by David Jesse | The Ann Arbor News
Thursday January 22, 2009, 3:59 PM
An aide with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District is facing child abuse and assault charges after he was accused of slapping and shoving two special education students under his care, Ann Arbor Police said.
Parents of the students, ages 12 and 13, went to police after an internal WISD investigation cleared the aide, and he was transferred to another classroom, where he still worked with special education students.
Michael Beasley, 45, was arraigned on two counts each of child abuse and assault and battery in 15th District Court Thursday morning, police said.
He pleaded not guilty and was released on a personal bond, police said.
His attorney, Doug Mullkoss, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Beasley is on paid administrative leave, WISD spokeswoman Gerri Allen said.
In a letter sent home to parents, WISD Superintendent Bill Miller said he "found these allegations to be extremely troubling.
"We are taking appropriate action to internally investigate the circumstances surrounding these allegations, including a review of district investigation and reporting procedures."
That statement didn't mollify parents of the students, who said the WISD should not have allowed the aide to continue working with students after the allegations were raised.
"They should have fired him from the get-go," said parent Mike Hayes. "He did a lot of things he shouldn't have been doing. They just tried to sweep it under the rug."
The Pittsfield Township man is accused of slapping a 13-year-old autistic child with an open hand at Scarlett Middle School Oct. 30.
The child, from Saline, suffered redness and swelling to his face, but did not need medical treatment, reports said.
Detective Sgt. Jeff Connelly said a detective investigating the case discovered another incident in which Beasley allegedly shoved a 12-year-old Ann Arbor girl with special needs to the gym floor at Scarlett in mid-October. The girl suffered bruises to her arm, and her parents received a letter about the incident signed by her teacher, police said.
Several parents of students in that class said the aide slapped, pinched, swore at and was physically abusive to children.
The class at Scarlett has six students, one teacher, two teacher aides and other support staff. It's one of nine classrooms the WISD runs at local schools to help students with moderate and severe disabilities get skill training, access to general education curriculum and opportunities to participate in activities with non-disabled peers.
Allen said Beasley's WISD personnel file had no other complaints in it.
The parents initially approached the WISD in the fall with complaints about Beasley.
"On October 30, 2008, he was immediately placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation," Allen said. "... Following this investigation the employee was placed on disciplinary leave for failure to follow the district student behavior management policy and was given an employee assistance plan. "On November 12, 2008, the employee returned to work but in a different location (High Point School) at his request."
Parents disagreed with that move.
"We just thought that wasn't right," Hayes said. "That's when we started filing police reports. We thought if the school wasn't going to do anything about this, we would."
Parents said they took their concerns to Miller, who on Dec. 8 placed the aide on administrative leave again while the police investigated.
A group of parents also appeared before the school board in closed session last week to ask the board to take action. None has been taken yet.
"It was very scary," Hayes said. "We just thought something wasn't right in the classroom. With children that have a hard time communicating, it makes it just that much harder.
"We shouldn't have had to go through this."
David Jesse can be reached at djesse@annarbornews.com or at 734-994-6937. Join the discussion at blog.mlive.com/study_hall.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
PA: Parents hire attorney to investigate alleged child abuse at daycare center
Author's Note: Staff at this YMCA allegedly gave a minimum of 4 children (ranging in age from 3 to 6) alum, a salt used in food processing, which, when ingested, can cause gastrointestinal bleeding, nausea, vomiting, and burning – symptoms which may easily be mistaken for a “stomach flu.” Staff also may have physically restrained at least one of these young children.
The abuse allegedly occurred in an area of the day care where cameras were not present and could not capture the alleged abuse, and, also allegedly, where other staff could not witness the abuse.
Fortunately Rebecca DeWitt, an employee at the YMCA who became aware of the abuse through another employee, told parents about the *alleged* abuse.
The YMCA promptly fired HER as thanks for her due diligence in protecting those young children. [We'll say it since they won't "THANK YOU REBECCA!!!" We hope you get a hefty sum if/when you sue them for retaliation!]
The state Dept of Public Welfare indicates it has confirmed staff used alum for discipline purposes, yet they CONTINUE TO ALLOW THIS FACILITY TO OPERATE. This bears repeating: The Department of Public Welfare has confirmed personnel in this facility DELIBERATELY POISONED YOUNG CHILDREN, yet it allows the facility to remain fully operational as they attempt to determine how many times alum was given to children and why the substance was in the building in the first place.
They also estimate this investigation could take 2 WEEKS to resolve. And even then, there’s no guarantee they’ll take ANY action, which may or may not include revoking their license.
The good news is the YMCA indicates that 5 employees and the director have been "removed from the facility," as their policy is to suspend employees accused of misconduct while the investigation is ongoing. That doesn’t mean, however, that those staff and the director wouldn’t be reinstated pending the outcome of DPW’s “investigation.”
What we can’t understand is WHY the Department of Public Welfare hasn’t SHUT THIS PLACE DOWN while they “investigate further.” Why this facility hasn’t been made to present to the Department of Public Welfare a corrective action plan to ensure young children’s safety while in that facility, at a bare minimum - and to have that plan approved by the Department of Public Welfare - before they can even think of resuming operations.
And this is why abuse – even if only “alleged” - is allowed to continue…
By Patty Yauger, Herald-Standard
01/24/2009
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20248120&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
SOUTH CONNELLSVILLE - A former YMCA Child Development Center worker and several parents of students that attended the center have retained a Pittsburgh law firm in connection with alleged abuse of the children.
Swensen, Perer and Kontos attorney Brian DelVecchio confirmed that he had been hired by parents with children enrolled at the school, including Brian and Janean Ansell, Shannon and Lloyd Partridge and Jessica Harr, along with former center employee Rebecca DeWitt, who notified the parents of the alleged dispensing of a pickling salt by other center workers.
According to DelVecchio, a minimum of four children, ranging in age from 3 to 6 were allegedly given alum by workers at the center since August.
Alum is a salt that is used in food processing and is an ingredient in commercially produced baking powder and can cause gastrointestinal bleeding, nausea, vomiting and burning when ingested, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Although it appears the alleged abuse has been going on for several months, DelVecchio said that the parents only learned of the use of alum as a punishment last week.
"You are dealing with toddlers and they are not going to understand, be afraid or unable to communicate it to the parents," he said. "That's what makes this so sinister."
Since parents have learned of the incidents, they have begun to "put two and two together," he added.
"Some of the kids were having gastrointestinal problems or vomiting or sick," said DelVecchio. "Parents thought it was a flu bug going around and never imagined that their kids were being poisoned."
Since meeting with the former worker, parents and children, DelVecchio said that the stories are "harrowing."
"Kids were being held down," he said. "One little boy came home every day and said, 'poor Nick, poor Nick,' indicating that Nick was being punished."
"One child that was having trouble communicating was subjected to this treatment."
DelVecchio said DeWitt worked at the center since 2000 and was unaware of any wrongdoing until being told by another employee that the children were being given the substance.
"My understanding is that it was given by two individuals in an area where there was no camera or where it could be seen by others," he said. "It was hidden, just like any abuse."
DeWitt was fired after center officials learned that she had notified authorities and parents, said DelVecchio.
It was unclear how long the children had been enrolled at the center.
"It appears these things started to happen when the kids entered the toddler or preschool program," he said. "It seems they were given (the alum) as a punishment for back-talking or other things a toddler might do."
State Department of Public Welfare spokeswoman Stacey Witalec said that the regulatory authority continues to investigate the alleged incidents.
"We are closely monitoring the facility as they do continue to operate," she said. "But our investigation is ongoing."
Through the investigation, Witalec said that it has been confirmed that alum was used as a means of discipline, but questions remain as to why the substance was in the facility and how many times was it given to the children.
The monitoring includes onsite visits and communication with the facility and the Regional Family YMCA of Laurel Highlands administrations.
"We always reserve the right to do unannounced onsite inspections of licensed facilities and (the development center) falls into that category," said Witalec, adding that it has been in operation since December 1998.
The center has been cited in the past for other reasons, she said.
"But not for anything as serious as this," said Witalec.
Five employees, including the center director, have been removed from the facility, according to Witalec.
The state agency has authority to take action against the facility, but not the individuals.
"We could take licensing action up to and through revoking their ability to operate," said Witalec. "Worst-case scenario, they could lose their license to operate."
Witalec speculated that it would take "several weeks" to conclude the department's investigation into the matter.
Regional Family YMCA of Laurel Highlands executive director Steve Simon said the organization was shocked to learn of the alleged incidents.
"Staff and volunteers of the Regional Family YMCA of Laurel Highlands were shocked by recent allegations that members of our staff might have acted with poor judgment by giving five children enrolled in our child care program alum pickling salt as punishment for misbehaving," he said in a press release. "We are cooperating fully with authorities to investigate this situation."
Simon stated that the YMCA policy requires that those staff members tied to the incident have been suspended pending a full review of the charges.
He did not identify the staff members, but said that prior to their hiring all had been "thoroughly investigated."
"The safety and welfare of children in our care always has been and always will be a top priority," said Simon. "The YMCA has been an important part of the Connellsville community for more than 20 years and we look forward to continuing to serve the needs of our community well into the future.
"At the same time, we recognize that the facts in this case are not fully known and we await the results of an official investigation."
When contacted, Simon declined to further discuss the matter.
DelVecchio, meanwhile, said he has yet to file any action on behalf of his clients, but anticipates legal action will be taken in the near future.
"I am in the process of investigating. There is also an investigation being conducted by the state, and I'd like to see how that develops," he said. "My main mission right now is to see the kids get any help they need."
The abuse allegedly occurred in an area of the day care where cameras were not present and could not capture the alleged abuse, and, also allegedly, where other staff could not witness the abuse.
Fortunately Rebecca DeWitt, an employee at the YMCA who became aware of the abuse through another employee, told parents about the *alleged* abuse.
The YMCA promptly fired HER as thanks for her due diligence in protecting those young children. [We'll say it since they won't "THANK YOU REBECCA!!!" We hope you get a hefty sum if/when you sue them for retaliation!]
The state Dept of Public Welfare indicates it has confirmed staff used alum for discipline purposes, yet they CONTINUE TO ALLOW THIS FACILITY TO OPERATE. This bears repeating: The Department of Public Welfare has confirmed personnel in this facility DELIBERATELY POISONED YOUNG CHILDREN, yet it allows the facility to remain fully operational as they attempt to determine how many times alum was given to children and why the substance was in the building in the first place.
They also estimate this investigation could take 2 WEEKS to resolve. And even then, there’s no guarantee they’ll take ANY action, which may or may not include revoking their license.
The good news is the YMCA indicates that 5 employees and the director have been "removed from the facility," as their policy is to suspend employees accused of misconduct while the investigation is ongoing. That doesn’t mean, however, that those staff and the director wouldn’t be reinstated pending the outcome of DPW’s “investigation.”
What we can’t understand is WHY the Department of Public Welfare hasn’t SHUT THIS PLACE DOWN while they “investigate further.” Why this facility hasn’t been made to present to the Department of Public Welfare a corrective action plan to ensure young children’s safety while in that facility, at a bare minimum - and to have that plan approved by the Department of Public Welfare - before they can even think of resuming operations.
And this is why abuse – even if only “alleged” - is allowed to continue…
By Patty Yauger, Herald-Standard
01/24/2009
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20248120&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
SOUTH CONNELLSVILLE - A former YMCA Child Development Center worker and several parents of students that attended the center have retained a Pittsburgh law firm in connection with alleged abuse of the children.
Swensen, Perer and Kontos attorney Brian DelVecchio confirmed that he had been hired by parents with children enrolled at the school, including Brian and Janean Ansell, Shannon and Lloyd Partridge and Jessica Harr, along with former center employee Rebecca DeWitt, who notified the parents of the alleged dispensing of a pickling salt by other center workers.
According to DelVecchio, a minimum of four children, ranging in age from 3 to 6 were allegedly given alum by workers at the center since August.
Alum is a salt that is used in food processing and is an ingredient in commercially produced baking powder and can cause gastrointestinal bleeding, nausea, vomiting and burning when ingested, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Although it appears the alleged abuse has been going on for several months, DelVecchio said that the parents only learned of the use of alum as a punishment last week.
"You are dealing with toddlers and they are not going to understand, be afraid or unable to communicate it to the parents," he said. "That's what makes this so sinister."
Since parents have learned of the incidents, they have begun to "put two and two together," he added.
"Some of the kids were having gastrointestinal problems or vomiting or sick," said DelVecchio. "Parents thought it was a flu bug going around and never imagined that their kids were being poisoned."
Since meeting with the former worker, parents and children, DelVecchio said that the stories are "harrowing."
"Kids were being held down," he said. "One little boy came home every day and said, 'poor Nick, poor Nick,' indicating that Nick was being punished."
"One child that was having trouble communicating was subjected to this treatment."
DelVecchio said DeWitt worked at the center since 2000 and was unaware of any wrongdoing until being told by another employee that the children were being given the substance.
"My understanding is that it was given by two individuals in an area where there was no camera or where it could be seen by others," he said. "It was hidden, just like any abuse."
DeWitt was fired after center officials learned that she had notified authorities and parents, said DelVecchio.
It was unclear how long the children had been enrolled at the center.
"It appears these things started to happen when the kids entered the toddler or preschool program," he said. "It seems they were given (the alum) as a punishment for back-talking or other things a toddler might do."
State Department of Public Welfare spokeswoman Stacey Witalec said that the regulatory authority continues to investigate the alleged incidents.
"We are closely monitoring the facility as they do continue to operate," she said. "But our investigation is ongoing."
Through the investigation, Witalec said that it has been confirmed that alum was used as a means of discipline, but questions remain as to why the substance was in the facility and how many times was it given to the children.
The monitoring includes onsite visits and communication with the facility and the Regional Family YMCA of Laurel Highlands administrations.
