NY: Bullying Allegedly Takes Another Victim

NOTE: We just came across this article from April 2008. Another young life lost...

Schools Must Communicate With Parents, Kids to Prevent Bullying, Experts Say

By EMILY FRIEDMAN
April 15, 2008

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4651180&page=1

Despite the old adage about sticks and stones, the mother of New York City middle school student Maria Herrera told a local newspaper that words really did hurt her daughter, who apparently committed suicide by hanging herself last week.

Herrera was the latest tragic victim of bullying, according to her mother, who told The New York Post that she found the 12-year-old hanging dead in a closet from a cloth belt on April 7.

Mercedes Herrera told the The Post that students constantly teased her daughter and even went as far as cutting her hair.

"She would come home crying," Herrera told the Post, adding that she complained "more than 20 times" to administrators at the school, to no avail.

While many children deal with bullying — from name-calling to teasing and sometimes even physical violence — not all of them cope well when they are consistently the butt of the joke.

ABCNEWS.com was unable to reach Herrera, and Public School 72, where the deceased student was enrolled in sixth grade, declined to comment and deferred questions to the New York City Department of Education.

n a statement from the DOE, the stringent rules for reporting bullying with the school system were reiterated, and the department said they have no evidence that the alleged bullying of Herrera was ever reported, contrary to her mother's claims.

"This situation is a tragedy, but there is no record that this student had been a victim of persistent bullying or that her parents had complained about persistent bullying at the school," according to the statement. "The Department of Education does not tolerate bullying or harassment in any form."

Violence Moves from Hallways to the Internet
Herrera's death follows in the wake of several other bullying-related incidents, most notably the 2006 suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier, who hanged herself after she was bullied over the popular networking site MySpace.com.

And just last week, a video depicting eight teens as they beat another unconscious became a viral video sensation.

With bullying increasingly making a move from the school's hallways to student's Web pages and e-mail inboxes, many schools are struggling to cope with a problem that never seems to go away.

"Just when we think something is handled, something new comes out," said Jan Harp Domene, the national president of The Parent Teacher Association. "Now we see violence in all different forms."

School employees should do everything they can to keep an eye on bullying, Harp Domene said, but parents should take control of the situation and make sure they communicate not only with the school but their children, too.

"Parents need to talk to their child's teachers, but they still have to talk to their kid," said Harp Domene. "A lot of times parents will think talking to the teacher is enough, but the teacher is there to monitor 30 or 35 kids and you can't expect them to see everything."

Both parents and teachers should make sure children know it's OK to tell someone if they are getting bullied, a challenge to the stigma that tattle-tailing is "bad," she said.

"A lot of the time children who are bullied don't want to talk about it because they don't want that person to come back at them, they need reassurance by teachers and school administrators.

"They need to tell children that it's OK to tell, especially when it's your safety or your health. It's also OK to tell if you see it happening to another student."

Anti-Bullying Legislation
School districts nationwide have taken steps to enforce anti-bullying rules, and in Florida, a particularly tragic incident spurred legislation that would mandate school's instate bullying rules and protocol.

A bill working its way through the state legislature was created in the name of Jeffrey Johnston, a Florida ninth grader who committed suicide after years of being bullied online.

Florida State Rep. Nick Thompson is currently backing the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up For All Students Act, an anti-bullying law that he hopes will pass later this week.

"It requires that the [Florida] Department of Education will draft a model anti-bullying policy," Thompson told ABCNEWS.com. "Then all 67 county school districts must adopt their own policy that conforms."

The law will also require schools to adhere to reporting protocols when bullying is suspected. It would deprive schools of state funding for other safety measures — such as security and counseling — if they fail to do so, said Thompson.

The Anatomy of a Bully
While the victims of these most tragic examples of schoolyard bullying may seem fairly average at first glance, child and adolescent psychiatrist Alvin Rosenfeld told ABCNEWS.com that there's a pattern to which gets picked on the most.

"The kids who are more passive or tend to feel more inadequate are bullied more," said Rosenfeld, who is based in Connecticut. "Also, kids who feel more nerdy."

And what about the bully?

Rosenfeld says it's true: Bullies are often the most disturbed of all.

"It's a great feeling to be powerful when you're little," said Rosenfeld. "And the littler you feel, the more fun it is to make yourself feel better.

"The kids who bully tend to be the more emotionally disturbed. Why else would you want to make someone feel inferior or lousy?"

Rosenfeld, who says he's never treated a child who was effected so much by bullying that it led to suicidal thought, said depression and anxiety are pretty common for those who are picked on a lot.

"There are tons of kids that get bullied for one reason or another, but still very few hang themselves or shoot up a school," said Rosenfeld.

IL: Family Upset With Suicide Ruling in 10-Year-Old's Death

See Related Story: IL: Boy, 10, Apparently Hung From Hook Dies

Aquan Lewis Was Found Dead After Hanging by Shirt Collar in Bathroom Stall at Elementary School

By SARAH NETTER
Feb. 5, 2009

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=6812036&page=2

The family of a 10-year-old boy who died after being hanged on a bathroom hook at his school Tuesday is unsatisfied with the medical examiner's suicide ruling and believes the boy may have been the victim of bullies.

