State Complaint

At some point you have to take things a bit further.... so I did just that. I filed 5 complaints to the State on the Harrison County Board of Education (which ended up actually being 7 complaints, per the State). My letter to the state, as follows:

Dee Bodkins, Director

WV Department of Special Education

Building 6, Room 304

1900 Kanawha Blvd, East

Charleston, WV 25305

August 10, 2007

Dear Ms. Bodkins,

Please let this letter serve as five (5) formal complaints in regards to my daughter’s educational services.

My daughter’s name is Faith Smith and she is enrolled in the Special Needs classroom within Nutter Fort Elementary School. Her disabilities include Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum, Hydrocephallus with a VP Shunt, Grand Mal Seizure Disorder, and Hypotonic Disorder. As mentioned, she suffers from seizures which can come without warning and can become a health risk. She also receives special education services from the Vision Impaired teacher. To my knowledge there are approximately twelve (12) students in the classroom, with one (1) teacher and two (2) aide.

As stated in her IEP, Faith requires hand over hand assistance for all educational activities, as well as total personal care. Faith does not initiate anything and depends on someone else to direct her, physically and mentally, to the activity being presented. All of her services are provided in a special setting, due to her great need for assistance. I do not disagree with her IEP. In fact, I believe it is well thought out and is appropriate for my daughter. (Complaint #1) My disagreement is that I believe there is no way the current staff can offer quality educational services to Faith for six (6) hours a day as she is entitled. In the 5/17 IEP meeting, the teacher stated that Faith is placed in the prone stander and she frequently falls asleep while there. They do not interact with her during this time. They also stated that she sleeps in her wheelchair at different times of the day. When questioned, the teacher admitted that those were times when the staff was busy with other students.

Faith does not sleep on and off during the day when she is at home, or when she is at the sitters. She typically, when feeling well, only takes one (1) nap per day for approximately 30-45 minutes. There is no medical, behavioral or physical reason why Faith would sleep more than this, other than boredom and lack of initiative.

At the 5/17 IEP meeting, we once again requested a 1:1 aide to be assigned to the classroom to assist Faith. There was no representative from the Board office at the meeting but Mr. Gorrell, the principal of Nutter Fort Elementary School, flatly refused consideration of an additional aide. He stated that he was not going to allow any further people in the classroom. He also stated he was not going to ask the Board Office, because he stated that they would tell him to move around his existing manpower rather than they fund another position.

I have included a copy of the 5/17 IEP. Faith’s father and I refused to sign it because of the disagreement and we were first told that Faith would not receive any services at the school until we did, then we were told that it didn’t matter – our approval was no longer required and they could and would do as they wanted with my daughter’s educational services. (Complaint #2) They then convened another IEP after the 5/17 date, without an 8 day notification to us. After receiving notification of this (via mail), I immediately contacted the school and advised Mrs. Hilton (teacher) that the meeting was not to take place. I advised her that we were not given appropriate notification and it would need to be rescheduled so that we could attend. I then called again the day after the meeting was supposed to take place, (Complaint #3) to find out that the meeting was held anyway, regardless of our consent. It is my understanding that several representatives from the Board Office were there, but I do not have any specific information as to what was accomplished at that meeting, nor how it affects my daughter’s education as a copy of that IEP was never sent to me.

(Complaint #4) Also at the ***5/17*** IEP meeting, I requested an IEE (Independent Educational Evaluation) and was given no information as to how or where to go. I based my request on my belief that Faith’s IEP as written cannot be appropriately implemented in a classroom so large, with so many severe and individualized needs with so few staff to attend to the needs of these students.