"We always reserve the right to do unannounced onsite inspections of licensed facilities and (the development center) falls into that category," said Witalec, adding that it has been in operation since December 1998.
The center has been cited in the past for other reasons, she said.
"But not for anything as serious as this," said Witalec.
Five employees, including the center director, have been removed from the facility, according to Witalec.
The state agency has authority to take action against the facility, but not the individuals.
"We could take licensing action up to and through revoking their ability to operate," said Witalec. "Worst-case scenario, they could lose their license to operate."
Witalec speculated that it would take "several weeks" to conclude the department's investigation into the matter.
Regional Family YMCA of Laurel Highlands executive director Steve Simon said the organization was shocked to learn of the alleged incidents.
"Staff and volunteers of the Regional Family YMCA of Laurel Highlands were shocked by recent allegations that members of our staff might have acted with poor judgment by giving five children enrolled in our child care program alum pickling salt as punishment for misbehaving," he said in a press release. "We are cooperating fully with authorities to investigate this situation."
Simon stated that the YMCA policy requires that those staff members tied to the incident have been suspended pending a full review of the charges.
He did not identify the staff members, but said that prior to their hiring all had been "thoroughly investigated."
"The safety and welfare of children in our care always has been and always will be a top priority," said Simon. "The YMCA has been an important part of the Connellsville community for more than 20 years and we look forward to continuing to serve the needs of our community well into the future.
"At the same time, we recognize that the facts in this case are not fully known and we await the results of an official investigation."
When contacted, Simon declined to further discuss the matter.
DelVecchio, meanwhile, said he has yet to file any action on behalf of his clients, but anticipates legal action will be taken in the near future.
"I am in the process of investigating. There is also an investigation being conducted by the state, and I'd like to see how that develops," he said. "My main mission right now is to see the kids get any help they need."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
In society’s view, a double standard on teen sex abuse
By Allison Manning
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Jan 13, 2009 @ 06:18 AM
Last update Jan 13, 2009 @ 07:15 AM
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1354851427/In-society-s-view-a-double-standard-on-teen-sex-abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABINGTON — It’s all about power. That’s what counselors and psychologists say is the central issue in sexual relationships between adults and adolescents. It doesn’t matter if the adult is a man or a woman, they say, the adult has the power. But it does matter when it comes to how others see it.
Girls are seen more as victims, Tom Faxon, a clinical social worker at Bayview Quincy at South Shore Mental Health said, while boys are seen as “lucky.”
Boys face the expectation that it’s “everybody’s fantasy” to have sex with their teacher, Faxon said.
That difference in perception is evident in the case of Abington elementary school teacher Christine McCallum, 29, who was charged Friday with seven counts of statutory rape, stemming from what prosecutors say was a nearly two-year relationship she had with a boy beginning when he was 13.
“This is an adult. An adult with power, and then someone as a teacher has a lot of power,” Faxon said.
Several comments on The Patriot Ledger’s Web site pertaining to the McCallum case have called the relationship “every kid’s dream.”
“Sorry folks but as a former 13 year old boy I can say having this happen to me would be like hitting the lottery. It is a double standard true but it is different for boys, 13 and up this is all we think of,” commenter InsideMan wrote.
Compare that to the case of Walpole football coach and athletic director Daniel Villa, 44. He is accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old high school student that lasted from October to December. He faces three counts of rape.
But, no one is calling the alleged victim in the case, a 15-year-old girl, “lucky” to have allegedly had sex with an adult.
Mark Dunay, a clinical social worker at Harbor Counseling Associates in Plymouth, said while adult women would be “much more readily horrified” at the abuse of a teenager, there are many adult men who would call a boy who had sex with an adult woman lucky, or claim “no harm, no foul.”
“There is a double standard in society with this kind of thing,” Dunay said. “Men who have sex with women are seen as potent and powerful and strong.”
“Very, very few men would ever condone an adult male having sex with a female child, but they would not be as alarmed” with a boy having sex with an adult woman, he said.
A women abuser defies the social expectations of gender behavior, said Melissa Pearrow, a UMass-Boston psychology professor and former president of the Massachusetts School Psychologists Association.
“People react differently based on gender,” she said, “but people are being exploited by adults who are supposed to be taking care of them.”
Both sexes will feel shame, Dunay said. “The bottom line is none of it is any good for the kids.”
Allison Manning may be reached at amanning@ledger.com.
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Jan 13, 2009 @ 06:18 AM
Last update Jan 13, 2009 @ 07:15 AM
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x1354851427/In-society-s-view-a-double-standard-on-teen-sex-abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABINGTON — It’s all about power. That’s what counselors and psychologists say is the central issue in sexual relationships between adults and adolescents. It doesn’t matter if the adult is a man or a woman, they say, the adult has the power. But it does matter when it comes to how others see it.
Girls are seen more as victims, Tom Faxon, a clinical social worker at Bayview Quincy at South Shore Mental Health said, while boys are seen as “lucky.”
Boys face the expectation that it’s “everybody’s fantasy” to have sex with their teacher, Faxon said.
That difference in perception is evident in the case of Abington elementary school teacher Christine McCallum, 29, who was charged Friday with seven counts of statutory rape, stemming from what prosecutors say was a nearly two-year relationship she had with a boy beginning when he was 13.
“This is an adult. An adult with power, and then someone as a teacher has a lot of power,” Faxon said.
Several comments on The Patriot Ledger’s Web site pertaining to the McCallum case have called the relationship “every kid’s dream.”
“Sorry folks but as a former 13 year old boy I can say having this happen to me would be like hitting the lottery. It is a double standard true but it is different for boys, 13 and up this is all we think of,” commenter InsideMan wrote.
Compare that to the case of Walpole football coach and athletic director Daniel Villa, 44. He is accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old high school student that lasted from October to December. He faces three counts of rape.
But, no one is calling the alleged victim in the case, a 15-year-old girl, “lucky” to have allegedly had sex with an adult.
Mark Dunay, a clinical social worker at Harbor Counseling Associates in Plymouth, said while adult women would be “much more readily horrified” at the abuse of a teenager, there are many adult men who would call a boy who had sex with an adult woman lucky, or claim “no harm, no foul.”
“There is a double standard in society with this kind of thing,” Dunay said. “Men who have sex with women are seen as potent and powerful and strong.”
“Very, very few men would ever condone an adult male having sex with a female child, but they would not be as alarmed” with a boy having sex with an adult woman, he said.
A women abuser defies the social expectations of gender behavior, said Melissa Pearrow, a UMass-Boston psychology professor and former president of the Massachusetts School Psychologists Association.
“People react differently based on gender,” she said, “but people are being exploited by adults who are supposed to be taking care of them.”
Both sexes will feel shame, Dunay said. “The bottom line is none of it is any good for the kids.”
Allison Manning may be reached at amanning@ledger.com.
Report details lack of regulations on restraints, seclusion used on disabled children
January 13, 2009
http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.com/2009/01/report-details-lack-of-regulations-on.html
A disturbing new report [1] (PDF) issued by the congressionally mandated National Disability Rights Network [2] documents incidents from across the country of a problem that fewer than half of states address: the restraint and seclusion of disabled school children.
The Network's state chapters compiled a list of cases that "should shock you," according to the organization, which was created by federal law to advocate for people with disabilities.
Disabled children in Sumner County, Tenn., were locked in four-by-three foot plywood cells that had been put together by maintenance staff at 12 district schools. An Oklahoma student with autism was led around his school wearing a harness and rope. Since 2002, three children -- including a 7-year-old girl -- have died as a result of being restrained in public and private schools, the report says. Another boy locked in a seclusion cell hanged himself with his makeshift belt.
Are the cases isolated incidents? That’s what the Network's executive director Curtis Decker hopes to find out. The organization is releasing the report during a Capitol Hill press conference today and will be calling on the Obama administration to push for national tracking of instances of restraint and seclusion in schools.
"Our role is to identify this as a serious, growing problem," Decker told ProPublica. "Now it has to be turned over to administrators to get a handle on this."
Disability rights advocates say that since children with disabilities were granted the right to full inclusion in public schools 30 years ago -- a phenomenon often referred to as "mainstreaming" -- disabled children have been the frequent targets of coercive discipline.
While the disability advocacy community succeeded in seeking meaningful legal changes in the use of restraints in mental health facilities, schools are a new frontier.
About 40 percent of states have no law concerning restraint and seclusion in schools. Fewer than half of states ask schools to notify parents when children are restrained or placed in isolation, and 90 percent of states allow face-down restraints.
Even in states where school restraints have been connected to deaths, reform has been slow to come.
In Wisconsin, the disability community was shocked after 7-year-old Angellika Arndt died May 26, 2006, after being held face-down on the floor of the Rice Lake Day Treatment Center. The girl, a foster child diagnosed with emotional disturbance, was restrained after blowing bubbles in her milk and defying time-out rules.
Kristin Kerschensteiner, managing attorney for Disability Rights Wisconsin, authored a report [3] (PDF) concluding the state failed to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion following the girl's death.
"We've been working on this for more than two years now and nothing is happening," Kerschensteiner told [4] the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The state's Department of Health Services, in response, issued a statement to the Sentinel noting that it took strong actions leading to closure of the facility and will continue on a statewide effort to "work with our partners to issue additional guidance on the dangers of the use of seclusion and restraint."
In California, Leslie Morrison, Disability Rights California’s leading investigative attorney, issued a June 2007 report [5] documenting multiple cases of misuse of
restraints, including that of a 10-year-old non-verbal boy who was tied to his wheelchair for hours and left on the school van on two separate occasions.
Morrison's group championed legislation that would have mandated that only trained school personnel could restrain children -- and only in instances in which the child's behavior put others at risk of physical harm.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill in September, though, noting that it could inhibit school staff from "intervening in an emergency situation and place more students at risk of potential harm."
The national report, however, does document some small victories. Advocates prevailed on behalf of individual students, and the Tennessee school district agreed to dismantle the plywood boxes.
Ultimately, Decker said he's hoping to see more tracking and regulation of the problem and training in "positive behavior supports," a research-based system believed to reduce the need for extreme punishments.
At the very least, he said, he’d like to see a change in the federal IDEA law [6], which
outlines how education should be funded for more than six million students with disabilities.
Decker's organization included an excerpt from a March 2008 government letter describing the program’s philosophy: "While IDEA emphasizes the use of positive behavioral interventions… IDEA does not flatly prohibit the use of mechanical restraints or other aversive behavioral techniques for children with disabilities," the letter says.
http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.com/2009/01/report-details-lack-of-regulations-on.html
A disturbing new report [1] (PDF) issued by the congressionally mandated National Disability Rights Network [2] documents incidents from across the country of a problem that fewer than half of states address: the restraint and seclusion of disabled school children.
The Network's state chapters compiled a list of cases that "should shock you," according to the organization, which was created by federal law to advocate for people with disabilities.
Disabled children in Sumner County, Tenn., were locked in four-by-three foot plywood cells that had been put together by maintenance staff at 12 district schools. An Oklahoma student with autism was led around his school wearing a harness and rope. Since 2002, three children -- including a 7-year-old girl -- have died as a result of being restrained in public and private schools, the report says. Another boy locked in a seclusion cell hanged himself with his makeshift belt.
Are the cases isolated incidents? That’s what the Network's executive director Curtis Decker hopes to find out. The organization is releasing the report during a Capitol Hill press conference today and will be calling on the Obama administration to push for national tracking of instances of restraint and seclusion in schools.
"Our role is to identify this as a serious, growing problem," Decker told ProPublica. "Now it has to be turned over to administrators to get a handle on this."
Disability rights advocates say that since children with disabilities were granted the right to full inclusion in public schools 30 years ago -- a phenomenon often referred to as "mainstreaming" -- disabled children have been the frequent targets of coercive discipline.
While the disability advocacy community succeeded in seeking meaningful legal changes in the use of restraints in mental health facilities, schools are a new frontier.
About 40 percent of states have no law concerning restraint and seclusion in schools. Fewer than half of states ask schools to notify parents when children are restrained or placed in isolation, and 90 percent of states allow face-down restraints.
Even in states where school restraints have been connected to deaths, reform has been slow to come.
In Wisconsin, the disability community was shocked after 7-year-old Angellika Arndt died May 26, 2006, after being held face-down on the floor of the Rice Lake Day Treatment Center. The girl, a foster child diagnosed with emotional disturbance, was restrained after blowing bubbles in her milk and defying time-out rules.
Kristin Kerschensteiner, managing attorney for Disability Rights Wisconsin, authored a report [3] (PDF) concluding the state failed to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion following the girl's death.
"We've been working on this for more than two years now and nothing is happening," Kerschensteiner told [4] the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The state's Department of Health Services, in response, issued a statement to the Sentinel noting that it took strong actions leading to closure of the facility and will continue on a statewide effort to "work with our partners to issue additional guidance on the dangers of the use of seclusion and restraint."
In California, Leslie Morrison, Disability Rights California’s leading investigative attorney, issued a June 2007 report [5] documenting multiple cases of misuse of
restraints, including that of a 10-year-old non-verbal boy who was tied to his wheelchair for hours and left on the school van on two separate occasions.
Morrison's group championed legislation that would have mandated that only trained school personnel could restrain children -- and only in instances in which the child's behavior put others at risk of physical harm.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill in September, though, noting that it could inhibit school staff from "intervening in an emergency situation and place more students at risk of potential harm."
The national report, however, does document some small victories. Advocates prevailed on behalf of individual students, and the Tennessee school district agreed to dismantle the plywood boxes.
Ultimately, Decker said he's hoping to see more tracking and regulation of the problem and training in "positive behavior supports," a research-based system believed to reduce the need for extreme punishments.
At the very least, he said, he’d like to see a change in the federal IDEA law [6], which
outlines how education should be funded for more than six million students with disabilities.
