Subj: THE SPECIAL ED ADVOCATE,
APRIL 18, 2000 (V. 3, NO. 14)
Date: 4/18/00 12:04:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: email@example.com (Wrightslaw)
The Special Ed Advocate Newsletter is sent by permission only. If you wish to unsubscribe at any time, please follow the directions at the end of this e-mail. Thanks!
The Special Ed Advocate
The Online Newsletter About Special Education and the Law
April 18, 2000 Vol. III, No. 14
Visit us today at http://www.wrightslaw.com
1. NEWS BREAK! OSEP ANNOUNCES STATES TO BE MONITORED
2. USING THE IDEA COMPLIANCE REPORT
3. GET YOUR STATES MONITORING REPORT (UTAH AND NORTH DAKOTA ADDED)
4. CASE STUDY: ENFORCEMENT BY PARENTS
5. WRIGHTSLAW ADVOCACY: SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT
6. GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY: A CALL TO ACTION (May 6, 2000)
7. SUBSCRIBER EMAIL
8. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
9 CONTACT INFORMATION
1. NEWS BREAK! OSEP ANNOUNCES STATES TO BE MONITORED IN 2000-2001
OSEP announced that these states will be monitored in 2000-2001:
* District of Columbia
* New Hampshire
* Puerto Rico
* South Carolina
(Thanks to Doreen who sent us this news item)
* STATES IGNORE SPECIAL ED LAW
Why is this important? On January 23, subscribers to The Special Ed Advocate received an Alert about the breaking AP news story: STATES IGNORE SPECIAL ED LAW which found that:
"Many children with disabilities are getting substandard schooling because states are not complying with federal rules on special education . . ."
Because the U. S. Department of Education doesnt require states to comply with the law, "parents often must sue to enforce the law . . ."
* NCD REPORT: ALL 50 STATES OUT OF COMPLIANCE
On January 25, newsletter subscribers received an Alert when the National Disability Council released the long awaited IDEA Compliance Report.
After reviewing Monitoring Reports on the states between 1994 and 1998, NCD concluded that all 50 states were out of compliance with the IDEA:
"Every State was out of compliance with IDEA requirements to some degree; in the sampling of states studied, noncompliance persisted over many years."
When the U. S. Department of Education defaulted on their obligation to enforce the law, what happened? The burden of enforcement fell on the shoulders of parents of disabled children:
* ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IS BURDEN OF PARENTS
Enforcement of the law is the burden of parents who too often must invoke formal complaint procedure and due process hearings, including expensive and time-consuming litigation, to obtain the appropriate services and supports that their children are entitled under the law.
NCD noted that most parents of disabled children are ill-equipped to enforce the law against state department of education and local school districts, especially when they or their publicly financed attorneys choose to be resistant.
2. USING THE IDEA COMPLIANCE REPORT
These findings led to a firestorm of criticism about the U. S. Department of Educations failure to ensure that states comply with the law.
We were shocked, then angry. Not one state was compliance with the law?
Experience told us that after a few months, important information -- like the NCD findings in the IDEA Compliance Report -- are often forgotten.
We want people to USE the IDEA Compliance Report to improve accountability, and place pressure on states to comply with the law.
How could we ensure that parents and decision-makers dont forget the IDEA Compliance Report? We decided to place the entire NCD Report on the Wrightslaw site.
When issues arise about monitoring and compliance with the IDEA, we will remind subscribers about the IDEA Compliance Report.
* NEXT ROUND OF MONITORING
When the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released the list of 15 states that they will monitor during 2000-2001, we learned that OSEP no longer routinely monitors States on a revolving basis. Instead, OSEP selects States based on their history of implementing the law.
What will happen on this next round of monitoring?
Will OSEP take action against states that refuse to comply with the law?
Will states that refuse to comply with the law be referred to the Department of Justice?
Will states that refuse to comply with the law have federal funding cut?
Well keep you posted.