Aquan Lewis, an Illinois fifth-grader who loved football and basketball, was found dead on the bathroom floor by a school janitor at Oakton Elementary School in Evanston, Ill. The janitor, Elliott Lieteau, told The Associated Press that others had pulled the boy off the hook and attempted to perform CPR.

Lallie Marshall, Aquan's great-grandmother, told ABCNews.com that the family believes he was hoisted onto the hook by a group of boys. In the days after Aquan's death, she said, they have heard he might have been the target of school bullies.

"The way the stall is made and everything, he couldn't hang himself," she said.

Aquan's mother, Angel Marshall has hired an attorney to investigate the circumstances of her son's death. The family wants to know why school officials didn't keep track of him and why officials believe a seemingly happy child would take his own life at such a young age.

"The medical examiner, before the police have ever done the investigation, has concluded suicide … I think it's reckless, frankly," said Chicago attorney Todd Smith.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Aquan had told a teacher he planned to kill himself, and the teacher may also have shared the boy's comments with another staff member. One of the sources, according to the newspaper, charged that school personnel failed to take the threat seriously. According to a law enforcement report, Aquan had been scolded by school staff earlier Tuesday.

Neglect allegations have been lodged against the school with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services in connection with the death, DCFS spokesman Jimmie Whitelow confirmed.

A doctor with the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office, who requested her name not be used, said Aquan was hanged on a bathroom stall door by the collar of his polo shirt. A foot print was found on the toilet in the stall, she said, indicating he had used the seat to get to the door hook.

The doctor said attempts were made to resuscitate him, "but I think it was too late."

Police said Aquan had vital signs while en route to the hospital, but was pronounced dead early Wednesday morning. The doctor at the Medical Examiner's Office said she did not know how long the child had been hanging from the hook.

But Smith said that Aquan, the middle of three children, was a "happy kid" who told his mom before school Tuesday that he was looking forward to basketball practice in the afternoon. Lallie Marshall said Aquan helped get his 5-year-old sister on the bus and then hopped on his own bus to school.

While Angel Marshall has not made formal plans to sue the school, "I think all things are on the table," Smith said. "The mother is really trying to find out what happened to her son."

Child Suicide 'Very Rare'

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists suicide as the third leading cause of death for people between the ages of 15 to 24, it lists just 11 deaths for children under age 10 in 2005, the most current data available.

Lanny Berman, executive director of the American Association of Suicidology, told ABCNews.com that the suicide of a 10-year-old is "very rare" and usually doesn't happen without clear warning signs, such as "very serious symptoms of aggression ... or just being out of control in some other ways."

"Suicide at this age is very impulsive," he said.

And if Aquan had indeed threatened suicide to a school employee, it should have been taken seriously no matter how flippant it may have sounded, Berman said.

"We always advise to take every threat seriously," he said. "If you're wrong, big deal. If you're right you may save a life."

Evanston Police Commander Tom Guenther told ABCNews.com today that his office was aware of the medical examiner's ruling, but would not draw its own conclusion until the investigation is complete.

Police are continuing to talk to a wide swath of people, including students, parents and school employees.

He declined to say whether foul play was being considered and said it would be "inappropriate" to comment on whether police have had previous dealings with the family.

A public records search showed Angel Marshall pleaded no contest to cocaine possession in 2003 and was sentenced to community service in 1999 on a handgun charge.

Lallie Marshall said her great-grandson loved his video games and his time playing sports. He'd been playing on football and basketball teams for about two years.

Marshall said Aquan's older brother Adam told her that Aquan wanted to be an NBA star when he was older.

"He was a nice little boy," she said.

The Evanston/Skokie School District 65 posted a message to parents and the community on its Web site Wednesday mourning the loss of "an Oakton School fifth grader" and saying that counselors, staff and psychologists would be made available to students.

"It is important for us to let you know that at this point in the investigation, it appears this is an isolated incident involving one student," the message read. "No other students were in harm's way."

"If there is someone to blame, I have to take the blame for that because I'm the superintendent of schools," Superintendent Hardy Murphy told an ABC affiliate.

Few who knew Aquan wanted to talk about him or his death today. Though one member of the Oakton Elementary School PTA expressed sadness over the incident, no one would comment further.

Aquan's football coach Tracey Wallace was quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying he had potential "not only as a citizen, but as an athlete."

But when contacted by ABCNews.com today, Craig Thompson, executive director of Evanston Jr. Wildkit Football, said he had been advised by the club's attorney not to comment in light of possible forthcoming litigation against the school district.

Open Letter to PA Disability Rights Network

April 2, 2009

To:       Sallie Lynagh, Team Leader

From:   Jennifer Searcy, Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs

Re:       Franklin Learning Center

Dear Sallie:

I am contacting you today on behalf of The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports regarding an article published on March 27, 2009 by Rob Luff at Public Opinion Online about the Disability Rights Network investigation of Franklin Learning Center. (http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci 12007428? source=most_viewed).

