of strategies to address behavior that is dangerous, disruptive, or otherwise impedes the learning of a student or others.

(4) "IEP" means a student's Individualized Education Plan.

(5) "Isolation" means a behavior management technique in which a student is placed alone in an enclosed space from which the student is not prevented from leaving.

(6) "Law enforcement officer" means a sworn law enforcement officer with the power to arrest.

(7) "Mechanical restraint" means the use of any device or material attached or adjacent to a student's body that restricts freedom of movement or normal access to any portion of the student's body and that the student cannot easily remove.

(8) "Physical restraint" means the use of physical force to restrict the free movement of all or a portion of a student's body.

(9) "School personnel" means:

a. Employees of a local board of education.

b. Any person working on school grounds or at a school function under a contract or written agreement with the public school system to provide educational or related services to students.

c. Any person working on school grounds or at a school function for another agency providing educational or related services to students.

(10) "Seclusion" means the confinement of a student alone in an enclosed space from which the student is:

a. Physically prevented from leaving by locking hardware or other means.

b. Not capable of leaving due to physical or intellectual incapacity.

(11) "Time‑out" means a behavior management technique in which a student is separated from other students for a limited period of time in a monitored setting.

(c) Physical Restraint:

(1) Physical restraint of students by school personnel shall be considered a reasonable use of force when used in the following circumstances:

a. As reasonably needed to obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous objects on a person or within the control of a person.

b. As reasonably needed to maintain order or prevent or break up a fight.

c. As reasonably needed for self‑defense.

d. As reasonably needed to ensure the safety of any student, school employee, volunteer, or other person present, to teach a skill, to calm or comfort a student, or to prevent self‑injurious behavior.

e. As reasonably needed to escort a student safely from one area to another.

f. If used as provided for in a student's IEP or Section 504 plan or behavior intervention plan.

g. As reasonably needed to prevent imminent destruction to school or another person's property.

(2) Except as set forth in subdivision (1) of this subsection, physical restraint of students shall not be considered a reasonable use of force, and its use is prohibited.

(3) Physical restraint shall not be considered a reasonable use of force when used solely as a disciplinary consequence.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the use of force by law enforcement officers in the lawful exercise of their law enforcement duties.

(d) Mechanical Restraint:

(1) Mechanical restraint of students by school personnel is permissible only in the following circumstances:

a. When properly used as an assistive technology device included in the student's IEP or Section 504 plan or behavior intervention plan or as otherwise prescribed for the student by a medical or related service provider.

b. When using seat belts or other safety restraints to secure students during transportation.

c. As reasonably needed to obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous objects on a person or within the control of a person.

d. As reasonably needed for self‑defense.

e. As reasonably needed to ensure the safety of any student, school employee, volunteer, or other person present.

(2) Except as set forth in subdivision (1) of this subsection, mechanical restraint, including the tying, taping, or strapping down of a student, shall not be considered a reasonable use of force, and its use is prohibited.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the use of mechanical restraint devices such as handcuffs by law enforcement officers in the lawful exercise of their law enforcement duties.

(e) Seclusion:

(1) Seclusion of students by school personnel may be used in the following circumstances:

a. As reasonably needed to respond to a person in control of a weapon or other dangerous object.

b. As reasonably needed to maintain order or prevent or break up a fight.

c. As reasonably needed for self‑defense.

d. As reasonably needed when a student's behavior poses a threat of imminent physical harm to self or others or imminent substantial destruction of school or another person's property.

e. When used as specified in the student's IEP, Section 504 plan, or behavior intervention plan; and

1. The student is monitored while in seclusion by an adult in close proximity who is able to see and hear the student at all times.

2. The student is released from seclusion upon cessation of the behaviors that led to the seclusion or as otherwise specified in the student's IEP or Section 504 plan.

3. The space in which the student is confined has been approved for such use by the local education agency.

4. The space is appropriately lighted.

5. The space is appropriately ventilated and heated or cooled.

6. The space is free of objects that unreasonably expose the student or others to harm.

(2) Except as set forth in subdivision (1) of this subsection, the use of seclusion is not considered reasonable force, and its use is not permitted.

(3) Seclusion shall not be considered a reasonable use of force when used solely as a disciplinary consequence.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the use of seclusion by law enforcement officers in the lawful exercise of their law enforcement duties.

(f) Isolation. – Isolation is permitted as a behavior management technique provided that:

(1) The space used for isolation is appropriately lighted, ventilated, and heated or cooled.

(2) The duration of the isolation is reasonable in light of the purpose of the isolation.

(3) The student is reasonably monitored while in isolation.

(4) The isolation space is free of objects that unreasonably expose the student or others to harm.

(g) Time‑Out. – Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit or regulate the use of time‑out as defined in this section.

(h) Aversive Procedures. – The use of aversive procedures as defined in this section is prohibited in public schools.

(i) Nothing in this section modifies the rights of school personnel to use reasonable force as permitted under G.S. 115C‑390 or modifies the rules and procedures governing discipline under G.S. 115C‑391(a).