3. GET YOUR STATE MONITORING REPORT
Download a copy of your States Monitoring Report from the U. S. Department of Education site at:
Recently, new Reports were added for Utah and North Dakota.
UTAH is at
NORTH DAKOTA is at
The MASTER PAGE for all State Reports is at
4. CASE STUDY: WHEN THE BURDEN OF ENFORCEMENT FALLS ON PARENTS
When the IDEA Compliance Report was released in January, Pete was working on a case that illustrates how these issues play out in real life.
Nearly three years ago, the parents requested a due process hearing. After several years of special education, their dyslexic son couldnt read. The parents withdrew their son from the public school and placed him in a private school that specializes in teaching dyslexic children how to read, write and spell.
After an adverse decision by a hearing officer, the parents appealed to a state level Review Officer. The Review Officer found that:
* the public school program was NOT appropriate,
* the child was receiving an appropriate education in the private program,
* the parents were entitled to reimbursement for their sons education.
End of story? Not likely.
* SCHOOL DISTRICT REFUSES TO IMPLEMENT DECISION *
Citing their right to appeal, the local school district refused to implement the Review Officers decision. Months passed. The school district did not reimburse the parents, nor did they pay the childs tuition.
The parents wrote to the Virginia Department of Education, advised them about these problems, and asked for their help in getting the local school district to implement the Review Officers decision. After an investigation, the Virginia Department of Education directed the local school district to implement the Review Officers decision.
* SCHOOL DISTRICT REFUSES TO OBEY DIRECTIVE FROM STATE *
The local school district refused to obey this directive from the Virginia Department of Education.
* STATE REVERSES COURSE *
A few months later, the Virginia Department of Education abruptly changed their position, withdrew their support, and refused to implement the Review Officers decision.
* PARENTS REQUEST DUE PROCESS HEARING AGAINST THE STATE *
The parents requested a special education due process hearing against the Virginia Department of Education for their refusal to implement the Review Officer's decision. You can read Petes letter requesting the hearing, which includes the history of the case, at:
Briefs were filed with the Hearing Officer and oral argument was held. The brief that Pete filed with the Hearing Officer is at:
* ORAL ARGUMENT: STATE WONT ENFORCE THE LAW *
During oral argument, the assistant Attorney General claimed that Federal Regulation 514(c) was invalid. Virginia had never enforced this part of the law and did not plan to do so.
* PETE CONTACTS THE FEDS *
While the case was ongoing, Pete contacted the U.S. Department of Education and the U. S. Department of Justice. After sending them the transcript of oral argument and other documents, Pete asked them to intervene and require Virginia to comply with the law. Petes letter to the U. S. Department of Education is at:
* HEARING OFFICER ISSUES FAVORABLE DECISION *
Before they received a response from the U. S. Department of Education, the parents received a favorable decision from the hearing officer. You can read this decision at:
The Virginia Department of Education did not appeal this decision.
After the timeline for appeal passed, the parents hand-delivered a letter to the Virginia Department of Education, asking that they comply with the Hearing Officers order.
* OSEP WEIGHS IN *
In a letter dated March 27, Judith Heumann, Secretary of Office of Special Education Programs, wrote a letter to the Virginia Department of Education, advising that If VDOE will not comply with 34 CFR 300.514(c), we will have no choice but to institute appropriate enforcement action, which may include a referral to the U. S. Department of Justice to initiate a lawsuit against the State.
You can read the full text of Dr. Heumanns letter at:
* STATE DEPT OF ED AGREES TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW *
In a letter dated March 28, the Virginia Department of Education agreed to pay the childs tuition for this year and while the case is pending.
Several days later, the Virginia Department of Education did pay the childs tuition. End of story? Not likely!
5. WRIGHTSLAW ADVOCACY: ITS TIME TO SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT
Virginias record of compliance with IDEA is dismal. You can read the Summary of Findings from OSEPs last Monitoring Report of Virginia at:
As parents and parent advocates, we are not powerless. What can we do?