This article mentioned that the Disability Rights Network (DRN) received a number of parental complaints regarding possible abuse atFranklin Learning Center, and that based on the volume of complaints DRN had received, DRN staff had determined an investigation into those allegations would be necessary.

The article further mentioned that you personally were sent to Franklin Learning Center to investigate these allegations, that you personally witnessed staff physically restraining children by strapping them into their chairs, and that this same staff admitted to you that they were doing so for behavioral purposes.

The article went on to indicate that you had forwarded your findings on to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, but that the Department of Education had already investigated the school once, and found, with the exception of messy paperwork, that the school was “mostly clean.”

Fortunately, the Department of Education agreed to investigate again. Unfortunately, the Department of Education agreed to investigate again. Please allow me to elaborate and share our concerns.

As a fellow member of the ARC Systems Advocacy and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee (SAGA) for Early Childhood/Education (ECE) and one of the two parent representatives who testified before the House of Representatives Education Sub-committee on behalf of the ARC, I know that we are both well-aware that the practice of physically restraining a child for disciplinary purposes is illegal under Chapter 14.

We also know that Chapter 14 permits restraints to be written into the children’s IEPs, with the additional stipulations that restraints may not be used for the convenience of staff and that they should only be used when the child is a danger to himself or others. We also know that schools routinely abuse this provision.

The Department of Education has been reported to have previously conducted an investigation. Their investigation reportedly concluded with the Department of Education asking this school to clean up its paperwork; no restraint and/or abuse violations, or other infractions were substantiated.

Our concern is that all the Department of Education will do is to ask the district to again correct their paperwork and will not take any action (direct or indirect) to put a stop to staff’s atrocious and egregious violation of the law. This is unacceptable, and begs the question:

Whose concerns will really be served by referring the case to the Department of Education? The childrens’, or the districts’?

Those of us in the disability community know how harmful, traumatic, dangerous, and often deadly physical restraints can be when used inappropriately. We know, too, of the movement (especially in Pennsylvania) to eliminate restraints in nursing homes and psychiatric treatment centers.

Focus is now finally shifting to schools and towards the use of positive behavioral interventions and educational practices based upon research, rather than on unproven techniques, like restraints, which are not based upon research.  

Despite this, there are still provisions in existing laws which permit the use of restraints under certain circumstances. Chapter 14 permits just such a practice.

As I’m sure you’re aware, if restraints are written into the children’s IEPs, then it is much harder to prove a school is using restraints inappropriately. I should know, as this was the only way the Department of Education “proved” that my school district illegally and inappropriately restrained my daughter back in 2006.

Schools also can intimidate parents and twist facts to suit their purposes so that any action, including strapping a child to a chair, can sound like a reasonable, safe, and/or educational practice.

Parents, especially to children with significant behavioral issues relating to their disabilities, may defer to a school’s wishes and recommendations, as school staff are the supposed “experts.”

What staff won’t disclose is that at times techniques which are not safe or steeped in research are used for the convenience of staff, rather than out of true “need.”

Further, the Department of Education put pressure on my district, which then put pressure on me, to try to force me to agree to the addition of restraints in my daughter’s IEP so that the district could be cleared of wrong-doing. I refused, and my district used other tactics to try to and eventually succeeded in forcing us out of the district.

We would hate to see this repeated, now, at this school, not when your eye-witness testimony could possible put a stop to it.

By virtue of the “paperwork being cleaned” by the addition and inclusion of restraints (if not already listed in the child’s IEP), the school would then practically have the endorsement, if not the approval, of the Department of Education, to continue to abuse these vulnerable children. Again, this is unacceptable.

This again begs the question:

What does the DRN hope to gain from this referral?                                                                                                                                                                                    

Are you just following normal procedures? Are there any other avenues (such as a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of all the children illegally and inappropriately restrained, a request for additional staff training so that they don’t intentionally or unintentionally violate Chapter 14 as it pertains to restraints in schools), if any, also being pursued by DRN staff?

If the DRN has no intention of seeking further remediation, then what rationale is being used to justify taking no further action, including and up to filing a civil rights complaint, as the DRN has the federally mandated authority (and receives federal and state funding) to pursue?

DRN CEO Ilene Shane had reportedly stated that DRN is not trying to shut down the Franklin Learning Center, but rather the DRN’s intent is to bring awareness to what placements and services may be available to disabled children in their home districts, thereby possibly expanding educational options for disabled children and their parents.

Ms. Shane also appeared to implicate that the districts are really the ones to be held accountable (and blamed as it were) for referring children to this school and not informing parents of the full continuum of placement options and/or services the children could receive in their home district.

So in essence, it’s not the fault of the personnel at Franklin who you witnessed abusing these children, it’s the fault of the district (and by extension the parents) who agreed to send them to Franklin to be abused in the first place. How is this even remotely logical?

And our last and most important questions:

While the Department of Education investigates to see whether they agree with what you’d reportedly seen with your own eyes, who is protecting those children from further restraints?