(Complaint #5) There was at least one episode last year when staff failed to administer Faith’s seizure medication. They said they were just so busy, they had forgotten. When confronted with this, Mrs. Hilton (teacher) advised me that she was sorry but couldn’t guarantee it wouldn’t happen again. While this incident occurred in the beginning of the school year (September 30, 2006), I chose not to file a complaint at that time as I was concerned about the consequences the children may have to face if the aide were to be terminated or suspended; the classroom wasn’t staffed enough the way it was. I did however file a complaint after the school year. I contacted the Board office and spoke to Angie Carvelli who advised me of the paperwork I needed to complete. After completion and filing of the proper paperwork, I was advised by Ms. Carvelli that this would be a citizen’s complaint not a special education complaint. I didn’t understand this, as Faith’s medication is in her IEP and on file every year via her Medicine Administration Form. After the complaint was filed, I was contacted by a Board representative that my complaint was dismissed as it was after the ten (10) days of occurrence that the citizen complaint must be filed.

Please advise me what I need to do to move forward with this. Now that the new school year is fast approaching and I need to feel that my daughter’s health, well-being and education are seriously being considered for the school year 2007-2008.

Sincerely Yours,
Lori Bailey

I post this letter in hopes that other parents will take such steps to see that the School Board's failure at Special Education are brought to attention. I received the results last week, and they are as follows:

Allegation 1

Has the district proved the parent the required notification of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team meeting?

Conclusion

Policy 2419:Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities, Chapter 5, Section F, requires the district to provide written notice to the parents no less than eight (8) days prior to the meeting unless waived by the parents. In addition, the district is required to take steps to ensure one or both parents attend or have an opportunity to participate in the IEP team meeting and document its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed upon time and place for the meeting, such as video and telephone conferencing in the place of physical IEP meetings if the parent and district agree. If the parent refuses to attend or the district cannot convince the parent to attend, the district may conduct the IEP team meeting and provide prior written notice of the decisions made at the meeting.

Documentation and interviews confirm the district scheduled the IEP team meeting with the parent by telephone on May 30, 2007 and provided the notification in writing on the same date, which was seven (7) days prior to the IEP team meeting. However, no documentation was submitted to verify the parent waived the required eight (8) day notice. Subsequently, on the day before the meeting, the parent telephoned to cancel the meeting, as she was not able to participate in the meeting on that particular day. Nonetheless, the district convened the meeting in the absence of the parents without offering to reschedule the meeting at a mutually agreed upon time or providing any alternatives to a physical meeting as a means to obtain their participation. Therefore, violations occurred.

Allegation 2

Has the district provided the parent an opportunity to participate in the IEP team meeting?

Conclusion

See Allegation 1

Allegation 3

Has the district considered the parent’s request for a one-on-one aide for the student?

Conclusion

Policy 2419, Secion 5.1.3, requires the IEP team to consider the strengths of the student and the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child. In addition, Section 8.1.1, requires the district to provide prior written notice to the parent of an exceptional student within a reasonable time before the district proposes or refuses to initiate, or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the student. The notice must include:

a) a description of the action proposed or refused by the district, and explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action, and a description of any other options the district considered and the reasons those options were rejected;

b) a description of each evaluation procedure, test, record, or report the district used as a basis for the proposal or refusal;

c) a description of any other factors which are relevant to the district’s proposal or refusal;

d) a statement that the parents of the student have protection under the procedural safeguards or the means by which a copy of the procedural safeguards can be obtained; and

e) sources for the parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provision of the procedural safeguards.

Documentation and interviews confirm during the May 17, 2006 IEP team meeting, the district considered and refused the parents’ request for a one-on-one aide for the student and made the decision to provide the same support as specified in the previous IEP. Accordingly, the district provided its proposal/refusal in writing in the form of prior written notice on the same day as the IEP meeting. Therefore, with regard to the districts consideration of the parent’s request, no violation occurred. However, the notice did not include a description of each evaluation procedure, test, record or report the district used as a basis for its refusal. Therefore, the district’s justification for its proposal/refusal was not substantiated on the prior written notice, and a violation occurred.

Allegation 4

Has the district provided the parent a copy of the IEP?

Conclusion

Policy 2419, Chapter 5, Section 2.M, requires the district, following an IEP team meeting, to provide the parent a copy of the IEP. Additionally, Chapter 10, Section 3.B, requires the district, when the parent does not attend the meeting or disagrees with the IEP, to provide prior written notice at least ten (10) days prior to implementing its proposed action or within ten (10) days of its refusal.