Decker's organization included an excerpt from a March 2008 government letter describing the program’s philosophy: "While IDEA emphasizes the use of positive behavioral interventions… IDEA does not flatly prohibit the use of mechanical restraints or other aversive behavioral techniques for children with disabilities," the letter says.
Report: Kids are restrained, secluded
January 14, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — Schoolchildren across the U.S. have been injured or killed when they were restrained or secluded, a disability rights group says. A House committee announced a hearing on the issue.
The National Disability Rights Network, in a report Tuesday, identified cases across the country in which children, many of them with disabilities, were traumatized, injured or killed at school.
For example, 15-year-old Michigan boy with autism died while being restrained by four school employees, the report said.
In another case, a 13-year-old Georgia boy hanged himself in a locked concrete seclusion room after pleading with teachers not to isolate him for hours at a time.
The group said its report "is clearly just the tip of the iceberg" because the government doesn't have any system of collecting data about these abuses.
Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said he would schedule a hearing on the issue.
"This report raises serious questions about the treatment of schoolchildren, the qualifications and training of staff, and what actions have been taken to address these unconscionable practices," Miller said. "No child should be at risk or in danger while at school, no matter what the circumstances."
WASHINGTON (AP) — Schoolchildren across the U.S. have been injured or killed when they were restrained or secluded, a disability rights group says. A House committee announced a hearing on the issue.
The National Disability Rights Network, in a report Tuesday, identified cases across the country in which children, many of them with disabilities, were traumatized, injured or killed at school.
For example, 15-year-old Michigan boy with autism died while being restrained by four school employees, the report said.
In another case, a 13-year-old Georgia boy hanged himself in a locked concrete seclusion room after pleading with teachers not to isolate him for hours at a time.
The group said its report "is clearly just the tip of the iceberg" because the government doesn't have any system of collecting data about these abuses.
Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said he would schedule a hearing on the issue.
"This report raises serious questions about the treatment of schoolchildren, the qualifications and training of staff, and what actions have been taken to address these unconscionable practices," Miller said. "No child should be at risk or in danger while at school, no matter what the circumstances."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Parents ask President-elect Obama, Congress for national anti-restraint law to protect disabled children
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.com/2009/01/parents-ask-president-elect-obama.html
WASHINGTON -- Three Wilton, Conn., women urged President-elect Barack Obama and Congress Jan. 13 to enact legislation to protect disabled children from
abusive seclusion and restraint practices in public schools.
Connecticut approved such protections in 2007, but a report released Tuesday by the National Disability Rights Network shows that about 40 percent of the states in the nation have no laws, policies or guidelines concerning restraint or seclusion use in schools.
Eight years ago, Congress approved a law to protect children in Medicaid-funded homes and hospitals after 11-year-old Andrew McClain of Bridgeport, Conn., died in 1998 while being restrained at Elmcrest Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Portland, Conn.
"I thought we'd pretty much taken care of this," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who championed the 2000 legislation. "I didn't add the word 'school' to the bill. I regret that."
Dodd tried last year to expand the law to include schools but the legislation did not pass. He vowed Jan. 13 to try again and hopes that the new Congress and administration will be more receptive.
"These stories chilled me to the bone," Dodd said.
Gloria Bass, Maryann Lombardi and Jill Ely choked up Tuesday as they described their experiences in the Wilton school system that led to Connecticut enacting its law in 2007.
Bass, a grandmother given custody of two special needs boys, described how grandson Arty had been confined for months while at school to a storage closet without her knowledge.
Lombardi said her 9-year-old autistic son, who does not speak, was routinely placed in isolation in a storage closet when he acted out.
And, Ely said her son injured his arm as he beat it against the door trying to get out of a similar isolation room in the high school -- noting that one witness reported that on Sept. 9, 2005 he was left crying and whimpering for almost the entire day.
A Wilton Bulletin investigation in August 2006 found that the school's padded safe room where Ely's son was held had never been inspected by the fire marshal nor received a certificate of operation from the Building Department.
"There needs to be a law to protect these children," Ely said.
Curt Decker, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, said that his organization has found similar abuses reported across the nation.
"Incredibly, we found a disturbing trend that should not be happening," he said. His organization is recommending legislation that would ban the use of seclusion in schools and severely restrict the use of restraints to trained individuals and only where the immediate physical safety of the student, staff or other person is otherwise at risk.
Decker also wants legislation that would require prompt reporting when restraint or seclusion is used.
The House Education and Labor Committee plans to hold hearings on the report, according to its chairman, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.
"This report raises serious questions about the treatment of school children," he said. "No child should be at risk or in danger while at school, no matter what the circumstances."
http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.com/2009/01/parents-ask-president-elect-obama.html
WASHINGTON -- Three Wilton, Conn., women urged President-elect Barack Obama and Congress Jan. 13 to enact legislation to protect disabled children from
abusive seclusion and restraint practices in public schools.
Connecticut approved such protections in 2007, but a report released Tuesday by the National Disability Rights Network shows that about 40 percent of the states in the nation have no laws, policies or guidelines concerning restraint or seclusion use in schools.
Eight years ago, Congress approved a law to protect children in Medicaid-funded homes and hospitals after 11-year-old Andrew McClain of Bridgeport, Conn., died in 1998 while being restrained at Elmcrest Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Portland, Conn.
"I thought we'd pretty much taken care of this," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who championed the 2000 legislation. "I didn't add the word 'school' to the bill. I regret that."
Dodd tried last year to expand the law to include schools but the legislation did not pass. He vowed Jan. 13 to try again and hopes that the new Congress and administration will be more receptive.
"These stories chilled me to the bone," Dodd said.
Gloria Bass, Maryann Lombardi and Jill Ely choked up Tuesday as they described their experiences in the Wilton school system that led to Connecticut enacting its law in 2007.
Bass, a grandmother given custody of two special needs boys, described how grandson Arty had been confined for months while at school to a storage closet without her knowledge.
Lombardi said her 9-year-old autistic son, who does not speak, was routinely placed in isolation in a storage closet when he acted out.
And, Ely said her son injured his arm as he beat it against the door trying to get out of a similar isolation room in the high school -- noting that one witness reported that on Sept. 9, 2005 he was left crying and whimpering for almost the entire day.
A Wilton Bulletin investigation in August 2006 found that the school's padded safe room where Ely's son was held had never been inspected by the fire marshal nor received a certificate of operation from the Building Department.
"There needs to be a law to protect these children," Ely said.
Curt Decker, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, said that his organization has found similar abuses reported across the nation.
"Incredibly, we found a disturbing trend that should not be happening," he said. His organization is recommending legislation that would ban the use of seclusion in schools and severely restrict the use of restraints to trained individuals and only where the immediate physical safety of the student, staff or other person is otherwise at risk.
Decker also wants legislation that would require prompt reporting when restraint or seclusion is used.
The House Education and Labor Committee plans to hold hearings on the report, according to its chairman, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.
"This report raises serious questions about the treatment of school children," he said. "No child should be at risk or in danger while at school, no matter what the circumstances."
ID: Parents Consider Legal Action After Autistic Girl, 8, Arrested at School
Note: She was arrested after she had a meltdown because staff wouldn't let her attend her class's Christmas party until she took off a sweatshirt with a cow on it...Talk about an unnecessary power struggle. Some "Merry Christmas..." In addition to the physical injuries resulting from restraint, the family could also have a civil suit for violating Evelyn's FERPA and HIPPA rights.
Evelyn Towry Was Cuffed, Led Away by Police After Scuffle Over School Party
Sarah NetterABC News
Wednesday, January 14, 2008
http://www.prisonplanet.com/parents-consider-legal-action-after-autistic-girl-8-arrested-at-school.html
The mother of an 8-year-old autistic girl who was arrested after a scuffle with her teachers said it was horrifying to watch her daughter be led away in handcuffs from her northern Idaho elementary school.
Police in Bonner County, Idaho, charged the girl, Evelyn Towry, with battery after the arrest Friday at Kootenai Elementary School.
Even though prosecutors dismissed the case Tuesday, the family is considering legal action against the school. They say their daughter was physically restrained to the point of causing bruises and is now tormented by memories of the incident.
Spring Towry said she got to the school Friday just in time to see 54-pound Evelyn -- who was diagnosed at age 5 with Asperger's Syndrome, a high functioning form of autism -- being walked to a police car with two officers at her side.
"She started screaming 'Mommy, I don't want to go! What are batteries? What are batteries?'" Towry said. "She didn't even know what she was arrested for."
Towry, who lives in Ponderay, said Evelyn told her that she had been refused entry into a school Christmas party that had been delayed until after the holidays because of a string of snow days, because she refused to take off her beloved "cow costume" -- a hoodie with cow ears and a tail.
Towry said Evelyn, who loves Spongebob Squarepants, told her she was put in a separate classroom away from the party, but when she tried to leave, the teachers told her to stay put. Evelyn did not listen, Towry said, and the adults physically restrained her.
"She reacted in a violent way to the physical restraint," Towry said.
Towry said her daughter demonstrated for her how she was held down by her arms and legs. And Towry videotaped the thumb-sized bruises she says were left on Evelyn's legs from the incident.
"She said 'I was very scared,'" Towry said. "She told me she was being hurt."
Dick Cvitanich, superintendent of the Lake Pend Oreille School District, which includes the school where Evelyn was a student, said the school called police because "there was escalating behavior that resulted in what we perceived to be an assault on staff."
At a hearing on the case Tuesday, the prosecutor "said that he didin't think at this time it would be beneficial to pursue it becauase of her age and, of course, her condition," Towry said.
Evelyn was at court for the hearing, but "she didn't exactly know what was going on," Towry said.
Cvitanich said Evelyn's outburst Friday was the culmination of a series of incidents "that demanded staff intervention."
"It's definitely not typical," he said of the decision to call police on a child as young as Evelyn, "and not something we particularly want to do or like to do."
Inappropriate Reaction From School Officials?
The school's response to Evelyn's outburst and the string of events that led to it were completely inappropriate, says Dr. Pauline Filipek, associate professor at the University of California, Irvine, and pediatric nurse practitioner Teri Book, who share a practice specializing in pediatric neurology.
Book, the mother of a 17-year-old daughter with Asperger's, said children with high-functioning autism create the illusion that they are capable of communicating in the same way as children who do not have developmental disabilities.
In reality, Book said, they may have an animalistic "fight or flight" mentality when it comes to confrontation. Many have "tactile defensiveness," meaning they are hyper-sensitive to any type of unwanted physical contact.
Filipek said similar incidents with autistic children are not uncommon, noting that one of her patients was recently ejected from his synagogue for attacking other children.
But charging Evelyn with battery, she said, implied that she intended to hurt her teachers when Evelyn's violent response to being restrained was a "gut-level" reaction.
"It really concerns me, to be perfectly blunt, that the school does not understand autism any better than that," Filipek said.
Cvitanich said Kootenai Elementary School includes a mix of mainstream and special education classes for children with disabilities. Children with severe disabilities, he said, are taught in a specialized program that has a smaller student-teacher ratio.
"They're mainstreamed as much as possible," he said.
Towry said her daughter didn't even meet the minimum age requirement of 10 to be booked at the county juvenile detention center.
Bonner County Police Lt. Ror Lakewold said the police report indicated the child -- who he declined to name because of her age -- "hit, kicked and spit on teachers."
Lakewold said there was also a complaint that the child grabbed a teacher in a "sexually sensitive place," not in a sexual way, but to cause pain.
Towry said that complaint stemmed from Evelyn pinching her teacher's breast, but she believes Evelyn wasn't aiming for any spot in particular. She was just fighting to be let loose.
"Teachers and the principal wished to pursue charges because they felt there were ongoing problems and this was the only way to resolve it," Lakewold said.
But Towry said her daughter thinks she got into so much trouble simply because she didn't want to take off her cow costume.
When asked what she likes best about school, Evelyn responded quickly and emphatically.
"Nothing," she said. "I don't like school."
And Towry said Evelyn won't be going back to Kootenai Elementary School, where she has been suspended for between two and 10 days.
"I fear for her safety and mental well-being," she said.
They haven't decided yet if Evelyn's 6-year-old sister, who does not have a developmental disability, will remain there or be transferred along with Evelyn.
Nothing formal has been filed yet, but she and her husband are considering legal action, Towry said.
"I would like them to learn a lesson that they should not treat children with disabilities in this manner," she said.
There's a lot of children with autism in the world now, she pointed out, and school officials need to learn how to properly discipline them.
Raising a Child With Asperger's
Towry said there was no indication there was anything wrong with Evelyn, the third of her four children, when she was a baby.
"All she really wanted from me as a baby was to nurse," Towry said, adding that Evelyn spoke early, walked early and hit all of her other developmental goals either on time or ahead of schedule.
Towry said she and her husband started getting calls about Evelyn's behavior when she was in kindergarten, before they moved to Ponderay. School officials told them the little girl would act out by making animal noises or stomping her feet.
"I guess I probably knew there was something wrong with her," Towry said. "When you're a parent it's difficult to think there's anything wrong with your child."
But it wasn't until they moved to Ponderay and put Evelyn into kindergarten at Kootenai that they got a diagnosis. Towry said she was called to the school on Evelyn's first day when her teacher said the girl began acting out in class, again making animal noises among other behaviors.
When the Towrys took the teacher's recommendation and had their daughter tested, they were shocked by the diagnosis.
"It scared me," Towry said. "I had no idea what Asperger's Syndrome was."
In Towry's mind at the time, autistic children drooled, were disconnected, didn't talk, didn't communicate. And none of that was Evelyn.
Towry said Evelyn isn't a perfect child at home. She sometimes gets into shoving matches or the like with her younger sister over sibling rivalry-type issues, but Towry said those situations are easily diffused with words and have never risen to the level of what Evelyn and police say occurred Friday at Kootenai Elementary School.
"She was not a bad kid," Towry said.