Who will finally put a stop to the abuse those children endure seemingly on a daily basis?

I’ve shared this article, along with our concerns, with the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as with other advocates across the nation. I’ve also posted a copy of this letter on my blog so that others may learn what happened at FranklinLearning Center. 

Thank you for investigating and substantiating abuse allegations at Franklin Learning Center. We look forward to your response. 

Best regards, 

 

Jennifer Searcy                                                                                                                                                   Founder/Director of Public Policy & Affairs                                                                                                             The Coalition for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

PA: Franklin Learning Center accused of incorrectly restraining students

NOTE: This is why abuse is allowed to continue.

Good old Disability Rights Network (DRN), formerly Protection & Advocacy (you know the agency that's supposed to protect people from abuse?) are at its finest again. DRN of PA staff, and not just any staff, but Sallie Lynaugh! WITNESSED restraints used illegally, inappropriately, and ABUSIVELY in a school for disabled children. And Sallie should know, she helped us craft CHAPTER 14 LEGISLATION to protect kids from restraints. Legislation I helped draft, legislation I testified for before the House of Representative Education sub-committee to get it passed, despite the law's flaws and DRN's blatant refusal to help me and another mom when OUR KIDS were restrained, legislation DRN TESTIFIED FOR. I guess for them it was all a PR stunt.

Here's why I'm so upset: DRN has the ability to bring CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS against schools who discriminate and abuse disabled children. But what does this DRN do? Refer it back to PA Department of Education (DPE) for "investigation."

What's that? DPE ALREADY investigated and found the center "clean?" But they'll investigate again, just to be sure?? And for what? So the school can better create a paper trail (you know, include restraints in the IEP) so that it's NOT illegal (but maybe still abusive)?

Oh, and it's not this school's fault they abused those kids. Naaaww, it's the fault of the DISTRICTS who sent those kids there in the first place, because the DISTRICTS should've told the parents about the "continuum of placement/service options available to them." You know, before everyone agreed to have those kids sent to a school that would abuse them.

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

What happens to those kids in the meantime, while they're waiting around for, I don't know, someone to actually STOP THEIR ABUSE?

I'm ashamed to say I know Sallie personally, and I'm ashamed of the PA DRN, but unfortunately, I'm not one bit surprised.

Good thing I'm finally almost over my bronchitis. 

Be on the look out for an Action Alert.

Posted: 03/27/2009 02:00:00 AM EDT

By ROB LUFF

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_12007428?source=most_viewed

An upcoming inspection of Franklin Learning Center will investigate accusations
by an advocacy group that some teachers are strapping students to chairs when
they misbehave, among other concerns.

Pennsylvania Department of Education agreed to run a second investigation of the center, a specialized school for children with severe special needs, after receiving a list of complaints from the Disability Rights Network.

The network, a non-profit Philadelphia-based advocacy group sanctioned by the federal government, conducted a surprise inspection of the school in November after receiving "numerous" complaints from students' parents.

PDE's first inspection came up mostly clean. It asked administrators to refine the language in students' individualized education plans (IEPs) to better address health equipment.

Sallie Lynagh, the children's team leader for DRN, said she observed children
being strapped to chairs. Restraints are allowed for correcting posture that
would harm the child's health, or if the child poses a danger to other students.

When she asked teachers why some students were restrained, they told her it was
for discipline purposes and to stop children from wandering away from class.
Pennsylvania law forbids restraints being used for those purposes, she said.

The network also alleged that students' local school districts should provide better special education services so that children do not have to be in a separate school to their peers.

DRN requested PDE conduct a more thorough inspection of the school after it reviewed student records with parental permission. PDE will make its inspection during the first two weeks of April.

"Parents are concerned that we are trying to close Franklin Learning Center or limit their options," said Ilene Shane, chief executive officer of DRN. "I think it's actually the opposite."

The learning center needs to give parents more information on the other education options their children should have at their default schools. The complaint is intended against the special education departments of all five participating school districts, she said.

Mike Thew, executive director of Lincoln Intermediate unit, the organization that runs the center, said he is not worried about the upcoming inspection.

The school is an "open book," letting parents come in at any time to see how teachers run the classroom, he said. Parents have the option to change their child's IEP at any time.

TN: Autistic boy's arrest at school fuels debate on discipline for disabled

NOTE: Another child with autism has been arrested, and why? Well, it all started with the boy's asthma attack. Staff then attempted to force him to continue running, despite an attack so severe he had to use his inhaler, and in protest, the boy ran out of the school building. Then staff forcefully brought him back into the building and continued to restrain him even after the danger had passed, and then they called the police when the child bit and scratched two employees as he tried to break free from the continued restraint. Anyone who knows anything about autism knows that physical restraints only exacerbate the problem and trigger a "flight or fight response," and there are alternatives that are just effective, if not more so, that don't involve physical violence against a child. This whole situation could have been prevented had the gym teacher elicited one iota of common sense and permitted the child to "sit out" the remainder of gym class, as an "asthma attack" is a medical emergency, and one that required him to use his physician-prescribed inhaler. He was in no physical condition to continue running IMMEDIATELY AFTER an asthma attack. So not only are they clueless about autism, but they're clueless about asthma as well...Is it any wonder this is the same district this same Mom butted heads with after her son was locked in a "seclusion box?"