Documentation and interviews verify the district convened an IEP team meeting on June 6, 2007 without providing the parents appropriate opportunities for participation. Documentation and interviews verify the team reviewed the May 17, 2007 IEP and documented the results of the meeting on a Memorandum of Conference and through prior written notice, which were both provided to the parents within ten (10) days of the meeting and again on June 13, 2007 at the parent’s request. Furthermore, no documentation was submitted by either the parent or the district to verify that chances were made to the IEP during the meeting. Therefore, the parents were provided copies of the Memorandum of Conference and the prior written notice within the specified timelines, and no violation occurred.

Allegation 5

Has the district provided the student an Independent Education Evaluation (IEE) at the parent’s request?

Conclusion

Policy 2419, Chapter 10, Section 7 provides the parent the right to an IEE at the public expense if he or she disagrees with an evaluation obtained or conducted by the district. The parent has a right to an IEE at his or her own expense at any time. Furthermore, Section 7 requires the district to do one of the following within ten (10) days of the parent’s written request for an IEE:

· agree, in writing, to pay for an IEE at reasonable and prevailing rates, and provide the district’s IEE criteria and information about where an IEE may be obtained;

· offer WVDE mediation to try to resolve differences. This is only available if parents agree to mediate; or

· request a due process hearing to show the district’s evaluation is appropriate.

Furthermore, Chapter 3, Section 1.C, requires additional evaluations requested by the EC or IEP team to be completed and an EC or IEP team meeting held within sixty (60) days from the receipt of parental consent for the identified evaluations. The request for parental consent must be sent within ten (10) school days of the EC or IEP team meeting from which the evaluations were requested.

Documentation and interviews confirm the parent did request further evaluations for the student at the May 17, 2007 IEP team meeting. However, the district failed to document the requested evaluations on the IEP and obtain the required parental consent. Therefore, a violation occurred.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to correct the violation, the distrect met with the parent on September 14, 2007 to determine the evaluations necessary to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the student and obtained parental consent.

Allegation 6

Has the district implemented the student’s IEP with regard to the administration of seizure medication?

Conclusion

Policy 2419, Section 6.1, requires the district to provide the special education and related services necessary to implement the student’s IEP. Documentation and interview confirm the IEP’s did not include medication administration for the student. Therefore, no violation occurred.

Allegation 7

Has the district provided adequate staff for the student’s classroom?

Conclusion

Policy 2419, Section 6.1.3, requires the district to provide qualified personnel with the training and skills necessary to implement the IEP of each student assigned to them. In addition, Section 9.1.3, requires the district to provide qualified staff, who are appropriately trained and adequate in number to implement these regulations. Furthermore, Section 6.1.5, requires the district to assign no more than twelve student with mild mental impairments with a full-time aide and eight students with moderate and/or severe mental impairments to a separate class combination program with a full-time aide.

Documentation and interviews verify the teacher’s caseload documents eight (8) students with one (1) teacher and two (2) aides. Therefore, the district provided adequate staff for the classroom, and no violation occurred.

___________________________________________________________________

I've typed out this verbatim in hopes that there may be other parents out there who are undecided if filing a State complaint against the School Board is worth it. This proves it is. While they weren't found in violation of ALL allegations..... 4 out of 7 isn't bad. All the info you need is here.... the address, the Director and laws of which the BOE has failed to comply with in regards to my daughter's special education needs. Please feel free to use this info to your benefit or if you have any questions that I may be of some help with, please don't hesitate to post a comment or email me directly at Lori@crusadeforfaith.org

The School Board must also take corrective actions to the allegations found and report those corrective actions back to the State.... and yes, they are on deadlines. They must provide this required corrective actions in writing with copies of what they failed to provide us with from the beginning.

Maybe this will make the Board realize that we will NOT sit back quietly while they determine the fate of our child's education.

In closing..... on your toes Harrison County BOE, there are eyes watching you and you are walking on thin ice with many parents in this region. Our children will come out victorious in the end..... the State will see to that.