Evelyn Towry Was Cuffed, Led Away by Police After Scuffle Over School Party
Sarah NetterABC News
Wednesday, January 14, 2008
http://www.prisonplanet.com/parents-consider-legal-action-after-autistic-girl-8-arrested-at-school.html
The mother of an 8-year-old autistic girl who was arrested after a scuffle with her teachers said it was horrifying to watch her daughter be led away in handcuffs from her northern Idaho elementary school.
Police in Bonner County, Idaho, charged the girl, Evelyn Towry, with battery after the arrest Friday at Kootenai Elementary School.
Even though prosecutors dismissed the case Tuesday, the family is considering legal action against the school. They say their daughter was physically restrained to the point of causing bruises and is now tormented by memories of the incident.
Spring Towry said she got to the school Friday just in time to see 54-pound Evelyn -- who was diagnosed at age 5 with Asperger's Syndrome, a high functioning form of autism -- being walked to a police car with two officers at her side.
"She started screaming 'Mommy, I don't want to go! What are batteries? What are batteries?'" Towry said. "She didn't even know what she was arrested for."
Towry, who lives in Ponderay, said Evelyn told her that she had been refused entry into a school Christmas party that had been delayed until after the holidays because of a string of snow days, because she refused to take off her beloved "cow costume" -- a hoodie with cow ears and a tail.
Towry said Evelyn, who loves Spongebob Squarepants, told her she was put in a separate classroom away from the party, but when she tried to leave, the teachers told her to stay put. Evelyn did not listen, Towry said, and the adults physically restrained her.
"She reacted in a violent way to the physical restraint," Towry said.
Towry said her daughter demonstrated for her how she was held down by her arms and legs. And Towry videotaped the thumb-sized bruises she says were left on Evelyn's legs from the incident.
"She said 'I was very scared,'" Towry said. "She told me she was being hurt."
Dick Cvitanich, superintendent of the Lake Pend Oreille School District, which includes the school where Evelyn was a student, said the school called police because "there was escalating behavior that resulted in what we perceived to be an assault on staff."
At a hearing on the case Tuesday, the prosecutor "said that he didin't think at this time it would be beneficial to pursue it becauase of her age and, of course, her condition," Towry said.
Evelyn was at court for the hearing, but "she didn't exactly know what was going on," Towry said.
Cvitanich said Evelyn's outburst Friday was the culmination of a series of incidents "that demanded staff intervention."
"It's definitely not typical," he said of the decision to call police on a child as young as Evelyn, "and not something we particularly want to do or like to do."
Inappropriate Reaction From School Officials?
The school's response to Evelyn's outburst and the string of events that led to it were completely inappropriate, says Dr. Pauline Filipek, associate professor at the University of California, Irvine, and pediatric nurse practitioner Teri Book, who share a practice specializing in pediatric neurology.
Book, the mother of a 17-year-old daughter with Asperger's, said children with high-functioning autism create the illusion that they are capable of communicating in the same way as children who do not have developmental disabilities.
In reality, Book said, they may have an animalistic "fight or flight" mentality when it comes to confrontation. Many have "tactile defensiveness," meaning they are hyper-sensitive to any type of unwanted physical contact.
Filipek said similar incidents with autistic children are not uncommon, noting that one of her patients was recently ejected from his synagogue for attacking other children.
But charging Evelyn with battery, she said, implied that she intended to hurt her teachers when Evelyn's violent response to being restrained was a "gut-level" reaction.
"It really concerns me, to be perfectly blunt, that the school does not understand autism any better than that," Filipek said.
Cvitanich said Kootenai Elementary School includes a mix of mainstream and special education classes for children with disabilities. Children with severe disabilities, he said, are taught in a specialized program that has a smaller student-teacher ratio.
"They're mainstreamed as much as possible," he said.
Towry said her daughter didn't even meet the minimum age requirement of 10 to be booked at the county juvenile detention center.
Bonner County Police Lt. Ror Lakewold said the police report indicated the child -- who he declined to name because of her age -- "hit, kicked and spit on teachers."
Lakewold said there was also a complaint that the child grabbed a teacher in a "sexually sensitive place," not in a sexual way, but to cause pain.
Towry said that complaint stemmed from Evelyn pinching her teacher's breast, but she believes Evelyn wasn't aiming for any spot in particular. She was just fighting to be let loose.
"Teachers and the principal wished to pursue charges because they felt there were ongoing problems and this was the only way to resolve it," Lakewold said.
But Towry said her daughter thinks she got into so much trouble simply because she didn't want to take off her cow costume.
When asked what she likes best about school, Evelyn responded quickly and emphatically.
"Nothing," she said. "I don't like school."
And Towry said Evelyn won't be going back to Kootenai Elementary School, where she has been suspended for between two and 10 days.
"I fear for her safety and mental well-being," she said.
They haven't decided yet if Evelyn's 6-year-old sister, who does not have a developmental disability, will remain there or be transferred along with Evelyn.
Nothing formal has been filed yet, but she and her husband are considering legal action, Towry said.
"I would like them to learn a lesson that they should not treat children with disabilities in this manner," she said.
There's a lot of children with autism in the world now, she pointed out, and school officials need to learn how to properly discipline them.
Raising a Child With Asperger's
Towry said there was no indication there was anything wrong with Evelyn, the third of her four children, when she was a baby.
"All she really wanted from me as a baby was to nurse," Towry said, adding that Evelyn spoke early, walked early and hit all of her other developmental goals either on time or ahead of schedule.
Towry said she and her husband started getting calls about Evelyn's behavior when she was in kindergarten, before they moved to Ponderay. School officials told them the little girl would act out by making animal noises or stomping her feet.
"I guess I probably knew there was something wrong with her," Towry said. "When you're a parent it's difficult to think there's anything wrong with your child."
But it wasn't until they moved to Ponderay and put Evelyn into kindergarten at Kootenai that they got a diagnosis. Towry said she was called to the school on Evelyn's first day when her teacher said the girl began acting out in class, again making animal noises among other behaviors.
When the Towrys took the teacher's recommendation and had their daughter tested, they were shocked by the diagnosis.
"It scared me," Towry said. "I had no idea what Asperger's Syndrome was."
In Towry's mind at the time, autistic children drooled, were disconnected, didn't talk, didn't communicate. And none of that was Evelyn.
Towry said Evelyn isn't a perfect child at home. She sometimes gets into shoving matches or the like with her younger sister over sibling rivalry-type issues, but Towry said those situations are easily diffused with words and have never risen to the level of what Evelyn and police say occurred Friday at Kootenai Elementary School.
"She was not a bad kid," Towry said.
OH: Boy hospitalized after being struck by Cleveland school bus
Posted by Stan Donaldson/Plain Dealer Reporter
January 13, 2009 17:56PM
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/boy_hospitalized_after_being_s.html
Taylor Price liked to ride his bike to school, even on cold winter mornings in Cleveland.
But on Tuesday, the 14-year-old James Ford Rhodes High School student's ride ended with him in the hospital after police said a school bus driver struck him in a hit-skip accident.
Cleveland police arrested school district driver Cheryl Hill, 49, several hours after the 6:30 a.m. accident on suspicion of leaving the scene. Hill, of Cleveland, who has worked for the district since 1989, was placed on paid leave.
Police Lt. Thomas Stacho said the boy was hit on Fulton Road near Interstate 71 as he made his way to school. Taylor was in critical condition Tuesday night at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland.
The boy's stepfather, Eric Banks, said that Taylor broke both his legs and suffered a punctured lung, broken collarbone and other injuries. He said the boy is unconscious.
"I know stuff happens, but she could have at least stopped, got out and checked thoroughly to make sure she did not hit anyone," Banks said.
Stacho said a witness came into the 2nd District station at 6:45 a.m. and told police a boy was lying in the street. The witness, a woman, left the station without being questioned but told police a yellow bus had left the area.
Stacho said police went to the scene and did not see the boy but were notified that the teen had been taken to the hospital by an emergency medical crew. Police asked for help from school officials, who later that day reported that one of their drivers had probably hit the boy.
Stacho said Hill told police she thought she hit a pothole. Later during her route, the bus driver and a parent saw the bike hanging from the bus.
Banks said a man knocked on the door of the family's West 44th Street home and told him and Taylor's mother that the youth had been hit by a bus.
He said the man took Taylor's mother to the hospital.
"It was very nice of the man to do that for us today," Banks said. "We still really don't know what happened."
Stacho said the accident is under investigation and said police are asking anyone with information to contact Cleveland police.
January 13, 2009 17:56PM
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/boy_hospitalized_after_being_s.html
Taylor Price liked to ride his bike to school, even on cold winter mornings in Cleveland.
But on Tuesday, the 14-year-old James Ford Rhodes High School student's ride ended with him in the hospital after police said a school bus driver struck him in a hit-skip accident.
Cleveland police arrested school district driver Cheryl Hill, 49, several hours after the 6:30 a.m. accident on suspicion of leaving the scene. Hill, of Cleveland, who has worked for the district since 1989, was placed on paid leave.
Police Lt. Thomas Stacho said the boy was hit on Fulton Road near Interstate 71 as he made his way to school. Taylor was in critical condition Tuesday night at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland.
The boy's stepfather, Eric Banks, said that Taylor broke both his legs and suffered a punctured lung, broken collarbone and other injuries. He said the boy is unconscious.
"I know stuff happens, but she could have at least stopped, got out and checked thoroughly to make sure she did not hit anyone," Banks said.
Stacho said a witness came into the 2nd District station at 6:45 a.m. and told police a boy was lying in the street. The witness, a woman, left the station without being questioned but told police a yellow bus had left the area.
Stacho said police went to the scene and did not see the boy but were notified that the teen had been taken to the hospital by an emergency medical crew. Police asked for help from school officials, who later that day reported that one of their drivers had probably hit the boy.
Stacho said Hill told police she thought she hit a pothole. Later during her route, the bus driver and a parent saw the bike hanging from the bus.
Banks said a man knocked on the door of the family's West 44th Street home and told him and Taylor's mother that the youth had been hit by a bus.
He said the man took Taylor's mother to the hospital.
"It was very nice of the man to do that for us today," Banks said. "We still really don't know what happened."
Stacho said the accident is under investigation and said police are asking anyone with information to contact Cleveland police.
Teacher-student sex ban doesn't always apply, appeals court rules
State law does not ban teachers from having sex with 18-year-old students, according to a ruling by a unanimous panel of appellate judges.
By Mike Carter
Seattle Times staff reporter
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008625466_studentsex14m0.html
State law does not ban teachers from having sex with 18-year-old students, according to a unanimous ruling by a panel of appellate judges.
The state Court of Appeals ruling came in a case involving Matthew Hirschfelder, a former choir teacher at Hoquiam High School who was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor in 2006 after an 18-year-old member of the choir told police she had been involved in a months-long sexual relationship with him.
Hirschfelder, who was 33 at the time, denies any relationship occurred.
Hirschfelder asked a judge in Grays Harbor County Superior Court to dismiss the case, arguing that the girl was not a minor because she was 18. The judge refused to dismiss the charge but urged the state Court of Appeals to address the issue because the state's sexual-misconduct statute seemed contradictory.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, a three-member panel of the appeals court agreed that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, and sent the case back to the Superior Court to be dismissed.
Hirschfelder argued that, even if the facts as alleged in his case were all true, no crime was committed. He argued that the statute on sexual abuse of a minor does not define the term "minor," and that both common law and other Washington statutes define that term as a person under the age of 18.
The appeals judges agreed, pointing out that the law was grouped with other statutes prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children, where the term "minor" is defined as someone under 18.
At issue was one section of the sexual-misconduct law that prohibits school employees from having sex with a student who is "at least 16 years of age," not married to the teacher and at least five years younger. The other two sections of the law, which deal with foster parents and others, apply only to sex with people "under the age of 18."
The confusion sent the appeals judges to the legislative history of the current statute, which has undergone numerous amendments and changes — and one gubernatorial veto — since it was first proposed in 2001.
They concluded that the Legislature's intent was to protect children under the age of 18 from predatory teachers, coaches or mentors.
"Thus, we conclude that the legislative history of [the statute] clarifies that the legislature intended ... to criminalize only sexual misconduct between school employees and 16- and 17-year-old students," wrote Judge Marywave Van Deren in an opinion signed by colleagues Christine Quinn-Brintnall and J. Robin Hunt.
The panel said Hirschfelder can seek to have the costs of the lawsuit paid by the county.
Hirschfeld's attorney, Robert Martin Morgan Hill of Olympia, said Hirschfeld still faces possible discipline by the state Superintendent of Public Instruction. State policies prohibit any sexual contact between students and teachers.
Hirschfelder was placed on administrative leave in 2006 pending an investigation by the Hoquiam School Board. Hill said Hirschfeld would like to retain his teaching certificate but had no plans to return to Hoquiam High.
A telephone call to the Grays Harbor Prosecutor's Office was not returned Tuesday. Prosecutor Stew Menefee told The Daily World in Aberdeen that he is considering an appeal.
Hirschfeld was joined in his legal fight by the Washington Education Association (WEA), the state's largest teachers union, and by the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Rich Wood, a spokesman for the WEA, said the union involved itself "because we were seeking clarity for an ambiguous law. This ruling gives us that."
Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com
By Mike Carter
Seattle Times staff reporter
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008625466_studentsex14m0.html
State law does not ban teachers from having sex with 18-year-old students, according to a unanimous ruling by a panel of appellate judges.
The state Court of Appeals ruling came in a case involving Matthew Hirschfelder, a former choir teacher at Hoquiam High School who was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor in 2006 after an 18-year-old member of the choir told police she had been involved in a months-long sexual relationship with him.
Hirschfelder, who was 33 at the time, denies any relationship occurred.