By Christina E. Sanchez • THE TENNESSEAN • March 29, 2009

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090329/NEWS04/903290370&s=d&page=3

PORTLAND — Cindy Gaspard knew something was different about her son, Dylan, when he was 6 months old.

As an infant, he would line up toys in a row and throw a fit if the order was disrupted. He didn't like to be held. He couldn't speak until he was 3.

Dylan was diagnosed at age 7 with autism, a brain disorder that affects communication and social interaction. For Gaspard, the finding explained years of communication problems and outbursts, and helped her learn how to deal with many of his behaviors and to fight for services for her son.

She is fighting for him again.

Dylan, a sixth-grader enrolled in a special-needs program in Sumner County schools, was recently handcuffed, arrested and put in juvenile detention after an outburst in school. He was charged with two counts of assault for biting and scratching teachers.

"I disagree with court or jail as a placement for a mentally challenged child, when what he clearly needs is psychiatric treatment," Gaspard said of her 12-year-old son. "For Dylan, sitting in jail meant nothing to him. Treatment and assistance at a hospital will help him attain the skills he needs."

The case reflects an ongoing debate in Tennessee: How should school officials handle and defuse behavioral outbursts of developmentally disabled students at school?

Federal law prevents school officials from discussing students' cases, said district spokesman Jeremy Johnson.

But he said school district policy is that police will be called for children under certain circumstances, including when the child leaves school grounds, when the child's behavior cannot be controlled by teachers, and when a crime is committed.

"When a child is admitted to the therapeutic intervention program, parents are notified that we could have to call police," Johnson said.

Dylan, who has been in the hospital for a psychological evaluation since the episode on March 9, is not the first child with developmental disabilities to be arrested.

"Statewide, we have had several cases of children with disabilities being arrested and being taken to Juvenile Court for behaviors in school," said Sherry Wilds, staff attorney for the Tennessee Disability Law and Advocacy Center. "It's the answer a lot of systems have."

Seclusion Boxes Gone

Gaspard spoke out for her son in 2007 about seclusion boxes — small, dark rooms made of plywood where special-needs children were put to control behavior in Sumner County schools. She found out Dylan was put in one and helped bring their existence to public attention. The district has since removed the boxes.

A state law went into effect in January that is designed to prevent students from being subjected to unreasonable, unsafe or unwarranted discipline by prohibiting methods that include sitting on students as a restraint or putting them in a locked room. The Tennessee Board of Education will hold a public hearing April 30 on the rules for the restraint and isolation statute. April is also Autism Awareness Month.

Gaspard said Dylan had just been enrolled in the program at R.T. Fisher Alternative School in Gallatin a week before his arrest. He was placed there to better serve his educational needs.

But new situations and changes to routine can trigger his explosions, and school officials were aware of that because it is in his education plan. Methods that work best for him are taking him out of the situation or turning his attention to another activity, his mother said.

Boy Had Asthma Attack

Gaspard said after her son was arrested she learned that Dylan was in the gym running laps, and he had an asthma attack. He was allowed to stop to use his inhaler. When the teacher tried to get him to start running again, Dylan got frustrated and ran out of the school, saying he was going to "get hit by a car."

She said teachers were able to get him back in the building, but when they were restraining him, he acted out further.

Police said Dylan bit one teacher and kicked and scratched two others.

"If the child is so out of control that the teachers can no longer handle him, we are going to have to respond," said Lt. Kate Novitsky, spokeswoman for the Gallatin Police Department. "If the child is biting, scratching and kicking, the child is going to have to be taken into custody."

Gaspard said restraining Dylan can backfire because, like many children with autism, he doesn't want to be touched. He banged his head against the table and had a bruise on his head the size of a golf ball.

Dylan was handcuffed, put in the police car and taken to juvenile detention. Police were not told he had autism.

Johnson, the Sumner County schools spokesman, said the district is not allowed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to release that information to police, "even in an emergency."

Wilds, the Tennessee Disability Law and Advocacy Center attorney, disputes that contention, saying laws don't typically apply in an emergency.

"If you are getting ready to throw a child in the back of a car and take them away, you would want to know please handle this child carefully, they can't communicate that well," she said.

Arrest Stuns Advocates

Wilds said public and private lawyers are not always trained to handle these cases to fight for the child in courts. A behavioral analysis should be done on many of these children before police or court become involved.

"That way you can have a behavior intervention program in place when something happens," she said.

Holly Lu Conant Rees, chairman of the Disability Coalition on Education, said she has a lot of questions about the episode, including what plans were in place to help Dylan before the situation escalated. She does not believe arresting him was the answer.

"I believe it's unconscionable to arrest a 12-year-old child for behaviors that were clearly manifestations of the child's disability," said Conant Rees, who advocates for children of disabilities.

