NLDline
Subj: THE SPECIAL ED ADVOCATE,
DECEMBER 7, 1999 (V. 2, NO. 31)
Date: 12/7/99 10:03:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: webmaster@wrightslaw.com
Sender: owner-special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com
To: special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com
==================
The Special Ed Advocate
The Online Newsletter About
Special Education and the Law
December 7, 1999 Vol. II, No. 31
Visit us today at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com
===================
The Special Ed Advocate is a free online newsletter about special education legal issues,
cases, tactics and strategy, effective educational methods, and Internet links.
As a subscriber to The Special Ed Advocate, you will receive announcements and
"alerts" about new cases and other events. Back issues of The Special Ed
Advocate are in the Newsletter Archives at our web site -
http://www.wrightslaw.com/main_newsletter_archives.htm
Contact, copyright, and subscription information is at the end of this newsletter.
==================
1. UPDATE ON WITTE V. CLARK COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. CASE
2. NEW FROM WRIGHTSLAW: TACTICS & STRATEGY MANUAL
3. 8TH CIRCUIT ISSUES ADVERSE DECISION IN AUTISM CASE (DECEMBER 2, 1999)
4. SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING? USE OUR NEW SITEMAP!
5. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
6. CONTACT INFORMATION
================
1. UPDATE ON WITTE V CLARK COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. CASE
In our Alert about the Witte v. Clark County case (December 3, 1999), we posed several
questions. Who knew about these practices? It seemed impossible that this abuse could take
place unless other people knew but looked the other way.
Clark County Public Schools are in Las Vegas Nevada.
On Saturday, we spent a couple of hours in the archives of the Las Vegas Sun. During this
cursory investigation, we learned about events that answered some of our questions in this
troubling case. Here is a short list culled from the archives of Las Vegas Sun:
http://www.lasvegassun.com
In 1996, the special education department of Clark County submitted to an independent
audit. In their 1996 report, the independent auditors identified 13 "specific
violations of law, most involving the destruction or alteration of student records . .
." (Las Vegas Sun, June 29, 1999)
Illegal actions included "document destruction by top-level administrators, illegally
drafted individual education plans [IEPs], violations of placement policies, improper
counseling programs and a boondoggle in adaptive physical education." (Las Vegas Sun,
July 21, 1996)
USE OF "AVERSIVES"
"Also under fire is CCSD's 'aversive behavior management' which authorizes personnel
to force restless pupils onto treadmills and strap weights to their ankles to limit
motion." (Las Vegas Sun, July 21, 1996)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/1996/jul/21/504903294.html
After the auditors released their report, top-level special ed administrators destroyed
documents, stonewalled, and attacked the auditors.
The director of special education threatened to sue a parent advocate on claims of
defamation and conspiracy. The advocate's crime? She wrote a letter to the School Board
about intimidation and civil rights violations. (Las Vegas Sun, June 28, 1996)
These assertions about intimidation were substantiated by the auditors who found that:
"Staff were ordered to change records, keep information out of a file, and/or not
speak to anyone about the issue."
"Organizational paralysis is evident in the division. Staff often fear reprisal for
their actions." (Las Vegas Sun, June 27,1996)
Finally, in January 1997, Clark County administrators had to "release a three-inch
bundle of documentation backing up allegations made by special education auditors that the
district is in violation of state and federal laws." (Las Vegas Sun, January 29,
1997)
WHO KNEW? THE FEDS, THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE, THE NEVADA DEPT. OF ED.
Although special ed administrators tried to dismiss the audit findings, "comparisons
with state and federal complaints show that the school district as put on notice for
breaking state and federal laws as far back is 1991."
"These allegations are substantiated by an investigation of the school district begun
in October 1995 by the Office of Civil Rights . . .Public records show that the state
Department of Education investigated the school district for a complaint filed in March
1996 . . ." (Las Vegas Sun, January 29, 1997)
In 1998, at least one parent testified before a committee of state legislators about
“aversive discipline” of her 7 year old son who was a special education student
in Clark County. “The legislators said they were deeply troubled and discussed
finding out how common [her] story might be.”