Hirschfelder asked a judge in Grays Harbor County Superior Court to dismiss the case, arguing that the girl was not a minor because she was 18. The judge refused to dismiss the charge but urged the state Court of Appeals to address the issue because the state's sexual-misconduct statute seemed contradictory.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, a three-member panel of the appeals court agreed that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, and sent the case back to the Superior Court to be dismissed.
Hirschfelder argued that, even if the facts as alleged in his case were all true, no crime was committed. He argued that the statute on sexual abuse of a minor does not define the term "minor," and that both common law and other Washington statutes define that term as a person under the age of 18.
The appeals judges agreed, pointing out that the law was grouped with other statutes prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children, where the term "minor" is defined as someone under 18.
At issue was one section of the sexual-misconduct law that prohibits school employees from having sex with a student who is "at least 16 years of age," not married to the teacher and at least five years younger. The other two sections of the law, which deal with foster parents and others, apply only to sex with people "under the age of 18."
The confusion sent the appeals judges to the legislative history of the current statute, which has undergone numerous amendments and changes — and one gubernatorial veto — since it was first proposed in 2001.
They concluded that the Legislature's intent was to protect children under the age of 18 from predatory teachers, coaches or mentors.
"Thus, we conclude that the legislative history of [the statute] clarifies that the legislature intended ... to criminalize only sexual misconduct between school employees and 16- and 17-year-old students," wrote Judge Marywave Van Deren in an opinion signed by colleagues Christine Quinn-Brintnall and J. Robin Hunt.
The panel said Hirschfelder can seek to have the costs of the lawsuit paid by the county.
Hirschfeld's attorney, Robert Martin Morgan Hill of Olympia, said Hirschfeld still faces possible discipline by the state Superintendent of Public Instruction. State policies prohibit any sexual contact between students and teachers.
Hirschfelder was placed on administrative leave in 2006 pending an investigation by the Hoquiam School Board. Hill said Hirschfeld would like to retain his teaching certificate but had no plans to return to Hoquiam High.
A telephone call to the Grays Harbor Prosecutor's Office was not returned Tuesday. Prosecutor Stew Menefee told The Daily World in Aberdeen that he is considering an appeal.
Hirschfeld was joined in his legal fight by the Washington Education Association (WEA), the state's largest teachers union, and by the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Rich Wood, a spokesman for the WEA, said the union involved itself "because we were seeking clarity for an ambiguous law. This ruling gives us that."
Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com
WA: Lawsuit claims, but Seattle U. president denies, that he knew of priest's abuse
A lawsuit filed Tuesday accuses Seattle University president the Rev. Stephen Sundborg of knowing about an abusive Jesuit priest yet allowing that priest to remain in ministry, back when Sundborg served as head of the Jesuit order in the Northwest from about 1990 to 1996. Sundborg is one of several defendants named in the lawsuit, filed by 40 men and women who say they were sexually abused as children in Alaska years ago by Jesuits or those supervised by Jesuits.
By Janet I. Tu and Nick Perry
Seattle Times staff reporters
PREV 1 of 2 NEXT
COURTNEY BLETHEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
At a press conference, Elsie Boudreau, a victim of past sexual abuse by Jesuits, holds a photograph of a friend from 1941 who was also a victim. Boudreau was one of the victims on hand Wednesday for a press conference held by plaintiffs and their lawyers at Seattle University.
The Rev. Stephen Sundborg is accused of knowing about abuse.
A lawsuit filed Tuesday accuses Seattle University President the Rev. Stephen Sundborg of knowing about an abusive Jesuit priest yet allowing that priest to remain in ministry when Sundborg served as provincial — or head — of the Jesuit order in the Northwest from about 1990 to 1996.
Sundborg is one of several defendants named in the lawsuit, filed by more than 40 men and women who say they were sexually abused as children or teens in Alaska years ago by Jesuits or those supervised by Jesuits.
The suit claims that as provincial, Sundborg had access to something called "hell files" — files containing information about Jesuit priests that was "not public," and "not good."
As such, Sundborg should have known that the Rev. Henry Hargreaves, one of the accused priests, had abused children, the suit says. Hargreaves could not be reached Tuesday evening. According to the lawsuit, he resides with the Jesuit community in Spokane.
Sundborg issued a statement Wednesday saying: "The allegations brought against me are false. I firmly deny them. I want the victims and the entire community to know that.
"The complaint filed by the plaintiffs' lawyers represents an unprincipled and irresponsible attack on my reputation," Sundborg said. "Let me be clear — my commitment to justice and reconciliation for all victims remains steadfast. The sexual abuse by Catholic priests is one of the most shameful episodes in the history of our church. I will continue to work toward the goal of bringing healing to all victims."
Tuesday's lawsuit says Native villages in Alaska were essentially a "dumping ground" for Jesuit priests unsuited to serve anywhere else. That characterization has repeatedly been denied by the Jesuits. However they also have paid out millions of dollars in recent years to settle sexual-abuse claims in Alaska.
Several of the plaintiffs and their attorneys plan to hold a news conference this morning near Seattle University.
The lawsuit, filed in Alaska Superior Court's Bethel Judicial District, accuses six Jesuits or those supervised by Jesuits, of sexual abuses ranging from fondling to rape. The abuses allegedly took place from around the 1950s into the early 1990s in remote Alaskan villages.
All the plaintiffs are Alaska Natives.
Other defendants in the suit include the international Jesuit order, and the Society of Jesus, Oregon Province — the formal name of the Jesuits in the Northwest. The province covers Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Montana and Idaho.
The Very Rev. Patrick Lee, head of the Oregon Province, said in a statement that it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on the lawsuit since he hadn't reviewed the allegations yet.
"The Oregon Province takes these allegations seriously and will investigate them to the fullest extent," Lee said. "The province is committed to a just and healing course in all cases of misconduct and child abuse."
In recent years, the Oregon Province has received numerous allegations of past sexual abuse, most of them involving Jesuits in Alaska. In November 2007, the province agreed to pay $50 million to 110 Alaska Natives — believed to be the largest settlement by a religious order in the Catholic Church abuse cases.
The Fairbanks Diocese, which owned and managed the churches in the villages where Jesuit priests, brothers and volunteers were assigned, filed for bankruptcy protection last March. About 300 people — including those who filed earlier lawsuits — have filed abuse claims with the diocese.
In Washington state, the Oregon Province agreed in January 2008 to pay $4.8 million to 16 Native Americans who were abused years ago when they were students at a boarding school near Omak.
Settlements in the state have also involved the Rev. John Leary, former president of Gonzaga University, and the Revs. Michael Toulouse and Englebert Axer, both former Seattle U. professors.
In 2006, the Rev. Tony Harris, the second-highest ranking Jesuit at Seattle U. after Sundborg, resigned when allegations that he'd sexually harassed a trainee priest in the 1990s publicly resurfaced. The Jesuits had earlier settled a lawsuit involving Harris and two other priests for an undisclosed amount.
Sundborg, who has led Seattle U. for more than a decade, faced criticism in 2005 for refusing to testify at a deposition in a case involving the Rev. James Poole, a Tacoma priest accused of raping or molesting several girls. Sundborg said that any meetings he'd had with Poole fell under a protective veil known to Jesuits as "manifestations of conscience."
Sundborg said at the time that if Poole had disclosed any criminal conduct, he would have tried to make it public. The Jesuits paid about $1.6 million to settle two cases involving Poole and apologized for his actions.
Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272
By Janet I. Tu and Nick Perry
Seattle Times staff reporters
PREV 1 of 2 NEXT
COURTNEY BLETHEN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
At a press conference, Elsie Boudreau, a victim of past sexual abuse by Jesuits, holds a photograph of a friend from 1941 who was also a victim. Boudreau was one of the victims on hand Wednesday for a press conference held by plaintiffs and their lawyers at Seattle University.
The Rev. Stephen Sundborg is accused of knowing about abuse.
A lawsuit filed Tuesday accuses Seattle University President the Rev. Stephen Sundborg of knowing about an abusive Jesuit priest yet allowing that priest to remain in ministry when Sundborg served as provincial — or head — of the Jesuit order in the Northwest from about 1990 to 1996.
Sundborg is one of several defendants named in the lawsuit, filed by more than 40 men and women who say they were sexually abused as children or teens in Alaska years ago by Jesuits or those supervised by Jesuits.
The suit claims that as provincial, Sundborg had access to something called "hell files" — files containing information about Jesuit priests that was "not public," and "not good."
As such, Sundborg should have known that the Rev. Henry Hargreaves, one of the accused priests, had abused children, the suit says. Hargreaves could not be reached Tuesday evening. According to the lawsuit, he resides with the Jesuit community in Spokane.
Sundborg issued a statement Wednesday saying: "The allegations brought against me are false. I firmly deny them. I want the victims and the entire community to know that.
"The complaint filed by the plaintiffs' lawyers represents an unprincipled and irresponsible attack on my reputation," Sundborg said. "Let me be clear — my commitment to justice and reconciliation for all victims remains steadfast. The sexual abuse by Catholic priests is one of the most shameful episodes in the history of our church. I will continue to work toward the goal of bringing healing to all victims."
Tuesday's lawsuit says Native villages in Alaska were essentially a "dumping ground" for Jesuit priests unsuited to serve anywhere else. That characterization has repeatedly been denied by the Jesuits. However they also have paid out millions of dollars in recent years to settle sexual-abuse claims in Alaska.
Several of the plaintiffs and their attorneys plan to hold a news conference this morning near Seattle University.
The lawsuit, filed in Alaska Superior Court's Bethel Judicial District, accuses six Jesuits or those supervised by Jesuits, of sexual abuses ranging from fondling to rape. The abuses allegedly took place from around the 1950s into the early 1990s in remote Alaskan villages.
All the plaintiffs are Alaska Natives.
Other defendants in the suit include the international Jesuit order, and the Society of Jesus, Oregon Province — the formal name of the Jesuits in the Northwest. The province covers Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Montana and Idaho.
The Very Rev. Patrick Lee, head of the Oregon Province, said in a statement that it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on the lawsuit since he hadn't reviewed the allegations yet.
"The Oregon Province takes these allegations seriously and will investigate them to the fullest extent," Lee said. "The province is committed to a just and healing course in all cases of misconduct and child abuse."
In recent years, the Oregon Province has received numerous allegations of past sexual abuse, most of them involving Jesuits in Alaska. In November 2007, the province agreed to pay $50 million to 110 Alaska Natives — believed to be the largest settlement by a religious order in the Catholic Church abuse cases.
The Fairbanks Diocese, which owned and managed the churches in the villages where Jesuit priests, brothers and volunteers were assigned, filed for bankruptcy protection last March. About 300 people — including those who filed earlier lawsuits — have filed abuse claims with the diocese.
In Washington state, the Oregon Province agreed in January 2008 to pay $4.8 million to 16 Native Americans who were abused years ago when they were students at a boarding school near Omak.
Settlements in the state have also involved the Rev. John Leary, former president of Gonzaga University, and the Revs. Michael Toulouse and Englebert Axer, both former Seattle U. professors.
In 2006, the Rev. Tony Harris, the second-highest ranking Jesuit at Seattle U. after Sundborg, resigned when allegations that he'd sexually harassed a trainee priest in the 1990s publicly resurfaced. The Jesuits had earlier settled a lawsuit involving Harris and two other priests for an undisclosed amount.
Sundborg, who has led Seattle U. for more than a decade, faced criticism in 2005 for refusing to testify at a deposition in a case involving the Rev. James Poole, a Tacoma priest accused of raping or molesting several girls. Sundborg said that any meetings he'd had with Poole fell under a protective veil known to Jesuits as "manifestations of conscience."
Sundborg said at the time that if Poole had disclosed any criminal conduct, he would have tried to make it public. The Jesuits paid about $1.6 million to settle two cases involving Poole and apologized for his actions.
Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272
Canada: Montreal school to pay $5M to settle abuse suit
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/570609
Jan 14, 2009 04:30 AM
Sidhartha Banerjee
THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL–A prestigious Montreal private school has agreed to pay $5 million in damages to former students who alleged they were sexually assaulted by teachers over three decades.
Quebec Superior Court has approved the settlement between Selwyn House School and about 35 former students more than three years after the students filed a class-action lawsuit.
The school has denied any wrongdoing or liability, but made the gesture to help the former students move forward, said Ted Claxton, chair of the board of directors at Selwyn House.
"We're very pleased with the decision. We think this settlement arrangement is something in the interest of the men involved and the school," Claxton said in an interview.
"We hope this will allow those men to put things behind them and get on with their lives."
The sexual abuse allegations focus on three former teachers at the institution and span from the 1960s to the late 1980s.
The teachers outlined in court documents were James Hill, Leigh Seville and John Aimers, who is the co-founder of the Monarchist League of Canada.
Seville, who taught at the school in the '70s and '80s, committed suicide in 1991 after school officials confronted him with the allegations.
Hill, who taught at the school between 1961 and 1972, has not been heard from in some time and his whereabouts are unknown.
Aimers taught in the 1970s and has denied any wrongdoing.
Toronto lawyer Bryan McPhadden says the two sides reached a deal last February, but the court wasn't immediately satisfied and wanted the wording reworked.
AL: Speake High School Teacher Arrested for Sexual Abuse
http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9673868
January 14, 2009
From WHNT NewsChannel 19:
The Lawrence County Sheriff's Department has arrested a Speake High School teacher for alleged sexual abuse involving a student.
Sheriff Gene Mitchell says Jason Lyn Gasque, 31, touched one of his students in appropriately while on school grounds. Gasque teaches math and also coaches at Speake High School.
The sheriff's department learned of the alleged incident last week. Sheriff Mitchell says investigators began look into the matter and quickly received information and evidence to support the claim.
Deputies arrested Gasque on Wednesday and booked him into the Lawrence County Jail. He is being held on $5,000 bond.
Gasque lives at 2120 Berry Circle in Florence. He is charged with first-degree sexual abuse, which is a Class C felony.