(j) Notice, Reporting, and Documentation.

(1) Notice of procedures. – Each local board of education shall provide copies of this section and all local board policies developed to implement this section to school personnel and parents or guardians at the beginning of each school year.

(2) Notice of specified incidents:

a. School personnel shall promptly notify the principal or principal's designee of:

1. Any use of aversive procedures.

2. Any prohibited use of mechanical restraint.

3. Any use of physical restraint resulting in observable physical injury to a student.

4. Any prohibited use of seclusion or seclusion that exceeds 10 minutes or the amount of time specified on a student's behavior intervention plan.

b. When a principal or principal's designee has personal knowledge or actual notice of any of the events described in this subdivision, the principal or principal's designee shall promptly notify the student's parent or guardian and will provide the name of a school employee the parent or guardian can contact regarding the incident.

(3) As used in subdivision (2) of this subsection, "promptly notify" means by the end of the workday during which the incident occurred when reasonably possible, but in no event later than the end of following workday.

(4) The parent or guardian of the student shall be provided with a written incident report for any incident reported under this section within a reasonable period of time, but in no event later than 30 days after the incident. The written incident report shall include:

a. The date, time of day, location, duration, and description of the incident and interventions.

b. The events or events that led up to the incident.

c. The nature and extent of any injury to the student.

d. The name of a school employee the parent or guardian can contact regarding the incident.

(5) No local board of education or employee of a local board of education shall discharge, threaten, or otherwise retaliate against another employee of the board regarding that employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee makes a report alleging a prohibited use of physical restraint, mechanical restraint, aversive procedure, or seclusion, unless the employee knew or should have known that the report was false.

(k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private cause of action against any local board of education, its agents or employees, or any institutions of teacher education or their agents or employees or to create a criminal offense. (2005‑205, s. 2; 2006‑264, s. 58.)

NC: Teacher charged in incident with student

12/31/2008 08:10 AM

By: News 14 Carolina Web Staff

http://news14.com/content/top_stories/603007/teacher-charged-in-incident-with-student/Default.aspx

GUILFORD COUNTY -- A Guilford County teacher is facing charges for having a sexual relationship with a student.

Karl Wells, an assistant teacher and women’s basketball coach at Western Guilford High School, is charged with indecent liberties with a student for an incident that happened on October 30. Wells turned himself in to police and was released with a written promise to appear in court.

Detectives say the investigation is ongoing and ask anyone with any information to call the Greensboro Police Department at 336-272-2255.

NC: List of Disciplinary Actions to Date

Below is a link to the North Carolina State Board of Education's list of Disciplinary Actions to date, complete with full names, action (revokation, suspension, reinstatement), reason for the action, and date of action. This listing appears to have last been added to as of March 2009:

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/stateboard/legal/revoked

NC: HOUSE BILL 1032 to clarify the permissible use of seclusion and restraint in public schools and to provide for training in management of behavior

Also known as the "Deborah Greenblatt Act: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2005/Bills/House/HTML/H1032v6.html

"§ 115C‑391.1. Permissible use of seclusion and restraint.

(a)It is the policy of the State of North Carolina to: "Treat all public school students with dignity and respect in the delivery of discipline, use of physical restraints or seclusion, and use of reasonable force as permitted by law.

Physical Restraint may be used in the following cirumstances:

1. As reasonably needed to obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous objects on a person or within the control of a person.
2. As reasonably needed to maintain order or prevent or break up a fight.
3. As reasonably needed for self‑defense.
4. As reasonably needed to ensure the safety of any student, school employee, volunteer, or other person present, to teach a skill, to calm or comfort a student, or to prevent self‑injurious behavior.
5. As reasonably needed to escort a student safely from one area to another.
6. If used as provided for in a student's IEP or Section 504 plan or behavior intervention plan.
7. As reasonably needed to prevent imminent destruction to school or another person's property.

(2) Except as set forth in subdivision (1), physical restraint of students shall not be considered a reasonable use of force, and its use is prohibited.

Physical restraint shall not be considered a reasonable use of force when used solely as a disciplinary consequence.

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the use of force by law enforcement officers in the lawful exercise of their law enforcement duties.

Mechanical restraint may be used in the following circumstances:

1. When properly used as an assistive technology device included in the student's IEP or Section 504 plan or behavior intervention plan or as otherwise prescribed for the student by a medical or related service provider.
2. When using seat belts or other safety restraints to secure students during transportation.
3. As reasonably needed to obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous objects on a person or within the control of a person.
4. As reasonably needed for self‑defense.
5. As reasonably needed to ensure the safety of any student, school employee, volunteer, or other person present.

Except as set forth in subdivision (1) of this subsection, mechanical restraint, including the tying, taping, or strapping down of a student, shall not be considered a reasonable use of force, and its use is prohibited.

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the use of mechanical restraint devices, such as handcuffs by law enforcement officers in the lawful exercise of their law enforcement duties.