As for Gaspard, she is trying to figure out what the next step for Dylan will be and how to help him.

"Dylan is a very loving, funny child, and people are drawn to him and his big smile," Gaspard said. "He is the light of my life, and it's hard when you feel you are always butting heads with someone to get your child help."

Australia: Child care workers guilty of assault for threatening boy, 4

Staff reporters
March 31, 2009 09:55am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25268091-662,00.html

TWO child care workers who told a four-year-old boy they'd "chop off his willy" pleaded guilty to assault and received suspended jail sentences.

The mother and daughter childcare workers held a knife to a four-year-old boy and threatening to cut off his penis, PerthNow reports.

The pair admitted making the threats to "shock'' the boy so he'd stop exposing himself at the Perth daycare centre where they worked, Armadale Magistrates Court was told.

Sandra Kaye Ingraham, 60, and her daughter Kelly Sandra Ingraham, 28, of Kelmscott, were both accused of having held a kitchen knife to the four-year-old and threatening to "chop'' or "cut'' off his penis on three different occasions.

Outside the court, the boy's grandmother told reporters that since the assaults, the boy had tried to harm himself a number of times and she'd been forced to hide her kitchen knives.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Robert Clements told the court both of the accused had held a large kitchen knife 30cm away as they threatened the boy.

"I'll chop your willy off'', "I'll chop it off'' and "I'll cut it off'' were among the threats made to the four-year-old, Sgt Clements said.

The incidents occurred between January and April last year.

The boy's grandmother said she now "put all my knives up on the top shelf so he can't touch them anymore''.

"I've got a couple of butter knives in the drawer which now and again he might try and take one of them and put it on his arm a little bit, but all my other big knives are all gone.

"It hasn't happened for maybe five, six, seven weeks but with the court today I think he sensed something was going on and he's gone into the drawer and taken a butter knife out and tried to cut himself.''

Magistrate Brian Glustein told the pair they had assaulted a child whose welfare had been placed in their hands.

"Each assault was constituted by responsible ladies holding a knife to the boy,'' Mr Glustein said.
The assaults were serious despite the pair's lawyers describing them as "mid-range'' in severity, Mr Glustein said.

In sentencing, he said prison terms were a last resort and he took the fact the pair had no prior convictions, their guilty pleas and the fact they were unlikely to offend similarly again, into consideration.

"It is my view that regarding the seriousness the only appropriate sentences are terms of imprisonment.''

The women, between them, were initially charged with four counts of aggravated assault but the charges were amended when they changed their pleas from not guilty on the eve of a trial.

The mother pleaded guilty two counts of unlawful assault while her daughter pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful assault.

The magistrate sentenced both women to nine months on each of the charges, wholly suspended for 15 months, with Sandra Ingraham's sentences to be served concurrently.

The pair covered their faces as they walked from court.

TN: Maury Co. May Stop School Spanking

Schools Director Has Strongly Discouraged Spanking
POSTED: 10:31 am CDT March 30, 2009
http://www.wsmv.com/news/19045231/detail.html

COLUMBIA, Tenn. -- School officials in Columbia are considering eliminating paddling to avoid possible lawsuits alleging abuse.

The Maury County school board gave initial approval this month to eliminating the policy, which states that corporal punishment should only be used as a last resort. However, parents are allowed to opt out.

Schools Director Eddie Hickman said he has strongly discouraged the practice and he doesn't want the school system or the faculty to face a possible lawsuit if the punishment is used incorrectly.

Corporal punishment incidents in the county have plummeted in recent years, from 77 incidents in the 2004-2005 academic year to only three reported this past year.

TN: Teacher Disclosed Misconduct Investigation

Hamilton County: Metro Didn't Call About Teacher
Reported by Sara Dorsey
POSTED: 4:19 pm CDT March 30, 2009
UPDATED: 5:03 pm CDT March 30, 2009
http://www.wsmv.com/news/19048211/detail.html

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Did the Metro school system miss some serious clues when it hired a teacher already under indictment for sex crimes?

Donelson Middle School teacher Ronald E. Boykin was arrested Friday, accused of abusing two local boys. But he got that job with Metro with an outstanding warrant for sex crimes in Chattanooga.

With just a couple of phone calls, Channel 4 uncovered a lot of clues that the school system background check apparently could not.

One of those clues is the teacher's application with Metro. He wrote on his application that he had been under investigation for misconduct in the past.

Other clues come from what his old school system has to say. But they said no one from Metro ever called them.

Boykin's past started to unravel when Metro police pulled him over a week ago and discovered 2006 warrants for his arrest in Chattanooga on rape and sexual battery by an authority figure charges.

"He went through all the background checks," said Olivia Brown, Metro schools. "There was no indication on any of the checks that were done that there was anything in his background."

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said he worked for two years at Donelson Middle because Boykin was charged in Hamilton County but never arrested. Warrants and arrest history are different.