January 14, 2009
From WHNT NewsChannel 19:
The Lawrence County Sheriff's Department has arrested a Speake High School teacher for alleged sexual abuse involving a student.
Sheriff Gene Mitchell says Jason Lyn Gasque, 31, touched one of his students in appropriately while on school grounds. Gasque teaches math and also coaches at Speake High School.
The sheriff's department learned of the alleged incident last week. Sheriff Mitchell says investigators began look into the matter and quickly received information and evidence to support the claim.
Deputies arrested Gasque on Wednesday and booked him into the Lawrence County Jail. He is being held on $5,000 bond.
Gasque lives at 2120 Berry Circle in Florence. He is charged with first-degree sexual abuse, which is a Class C felony.
Special Report: NDRN Investigative Report
School is Not Supposed to Hurt:
Investigative Report on Abusive Restraint and Seclusion in Schools
National Disability Rights Network
January 2009
Full report: http://www.ndrn.org/sr/SR-Report.pdf (60 pages)
Our examination of the current patchwork of laws, regulations, and guidelines is outlined. The findings show that forty-one percent (41%) have no laws, policies, or guidelines concerning restraint or seclusion use in schools; almost ninety percent(0%) still allow prone restraints, and only forty-five percent (45%) require or recommend that schools automatically notify parents or guardians of restraint/seclusion use. Finally, the report proposes recommendations for immediate actions that must be taken by the new Obama Administration, the United States Congress, states and territories, and local schools – if we are to protect our nation’s children.
Even in today’s tumultuous world, all families should be able to expect that their children are safe in their neighborhood schools -- not tied to desks, locked in storage closets, shoved in large dark boxes, or pinned down by adults two and three times their size.
However, P&A programs across the country have reported the use of these shocking and dangerous practices.
Investigative Report on Abusive Restraint and Seclusion in Schools
National Disability Rights Network
January 2009
Full report: http://www.ndrn.org/sr/SR-Report.pdf (60 pages)
Our examination of the current patchwork of laws, regulations, and guidelines is outlined. The findings show that forty-one percent (41%) have no laws, policies, or guidelines concerning restraint or seclusion use in schools; almost ninety percent(0%) still allow prone restraints, and only forty-five percent (45%) require or recommend that schools automatically notify parents or guardians of restraint/seclusion use. Finally, the report proposes recommendations for immediate actions that must be taken by the new Obama Administration, the United States Congress, states and territories, and local schools – if we are to protect our nation’s children.
Even in today’s tumultuous world, all families should be able to expect that their children are safe in their neighborhood schools -- not tied to desks, locked in storage closets, shoved in large dark boxes, or pinned down by adults two and three times their size.
However, P&A programs across the country have reported the use of these shocking and dangerous practices.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Special Report: Critique of AR Guidelines on Discipline and School Safety Policies
Below please find a copy of Arkansas' Dept of Education Guidelines for Discipline and School Safety. We have reviewed these guidelines and, as with many state policies/guidelines, have found these "Guidelines" lacking...and possibly in violation of Federal IDEA Laws.
States set policies which school districts must follow. Under those policies, school districts have a certain amount of autonomy in developing their policies/guidelines. In this case, the state of Arkansas has 278 different school districts; since each district may develop their own "discipline and safety policy," this means that there will be 278 different interpretations of these "guidelines."
Please also keep in mind the Department of Education's Guidelines are "recommendations" only; thus, nothing set forth in any of this document is binding or enforceable as written. Which means, basically, districts can do whatever they want and there's virutally NOTHING we can do about it - EXCEPT ask our legislators to stop making unenforceable, meaningless "policies" and craft FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS!!
Please keep in mind we are not attorneys, so our interpretations shouldn't be construed as "FACT," but are an accurate reflection of our opinions.
Areas of concern are italicized and are immediately followed by our commentary, which is enclosed in brackets and bolded for easier viewing.
We have not changed or altered any of the content therein, only interjected our thoughts.
The original PDF document can be found on the AR Dept of Ed website and can be accessed here:
Agency # 005.15
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT,
REVIEW AND REVISION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT
DISCIPLINE AND SCHOOL SAFETY POLICEIS
Adopted May 14, 2007
1.00 Title
1.01 These guidelines shall be known as the Arkansas Department of Education
Guidelines for the Development, Review and Revision of School District student discipline and School Safety Policies.
2.00 Authority
2.01 These guidelines are authorized pursuant to the Department of Education’s authority under Ark. Code Ann 6-18-502 (Repl. 1993).
3.00 Purpose
3.01 These guidelines are designed to assist local school districts with the development, review and revision of student discipline and school safety policies.
4.00 Development, Review and Revision of Policies
4.01 All school districts should [not shall or must; “optional”; unenforceable as written] complete the initial development of school district student discipline and school safety policies consistent with legal guidelines set forth in these regulations during the 1995-96 school year. [Does this mean that school districts do not have to develop ANY student discipline and safety policies? What guidelines were set forth during the 1995-1996 school year? Why was that school year chosen? Why aren't those guidelines specifically explained in this document?]
4.01.01 Districts may elect to have a single policy encompassing all organizational levels or may develop separate policies for each organizational level.
4.02 All school districts shall include in the above referenced policies, a procedure for annually reviewing the policies to ensure that they are consistent with state and federal law, developing case law and Department of Education guidelines.
4.03 All school districts shall include in the above referenced policies a procedure by which parents, teachers or students may request and receive a hearing to consider revision of the policies or particular provisions of the policies
5.00 Persons Participating In Policy Development, Review and Revision
5.01 Parents, teachers, students, school district administrative personnel, community representatives, and at least one school counselor shall be involved initial development and an annual review and revision of school district student discipline and school safety policies.
ADE 253-1 Agency # 005.15
5.01.01 The development team shall be equitably balanced by race, gender, social economic level and shall be sufficient number to provide broad representation within the district. [How is “sufficiency” determined? Who determines “sufficiency?” What does “broad representation” mean? How many team members constitute "sufficiency?"]
5.01.02 Districts may elect to have separate policies for different organizational levels and may have development teams for each level or may use one team for all levels.
6.00 Policy Content
6.01 Student discipline and school safety policies shall include provisions, which cover required areas of Arkansas Code Annotated 6-18-502 [Why is the specific Annotated Code not spelled out clearly in this policy, with a notation that those “required areas” are consistent with the Annotated Code? That way “required areas” are clearly defined and understood. How does this align with federal policies?] while other areas [How is “other areas” defined?] shall be optional with the local school district. [How does this align with federal law?] All policies shall include provisions, which cover the required areas in a form consistent with legal commentary. If optional issues are included in the district’s policies, they shall be in a form consistent with the legal commentary. However, a school district may change its policy if new laws or new case law dictate such a change. [Does this refer only to “optional policies” or is this applicable to “required policies” as well?]
6.02 Required Areas: Students discipline policies shall include, but are not limited to Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-502 [What specifically does Ark Code Ann 6-18-502 specify? Why is that not clarified here?]
6.02.01 Willfully and intentionally assaulting or threatening to assault or abuse any teacher, principal, superintendent, or other employee of a school system; [Note: Notice there’s no specific mention of assaults on other students, just staff]
6.02.02 Possession by students of any firearm or other weapon [what constitutes “other weapon?”] prohibited upon the school campus by law or by policies adopted by the school board.
COMMENTARY: Act 567 of 1995 requires expulsion for a period of not less than one year for possession of any firearm or other weapon prohibited upon the school campus by law; however, the superintendent shall have discretion to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-case-basis. [What are the student’s due process “rights” under these circumstances?]
6.02.03 Using offering for sale, or selling beer, alcoholic beverages, or other illicit drugs by students on school property;
COMMENTARY: Recipients of federal grant funds distributed through the Arkansas Department of Education must ensure a drug free workplace. District policies should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be consistent with this guarantee. [What are the student’s due process “rights” under these circumstances? What is the “prescribed punishment” under these circumstances if found guilty?]
6.02.04 Possession by a student of any paging device, beeper, or similar Electronic communication device on the school campus; however, The policy may provide an exemption for possession of such a device by a student who is required to use such a device for health or other compelling reasons;
COMMENTARY: Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-502 (b) (2) (D) (Repl.1993) prohibits the possession by students of pagers or beepers on school campuses except when they are required for health or another compelling reason. [What are the student’s due process rights under these circumstances? What is the “prescribed punishment” under these circumstances if found guilty?]
ADE 253-2 Agency # 005.15
6.02.05 Willfully or intentionally damaging, destroying, or stealing of school property by students
6.02.06 The school discipline policies shall: Prescribe minimum and maximum penalties, including students’ suspension or dismissal from school, for violations of each of the aforementioned offenses and for violations of other practices prohibited by school discipline policies. [This indicates what needs to be included in the policies, but does not set “minimum” or “maximum” penalties. Who sets “minimums” or “maximums” (Districts? The state?) is also not mentioned. How does this align with federal and state policy?)]
COMMENTARY: Notice in writing of the district’s discipline policies, specific enough to put students on notice of proscribed behavior, is a necessary component of due process. Failure to adequately provide notice may render a policy unenforceable in a specific instance
.
6.02.07 The school discipline policies shall establish procedures for notice to students and parents of charges, hearings, and other due process proceedings to be applicable in the enforcement and administration of such policies by the school administrator and by the school board. [Notice both students and parents must be given notice of “charges, hearings, and other due process proceedings,” but how that “notice” is “provided” is not clear (phone call, written incident report, etc.). However, “notice” must be provided before “due process” can be “enforced or administered.” Would this mean staff would have to “notify” parents before punishment is administered?]
COMMENTARY: Due process is at a minimum, (1) notice of charge; (2) opportunity for denial; (3) evidence against him/her (if denies) (4) opportunity to tell his/her side; (5) decision, and timely notice [What does “timely notice” mean? How is “timely notice” defined?] and an opportunity for a fair hearing. [Who is involved in the "hearing?"; What processes are in place to assure "hearings" are "fair?" Is “punishment” doled out prior to “a fair hearing?” What is a student’s recourse if student is “punished” via “corporal punishment” but a “fair hearing” finds the student “not guilty?”] The degree of due process required is directly proportional to the degree of loss to the student. [What does "degree of due process” and “degree of loss” mean? How is “degree of due process” and “degree of loss” defined? Who determines “degree of due process” and “degree of loss?”] Any penalty which effectively denies a student’s education will require the greatest degree of due process. [What are the “degrees” of “due process”? Who determines “degree of due process?”] This means notice in writing at a time sufficient for the student to prepare for a full hearing before the local school board. [What does “at a time sufficient” mean? Who determines how much “time” is “sufficient?” What information should the “notice” include? Would a student’s right to due process be compromised OR can punishment be “meted out” prior to parental notification/if parents are NOT notified in advance of disciplinary action leading to due process? If so, how is that not a circumvention of due process?]
6.02.08 The school discipline policies shall include prevention, Intervention and conflict resolution provisions.
6.02.09 Student discipline policies shall provide that parents and students will be advised of the rules and regulations by which the school is governed and will be made aware of the behavior that will call for disciplinary action and types of corrective actions that may be imposed.
6.02.10 Each school district shall develop a procedure for written notification to all parents and students of the district’s student discipline policies and documentation of the receipt of the policies by all parents and students.
6.02.11 Teachers and administrators shall be provided with training as needed in classroom management and in other skills relevant to student discipline. [Who/what determines what training "is needed?" What "other skills" are "relevant to student discipline?" Who will provide "training?" How will "training" be provided?]
ADE 253-3 Agency # 005.15
6.02.12 District’s policy regarding student attendance, required by Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-209 and 6-18-222 (Repl.1993), as amended by Act 572 of 1995.
COMMENTARY: Each school district’s attendance policy must state a certain number of unexcused absences, which the district considers excessive. [Why is each district setting its own “rules” about what is “excessive?” Why is this not determined, consistently, by the state?] Excessive absences may be used as a basis for denial of course credit, promotion or graduation by law although the Department of Education does not recommend this and urges districts to devise ways in which students can regain credits lost through nonattendance. Excessive absences may not be used as a basis for expulsion or dismissal of a student. State law requires that students who miss school because of illness, accident, or other unavoidable reasons should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] be given assistance in obtaining credit for their courses. Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-222 (Repl. 1993), as amended by Act 572 of 1995. [This states that children who are absent because of illness, accident, or unavoidable reasons can be denied assistance in obtaining credit for their courses. How does this align with other state/federal laws? This may be discriminatory in that children who are ill or who are absent due to an accident or unavoidable reasons may be eligible for instruction in the home from their district.]
Districts should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] ensure that any student who a[sic] run[s] afoul of the district’s attendance policy because of illness or health problems has been evaluated Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974. [This may be discriminatory and violate IDEA Child Find requirements since states are required to identify, locate, and evaluate ALL children with disabilities.]
All children, ages 5 through 17 on October 1, must attend school unless an appropriate exception applies under Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-201 (Repl. 1993). [How does this align with federal law? What are the exceptions? Why aren’t exceptions clearly stated?] All children admitted to the public schools must show proof of age by either a birth certificate, a statement by the local registrar or a county recorder certifying the child’s date of birth, an attested baptismal certificate, a passport, an affidavit of the date and place of birth by the child’s parent or guardian or previous school records. Each Child shall either furnish his social security number or request the district to assign him a nine digit number. Ark. Code Ann.6-18-208 (Repl. 1993).
Prior to a child’s admission to an Arkansas public school, the parent, guardian, or other responsible person shall indicate on school registration forms whether the child has been expelled from school in any other school district or is a party to an expulsion proceeding. Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-208 (Repl. 1993), as amended by Act 574 of 1995.
A copy of the school district’s attendance policy should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] be provided to the student’s parents, guardians or persons in loco parentis at the beginning of the school year. Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-222. [This states that attendance policies do not have to be provided to parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis.]