Seclusion may be used in the following circumstances:

1. As reasonably needed to respond to a person in control of a weapon or other dangerous object.
2. As reasonably needed to maintain order or prevent or break up a fight.
3. As reasonably needed for self‑defense.
4. As reasonably needed when a student's behavior poses a threat of imminent physical harm to self or others or imminent substantial destruction of school or another person's property.
5. When used as specified in the student's IEP, Section 504 plan, or behavior intervention plan;

Seclusion Policy:
1. The student is monitored while in seclusion by an adult in close proximity who is able to see and hear the student at all times.
2. The student is released from seclusion upon cessation of the behaviors that led to the seclusion or as otherwise specified in the student's IEP or Section 504 plan.
3. The space in which the student is confined has been approved for such use by the local education agency.
4. The space is appropriately lighted.
5. The space is appropriately ventilated and heated or cooled.
6. The space is free of objects that unreasonably expose the student or others to harm.

Except as set forth in subdivision (1), the use of seclusion is not considered reasonable force, and its use is not permitted.

Seclusion shall not be considered a reasonable use of force when used solely as a disciplinary consequence.

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the use of seclusion by law enforcement officers in the lawful exercise of their law enforcement duties.

Isolation is permitted as a behavior management technique provided that:
(1) The space used for isolation is appropriately lighted, ventilated, and heated or cooled.
(2) The duration of the isolation is reasonable in light of the purpose of the isolation.
(3) The student is reasonably monitored while in isolation.
(4) The isolation space is free of objects that unreasonably expose the student or others to harm.

NC: School Admits to Restraint Use

By Britt Combs The McDowell News
Published: November 24, 2008
http://www2.mcdowellnews.com/content/2008/nov/24/mom-school-admits-restraint-use/

A McDowell mother of a special needs child says school officials admitted that her son was restrained with a belt-like device and they've assured her it will not happen again.

Ann Watson alleged that her son, Jeremiah, 14, had been restrained at East McDowell Junior High without her permission.

She further said the system has purged documents that reflect poorly on the school system's handling of special needs students.

Last month she began noticing that Jeremiah was nervous, unable to sleep at night, and unusually upset. He began having incidents at school, including wetting his pants. Then earlier in this month, she got a call from the mother of a student at East. According to Watson, the caller said her daughter was upset about seeing Jeremiah tethered and being led on a leash at school.

Jeremiah is diagnosed as suffering from autism, she said. She homeschooled him for a number of years after an earlier conflict with administrators over speech therapy and other services for her son, she explained.

Marion Police Lieutenant Scott Spratt confirmed there was a complaint on file, although his ability to comment was limited, due to it being "a juvenile matter."

He said last week the incident "has been investigated and currently being followed up on."

Associate Superintendent Mike Murray said last Wednesday that the accusation was frustrating.
"We don't have devices," he insisted. "We don't use any torture apparatus or anything of the sort."

He said the system provides training for principals and other personnel in managing crisis situations, using the widely approved Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) techniques.

"They have to get that training," he said, "and they have to recertify periodically. When it's updated or new material is approved, we take every opportunity to get the latest training and keep our folks up to date."

There are other school systems, he added, that go so far as to include isolation in padded rooms as a method of defusing a volatile situation with a distraught student, but not in McDowell.

"I would never allow something like that to happen," Murray said. "I will not be a part of that. The point of our training is to avoid any need for restraint or confinement."

Murray was unequivocal in his denial of Watson's claims.

"Nothing was used to restrain that student," he said. He said an internal investigation and a Marion Police investigation had both found there was no evidence to support the charge.

"She (Watson) has acted like we did something terrible to that student and that is not the case," he concluded.

Bob Rettmann, spokesman for CPI in Brookfield, Wisconsin, said CPI training teaches "verbal de-escalation techniques, and physical techniques as a last resort."

He said the physical techniques were basically holding moves, designed to avoid injury or painful contact.

Those are the extent of CPI techniques, he added. The use of devices of any kind "would be entirely outside our purview."

On Wednesday, The McDowell News heard from a school employee who spoke on condition of anonymity. The employee said that an inexperienced assistant in the class had used a belt to tether Jeremiah on as many as three occasions.

The employee said the belt was mainly used to help wheelchair-bound students into and out of their seat. The use of the belt on Jeremiah was inappropriate, the employee said, and training would ensue to make sure it would not happen again.

On Friday, Watson told The McDowell News she had had a meeting at East that morning with the principal, Exceptional Children's Services Director Chuck Aldridge, a lawyer for the school system and other school personnel.

Watson said school officials had apologized to her at that meeting. She said they assured her the belt had been discarded and would not be used again. With that assurance, she said, she planned to return her son to school.

"If no other child gets hurt," she concluded, "then some good will come of it."

The school system's policy manual includes policy 5200, dealing with discipline. The policy grants that personnel "may use reasonable force to control behavior … or to remove a person … to quell a disturbance threatening injury to others … for the protection of persons or property; or to maintain order," among other situations.

The policy makes no mention of restraining devices.

Policy 6403, addressing programs for exceptional children, provides for alternative placement if a student "is of significant risk to others or who is of significant risk from others…" but makes no mention of any form of restraint.