"Unfortunately, the database that holds the arrest warrant information is in a separate law enforcement-sensitive database that is not searched for a civilian employer," said Kristin Helm of TBI.

One call to Hamilton County schools by Channel 4 netted Boykin's suspension letter that mentioned misconduct and Boykin's own resignation letter that said he stepped down because the investigation was taking too long.

Both are public records.

On his Metro schools application, Boykin alerted the school that he left amid allegations of misconduct. A Hamilton County schools spokesperson said no one from Metro Nashville schools ever called to inquire about Boykin.

"What I cannot tell you is how that information was then followed up on by the school district, because we don't have that information yet, but that is something that we are definitely trying to find out," Brown said.

The TBI said its background checks worked as intended, since Boykin lacked a true criminal history.

"The process would be that they would have been called. Now, whether or not they were called, they say they weren't, that is what we are trying to determine now," Brown said.

Boykin is on unpaid leave.

His one-year teaching permit expired last August. A spokesperson with the Department of Education said Boykin applied for an alternative teaching license in October but has not completed the requirements to receive it.

AZ: 10th grader in Arizona slurred by state senator

NOTE: A special needs teenager sent an email to her state senator to question why the senator had decided to cut the budget for education. Take a look at the Senators' response, as reported by Knoeful of the blog Daily Kos.com, whereby the "good senator" tells this poor girl that the state's education funding is being wasted on her education. Is there any wonder why there's such a problem with education today?

by Knoeful
Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:43:02 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/13/20377/7376/567/708284

Is this how you'd want your legislator communicating with your teenager? In an email response to a sophomore high school student Arizona State Senator Linda Gray wrote:

Ana, I have grave concerns on your ability to pass the AIMS language test. Why didn't you take to time to write an email with the proper punctuation? By your poorly written email, your example tells me that all the money we have spent on your education shows a lack of learning
on your part. My son and daughter went through the Glendale UHSD and had a public school education. My daughter is a 6th grade teacher and she would be embarrassed if a student in her classroom sent such an email. You should be ashamed of displaying such ignorance in writing
to a public servant. Perhaps you watch too much TV or don't know how to speak proper English.

The last line I sure is a reference to the student's hispanic last name. The student, encouraged by her teachers, had merely asked the senator in an email about the budget process for education and why cuts were being made.

Knoeful's diary :: ::
I can't believe how angry this email made me. I felt this needed to be passed on to a broader audience to hopefully have a "teachable moment" for Senator Linda Gray.

Budget cuts in Arizona are imploding all public schools. Every district is slashing budgets, cutting teachers (some as deep as 15 years of experience), and imposing mind-boggling fiscal measures (pay-to-play arts/athletics/activities, eliminating buses and services, shutting off power before and after school, etc.) To teach students about social justice and responsible citizenship, students were encouraged to compose letters to their representative legislators to inquire about the budget for next year and the decision-making process lawmakers use when making these decisions. Read what one student received as a persona response. Below is the entire text of Linda Gray's e-mail to a sophomore high school student.

Dear Ana,
1.why cut our budgets? All budgets were cut. K-12 education was cut the least 3.2% and only 1.9% of all monies that come to the school district. Education is 42% of the general fund budget, so we cut very little from education and a lot more from the other 58% of the budget.

2.how come you don't cut any money from your budget? I have not had a pay raise in 10 years so you could say I have had my budget cut every year. Three years ago the legislature gave education a 6% increase and 2% increase for the last 10 years. We keep trying to help. You
could ask the Glendale Union High School District why they only spend 59.5% of the money they receive into the classroom and 40.5 to administrative costs. The national average is 61.2 into the classroom.

Ana, I have grave concerns on your ability to pass the AIMS language test. Why didn't you take to time to write an email with the proper punctuation? By your poorly written email, your example tells me that all the money we have spent on your education shows a lack of learning on your part. My son and daughter went through the Glendale UHSD and had a public school education. My daughter is a 6th grade teacher and she would be embarrassed if a student in her classroom sent such an email. You should be ashamed of displaying such ignorance in writing to a public servant. Perhaps you watch too much TV or don't know how to speak proper English.

Senator Linda Gray
1700 W Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-926-3376

This is a person who considers herself a crusader for education and one of the legislature's experts in education policy. Maybe this how those "GOP Values" listed on her webpage help make the senator so sensitive to a 10th graders simple attempt to learn how the budget process works. If you live and vote in Rep. Gray's district, I urge you to contact her office and inform her of how to speak to citizens - especially young adolescents - in an appropriate manner.

AZ: State Senator Linda Gray Uses Poor Writing in Slamming High School Student for Poor Writing

By Ray Stern
Thursday, Mar. 19 2009 @ 11:41AM
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/03/state_senator_linda_gray_uses.php

State Senator Linda Gray slams a high school student for poor writing and displaying "ignorance" in a biting letter that was first published in the Daily Kos today.

The worst part: Gray's own letter contains poor grammar and typos. What a friggin' hypocrite -- and she claims the student's the one who should be embarrassed.