Whenever a student exceeds the number unexcused absences provided for in the district’s attendance policy, the district shall notify the prosecuting authority. Ark Code Ann. 6-18-222.
Each local school district must notify the Department of Finance and Administration whenever a student 14 years or older is no longer in school. Ark. Code Ann. 65-18-222, as amended by Act 572 of 1995.
6.02.13 Crisis Intervention Plans
COMMENTARY: School districts should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] formulate crisis intervention plans for the following situations: fire, tornado, earthquake, death, suicide, and intruder(s) on the school campus. These plans should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] name a coordinator, consider demographics and designate a response team. [This states that districts do not have to formulate crisis intervention plans, or if plans exist, then a coordinator does not have to be named, demographics do not need to be considered, nor does a response team need to be designated.]
6.02.14 Distribution of Literature
Each school board shall adopt rules and regulations in the form of a written student publications policy developed in conjunction with the student publication advisor (s) and the appropriate school administrator (s), which shall include reasonable provision for the time, place, and manner of distributing student publications.
COMMENTARY: Act 1109 of 1995 allows students to exercise their right of expression within the district’s regulations regardless of whether such publications are supported financially by the school or by use of school facilities or are produced in conjunction with a class. However, the following publications are not authorized:
(1) publications that are obscene as to minors, as defined by state law;
(2) publications that are libelous or slanderous, as defined by state law;
(3) publications that constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, as defined by state law,
(4) publications that so incite students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violations of lawful school regulations or the material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school. [Who determines what may “incite students” or what a “clear and present danger is?” What process will be used in the event of a disagreement about whether something "incites danger?"]
Publications that are a product of the school curriculum should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] have printed in the published material a statement like: “This publication is published as a part of the curriculum and is a non-public forum under the supervision of the District Board of Directors.”
6.03 Optional Areas
6.03.01 Appearance and Dress Code
COMMENTARY: Districts may adopt rules regarding personal appearance and grooming if they are required to prevent disruption or interference in the educational process and if such rules do not reflect mere taste or fashion. See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm, School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
6.03.02 School Organizations
COMMENTARY: No state or federal law prohibits student organizations at the elementary or secondary level. Students have the right to join an existing club and should [in this case, "must not," or "shall not" must be used, as to keep the wording of “should” could be considered discrimination, which is a civil rights violation] not be restricted from membership on the basis of race, sex, national origin or other arbitrary criteria.
ADE 253-5 Agency # 005.15
School fraternities and secret societies are banned in Arkansas public schools. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-603 (Repl. 1993). (**Note: This could be a good “gang” related policy.** ) [Note: Content appearing in *** is NOT our notation.)
6.03.03 Search and Seizure
COMMENTARY: School personnel may legally search lockers, automobiles, and students using the following guidelines.
A. Student Lockers: School policy on the search of student lockers by school personnel should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be set within the following legal framework:
1. A search shall be conducted upon receipt of information that the search would produce evidence indicating the student has violated the law or school rules.
2. Students should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be informed at the beginning of school each year school authorities have equal access to lockers and may inspect them at any time. [This states that students do not have to be informed that their lockers could be inspected.]
B. Personal Search
A search of a student’s person should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be limited to a situation in which the administration has reasonable suspicion that the search would produce evidence indicating that the student has violated the law or school rules. [This means that school personnel can search a student at any time, for any reason.]
School districts are encouraged to develop written guidelines indicating how personal searches of students will be conducted. [This means that school districts do not have to develop any written guidelines on how personal searches will be conducted.] These written guidelines should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be given to students and parents prior to each school year. The following minimum guidelines should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be incorporated into a district’s search policy:
1. An adult witness should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be present when a personal search is conducted. [It is uncertain why the policy is left so vague and/or to the districts' discretion as to whether a "witness" should be present during a personal search, as this poses a liability issue (in other words, major threat of lawsuit if student alleges district personnel did something inappropriate during "personal search.") Districts can't definitively "prove" personnel innocence if no witnesses, unless "search" is caught on videotape. What do the school insurance policies indicate for "personal search procedures?"]
2. A pat down search of a student’s person should [not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be done by a school official of the same sex. [It is uncertain why the policy is left so vague and/or to the districts' discretion as to whether a "pat down" could be done by someone of the opposite sex, as this poses a liability issue (in other words, major threat of lawsuit if student alleges district personnel did something inappropriate during "pat down.") District can't definitively "prove" personnel innocence if there are no witnesses, unless the "pat down" was caught on videotape. Same allegations could be raised for either same sex or opposite sex "pat downs." What do the school insurance policies indicate for "pat down procedures?"]
3. A search must be based on a reasonable suspicion that the student has violated the law or school rules, and the scope of the search must be “reasonably related to the objective of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U. S. 325, 342 (1985) [This contradicts what was written above in that this is what “should” be incorporated, not what “must” be incorporated in these guidelines. Unless this subsection negates the introduction to Section B?]
ADE 253-6 Agency # 005.15
C. Automobiles
1. Warrantless searches of student automobiles by school personnel are generally valid if there is reasonable suspicion that the search would produce evidence indicating the student has violated the law or school rules.
D. Sniff Dogs
1. No Arkansas case has been litigated in federal district court, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, or United States Supreme Court on “sniff dog” searches.
2. “Sniffing” by trained dogs in public hallways or autos in public lots is not a search. (The Fourth Amendment requirements do not apply.) [Why do the 4th Amendment requirements not apply in this instance?]
3. “Sniffing” of a student’s person is a search and the legality of such sniffing can only be defended if there is reasonable suspicion that the search will produce evidence that the student is violating the law or school rules.
E. The school district may elect to use a metal detector at the entrance of all schools.
6.03.04 Student Conduct
COMMENTARY: School districts have broad authority to control student conduct and adopt all rules reasonably necessary to maintain proper discipline [What is proper discipline?] among their students. Each district should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] define both permissible and impermissible conduct and describe appropriate punishment for impermissible conduct. [This states that districts do not have to define "permissible and impermissible conduct" or describe what punishment may be meted out for "impermissible conduct."] These definitions should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] be distributed to district personnel, students and parents at the beginning of the school year. [How can punishment be meted out for impermissible behavior if districts are not required to inform district personnel of what behavior is "impermissible." How can parents or students exercise their right to due process if they are unaware of what "impermissible behaviors" are and/or what punishments may be meted out?]
6.04 Administrative Responses
Each school district should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] clearly define all possible administrative responses to impermissible student behavior. [This states that districts do not have to clearly define any possible administrative responses to impermissible student behavior.] In drafting these guidelines, districts should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] remember that every student is entitled to due process in every instance of response. However, the amount of due process to which the student is entitled is directly proportional to the nature of the student’s right, which is affected. [What does this mean? This whole section is contradictory. First, it indicates that all students are entitled to due process, then it says that due process is “proportional to the “nature” of a student’s right.” Logic dictates that either a student is entitled to due process or they’re not; however this indicates that a student’s fundamental right to due process varies. Varies in what way? How is the “proportion of the student’s right” determined? Who determines that “proportion?” For that matter, how is due process defined? How does a district know what constitutes “due process?” What is the “nature” of a “student’s right?” How is “nature of student’s right” defined? This is incomprehensible and therefore, unenforceable as written.] The following categories represent disciplinary actions by the administration for which a student is entitled to due process and, roughly speaking, what kind of due process is required. [Roughly speaking? How is “roughly speaking" defined?” Either a specific type of “due process procedure” is available to a student or it’s not. Does this mean that students are not entitled to due process under certain circumstances? How can this be if “every student is entitled to due process in every instance of response?" This directly contradicts what was stated above.]
A. Corporal Punishment: Any teacher or school administrator in a school district that authorizes use of corporal punishment in the district’s written student discipline policy [Why are only teachers and administrators desires to include corporal punishment included in policy inclusion decisions when parents, students, community representatives, and at least one school counselor must be included in policy creation? This sentence is also poorly worded, nonsensical, and incomprehensible. Perhaps what was meant was “A school district may use corporal punishment, provided the district has written policies that indicate the circumstances corporal punishment may be used, who may authorize its use, and how it will be administered (ie. Teacher or administrator’s hand, wooden paddle, ping pong paddle, other manual device, etc. (Special Note: It is all too easy for “corporal punishment” to lead to the realm of abuse. This “School Safety Policy” should issue policies which clearly indicate which “types” of “corporal punishment devices” are impermissible and would constitute abuse.)) Any teacher or school administrator in a school district may authorize the use of corporal punishment provided that the authorization is in accordance with the district’s written student discipline policy. Any teacher or school administrator may use corporal punishment…”] and may use corporal punishment in the presence of an administrator or his designee, provided only that the punishment is administered in accord with the district’s written student discipline policy [this is redundant], against any pupil [How does this align with IDEA? What provisions are in place to protect children with disabilities from undue punishment?] in order to maintain discipline and order within the public schools. [Research indicates that in schools where corporal punishment is used, test scores and/or grades are lower than in schools where it is not used. Research also indicates that corporal punishment is not a “good means” of “maintaining discipline and order within public schools." IDEA also call for positive behavioral interventions and supports to be used. What evidence-based research has been used to verify corporal punishment is a positive behavioral intervention or support? This policy also previously indicated that prevention, intervention and conflict resolution provisions must be included. What policies and interventions will be put in place to prevent the need for/reduce the use of “corporal punishment?”]
ADE 253-7 Agency # 005.15
See Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-503 (Repl. 1993), as amended by Act 333 of 1995. [Why is the code not prefaced here?]
The following guidelines are recommended [not required; optional; unenforceable as written]:
1. Before corporal punishment is administered, the student should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] be advised of the rule and infraction for which the student may be punished. [IF the student is entitled to due process, and if the child is not informed of the infraction, how can the child effectively “fight” for his/her “due process?” Failure to inform the student of the infraction violates the student’s right to due process, as outlined in above provisions.] The student should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] be allowed time to respond [How much “time to respond” is allotted to the student? What “methods” may students use to “respond?” What accommodations/provisions are made for students with communication impairments and/or other disabilities? Also, failure of the child to be able to respond violates students’ right to due process, as outlined in above provisions], and then the school administrator should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] take the action it deems is most appropriate. [How soon does “action” take place?] A formal hearing is not required prior to administering corporal punishment.
2. Parents may choose an option whether their child is given corporal punishment. [How are parents informed of this policy? Is this an automatic “opt in” if parents don’t send letter to “opt out?” Do administrators/teachers contact the parent in advance if a child is determined to need “corporal punishment?” This needs to be clearly outlined.]
B. Suspension: Schools may suspend students from school. A suspension is defined as dismissing the student from school for any time period not exceeding 10 days. For a suspension, the United States Supreme Court in Goss v. Lopez required that a student be accorded the minimum due process requirements under the United States Constitution. [What are the minimum due process requirements under the US Constitution? Why aren’t they prefaced here?] Districts should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] only use suspension and/or expulsion from school when all other alternatives fail. Districts should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] afford suspended students the following rights:
1. Prior to any suspension, the school principal or his/her designee, shall advise the student in question of the particular misconduct of which he/she is accused, as well as the basic for the accusation. [This contradicts what was stated under B. above (districts *should*) and may not be enforceable as written]
2. The pupil shall be given an opportunity at that time to explain his/her version of the facts to the school principal or his/her designee. [Who must be present when the student “explains his/her version of the facts”; what other methods are used to determine “facts”; criminals are afforded “representation” when accused of crimes and in “explaining his/her version of the facts,” are students afforded the same representation by either parents or advocates?]
3. Written notice of suspension and the reason(s) for the suspension shall be given to the pupil.
4. Any parent, legal guardian, or person acting as a parent shall have the right to appeal to the superintendent or his/her designee. [How would a parent, guardian, etc appeal the suspension? What policies are in place re the appeals process?]
C. Expulsion: School districts may expel students from school using the following guidelines. An expulsion is defined as dismissing the student from school for the remainder of the current semester or for one year where the infraction involves a weapon.
Expulsion should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] only be used in those instances in which serious bodily harm occurred or reasonably could have occurred to another person or where the student possesses drugs or weapons. Expulsion should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] only be used in rare cases. Prior to expulsion, the following must occur:
1. The student should [Not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written.] immediately be advised of the particular conduct in question. [Violates students’ right to due process as outlined in policy above.]
2. The district should [Not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written.] immediately notify in writing the student’s parents, legal guardian or person acting as a parent and state the charges against the student and the district’s intended action. [Violates students’ rights to due process as outlined in policy above.]
3. The district shall hold a full evidentiary hearing before the school board to consider whether or not the student should be expelled.
4. At the hearing, the student may represent himself/herself or he/she may select a representative.
5. The student/representative may [not “is permitted to”; implies this is optional; not enforceable as written] hear all testimony, and the student and /or representative may [not “is permitted to”; implies this is optional; not enforceable as written] cross-examine all witnesses. [Violates
6. The student/representative is entitled to offer evidence in his/her favor.
D. Discipline for Eligible Students with Disabilities Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), Public Law (PL) 108-466 and implementing regulations found at 34 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300
1. Students with disabilities who engage in misconduct are subject to normal school disciplinary rules and procedures so long as such treatment does not abridge the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). [MAY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW. Federal regulations under IDEA stipulate that a child with disabilities shall not be punished if the “acts” could be a manifestation of the child’s disability and that a “manifestation hearing” is necessary to determine whether “act” could have been manifestation of disability, if “punishment” results in a suspension or expulsion for more than 10 cumulative days.]
2. For students whose disabilities have behavioral aspects, preventive measures, such as behavioral intervention plans, should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] be considered and can be facilitated through the individualized education program (IEP) and placement processes required by IDEA. In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior. [MAY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW. "Behaviors" may be a manifestation (result) of the child's disabilities. In the event that a student with disabilities engages in behavior that impedes the learning or that of others, a functional behavior assessment should be completed and a Positive Behavioral Intervention Plan should be created and implemented. Behavioral issues may not be unaddressed, especially where behaviors may lead to “punishment.” Language used in this sentence indicates this is Optional.]