“There is a clear line between abuse and strict discipline, several lawmakers
said.” (Las Vegas Sun, April 1, 1998)
OTHER LAWSUITS
In 1997, the parent of an 8 year old special education student filed suit against Clark
County. The allegations in that case were similar to those in Shawn Witte's case: abuse,
assault and battery, violation of the child's civil rights. The teacher was accused of
forcing the child to walk on the treadmill while wearing leg weights, forcing the child
into restrictive holds, spaying water in his face as punishment. This child also attended
Variety School. The principal "backed the teacher" and "denounced the
allegations." (Las Vegas Sun, November 14, 1997)
One more thing: Clark County has been under OCR supervision since 1991.
The beat goes on.
This update with additional information and links is available at
http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/1999/news_update_Witte_ClarkCo_991207.html
================
2. NEW FROM WRIGHTSLAW: TACTICS & STRATEGY MANUAL
The ADVOCACY PAK has been completely revised into WRIGHTSLAW: TACTICS &
STRATEGY MANUAL. The TACTICS & STRATEGY MANUAL (140 pages, 8.5" x 11",
loose-leaf, 3 hole punch) is divided into three sections.
* * TABLE OF CONTENTS * *
SECTION ONE: OBSTACLES AND PROBLEMS
Chapter 1. Emergency! Crisis! HELP!
Chapter 2. From Emotions to Advocacy
Chapter 3. The Amazing Power of School Culture
Chapter 4. Understanding the Nature of Conflict
SECTION TWO: TACTICS & STRATEGY
Chapter 5. Tactics & Strategy: Overview
Chapter 6. Tactics & Strategy: Assumptions
Chapter 7. Tactics & Strategy: Image and Presentation
Chapter 8. Tactics & Strategy: First Steps
Chapter 9. Tactics & Strategy: The Art of Writing Letters
Chapter 10. Tactics & Strategy: 12 Rules for Great Letters
Chapter 11. Tactics & Strategy: The "Letter to the Stranger"
Chapter 12. Tactics & Strategy: School Meetings
SECTION THREE: LEGAL & ADVOCACY
Chapter 13. Representing the Special Education Child
Chapter 14. Anatomy of a Case
Chapter 15. Carter: U.S. District Court Decision
Chapter 16. Carter: Fourth Circuit Decision
Chapter 17. Carter: U. S. Supreme Court Decision
APPENDICES
Meet Pete Wright
About the Authors
* * COST * *
The new WRIGHTSLAW TACTICS & STRATEGY MANUAL costs $19.95 + $3.95 for
shipping and handling, for a TOTAL of $23.90.
VIRGINIA RESIDENTS: Virginia residents must pay 4.5% state sales tax so an additional
charge of $0.76 is added to the cost of each book. For Virginia residents, the TACTICS
& STRATEGY MANUAL costs $17.71 + $3.95 for shipping and handling = a TOTAL of $24.66.
CHECK OUT THE EARLY BIRD DISCOUNTS AND COMBO PAKS IN THE WRIGHTSLAW
STORE!
http://www.wrightslaw.com/store/index.html
* * HOW TO ORDER * *
There are TWO ways to order the WRIGHTSLAW TACTICS & STRATEGY MANUAL.
FAST & EASY: THE WRIGHTSLAW STORE
It's safe and easy to order on our secure Internet store. If you order on the Wrightslaw
Internet Store, we can process your order the same day we receive it.
To order on the Wrightslaw Store, follow this link, scroll down to find the link to order
the Advocacy Pak.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/store/index.html
SLOW & EASY: CHECKS BY U. S. MAIL
You can order the WRIGHTSLAW TACTICS & STRATEGY MANUAL by sending a check to:
Harbor House Law Press
P. O. Box 480
Hartfield, VA 23043
For more information about the new TACTICS AND STRATEGY MANUAL go to
http://www.wrightslaw.com/bkstore/ourbooks/Tactics_Strategy_Manual.html
================
3. 8TH CIRCUIT ISSUES ADVERSE DECISION IN AUTISM CASE (DECEMBER 2, 1999)
Grace is a 6 year old child who has been diagnosed with a severe brain injury and autistic
behaviors. When Grace was two, her parents took her to a Philadelphia Institute for a
comprehensive evaluation. After this evaluation, the Institute devised an intensive,
home-based training program for Grace that included 12 hours of individualized therapy a
day by the child's parents.
