NLDline
Subj: THE SPECIAL ED ADVOCATE,
APRIL 18, 2000 (V. 3, NO. 14)
Date: 4/18/00 12:04:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: webmaster@wrightslaw.com (Wrightslaw)
Sender: owner-special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com
To: special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com
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 STATE’S 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:
* Connecticut
* Delaware
* District of Columbia
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Illinois
* Iowa
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* New Hampshire
* Puerto Rico
* South Carolina
* Texas
* Wyoming
* Virginia
http://www.dssc.org/frc/mon_res.htm
(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 doesn’t require states to comply with the
law, "parents often must sue to enforce the law . . ."
http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/2000/IDEA_Compliance_Rpt_00_0123.htm
* 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.”
http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/2000/NCD_IDEA_Report_00_0125.htm
=============
2. USING THE IDEA COMPLIANCE REPORT
These findings led to a firestorm of criticism about the U. S. Department of
Education’s 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 don’t forget the IDEA Compliance
Report? We decided to place the entire NCD Report on the Wrightslaw site.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/reports/IDEA_Compliance_Index.htm
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?
We’ll keep you posted.
===============
3. GET YOUR STATE MONITORING REPORT
Download a copy of your State’s Monitoring Report from the U. S. Department of
Education site at:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/monrepts/index.html
Recently, new Reports were added for Utah and North Dakota.
UTAH is at
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/monrepts/mrpt_ut.pdf
NORTH DAKOTA is at
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/monrepts/mrpt_nd.pdf
The MASTER PAGE for all State Reports is at
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/monrepts/index.html
===================
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 couldn’t 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 son’s 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
Officer’s decision. Months passed. The school district did not reimburse the parents,
nor did they pay the child’s 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 Officer’s decision. After an investigation, the Virginia Department of
Education directed the local school district to implement the Review Officer’s
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 Officer’s 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 Pete’s letter requesting the hearing, which includes the history of the
case, at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/virginia/white1_ltr_to_VADOE_request_DP.pdf
Briefs were filed with the Hearing Officer and oral argument was held. The brief that Pete
filed with the Hearing Officer is at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/pleadings/VASEA_white_stayput.pdf
* ORAL ARGUMENT: STATE WON’T 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.
Pete’s letter to the U. S. Department of Education is at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/virginia/white2_ltr_to_feds.pdf
* 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:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/VASEA_white.pdf
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 Officer’s 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. Heumann’s letter at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/virginia/white4_ltr_fr_heumann_to_VADOE.pdf
* 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
child’s tuition for this year and while the case is pending.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/virginia/white5_ltr_fr_VADOE_to_white.pdf
Several days later, the Virginia Department of Education did pay the child’s tuition.
End of story? Not likely!
===============
5. WRIGHTSLAW ADVOCACY: “IT’S TIME TO SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT”
Virginia’s record of compliance with IDEA is dismal. You can read the “Summary
of Findings” from OSEP’s last Monitoring Report of Virginia at:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/virginia/VA_NCD_Summary.pdf
As parents and parent advocates, we are not powerless. What can we do?
* IT’S TIME TO SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT! *
At Wrightslaw, we decided to shine a bright light on the Virginia Department of
Education’s 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:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/virginia/
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/pleadings/
================
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.
FACILITATORS:
* 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 don’t
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.)
It’s 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 can’t 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 child’s special ed program is providing FAPE. We cannot
provide an analysis of a child’s 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 -
http://www.wrightslaw.com/main_newsletter_archives.htm
To SUBSCRIBE to The Special Ed Advocate, go to
http://www.wrightslaw.com/subscribe_nltr.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
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
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 2000, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.
END