We just got off the phone with Gray's secretary. She tells us that Gray, a Republican from District 10, can't take our call. We ask the secretary if this sentence of Gray's sounds grammatically correct:

K-12 education was cut the least 3.2% and only 1.9% of all monies that come to the school district.

"I can't answer that," the woman tells us.

A few minutes later, Gray calls us from the House floor, saying in a hushed tone on her cell phone that she can't talk right now. She says she'll send us the complete e-mail exchange, and we sure look forward to that. But that doesn't explain what you're about to read.

Scroll down to read Gray's remarkable screed, which was sent in answer to the questions of a 10th 9th grader:

Dear Ana,

1.why cut our budgets? All budgets were cut. K-12 education was cut the least 3.2% and only 1.9% of all monies that come to the school district. Education is 42% of the general fund budget, so we cut very little from education and a lot more from the other 58% of the budget.

2.how come you don't cut any money from your budget? I have not had a pay raise in 10 years so you could say I have had my budget cut every year. Three years ago the legislature gave education a 6% increase and 2% increase for the last 10 years. We keep trying to help. You could ask the Glendale Union High School District why they only spend 59.5% of the money they receive into the classroom and 40.5 to administrative costs. The national average is 61.2 into the classroom.

Ana, I have grave concerns on your ability to pass the AIMS language test. Why didn't you take to time to write an email with the proper punctuation? By your poorly written email, your example tells me that all the money we have spent on your education shows a lack of learning on your part. My son and daughter went through the Glendale UHSD and had a public school education. My daughter is a 6th grade teacher and she would be embarrassed if a student in her classroom sent such an email. You should be ashamed of displaying such ignorance in writing to a public servant. Perhaps you watch too much TV or don't know how to speak proper English.

Senator Linda Gray

1700 W Washington

Phoenix, AZ 85007

602-926-3376


Did you catch Gray's screw-ups? Here's what we found:

"...cut the least 3.2% and only 1.9%..."

"... grave concerns on your ability..." (Should be "about" your ability).

"...your example tells me that all the money we have spent on your education shows a lack of learning..." (The money spent shows a lack of learning?)

"...gave education a 6% increase and 2% increase..." (Where's the second "a?")

And our personal favorite:

"Why didn't you take to time to write an email with the proper punctuation?"

We don't know why "Ana" didn't take the time to clean up her letter to Gray.

As for why Gray's letter was so crappily written -- well, by Gray's own mindset, it must be because she squandered the public funds spent on her education.



UPDATE: Gray apologizes for letter -- the student has special needs.

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…

GA: No arrest for principal who delayed reporting child abuse case

By MEGAN MATTEUCCI
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/clayton/stories/2009/03/25/clayton_principal_warrant.html

A Clayton County principal did not violate the law when he waited 11 days to report a child sex abuse allegation to police, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Magistrate Judge Bobby Simmons decided not to issue a warrant for Kendrick Middle School Principal Steve Hughes for failure to report child abuse.

On Jan. 9, a 14-year-old girl reported that teacher and basketball coach Antonio Mahone summoned her to his classroom to give her some candy. He then hugged her and squeezed her buttocks, she told police.

Hughes and his assistant principal called the student’s mother and launched an investigation that same day, said Hughes’ attorney, Steve Frey.

On Jan. 15, Hughes turned a report into the assistant superintendent that said the district’s lawyer should be notified, but he could not substantiate that the incident occurred.

Hughes called police on Jan. 20 after learning another teacher had seen the girl visibly upset after her encounter with Mahone.

“My client contacted his supervisors, took instructions and did as they told him to do,” Frey said. “He investigated this matter thoroughly and contacted the police when he had enough information to indicate a crime may have occurred.”

Georgia law says school officials must call police within 24 hours when there is “reasonable cause to believe” a child has been abused.

Police and Clayton Solicitor General Tasha Mosley argue that Hughes should have called 911 immediately after the student complained and allowed trained detectives — not school staff — to investigate the incident.

“The teachers have a dog in the fight and of course they are going to look out for each other,” Mosley said. “You need to remove the appearance of impropriety.”

Mosley also argued that two administrators told Hughes to call police and he ignored them.

Frey said the principal did not have enough information to call officers. “He’s guilty of insubordination, not guilty of a crime,” he said.

The judge’s ruling, which came after more than four hours of testimony Wednesday, means that officers cannot obtain a warrant for Hughes’ arrest. However, Mosley said she may still try to have the case moved to another court.

Mosley said she also will work with legislators to push for the law to be amended to say the crime should be reported immediately and investigated by police, not school officials.

“Every parent should be very scared that their child could make an outcry of abuse and it will be left to be investigated by teachers,” she said.

School spokesman John Lyles declined to comment on Hughes’ job status, why it took so long to call police or the district’s policy for handling abuse reports, saying it was a personnel matter.

The judge’s ruling had no effect on Mahone, who still faces sexual battery charges. On Monday, the board voted not to terminate Mahone, but to move him to another school. He remains on administrative leave with pay, Lyles said.

Hughes has served as principal at Kendrick for six months and worked as an educator for 27 years.