When Grace turned three, she qualified for services under IDEA. At that time, her parents
requested that the school district fund the cost of the intensive (and expensive) therapy
program. Not surprisingly, the district balked.
The District advised Grace's parents that they would have to perform their own evaluations
on Grace before deciding on her educational program and placement. Six school employees
completed various evaluations on Grace.
Subsequently, a meeting was held to determine eligibility and develop an IEP. At this
meeting, the District decided that Grace was eligible for special education services
because of "developmental disabilities." The District brought a "draft
IEP" to the IEP meeting. This "draft IEP" included present levels of
educational performance and IEP goals and objectives. The District announced their
intention to place Grace in a
"reverse mainstream class." Upset at this turn of events, the parents left the
IEP meeting.
What is a "reverse mainstream class? Good question.
"Reverse mainstream" is "not mainstreamed." Some "reverse
mainstream" classes may have one or two "typically developing" children. Is
"reverse mainstream" a new "politically correct" term for "self
contained" or segregated classes?
Grace's parents requested a due process hearing. In Missouri, due process hearings
are held before three member panels. This panel ruled against Grace and her parents. The
parents then appealed to the U. S. District Court which reversed the panel. The school
district appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Amicus briefs on behalf of Grace were filed by Missouri Families for Effective Autism
Treatment and the St. Louis Learning Disabilities Association.
Yesterday, the Eighth Circuit reversed the U. S. District Court'. This adverse decision
was written by a U. S. District Court judge from Minnesota.
In the decision, the Eighth Circuit described the Institute as "controversial."
By leaving the IEP meeting when they realized that their daughter's placement had been
(pre) determined, the Court ruled that the parents "truncated" their rights. The
Eighth Circuit disposed of the parents' assertion that they did not understand their role
at the
IEP meeting as "unfortunate" but not due to "any wrongdoing on the part of
the School District."
Read "Blackmon v. Springfield R-XII School District" in the WRIGHTSLAW LAW
LIBRARY:
In PDF:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_8th_blackmon_springfield_MO_991202.pdf
In html:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_8th_blackmon_springfield_9912.html
================
4. SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING? USE OUR NEW SITEMAP!
Have you ever tried -- and failed -- to find an old issue of The Special Ed Advocate? Have
you tried to find a "Letter to Wrightslaw" that you read last year, then given
up in frustration?
WHERE did the Wrightslaw folks hide the special education regulations?
At our end, we spend lots of time answering emails from people who are looking for a
particular article, letter or case.
Navigating web sites can be frustrating, even when you finally find what you're hunting
for. The numbers of requests for help told us that we had to devise a clearer navigation
system.
Today, we added a SITEMAP to the Wrightslaw site. If you use the sitemap, it should be
easier to find what you're looking for at Wrightslaw. Add the sitemap to your Bookmarks!
http://www.wrightslaw.com/sitemap.htm
=================
5. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
To subscribe to The Special Ed Advocate, go to
http://www.wrightslaw.com/approve.htm
To unsubscribe to The Special Ed Advocate, send an email to
majordomo@wrightslaw.com
In the beginning of your message, insert the following words exactly, with hyphens,
lowercase
unsubscribe special-ed-advocate
===========
6. CONTACT INFORMATION
Pete and Pam Wright
c/o The Special Ed Advocate
P. O. Box 1008
Deltaville, VA 23043
Phone: 804-257-0857
Website: http://www.wrightslaw.com
Email: webmaster@wrightslaw.com
The resources at this website are copyrighted by the authors. They may be used for
non-commercial purposes only. They may not be redistributed for commercial purposes
without the express written consent of Peter W. D. Wright.
It is not necessary to obtain our consent to link to our website or copy, print and
distribute our articles and newsletters for nonprofit purposes so long as the material is
reproduced in its entirety and credit is given to Pete and Pam Wright and
"wrightslaw" including the URL -
http://www.wrightslaw.com
Copyright 1999, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.
END