3. Where a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct is removed by school personnel from his or her current placement to an appropriate interim alternative education setting, another setting, or suspension for ten (10) consecutive school days or less, to the extent those alternatives are applied to children without disabilities, no change of placement is considered to have occurred, and IDEA's parent-notification provisions would not apply. Also, there is no requirement for a prior determination of whether the student's misconduct was a manifestation of the student's disability. [This is inaccurate. IDEA says that, “1) School personnel under this section may remove a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct from his or her current placement to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 consecutive school days (to the extent those alternatives are applied to children without disabilities), and for additional removals of not more than 10 consecutive school days in that same school year for separate incidents of misconduct (as long as those removals do not constitute a change of placement under Sec. 300.536) (http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cregs%2C300%2CE%2C300%252E530%2C); not, that a change of placement is not considered to have occurred. Please compare what is written in the federal guidelines here to what follows below ]
Schools may remove any student with disabilities for a disciplinary infraction for up to ten (10) school days per offense during the same school year as long as those removals do not constitute a change of placement. During a period of short-term exclusion, schools are not required to provide any educational services to the student until such time as the student has been suspended or removed for a total of more than ten (10) school days in the same school year. [Note: IDEA says (as is written below) that a district is only required to provide servicing during periods of removal to a child with a disability who has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 school days or less, IF it provides services to children without disabilities. YET, this says that schools are not required to provide any educational services… This is misleading and inaccurate. IDEA also says that it is permissible for “punish” a disabled child for “behaviors” that are or may be a direct manifestation of that child’s disabilities for up to 10 days per year BEFORE anyone needs to determine if the “behaviors” are attributable to the child’s disability. How is this NOT discrimination? What remedy does a child or a family have if their child was suspended for 10 days for doing something that is later to be determined to be directly related to their disability? *Just a personal pet peeve.*]
A district is only required to provide services during periods of removal to a child with a disability who has been removed from his or her current placement for ten (10) school days or less in that school year, if it provides services to a child without disabilities who is similarly removed in accordance with provisions of the IDEA. [Almost word for word from the federal regs, however by separating the paragraph it’s misleading, as outlined above.]
4. School personnel may consider any unique circumstances on a case-by-case
basis when determining whether a change in placement, consistent with other discipline requirements is appropriate for a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct. [Word for word from the federal regs.]
5. For a student with disabilities, an exclusion from school for more than 10 consecutive school days (long-term exclusion) constitutes a change in placement and is subject to procedural safeguards. IDEA requires, among other things, that parents be given written notice before a change in placement can be implemented. Within ten (10) school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, it must be determined:
(i) If the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child's disability; or
(ii) If the conduct in question was the direct result of the District's failure to implement the IEP.
The conduct must be determined to be a manifestation of the child's disability if the district, parent and relevant members of the child's IEP Team determine the condition described above was met. If so, the district must take immediate steps to remedy those deficiencies. If the district, the parent and relevant members of the IEP Team make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child's disability, the IEP Team must either conduct a functional behavioral assessment, and implement a behavioral intervention plan for the child; or if a behavioral intervention plan has already been developed, review the behavioral intervention plan, and modify it in accordance with the provisions of the IDEA. [Almost word for word from the fed regs.]
[It is noteworthy what does not appear to be included from the federal regs here in this policy. For example: (1) A child with a disability who is removed from the child's current placement pursuant to paragraphs (c), or (g) of this section must--
(i) Continue to receive educational services, as provided in Sec. 300.101(a), so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child's IEP;]
6. A series of short-term suspensions totaling more than ten (10) school days in the same school year could constitute a change in placement. [We're still trying to find support that “short-term suspensions totaling more than 10 days could constitute a change in placement.” Everything we've read thus far leads us to believe that this is erroneous – that it DOES constitute a change in placement, because it falls under “more than 10 cumulative days,” not more than 10 consecutive days, and is subject to the terms of a manifestation determination, etc – but we just may not have found the right reference.] Factors such as the length of each suspension, the total amount of time that the student is excluded from school, the proximity of the suspensions to each other, and whether the child's behavior is substantially similar to the child's behavior in previous incidents that resulted in the series of removals should [Not shall or must; optional; not enforceable as written] be considered in determining whether the student has been excluded from school to such an extent that there has been a change in placement. This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.
7. For a student with disabilities, a suspension or other disciplinary removal for more than 10 consecutive school days may not be considered without the school district first determining whether the student’s misconduct was a manifestation of the student’s disability or direct failure to implement the student's IEP. This determination must be made by a group of persons knowledgeable about the student (such as his/her IEP committee), and may not be made unilaterally by one individual.
(i) If the student’s misconduct WAS NOT caused by, or did not have a direct and substantial relationship to the child's disability nor was the direct result of the district's failure to implement the IEP, the school district may expel or suspend the student from school for more than ten school days, in the same manner and for the same duration as the procedures would be applied to children without disabilities, subject to conditions set forth in the procedural safeguards of IDEA. [As mentioned in the note in 5. above, the district may expel the student in the same manner and for the same duration as for non-disabled peers, HOWEVER, the “procedural safeguards” are not spelled out to clearly indicate that the district MUST continue to educate the child so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child's IEP Sec. 300.101(a);]
(ii) If the student’s misconduct WAS a manifestation of his/her disability or was the direct result of the district's failure to implement the IEP, the student may not be expelled or suspended from school for more than ten school days for the misconduct. [MAY VIOLATE IDEA. This sentence is convoluted and may be correct, however IDEA says that upon determination that the child’s behavior WAS a manifestation of the child’s disability, districts are required to return the child to the placement from which the child had been removed, unless the parent and the local educational agency agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavioral intervention plan, and unless the child’s behavior involved weapons, drugs, or has inflicted serious bodily harm – NOT that the child may not be expelled or suspended for more than 10 days for the misconduct if manifestation of disability- so this appears to be in conflict with IDEA. But again, it’s so convoluted it’s almost unintelligible. However, IDEA permits children with disabilities to be discriminated against solely on the basis that they may have exhibited “behaviors” that “violate school policy” irregardless or their disabilities, even if those disabilities are the reason why the child is “punished.” It does allow the child to be punished on the basis that the district failed to implement that child’s IEP appropriately. So not only is the child being punished for being disabled, but they are being punished for a school district’s negligence. We will be publishing a position statement against this section of the law in the very near future.]
However, other procedures may be used to address the student’s misconduct. A change in placement, if determined appropriate, could be implemented subject to applicable procedural safeguards. The school district would also have the option of suspending the student from school for ten days or less, or seeking a court order at any time to remove the student from school or to change the student’s placement if it believes that maintaining the student in the current placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others.
8. If the suspension or other disciplinary removal of the student is for more than 10 school days, within the first 10 days of suspension the district must convene the student’s IEP committee to review: (1) the relationship between the student’s disability and the student’s misconduct; (2) the relationship between the student’s IEP and the misconduct; and (3) the student’s IEP and determine whether implementation of a behavioral intervention plan and/or a change in the educational placement of the student is appropriate. The district should [not shall or must; optional; unenforceable as written] seek to obtain parental agreement to a change in the student’s IEP and/or educational placement. The student’s parents must be provided with written prior notice a reasonable time [What constitutes a “reasonable time?” Who determines how much “time” is reasonable?” This needs to be more clearly defined, otherwise it’s unenforceable as written.] before the school implements any changes in the student’s IEP and corresponding placement, including their right to a due process hearing.
9. If the student’s parents request a due process hearing on the proposal to change the student’s IEP or placement or the manifestation determination, the school district may seek to persuade the parents to agree to an interim placement for the student while expedited due process proceedings are pending. If the district believes that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others, the district may appeal the decision of the IEP team by requesting an expedited hearing in accordance with provisions of the IDEA.
10. If a student’s parents initiate an impartial due process hearing in connection with a proposed disciplinary exclusion or other change in placement, and the misconduct does not involve the bringing of a firearm to school, the “pendency” or “stay put” provision of IDEA requires that the student must remain in his or her current educational placement until the completion of all proceedings. If the parents and school district can agree on an interim placement, the student would be entitled to remain in that placement until the completion of all proceedings.
11. For a student not previously identified by the school district as a student potentially in need of special education, a parental request for evaluation or a request for a due process hearing or other appeal AFTER disciplinary suspension or expulsion has commenced DOES NOT obligate the school district to reinstate the student’s prior in-school status. This is because in accordance with the “stay-put” provision of IDEA, the student’s “then current placement” is the out-of-school place. After the disciplinary sanction is completed, if the resolution of the due process hearing is still pending, the student must be returned to school as would a nondisabled student in similar circumstances.
COMMENTARY: It should be noted that, pending the resolution of the due process hearing or other appeal, a court could enjoin the suspension or expulsion and direct the school district to reinstate the student if the court determines that the school district knew or reasonably should have known that the student is a student in need of special education.
12. A school district may seek a court order at any time to remove any student with disabilities from school or to change the student’s current educational placement if the school district believes that maintaining the student in the current educational placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others.
13. Under IDEA, school districts must ensure that FAPE is made available when a student is suspended for more than ten school days or expelled for misconduct that was not a manifestation of his/her disability therefore, educational services must continue for these students during periods of disciplinary removal that exceed 10 school days.
COMMENTARY: IDEA does not specify the particular setting in which continued educational services must be provided to these students. During the period of disciplinary exclusion from school, each disabled student must continue to be offered a program of appropriate educational services that is individually designed to meet his/her unique learning needs. Such services may be provided in the home, in an alternative school, or in another setting.
Special Provisions of IDEA applicable to students with disabilities who bring a “weapon” to school as defined in federal and state statutes [The Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA), enacted as Title XIV (Part F) of Title I of the Improving America’s Schools Act, and Arkansas Act 567 of 1995 (Arkansas Code Annotated 6-15-502)]
COMMENTARY: The Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) applies to students with disabilities. However, this Act must be implemented consistent with IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Federal statutes define “weapon” to mean “firearm.” State statute addresses possession by students of any “firearm or other weapon” prohibited upon the school campus by law or by policies adopted by the school board. Consistent with the requirements of the GFSA, Arkansas Act 567 of 1995 (Arkansas Code Annotated 6-15-502) requires that local educational agencies (school districts) expel from school for not less than one year a student who brings a weapon to school, except that the local educational agency’s chief administering officer may modify the expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis. Compliance with the GFSA can be achieved consistent with the requirements that apply to students with disabilities as long as the discipline of such students is determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with IDEA and Section 504.
1. Under the IDEA, school personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than forty-five (45) school days
ADE 253-12 Agency # 005.15
without regard to whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child's disability, if the child--
(i) carries a weapon to or possesses a weapon at school, on school
premises, or to or at a school function under the jurisdiction of the
district or the Arkansas Department of Education;
(ii) knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs, or sells or solicits the
sale of a controlled substance, while at school, on school premises, or at a school function under the jurisdiction of the district or the Arkansas Department of Education; or
(iii) has inflicted serious bodily injury upon another person while at school, on school premises, or at a school function under the jurisdiction of the district or the Arkansas Department of Education.
2. The student’s educational placement cannot be changed beyond the 10 school days until the student’s IEP committee has been convened. As with any meeting of the IEP committee, the parent must be an invited participant. On the date on which the decision is made to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA must notify the parents of that decision, and provide the parents with a procedural safeguards notice under the IDEA. The school district may place the student in an interim alternative educational placement that the committee believes would be appropriate for the student. Such an alternative educational placement could then be implemented for up to 45 school days. If either the student’s parents or the district initiate an expedited due process hearing, and if the parties cannot agree on another placement, the student must remain in the interim alternative educational placement during authorized review proceedings or until the time period specified, whichever occurs first.
3. Section 504 requires a determination by a group of persons knowledgeable about the student, on whether the bringing of the weapon to school was a manifestation of the student’s disability. Under Section 504, a student with a disability may be expelled only if this group of persons determines that the bringing of a weapon to school was not a manifestation of the student’s disability, and after applicable procedural safeguards have been followed.
4. All of the procedural safeguards and other protections of IDEA and Section 504 must be followed. Once it is determined by an appropriate group of persons that the student’s bringing of a weapon to school was not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the school district’s chief administering officer may exercise his/her decision-making authority under the GFSA in the same manner as with nondisabled students in similar circumstances. However, for students with disabilities identified under IDEA who are expelled in accordance with the expulsion provisions of GFSA, educational services must continue during the expulsion period. Nothing in the GFSA may be construed to prevent a State from allowing a school district that has expelled a student with disabilities from the regular educational program/setting from providing educational services to that student in an alternative educational setting.
ADE 253-13 Agency # 005.15
5. If it is determined by the IEP committee (or other knowledgeable group of individuals in the case of a Section 504 review) that the student’s behavior of bringing a weapon to school was a manifestation of the student’s disability, the chief administering officer must exercise his/her authority under the GFSA to determine that the student may not be expelled for the behavior. This is when other immediate steps may be taken, including temporary removal.
6. For students with disabilities who are not eligible for services under IDEA, but who are covered by Section 504 and are expelled in accordance with the above conditions, educational services may be discontinued during the expulsion period if nondisabled students in similar circumstances do not receive continued educational services.
COMMENTARY: In summary, a student with a disability who brings a weapon to school may be removed from school for 10 school days or less, and placed in an interim alternative educational setting by the IEP committee for up to 45 school days. However, if the parents initiate an expedited due process proceeding, the student must remain in the interim alternative placement during these authorized review proceedings – which may exceed 45 school days – unless the parents and school district can agree on a different placement. In addition, school districts may initiate change in placement procedures for such a student, subject to the parents’ right to due process. A school district also could seek a court order if the school district believes that the student’s continued presence in the classroom is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others.
ADE 253-14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