* ITS TIME TO SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT! *
At Wrightslaw, we decided to shine a bright light on the Virginia Department of Educations chronic and persistent failure to comply with the law -- and the negative impact this has on children with disabilities and their families.
* DATABASE OF VIRGINIA DUE PROCESS AND REVIEW DECISIONS, OTHER DOCUMENTS *
As time permits, we will arrange for the posting of Virginia Due Process and Review decisions, pleadings, Letters of Findings, and other Virginia documents on the Internet. Presently, you will find Virginia decisions, pleadings and other documents in these directories on the Wrightslaw site at:
6. GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY: A CALL TO ACTION (May 6, 2000)
WHAT? A CALL FOR ACTION: Advocating for Students with Disabilities in Virginia 2000
WHEN? Saturday, May 6, 2000, 9:30 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.
WHERE? Piedmont Community College, Charlottesville, VA
A CALL TO ACTION is designed to unite advocates for children with disabilities in Virginia.
The goal of A CALL TO ACTION is to refine advocacy strategies that will lead to positive changes in the Virginia education system. The agenda includes discussion of targeted issues and development of a statewide PLAN OF ACTION.
WHO? A CALL FOR ACTION is for parents, advocates and attorneys who represent children. It is not intended for persons employed by state or local education agencies or attorneys who represent schools. Parents of students with current IEPs who are also employed by a school district or VDOE may attend if their representation is limited to student advocacy.
ATTENDANCE IS LIMITED.
* Philip BARR, Esquire;
* Candace CORTIELLA, Parent;
* Mary HART, Esquire;
* Malcolm HIGGINS, Esquire, Parent;
* Maureen HOLLOWELL, Parent;
* Darrel Tillar MASON, Esquire;
* Jamie RUPPMMAN, Parent;
* Denise SWANSON, Parent;
* Pete WRIGHT, Esquire
For more information, call 757-461-8007.
7. SUBSCRIBER EMAIL
Lately, some subscribers have expressed the mistaken view that we owe them individual answers to questions they submit. Some subscribers get testy when we dont provide this kind of personal service. Others get testy when they receive a non-personalized email response from the webmaster. (The email from webmaster
discusses common problems and questions, and includes suggestions and links.)
Its time to repeat our policy about email correspondence.
We welcome email with questions or comments for THE SPECIAL ED ADVOCATE newsletter. We try to read all our email, and enjoy doing so.
But we cant answer most of these messages personally due to the incredible volume. If we tried, we would never have time to practice law, see clients, do research, write articles, publish newsletters, write books, not to mention any life we have outside of work.
From time to time, we select questions to answer in the LETTERS TO WRIGHTSLAW column. These letters are selected for the benefit of our general readership.
We are not a service bureau, consultants, or a help desk. Pete is an attorney; Pam is a psychotherapist. The information at the Wrightslaw site is designed for a mass audience.
We cannot provide advice about individual problems, how to resolve disputes with school districts, or whether a childs special ed program is providing FAPE. We cannot provide an analysis of a childs test scores sent by email. We cannot do legal research. We cannot provide information for college term papers.
Thanks for understanding this distinction and keep those emails coming!
8. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
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 -
To SUBSCRIBE to The Special Ed Advocate, go to
To UNSUBSCRIBE to The Special Ed Advocate, send an email to
In the beginning of your message, insert the following words exactly, with hyphens, lowercase
If you want to unsubscribe, DON'T add anything else to your message.
Majordomo is a computer program that automatically processes newsletter subscribes and unsubscribes.
If you have problems, please read these directions again, then follow the directions exactly. Thanks!
9. CONTACT INFORMATION
Pete and Pam Wright
c/o Wrightslaw & The Special Ed Advocate
P. O. Box 1008
Deltaville, VA 23043
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 -
Copyright 2000, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.